[Swissdiver]

LPPS,

Sorry, didn’t get your question. Brainwashed in the sense almost all the politics including the government put a lot of energy and money to explain how necessary Schengen was and unfortunately they could convince more than 50% of the voters (In Switzerland, the people vote on any important matter).

Airbus is known to price extremely aggressively, being backed by illegal subsidies, at least according to the WTO.

LoL. Well, to a certain extent, this is what I do, may-be more in avoiding FRA than A330/340. So I would not add an extra stop, but definitively prefer LHR, and then, AMS and CDG, ZRH, MUC… So FRA is really the last option in Europe.

[VintageKrug]

Exactly, Swissdiver.

hoi polloi are best kept out of complex decision making; if the relatively educated and homogenous citizens of Switzerland cannot vote sensibly, there is little hope for complex policy decisions being put to a vote here in the UK.

The “illegal subsidies” received by airbus are no different from the massive amount of government money/contracts received by Boeing, and the provision in the US for state-sponsored bankruptcy; the WTO is in hock to the US and “would say that wouldn’t it”.

I understand that the A340 is “priced aggressively”/dumped but that the A330 is a tad more successful. The A340 is a dog – which is why Virgin ended up with it. Next time you’re on an A340, see how long it takes to get up to cruising altitude. Ages, especially if you need to pee!!

[Swissdiver]

Bucksnet,

I think it is fair to write people somewhat woke up. We had our general elections last Sunday, and the discussions reflected that concern. There is in addition a good chance we will vote soon (in Switzerland it means within 2 years) in favour of re-discussions about Schengen to get something similar to the UK, i.e. re-introduction of border controls.

We have in addition to face a new penal code that is not favouring jail but rather fines… Useless. Here also we are coming back.

So the hope exists…

[Bucksnet]

VK, you sound like a facist. Not a good quality.

And the WTO are in hock to Germany; the US is under German control.

[RichHI1]

OK politics – don’t want Schengen prefer boeings.
Post – Germany is trying to improve aviation unlike UK. So kudos. What Ifind interesting is they do things in a strange way. In Munich they built the runways too close together to permit dual operation and now I hear FRA runway is built short as land only. Would appreciate input why they take this Quixotic approach.

[VintageKrug]

The airbus vs. Boeing argument is rather dull and better suited to http://www.airliners.net aka kiddiestalkingaboutplanes.com

I think the UK would like to improve aviation; the problem is that in such a small country there simply isn’t the room to build extra capacity easily.

It should be remembered that LCY was opened within the past 25 years, and Stansted was similarly developed into a viable option over the same timeframe, Manchester added a second runway relatively recently, so it’s not as if nothing has happened here in the UK.

As I understand it, the third runway at LHR would have been a short runway, too. Another reason it wasn’t worth building.

[Bucksnet]

Whatever its length, it would have allowed increasing landing capacity and virtually eliminated stacking. I doubt there is much stacking in the Frankfurt area.

[VintageKrug]

Sorry, but it wouldn’t.

Mixed Mode and better flow management across European and Transatlantic airspace would help reduce stacking.

But this new runway would bring more aircraft, not less. And so stacking would likely be just as bad – if not worse – than it is now.

But the crux of the issue – and something you’ve never addressed – is the fact that to reach the Bonkers Third Runway from the Central Area aircraft would have to cross a live runway. Which would reduce capacity on that runway significantly and seriously impact the usefulness of the additional capacity.

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

“Next time you’re on an A340, see how long it takes to get up to cruising altitude. Ages, especially if you need to pee!!”

More generalised nonsense from a poster who lacks credibility.

Whilst the above may be true for the A342/3, it is not for the A345/6.

The reason the A340 is not as popular now is the development of the turbofan to allow 2 to do the job of 4 economically over longer routes and also the re-definition of ETOPS to allow twins more operating latitude. In other words, the A330 has matured very nicely, as has the B777.

[Bucksnet]

First of all VK, I do not agree with the 3rd runway scheme proposed; it does have flaws. However, if the new runway is used for continuous landings, the middle runway would be very lightly used and so not a problem. Other airports with multiple runways manage.

Mixed mode would allow simultaneous landings on both existing LHR runways, but would not be as effective as adding a 3rd runway for landings only.

A new runway would not bring more flights, unless more flights were allowed.

[VintageKrug]

I was referring to the A340-200/300 so my comments were indeed accurate.

Bucksnet; you still haven’t addressed the issue of crossing the runway – there simply isn’t much space for aircraft to queue up; and if the middle runway is to be “very lightly used” as a consequence, and wouldn’t accommodate more flights, then what’s the point in having all the hassle building a third runway.

The issue is that LHR is site-constrained and cannot accommodate the on the ground queueing and volume of crossings.

[Bucksnet]

To increase capacity!

Flights would be able to land without stacking for 30-45 minutes; I think we’ve all experienced it. And the ‘Green Lobby’ need to realise that stacking is just a waste of fuel and increases emissions.

FRA has 3 parallel runways and planes have to cross over, but I suppose as the Germans are more efficient, they can manage it.

Anyway, I don’t agree with the 3rd runway proposal at LHR, and would prefer a clean sheet plan.

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

“I was referring to the A340-200/300 so my comments were indeed accurate.”

Were you really? I think you made a comment without any real understanding of the significant differences between the CFM powered orignals and the different engined developments and are now back tracking. Just as you never answered my question about how mixed mode would deal with the northerly stacks at LHR in the morning.

Try restricting yourself to Avios miles, where you have more knowledge.

[Bucksnet]

Disgusted, to be fair to VK I cannot see a post from you asking about northerly stacks.

[VintageKrug]

I am pleased you’ve seen the light and recognise the folly of a Third runway; I was all for it when I first heard about the plan, but once you dig deeper you realise it actually wouldn’t solve the problem, and would cause enormous disruption in its construction and also in its use.

[Author]

Posts