I agree with most of what you say. But it's sensationalist to suggest a plane will skid off the runway- the runways weren't really the problem. The issues were with parking stands. Where stands are occupied by air raft, they require manual cleaning- this takes time and co ordination.
There was no point in clearing the second runway because the flow rate was so low due to the parking stand issues.(Original post by Drewski)
I guarantee you that if Dallas-Fort Worth were to get 20cm of snow in one day it would also cease to operate in it's entirety.
Or, let's say if LAX were to get any snow at all, it too would stop operations. How about Hong Kong or Sydney? Yep, they'd shut too.
Saying 'any other airport' is vague, mostly because 99% of them don't carry anything like the numbers that Heathrow does and of the 1% that remain, very few are in the same climate, where the current weather is the worst in 40yrs.
I'm not sure you comprehend how big an operation it is to -safely and thoroughly - clear an airport, especially one the size of Heathrow. Those airports that have spent, literally, millions of pounds/dollars on it manage to maintain operations because it's common, all staff know it's common, everyone's trained up on it and expects it [note that last word there, 'expects'] and the airport has been designed with it in mind.
Heathrow has none of the above benefits. Of course their own publicity department will try to make things sound good, or do I assume you've never heard of PR? But when weather patterns hit harder than they'd ever expect - and harder than forecast - who says they should be able to anticipate it perfectly and fix it in moments?
The only thing to consider [especially in this litigation-happy environment]:
What's the worse news, that hundreds of thousands have been delayed, or that just one plane skidded off the runway and crashed?
For me, it's the latter by far, I'd prefer people not to die so I'd leave the place shut until you can guarantee it's fine. If you'd prefer just not to be late, then fair enough....
Flight delays... Watch
- 26-12-2010 03:15
- Thread Starter
(Original post by Drewski)
- 27-12-2010 12:28
Despite your best accusations, this type of weather is rare. A week or three per year does not justify the massive outlay on equipment that would be needed.
It has nothing to do with some conspiracy theory to disprove global warming - such accusations are peddled only by those with no understanding of weather and only their own hysteria to promote.
Indeed, the CRU's own David Viner's article from 2000 was the most viewed item on The Independent’s website last week.
Unfortunately the global warming industry has succeeded in conning all governments to succumb to their snake-oil charms that they will never admit to being arrant fools.
On Channel 4 News a few days ago a doctor of meteorology from Reading University said that we will be experiencing this sort of winter regularly for probably hundreds of years as it appears to be the start of another ice age, which is not unknown to our "climate scientists".
But of course he will be written off as a "flat-earther". In the meantime it is costing not only the taxpayer but electricity consumers (who are also taxpayers and therefore hit by the double whammy) billions of pounds annually.