Discussion:
Heathrow CC
Add Reply
Recliner
2019-09-23 10:37:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expected-to-raise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Roland Perry
2019-09-23 10:56:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expect
ed-to-raise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f85
1b4ca3>
If it isn't introduced until the third runway opens, I think we can all
relax for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, I dropped someone off at Hayes and Harlington Station last
year, and presuming that's outside the zone, could be a viable
alternative for accompanied pax.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-09-23 11:06:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expect
ed-to-raise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f85
1b4ca3>
If it isn't introduced until the third runway opens, I think we can all
relax for the foreseeable future.
I won't be in the least surprised if they try to introduce it when
construction starts, rather than only when the runway opens.
Post by Roland Perry
Meanwhile, I dropped someone off at Hayes and Harlington Station last
year, and presuming that's outside the zone, could be a viable
alternative for accompanied pax.
Yes, the Tube and rail stations around LHR could become popular drop-off
points.
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2019-09-23 11:15:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.
Roland Perry
2019-09-23 13:07:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expec
ted-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.
If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone
emissions, would be noticeable.
--
Roland Perry
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2019-09-23 15:32:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expec
ted-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.
If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone
emissions, would be noticeable.
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would
change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds
of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those fuckwits
got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again.
Roland Perry
2019-09-23 16:13:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expec
ted-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.
If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone
emissions, would be noticeable.
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.
Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I don't see why that would
change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds
of one of the private parking companies.
Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes?
--
Roland Perry
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2019-09-23 16:23:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 17:13:29 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expec
ted-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of
fuel
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
just to get from the gate to take off position.
If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone
emissions, would be noticeable.
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.
Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.
It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god knows
how they calculate that.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I don't see why that would
change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds
of one of the private parking companies.
Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes?
Nope. North side.
Roland Perry
2019-09-23 17:48:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.
Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.
It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god knows
how they calculate that.
By doing proper professional surveys.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I don't see why that would
change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds
of one of the private parking companies.
Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes?
Nope. North side.
QED.
--
Roland Perry
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2019-09-27 19:26:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:55 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.
Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.
It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god
knows
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
how they calculate that.
By doing proper professional surveys.
Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a brexit
referendum win for remain?
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
of one of the private parking companies.
Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes?
Nope. North side.
QED.
Why? The parking pounds arn't in the airport are they. I'm not talking about
the carparks run by Heathrow Plc.
MissRiaElaine
2019-09-27 20:48:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:55 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.
Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.
It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god
knows
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
how they calculate that.
By doing proper professional surveys.
Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a brexit
referendum win for remain?
I hereby propose a new law, based on Godwin's Law. Anyone who mentions
Brexit in a thread that is nothing to do with it automatically loses the
argument.

Let's call it Boris's Law.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Graeme Wall
2019-09-28 10:36:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:55 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.
Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.
It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god
knows
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
how they calculate that.
By doing proper professional surveys.
Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a brexit
referendum win for remain?
I hereby propose a new law, based on Godwin's Law. Anyone who mentions
Brexit in a thread that is nothing to do with it automatically loses the
argument.
Let's call it Boris's Law.
Godwin's law doesn't say you lose the argument, just "As an online
discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis
or Hitler approaches 1"
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Roland Perry
2019-09-28 06:30:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:55 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.
Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.
It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god
knows
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
how they calculate that.
By doing proper professional surveys.
Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a brexit
referendum win for remain?
Doing a historical traffic survey is a rather different task to opinion
polling.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
of one of the private parking companies.
Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes?
Nope. North side.
QED.
Why? The parking pounds arn't in the airport are they. I'm not talking about
the carparks run by Heathrow Plc.
Not sure *what* you are talking about. But one thing's clear, you
couldn't have seen but small fraction of the car traffic in/out of the
Heathrow complex.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
2019-09-28 10:38:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:55 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.
Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.
It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god
knows
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
how they calculate that.
By doing proper professional surveys.
Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a brexit
referendum win for remain?
Doing a historical traffic survey is a rather different task to opinion
polling.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
of one of the private parking companies.
Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes?
Nope. North side.
QED.
Why? The parking pounds arn't in the airport are they. I'm not talking about
the carparks run by Heathrow Plc.
Not sure *what* you are talking about. But one thing's clear, you
couldn't have seen but small fraction of the car traffic in/out of the
Heathrow complex.
And if you were staring out of the window you weren't doing your job.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2019-09-28 11:57:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 07:30:18 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:55 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.
Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.
It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god
knows
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
how they calculate that.
By doing proper professional surveys.
Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a brexit
referendum win for remain?
Doing a historical traffic survey is a rather different task to opinion
polling.
Not really - it all depends on sample size. They couldn't measure every
passenger getting off every train or bus every single car that stopped so
it's just as much extrapolation as a voting survey.
Roland Perry
2019-09-28 12:51:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.
Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.
It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god
knows
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
how they calculate that.
By doing proper professional surveys.
Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a brexit
referendum win for remain?
Doing a historical traffic survey is a rather different task to opinion
polling.
Not really - it all depends on sample size. They couldn't measure every
passenger getting off every train or bus every single car that stopped so
it's just as much extrapolation as a voting survey.
But based on well settled science.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2019-09-25 12:42:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expec
ted-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.
If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone
emissions, would be noticeable.
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.
Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.
I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as being
dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical, and paying 20
quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of someone's NMW salary
(obviously not so for flight crew)
Recliner
2019-09-25 13:56:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expec
ted-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.
If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone
emissions, would be noticeable.
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.
Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.
I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as being
dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical, and paying 20
quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of someone's NMW salary
(obviously not so for flight crew)
I assumed that many staff get free parking in the large staff car
parks.
Roland Perry
2019-09-25 14:15:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.
Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the
last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.
I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as being
dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical, and paying
20 quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of someone's NMW
salary (obviously not so for flight crew)
You know that's what the staff car park costs?

Also the antisocial hours involved for many don't chime well with PT
schedules.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2019-09-25 16:44:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.
Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.
I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as being
dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical, and paying 20
quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of someone's NMW
salary (obviously not so for flight crew)
You know that's what the staff car park costs?
no

I just assumed that it wasn't going to be free, like it isn't at most
hospitals
Post by Roland Perry
Also the antisocial hours involved for many don't chime well with PT
there's' 24 hour PT available to LHR
Roland Perry
2019-09-25 17:33:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling
there by private car was a small percentage of the total.
Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the
last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.
I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as
being dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical,
and paying 20 quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of
someone's NMW salary (obviously not so for flight crew)
You know that's what the staff car park costs?
no
I just assumed that it wasn't going to be free, like it isn't at most
hospitals
Don't assume.
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Also the antisocial hours involved for many don't chime well with PT
there's' 24 hour PT available to LHR
Very patchy. Someone I know had to get the first bus of the day to check
in from a perimeter hotel to the central terminals. How would the check
in staff get there.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-09-25 20:04:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling
there by private car was a small percentage of the total.
Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the
last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.
I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as
being dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical,
and paying 20 quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of
someone's NMW salary (obviously not so for flight crew)
You know that's what the staff car park costs?
no
I just assumed that it wasn't going to be free, like it isn't at most
hospitals
Don't assume.
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Also the antisocial hours involved for many don't chime well with PT
there's' 24 hour PT available to LHR
Very patchy. Someone I know had to get the first bus of the day to check
in from a perimeter hotel to the central terminals. How would the check
in staff get there.
There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140.
Roland Perry
2019-09-26 06:38:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling
there by private car was a small percentage of the total.
Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the
last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.
I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as
being dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical,
and paying 20 quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of
someone's NMW salary (obviously not so for flight crew)
You know that's what the staff car park costs?
no
I just assumed that it wasn't going to be free, like it isn't at most
hospitals
Don't assume.
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Also the antisocial hours involved for many don't chime well with PT
there's' 24 hour PT available to LHR
Very patchy. Someone I know had to get the first bus of the day to check
in from a perimeter hotel to the central terminals. How would the check
in staff get there.
There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140.
Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route?
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-09-26 08:39:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling
there by private car was a small percentage of the total.
Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the
last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.
I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as
being dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical,
and paying 20 quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of
someone's NMW salary (obviously not so for flight crew)
You know that's what the staff car park costs?
no
I just assumed that it wasn't going to be free, like it isn't at most
hospitals
Don't assume.
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Also the antisocial hours involved for many don't chime well with PT
there's' 24 hour PT available to LHR
Very patchy. Someone I know had to get the first bus of the day to check
in from a perimeter hotel to the central terminals. How would the check
in staff get there.
There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140.
Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route?
I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight?
MissRiaElaine
2019-09-26 12:19:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140.
Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route?
I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight?
And do either go where the staff actually live..?

