Originally Posted by
Kgmm77
With an increased level of certainty as to whether a service could be operated.
Clearly there is a cost-benefit analysis to be made, but by voluntarily reducing the usage (vs maximum possible) post runway 3 construction, to me at least this is a clear indication LHR is over-utilised currently and crucially lacks resilience.
So say a 10% capacity reduction across all LHR airlines for say three months a year for the sake of maybe 10-20 days where weather does significantly reduce operations? At 1,300 flights a day that's about 130 flight reduction per day and around 11,700 flights which could have taken place across those three months on 90% of the days when there were not significant weather issues?
Which airlines do you think would voluntarily agree to that?