Discussion:
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
Add Reply
tim...
2018-06-08 07:13:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/oxford-street-pedestrianisation-london-sadiq-khan-westminster-council-scrapped-a8388791.html
Recliner
2018-06-08 08:42:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/oxford-street-pedestrianisation-london-sadiq-khan-westminster-council-scrapped-a8388791.html
It's like the abandoned West London tram: the potential benefits to medium
distance travellers are outweighed by the real disbenefits to the locals
who will suffer from the displaced traffic.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-08 09:00:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 08:42:31 -0000 (UTC)
Post by tim...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/oxford-street-pedestrianisation
london-sadiq-khan-westminster-council-scrapped-a8388791.html
It's like the abandoned West London tram: the potential benefits to medium
distance travellers are outweighed by the real disbenefits to the locals
who will suffer from the displaced traffic.
That depends if the traffic levels remained the same or whether people who
would have driven find an alternative instead. I was in Nantes last week and
while it was a PITA navigating the car through all the one way systems and
blocked off roads in the centre, once you were on foot it was very pleasent
with the pedestrianised and restricted streets with just trams and buses
passing by and not much other traffic apart from occasional delivery vehicles.
People adapt.
Recliner
2018-06-08 11:11:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 08:42:31 -0000 (UTC)
Post by tim...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/oxford-street-pedestrianisation
london-sadiq-khan-westminster-council-scrapped-a8388791.html
It's like the abandoned West London tram: the potential benefits to medium
distance travellers are outweighed by the real disbenefits to the locals
who will suffer from the displaced traffic.
That depends if the traffic levels remained the same or whether people who
would have driven find an alternative instead. I was in Nantes last week and
while it was a PITA navigating the car through all the one way systems and
blocked off roads in the centre, once you were on foot it was very pleasent
with the pedestrianised and restricted streets with just trams and buses
passing by and not much other traffic apart from occasional delivery vehicles.
People adapt.
I suppose it's the usual thing: those who will (or think they will) be
adversely affected know who they are in advance, and complain loudly.
Those who may in the future benefit from the change don't know they
might, and don't applaud loudly. In particular, future tourists don't
get a vote.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-08 11:37:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 12:11:01 +0100
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
That depends if the traffic levels remained the same or whether people who
would have driven find an alternative instead. I was in Nantes last week and
while it was a PITA navigating the car through all the one way systems and
blocked off roads in the centre, once you were on foot it was very pleasent
with the pedestrianised and restricted streets with just trams and buses
passing by and not much other traffic apart from occasional delivery
vehicles.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
People adapt.
I suppose it's the usual thing: those who will (or think they will) be
adversely affected know who they are in advance, and complain loudly.
Those who may in the future benefit from the change don't know they
might, and don't applaud loudly. In particular, future tourists don't
get a vote.
True. Thats where politicians are supposed to come however and look to the
common good. Sadly with the spineless pillocks in this country in all parties
there's little chance of it happening. Unless its $14 billion being flung at
the spanish owner of heathrow of course - some nice non exec directorships
no doubt on the cards for various members of the cabinet in the future.
Someone Somewhere
2018-06-08 12:01:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 12:11:01 +0100
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
That depends if the traffic levels remained the same or whether people who
would have driven find an alternative instead. I was in Nantes last week and
while it was a PITA navigating the car through all the one way systems and
blocked off roads in the centre, once you were on foot it was very pleasent
with the pedestrianised and restricted streets with just trams and buses
passing by and not much other traffic apart from occasional delivery
vehicles.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
People adapt.
I suppose it's the usual thing: those who will (or think they will) be
adversely affected know who they are in advance, and complain loudly.
Those who may in the future benefit from the change don't know they
might, and don't applaud loudly. In particular, future tourists don't
get a vote.
True. Thats where politicians are supposed to come however and look to the
common good. Sadly with the spineless pillocks in this country in all parties
there's little chance of it happening. Unless its $14 billion being flung at
the spanish owner of heathrow of course - some nice non exec directorships
no doubt on the cards for various members of the cabinet in the future.
I recently took part in a walk around my local area with some
representatives from the council and other interested residents who were
trying to put together a plan to improve air quality, improve the street
scene and reduce rat running and so on.

The council were actually very reasonable and tolerant, but a lot of the
local residents seem to take the view that they needed a private
motorway straight to their front door, and any level of inconvenience
(we're talking seconds or maybe driving 200m extra) was utterly
unacceptable even if it reduced the traffic outside their homes (and the
fumes in their lungs etc) by a significant proportion.

They also had their own pet issues and were unable to listen to reason
over why the design of e.g. lighting on private property was not in the
remit of the particular council personnel who were there.

In the face of such vehement opposition I can see why local officialdom
backs down and accepts the view of the shouty mob.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-08 14:42:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 13:01:40 +0100
Post by Someone Somewhere
motorway straight to their front door, and any level of inconvenience
(we're talking seconds or maybe driving 200m extra) was utterly
unacceptable even if it reduced the traffic outside their homes (and the
fumes in their lungs etc) by a significant proportion.
Not SUV drivers by any chance?
Post by Someone Somewhere
They also had their own pet issues and were unable to listen to reason
over why the design of e.g. lighting on private property was not in the
remit of the particular council personnel who were there.
Some people just love the sound of their own voices and think their opinions
are more important than everyone elses.
tim...
2018-06-08 12:18:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 12:11:01 +0100
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
That depends if the traffic levels remained the same or whether people who
would have driven find an alternative instead. I was in Nantes last week and
while it was a PITA navigating the car through all the one way systems and
blocked off roads in the centre, once you were on foot it was very pleasent
with the pedestrianised and restricted streets with just trams and buses
passing by and not much other traffic apart from occasional delivery
vehicles.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
People adapt.
I suppose it's the usual thing: those who will (or think they will) be
adversely affected know who they are in advance, and complain loudly.
Those who may in the future benefit from the change don't know they
might, and don't applaud loudly. In particular, future tourists don't
get a vote.
True. Thats where politicians are supposed to come however and look to the
common good. Sadly with the spineless pillocks in this country in all parties
there's little chance of it happening. Unless its $14 billion being flung at
the spanish owner of heathrow of course
I thought the whole idea of airport expansion was that the airport was
expected to pay for it themselves
Recliner
2018-06-08 14:12:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 12:11:01 +0100
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
That depends if the traffic levels remained the same or whether people who
would have driven find an alternative instead. I was in Nantes last week and
while it was a PITA navigating the car through all the one way systems and
blocked off roads in the centre, once you were on foot it was very pleasent
with the pedestrianised and restricted streets with just trams and buses
passing by and not much other traffic apart from occasional delivery
vehicles.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
People adapt.
I suppose it's the usual thing: those who will (or think they will) be
adversely affected know who they are in advance, and complain loudly.
Those who may in the future benefit from the change don't know they
might, and don't applaud loudly. In particular, future tourists don't
get a vote.
True. Thats where politicians are supposed to come however and look to the
common good. Sadly with the spineless pillocks in this country in all parties
there's little chance of it happening. Unless its $14 billion being flung at
the spanish owner of heathrow of course
I thought the whole idea of airport expansion was that the airport was
expected to pay for it themselves
They are: the expansion will be privately funded by HAL, ultimately funded
by airline access charges (currently around £20/passenger, but which may
rise). But TfL has warned that HAL may not be so willing to pay for
infrastructure and public transport upgrades outside the airport.

