[Age_of_Reason]

Weel VK, it feels like ‘going it alone’ to me, with BA international and domestic conveniently concentrated in T5, and rather tortuous connection to T1 for competitive domestics on BMid.. It works, so long as you’re booked through on BA, but devalues LHR as an interconnect hub using BA changes.

Look forward to development of MAD as a hub serving UK regions. Nice architect-designed terminal (British quality believe), metro to town where metropolitan night-stop delights await, and a well-timed EJ feeder to EDI, albeit using a.tedious internal airport bus. Room for improvement, scope for investment.

[VintageKrug]

Pleased to see this decision has been reconsidered, and Mixed Mode will now be permitted:

http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/government-announces-plan-to-combat-delays-at-h

[Swissdiver]

Until when, VK? The next election?

[VintageKrug]

There’s a whole raft of changes which need to happen to remove political interference from Aviation Policy, including beefing up the toothless CAA.

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

Mixed mode is not as simple to implement as one might think.

Trials were done in the 1960s at Heathrow and provision made for two final director and PAR positions.

There are some particular challenges, apart from the resident’s objections.

1) Airspace is tight and vectoring becomes challenging
2) Mixed mode is ideal when a steady stream of aircraft can land/depart from/to the north and south, this is not the reality
3) Stands are a major constraint, so if you increase the arrival flow rate, you may not be able to find a stand
4) Taxiways are very busy, so it may become difficult to support the airborne movments with land movements

The only long term answer is an airport built for the 2000s.

[RichHI1]

Swissdiver , yes. The current administration was honest in this respect and made its anti aviation, lack of international business understanding clear in the last election prefering to go after the Nimby vote in the home counties surrounding LHR. Maybe the changing political realities and the current quagmire over phone tapping will make it search for new constituents and proponents.
It seems ironic to say within the understood political mdoel in the UK but let us all hope that a pro-international business political option is available to us in the next election so we can promote a dynamic international economy for Britain on a world stage rather than a stagnant backwater reliant on Amsterdam, Madrid or Paris for its comunication links..

[pixelmeister]

I thought that the principle reason that mixed mode could not be operated at LHR was because it would bust the infamous Cranford agreement.

Certainly, there is no way that a mixed mode usage could prevent aircraft from taking off on 90L which would be against the Cranford agreement. A further complication would be the impact on the cross runway, although this is only ever used when there are strong adverse winds

[RichHI1]

VK, plurality of opinion makes these forums stronger.
In the absence of prior knowledge I deduce the understanding and views of an actor by their actions.
Further my comments do not relate to a party political view of business more the specific communication requirements of international commerce which often benefits from direct experience to fully appreciate.
In preference to didacticism I would appreciate your sharing insights into the decisions re LHR and aviation infrastructure development.

[VintageKrug]

It is my understanding that the cross runway is permanently out of service, and has been for a number of years.

The comments about the current government lacking an understanding of international business are twaddle.

What is needed is a joined up aviation strategy, and a new airport fit for the needs of the next 100 years.

Building a smaller extra runway at LHR simply would never have addressed this issue, and would have added only marginal additional capacity for smaller jets while adding considerably to congestion on the airfield, and in the skies above London and with significant environmental impact in the area to the north of the current airfield.

Introducing Mixed Mode is a sensible interim measure; the terminal improvements will help airfield congestion, as will the introduction of larger aircraft.

But all of this is simply window dressing to the real issue; Heathrow is not the right place to locate an international airport.

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

Vintage Krug

You are right, 23 was withdrawn a long time ago, fo better or for worse.

Mixed mode is not an easy option.

I agree with your conclusion about Heathrow, but think you need to learn more about the challenges of the TMA and LHR, before expressing a opinion that “Introducing Mixed Mode is a sensible interim measure.”

Perhaps speak to some Heathrow ATCers and hear the challenges from the professionals.

[VintageKrug]

I don’t think I ever stated that Mixed Mode would be simpler than standards ops.

But it already happens when required, and the improved number of stands at LHR and better visibility from the Tower will make airfield operations more manageable than they have been historically.

The LHR TMA has its own challenges, but with new systems now in place and NATS being a world leader in deploying strategies to address issues of congested airspace, including some very interesting technical advances, I maintain my position that Mixed Mode is a “sensible interim measure” given the available alternatives.

[RichHI1]

As always there are some views where I align with you VK. I think many agree “Heathrow is not the right place to locate an international airport.”

Where discord breaks out is how you balance the needs of travellers inclduing transport infrastructure, the needs of airlines for support facilities and connection capabilites, the needs of local residents both human and threatened wildlife, the cost factor, the vagaries of UK weather notably Snow, Fog and Ice and the ways to maximise safety such as avoiding approach patterns over high density population centers and providing a healthy range of alternates such as the terrorist alternate at STN. Any thoughts?. I always come up with more antis than pros on suggestions.

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

“I don’t think I ever stated that Mixed Mode would be simpler than standards ops.”

I don’t recall saying that you did.

Could you explain to me how stack balancing can be made to work during the early morning rush and also how you balance the two runways to allow the northerly runways to depart to the north and arrive from the north and also the same for the southerly runway (from/to the south).

Are you absolutely sure that mixed mode is used after disruption or are you confusing it with the ad hoc use of both runways?

[ivornomates]

Another example of the tail wagging the dog society putting another nail into what is a major business concern for the UK, with the lack of investment at LHR and the over priced cost fo flying in and out how long before CDG,AMS & FRA start to make it so easy to fly long haul through there and really start to eat up at the business in LHR, the only hope is that BA has the sense to set up a major hub at one of these very easy to get to airports

[VintageKrug]

Much as I hate to praise BAA, they are investing over £1billion per annum in new terminals, having already invested almost £5b in T5.

These are not small numbers.

In fact, Mixed Mode HAS been permitted by the government, I just added to this thread to keep everything in one place.

AMS, FRA and CDG all their own foibles (I personally avoid CDG as far as possible, and certainly will only fly in, not out of, that airport).

BA/IAG is already focussing growth on MAD, expansion is planned at LGW, and we haven’t heard much about plans for BA’s subsidiary Open Skies, for which there is significant potential in these markets.

[Author]

Posts