Also Emirates has been pushing the Government to allow it to introduce night flights to LHR to increase its A380 service to 7 daily
Still believe a 3rd runway is the answer or Heathrow North at Northolt
I'd like to see some BA flights that arrive/leave at DXB at more convenient times.
At the moment, you either arrive at 7:30am, or 11:30pm which means you either waste the first night, or have to pay for an extra day or 1/2 day (depending on the mood of the reservations manager) in order to get an early check in, same thing with leaving, you either have to be up at silly o'clock in the morning to make the morning flight or check out of your hotel and hang around for hours before taking the 02:00am flight.
The other option is of course to pay for an extra night in the hotel, but at £300+ per night this is rather annoying.
flyingcrazy
Jun 23, 12, 5:48 am
I'd like to see some BA flights that arrive/leave at DXB at more convenient times.
At the moment, you either arrive at 7:30am, or 11:30pm which means you either waste the first night, or have to pay for an extra day or 1/2 day (depending on the mood of the reservations manager) in order to get an early check in, same thing with leaving, you either have to be up at silly o'clock in the morning to make the morning flight or check out of your hotel and hang around for hours before taking the 02:00am flight.
The other option is of course to pay for an extra night in the hotel, but at £300+ per night this is rather annoying.
you could always fly on one of the 5 daily Emirates flights to LHR, or the 3 daily Emirates flights to LGW
However I agree to an extent. I would like to see more BA flights to Dubai perhaps increase to 3 daily.
DYKWIA
Jun 23, 12, 5:50 am
The other option is of course to pay for an extra night in the hotel, but at £300+ per night this is rather annoying.
Or choose a cheaper hotel :D The 5* Le Meridien is around £60 this time of year.
Also Emirates has been pushing the Government to allow it to introduce night flights to LHR to increase its A380 service to 7 daily
Still believe a 3rd runway is the answer or Heathrow North at Northolt
Do you really want us to believe that Emirates has that many A380s that it can send seven of them to LHR every day? :confused::confused::confused::confused:
DYKWIA
Jun 23, 12, 5:57 am
Do you really want us to believe that Emirates has that many A380s that it can send seven of them to LHR every day? :confused::confused::confused::confused:
Errr... Yes. Emirates has around 90 delivered or on order.
PanGalactic
Jun 23, 12, 6:16 am
Or choose a cheaper hotel :D The 5* Le Meridien is around £60 this time of year.
Well, yes that is what I'll probably do next time, for the first night at least.
Sixth Freedom
Jun 23, 12, 6:16 am
However I agree to an extent. I would like to see more BA flights to Dubai perhaps increase to 3 daily.
I thought BA already had three flights a day to DXB, although only two operate with four cabins.
There is a 747 on the lunchtime departure from LHR returning as a red-eye and a 777 and 767 flying overnight from LHR and turning into the daylight flights back from DXB.
I remember there was a time when BA had five daily to DXB. This was back in 2007/8 IIRC. :)
BA304
Jun 23, 12, 7:09 am
I thought BA already had three flights a day to DXB, although only two operate with four cabins.
There is a 747 on the lunchtime departure from LHR returning as a red-eye and a 777 and 767 flying overnight from LHR and turning into the daylight flights back from DXB.
I remember there was a time when BA had five daily to DXB. This was back in 2007/8 IIRC. :)
Just two at the moment according to the BA app. I don't know if that changes during the peak season.
Prospero
Jun 23, 12, 7:38 am
Let's move this over to UK and Ireland.
Prospero
Moderator: BAEC forum
ajax
Jun 23, 12, 7:54 am
I'd like to see some BA flights that arrive/leave at DXB at more convenient times.
At the moment, you either arrive at 7:30am, or 11:30pm which means you either waste the first night, or have to pay for an extra day or 1/2 day (depending on the mood of the reservations manager) in order to get an early check in, same thing with leaving, you either have to be up at silly o'clock in the morning to make the morning flight or check out of your hotel and hang around for hours before taking the 02:00am flight.
The other option is of course to pay for an extra night in the hotel, but at £300+ per night this is rather annoying.
They arrive at this time, of course, to capture the return traffic and to land at a time that is convenient for these passengers to then get onward flights to North America and Europe once they have arrived in London.
alanR
Jun 23, 12, 10:15 am
So any thoughts on mixed mode itself? I know they've been trialling it since last year but how exactly would LHR implement it - I've seen suggestions that it would use spare capacity on a runway when there's a disparity between landings and take offs so - for example - the early morning long haul rush into LHR would have landings on both runways as there are relatively few take offs at that time.
flyingcrazy
Jun 23, 12, 10:42 am
Because of this nation's inability to build anything without 11 reviews, years of 'consideration' and 12 consultations this is great because nothing would need to be built.
Extra capacity could be added, LHR movements could increase from 85 an hour to 108 an hour allowing LHR to have the same amount of maximum hourly movements as AMS (which can only operate 3 runways due to noise restrictions). Plus it would narrow the gap with FRA, MAD and CDG (all 120 movements an hour).
Perhaps a few new concourses such as Terminal 5D and more terminal extensions would be needed for the 120,000 extra flights to park etc.
This would be brilliant. Sure it would only last 10 years before LHR is at full capacity again but this really gives us a chance to use this breathing space (10 years) to start serious planning of either a new hub (Stansted or Thames Estuary) or a third runway.
flyingcrazy
Jun 23, 12, 2:12 pm
If this happens does anyone have any guesses on what new routes/added frequencies will appear???
My guess
Etihad have stated they wish to increase flights to Abu Dhabi from 3 to 5 daily
Emirates to Dubai 5 to 7 daily
Air China to Beijing 1 to 2 daily
Korean Air to Seoul 1 to 2 daily
China Southern to Guangzhou 3 weekly to 1 daily
Garuda Indonesia to Jakarta 3 weekly
Philippine Airlines to Manila 3 weekly
Avianca to Bogota 1 daily
Lan Chile to Santiago 1 daily
British Airways to Shanghai 6 weekly to 1 daily
British Airways to Sao Paulo 1 daily to 2 daily
British Airways to Mexico City increase from 4 weekly to 1 daily
Virgin will start services to Rio de Janeiro and Toronto
any others???
PotNoodle
Jun 26, 12, 1:59 pm
This is a great idea for the short term future, even if a third runway was planned it would take years to build so mixed mode is a good immediate short term fix.
For the medium term future a third runway at Heathrow is a necessity, Gatwick could build 4 more runways and it still wouldn't solve capacity issues because Heathrow is the hub for the UK, Gatwick/Stansted/Luton etc are either point to point flights or feeding other airlines hubs.
For the long term future I think Borris Johnson International Airport would actually be a good idea, because even if a third runway was built then eventually a fourth would be required, and where would that go? On the motorway which surrounds Heathrow?
Iv'e got a funny idea though that the government will do lots of reviews and talking and drag it out until the next general election, then it's up to the succeeding government to make the difficult decision.
I'd be interested to see when the government complete this 'Aviation Review'. If they start with a bias view to new runways then it will be a sham.
Come on David Cameron, time to take this 'decisive action' you speak about so regularly.
WHBM
Jun 26, 12, 3:52 pm
Bit behind the times, folks.
Mixed Mode starts NEXT WEEK, July 1, and runs through the Olympic period. There have been various trials in the past, but nothing sustained like this. I can't see it being withdrawn.
Can't be true Independent Operations, as the runways are too close for international ICAO standards for this - not by much, but sufficient not to comply. Of course, in the US they wouldn't care a jot about this, but it's the ultra-compliant CAA we're talking about here, some from there hope their careers will take them on to even better paid jobs at ICAO so don't want to rock any boats.
Inbound aircraft will need to be co-ordinated with each other to arrive in a staggered pattern. Contrary to many opinions, Heathrow has operated like this for many years between 0600 and 0700, when there are few departures. It remains to be seen how departures are interleaved, there are various possible patterns.
One benefit is that you don't need the additional spacing following large aircraft for both arrivals and departures that you have at present, because the space can be taken by an opposite movement on the runway.
If Emirates and Etihad think they can increase their slots by 50% or some similar amount then BA and Virgin need to be allowed to increase by the same amount as well. Otherwise it's a disgrace.
The additional 120,000 movements a year is a fiction, someone has taken Gatwick's 60,000 a year (as the busiest runway in the UK) and multiplied by 2. That implies Independent Ops and the much more liberal night operations rate that Gatwick has, neither of which are on the cards.
NickB
Jun 27, 12, 5:57 am
Of course, in the US they wouldn't care a jot about this, but it's the ultra-compliant CAA we're talking about here, some from there hope their careers will take them on to even better paid jobs at ICAO so don't want to rock any boats.Well, I guess this is one way to look at it. Another way would be to say that this reflects two different approaches to the rule of law, at least as far as international law is concerned: one that sees it as a means to political ends and therefore has no qualms in ignoring when politically inconvenient and another than sees it as a core democratic value...
WHBM
Jun 27, 12, 6:09 am
another than sees it as a core democratic value...
I can't quite see that throttling one of your absolutely key pieces of national infrastructure because it's runways are about 80m too close over a spread of about 1,350m, a specification drawn up by academics with no reference to Heathrow's actual situation, and routinely overridden to a far greater extent in the USA and elsewhere with no problem, can be considered a "core democratic value".
lhrsfo
Jun 27, 12, 6:36 am
Neither can "international law" be considered a core democratic value when its primary utility is exactly to override the collective will of a nation.
RichardInSF
Jun 27, 12, 7:48 am
I give up, what exactly is "mixed mode?" The article doesn't seem to explain it.
WHBM
Jun 27, 12, 8:24 am
Mixed Mode is the operation of both Heathrow runways for both arrivals and departures simultaneously.
It is almost, but not quite, like having two Gatwick runways operating side-by-side. Due to certain constraints they cannot (yet) be operated completely independently of one another.