Oh, Heathrow doesn't have a Spanish owner. It's a multinational consortium.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-08 14:34:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 14:12:06 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 12:11:01 +0100
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
That depends if the traffic levels remained the same or whether people who
would have driven find an alternative instead. I was in Nantes last week and
while it was a PITA navigating the car through all the one way systems and
blocked off roads in the centre, once you were on foot it was very pleasent
with the pedestrianised and restricted streets with just trams and buses
passing by and not much other traffic apart from occasional delivery
vehicles.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
People adapt.
I suppose it's the usual thing: those who will (or think they will) be
adversely affected know who they are in advance, and complain loudly.
Those who may in the future benefit from the change don't know they
might, and don't applaud loudly. In particular, future tourists don't
get a vote.
True. Thats where politicians are supposed to come however and look to the
common good. Sadly with the spineless pillocks in this country in all parties
there's little chance of it happening. Unless its $14 billion being flung at
the spanish owner of heathrow of course
I thought the whole idea of airport expansion was that the airport was
expected to pay for it themselves
They are: the expansion will be privately funded by HAL, ultimately funded
by airline access charges (currently around £20/passenger, but which may
rise). But TfL has warned that HAL may not be so willing to pay for
infrastructure and public transport upgrades outside the airport.
Sure, and Porcine Airlines will be the first flight out. There is simply no
way they can raise that sort of money on the open market, the government will
be coughing up if they want it finished. And thats before you factor in the
economic chaos that the delays on the M25 caused by putting it in a tunnel
will create. All because some idiots believed the spin that we don't have
enough runways in the SE. Obviously nobody mentioned Gatwick, Stansted, Luton,
London City and Southend to them. And then there's Marsden in kent which is
soon to be turned into a housing estate. Go figure.
Post by Recliner
Oh, Heathrow doesn't have a Spanish owner. It's a multinational consortium.
Ferrovial are Spanish and none of the rest of them arn't British either so it
really makes little odds. Any profit heads off out of the country.
tim...
2018-06-08 15:41:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 14:12:06 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 12:11:01 +0100
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
That depends if the traffic levels remained the same or whether
people
who
would have driven find an alternative instead. I was in Nantes last
week
and
while it was a PITA navigating the car through all the one way
systems
and
blocked off roads in the centre, once you were on foot it was very pleasent
with the pedestrianised and restricted streets with just trams and buses
passing by and not much other traffic apart from occasional delivery
vehicles.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
People adapt.
I suppose it's the usual thing: those who will (or think they will) be
adversely affected know who they are in advance, and complain loudly.
Those who may in the future benefit from the change don't know they
might, and don't applaud loudly. In particular, future tourists don't
get a vote.
True. Thats where politicians are supposed to come however and look to the
common good. Sadly with the spineless pillocks in this country in all parties
there's little chance of it happening. Unless its $14 billion being
flung
at
the spanish owner of heathrow of course
I thought the whole idea of airport expansion was that the airport was
expected to pay for it themselves
They are: the expansion will be privately funded by HAL, ultimately funded
by airline access charges (currently around £20/passenger, but which may
rise). But TfL has warned that HAL may not be so willing to pay for
infrastructure and public transport upgrades outside the airport.
Sure, and Porcine Airlines will be the first flight out. There is simply no
way they can raise that sort of money on the open market, the government will
be coughing up if they want it finished. And thats before you factor in the
economic chaos that the delays on the M25 caused by putting it in a tunnel
will create. All because some idiots believed the spin that we don't have
enough runways in the SE. Obviously nobody mentioned Gatwick, Stansted, Luton,
all filling up

admittedly a second runway at any of these would be easier and much cheaper,
whilst being almost as useful.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
London City and Southend to them. And then there's Marsden in kent which is
soon to be turned into a housing estate. Go figure.
because next to no-one wants to fly from there

three attempts to encourage people to do so have failed.

It's pointless trying again.

tim
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-11 08:35:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 16:41:14 +0100
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Sure, and Porcine Airlines will be the first flight out. There is simply no
way they can raise that sort of money on the open market, the government will
be coughing up if they want it finished. And thats before you factor in the
economic chaos that the delays on the M25 caused by putting it in a tunnel
will create. All because some idiots believed the spin that we don't have
enough runways in the SE. Obviously nobody mentioned Gatwick, Stansted, Luton,
all filling up
Hardly. Look at flightradar24 to see the stream of planes not landing at
Luton.
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
London City and Southend to them. And then there's Marsden in kent which is
soon to be turned into a housing estate. Go figure.
because next to no-one wants to fly from there
three attempts to encourage people to do so have failed.
It's pointless trying again.
Actually I got the name wrong, its Manston, not marsden, but doesn't matter.

No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it. Theres a rail line spitting distance from Manston which
could easily have a short branch line built to the airport just as happened at
Stansted and it would be a lot cheaper than any new runway at any london
airport, never mind heathrow. Unless you have a car you can't get to Manston
yet those in power throw their hands up and say "Look, no one uses it!". Well
quelle surprise.
John Williamson
2018-06-11 10:15:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.
For about half the passengers who fly in to and out of Heathrow, the
road and rail links outside the airport don't matter, as they fly in
from one airport, possibly change terminals, and fly out to another one.

This is the target audience for expansion, as Heathrow is the biggest
hub airport in Europe, and has a wider choice of international
destinations than any other. They are trying to keep their lead in this
over Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-11 10:53:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:15:01 +0100
Post by John Williamson
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.
For about half the passengers who fly in to and out of Heathrow, the
road and rail links outside the airport don't matter, as they fly in
from one airport, possibly change terminals, and fly out to another one.
Which means there's even less reason not to use Manston.
Post by John Williamson
This is the target audience for expansion, as Heathrow is the biggest
hub airport in Europe, and has a wider choice of international
destinations than any other. They are trying to keep their lead in this
over Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol.
And a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc. The fact that the cabinet has been suckered into
approving the new runway demonstrates - if we didn't know already - what a dim
bunch of 2nd raters they are.
Roland Perry
2018-06-11 11:05:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc.
It brings a great deal of employment (on the airport and off it).

