Heathrow Third Runway Approved by Parliament
Jun 25, 2018, 5:12 am
#91
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: UK
Programs: BA
Posts: 174
I am going to weigh in as well. Besides the runway I think the government also should apply maximum capacity per aircraft landing in Heathrow. For example to restrict A320 at capacity of 169 and A321 capacity at 190. This should stop airlines trying to squeeze in as many seats as possible. If the airlines want to put in more passengers, use bigger aircraft. It could be done in the safety review. A small aircraft with way too many people is a safety hazard for passengers and airport operation.
Jun 25, 2018, 5:21 am
#92
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
Would a Government trying to restrict maximum capacity per aircraft go against competition law? They would be distorting the market. And what about Airlines like Lufthansa, this would force them to have a small fleet just for Heathrow if no other airport did this. Non starter!
Firstly it isn't a safety issue, clearly. So why pretend it is.
Secondly the airlines should be looking to maximise capacity not reduce it.
Thirdly the government doesn't interfere on free market issues.
Fourthly don't use such airlines if the density is not to your liking.
Jun 25, 2018, 6:04 am
#93
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,204
Yes it does. Does it all the time.
It imposes regulations that business often dosen't want. Forcing them to do things they don't want to do or not do things the business would like to do
It restricts the abilities of one company to take over another
It imposes ownership restrictions
It imposes regulations that business often dosen't want. Forcing them to do things they don't want to do or not do things the business would like to do
It restricts the abilities of one company to take over another
It imposes ownership restrictions
Jun 25, 2018, 6:06 am
#94
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
Yes it does. Does it all the time.
It imposes regulations that business often dosen't want. Forcing them to do things they don't want to do or not do things the business would like to do
It restricts the abilities of one company to take over another
It imposes ownership restrictions
It imposes regulations that business often dosen't want. Forcing them to do things they don't want to do or not do things the business would like to do
It restricts the abilities of one company to take over another
It imposes ownership restrictions
Jun 25, 2018, 6:30 am
#95
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: LHR, LGW
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 3,444
As a general point...I have just read that La Guardia will be a step closer to getting a new train link into Manhattan, spending $2BN and starting construction next year finishing 2023. Yet here we are in the UK still talking about a runaway for the last 10 years. Quite remarkable and pretty embarrassing for one of the world's top cities. I get some of the talk and consultation is needed but overall, we all know we need this so lets get on with it.
Jun 25, 2018, 7:04 am
#96
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Edi
Posts: 2,203
As a general point...I have just read that La Guardia will be a step closer to getting a new train link into Manhattan, spending $2BN and starting construction next year finishing 2023. Yet here we are in the UK still talking about a runaway for the last 10 years. Quite remarkable and pretty embarrassing for one of the world's top cities. I get some of the talk and consultation is needed but overall, we all know we need this so lets get on with it.
Jun 25, 2018, 7:17 am
#97
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: North of Watford Gap
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 602
Since this - https://www.bestcities.org/rankings/worlds-best-cities/ - not just 'one' of the top but THE top!
Last edited by babats; Jun 25, 2018 at 7:17 am Reason: Additional info added
Jun 25, 2018, 7:19 am
#98
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,204
As a general point...I have just read that La Guardia will be a step closer to getting a new train link into Manhattan, spending $2BN and starting construction next year finishing 2023. Yet here we are in the UK still talking about a runaway for the last 10 years. Quite remarkable and pretty embarrassing for one of the world's top cities. I get some of the talk and consultation is needed but overall, we all know we need this so lets get on with it.
Jun 25, 2018, 7:22 am
#99
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, ARN, HEL, ..... or MAN
Programs: BA GGL / GFL, Mucci Diamond!, HH Diamond, Radisson Premium, IHG Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 5,908
I suspect you are fishing for responses.. of course it depends on how you measure these things, and whether you believe what's written in Wikipedia, but on most measures, the consensus seems to be that London is at, or near the top of a lot of measures; such as:
London is a leading global city in the arts, commerce, education, entertainment, fashion, finance, healthcare, media, professional services, research and development, tourism and transportation.
It is the world's largest financial centre and has the fifth or sixth largest metropolitan area GDP in the world.
London is often regarded as a world cultural capital.
It is the world's most-visited city as measured by international arrivals and has the world's largest city airport system measured by passenger traffic.
It is the world's leading investment destination, hosting more international retailers and ultra high-net-worth individuals than any other city.
I think that's a start.
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
London is a leading global city in the arts, commerce, education, entertainment, fashion, finance, healthcare, media, professional services, research and development, tourism and transportation.
It is the world's largest financial centre and has the fifth or sixth largest metropolitan area GDP in the world.
London is often regarded as a world cultural capital.
It is the world's most-visited city as measured by international arrivals and has the world's largest city airport system measured by passenger traffic.
It is the world's leading investment destination, hosting more international retailers and ultra high-net-worth individuals than any other city.
Jun 25, 2018, 7:49 am
#100
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,477
Of course, it's total nonsense.
Firstly it isn't a safety issue, clearly. So why pretend it is.
Secondly the airlines should be looking to maximise capacity not reduce it.
Thirdly the government doesn't interfere on free market issues.
Fourthly don't use such airlines if the density is not to your liking.
Firstly it isn't a safety issue, clearly. So why pretend it is.
Secondly the airlines should be looking to maximise capacity not reduce it.
Thirdly the government doesn't interfere on free market issues.
Fourthly don't use such airlines if the density is not to your liking.
US Federal case 16-1101: Hudson believes that, with the passage of the SEAT Act in the House plus last year’s 3-0 decision by the D.C. Circuit ordering the FAA to reconsider its denial of Flyers Rights’ rulemaking petition, “both Congress and the judiciary have spoken to the FAA and airlines: Seats must accommodate passengers as they are, not as the airline would like for maximum profit regardless of safety, health and comfort.”
SOURCE: RGN
Last July, a federal court responded to a complaint from the consumer organization FlyersRights.org by ordering the FAA to prove that it shouldn’t regulate airline seat sizes. Judge Patricia Millett stated, “This is the Case of the Incredible Shrinking Airline Seat,” and the ruling chastised the FAA for a “vaporous record” of evacuation tests and “(at-best) off-point studies and undisclosed tests using unknown parameters.”
The FAA responded by asserting that seat pitch is considered during testing. For its part, FlyersRights.org stated: “The FAA has not conducted, or alternatively has not released, any tests, whether computer simulations or rehearsed evacuations, that demonstrate that planes with modern seat sizes and modern passenger sizes would pass emergency evacuation criteria.”......
Improving airline evacuation protocols has a long history. Back in 1993, the U.S. Government Accountability Office examined the FAA’s standards amid concerns about injuries during live drills, but today there are new concerns. And in 2000 the National Transportation Safety Board issued or reiterated 23 specific recommendations to the FAA on this topic. In 2006, there was much media attention on the evacuation of 873 people during testing of the Airbus A380, in part due to the use of Airbus employees and a total of 33 injuries.
Many industry professionals support examining how tighter seats can affect safety; the Association of Professional Flight Attendants recently stated: “We recognize that seating issues extend beyond evacuation safety, including the potential for increased incidents of air rage.'
The FAA responded by asserting that seat pitch is considered during testing. For its part, FlyersRights.org stated: “The FAA has not conducted, or alternatively has not released, any tests, whether computer simulations or rehearsed evacuations, that demonstrate that planes with modern seat sizes and modern passenger sizes would pass emergency evacuation criteria.”......
Improving airline evacuation protocols has a long history. Back in 1993, the U.S. Government Accountability Office examined the FAA’s standards amid concerns about injuries during live drills, but today there are new concerns. And in 2000 the National Transportation Safety Board issued or reiterated 23 specific recommendations to the FAA on this topic. In 2006, there was much media attention on the evacuation of 873 people during testing of the Airbus A380, in part due to the use of Airbus employees and a total of 33 injuries.
Many industry professionals support examining how tighter seats can affect safety; the Association of Professional Flight Attendants recently stated: “We recognize that seating issues extend beyond evacuation safety, including the potential for increased incidents of air rage.'
SOURCE: USA TODAY
The Department of Transportation’s inspector general will conduct an audit of airplane cabin evacuations following a request from two House Democrats.
The Office of the Inspector General wrote in a Monday memo that starting this month it will examine the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) oversight of airplane evacuation standards, with a focus on "how changes in passenger behavior, passenger demographics, and seating capacity, affect the standards" and "whether aircraft as currently configured meet evacuation standards.”
The Office of the Inspector General wrote in a Monday memo that starting this month it will examine the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) oversight of airplane evacuation standards, with a focus on "how changes in passenger behavior, passenger demographics, and seating capacity, affect the standards" and "whether aircraft as currently configured meet evacuation standards.”
ASOURCE: THE HILL
Jun 25, 2018, 7:51 am
#101
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Edi
Posts: 2,203
It was a combination of a little fishing, wondering how OP reached the conclusion it was one of the top cities and by what metric s/he reached that conclusion. My metrics of top and OPs/others are clearly in different ball parks.
Jun 25, 2018, 8:04 am
#102
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: LHR, LGW
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 3,444
https://www.atkearney.com/documents/...6-526e380d6cc4
BUT we really are digressing and to keep the thread on track, my overall point was for all our worth we seem to be sluggish when it comes to something as important as this, a 3rd runway, that has huge benefits for our economy and people. Regardless of whether its LGW or LHR we need another runway in London, I think we all agree there.
Jun 25, 2018, 8:04 am
#103
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,477
Of course, it's total nonsense.
Firstly it isn't a safety issue, clearly. So why pretend it is.
Secondly the airlines should be looking to maximise capacity not reduce it.
Thirdly the government doesn't interfere on free market issues.
Fourthly don't use such airlines if the density is not to your liking.
Firstly it isn't a safety issue, clearly. So why pretend it is.
Secondly the airlines should be looking to maximise capacity not reduce it.
Thirdly the government doesn't interfere on free market issues.
Fourthly don't use such airlines if the density is not to your liking.
A U.S. Department of Transportation watchdog is reviewing federal oversight of aircraft evacuation standards, as airline seating gets tighter and passengers bring more carry-on baggage with them.
The Federal Aviation Administration requires that aircraft can be evacuated within 90 seconds in the case of an emergency.
But the inspector general's office of the Department of Transportation said these standards haven't been significantly updated since 1990, while passenger behavior and cabin configurations have changed.
Airlines have added more seats and cut seat pitch on board as air travel demand has grown.
The inspector general's office will evaluate how FAA is updating standards given those changes and assess the agency's "process for determining whether aircraft as currently configured meet evacuation standards."
The Federal Aviation Administration requires that aircraft can be evacuated within 90 seconds in the case of an emergency.
But the inspector general's office of the Department of Transportation said these standards haven't been significantly updated since 1990, while passenger behavior and cabin configurations have changed.
Airlines have added more seats and cut seat pitch on board as air travel demand has grown.
The inspector general's office will evaluate how FAA is updating standards given those changes and assess the agency's "process for determining whether aircraft as currently configured meet evacuation standards."
Modern aircraft is very safe. But there is always safety issues if you cramp too many people into a tube of frame with thousand tonnes of fuel and kilometres of electric wirings. Americans realise there is a safety issue and hopefully they can introduce a clear verdict once the study is done. The most concern I have now is that it is relative silence from the British and European law makers.
Jun 25, 2018, 9:45 am
#104
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
Since I can not edit my own post for some reason, I am attaching news from 19th June freshly out here.
SOURCE: CNBC
Modern aircraft is very safe. But there is always safety issues if you cramp too many people into a tube of frame with thousand tonnes of fuel and kilometres of electric wirings. Americans realise there is a safety issue and hopefully they can introduce a clear verdict once the study is done. The most concern I have now is that it is relative silence from the British and European law makers.
SOURCE: CNBC
Modern aircraft is very safe. But there is always safety issues if you cramp too many people into a tube of frame with thousand tonnes of fuel and kilometres of electric wirings. Americans realise there is a safety issue and hopefully they can introduce a clear verdict once the study is done. The most concern I have now is that it is relative silence from the British and European law makers.
There is also nothing in the article that indicates Americans realise there is a safety issue, just that the process of oversight is to be reviewed. If there was a safety issue there would be more than a review going on.
Also if there was any suspicion about safety the CAA would have acted well before now.
Spin it how you like of course.
Jun 25, 2018, 1:09 pm
#105
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges and Environmentally Friendly Travel
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 22,213
i thoroughly recommend “Aerotropolis: The Way We'll Live Next” by Greg Lindsay and John D. Kasarda. This book provides a fascinating insight into how “world cities” have developed during the 20th/21st centuries and the contribution their airports have had towards building GDPs the size of nation states. For example, did you know that Heathrow’s immediate hinterland has a GDP greater than Sydney