When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early
00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the
stupid-o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the
garage (5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive
or not work. The company had the attitude that it was your
responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever reason,
tough, find another job...
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Recliner
2019-09-26 12:56:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:19:27 +0100, MissRiaElaine
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140.
Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route?
I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight?
And do either go where the staff actually live..?
When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early
00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the
stupid-o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the
garage (5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive
or not work. The company had the attitude that it was your
responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever reason,
tough, find another job...
I can't comment on Heathrow's staff buses, but lost of workers seem to
be able to come on duty in the early hours of the morning. Whether
they use staff buses, staff car parks (with buses to the terminal) or
24-hour buses I can't say.

But this forum provides some information:

"There are 3 staff car parks for Terminal 5, they are N1, N2 and N5
all next to each other on the Northern Perimeter Road adjacent to T5
Business parking. Employers such as British Airways and BAA pay for
the parking for their employees, other employers make the employees
pay for the parking themselves."

<https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=1843761>
Roland Perry
2019-09-26 13:54:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140.
Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route?
I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight?
And do either go where the staff actually live..?
When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early
00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the
stupid-o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the
garage (5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was
drive or not work. The company had the attitude that it was your
responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever reason,
tough, find another job...
It's a bit more difficult to have that attitude at a place like
Heathrow. I think their solution is to provide ample staff car parking,
it's not as if they don't have the room.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2019-09-26 14:18:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140.
Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route?
I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight?
And do either go where the staff actually live..?
When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early
00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the
stupid-o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the
garage (5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive
or not work. The company had the attitude that it was your responsibility
to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever reason, tough, find
another job...
It's a bit more difficult to have that attitude at a place like Heathrow.
I think their solution is to provide ample staff car parking, it's not as
if they don't have the room.
but they do have a mandate to lessen car arrivals at the airport

I doubt that staff travel is exempted from that requirement

yim
Roland Perry
2019-09-26 14:38:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140.
Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route?
I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight?
And do either go where the staff actually live..?
When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early
00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the stupid-
o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the garage
(5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive or
not work. The company had the attitude that it was your
responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever
reason, tough, find another job...
It's a bit more difficult to have that attitude at a place like
Heathrow. I think their solution is to provide ample staff car
parking, it's not as if they don't have the room.
but they do have a mandate to lessen car arrivals at the airport
I doubt that staff travel is exempted from that requirement
Which is precisely why Heathrow Connect exists[1]. It's not a back-door
into Heathrow for skinflint passengers, it's for staff.

But not all the staff live on the Heathrow Connect corridor.

[1] Just like Heathrow Express exists only for people rich enough to get
to Central London by taxi, but who can be persuaded to do a least
the 15 miles closest to Heathrow in a train.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-09-26 16:00:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140.
Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route?
I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight?
And do either go where the staff actually live..?
When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early
00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the stupid-
o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the garage
(5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive or
not work. The company had the attitude that it was your
responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever
reason, tough, find another job...
It's a bit more difficult to have that attitude at a place like
Heathrow. I think their solution is to provide ample staff car
parking, it's not as if they don't have the room.
but they do have a mandate to lessen car arrivals at the airport
I doubt that staff travel is exempted from that requirement
Which is precisely why Heathrow Connect exists[1]. It's not a back-door
into Heathrow for skinflint passengers, it's for staff.
But not all the staff live on the Heathrow Connect corridor.
That may be why it was created, but it doesn't exist any more, of
course.
Trolleybus
2019-09-27 08:57:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140.
Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route?
I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight?
And do either go where the staff actually live..?
When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early
00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the stupid-
o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the garage
(5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive or
not work. The company had the attitude that it was your
responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever
reason, tough, find another job...
It's a bit more difficult to have that attitude at a place like
Heathrow. I think their solution is to provide ample staff car
parking, it's not as if they don't have the room.
but they do have a mandate to lessen car arrivals at the airport
I doubt that staff travel is exempted from that requirement
Which is precisely why Heathrow Connect exists[1]. It's not a back-door
into Heathrow for skinflint passengers, it's for staff.
Staff are also latgely the reason that bus travel is free in and
around Heathrow (and subsidised to/from Stansted and I suspect other
airports). I've caught service buses from Bath Road to T5 and been
charged a zero fare.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Recliner
2019-09-27 09:12:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trolleybus
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140.
Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route?
I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight?
And do either go where the staff actually live..?
When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early
00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the stupid-
o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the garage
(5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive or
not work. The company had the attitude that it was your
responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever
reason, tough, find another job...
It's a bit more difficult to have that attitude at a place like
Heathrow. I think their solution is to provide ample staff car
parking, it's not as if they don't have the room.
but they do have a mandate to lessen car arrivals at the airport
I doubt that staff travel is exempted from that requirement
Which is precisely why Heathrow Connect exists[1]. It's not a back-door
into Heathrow for skinflint passengers, it's for staff.
Staff are also latgely the reason that bus travel is free in and
around Heathrow (and subsidised to/from Stansted and I suspect other
airports). I've caught service buses from Bath Road to T5 and been
charged a zero fare.
Yes, the buses announce when they're about to leave the free zone (eg,
north of the Bath Road). I presume you don't need to touch in if your
journey is entirely within that zone.
Roland Perry
2019-09-27 10:49:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trolleybus
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140.
Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route?
I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight?
And do either go where the staff actually live..?
When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early
00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the stupid-
o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the garage
(5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive or
not work. The company had the attitude that it was your
responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever
reason, tough, find another job...
It's a bit more difficult to have that attitude at a place like
Heathrow. I think their solution is to provide ample staff car
parking, it's not as if they don't have the room.
but they do have a mandate to lessen car arrivals at the airport
I doubt that staff travel is exempted from that requirement
Which is precisely why Heathrow Connect exists[1]. It's not a back-door
into Heathrow for skinflint passengers, it's for staff.
Staff are also latgely the reason that bus travel is free in and
around Heathrow (and subsidised to/from Stansted and I suspect other
airports).
The shuttle bus from the railway station to Luton Airport is free for
holders of staff passes. (It used to be free for everyone, but that's
another long story).
Post by Trolleybus
I've caught service buses from Bath Road to T5 and been charged a zero
fare.
Indeed, but more of an issue in the circumstances was when the first bus
of the day ran.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2019-10-02 09:23:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trolleybus
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140.
Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route?
I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight?
And do either go where the staff actually live..?
When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early
00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the stupid-
o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the garage
(5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive or
not work. The company had the attitude that it was your
responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever
reason, tough, find another job...
It's a bit more difficult to have that attitude at a place like
Heathrow. I think their solution is to provide ample staff car
parking, it's not as if they don't have the room.
but they do have a mandate to lessen car arrivals at the airport
I doubt that staff travel is exempted from that requirement
Which is precisely why Heathrow Connect exists[1]. It's not a back-door
into Heathrow for skinflint passengers, it's for staff.
Staff are also latgely the reason that bus travel is free in and
around Heathrow
didn't they introduce free transport in the LHR area to save on having to
run land side transfer buses

tim
Recliner
2019-10-02 09:31:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Trolleybus
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140.
Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route?
I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight?
And do either go where the staff actually live..?
When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early
00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the stupid-
o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the garage
(5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive or
not work. The company had the attitude that it was your
responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever
reason, tough, find another job...
It's a bit more difficult to have that attitude at a place like
Heathrow. I think their solution is to provide ample staff car
parking, it's not as if they don't have the room.
but they do have a mandate to lessen car arrivals at the airport
I doubt that staff travel is exempted from that requirement
Which is precisely why Heathrow Connect exists[1]. It's not a back-door
into Heathrow for skinflint passengers, it's for staff.
Staff are also latgely the reason that bus travel is free in and
around Heathrow
didn't they introduce free transport in the LHR area to save on having to
run land side transfer buses
I can't remember, but you may well be right. Overall, it's probably a
cheaper, simpler solution.

tim...
2019-10-02 09:21:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140.
Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route?
I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight?
And do either go where the staff actually live..?
When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early
00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the stupid-
o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the garage
(5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive or
not work. The company had the attitude that it was your
responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever
reason, tough, find another job...
It's a bit more difficult to have that attitude at a place like
Heathrow. I think their solution is to provide ample staff car
parking, it's not as if they don't have the room.
but they do have a mandate to lessen car arrivals at the airport
I doubt that staff travel is exempted from that requirement
Which is precisely why Heathrow Connect exists[1]. It's not a back-door
into Heathrow for skinflint passengers, it's for staff.
Nonsense

it's for people who live on the line [1] to have a service direct to LHR
without having to go to Paddington and back

Staff or customers (or just people changing transport mode)

tim

[1] or even live on a line where a change to underground at Ealing makes
sense
tim...
2019-09-26 13:51:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there
by private car was a small percentage of the total.
Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the
last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.
I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as being
dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical, and paying
20 quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of someone's NMW
salary (obviously not so for flight crew)
You know that's what the staff car park costs?
no
I just assumed that it wasn't going to be free, like it isn't at most
hospitals
Don't assume.
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Also the antisocial hours involved for many don't chime well with PT
there's' 24 hour PT available to LHR
Very patchy. Someone I know had to get the first bus of the day to check
in from a perimeter hotel to the central terminals. How would the check in
staff get there.
there are 5 night routes that run from the Northern Perimeter Road (which
IME is where all the hotels are) to the central Terminals and one to T5

I agree that T4 is isolated from the night network (unless a new one has
appeared since my map was "printed"
Roland Perry
2019-09-26 14:26:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Someone I know had to get the first bus of the day to check in from a
perimeter hotel to the central terminals. How would the check in staff
get there.
there are 5 night routes that run from the Northern Perimeter Road
(which IME is where all the hotels are) to the central Terminals and
one to T5
The [hotels along] northern perimeter road are not a point source, nor
are they mopped up by every bus. It's very patchy.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2019-10-02 09:30:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Someone I know had to get the first bus of the day to check in from a
perimeter hotel to the central terminals. How would the check in staff
get there.
there are 5 night routes that run from the Northern Perimeter Road (which
IME is where all the hotels are) to the central Terminals and one to T5
The [hotels along] northern perimeter road are not a point source,
but it was the example given, to which I was replying
Post by Roland Perry
nor are they mopped up by every bus. It's very patchy.
If someone is choosing to stay at an LHR hotel but needs to leave before the
hotel hopper starts at 4am, they really ought to select their hotel
carefully if they are looking to travel to the terminal by bus

tim
Post by Roland Perry
--
Roland Perry
MissRiaElaine
2019-09-23 16:46:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would
change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds
of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those fuckwits
got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again.
They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second
runway at Gatwick would make far more sense.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Roland Perry
2019-09-23 17:49:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second
runway at Gatwick would make far more sense.
I wonder why no-one suggested that?
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-09-23 19:47:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would
change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds
of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those fuckwits
got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again.
They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second
runway at Gatwick would make far more sense.
Not according to the official Airports Commission, the majority of
passengers or the airlines.
MissRiaElaine
2019-09-26 12:21:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would
change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds
of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those fuckwits
got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again.
They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second
runway at Gatwick would make far more sense.
Not according to the official Airports Commission, the majority of
passengers or the airlines.
Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than
Heathrow any day.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Recliner
2019-09-26 12:53:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:21:23 +0100, MissRiaElaine
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would
change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds
of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those fuckwits
got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again.
They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second
runway at Gatwick would make far more sense.
Not according to the official Airports Commission, the majority of
passengers or the airlines.
Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than
Heathrow any day.
Ah, a retired Aberdonian bus driver prefers Gatwick to Heathrow, so we
need to rush to revise the entire London airports strategy! But
perhaps you need to first persuade your own government that your idea
is better:

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37605123>
MissRiaElaine
2019-09-26 17:46:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:21:23 +0100, MissRiaElaine
Post by MissRiaElaine
Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than
Heathrow any day.
Ah, a retired Aberdonian bus driver prefers Gatwick to Heathrow, so we
need to rush to revise the entire London airports strategy! But
perhaps you need to first persuade your own government that your idea
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37605123>
I doubt anybody could persuade *that* shower of anything.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
tim...
2019-09-26 13:53:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would
change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds
of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those fuckwits
got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again.
They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second
runway at Gatwick would make far more sense.
Not according to the official Airports Commission, the majority of
passengers or the airlines.
Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than
Heathrow any day.
after suffering a 20 minute walk from the gate to passport control, at T2
this week, so would I

tim
Arthur Conan Doyle
2019-09-26 13:58:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
after suffering a 20 minute walk from the gate to passport control, at T2
this week, so would I
I agree - that trek is really a pain. Are there any plans to shorten it as the
core is redeveloped?
tim...
2019-09-26 14:15:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arthur Conan Doyle
Post by tim...
after suffering a 20 minute walk from the gate to passport control, at T2
this week, so would I
I agree - that trek is really a pain. Are there any plans to shorten it as the
core is redeveloped?
I doubt it

