• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Flight Routeing

Status
Not open for further replies.

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,043
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Tracking a family member's flight back from Singapore to Heathrow, I noticed considerable variation in the routeings of different airlines.
The flight I was monitoring was BA12, an A380.
Taking off just before and after were QF1 and SQ322, both also A380s heading to Heathrow.
But instead of flying together they took quite different routes and SQ322 ended up arriving first, having left Singapore last.
The same pattern showed up on 3 successive nights, so seems to be baked into the timetable.

QF1 took a more westerly track to the Gulf, starting with flying the length of Sumatra.
BA12 initially took a more northerly track closer to Malaysia, but after India turned west and headed to the Gulf, then like QF1 via Baghdad and Turkey to Varna and up through Europe.
SQ322 took a similar track to BA12 initially, but then trended northward over India, then Pakistan, skirting Afghanistan and then over Iran (Tehran) and northern Turkey.
With a shorter route, it overtook BA12 and QF1 to arrive first at Heathrow.
BA and QF were also delayed by looping over Epping before gaining the flight path into LHR (all this around 0600, hardly peak time).

I've noticed that Lufthansa also flies over Iran (as do the Gulf and far-eastern airlines).
So not all EU airlines avoid Iranian airspace.
While Afghanistan airspace is normally empty, I did notice a BA flight (Delhi-Heathrow) overflying the country, so there mustn't be a complete ban.

Other "no fly" zones are Syria, Sudan/South Sudan (flights eg to Ethiopia do a dog-leg via Jeddah) and Yemen.
Plenty of airlines still overfly Russia, but none from the EU/UK/US, though everything avoids Ukrainian airspace and the adjacent areas of Russia.

All this means that different airlines have different routeing policies, and therefore different flight times to its competitors.
No doubt it also shows up in an airline's costs and commercial performance.
Finnair, for instance, which once had an advantage by flying to far east over Russia, now has to go a long way south to join the non-Russia path via Baku.
Turkish Airlines, which can fly over Russia, also serves St Petersburg/Moscow by flying via Poland, as the Russian route avoiding the war zone via the Caspian is longer.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
9,363
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
VS sometimes changes its route on MAN to ATL or even MCO. Usual route is over Newfoundland approximately then don the Eastern seaboard approx. Last Tuesday it went over southern island and Bermuda into the USA. I have often wondered why.
MAN= Manchester
ATL = Atlanta GA
MCO = Orlando FL
 
Last edited:

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
7,883
Location
Wilmslow
I thought for the N Atlantic it’s because there are two “corridors” for the two directions and they’re defined daily based on the jet stream to maximise easterly assistance and to minimise westerly resistance.
EDIT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Tracks seems more informative; twice daily:
The North Atlantic Tracks, officially titled the North Atlantic Organised Track System (NAT-OTS), are a structured set of transatlantic flight routes that stretch from eastern North America to western Europe across the Atlantic Ocean, within the North Atlantic airspace region. They ensure that aircraft are separated over the ocean, where there is little radar coverage. These heavily travelled routes are used by aircraft flying between North America and Europe, operating between the altitudes of 29,000 and 41,000 ft (8,800 and 12,500 m) inclusive. Entrance and movement along these tracks is controlled by special oceanic control centres to maintain separation between aircraft. The primary purpose of these routes is to allow air traffic control to effectively separate the aircraft. Because of the volume of NAT traffic, allowing aircraft to choose their own co-ordinates would make the ATC task far more complex. They are aligned in such a way as to minimize any head winds and maximize tail winds impact on the aircraft. This results in much more efficiency by reducing fuel burn and flight time. To make such efficiencies possible, the routes are created twice daily to take account of the shifting of the winds aloft and the principal traffic flow, eastward in North America evening and westward twelve hours later.
 
Last edited:

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,043
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Yes, I'm familiar with the Atlantic corridors and the jet stream effect, but generally it affects all the airlines similarly, with the members of the "armada" generally following the same plan.
It does offer interesting variety for the different routes (eg crossing Newfoundland or Greenland, depending on the jet stream position).
The Singapore-Heathrow route will also have its variable weather impact, but airlines seem to make different choices given the same weather patterns.
Another oddity about the SIN-LHR flights was that while they all took off southwest-wards, QF turned right to head over Sumatra, while BA/QF turned left and back over SIN to travel up Malaysia.
I used Lufthansa last year on Singapore-Munich, which flew over Iran, and got good night pictures of Tehran as a result!
On another occasion (on SQ) we overflew Yerevan (Armenia) and so got nice pictures of Mt Ararat on the Turkish border.
It all adds to the interest of an otherwise tedious 13-hour flight!
 
Last edited:

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
6,903
Location
Gomshall, Surrey
Yes, there are lots of apparent oddities and, of course, there will be local variations depending on large scale wind patterns, etc. As a slight aside, the Olympics opening ceremony led to a very large 'no-fly' zone covering most of France (the two near Paris were military tankers): Screenshot 2024-07-26 at 20.25.10.png
 

gazthomas

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2011
Messages
3,120
Location
St. Albans
I flew from Frankfurt to Ulaanbataar and back recently, straight over Kaliningrad and Moscow
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
13,987
Location
UK
all this around 0600, hardly peak time
For LHR long-haul arrivals that is pretty much the high peak. Airlines spend points from their annual night quota for any landings that take place before 6am, so lots of long-haul flights are timed to arrive in the period immediately after 6am.

Of course since they're long-haul flights, favourable winds (particularly a strong jetstream for the bank of arrivals from North America) will often result in an early arrivals, so a fair amount of holding is necessary to avoid spending those night quota points.

Barmy from an environmental perspective, but the financial penalties for night landings beyond the allocated quota can be so significant that it's still cheaper to hold for a short-ish period of time.

The same pattern showed up on 3 successive nights, so seems to be baked into the timetable.
Sort of - schedules are based on statistical seasonal averages of block time. Of course those block times are based on a series of assumptions as to the available en-route airspace, diversion airports, prevailing winds, and so forth.

So for longer flights, if any one of those factors ends up being different to what was assumed during the schedule's planning, it can result in significant degrees of late (or early) running.

The most extreme example I've heard of is a Tokyo-London flight having to go the "wrong" way round the world (westbound via Asia) rather than the usual eastbound routing via Alaska and northern Canada. This was caused by a diversion airport somewhere in Alaska being unavailable - nowhere else was available within the certified single-engine range (typically 180 minutes).
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
2,082
all this around 0600, hardly peak time
Heathrow has very strict night time curfews and allowances. Only a few flights are allowed to land before 6am - if you arrive before that and you're not on the list, you can expect to be put in a queue until the airport fully opens, and then be sequenced along with whoever else is in the area at that time.

In this case, SQ322 is one of those flights which has a pre-6am landing slot. QF1 / BA12 are both post 6am slots and would have to wait even if they arrive early. Short haul flights are timed such that they shouldn't need to hold (you don't take off until your destination is ready to accept you), but with these super-long-haul flights the actual flight time can vary quite a bit so they have to guess at the best time to depart.
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
2,353
Barmy from an environmental perspective, but the financial penalties for night landings beyond the allocated quota can be so significant that it's still cheaper to hold for a short-ish period of time.

This is absolutely insane. The technology exists to check that they were affected by winds and that they didn't consciously attempt to arrive earlier, and they shouldn't be punished for occasionally arriving earlier than 6am.
 

spyinthesky

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2021
Messages
409
Location
Bulford
This is absolutely insane. The technology exists to check that they were affected by winds and that they didn't consciously attempt to arrive earlier, and they shouldn't be punished for occasionally arriving earlier than 6am.
There may be limited ground crew earlier than 6am especially if 22 aircraft have just been blown across the Atlantic.
The same technology and pilot experience can ensure the correct landing slot.
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
19,959
The most extreme example I've heard of is a Tokyo-London flight having to go the "wrong" way round the world (westbound via Asia) rather than the usual eastbound routing via Alaska and northern Canada.
When I flew from Tokyo to London some years ago the flight was over northern Russia and Scandinavia, which is the shortest route on great circle distances.
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
2,082
This is absolutely insane. The technology exists to check that they were affected by winds and that they didn't consciously attempt to arrive earlier, and they shouldn't be punished for occasionally arriving earlier than 6am.
Tell that to the people living under the approach path. The night curfew quotas are entirely about keeping the local population happy.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
13,987
Location
UK
Tell that to the people living under the approach path. The night curfew quotas are entirely about keeping the local population happy.
In order to keep them happy, other people face the noise of jets circling around 10,000 feet. It's not a zero sum game!
 

cjmillsnun

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
3,274
This is absolutely insane. The technology exists to check that they were affected by winds and that they didn't consciously attempt to arrive earlier, and they shouldn't be punished for occasionally arriving earlier than 6am.
It’s done for noise abatement reasons.

In order to keep them happy, other people face the noise of jets circling around 10,000 feet. It's not a zero sum game!
The noise at 10,000 ft is considerably less than at 1,000ft and is hardly a distraction. Whereas at very low altitudes on approach it’s loud
 
Last edited:

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
13,987
Location
UK
The noise at 10,000 ft is considerably less than at 1,000ft and is hardly a distraction.
I'm sure you'd have a different view if you lived under the holding pattern...
 

cjmillsnun

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
3,274
I'm sure you'd have a different view if you lived under the holding pattern...
I live sufficiently close to Gatwick to have plenty of experience of planes holding. It’s also worth noting that sound is logarithmic in scale rather than linear. At lower altitudes aircraft noise on the ground is a lot louder than at higher altitudes.
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
19,959
I'm sure you'd have a different view if you lived under the holding pattern...
As would you if you lived within a mile or two of an airport and adjacent to the flightpath.
 
Last edited:

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
2,082
Pretty sure the people living here would rather the planes wait at 10,000ft than turn up early.

British Airways A380 landing just above homes near Heathrow
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
3,232
Location
Over The Hill
I'm sure you'd have a different view if you lived under the holding pattern...
For a number of years I lived under a holding pattern with aircraft typically descending as low as 7,000 feet before continuing their approach. Reality these days is that aircraft are much less noisy than before and such movements rarely cause an issue. The occasional Antonov-12 was certainly loud but nothing else ever disturbed me.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
9,363
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
SNA airport (Santa Ana John Wayne Orange County California) has some very strict rules on flights. I was once on a flight out of there and a Southwest Airlines Flight Attendant got on the Tannoy and said "ssshhhh we are flying over rich people!". It got a big laugh of course.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
32,288
Location
Scotland
SNA airport (Santa Ana John Wayne Orange County California) has some very strict rules on flights. I was once on a flight out of there and a Southwest Airlines Flight Attendant got on the Tannoy and said "ssshhhh we are flying over rich people!". It got a big laugh of course.
There's a lot of truth to that though.
 

Ken X

Member
Joined
29 Nov 2021
Messages
240
Location
Horsham
When I worked at BA Engineering Heathrow, our office looked East towards London. If Concorde took off Eastwards it undertook a "noise abatement turn" which consisted of sticking it on one wing and completing a 180 degree turn with the reheats crackling away. Always raised a chuckle.

Still miss it passing over our house at 11:04 each day.
 

zero

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2011
Messages
1,274
Pretty sure the people living here would rather the planes wait at 10,000ft than turn up early.

4do0ymvff9d71.jpg

The presence of these air vents indicates that Heathrow paid for these houses to have acoustic glass windows installed.

When I lived in the UK I lived under the flight path but not as close as this, so Heathrow only paid around 50-75% of the cost. The enhanced-soundproofed glass was apparently so "airtight" that the air vents were required to prevent suffocation - but this made no sense to me because I only replaced the windows on one side of the house.

When closed, my new windows did significantly reduce the volume of the trains passing nearby, but since I didn't upgrade all the windows it made no difference to aircraft noise.

I moved under the flight path knowing that there would be noise, and I would have preferred more flights landing prior to 6am as there would have been more options for me to travel from Asia and get home before the London morning peak.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
16,136
Location
Epsom
I am guessing this picture is Myrtle Avenue?

A very popular and classic photo angle - but the aircraft aren't actually passing above the houses there. Close enough, of course...
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
19,959
I am guessing this picture is Myrtle Avenue?

A very popular and classic photo angle - but the aircraft aren't actually passing above the houses there. Close enough, of course...
Not being directly underneath the plane makes next to no difference to the noise levels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top