Crackers idea. As an airport that can go for years without snow, why reduce flights just in case there is snow on three or four days? Which days do you reduce as the snow could fall from November to March... Or do we reduce for the winter period so there are no delays on a day or two..
Why not get act together and build the capacity the UK needs at LHR? Heathrow is unique in that money spent actually fits "build and they will come".
People want to hub via heathrow, people want to come to heathrow. Economics in the UK will benefit from a bigger heathrow...
Or cut the number of flights due to potential for freak volcano risk?
As others have said, LHR rarely gets heavy snow. It would be a huge dent in LHR for half the season to reduce numbers - to a level that still might not be enough, to mitigate against a risk that might happen for a couple of days randomly.
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3G: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 6_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/536.26 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0 Mobile/10A523 Safari/8536.25)
Sounds like a good "stick" to force BA & HAL to up their game, particularly BA.
Good article on ft.com today on how the joint committee spectacularly botched the decision not to cancel flights in advance of last Friday despite the forecast being fairly consistent in predicting snow.
I think this is a good suggestion. When there are very strong indicators of weather disruption that will adversely impact the flow rate into and out of LHR then HAL should be forced to move to contingency mode well in advance. It is clear to me that neither HAL nor BA are appropriately resourced to handle major disruption.
Given the lack of willingness of BA or HAL to staff up to adequately cover likely impacts of weather or other operational disruptions which directly arise from the well known and planned level of congestion at LHR in order to maximise the potential flying schedule, outside regulation should impose mandatory flow controls in advance of weather disruption. Since these would be well known and airlines could anticipate them in advance it would give more teeth to EU261 in weather disruption scenarios.
It seems to me that HAL and BA simply want to stick their collective heads in the snow and pretend there is not a systemic organisational problem in their handling of IRROPS. If the companies directly responsible refuse to plan sensibly then they should be compelled to do so.
BA cannot even provide accurate information on their own departures. The delay in making cancellation information available (after the cancellation decision has been taken) is shocking in itself and almost certainly a major contribution to the shambles we have seen in recent days.
Programs: MUCCI, BA Gold, Marriott Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 722
Either that, or approve a third runway, but limit the number of planes to be exactly what it is now - so they can't grow to over-capacity again, but they can handle "unexpected" runway closures like when they need to clear them of snow...
__________________
-- Ragamuffin. Long hair, comfortable clothes and a gold card. Hoochie Coochie Mucci: Guitar on back, Motorcycle at T5.
Exactly, but you don't need heavy snow to ground Heathrow flights. As it has been proven on Friday, you only need forecast of snow to see Heathrow cancel flights.
Not that I agree with his idea but something needs to change at LHR, it's even more bonkers to do nothing about it and just take for granted the fact that 4-5 days a year there will be serious disruptions because of predictable factors.
He has a point insofar as it's crazy for a metropolitan area of this size to put all its eggs in one basket, and one that is bursting at its seams at that. It is depressing that the only remaining long-haul routes from LGW are CLT on US and assorted bucket-and-spade routes on BA and VS, and the only feeder routes to hubs with fairer weather are the relatively obscure ones to LIS on TP and to IST on TK. I was delighted when LH had a go with two daily connections to FRA, but that didn't last long. IMHO, the travelling public needs its head examined for preferring the hellhole that is LHR, but so long as they do, what can the airlines do about it?
Programs: BA Silver; VV Silver (deceased); PS Classic; BD Blue (deceased)
Posts: 3,250
If LGW has spare capacity then it begs the question as to why BA aircraft bound for LHR diverted on Sunday to Birmingham, Bournemouth, Bristol, Cardiff, Manchester and Newcastle, and others turned back to Larnaca, Pisa, and Toulouse after taking off for LHR
BA likes to keep all it's eggs in one basket so to speak. Why use other airports when you can cripple most of your network in one go. Makes sense.
Sure it's probably more cost effective in the long run but I for one would rather land at LGW than end up stuck somewhere abroad or on a runway for hours or days and then have a short trip into London.
Building a third runway at LHR would do exactly the same as building new roads to alleviate traffic problems - nothing except more people travel and % capacity remains the same.
Building a third runway at LHR would do exactly the same as building new roads to alleviate traffic problems - nothing except more people travel and % capacity remains the same.
A third runway will still result in the airport running with a capacity below extant demand levels. Compare it to CDG (4 runways), FRA (4 runways), AMS (6 runways, 7th planned) and DFW (8 runways), and the scope for growth becomes clear. Look beyond BA or other UK carriers; how many emerging market carriers (including OW partners like LAN or S7) don't even have direct service to London?
The road analogy is perhaps slightly incomplete, as a hub airport by design has a network effect: it can offer a huge array of possible city pairs, thus attracting users. By contrast, the existence of a road link does not necessarily create demand; might it not look as though a new road generates traffic because they get built where demand is already high?