It's all within the very new building (I think)
Recliner
2019-09-26 14:27:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Arthur Conan Doyle
Post by tim...
after suffering a 20 minute walk from the gate to passport control, at T2
this week, so would I
I agree - that trek is really a pain. Are there any plans to shorten it as the
core is redeveloped?
I doubt it
It's all within the very new building (I think)
No, the long walks are in the satellite (which started out as part of
T1) and the long underground walkway to it. The relatively few gates
in the main terminal building don't have long walks.
Recliner
2019-09-26 14:47:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 15:27:50 +0100, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Arthur Conan Doyle
Post by tim...
after suffering a 20 minute walk from the gate to passport control, at T2
this week, so would I
I agree - that trek is really a pain. Are there any plans to shorten it as the
core is redeveloped?
I doubt it
It's all within the very new building (I think)
No, the long walks are in the satellite (which started out as part of
T1) and the long underground walkway to it. The relatively few gates
in the main terminal building don't have long walks.
BTW, here's some pics I took of the long underground walkway and
travelators:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157671130714396>
Recliner
2019-09-26 14:26:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 08:58:26 -0500, Arthur Conan Doyle
Post by Arthur Conan Doyle
Post by tim...
after suffering a 20 minute walk from the gate to passport control, at T2
this week, so would I
I agree - that trek is really a pain. Are there any plans to shorten it as the
core is redeveloped?
One hopes that there will one day be an underground shuttle to the
satellite, as in T5, rather than the long walkway with three
travelators. I think the long-term plan for T2 is to have another
parallel eastern satellite (as well as two western satellites,
replacing T3), and that will certainly require a shuttle.
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2019-09-27 19:24:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:21:23 +0100
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would
change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking
pounds
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those
fuckwits
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again.
They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second
runway at Gatwick would make far more sense.
Not according to the official Airports Commission, the majority of
passengers or the airlines.
Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than
Heathrow any day.
Bit of a PITA to get to unless you live near the airport or the brighton main
line.
Roland Perry
2019-09-28 06:34:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:21:23 +0100
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would
change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking
pounds
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those
fuckwits
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again.
They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second
runway at Gatwick would make far more sense.
Not according to the official Airports Commission, the majority of
passengers or the airlines.
Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than
Heathrow any day.
Bit of a PITA to get to unless you live near the airport
Or the M25. The eastern section of which I find much more reliable than
the western.
Post by Recliner
or the brighton main line.
Which serves Central London with its connections and even direct trains
from counties norf of the river, that latter something which Heathrow
lacks (until Crossrail serves parts of Essex).
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-09-28 12:35:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:21:23 +0100
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would
change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking
pounds
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those
fuckwits
Post by Recliner
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again.
They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second
runway at Gatwick would make far more sense.
Not according to the official Airports Commission, the majority of
passengers or the airlines.
Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than
Heathrow any day.
Bit of a PITA to get to unless you live near the airport
Or the M25. The eastern section of which I find much more reliable than
the western.
Post by Recliner
or the brighton main line.
Which serves Central London with its connections and even direct trains
from counties norf of the river, that latter something which Heathrow
lacks (until Crossrail serves parts of Essex).
That's ignoring the Tube, of course.
Roland Perry
2019-09-28 12:53:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than
Heathrow any day.
Bit of a PITA to get to unless you live near the airport
Or the M25. The eastern section of which I find much more reliable than
the western.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
or the brighton main line.
Which serves Central London with its connections and even direct trains
from counties norf of the river, that latter something which Heathrow
lacks (until Crossrail serves parts of Essex).
That's ignoring the Tube, of course.
Yes, I forgot the inhabitants of Cockfosters, and their fortitude in
getting a tube to Heathrow.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-09-28 13:03:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than
Heathrow any day.
Bit of a PITA to get to unless you live near the airport
Or the M25. The eastern section of which I find much more reliable than
the western.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
or the brighton main line.
Which serves Central London with its connections and even direct trains
from counties norf of the river, that latter something which Heathrow
lacks (until Crossrail serves parts of Essex).
That's ignoring the Tube, of course.
Yes, I forgot the inhabitants of Cockfosters, and their fortitude in
getting a tube to Heathrow.
Last time I looked, the West End was also north of the river. I live
north of the river, and my rail journeys to and from Heathrow are
always on the Piccadilly line. The Picc serves far more stations in
London than Crossrail will.
Roland Perry
2019-09-28 13:57:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than
Heathrow any day.
Bit of a PITA to get to unless you live near the airport
Or the M25. The eastern section of which I find much more reliable than
the western.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
or the brighton main line.
Which serves Central London with its connections and even direct trains
from counties norf of the river, that latter something which Heathrow
lacks (until Crossrail serves parts of Essex).
That's ignoring the Tube, of course.
Yes, I forgot the inhabitants of Cockfosters, and their fortitude in
getting a tube to Heathrow.
Last time I looked, the West End was also north of the river.
In which county north of the river?
Post by Recliner
I live north of the river, and my rail journeys to and from Heathrow
are always on the Piccadilly line. The Picc serves far more stations in
London than Crossrail will.
It's a rather tedious way to get to and from work at Heathrow, if you
live north of Kings Cross.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-09-28 14:47:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than
Heathrow any day.
Bit of a PITA to get to unless you live near the airport
Or the M25. The eastern section of which I find much more reliable than
the western.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
or the brighton main line.
Which serves Central London with its connections and even direct trains
from counties norf of the river, that latter something which Heathrow
lacks (until Crossrail serves parts of Essex).
That's ignoring the Tube, of course.
Yes, I forgot the inhabitants of Cockfosters, and their fortitude in
getting a tube to Heathrow.
Last time I looked, the West End was also north of the river.
In which county north of the river?
Post by Recliner
I live north of the river, and my rail journeys to and from Heathrow
are always on the Piccadilly line. The Picc serves far more stations in
London than Crossrail will.
It's a rather tedious way to get to and from work at Heathrow, if you
live north of Kings Cross.
Is there a better way using PT? Obviously, people who don't live near a
Piccadilly line station might change to the line at, say, Finsbury Park.
Roland Perry
2019-09-28 14:54:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I live north of the river, and my rail journeys to and from Heathrow
are always on the Piccadilly line. The Picc serves far more stations in
London than Crossrail will.
It's a rather tedious way to get to and from work at Heathrow, if you
live north of Kings Cross.
Is there a better way using PT? Obviously, people who don't live near a
Piccadilly line station might change to the line at, say, Finsbury Park.
As the Irishman asked for directions famously said "I wouldn't start
from there".
--
Roland Perry
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2019-09-28 19:56:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 13:53:20 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than
Heathrow any day.
Bit of a PITA to get to unless you live near the airport
Or the M25. The eastern section of which I find much more reliable than
the western.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
or the brighton main line.
Which serves Central London with its connections and even direct trains
from counties norf of the river, that latter something which Heathrow
lacks (until Crossrail serves parts of Essex).
That's ignoring the Tube, of course.
Yes, I forgot the inhabitants of Cockfosters, and their fortitude in
getting a tube to Heathrow.
LU have recently converted some corner seats on the 73 stock to being a bit of
fabric over the top of concrete. They must have installed some new underseat
equipment because I can't think of any other good reason to do it.
David Cantrell
2019-09-30 09:15:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:21:23 +0100
Post by MissRiaElaine
Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than
Heathrow any day.
Bit of a PITA to get to unless you live near the airport or the brighton main
line.
Bit like any other airport, and indeed, any other *thing* is a bit of a
PITA to get to unless you live in the right place.
--
David Cantrell | even more awesome than a panda-fur coat

What is the difference between hearing aliens through the
fillings in your teeth and hearing Jesus in your heart?
tim...
2019-09-25 12:45:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would
change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds
of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those fuckwits
got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again.
They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow.
they still haven't

tim
tim...
2019-09-25 12:39:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expec
ted-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.
If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone
emissions, would be noticeable.
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would
change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds
of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those fuckwits
got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again.
There are so many BAD reports of what the cheaper end of the market (where
cheaper is still quite expensive) does with your car that I'm surprised
anybody uses them

but they do

tim
Basil Jet
2019-09-23 13:58:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.
Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for?
--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Pulp - Countdown
Someone Somewhere
2019-09-23 14:06:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.
Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for?
Weren't those just for pushback?

It would, of course, clearly be better if the took the planes to their
start points on the runway, but I'm assuming that if they're on their
own power from the point of no return on the taxiways you can get a
better throughput as you don't have to wait for the drones to decouple
and get (provably) out of the way.
Roland Perry
2019-09-23 14:27:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-exp
ected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of
vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the
extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the
A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to
take off position.
What we really need here is fuel per passenger.
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Basil Jet
Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for?
Weren't those just for pushback?
It would, of course, clearly be better if the took the planes to their
start points on the runway,
FSVO "better", I think the extra time taken would clog the taxiways up a
bit, as well as adding time to the flights.
Post by Someone Somewhere
but I'm assuming that if they're on their own power from the point of
no return on the taxiways you can get a better throughput as you don't
have to wait for the drones to decouple and get (provably) out of the
way.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-09-23 14:58:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-exp
ected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of
vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the
extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the
A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to
take off position.
What we really need here is fuel per passenger.
I believe the fuel costs about £1 per passenger.
Roland Perry
2019-09-23 15:19:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-exp
ected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of
vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the
extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the
A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to
take off position.
What we really need here is fuel per passenger.
I believe the fuel costs about £1 per passenger.
So about the same as the fuel used by a car getting from the M25 to
terminals 2/3 and back.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2019-09-25 12:51:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-exp
ected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of
vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the
extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the
A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to
take off position.
What we really need here is fuel per passenger.
I believe the fuel costs about £1 per passenger.
from the airline mag [1] I was reading yesterday, it apparently costs
150,000 to fly a 767 round trip Europe-USA (didn't specify East or West
Coast)

No mention was made about how that cost was apportioned between operation
costs and capital costs.

tim

[1] As in the mag in the seat pocket on the aircraft, not one full of pretty
pictures (or whatever) that you buy in a newsagents.
Roland Perry
2019-09-25 14:18:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-exp
ected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of
vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the
extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the
A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to
take off position.
What we really need here is fuel per passenger.
I believe the fuel costs about £1 per passenger.
from the airline mag [1] I was reading yesterday, it apparently costs
150,000 to fly a 767 round trip Europe-USA (didn't specify East or West
Coast)
No mention was made about how that cost was apportioned between
operation costs and capital costs.
A typical fare for a flight like that is going to be £400 each way. If
they spend £1 of that taxiing to the end of the runway, we really do
need to find something more useful to discuss than spending 90p on an
electric tug instead.
--
Roland Perry
Someone Somewhere
2019-09-25 14:41:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-exp
ected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of
vehicles  going  to and from the airport will really make up for the
extra emissions  from the  aircraft using the new runway such as the
A380 which burns half a ton  of fuel  just to get from the gate to
take off position.
What we really need here is fuel per passenger.
I believe the fuel costs about £1 per passenger.
from the airline mag [1] I was reading yesterday, it apparently costs
150,000 to fly a 767 round trip Europe-USA (didn't specify East or
West Coast)
No mention was made about how that cost was apportioned between
operation costs and capital costs.
A typical fare for a flight like that is going to be £400 each way. If
they spend £1 of that taxiing to the end of the runway, we really do
need to find something more useful to discuss than spending 90p on an
electric tug instead.
Wasn't the argument less about the money, and more about the fact they
were introducing a congestion charge at LHR due to the locally high
pollution levels and one of the points was less aircraft running their
engines for less time equates to potentially a better local pollution
reduction strategy than a reasonable reduction in cars in the area could
achieve?

Quick back of an envelope calculation: If your car does 40MPG, then
that's about 10km per pound at 130p per litre, which is basically one
return car trip into the Heathrow environs per passenger. Once you take
into account that aviation fuel is tax free, then a better comparison is
oil price - £50/150 litres, or 33p/litre, so even taking into account
refining cost etc that's probably twice that distance

Given that not every passenger arrives individually in a taxi (the worse
possible scenario in terms of car miles per passenger in the area) then
removing that £1/pax in fuel saves burning more hydrocarbons locally
than would ever be feasible by removing all cars from the LHR area.

Of course, cars don't start their journeys on the perimeter (however
that is defined to be) but that's where the congestion charge is to be
enacted to reduce pollution...
Recliner
2019-09-25 15:03:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-exp
ected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of
vehicles  going  to and from the airport will really make up for the
extra emissions  from the  aircraft using the new runway such as the
A380 which burns half a ton  of fuel  just to get from the gate to
take off position.
What we really need here is fuel per passenger.
I believe the fuel costs about £1 per passenger.
from the airline mag [1] I was reading yesterday, it apparently costs
150,000 to fly a 767 round trip Europe-USA (didn't specify East or
West Coast)
No mention was made about how that cost was apportioned between
operation costs and capital costs.
A typical fare for a flight like that is going to be £400 each way. If
they spend £1 of that taxiing to the end of the runway, we really do
need to find something more useful to discuss than spending 90p on an
electric tug instead.
Wasn't the argument less about the money, and more about the fact they
were introducing a congestion charge at LHR due to the locally high
pollution levels and one of the points was less aircraft running their
engines for less time equates to potentially a better local pollution
reduction strategy than a reasonable reduction in cars in the area could
achieve?
Quick back of an envelope calculation: If your car does 40MPG, then
that's about 10km per pound at 130p per litre, which is basically one
return car trip into the Heathrow environs per passenger. Once you take
into account that aviation fuel is tax free, then a better comparison is
oil price - £50/150 litres, or 33p/litre, so even taking into account
refining cost etc that's probably twice that distance
Given that not every passenger arrives individually in a taxi (the worse
possible scenario in terms of car miles per passenger in the area) then
removing that £1/pax in fuel saves burning more hydrocarbons locally
than would ever be feasible by removing all cars from the LHR area.
Of course, cars don't start their journeys on the perimeter (however
that is defined to be) but that's where the congestion charge is to be
enacted to reduce pollution...
The aircraft engines will still need to be started and warjed up some
minutes before take-off, so they'll still burn much of that fuel. The
powerful tugs needed to haul the aircraft will also consume fuel on their
journeys in both directions. I don't think there are any electric options
yet for that sort of powerful tug, so that means diesel. They will also
need drivers, and dedicated routes around the airport that don't get in the
way of planes. So it's not a clean option, and would almost certainly cost
more than the current system — which is why no airport does it.
Someone Somewhere
2019-09-25 15:22:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-exp
ected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of
vehicles  going  to and from the airport will really make up for the
extra emissions  from the  aircraft using the new runway such as the
A380 which burns half a ton  of fuel  just to get from the gate to
take off position.
What we really need here is fuel per passenger.
I believe the fuel costs about £1 per passenger.
from the airline mag [1] I was reading yesterday, it apparently costs
150,000 to fly a 767 round trip Europe-USA (didn't specify East or
West Coast)
No mention was made about how that cost was apportioned between
operation costs and capital costs.
A typical fare for a flight like that is going to be £400 each way. If
they spend £1 of that taxiing to the end of the runway, we really do
need to find something more useful to discuss than spending 90p on an
electric tug instead.
Wasn't the argument less about the money, and more about the fact they
were introducing a congestion charge at LHR due to the locally high
pollution levels and one of the points was less aircraft running their
engines for less time equates to potentially a better local pollution
reduction strategy than a reasonable reduction in cars in the area could
achieve?
Quick back of an envelope calculation: If your car does 40MPG, then
that's about 10km per pound at 130p per litre, which is basically one
return car trip into the Heathrow environs per passenger. Once you take
into account that aviation fuel is tax free, then a better comparison is
oil price - £50/150 litres, or 33p/litre, so even taking into account
refining cost etc that's probably twice that distance
Given that not every passenger arrives individually in a taxi (the worse
possible scenario in terms of car miles per passenger in the area) then
removing that £1/pax in fuel saves burning more hydrocarbons locally
than would ever be feasible by removing all cars from the LHR area.
Of course, cars don't start their journeys on the perimeter (however
that is defined to be) but that's where the congestion charge is to be
enacted to reduce pollution...
The aircraft engines will still need to be started and warjed up some
minutes before take-off, so they'll still burn much of that fuel. The
powerful tugs needed to haul the aircraft will also consume fuel on their
journeys in both directions. I don't think there are any electric options
yet for that sort of powerful tug, so that means diesel. They will also
need drivers, and dedicated routes around the airport that don't get in the
way of planes. So it's not a clean option, and would almost certainly cost
more than the current system — which is why no airport does it.
And the discussion started as there aer electric tugs for shorthaul and
there may be larger ones for bigger jets.

The other discussion was about an autonomous (or partly autonomous)
system. Being facetious I could point out there are the pods at
Heathrow already, so similar technology with a much beefier vehicle
could be plausible.

I accept it might need technologies and systems that don't exist, and a
network of routes for them to get around, but if you're engaged in
spending £15BN on a new runway and to get it accepted you need to reduce
pollution then that kind of thing can be a driver to actually consider
these sort of things rather than take the easy route (which strangely
actually raises revenue) of charging cars for access when you operate an
airport that passengers regularly arrive and depart from outside of
normal public transport hours.

So I accept it costs money, but it could be a clean option.

What I'm not sure I accept is the length of time that aircraft engines
need to be running before takeoff - I imagine those things get pretty
hot pretty quickly. What may be an issue is where running the engines
sit in the pre-flight checklists but an electric tug with a big enough
battery could power some of the aircraft systems whilst it is being
towed (there are certainly ground based APUs for those aircraft without
one). Ok - I accept that charging such things may be a problem.
Recliner
2019-09-25 15:44:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Recliner
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-exp
ected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of
vehicles  going  to and from the airport will really make up for the
extra emissions  from the  aircraft using the new runway such as the
A380 which burns half a ton  of fuel  just to get from the gate to
take off position.
What we really need here is fuel per passenger.
I believe the fuel costs about £1 per passenger.
from the airline mag [1] I was reading yesterday, it apparently costs
150,000 to fly a 767 round trip Europe-USA (didn't specify East or
West Coast)
No mention was made about how that cost was apportioned between
operation costs and capital costs.
A typical fare for a flight like that is going to be £400 each way. If
they spend £1 of that taxiing to the end of the runway, we really do
need to find something more useful to discuss than spending 90p on an
electric tug instead.
Wasn't the argument less about the money, and more about the fact they
were introducing a congestion charge at LHR due to the locally high
pollution levels and one of the points was less aircraft running their
engines for less time equates to potentially a better local pollution
reduction strategy than a reasonable reduction in cars in the area could
achieve?
Quick back of an envelope calculation: If your car does 40MPG, then
that's about 10km per pound at 130p per litre, which is basically one
return car trip into the Heathrow environs per passenger. Once you take
into account that aviation fuel is tax free, then a better comparison is
oil price - £50/150 litres, or 33p/litre, so even taking into account
refining cost etc that's probably twice that distance
Given that not every passenger arrives individually in a taxi (the worse
possible scenario in terms of car miles per passenger in the area) then
removing that £1/pax in fuel saves burning more hydrocarbons locally
than would ever be feasible by removing all cars from the LHR area.
Of course, cars don't start their journeys on the perimeter (however
that is defined to be) but that's where the congestion charge is to be
enacted to reduce pollution...
The aircraft engines will still need to be started and warjed up some
minutes before take-off, so they'll still burn much of that fuel. The
powerful tugs needed to haul the aircraft will also consume fuel on their
journeys in both directions. I don't think there are any electric options
yet for that sort of powerful tug, so that means diesel. They will also
need drivers, and dedicated routes around the airport that don't get in the
way of planes. So it's not a clean option, and would almost certainly cost
more than the current system — which is why no airport does it.
And the discussion started as there aer electric tugs for shorthaul and
there may be larger ones for bigger jets.
Yes, possibly, but those pushback tugs are much less powerful, and need far
less battery capacity than the far heftier tugs that could tow aircraft at
normal taxi speeds (30-45 km/h) on non-level taxiways for distances of
several miles. I'm not even sure that such high towing speeds are allowed,
because of the stress on the nose landing gear.

The electric pushback tugs only move the aircraft very slowly for distances
of 100m or so, and then have a recharge, which is a vastly smaller task.
Post by Someone Somewhere
The other discussion was about an autonomous (or partly autonomous)
system. Being facetious I could point out there are the pods at
Heathrow already, so similar technology with a much beefier vehicle
could be plausible.
The pods run only on a guideway, with no conflicting traffic.
Post by Someone Somewhere
I accept it might need technologies and systems that don't exist, and a
network of routes for them to get around, but if you're engaged in
spending £15BN on a new runway and to get it accepted you need to reduce
pollution then that kind of thing can be a driver to actually consider
these sort of things rather than take the easy route (which strangely
actually raises revenue) of charging cars for access when you operate an
airport that passengers regularly arrive and depart from outside of
normal public transport hours.
So I accept it costs money, but it could be a clean option.
A lot more money, and only slightly cleaner.
Post by Someone Somewhere
What I'm not sure I accept is the length of time that aircraft engines
need to be running before takeoff - I imagine those things get pretty
hot pretty quickly.
Apparently it's 2-5 minutes, and then there are the checks on pressures,
etc. So it's perhaps 25-50% of the taxi time.
Post by Someone Somewhere
What may be an issue is where running the engines
sit in the pre-flight checklists but an electric tug with a big enough
battery could power some of the aircraft systems whilst it is being
towed (there are certainly ground based APUs for those aircraft without
one). Ok - I accept that charging such things may be a problem.
The tugs would need the power of a railway locomotive. Remind me, how many
battery powered locos are in service?
Marland
2019-09-25 16:37:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Someone Somewhere
What may be an issue is where running the engines
sit in the pre-flight checklists but an electric tug with a big enough
battery could power some of the aircraft systems whilst it is being
towed (there are certainly ground based APUs for those aircraft without
one). Ok - I accept that charging such things may be a problem.
The tugs would need the power of a railway locomotive. Remind me, how many
battery powered locos are in service?
Well you haven’t specified a size so we could start with the ones
traditionally used for engineering on the London Underground , don’t know
the exact number but it used to be around 29.

Something that size will be impractical for the task mentioned but smaller
examples tend to be used out of sight in numerous mines though as the UK
has relatively few such operations left most are used abroad such as those
exported by the Clayton Equipment company who have also converted diesel
locos to battery
for the Underground , they don’t horrendously large

http://www.tribe-engineering.co.uk/portfolio/clayton-equipment-cb40-locomotive/


Newcastle Metro also operate a couple of battery locos which like the
London ones they can run off the normal power supply if it is available.

Glasgow subway operate a couple of battery locos for engineering work as
well.

GH
Recliner
2019-09-26 12:58:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Someone Somewhere
What may be an issue is where running the engines
sit in the pre-flight checklists but an electric tug with a big enough
battery could power some of the aircraft systems whilst it is being
towed (there are certainly ground based APUs for those aircraft without
one). Ok - I accept that charging such things may be a problem.
The tugs would need the power of a railway locomotive. Remind me, how many
battery powered locos are in service?
Well you haven’t specified a size so we could start with the ones
traditionally used for engineering on the London Underground , don’t know
the exact number but it used to be around 29.
Something that size will be impractical for the task mentioned but smaller
examples tend to be used out of sight in numerous mines though as the UK
has relatively few such operations left most are used abroad such as those
exported by the Clayton Equipment company who have also converted diesel
locos to battery
for the Underground , they don’t horrendously large
http://www.tribe-engineering.co.uk/portfolio/clayton-equipment-cb40-locomotive/
Newcastle Metro also operate a couple of battery locos which like the
London ones they can run off the normal power supply if it is available.
Glasgow subway operate a couple of battery locos for engineering work as
well.
An A380 tug would probably need as much tractive effort as a large
railway loco.
Recliner
2019-09-23 15:04:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.
Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for?
They don't fly, so they're not drones.