It also makes routes which were not otherwise economic to operate,
available to locals to fly on.
--
Roland Perry
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-11 11:16:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:05:21 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc.
It brings a great deal of employment (on the airport and off it).
Really? Where? A few extra staff at the terminals and a few extra journeys
for cabbies. Thats about it. I suspect it would take a few millenia to recoup
the billions that will be spent on it the extra tax income from those jobs.
Post by Roland Perry
It also makes routes which were not otherwise economic to operate,
available to locals to fly on.
How so? You think Heathrow are going to drop their landing fees? More likely
they'll raise them significantly.
Recliner
2018-06-11 11:30:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:05:21 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc.
It brings a great deal of employment (on the airport and off it).
Really? Where? A few extra staff at the terminals and a few extra journeys
for cabbies. Thats about it. I suspect it would take a few millenia to recoup
the billions that will be spent on it the extra tax income from those jobs.
Post by Roland Perry
It also makes routes which were not otherwise economic to operate,
available to locals to fly on.
How so? You think Heathrow are going to drop their landing fees? More likely
they'll raise them significantly.
We seem to have this exact same discussion about once a year. Let's
just accept that you'll never understand the concept of a hub airport.
As someone who's afraid of flying, you've probably never used one.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-11 11:47:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:30:18 +0100
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
How so? You think Heathrow are going to drop their landing fees? More likely
they'll raise them significantly.
We seem to have this exact same discussion about once a year. Let's
just accept that you'll never understand the concept of a hub airport.
A child could understand the concept. A child could also understand why we
don't need an even larger one in the west of london. However apparently you
and the comedians in government apparently don't.
Post by Recliner
As someone who's afraid of flying, you've probably never used one.
The fact that you constantly bring up that assertion you made up about once
a month in lieu of an actual argument shows you don't have one. But lets be
honest, all you give a damn about is being able to swill your booze in first
class at 35K feet, you don't give a monkeys about the millions of people who'll
have to suffer the construction and operation of this pointless white elephant.
Roland Perry
2018-06-11 12:52:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:05:21 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc.
It brings a great deal of employment (on the airport and off it).
Really? Where? A few extra staff at the terminals
If a third [approximately] of all flights are generated by transfer
passengers then all the maintenance and support (eg airline meals and
baggage handling, and cleaning and fuelling and dispatch) for those
flights creates work in the local economy.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
and a few extra journeys for cabbies. Thats about it.
Transfer flights don't create work for cabbies. Please try to get a
grip.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I suspect it would take a few millenia to recoup
the billions that will be spent on it the extra tax income from those jobs.
The capital cost is recouped from the air fares.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Roland Perry
It also makes routes which were not otherwise economic to operate,
available to locals to fly on.
How so? You think Heathrow are going to drop their landing fees? More likely
they'll raise them significantly.
It's nothing to do with landing fees, simply without the transfer
passengers numerous of the final destinations would no longer be
economic for the airlines to service.
--
Roland Perry
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-11 13:36:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:52:34 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:05:21 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc.
It brings a great deal of employment (on the airport and off it).
Really? Where? A few extra staff at the terminals
If a third [approximately] of all flights are generated by transfer
passengers then all the maintenance and support (eg airline meals and
baggage handling, and cleaning and fuelling and dispatch) for those
flights creates work in the local economy.
A trivial amount.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
and a few extra journeys for cabbies. Thats about it.
Transfer flights don't create work for cabbies. Please try to get a
grip.
I'm assuming it won't all be transfer passengers. I said a few extra.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I suspect it would take a few millenia to recoup
the billions that will be spent on it the extra tax income from those jobs.
The capital cost is recouped from the air fares.
Ah, I see you're a comedian too. For a start the airlines arn't funding it
and secondly if heathrow raise their fees too high some of them may simply
clear off elsewhere.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
How so? You think Heathrow are going to drop their landing fees? More likely
they'll raise them significantly.
It's nothing to do with landing fees, simply without the transfer
passengers numerous of the final destinations would no longer be
economic for the airlines to service.
Give some examples then of routes that will be used by transfer passengers
but not in any significant amount by locals.
John Williamson
2018-06-11 14:54:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:52:34 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
If a third [approximately] of all flights are generated by transfer
passengers then all the maintenance and support (eg airline meals and
baggage handling, and cleaning and fuelling and dispatch) for those
flights creates work in the local economy.
A trivial amount.
Equivalent to about 20,000 full time jobs, mostly customers of local
businesses, for an extra 5,000 full time jobs in local businesses.
Heathrow employs about 60,000 people, or the entire population of a
small town, all of whom need entertainment, food and other services.

Not to mention the 23 million or so passengers per year who will need
feedingand other services, again supplied by local businesses.

