|
Heathrow CC
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expected-to-raise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3
|
Heathrow CC
In message , at 10:37:29 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, Recliner remarked: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...arge-is-expect ed-to-raise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f85 1b4ca3 If it isn't introduced until the third runway opens, I think we can all relax for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, I dropped someone off at Hayes and Harlington Station last year, and presuming that's outside the zone, could be a viable alternative for accompanied pax. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow CC
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:37:29 on Mon, 23 Sep 2019, Recliner remarked: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...arge-is-expect ed-to-raise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f85 1b4ca3 If it isn't introduced until the third runway opens, I think we can all relax for the foreseeable future. I won't be in the least surprised if they try to introduce it when construction starts, rather than only when the runway opens. Meanwhile, I dropped someone off at Hayes and Harlington Station last year, and presuming that's outside the zone, could be a viable alternative for accompanied pax. Yes, the Tube and rail stations around LHR could become popular drop-off points. |
Heathrow CC
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-expected-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. |
Heathrow CC
On 23/09/2019 12:15, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-expected-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for? -- Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to Pulp - Countdown |
Heathrow CC
On 23/09/2019 14:58, Basil Jet wrote:
On 23/09/2019 12:15, wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-expected-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for? Weren't those just for pushback? It would, of course, clearly be better if the took the planes to their start points on the runway, but I'm assuming that if they're on their own power from the point of no return on the taxiways you can get a better throughput as you don't have to wait for the drones to decouple and get (provably) out of the way. |
Heathrow CC
In message , at 15:06:09 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, Someone Somewhere remarked: On 23/09/2019 14:58, Basil Jet wrote: On 23/09/2019 12:15, wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-charge-is-exp ected-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. What we really need here is fuel per passenger. Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for? Weren't those just for pushback? It would, of course, clearly be better if the took the planes to their start points on the runway, FSVO "better", I think the extra time taken would clog the taxiways up a bit, as well as adding time to the flights. but I'm assuming that if they're on their own power from the point of no return on the taxiways you can get a better throughput as you don't have to wait for the drones to decouple and get (provably) out of the way. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow CC
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:27:05 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 15:06:09 on Mon, 23 Sep 2019, Someone Somewhere remarked: On 23/09/2019 14:58, Basil Jet wrote: On 23/09/2019 12:15, wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-charge-is-exp ected-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. What we really need here is fuel per passenger. I believe the fuel costs about Ł1 per passenger. |
Heathrow CC
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:58:53 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote: On 23/09/2019 12:15, wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-expected-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for? They don't fly, so they're not drones. They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes, but not aviation fuel. |
Heathrow CC
In message , at 15:58:28 on
Mon, 23 Sep 2019, Recliner remarked: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-charge-is-exp ected-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. What we really need here is fuel per passenger. I believe the fuel costs about Ł1 per passenger. So about the same as the fuel used by a car getting from the M25 to terminals 2/3 and back. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow CC
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:15:51 on Mon, 23 Sep 2019, remarked: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...harge-is-expec ted-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone emissions, would be noticeable. I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those ****wits got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again. |
Heathrow CC
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:04:12 +0100
Recliner wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:58:53 +0100, Basil Jet aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for? They don't fly, so they're not drones. They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes, but not aviation fuel. If you knew anything about physics you'd be aware that using a jet engine to push a vehicle on the ground is far less efficient than using powered wheels. Half of the energy is wasted on chucking air backwards rather than making the aircraft go forwards. |
Heathrow CC
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:04:12 +0100 Recliner wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:58:53 +0100, Basil Jet aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for? They don't fly, so they're not drones. They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes, but not aviation fuel. If you knew anything about physics you'd be aware that using a jet engine to push a vehicle on the ground is far less efficient than using powered wheels. Half of the energy is wasted on chucking air backwards rather than making the aircraft go forwards. Who are you arguing with? Nobody claimed that jet engines were an efficient way of moving large vehicles slowly round an airport. We were discussing diesel vs battery pushback tugs. |
Heathrow CC
On 23/09/2019 16:04, Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:58:53 +0100, Basil Jet wrote: On 23/09/2019 12:15, wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-expected-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for? They don't fly, so they're not drones. They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes, but not aviation fuel. But it seems obvious that the best solution would be some kind of (presumably) electrical tug that could take a plane from the gate to the point where it needs to switch to using its own engines for takeoff. This might require some taxiway optimisation (as at the last point before turning on to the runway the planes would presumably spend somewhat longer there), and some way for the tugs to get out of the way (but a smaller taxiway for them to return via would be perfectly easy to do). If you took the idea further then you could considerably optimise the airport - planes would only need to be at gates for when passengers were embarking/disembarking and there could be dedicated cleaning and refueling areas where planes could be taken at the relevant times. Yes - I realise that for shorthaul there are often very quick turnarounds, but at LHR for example there seems to be a poor utilisation of gates in a lot of circumstances. |
Heathrow CC
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 23/09/2019 16:04, Recliner wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:58:53 +0100, Basil Jet wrote: On 23/09/2019 12:15, wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-expected-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for? They don't fly, so they're not drones. They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes, but not aviation fuel. But it seems obvious that the best solution would be some kind of (presumably) electrical tug that could take a plane from the gate to the point where it needs to switch to using its own engines for takeoff. This might require some taxiway optimisation (as at the last point before turning on to the runway the planes would presumably spend somewhat longer there), and some way for the tugs to get out of the way (but a smaller taxiway for them to return via would be perfectly easy to do). Yes, ideas along these lines are often suggested, but I guess the economics don't yet work. I'm not sure how long jet engines need to run before take-off — perhaps quite a bit of the taxi time? If you took the idea further then you could considerably optimise the airport - planes would only need to be at gates for when passengers were embarking/disembarking and there could be dedicated cleaning and refueling areas where planes could be taken at the relevant times. Yes - I realise that for shorthaul there are often very quick turnarounds, but at LHR for example there seems to be a poor utilisation of gates in a lot of circumstances. They do move long haul planes away from the gates during layovers. For example, you can normally see a Qantas A380 parked near the tank farm during the day. If you look on Google Maps you'll see six planes parked in that area, and another near the control tower. There's also a parking area to the east of T2 with room for about eight aircraft. But moving the aircraft to and from the remote stands costs money and disrupts other aircraft movements, so is only worth doing if there's a shortage of gates. |
Heathrow CC
Recliner wrote:
Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for? They don't fly, so they're not drones. Is there an actual definition for a drone that says it must fly ? In the past I have heard the term used to describe unmanned submersibles, they are similar in that like the flying ones they can move along vertical axis as well as horizontal so perhaps that is what differentiates a drone from something else but when checking that such submersibles are still being called drones I came across a few examples of “land drones” mainly being developed for military use . eg https://sites.google.com/site/umainelanddrone10/ Such things used to be just unmanned ground vehicles so is the reality is that the term drone is now being used to encompass other objects that are remote controlled and its use in language hasn’t settled yet. GH |
Heathrow CC
In message , at 15:32:33 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:15:51 on Mon, 23 Sep 2019, remarked: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...harge-is-expec ted-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone emissions, would be noticeable. I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff. I don't see why that would change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds of one of the private parking companies. Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes? -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow CC
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:44:25 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:04:12 +0100 Recliner wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:58:53 +0100, Basil Jet aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for? They don't fly, so they're not drones. They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes, but not aviation fuel. If you knew anything about physics you'd be aware that using a jet engine to push a vehicle on the ground is far less efficient than using powered wheels. Half of the energy is wasted on chucking air backwards rather than making the aircraft go forwards. Who are you arguing with? Nobody claimed that jet engines were an efficient way of moving large vehicles slowly round an airport. We were discussing diesel vs battery pushback tugs. At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using reverse thrusters. |
Heathrow CC
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 17:13:29 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 15:32:33 on Mon, 23 Sep 2019, remarked: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:15:51 on Mon, 23 Sep 2019, remarked: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...harge-is-expec ted-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone emissions, would be noticeable. I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff. It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god knows how they calculate that. I don't see why that would change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds of one of the private parking companies. Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes? Nope. North side. |
Heathrow CC
On 23/09/2019 17:01, Recliner wrote:
But moving the aircraft to and from the remote stands costs money and disrupts other aircraft movements, so is only worth doing if there's a shortage of gates. Yes but again with an automated, electrically powered movement system that might be able to be improved. Talking of that, there's an awful lot of dead space at airports covered with grass - could you cover that with solar panels to charge up batteries to power all those autonomous tugs? I just always appreciate when I land on a plane late in the evening that despite the airport being almost done for the day, you always seem to end up at some remote gate and have a hike to passport control past plenty of dark gates all with aircraft sat at them that clearly won't be used for a good number of hours. |
Heathrow CC
|
Heathrow CC
|
Heathrow CC
In message , at 17:46:05 on Mon, 23
Sep 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked: They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second runway at Gatwick would make far more sense. I wonder why no-one suggested that? -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow CC
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:44:25 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:04:12 +0100 Recliner wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:58:53 +0100, Basil Jet aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for? They don't fly, so they're not drones. They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes, but not aviation fuel. If you knew anything about physics you'd be aware that using a jet engine to push a vehicle on the ground is far less efficient than using powered wheels. Half of the energy is wasted on chucking air backwards rather than making the aircraft go forwards. Who are you arguing with? Nobody claimed that jet engines were an efficient way of moving large vehicles slowly round an airport. We were discussing diesel vs battery pushback tugs. At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using reverse thrusters. Name one. |
Heathrow CC
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 23/09/2019 16:32, wrote: I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those ****wits got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again. They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second runway at Gatwick would make far more sense. Not according to the official Airports Commission, the majority of passengers or the airlines. |
pushback to avoid paying the Heathrow CC
In article , wrote:
At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using reverse thrusters. The last plane I saw push back with a thrust reverser was an MD-80 quite a long time ago. I believe that nobody does that any more both because it burns a lot of fuel, and the risk of junk getting into the engine or the exhaust hurting someone on the tarmac near the plane. -- Regards, John Levine, , Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly |
pushback to avoid paying the Heathrow CC
On 24/09/2019 03:39, John Levine wrote:
In article , wrote: At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using reverse thrusters. The last plane I saw push back with a thrust reverser was an MD-80 quite a long time ago. I believe that nobody does that any more both because it burns a lot of fuel, and the risk of junk getting into the engine or the exhaust hurting someone on the tarmac near the plane. It's actually the fact that most airport terminals are now vast walls of glass and the consequential risk of damage (obviously not every time, but even with a 0.1% chance then that's one broken pane a day at e.g. LHR) |
pushback to avoid paying the Heathrow CC
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 24/09/2019 03:39, John Levine wrote: In article , wrote: At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using reverse thrusters. The last plane I saw push back with a thrust reverser was an MD-80 quite a long time ago. I believe that nobody does that any more both because it burns a lot of fuel, and the risk of junk getting into the engine or the exhaust hurting someone on the tarmac near the plane. It's actually the fact that most airport terminals are now vast walls of glass and the consequential risk of damage (obviously not every time, but even with a 0.1% chance then that's one broken pane a day at e.g. LHR) Yes, reverse thrust pushbacks are banned at most terminals because of the significant risk of damage to the building, ramp workers, vehicles and ground equipment, as well as FOD to the aircraft engines (the debris blown forward would be sucked into the engines). If no pushback tugs are available for an extended period for some reason (eg, a strike), an airline may request a reverse thrust departure (if their aircraft is capable of it — not all are) but the request would normally be rejected. It would certainly need to be approved at a high level, and I wonder whose insurance would cover the likely damage? |
Heathrow CC
Recliner wrote:
Name one. Was quite common at DFW with American Airlines DC-9/MD-80 aircraft. They stopped doing that when fuel prices spiked a number of years ago. |
Heathrow CC
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 04:45:38PM +0100, Someone Somewhere wrote:
But it seems obvious that the best solution would be some kind of (presumably) electrical tug that could take a plane from the gate to the point where it needs to switch to using its own engines for takeoff. Given that the engines (I believe) turn the generators that provide electrical power, that point is the point at which the plane is disconnected from ground power. They need electricity to power the radios that let them talk to the control tower, run air conditioning, make announcements to passengers, and so on. If you took the idea further then you could considerably optimise the airport - planes would only need to be at gates for when passengers were embarking/disembarking ... You just introduced a lot of complex ground movements. And while that might (might, not will) make more efficient use of the gates, it won't make more efficient use of taxiways, runways, or aircraft. -- David Cantrell | even more awesome than a panda-fur coat Longum iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla. |
Heathrow CC
In message , at 13:19:12
on Tue, 24 Sep 2019, David Cantrell remarked: On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 04:45:38PM +0100, Someone Somewhere wrote: But it seems obvious that the best solution would be some kind of (presumably) electrical tug that could take a plane from the gate to the point where it needs to switch to using its own engines for takeoff. Given that the engines (I believe) turn the generators that provide electrical power, that point is the point at which the plane is disconnected from ground power. They need electricity to power the radios that let them talk to the control tower, run air conditioning, make announcements to passengers, and so on. Which is why many aircraft had an engine (aka APU) in the tail to provide that. Failing that, batteries, like the much lamented lithium ones in Dreamliners. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow CC
|
Heathrow CC
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:29:42 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 13:19:12 on Tue, 24 Sep 2019, David Cantrell remarked: On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 04:45:38PM +0100, Someone Somewhere wrote: But it seems obvious that the best solution would be some kind of (presumably) electrical tug that could take a plane from the gate to the point where it needs to switch to using its own engines for takeoff. Given that the engines (I believe) turn the generators that provide electrical power, that point is the point at which the plane is disconnected from ground power. They need electricity to power the radios that let them talk to the control tower, run air conditioning, make announcements to passengers, and so on. Which is why many aircraft had an engine (aka APU) in the tail to provide that. Failing that, batteries, like the much lamented lithium ones in Dreamliners. Yes, airliners use the APU to power the lights, aircon, radios, etc when they're on the ground without main engines running if there isn't ground power. So even if the plane was towed to near the take-off point by an electric tug, the APU would still have to run. The APU also provides the power to start the main engines. |
Heathrow CC
David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 04:45:38PM +0100, Someone Somewhere wrote: But it seems obvious that the best solution would be some kind of (presumably) electrical tug that could take a plane from the gate to the point where it needs to switch to using its own engines for takeoff. Given that the engines (I believe) turn the generators that provide electrical power, that point is the point at which the plane is disconnected from ground power. They need electricity to power the radios that let them talk to the control tower, run air conditioning, make announcements to passengers, and so on. Commercial aircraft have an APU (auxiliary power unit) that provides power for the things you mentioned when ground power is not available and the main engines are not running. These are small jet engines located in the rear of the fuselage. A few years ago there was a big industry focus on reducing ground use of jet fuel. The two main areas looked at were self propelled sysems (i.e. adding electric motors to the landing gear) and battery powered robotic tugs that would bring the aircraft to the runway. The problem with both approaches was economic. In the case of the electric drive motor, the cost of the system, reduction in overall reliability of the aircraft, and most importantly the cost of additional fuel required to carry the weight of the motor in flight far offset any ground fuel use savings. The robot tug had similar economic issues, as well as the operational issues already mentioned in this thread. |
Heathrow CC
"Recliner" wrote in message ... https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expected-to-raise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 yes that's right charge all those people who live on the west side of the airport who have no choice but to drive there because the airport has three times reneged on its promise to build rail links in that direction and I bet they reengage on the current promise too FTAOD I am no longer an interested party here (having spent 35 years of my working life waiting for the links to be built) tim |
Heathrow CC
wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:15:51 on Mon, 23 Sep 2019, remarked: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...harge-is-expec ted-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone emissions, would be noticeable. I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those ****wits got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again. There are so many BAD reports of what the cheaper end of the market (where cheaper is still quite expensive) does with your car that I'm surprised anybody uses them but they do tim |
Heathrow CC
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 15:32:33 on Mon, 23 Sep 2019, remarked: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:15:51 on Mon, 23 Sep 2019, remarked: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...harge-is-expec ted-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone emissions, would be noticeable. I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff. I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as being dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical, and paying 20 quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of someone's NMW salary (obviously not so for flight crew) |
Heathrow CC
"MissRiaElaine" wrote in message ... On 23/09/2019 16:32, wrote: I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those ****wits got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again. They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. they still haven't tim |
Heathrow CC
"Recliner" wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:27:05 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 15:06:09 on Mon, 23 Sep 2019, Someone Somewhere remarked: On 23/09/2019 14:58, Basil Jet wrote: On 23/09/2019 12:15, wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-charge-is-exp ected-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. What we really need here is fuel per passenger. I believe the fuel costs about Ł1 per passenger. from the airline mag [1] I was reading yesterday, it apparently costs 150,000 to fly a 767 round trip Europe-USA (didn't specify East or West Coast) No mention was made about how that cost was apportioned between operation costs and capital costs. tim [1] As in the mag in the seat pocket on the aircraft, not one full of pretty pictures (or whatever) that you buy in a newsagents. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk