HEATHROW CLOSED

[KhunBENQ]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They didn't have to power the entire airport, only the control tower, runways and immigration, so that arrivals could continue. Who cares if duty free is open or not.

As I wrote earlier. But some posters found it funny or worth nitpicking.

Reports say that this biomass fueled backup wasn't even designed to supply full power needs but working "in parallel" to the grid.

[SunnyinBangrak]

5 minutes ago, KhunBENQ said:

As I wrote earlier. But some posters found it funny or worth nitpicking.

Reports say that this biomass fueled backup wasn't even designed to supply full power needs but working "in parallel" to the grid.

Yes, but Heathrow is "net zero" or working toward it, so surely a few little delays are a small price to pay for saving the world. (Sarcasm alert). This Heathrow fiasco is more of the "went woke, got broke" we are so very used to seeing. Time for competent management to takeover both the airport and the country. I know where Id like to shove this whole net zero bs

[SunnyinBangrak]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They didn't have to power the entire airport, only the control tower, runways and immigration, so that arrivals could continue. Who cares if duty free is open or not.

Ahem...and the prayer rooms. This is modern Britain we are talking about. 

[johng]

4 hours ago, zmisha said:

Maybe Britain spends too much on military stuff.

 

I certainly think they send far  too much to other countries apparently leaving "sod all" for the normal British population !

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, zmisha said:

Maybe Britain spends too much on military stuff. That leaves not enough money for simple things for the people such as transformers. Russian people think the British people should demand a reduction in military spending.

I'm sure that if Britain hadn't wasted all the money on bombs for Ukraine they could have afforded a lot of things, eg a backup for Heathrow that worked.

The argument that Heathrow uses as much power as a city is IMO BS, and in the event, they are going to have to pay out more than a backup costs to compensate all the passengers.

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm sure that if Britain hadn't wasted all the money on bombs for Ukraine they could have afforded a lot of things, eg a backup for Heathrow that worked.

The argument that Heathrow uses as much power as a city is IMO BS, and in the event, they are going to have to pay out more than a backup costs to compensate all the passengers.

Very much doubt that Heathrow has a legal liability here. 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

Very much doubt that Heathrow has a legal liability here. 

Probably true. I should have said that the airlines will have to pay compensation and then sue Heathrow for their costs. It wasn't airlines fault that Heathrow is run by numpties.

[JonnyF]

You only have to look at the quality and attitude of staff at Heathrow to see why it is a disaster. It's apparent within 10 minutes of landing. 

 

Another DEI failure. 

 

Britain is finished. Thank goodness I left when I saw the writing on the wall. 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

You only have to look at the quality and attitude of staff at Heathrow to see why it is a disaster. It's apparent within 10 minutes of landing. 

 

Another DEI failure. 

 

Britain is finished. Thank goodness I left when I saw the writing on the wall. 

 

 

Let me get this right, the passenger facing staff you meet at Heathrow airport, many of whom work for Border Force, not the airport, are somehow responsible for the engineering, design, operation and maintenance of the offsite power distribution systems that are themselves not owned or controlled by Heathrow airport?

 

Or is this just another case of your DEI fixation getting the better of your ability to think straight?

 

 

 

 

[stevenl]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let me get this right, the passenger facing staff you meet at Heathrow airport, many of whom work for Border Force, not the airport, are somehow responsible for the engineering, design, operation and maintenance of the offsite power distribution systems that are themselves not owned or controlled by Heathrow airport?

 

Or is this just another case of your DEI fixation getting the better of your ability to think straight?

 

 

 

 

It could also be airline staff directing people to the right areas.

As you said, no airport staff there.

[JAG]

18 hours ago, JonnyF said:

You only have to look at the quality and attitude of staff at Heathrow to see why it is a disaster. It's apparent within 10 minutes of landing. 

 

Another DEI failure. 

 

Britain is finished. Thank goodness I left when I saw the writing on the wall. 

 

 

Absolutely - well put; some of them aren't even white for crying out loud! Even worse, one hears rumours that some have to sit down when they take a pee!

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, JonnyF said:

You only have to look at the quality and attitude of staff at Heathrow to see why it is a disaster. It's apparent within 10 minutes of landing. 

 

Another DEI failure. 

 

Britain is finished. Thank goodness I left when I saw the writing on the wall. 

 

 

I am eligible to retire in the UK. After living there for 10 years I would rather eat my own balls than do so.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, JAG said:

Absolutely - well put; some of them aren't even white for crying out loud! Even worse, one hears rumours that some have to sit down when they take a pee!

Seems you finally got something right.

[JAG]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Seems you finally got something right.

Oh, if you actually read my posts on a variety of things, you would understand where I stand on a most matters.

 

I think that I try to be consistently fair, apply and adhere to fundamental rights, and a abhor racism and discrimination.

[rough diamond]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I am eligible to retire in the UK. After living there for 10 years I would rather eat my own balls than do so.

You like very small titbits for a snack do you?

[CharlieH]

UPDATE

 

Heathrow had enough power ! 

 

Fresh questions were raised tonight over the decision to close Heathrow after the boss of the National Grid insisted enough power remained to keep the airport running following last week's fire at an electricity substation.

In his first comments since the fire broke out late on Thursday night, John Pettigrew said that, while one nearby substation was knocked out by an 'unprecedented' blaze, two others serving the airport were working throughout.

'Each substation individually can provide enough power to Heathrow,' he told The Financial Times, adding it was a 'question for Heathrow' why it took the decision to close the airport.

 

He added: 'Losing a substation is a unique event - but there were two others available. So that is a level of resilience.'

Around 200,000 passengers were affected by the decision to close the airport in the early hours of Friday morning, which resulted in planes being diverted or returned to their city of origin while still in the air.

The disruption is expected to have cost airlines tens of millions of pounds.

Flights had largely returned to normal today but there was criticism of Heathrow's leadership as it emerged chief executive Thomas Woldbye had gone to bed as the fire raged and flights were cancelled - leaving the decision to close the airport to his number two.

 

As reported by Daily Mail

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, CharlieH said:

UPDATE

 

Heathrow had enough power ! 

 

Fresh questions were raised tonight over the decision to close Heathrow after the boss of the National Grid insisted enough power remained to keep the airport running following last week's fire at an electricity substation.

In his first comments since the fire broke out late on Thursday night, John Pettigrew said that, while one nearby substation was knocked out by an 'unprecedented' blaze, two others serving the airport were working throughout.

'Each substation individually can provide enough power to Heathrow,' he told The Financial Times, adding it was a 'question for Heathrow' why it took the decision to close the airport.

 

He added: 'Losing a substation is a unique event - but there were two others available. So that is a level of resilience.'

Around 200,000 passengers were affected by the decision to close the airport in the early hours of Friday morning, which resulted in planes being diverted or returned to their city of origin while still in the air.

The disruption is expected to have cost airlines tens of millions of pounds.

Flights had largely returned to normal today but there was criticism of Heathrow's leadership as it emerged chief executive Thomas Woldbye had gone to bed as the fire raged and flights were cancelled - leaving the decision to close the airport to his number two.

 

As reported by Daily Mail

Another one for the dole office.