Trivial?
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
It's nothing to do with landing fees, simply without the transfer
Post by Roland Perry
passengers numerous of the final destinations would no longer be
economic for the airlines to service.
Give some examples then of routes that will be used by transfer passengers
but not in any significant amount by locals.
It's a marginal problem. Some destinations aren't worth flying to with
either the transfer passengers or the local passengers as the sole load.
Add the two together, and you have a full plane which makes a profit, as
against two part full ones, neither of which is profitable. It costs
almost the same to fly empty as full.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-11 15:24:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:54:55 +0100
Post by John Williamson
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:52:34 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
If a third [approximately] of all flights are generated by transfer
passengers then all the maintenance and support (eg airline meals and
baggage handling, and cleaning and fuelling and dispatch) for those
flights creates work in the local economy.
A trivial amount.
Equivalent to about 20,000 full time jobs, mostly customers of local
businesses, for an extra 5,000 full time jobs in local businesses.
LOL, yes, I'm sure it says that in Heathrow Plcs strategy document. Now how
about a link to some projections by a neutral 3rd party?
Post by John Williamson
Heathrow employs about 60,000 people, or the entire population of a
small town, all of whom need entertainment, food and other services.
Not to mention the 23 million or so passengers per year who will need
feedingand other services, again supplied by local businesses.
Trivial?
Yes, because your projected figures are bullshit.
Post by John Williamson
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Give some examples then of routes that will be used by transfer passengers
but not in any significant amount by locals.
It's a marginal problem. Some destinations aren't worth flying to with
either the transfer passengers or the local passengers as the sole load.
Add the two together, and you have a full plane which makes a profit, as
against two part full ones, neither of which is profitable. It costs
almost the same to fly empty as full.
So currently no actual examples from either roland or you. Got it.
Recliner
2018-06-11 15:43:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:54:55 +0100
Post by John Williamson
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:52:34 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
If a third [approximately] of all flights are generated by transfer
passengers then all the maintenance and support (eg airline meals and
baggage handling, and cleaning and fuelling and dispatch) for those
flights creates work in the local economy.
A trivial amount.
Equivalent to about 20,000 full time jobs, mostly customers of local
businesses, for an extra 5,000 full time jobs in local businesses.
LOL, yes, I'm sure it says that in Heathrow Plcs strategy document.
There's no such organisation.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Now how
about a link to some projections by a neutral 3rd party?
Post by John Williamson
Heathrow employs about 60,000 people, or the entire population of a
small town, all of whom need entertainment, food and other services.
Not to mention the 23 million or so passengers per year who will need
feedingand other services, again supplied by local businesses.
Trivial?
Yes, because your projected figures are bullshit.
Those figures are at least credible. You have no figures at all. You just
have your paranoia about flying, that overwhelms your limited reasoning
ability.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by John Williamson
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Give some examples then of routes that will be used by transfer passengers
but not in any significant amount by locals.
It's a marginal problem. Some destinations aren't worth flying to with
either the transfer passengers or the local passengers as the sole load.
Add the two together, and you have a full plane which makes a profit, as
against two part full ones, neither of which is profitable. It costs
almost the same to fly empty as full.
So currently no actual examples from either roland or you. Got it.
Why would people bother researching things for an imbecile incapable of
understanding anything?
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-12 08:53:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:43:28 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:54:55 +0100
Post by John Williamson
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:52:34 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
If a third [approximately] of all flights are generated by transfer
passengers then all the maintenance and support (eg airline meals and
baggage handling, and cleaning and fuelling and dispatch) for those
flights creates work in the local economy.
A trivial amount.
Equivalent to about 20,000 full time jobs, mostly customers of local
businesses, for an extra 5,000 full time jobs in local businesses.
LOL, yes, I'm sure it says that in Heathrow Plcs strategy document.
There's no such organisation.
There's no such organisation as UK Plc either. Its a figure of speech you
cretin.
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Yes, because your projected figures are bullshit.
Those figures are at least credible. You have no figures at all. You just
Are they? Lets seem some links to them then.
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
So currently no actual examples from either roland or you. Got it.
Why would people bother researching things for an imbecile incapable of
understanding anything?
Good point, I guess thats why no one is backing up your position.
Recliner
2018-06-12 09:03:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:43:28 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:54:55 +0100
Post by John Williamson
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:52:34 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
If a third [approximately] of all flights are generated by transfer
passengers then all the maintenance and support (eg airline meals and
baggage handling, and cleaning and fuelling and dispatch) for those
flights creates work in the local economy.
A trivial amount.
Equivalent to about 20,000 full time jobs, mostly customers of local
businesses, for an extra 5,000 full time jobs in local businesses.
LOL, yes, I'm sure it says that in Heathrow Plcs strategy document.
There's no such organisation.
There's no such organisation as UK Plc either. Its a figure of speech you
cretin.
If only you weren't so ignorant, you'd know that the correct name is much
shorter than your invented name.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Yes, because your projected figures are bullshit.
Those figures are at least credible. You have no figures at all. You just
Are they? Lets seem some links to them then.
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
So currently no actual examples from either roland or you. Got it.
Why would people bother researching things for an imbecile incapable of
understanding anything?
Good point, I guess thats why no one is backing up your position.
Except that everyone else has. You're the ignorant dope.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-12 09:37:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:03:53 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
There's no such organisation as UK Plc either. Its a figure of speech you
cretin.
If only you weren't so ignorant, you'd know that the correct name is much
shorter than your invented name.
And your name isn't invented? Your mother christened you Recliner did she?
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Why would people bother researching things for an imbecile incapable of
understanding anything?
Good point, I guess thats why no one is backing up your position.
Except that everyone else has. You're the ignorant dope.
No, they've been putting up fatuous reasons why it can't happen - tho all
different.

I'm still waiting for someone to post something that validates their arguments
against manston - you lot make the assertions so back them up.
Recliner
2018-06-12 09:54:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:03:53 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
There's no such organisation as UK Plc either. Its a figure of speech you
cretin.
If only you weren't so ignorant, you'd know that the correct name is much
shorter than your invented name.
And your name isn't invented? Your mother christened you Recliner did she?
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Why would people bother researching things for an imbecile incapable of
understanding anything?
Good point, I guess thats why no one is backing up your position.
Except that everyone else has. You're the ignorant dope.
No, they've been putting up fatuous reasons why it can't happen - tho all
different.
You really need a spell checker: it's spelled 'factual'.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'm still waiting for someone to post something that validates their arguments
against manston - you lot make the assertions so back them up.
The fact that no airlines want it. Even the airport didn't.

As others have correctly pointed out, its local catchment area is small,
and it's much too far from the main markets, and too close to other busy
airports. It's never even made the short lists of the various commissions
over the decades on expanding airport capacity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-37552369

Anyway, who does someone who's terrified of flying, and would be too scared
to use whatever new runway is built (or the existing ones), have opinions
on this matter? You know nothing about the airline industry, have never
flown long-haul, never used a hub airport, so even by your exalted
standards, this is a topic on which you're profoundly ignorant.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-12 11:48:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:54:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'm still waiting for someone to post something that validates their
arguments
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
against manston - you lot make the assertions so back them up.
The fact that no airlines want it. Even the airport didn't.
The airport didn't because the current owners could get more money by turning
it into housing. The local council tried to save it but had no luck. The
airlines don't want it because there's no infrastructure or transport links
to speak of there.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
As others have correctly pointed out, its local catchment area is small,
WHy does the local catchment area matter? You think Heathrow is bothered how
many people from Hounslow fly from it?
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
and it's much too far from the main markets, and too close to other busy
airports. It's never even made the short lists of the various commissions
over the decades on expanding airport capacity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-37552369
Not financially viable? Compared to a 14 billion quid load to Heathrow?
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Anyway, who does someone who's terrified of flying, and would be too scared
People who are terrified don't fly. You're mistaking being terrified with
finding it a miserable unpleasent experience. But then what would someone
who flies pissed in 1st class know what its like to slum it in economy for
8 hours anyway.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
to use whatever new runway is built (or the existing ones), have opinions
on this matter? You know nothing about the airline industry, have never
flown long-haul, never used a hub airport, so even by your exalted
Haven't I? Guess I must've imagined visited the USA a number of times.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
standards, this is a topic on which you're profoundly ignorant.
You're so full of shit you probaly need to keep some toilet duck handy just
in case.
Recliner
2018-06-12 15:03:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:54:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'm still waiting for someone to post something that validates their
arguments
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
against manston - you lot make the assertions so back them up.
The fact that no airlines want it. Even the airport didn't.
The airport didn't because the current owners could get more money by turning
it into housing. The local council tried to save it but had no luck. The
airlines don't want it because there's no infrastructure or transport links
to speak of there.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
As others have correctly pointed out, its local catchment area is small,
WHy does the local catchment area matter? You think Heathrow is bothered how
many people from Hounslow fly from it?
So how would people from, say, Oxford or Northampton, have got to Manston?
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
and it's much too far from the main markets, and too close to other busy
airports. It's never even made the short lists of the various commissions
over the decades on expanding airport capacity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-37552369
Not financially viable? Compared to a 14 billion quid load to Heathrow?
HAL will be funding the airport expansion itself, with funds raised based
on the increased business that the new runway will bring in. Nobody was
prepared to advance money for Manston expansion, as it was so obviously not
viable.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Anyway, who does someone who's terrified of flying, and would be too scared
People who are terrified don't fly. You're mistaking being terrified with
finding it a miserable unpleasent experience. But then what would someone
who flies pissed in 1st class know what its like to slum it in economy for
8 hours anyway.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
to use whatever new runway is built (or the existing ones), have opinions
on this matter? You know nothing about the airline industry, have never
flown long-haul, never used a hub airport, so even by your exalted
Haven't I? Guess I must've imagined visited the USA a number of times.
Actually, my first dozen or so trips to the US were in cattle class.
Luckily, my career took off, so I longer needed to mix with the
loud-mouthed ignorant plebs like you in the back. My next 50 or so trips to
North America were in business (or occasionally first) class. So will all
future trips.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-12 15:23:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:03:59 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:54:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'm still waiting for someone to post something that validates their
arguments
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
against manston - you lot make the assertions so back them up.
The fact that no airlines want it. Even the airport didn't.
The airport didn't because the current owners could get more money by turning
it into housing. The local council tried to save it but had no luck. The
airlines don't want it because there's no infrastructure or transport links
to speak of there.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
As others have correctly pointed out, its local catchment area is small,
WHy does the local catchment area matter? You think Heathrow is bothered how
many people from Hounslow fly from it?
So how would people from, say, Oxford or Northampton, have got to Manston?
The same way they currently get to Gatwick. Road or train via London (if a
station was built there).
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
and it's much too far from the main markets, and too close to other busy
airports. It's never even made the short lists of the various commissions
over the decades on expanding airport capacity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-37552369
Not financially viable? Compared to a 14 billion quid load to Heathrow?
HAL will be funding the airport expansion itself, with funds raised based
on the increased business that the new runway will bring in. Nobody was
We'll see. I won't hold my breath.
Post by Recliner
prepared to advance money for Manston expansion, as it was so obviously not
viable.
Manston is not currently viable whereas heathrow is. Its always easier to make
a business case to expand something that already works than something that
doesn't and needs investment to work. The government however should take a long
term view beyond simple profit and loss. If the country really needs another
runway near london then Manston would fit the job if the govn really gave a
toss about urban air and noise pollution. If its actually more about profit
for Heathrows owners then obviously it stands no chance.
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Haven't I? Guess I must've imagined visited the USA a number of times.
Actually, my first dozen or so trips to the US were in cattle class.
Luckily, my career took off, so I longer needed to mix with the
loud-mouthed ignorant plebs like you in the back. My next 50 or so trips to
North America were in business (or occasionally first) class. So will all
future trips.
I endure flying because the holiday at the other end is worth it. No way would
I fly 50 times to the US simply for work business class or not. They could
shove the job. Still, there's always some mug who'll do it because he thinks
it gives him status, just like the guys who think being tethered to their
business phone is an "I've made it" status symbol rather that an indication
that they're nothing but obedient cattle at their bosses beck and call.
Recliner
2018-06-12 15:41:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:03:59 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:54:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'm still waiting for someone to post something that validates their
arguments
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
against manston - you lot make the assertions so back them up.
The fact that no airlines want it. Even the airport didn't.
The airport didn't because the current owners could get more money by turning
it into housing. The local council tried to save it but had no luck. The
airlines don't want it because there's no infrastructure or transport links
to speak of there.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
As others have correctly pointed out, its local catchment area is small,
WHy does the local catchment area matter? You think Heathrow is bothered how
many people from Hounslow fly from it?
So how would people from, say, Oxford or Northampton, have got to Manston?
The same way they currently get to Gatwick. Road or train via London (if a
station was built there).
Gatwick is already too far for such people, and it has excellent motorway
and rail links.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
and it's much too far from the main markets, and too close to other busy
airports. It's never even made the short lists of the various commissions
over the decades on expanding airport capacity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-37552369
Not financially viable? Compared to a 14 billion quid load to Heathrow?
HAL will be funding the airport expansion itself, with funds raised based
on the increased business that the new runway will bring in. Nobody was
We'll see. I won't hold my breath.
Post by Recliner
prepared to advance money for Manston expansion, as it was so obviously not
viable.
Manston is not currently viable whereas heathrow is. Its always easier to make
a business case to expand something that already works than something that
doesn't and needs investment to work. The government however should take a long
term view beyond simple profit and loss. If the country really needs another
runway near london then Manston would fit the job if the govn really gave a
toss about urban air and noise pollution. If its actually more about profit
for Heathrows owners then obviously it stands no chance.
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Haven't I? Guess I must've imagined visited the USA a number of times.
Actually, my first dozen or so trips to the US were in cattle class.
Luckily, my career took off, so I longer needed to mix with the
loud-mouthed ignorant plebs like you in the back. My next 50 or so trips to
North America were in business (or occasionally first) class. So will all
future trips.
I endure flying because the holiday at the other end is worth it. No way would
I fly 50 times to the US simply for work business class or not. They could
shove the job.
Obviously you wouldn't, as you're afraid of flying. I enjoy it.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-13 08:28:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:41:44 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
The same way they currently get to Gatwick. Road or train via London (if a
station was built there).
Gatwick is already too far for such people, and it has excellent motorway
and rail links.
Which part of investing in infrastructure for manston did you have a problem
comprehending?
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I endure flying because the holiday at the other end is worth it. No way
would
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I fly 50 times to the US simply for work business class or not. They could
shove the job.
Obviously you wouldn't, as you're afraid of flying. I enjoy it.
Do change the record you old soak. And the amount of times you flew for your
job its quite apparent you're one of those sad bastards who lived to work
rather than worked to live. Some of us have lives outside our work which we'd
rather spend time in. Clearly you didn't.
Recliner
2018-06-13 10:25:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:41:44 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
The same way they currently get to Gatwick. Road or train via London (if a
station was built there).
Gatwick is already too far for such people, and it has excellent motorway
and rail links.
Which part of investing in infrastructure for manston did you have a problem
comprehending?
And who'd pay for the tens of billions of infrastructure investment? Not
the owners of Manston. Not the airlines.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I endure flying because the holiday at the other end is worth it. No way
would
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I fly 50 times to the US simply for work business class or not. They could
shove the job.
Obviously you wouldn't, as you're afraid of flying. I enjoy it.
Do change the record you old soak. And the amount of times you flew for your
job its quite apparent you're one of those sad bastards who lived to work
rather than worked to live. Some of us have lives outside our work which we'd
rather spend time in. Clearly you didn't.
That's one way of rationalising a failed career.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-13 10:52:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:25:26 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:41:44 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
The same way they currently get to Gatwick. Road or train via London (if a
station was built there).
Gatwick is already too far for such people, and it has excellent motorway
and rail links.
Which part of investing in infrastructure for manston did you have a problem
comprehending?
And who'd pay for the tens of billions of infrastructure investment? Not
the owners of Manston. Not the airlines.
The same people who'll end up paying for heathrows white elephant - us.
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Do change the record you old soak. And the amount of times you flew for your
job its quite apparent you're one of those sad bastards who lived to work
rather than worked to live. Some of us have lives outside our work which we'd
rather spend time in. Clearly you didn't.
That's one way of rationalising a failed career.
My career is fine thanks, however I also have a life outside of it too. I
suspect you don't which is why you're constantly travelling, no doubt to
alleviate the boredom of sitting at home staring at the walls with only
jeremey kyle for company.
Recliner
2018-06-13 11:14:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:25:26 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:41:44 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
The same way they currently get to Gatwick. Road or train via London (if a
station was built there).
Gatwick is already too far for such people, and it has excellent motorway
and rail links.
Which part of investing in infrastructure for manston did you have a problem
comprehending?
And who'd pay for the tens of billions of infrastructure investment? Not
the owners of Manston. Not the airlines.
The same people who'll end up paying for heathrows white elephant - us.
Nope. There are plenty of people who will happily invest in Heathrow's
success. There weren't any investors in Manston's flop of an airport.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Do change the record you old soak. And the amount of times you flew for your
job its quite apparent you're one of those sad bastards who lived to work
rather than worked to live. Some of us have lives outside our work which we'd
rather spend time in. Clearly you didn't.
That's one way of rationalising a failed career.
My career is fine thanks, however I also have a life outside of it too. I
suspect you don't which is why you're constantly travelling, no doubt to
alleviate the boredom of sitting at home staring at the walls with only
jeremey kyle for company.
Yes, as I said, you're rationalising your career failure, just as you
rationalise your fear of flying (first, it was that you didn't like
travelling economy, then it was that you didn't like travelling in
business class, not that you ever have, of course).

Of course, these two problems might be connected: your fear of flying
has stopped you getting a decent job. That may explain your obvious
frustration and permanent anger: no-one likes being judged as a
failure. So here's a date for your diary: 30 June.

<https://www.flyingwithconfidence.com>

I had a colleague who took it, and it transformed him, and his career
prospects.
Roland Perry
2018-06-11 17:39:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by John Williamson
It's a marginal problem. Some destinations aren't worth flying to with
either the transfer passengers or the local passengers as the sole load.
Add the two together, and you have a full plane which makes a profit, as
against two part full ones, neither of which is profitable. It costs
almost the same to fly empty as full.
So currently no actual examples from either roland or you.
I remember when flights to Seattle from Heathrow were only four times a
week. Picking up transfer passengers from Europe meant they could go to
daily.

Although I quite liked being "stranded" in Seattle for a day after my
meeting ended - I could play tourist. Not every businessman would think
the same.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
2018-06-11 19:22:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by John Williamson
It's a marginal problem. Some destinations aren't worth flying to with
either the transfer passengers or the local passengers as the sole load.
Add the two together, and you have a full plane which makes a profit, as
against two part full ones, neither of which is profitable. It costs
almost the same to fly empty as full.
So currently no actual examples from either roland or you.
I remember when flights to Seattle from Heathrow were only four times a
week. Picking up transfer passengers from Europe meant they could go to
daily.
Although I quite liked being "stranded" in Seattle for a day after my
meeting ended - I could play tourist. Not every businessman would think
the same.
As long as you weren't sleepless…
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Roland Perry
2018-06-11 19:40:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by John Williamson
It's a marginal problem. Some destinations aren't worth flying to with
either the transfer passengers or the local passengers as the sole load.
Add the two together, and you have a full plane which makes a profit, as
against two part full ones, neither of which is profitable. It costs
almost the same to fly empty as full.
So currently no actual examples from either roland or you.
I remember when flights to Seattle from Heathrow were only four
times a week. Picking up transfer passengers from Europe meant they
could go to daily.
Although I quite liked being "stranded" in Seattle for a day after
my meeting ended - I could play tourist. Not every businessman would
think the same.
As long as you weren't sleepless
I was there almost a decade before the film. On the other hand, in
between then and the film, I did arrange to meet someone on that same
viewing deck of the Empire State Building. Art imitating life.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2018-06-11 21:15:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by John Williamson
It's a marginal problem. Some destinations aren't worth flying to with
either the transfer passengers or the local passengers as the sole load.
Add the two together, and you have a full plane which makes a profit, as
against two part full ones, neither of which is profitable. It costs
almost the same to fly empty as full.
So currently no actual examples from either roland or you.
I remember when flights to Seattle from Heathrow were only four times a
week. Picking up transfer passengers from Europe meant they could go to
daily.
Heathrow has a poor network to South and central America. That could
improve if it had more slots and could provide more transfer opportunities.
Post by Roland Perry
Although I quite liked being "stranded" in Seattle for a day after my
meeting ended - I could play tourist. Not every businessman would think
the same.
True
tim...
2018-06-12 06:32:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by John Williamson
It's a marginal problem. Some destinations aren't worth flying to with
either the transfer passengers or the local passengers as the sole load.
Add the two together, and you have a full plane which makes a profit, as
against two part full ones, neither of which is profitable. It costs
almost the same to fly empty as full.
So currently no actual examples from either roland or you.
I remember when flights to Seattle from Heathrow were only four times a
week. Picking up transfer passengers from Europe meant they could go to
daily.
Heathrow has a poor network to South and central America. That could
improve if it had more slots and could provide more transfer
opportunities.
It could

but I'd put money on it not

unfortunately, I think we will all be dead before we find out

tim
Roland Perry
2018-06-12 07:11:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<917026963.550444397.299149.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 21:15:52 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Although I quite liked being "stranded" in Seattle for a day after my
meeting ended - I could play tourist. Not every businessman would think
the same.
True
Luckily I was in a hotel in Downtown, so a trip on the monorail to the
Space Needle was a no-brainer.

Another trip I did was more difficult because I had half a day spare in
a hotel in the suburbs near the Microsoft office[1] with nothing obvious
to do.

[1] I see job descriptions from time to time which say "Must be familiar
with Microsoft Office" - that's OK I've been there three times now.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2018-06-12 08:32:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 21:15:52 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Although I quite liked being "stranded" in Seattle for a day after my
meeting ended - I could play tourist. Not every businessman would think
the same.
True
Luckily I was in a hotel in Downtown, so a trip on the monorail to the
Space Needle was a no-brainer.
Another trip I did was more difficult because I had half a day spare in
a hotel in the suburbs near the Microsoft office[1] with nothing obvious
to do.
[1] I see job descriptions from time to time which say "Must be familiar
with Microsoft Office" - that's OK I've been there three times now.
Presumably you visited Microsoft's Office and Home of the Future
exhibitions? It would be interesting to compare their predictions of the
time to the reality of today. And did you get taken to the Microsoft
Store?
Roland Perry
2018-06-12 12:32:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<1623255326.550484743.190372.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>, at 08:32:34 on Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roland Perry
Although I quite liked being "stranded" in Seattle for a day after my
meeting ended - I could play tourist. Not every businessman would think
the same.
True
Luckily I was in a hotel in Downtown, so a trip on the monorail to the
Space Needle was a no-brainer.
Another trip I did was more difficult because I had half a day spare in
a hotel in the suburbs near the Microsoft office[1] with nothing obvious
to do.
[1] I see job descriptions from time to time which say "Must be familiar
with Microsoft Office" - that's OK I've been there three times now.
Presumably you visited Microsoft's Office and Home of the Future
exhibitions?
I don't remember an Office of the Future, but definitely saw the Home of
the Future on a later trip.
Post by Recliner
It would be interesting to compare their predictions of the
time to the reality of today.
One which did come true was the shifting (aka ripping) of music off DVDs
and onto a home server, which was a bit controversial legally at the
time in Europe (although long permitted in USA).
Post by Recliner
And did you get taken to the Microsoft Store?
Yes, and got staff discount. But maybe everyone gets that?
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2018-06-12 15:03:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 08:32:34 on Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Roland Perry
Although I quite liked being "stranded" in Seattle for a day after my
meeting ended - I could play tourist. Not every businessman would think
the same.
True
Luckily I was in a hotel in Downtown, so a trip on the monorail to the
Space Needle was a no-brainer.
Another trip I did was more difficult because I had half a day spare in
a hotel in the suburbs near the Microsoft office[1] with nothing obvious
to do.
[1] I see job descriptions from time to time which say "Must be familiar
with Microsoft Office" - that's OK I've been there three times now.
Presumably you visited Microsoft's Office and Home of the Future
exhibitions?
I don't remember an Office of the Future, but definitely saw the Home of
the Future on a later trip.
Post by Recliner
It would be interesting to compare their predictions of the
time to the reality of today.
One which did come true was the shifting (aka ripping) of music off DVDs
and onto a home server, which was a bit controversial legally at the
time in Europe (although long permitted in USA).
Post by Recliner
And did you get taken to the Microsoft Store?
Yes, and got staff discount. But maybe everyone gets that?
I thought you had to be accompanied by a Microsoft employee.
Roland Perry
2018-06-12 15:11:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<1673278333.550508049.042196.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>, at 15:03:59 on Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
And did you get taken to the Microsoft Store?
Yes, and got staff discount. But maybe everyone gets that?
I thought you had to be accompanied by a Microsoft employee.
I was, because that's who I was visiting, so they showed me around.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2018-06-12 15:35:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 15:03:59 on Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
And did you get taken to the Microsoft Store?
Yes, and got staff discount. But maybe everyone gets that?
I thought you had to be accompanied by a Microsoft employee.
I was, because that's who I was visiting, so they showed me around.
Yes, I think that's part of the standard offer to Redmond visitors. They
were quite surprised when I politely declined, on each of the occasions I
was invited to visit the Store.

Like you, when I had spare time on one visit, I rode the monorail to the
Space Needle, but was disappointed by how dated it seemed. On the other
hand, the Underground Seattle tour, highly recommended to me by a MSFT
super techie, was excellent. He had a large collection of little cubes on
his shelf, each representing a patent he'd been awarded. He had dozens of
them.
Roland Perry
2018-06-12 16:45:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<376022898.550509863.921051.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 15:35:54 on Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 15:03:59 on Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
And did you get taken to the Microsoft Store?
Yes, and got staff discount. But maybe everyone gets that?
I thought you had to be accompanied by a Microsoft employee.
I was, because that's who I was visiting, so they showed me around.
Yes, I think that's part of the standard offer to Redmond visitors.
My first visit was to the former Belleview office. Due to the local
taxation system in the US, they lost out big time when MS relocated the
majority of its operations.

Of course, in those days, MS-UK was emulating the Liberal Party with the
entire head count fitting in one taxi. De Montford Road (nothing to do
with any universities) near Reading station, but located in Reading for
the usual reason at the time - the MD lived in Pangbourne and wanted a
short commute.
Post by Recliner
They were quite surprised when I politely declined, on each of the
occasions I was invited to visit the Store.
In those days it was still the case that US-dollar prices for things
were translated to UK-pound prices, and what with the discount it was
well worth picking up a few things.
Post by Recliner
Like you, when I had spare time on one visit, I rode the monorail to the
Space Needle, but was disappointed by how dated it seemed.
It wasn't that old when I visited it in the mid-80's
Post by Recliner
On the other hand, the Underground Seattle tour, highly recommended to
me by a MSFT super techie, was excellent.
Originating like the Atlanta Underground, which was refurbished, and
trading again, when I visited in the late 80's, but struggled to find
its niche and has now closed for a second time.
--
Roland Perry
Basil Jet
2018-06-13 09:56:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc.
It brings a great deal of employment (on the airport and off it).
It also makes routes which were not otherwise economic to operate,
available to locals to fly on.
... which makes London one of the most connected places in the owrld to
locate a business HQ, which brings more money and talent into the country.
--
Basil Jet - listening to music from 1981(G-Q) ... Gang Of Four - Gary
Numan - Glenn Branca - Grace Jones - Heaven 17 - Holger Czukay - Japan -
Joe Jackson - Josef K - Killing Joke - Kissing The Pink - Klaus Nomi -
Kraftwerk - MX-80 Sound - Madness - Magazine - Massacre - Material -
Maximum Joy - Meat Puppets - Michael Nyman - Minutemen - Mission Of
Burma - Moebius & Plank - New Musik - New Order - Orange Juice - Palais
Schaumburg - Public Image Ltd - Pulp
Recliner
2018-06-13 10:09:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc.
It brings a great deal of employment (on the airport and off it).
It also makes routes which were not otherwise economic to operate,
available to locals to fly on.
... which makes London one of the most connected places in the owrld to
locate a business HQ, which brings more money and talent into the country.
Indeed so, which is why the business community is so keen on the next
runway being at Heathrow. London has been losing out to Amsterdam, Paris
and Frankfurt, and government after government has been agreeing with the
plan in principle, but then failing to confirm it. It'll be ironic if it's
the dithering Maybot that finally does what Cameron, Brown and Blair failed
to do.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-13 10:22:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:09:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc.
It brings a great deal of employment (on the airport and off it).
It also makes routes which were not otherwise economic to operate,
available to locals to fly on.
... which makes London one of the most connected places in the owrld to
locate a business HQ, which brings more money and talent into the country.
Indeed so, which is why the business community is so keen on the next
runway being at Heathrow. London has been losing out to Amsterdam, Paris
and Frankfurt, and government after government has been agreeing with the
Losing out how exactly? You do know that London is the largest financial
centre in europe and even after Brexit only unilever has shifted to amsterdam
and thats only legally. Oh, and Paris is 2 hours away by train - much quicker
than the plane overall, not that many executives want to work in france with its
45% tax rate for high earners and punitive job laws.
Recliner
2018-06-13 10:30:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:09:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc.
It brings a great deal of employment (on the airport and off it).
It also makes routes which were not otherwise economic to operate,
available to locals to fly on.
... which makes London one of the most connected places in the owrld to
locate a business HQ, which brings more money and talent into the country.
Indeed so, which is why the business community is so keen on the next
runway being at Heathrow. London has been losing out to Amsterdam, Paris
and Frankfurt, and government after government has been agreeing with the
Losing out how exactly? You do know that London is the largest financial
centre in europe and even after Brexit only unilever has shifted to amsterdam
and thats only legally. Oh, and Paris is 2 hours away by train - much quicker
than the plane overall, not that many executives want to work in france with its
45% tax rate for high earners and punitive job laws.
I realise that you're not, and never will be, a high earner, so you can be
excused for not knowing that some people in Britain have marginal tax rates
of more than 20%. In fact, the top UK tax rate is 45%, plus 2% employees’
primary class 1 rate above upper earnings limit, so effectively 47%.
John Williamson
2018-06-13 10:43:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
I realise that you're not, and never will be, a high earner, so you can be
excused for not knowing that some people in Britain have marginal tax rates
of more than 20%. In fact, the top UK tax rate is 45%, plus 2% employees’
primary class 1 rate above upper earnings limit, so effectively 47%.
Then again, at the bottom end, if you take withdrawal of benefits into
account, some people have an effective tax rate in excess of 100%. I
know one person who, if they work 20 hours a week instead of 16, is less
well off in spite of working more, as they lose some in work benefits.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
Recliner
2018-06-13 11:20:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:43:27 +0100, John Williamson
Post by John Williamson
Post by Recliner
I realise that you're not, and never will be, a high earner, so you can be
excused for not knowing that some people in Britain have marginal tax rates
of more than 20%. In fact, the top UK tax rate is 45%, plus 2% employees’
primary class 1 rate above upper earnings limit, so effectively 47%.
Then again, at the bottom end, if you take withdrawal of benefits into
account, some people have an effective tax rate in excess of 100%. I
know one person who, if they work 20 hours a week instead of 16, is less
well off in spite of working more, as they lose some in work benefits.
Yes, there are strange bumps in the marginal tax rate curve, and there
are indeed short stretches where the marginal rate can be very high
indeed, even over 100%. The idea of universal credit was to prevent
these anomalies for low earners.