It is called Mixed Mode because Heathrow has traditionally, for more than 50 years, operated to a pattern of one runway being mainly used for landings and one for departures (you can consider this Separated Mode). These are swapped over periodically. This was no done for any ATC reason but to provide different noise patterns at different times of the day.
slawecki
Jun 27, 12, 9:11 am
what are they going to do with all those people. my experiences are that that is the #1+ airport for people handling incompetence.
i sat on a plane for an hour when they did not have a bus to move us to the terminal.
the immigration line is pretty long as it is. the tsa line is pretty long.
ah when it snows. 5 days for luggage
the funniest thing i ever saw was when the transport busses got hung up. the people were hung up on the ground floor waiting. the escelators worked great, and poured people on top of people. they were falling over each other.
exilencfc
Jun 27, 12, 1:07 pm
Would have thought it would be sensible to add a limited number of extra flights and use most of the added capacity to improve punctuality, limit impact of IROPS etc. Besides which, as Slawecki says, the capacity of the rest of LHR is limited
RichardInSF
Jun 28, 12, 8:08 am
Mixed Mode is the operation of both Heathrow runways for both arrivals and departures simultaneously.
It is almost, but not quite, like having two Gatwick runways operating side-by-side. Due to certain constraints they cannot (yet) be operated completely independently of one another.
It is called Mixed Mode because Heathrow has traditionally, for more than 50 years, operated to a pattern of one runway being mainly used for landings and one for departures (you can consider this Separated Mode). These are swapped over periodically. This was no done for any ATC reason but to provide different noise patterns at different times of the day.
Ah, OK, thanks. My home airport SFO does this regularly when there is no fog, as does LAX. Apparently for them to be done completely independently, the runways have to be at least a mile apart. LAX has that but not SFO.
rwoman
Jun 28, 12, 9:37 am
Or choose a cheaper hotel :D The 5* Le Meridien is around £60 this time of year.
I will continue to choose NOT to fly EK, so that's likely not to happen IME.
;)
rwoman
Jun 28, 12, 9:38 am
what are they going to do with all those people. my experiences are that that is the #1+ airport for people handling incompetence. ...
the immigration line is pretty long as it is.
Not sure UKBA can handle many more people, especially at peak times...
WHBM
Jun 28, 12, 9:40 am
Apparently for them to be done completely independently, the runways have to be at least a mile apart.
According to ICAO, 1,525m (5,000 ft) spacing between centrelines. I believe Heathrow is about 1,450m. Of course, when it was designed and built the runways were spaced to be adequate for the standards of the time for independent operations. The standards were subsequently changed.
Not sure UKBA can handle many more people, especially at peak times...
However they will, of course, be quite competent at pocketing the additional fees they levy and collect from each arriving passenger, paid out of fares, should the arrivals numbers increase.
alanR
Jun 28, 12, 11:01 am
However they will, of course, be quite competent at pocketing the additional fees they levy and collect from each arriving passenger, paid out of fares, should the arrivals numbers increase.
Are UKBA paid per arriving passenger?
NewbieRunner
Jun 28, 12, 3:16 pm
All I can say is good luck to those who choose/have to travel through LHR. ;)
mtkeller
Jun 28, 12, 3:19 pm
Are UKBA paid per arriving passenger?
There are no fees paid to UKBA from separately collected fees for arriving passengers. I'm not sure if the airlines have to pay anything per passenger, but I would assume that they'd prefer it be broken out from fares if they did.
flyingcrazy
Jun 28, 12, 3:44 pm
All I can say is good luck to those who choose/have to travel through LHR. ;)
Oh well whatever happens, LHR will always be nicer than FRA
NewbieRunner
Jun 28, 12, 4:12 pm
Oh well whatever happens, LHR will always be nicer than FRA
I wasn't even thinking of FRA despite my apparent obsession. ;)
WHBM
Jun 28, 12, 5:11 pm
I'm not sure if the airlines have to pay anything per passenger, but I would assume that they'd prefer it be broken out from fares if they did.
Why ? Separating out elements of the fare is a confounded nuisance. It is also a recent phenomenon. Why should separate figures be added after the initially quoted fare for 101 things which are part of providing an air service.
mtkeller
Jun 29, 12, 2:10 am
Why ? Separating out elements of the fare is a confounded nuisance. It is also a recent phenomenon. Why should separate figures be added after the initially quoted fare for 101 things which are part of providing an air service.
The airlines would prefer it because then it always eats up the same amount of money per passenger. If it's a flat rate per aircraft, then they'll have to pay it out of the base fare and so a lightly-loaded flight will cost them more per passenger to the government/airport than a full flight. Also, passengers who look at the detailed fare/tax/fee breakdown can tell how much of the cost is going to the airline and how much is going to governments and airports. It is not a nuisance for the airlines or agencies selling tickets. Now that even in the US all fares have to be displayed to customers including all the taxes and surcharges (regardless of whether imposed by the airline, the airport, or a government), it really doesn't make one lick of difference to passengers.