Morning:
10°c
Official ... Heathrow gets worse all the time
Evening Standard16 Apr 2008
Official figures today confirmed the existence of "Heathrow hassle" and showed more planes are late at London's largest airport than at any time since its privatisation 20 years ago.
With bosses still reeling from last month's Terminal 5 disruption, the Civil Aviation Authority reported that two out of every five aircraft departed Heathrow at least 15 minutes late in the last three months of last year.
That 60 per cent on-time figure makes the airport's performance significantly worse than during the post-9/11 air travel crisis, when airlines were 69 per cent and 75 per cent on-time in the last two quarters of 2001.
According to the statistics, the airport's record has been getting worse, almost on a quarterbyquarter basis, since 2003.
In summer last year, 62 per cent of flights were on time, 64 per cent last spring and 65 per cent in the first quarter of 2007. Overall, only 63 per cent of aircraft were on time last year compared with 73 per cent in 2003.
The CAA also said all other major airports it monitors are improving punctuality.
An airport spokesman said: "Heathrow is full and its dependence on two runways, while European competitors have four or five, causes delays, stacks, and crawling taxiway queues. More efficient use of Heathrow's existing runways could cut delays for passengers at a stroke, while also reducing the emissions caused by aircraft being held in stacks."
Reader views (1)
Of course Heathrow's full.
All the major competing European Airports, who are now quoted as being well ahead of Heathrow, re-located their sites well away from their built-up areas, decades ago. Heathrow decided not to re-locate in the 1970's -Too expensive- was their excuse then. It may have saved a few pennies for BAA Director's pockets - how typically British- by taking the short option-
As a result We're not told that BAA and this Government wish to continue nose-diving into the continued black-holes expanding Heathrow. In truth, they're really crying over spilt milk and their horses bolted: years ago -TOUGH-
Why should the general public be held responsible for their catastrophic mistakes? After all, the Bloody Awful Administrator (BAA) couldn't care a Flight about west Londoners and have lied at continuous planning inquiries.
They've had their chance: and it might be tough but they decided to head for failure when they thought it was best to stay put.
When will they eventually discover that success really comes with re-location, if you really wish to expand. It was a useful lesson our European counterparts learned and carried out many decades ago. Why should we west Londoners be held responsible for the European foresight?
- Mark, London UK, 16/04/2008 15:19
Report abuse
