Heathrow total shutdown

Werewolf said:
I would sort have assumed that the cost of the fuel was included in the cost of you know, the actual flight.

But then I'm not used to the ways that airlines try and squeeze every penny out of the customers (although I'm a little surprised Ryan Air hasn't started charging a fee to have a light above your seat and a seat you're not sharing with someone on your lap).
Click to expand...
Don't give them ideas! This forum ranks far too highly in Google results for that sort of talk :D
 
Different airlines break it down differently...

Form of payment : CC AX XXXX XXXX XXX XXXX Exp XXXX M278551 : 1503.82
Fare : GBP 1174.00
Taxes
: GBP 94.00 GB GBP 51.72 UB GBP 16.60 G3 GBP 12.40 HK
GBP 6.70 I5
Carrier surcharges : GBP 148.40 YR
Total Amount : GBP 1503.82
Issuing Airline and date : CATHAY PACIFIC 07JAN25
 
Participant said:
Trust me, when the finger pointing stops, the blame will lie with Heathrow.
Click to expand...
Looks like this is proving to be true. So whoever the idiot was that said nobody in this thread knows anything (I can't be bothered to look or I'd tag them) is clearly just hard for the aviation industry.
 
That is pretty egregious... something very fall-of-Romey about relying on this ancient substation which starts to show a minor issue needing attention, but those responsible don't care enough to do anything about it so it fails spectacularly.

"Sir, the 57 year old transformer at a key substation supplying important national infrastructure has been showing a problem for 7 years, what shall we do about it?"
"Meh, I'm sure it will be fine, cancel any maintenance for the foreseeable"
 
Last edited:
The report from NESO is available here if anyone wants to read directly rather than interpretation of journalists - https://www.neso.energy/publications/north-hyde-review

TLDR as I see it - NESO/NG/SSEN appeared to be unaware of the consequence of failure of one supply on Heathrow (i.e. a total shutdown to manually reconfigure) making their lack of maintenance focus even more stark and Heathrow was running on the assumption that the power supplies were so resilient that a 10-12 hour manual switching operation was sufficient mitigation for loss of a power supply because that'd probably never happen.

The result we saw is what happens when these contrasting positions meet head to head.
 
Kenai said:
The report from NESO is available here if anyone wants to read directly rather than interpretation of journalists - https://www.neso.energy/publications/north-hyde-review

TLDR as I see it - NESO/NG/SSEN appeared to be unaware of the consequence of failure of one supply on Heathrow (i.e. a total shutdown to manually reconfigure) making their lack of maintenance focus even more stark and Heathrow was running on the assumption that the power supplies were so resilient that a 10-12 hour manual switching operation was sufficient mitigation for loss of a power supply because that'd probably never happen.

The result we saw is what happens when these contrasting positions meet head to head.
Click to expand...

Funny that the software side of CNI would still be running. I know because I put the cloud in place. However nothing happens without planes, crews and ground staff being able todo their roles...
 
Typical hollowing out of maintenance caused by the deindustrialisation of the UK. In almost any heavy industry including high power electrical maintenance the resource is not available in the depth and quality that it was 20 years ago. National Grid relies on the same contractors as the power generation industry and offshore oil and gas and their maintenance budgets have been driven down and down and down as they are the only influenceable costs. As a consequence large numbers of contractors have left the industry or gone bust. Major maintenance outages slipping because of resource availability is now an entirely common event and unplanned failure in one area leads to cancellations elsewhere because there is insufficient spare capacity.
 
GreatAuk said:
That is pretty egregious... something very fall-of-Romey about relying on this ancient substation which starts to show a minor issue needing attention, but those responsible don't care enough to do anything about it so it fails spectacularly.
Click to expand...
Kind of like how our water infrastructure like reservoirs are 30 years old without being touched while the population has grown since then and now we're going to end up with droughts, unless they're forced to do something, they prefer to leave it because "it's fine.jpg"
 
Minusorange said:
Kind of like how our water infrastructure like reservoirs are 30 years old without being touched while the population has grown since then and now we're going to end up with droughts, unless they're forced to do something, they prefer to leave it because "it's fine.jpg"
Click to expand...

The problem with changing governments and company shareholders, no one will invest in the future. We should have been investing in core infrastructure long before we started our aspirational projects like wind/solar etc. I guess our carbon footprint will be reduced significantly if we have no water to drink.
 
CaptainRAVE said:
The problem with changing governments and company shareholders, no one will invest in the future. We should have been investing in core infrastructure long before we started our aspirational projects like wind/solar etc. I guess our carbon footprint will be reduced significantly if we have no water to drink.
Click to expand...

Kind of like Heathrow is a very profitable private company and should be ensuring that all these ducks are in a row for its continued operation.
Some very high level discussion between the airport and NG would have been in order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom