BAW = Callsign Speedbird - Literally.
#16
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Munich, Algarve, Sussex or S.F Bay Area
Programs: Mucci, BA Gold, A3*Gold, AA Plat, HH Gold, IHG Plat Amb, Marriott Plat
Posts: 4,130
My personal record for quickest flight was on a KL 774 from JFK to AMS in 1994 with a wheels up to wheels down time of 05:25. Speed was shown in Km/h but at one stage it was over 1,100. I remember being there almost 2 hours before Mrs Tafflyer was there to collect me.
#17
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: LHR/ATH
Programs: Amex Platinum, LH SEN (Gold), BA Bronze
Posts: 4,489
I have trouble seeing what is particularly unfriendly about Sydney
There are quite a few countries that can use the self service immigration whereas in UK , smeone arriving on an AU passport would have to queue under any passports and not have to queue
With departures, just about all can use self service immigration desks
Domestic departures have very short queues for security (ime) and there is no issue with liquids
What is unfriendly about it?
The curfew is a good thing given how close the airport is to residential properties
There are quite a few countries that can use the self service immigration whereas in UK , smeone arriving on an AU passport would have to queue under any passports and not have to queue
With departures, just about all can use self service immigration desks
Domestic departures have very short queues for security (ime) and there is no issue with liquids
What is unfriendly about it?
The curfew is a good thing given how close the airport is to residential properties
#18
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: TLS/London
Programs: BA Gold, SPG Plat
Posts: 442
I vaguely recall arriving at T4 off a BA long haul flight a number of years ago and as we were so far ahead of schedule, although we had been allowed to land there was some rule/curfew about not being able to use the engines all the way onto the gate stand so we had to be towed on by a tug - remember it was the first (and only) time I've seen them use a tug on arrival rather than departure!
#19
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,438
Aeroplanes are a nuisance for those living near the airport. Having a curfew is a reaosnable trade off for having a close airport. Not many people are falling over themselves to book flights at 2am - 11pm to 6am close seems reasonable
#20
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: LHR/ATH
Programs: Amex Platinum, LH SEN (Gold), BA Bronze
Posts: 4,489
I think LHR should make the curfew from 01:00 to 04:00, and allow some more flights while this third runway mess is being dealt with!
#21
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 689
the alternative is multiple "regional" airports and/or significant restrictions on building new runways/upgrading, etc. look at LAX. there are four parallel runways built too close together as I recall, so at night only two can be used simultaneously. getting any sort of upgrades or appropriate spacing for replacement runways enable two simultaneous night landings on runways next to each other takes decades of discussion with the neighborhood. not to mention the LHR issues.
Last edited by footballfanatic; Aug 21, 2017 at 6:35 am
#23
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 689
If you look at Turkish Airlines for example, they generally schedule their 'third world airport flights' e.g. Beiruit at like 2 AM so they can utilise their other planes during the day to Europe and instead of them doing nothing at IST overnight, they fly them over to other countries without a curfew!
I think LHR should make the curfew from 01:00 to 04:00, and allow some more flights while this third runway mess is being dealt with!
I think LHR should make the curfew from 01:00 to 04:00, and allow some more flights while this third runway mess is being dealt with!
#24
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: US/UK - and elsewhere
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 2,527
Nothing too specific, but ...
back in 1996 (2nd Feb to be specific!) I was on BA226 ATL-LHR which I recall did the trip in not much more than 5 hours - it was through a US nor-easter with a roller-coaster of a jet stream all the way - the seat belt lights were on for the whole trip (and no food/drink was served!).
1997 (9th July) QF101 AKL-LAX (a 747) - remember doing > 1100 kmh (which I thought was odd for a largely equatorial routing and no significant jet stream).
And while here, taxiing: as many know Frankfurt is a rather large airport from end to end, and after an extremely long taxi (on Lufthansa), the German pilot announced something along lines of 'sorry of the inconvenience - we're an aircraft, not a landcraft...'. (so Germans so have a sense of humour!).
back in 1996 (2nd Feb to be specific!) I was on BA226 ATL-LHR which I recall did the trip in not much more than 5 hours - it was through a US nor-easter with a roller-coaster of a jet stream all the way - the seat belt lights were on for the whole trip (and no food/drink was served!).
1997 (9th July) QF101 AKL-LAX (a 747) - remember doing > 1100 kmh (which I thought was odd for a largely equatorial routing and no significant jet stream).
And while here, taxiing: as many know Frankfurt is a rather large airport from end to end, and after an extremely long taxi (on Lufthansa), the German pilot announced something along lines of 'sorry of the inconvenience - we're an aircraft, not a landcraft...'. (so Germans so have a sense of humour!).
#25
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rhineland-Palatinate
Programs: *A Gold (A3), HHonor Diamond
Posts: 5,642
Nothing too specific, but ...
back in 1996 (2nd Feb to be specific!) I was on BA226 ATL-LHR which I recall did the trip in not much more than 5 hours - it was through a US nor-easter with a roller-coaster of a jet stream all the way - the seat belt lights were on for the whole trip (and no food/drink was served!).
back in 1996 (2nd Feb to be specific!) I was on BA226 ATL-LHR which I recall did the trip in not much more than 5 hours - it was through a US nor-easter with a roller-coaster of a jet stream all the way - the seat belt lights were on for the whole trip (and no food/drink was served!).
#26
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spitalfields, London
Programs: BA Gold, KFC 'The Colonel's Club' Palladium tier, Mucci des Visions Clestes du Nord-Pas-de-Calais
Posts: 2,271
There must be some serious crosswinds across Australia as a recent SYD - PER was over 5 hours and the return was 3h30m
#27
Moderator, Emirates
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Where My Heart Is
Programs: BAEC Silver, FB Platinum, KQ Asante Gold, Shebamiles Blue, Emirates Blue
Posts: 3,380
A few years back on BA26 HKG-LHR we had to sit at the gate in excess of an hour once we were closed up due to an expected fast flight time of around 10hrs 30mins.
S
S
#28
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: BOS
Programs: BA Silver, Mucci
Posts: 5,289
Had a very quick crossing from BOS one year in I think a 747-400 with a tailwind from a storm. We arrived so early that the flight deck let us know that we were getting into LHR well ahead of schedule. Also said they'd have to check the fastest crossing for a 744 to see if we'd beat it. They also said that as there were no BA staff on the ground we'd be doing a tour of the lesser seen parts of the Heathrow whilst we waited for ground staff to arrive/start work. I used the "tour" to get some more sleep (with my seat upright and belt securely fastened before anyone queries it).
I also had an unusually fast LHR - BOS once when the usual headwind was a tailwind - again, I don't remember the numbers.
#29
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Plymouth, UK
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 1,159
no no, it doesn't work like that. Indicated speed and ground speed are completely different. 745 MPH Ground speed with a 100 MPH tailwind is still 645 MPH indicated speed, so the air indicator would still show like Mach 0.85 or so in the cockpit, nothing near 0.99 MACH indicated! Anything above 0.86 or so MACH in a 777 and you would be getting overspeed warnings which really isn't a good thing, the plane would have to be checked over and the pilots in big trouble.
So it is physically impossible for any commercial jet in the air right now to come anywhere near the speed of sound in level flight no matter how strong the tail wind is, they would have to do a crazy dive.
So it is physically impossible for any commercial jet in the air right now to come anywhere near the speed of sound in level flight no matter how strong the tail wind is, they would have to do a crazy dive.
On the other hand, you use the term "indicated airspeed" which is not correct either. As an aircraft climbs into thinner air the air has less effect on the airspeed indicator and so it under-reads... by quite a lot! So the indicated airspeed also won't show the real airspeed either and an adjustment has to be made to allow for the reduced density.
For example... an airliner doing a true airspeed of 500Kts at 38,000ft will likely have an indicated airspeed of around 280Kts!
The Mach meter on the other hand will show the percentage of the speed of sound in the conditions in which the aircraft is flying... the speed of sound depends on the density (and hence temperature) of the air so at sea-level it is about 660Kts and at 35,000 (-55C) it is about 575Kts
Sorry to get technical but it is an interesting topic of Indicated, vs True airspeed vs ground speed vs Mach number.
#30
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
[Essentially, as the air flows around your aircraft, it is forced to accelerate to get around any kind of obstacles in the way. If the airflow is already very fast, it can become locally supersonic, producing shock waves. These shock waves act as a powerful drag and impose significant stress on the airframe.]
You have to design your aircraft in a completely different way to get through this transonic speed region. In particular you want sharp, not round, edges facing into the flow and a minimal cross sectional area. Basically, the opposite of the whale.