Sissy Southerners

[Daniel]

According to this there were only 17 airports in the world (as of August '10) which could handle the A380, Manchester being the only other one in the UK outside of the affected south.

I'm sure other runways such as Manston (Kent International) are long enough to allow emergency landings (and the subsequent take-off), but wouldn't have the ground facilities to safely service the plane.

[Edit: according to Wikipedia, the A380 can use any runway which can accomodate a 747, but the point about ground facilities stands]

One thing that also needs to be considered is tyre pressures. The training airport I did my flying from has runways long enough to land some small passenger jets but the tarmac itself isn't strong enough to deal with the pressures even something like a 767 would put on them for long periods of time.

http://www.jandakotairport.com.au/Ai...nformation.asp

As to whether the airports and other transport services should fork out for this equipment when next winter might be mild? Who knows, but you just know that whatever is done, it's going to be the wrong thing

[Rollo]

One thing that also needs to be considered is tyre pressures. The training airport I did my flying from has runways long enough to land some small passenger jets but the tarmac itself isn't strong enough to deal with the pressures even something like a 767 would put on them for long periods of time.

How many RAF bases are dotted around London that could deal with big aircraft?
The RAAF regularly allows the big C5 Galaxy out of the RAAF base at Richmond, and we even see the Antonov AN-124 operate out of RAAF Avalon in Victoria.

I would expect that the other major headache for airports is the logistical nightmare in matching people to their luggage. Grant in the days of the 707 that would only be about 400 pieces of luggage per plane, but with an A380 monster that approaches 1800 per plane.

I was watching a telly program called "Big, Bigger, Biggest" and one of those episodes looked at airports. T5 gets a mention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N0H2j_zFO0

[Mark in Oshawa]

As to whether the airports and other transport services should fork out for this equipment when next winter might be mild? Who knows, but you just know that whatever is done, it's going to be the wrong thing

In the case of Heathrow, even if the plows never move for 3 years, in one snow storm the lost revenue from landing fees would have paid for the plows. This is the busiest and arguably the most important airport in the Western World........

[Dave B]

Heathrow's operator BAA reduced its investment in snow clearing equipment from £1.5m last year, to just £500,000 in the current financial year.

Meanwhile, Gatwick Airport is preparing to receive its third extra snow plough in as many days.

http://www.channel4.com/news/heathro...-by-two-thirds

[Rollo]

Surely Ferrovial et al who own BAA Ltd. should pay for the snow clearing equipment. They obviously don't seem to think that there's a commercial disadvantage to having the airport closed by snow.

[Dave B]

We had (still have, really) the opportunity to build a future-proof new airport in the Thames estuary. Granted it would be no more immune to the weather than anywhere else, but it would have offered vastly more capacity than LHR and LGW combined. Sadly it's been ruled out by the past and present government, I suspect on ideological grounds as air travel is perceived as the big bad bogeyman, so it remains a distant dream.

[donKey jote]

Bollox... Stuck in schiphol

[Eki]

Bollox... Stuck in schiphol

Is it allowed to say sh!thole here?