They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful
enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In
any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise
be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes,
but not aviation fuel.
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2019-09-23 15:35:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:04:12 +0100
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of
fuel
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
just to get from the gate to take off position.
Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for?
They don't fly, so they're not drones.
They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful
enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In
any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise
be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes,
but not aviation fuel.
If you knew anything about physics you'd be aware that using a jet engine to
push a vehicle on the ground is far less efficient than using powered wheels.
Half of the energy is wasted on chucking air backwards rather than making the
aircraft go forwards.
Recliner
2019-09-23 15:44:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:04:12 +0100
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of
fuel
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
just to get from the gate to take off position.
Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for?
They don't fly, so they're not drones.
They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful
enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In
any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise
be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes,
but not aviation fuel.
If you knew anything about physics you'd be aware that using a jet engine to
push a vehicle on the ground is far less efficient than using powered wheels.
Half of the energy is wasted on chucking air backwards rather than making the
aircraft go forwards.
Who are you arguing with? Nobody claimed that jet engines were an
efficient way of moving large vehicles slowly round an airport. We were
discussing diesel vs battery pushback tugs.
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2019-09-23 16:21:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:44:25 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:04:12 +0100
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of
fuel
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
just to get from the gate to take off position.
Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for?
They don't fly, so they're not drones.
They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful
enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In
any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise
be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes,
but not aviation fuel.
If you knew anything about physics you'd be aware that using a jet engine to
push a vehicle on the ground is far less efficient than using powered wheels.
Half of the energy is wasted on chucking air backwards rather than making the
aircraft go forwards.
Who are you arguing with? Nobody claimed that jet engines were an
efficient way of moving large vehicles slowly round an airport. We were
discussing diesel vs battery pushback tugs.
At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using
reverse thrusters.
Recliner
2019-09-23 19:47:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:44:25 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:04:12 +0100
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of
fuel
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
just to get from the gate to take off position.
Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for?
They don't fly, so they're not drones.
They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful
enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In
any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise
be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes,
but not aviation fuel.
If you knew anything about physics you'd be aware that using a jet engine to
push a vehicle on the ground is far less efficient than using powered wheels.
Half of the energy is wasted on chucking air backwards rather than making the
aircraft go forwards.
Who are you arguing with? Nobody claimed that jet engines were an
efficient way of moving large vehicles slowly round an airport. We were
discussing diesel vs battery pushback tugs.
At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using
reverse thrusters.
Name one.
Arthur Conan Doyle
2019-09-24 10:40:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Name one.
Was quite common at DFW with American Airlines DC-9/MD-80 aircraft. They stopped
doing that when fuel prices spiked a number of years ago.
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2019-09-27 19:26:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 19:47:45 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:44:25 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:04:12 +0100
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of
fuel
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
just to get from the gate to take off position.
Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for?
They don't fly, so they're not drones.
They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful
enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In
any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise
be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes,
but not aviation fuel.
If you knew anything about physics you'd be aware that using a jet engine
to
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
push a vehicle on the ground is far less efficient than using powered
wheels.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Half of the energy is wasted on chucking air backwards rather than making
the
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
aircraft go forwards.
Who are you arguing with? Nobody claimed that jet engines were an
efficient way of moving large vehicles slowly round an airport. We were
discussing diesel vs battery pushback tugs.
At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using
reverse thrusters.
Name one.
Borispol, Kiev.
Recliner
2019-09-27 20:11:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 19:47:45 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:44:25 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:04:12 +0100
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of
fuel
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
just to get from the gate to take off position.
Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for?
They don't fly, so they're not drones.
They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful
enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In
any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise
be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes,
but not aviation fuel.
If you knew anything about physics you'd be aware that using a jet engine
to
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
push a vehicle on the ground is far less efficient than using powered
wheels.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Half of the energy is wasted on chucking air backwards rather than making
the
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
aircraft go forwards.
Who are you arguing with? Nobody claimed that jet engines were an
efficient way of moving large vehicles slowly round an airport. We were
discussing diesel vs battery pushback tugs.
At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using
reverse thrusters.
Name one.
Borispol, Kiev.
<https://www.123rf.com/photo_113415088_borispol-ukraine-october-05-2018-the-pushback-of-the-ellinair-airbus-a320-200-aircraft-in-the-borisp.html>


b***@nowhere.co.uk
2019-09-28 11:54:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 20:11:38 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 19:47:45 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:44:25 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:04:12 +0100
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton
of
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
fuel
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
just to get from the gate to take off position.
Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are
for?
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
They don't fly, so they're not drones.
They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful
enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In
any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise
be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes,
but not aviation fuel.
If you knew anything about physics you'd be aware that using a jet engine
to
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
push a vehicle on the ground is far less efficient than using powered
wheels.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Half of the energy is wasted on chucking air backwards rather than making
the
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
aircraft go forwards.
Who are you arguing with? Nobody claimed that jet engines were an
efficient way of moving large vehicles slowly round an airport. We were
discussing diesel vs battery pushback tugs.
At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back
using
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
reverse thrusters.
Name one.
Borispol, Kiev.
<https://www.123rf.com/photo_113415088_borispol-ukraine-october-05-2018-the-pus
hback-of-the-ellinair-airbus-a320-200-aircraft-in-the-borisp.html>
http://youtu.be/7ifDnXNNeLM
Not even bothering to look - I was in a plane that did it there so go do one.
Recliner
2019-09-28 13:04:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 20:11:38 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 19:47:45 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:44:25 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:04:12 +0100
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton
of
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
fuel
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
just to get from the gate to take off position.
Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are
for?
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
They don't fly, so they're not drones.
They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful
enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In
any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise
be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes,
but not aviation fuel.
If you knew anything about physics you'd be aware that using a jet engine
to
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
push a vehicle on the ground is far less efficient than using powered
wheels.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Half of the energy is wasted on chucking air backwards rather than making
the
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
aircraft go forwards.
Who are you arguing with? Nobody claimed that jet engines were an
efficient way of moving large vehicles slowly round an airport. We were
discussing diesel vs battery pushback tugs.
At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back
using
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
reverse thrusters.
Name one.
Borispol, Kiev.
<https://www.123rf.com/photo_113415088_borispol-ukraine-october-05-2018-the-pus
hback-of-the-ellinair-airbus-a320-200-aircraft-in-the-borisp.html>
http://youtu.be/7ifDnXNNeLM
Not even bothering to look - I was in a plane that did it there so go do one.
Probably a very long time ago.
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2019-09-28 19:54:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 14:04:23 +0100
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
<https://www.123rf.com/photo_113415088_borispol-ukraine-october-05-2018-the-p
us
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
hback-of-the-ellinair-airbus-a320-200-aircraft-in-the-borisp.html>
http://youtu.be/7ifDnXNNeLM
Not even bothering to look - I was in a plane that did it there so go do one.
Probably a very long time ago.
2006 or 2007, can't quite remember. Back when the airport was literally 1
terminal building, a hanger and an apron. Its apparently much bigger now.
John Levine
2019-09-24 02:39:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using
reverse thrusters.
The last plane I saw push back with a thrust reverser was an MD-80
quite a long time ago. I believe that nobody does that any more both
because it burns a lot of fuel, and the risk of junk getting into the
engine or the exhaust hurting someone on the tarmac near the plane.
--
Regards,
John Levine, ***@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Someone Somewhere
2019-09-24 07:34:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using
reverse thrusters.
The last plane I saw push back with a thrust reverser was an MD-80
quite a long time ago. I believe that nobody does that any more both
because it burns a lot of fuel, and the risk of junk getting into the
engine or the exhaust hurting someone on the tarmac near the plane.
It's actually the fact that most airport terminals are now vast walls of
glass and the consequential risk of damage (obviously not every time,
but even with a 0.1% chance then that's one broken pane a day at e.g. LHR)
Recliner
2019-09-24 07:57:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by John Levine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using
reverse thrusters.
The last plane I saw push back with a thrust reverser was an MD-80
quite a long time ago. I believe that nobody does that any more both
because it burns a lot of fuel, and the risk of junk getting into the
engine or the exhaust hurting someone on the tarmac near the plane.
It's actually the fact that most airport terminals are now vast walls of
glass and the consequential risk of damage (obviously not every time,
but even with a 0.1% chance then that's one broken pane a day at e.g. LHR)
Yes, reverse thrust pushbacks are banned at most terminals because of the
significant risk of damage to the building, ramp workers, vehicles and
ground equipment, as well as FOD to the aircraft engines (the debris blown
forward would be sucked into the engines). If no pushback tugs are
available for an extended period for some reason (eg, a strike), an airline
may request a reverse thrust departure (if their aircraft is capable of it
— not all are) but the request would normally be rejected. It would
certainly need to be approved at a high level, and I wonder whose insurance
would cover the likely damage?
Graeme Wall
2019-09-24 12:51:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:04:12 +0100
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of
fuel
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
just to get from the gate to take off position.
Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for?
They don't fly, so they're not drones.
They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful
enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In
any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise
be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes,
but not aviation fuel.
If you knew anything about physics you'd be aware that using a jet engine to
push a vehicle on the ground is far less efficient than using powered wheels.
Half of the energy is wasted on chucking air backwards rather than making the
aircraft go forwards.
ROTFL
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Someone Somewhere
2019-09-23 15:45:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.
Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for?
They don't fly, so they're not drones.
They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful
enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In
any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise
be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes,
but not aviation fuel.
But it seems obvious that the best solution would be some kind of
(presumably) electrical tug that could take a plane from the gate to the
point where it needs to switch to using its own engines for takeoff.
This might require some taxiway optimisation (as at the last point
before turning on to the runway the planes would presumably spend
somewhat longer there), and some way for the tugs to get out of the way
(but a smaller taxiway for them to return via would be perfectly easy to
do).

If you took the idea further then you could considerably optimise the
airport - planes would only need to be at gates for when passengers were
embarking/disembarking and there could be dedicated cleaning and
refueling areas where planes could be taken at the relevant times. Yes
- I realise that for shorthaul there are often very quick turnarounds,
but at LHR for example there seems to be a poor utilisation of gates in
a lot of circumstances.
Recliner
2019-09-23 16:01:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.
Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for?
They don't fly, so they're not drones.
They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful
enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In
any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise
be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes,
but not aviation fuel.
But it seems obvious that the best solution would be some kind of
(presumably) electrical tug that could take a plane from the gate to the
point where it needs to switch to using its own engines for takeoff.
This might require some taxiway optimisation (as at the last point
before turning on to the runway the planes would presumably spend
somewhat longer there), and some way for the tugs to get out of the way
(but a smaller taxiway for them to return via would be perfectly easy to
do).
Yes, ideas along these lines are often suggested, but I guess the economics
don't yet work. I'm not sure how long jet engines need to run before
take-off — perhaps quite a bit of the taxi time?
Post by Someone Somewhere
If you took the idea further then you could considerably optimise the
airport - planes would only need to be at gates for when passengers were
embarking/disembarking and there could be dedicated cleaning and
refueling areas where planes could be taken at the relevant times. Yes
- I realise that for shorthaul there are often very quick turnarounds,
but at LHR for example there seems to be a poor utilisation of gates in
a lot of circumstances.
They do move long haul planes away from the gates during layovers. For
example, you can normally see a Qantas A380 parked near the tank farm
during the day. If you look on Google Maps you'll see six planes parked in
that area, and another near the control tower. There's also a parking area
to the east of T2 with room for about eight aircraft.

But moving the aircraft to and from the remote stands costs money and
disrupts other aircraft movements, so is only worth doing if there's a
shortage of gates.
Someone Somewhere
2019-09-23 16:28:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
But moving the aircraft to and from the remote stands costs money and
disrupts other aircraft movements, so is only worth doing if there's a
shortage of gates.
Yes but again with an automated, electrically powered movement system
that might be able to be improved.

Talking of that, there's an awful lot of dead space at airports covered
with grass - could you cover that with solar panels to charge up
batteries to power all those autonomous tugs?

I just always appreciate when I land on a plane late in the evening that
despite the airport being almost done for the day, you always seem to
end up at some remote gate and have a hike to passport control past
plenty of dark gates all with aircraft sat at them that clearly won't be
used for a good number of hours.
David Cantrell
2019-09-24 12:19:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Someone Somewhere
But it seems obvious that the best solution would be some kind of
(presumably) electrical tug that could take a plane from the gate to the
point where it needs to switch to using its own engines for takeoff.
Given that the engines (I believe) turn the generators that provide
electrical power, that point is the point at which the plane is
disconnected from ground power. They need electricity to power the
radios that let them talk to the control tower, run air conditioning,
make announcements to passengers, and so on.
Post by Someone Somewhere
If you took the idea further then you could considerably optimise the
airport - planes would only need to be at gates for when passengers were
embarking/disembarking ...
You just introduced a lot of complex ground movements. And while that
might (might, not will) make more efficient use of the gates, it won't
make more efficient use of taxiways, runways, or aircraft.
--
David Cantrell | even more awesome than a panda-fur coat

Longum iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla.
Roland Perry
2019-09-24 12:29:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Someone Somewhere
But it seems obvious that the best solution would be some kind of
(presumably) electrical tug that could take a plane from the gate to the
point where it needs to switch to using its own engines for takeoff.
Given that the engines (I believe) turn the generators that provide
electrical power, that point is the point at which the plane is
disconnected from ground power. They need electricity to power the
radios that let them talk to the control tower, run air conditioning,
make announcements to passengers, and so on.
Which is why many aircraft had an engine (aka APU) in the tail to
provide that.

Failing that, batteries, like the much lamented lithium ones in
Dreamliners.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-09-24 13:26:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Someone Somewhere
But it seems obvious that the best solution would be some kind of
(presumably) electrical tug that could take a plane from the gate to the
point where it needs to switch to using its own engines for takeoff.
Given that the engines (I believe) turn the generators that provide
electrical power, that point is the point at which the plane is
disconnected from ground power. They need electricity to power the
radios that let them talk to the control tower, run air conditioning,
make announcements to passengers, and so on.
Which is why many aircraft had an engine (aka APU) in the tail to
provide that.
Failing that, batteries, like the much lamented lithium ones in
Dreamliners.
Yes, airliners use the APU to power the lights, aircon, radios, etc
when they're on the ground without main engines running if there isn't
ground power. So even if the plane was towed to near the take-off
point by an electric tug, the APU would still have to run. The APU
also provides the power to start the main engines.
Arthur Conan Doyle
2019-09-24 14:25:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Someone Somewhere
But it seems obvious that the best solution would be some kind of
(presumably) electrical tug that could take a plane from the gate to the
point where it needs to switch to using its own engines for takeoff.
Given that the engines (I believe) turn the generators that provide
electrical power, that point is the point at which the plane is
disconnected from ground power. They need electricity to power the
radios that let them talk to the control tower, run air conditioning,
make announcements to passengers, and so on.
Commercial aircraft have an APU (auxiliary power unit) that provides power for
the things you mentioned when ground power is not available and the main engines
are not running. These are small jet engines located in the rear of the
fuselage.

A few years ago there was a big industry focus on reducing ground use of jet
fuel. The two main areas looked at were self propelled sysems (i.e. adding
electric motors to the landing gear) and battery powered robotic tugs that would
bring the aircraft to the runway.

The problem with both approaches was economic. In the case of the electric drive
motor, the cost of the system, reduction in overall reliability of the aircraft,
and most importantly the cost of additional fuel required to carry the weight of
the motor in flight far offset any ground fuel use savings.

The robot tug had similar economic issues, as well as the operational issues
already mentioned in this thread.
Marland
2019-09-23 16:08:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for?
They don't fly, so they're not drones.
Is there an actual definition for a drone that says it must fly ?
In the past I have heard the term used to describe unmanned submersibles,
they are similar in that like the flying ones they can move along vertical
axis as well as horizontal so perhaps that is what differentiates a drone
from something else but when checking that such submersibles are still
being called drones I came across a few examples of “land drones” mainly
being developed for military use .
eg
https://sites.google.com/site/umainelanddrone10/

Such things used to be just unmanned ground vehicles so is the reality is
that the term drone is now being used to encompass other objects that are
remote controlled and its use in language hasn’t settled yet.

GH
tim...
2019-09-25 12:35:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expected-to-raise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4ca3>
yes that's right

charge all those people who live on the west side of the airport who have no
choice but to drive there because the airport has three times reneged on its
promise to build rail links in that direction

and I bet they reengage on the current promise too

FTAOD I am no longer an interested party here (having spent 35 years of my
working life waiting for the links to be built)

tim
Loading...