There are also accidental bumps in the marginal tax rate as people
climb the scale; see:
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/01/number-high-earners-caught-60pc-tax-trap-set-double/>

However, the 47% marginal rate is deliberate and applies over the
whole range for very high earners.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-13 10:55:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:30:21 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:09:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc.
It brings a great deal of employment (on the airport and off it).
It also makes routes which were not otherwise economic to operate,
available to locals to fly on.
... which makes London one of the most connected places in the owrld to
locate a business HQ, which brings more money and talent into the country.
Indeed so, which is why the business community is so keen on the next
runway being at Heathrow. London has been losing out to Amsterdam, Paris
and Frankfurt, and government after government has been agreeing with the
Losing out how exactly? You do know that London is the largest financial
centre in europe and even after Brexit only unilever has shifted to amsterdam
and thats only legally. Oh, and Paris is 2 hours away by train - much
quicker
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
than the plane overall, not that many executives want to work in france with
its
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
45% tax rate for high earners and punitive job laws.
I realise that you're not, and never will be, a high earner, so you can be
excused for not knowing that some people in Britain have marginal tax rates
of more than 20%. In fact, the top UK tax rate is 45%, plus 2% employees’
primary class 1 rate above upper earnings limit, so effectively 47%.
The french 45% rate starts at a lower income than the UK, and it used to be
considerably lower when the pound was higher against the euro. Also france
- for some inexplicable reason - don't have the equivalent of PAYE so even
some guy on minimum wage in a warehouse has to do his own taxes at the end of
the year. Couple that with it being almost impossible to fire someone in france
and you can see why not many people want to work there. Most brits who move
out there are retired.
Robin
2018-06-13 11:43:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Also france
- for some inexplicable reason - don't have the equivalent of PAYE so even
some guy on minimum wage in a warehouse has to do his own taxes at the end of
the year.
The lack of compulsory deduction of _income_ tax from wages and salaries
in France is readily explained if you look at the French fiscal system
and talk to French officials in the equivalent of HMRC and Treasury.
But it's only of historical interest as employer withholding is due to
start in January 2019.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-13 10:13:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:56:55 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc.
It brings a great deal of employment (on the airport and off it).
It also makes routes which were not otherwise economic to operate,
available to locals to fly on.
.... which makes London one of the most connected places in the owrld to
locate a business HQ, which brings more money and talent into the country.
There's plenty of talent in this country already. The whole "we need overseas
talent" argument used by business and remoaners is actually code for "we want
to hire the cheapest and foreigners fit the bill because they're desperate for
a job and will work for less".

I've noticed recently that now a lot of east europeans are clearing off a lot
of the coffee shops in county towns have managed to find english staff. These
apparently are the english who we were told are lazy and unwilling to do
menial jobs.
Robin
2018-06-11 12:00:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:15:01 +0100
Post by John Williamson
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.
For about half the passengers who fly in to and out of Heathrow, the
road and rail links outside the airport don't matter, as they fly in
from one airport, possibly change terminals, and fly out to another one.
Which means there's even less reason not to use Manston.
Post by John Williamson
This is the target audience for expansion, as Heathrow is the biggest
hub airport in Europe, and has a wider choice of international
destinations than any other. They are trying to keep their lead in this
over Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol.
And a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc. The fact that the cabinet has been suckered into
approving the new runway demonstrates - if we didn't know already - what a dim
bunch of 2nd raters they are.
Among the many problems with using Manston as London's major airport,
there's fitting the flight paths in with those over mainland Europe for
airports there. Do you reckon France and the Netherlands would nicely
move those for Schipol and CDG to make room?
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-11 13:40:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:00:39 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:15:01 +0100
Post by John Williamson
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.
For about half the passengers who fly in to and out of Heathrow, the
road and rail links outside the airport don't matter, as they fly in
from one airport, possibly change terminals, and fly out to another one.
Which means there's even less reason not to use Manston.
Post by John Williamson
This is the target audience for expansion, as Heathrow is the biggest
hub airport in Europe, and has a wider choice of international
destinations than any other. They are trying to keep their lead in this
over Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol.
And a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc. The fact that the cabinet has been suckered into
approving the new runway demonstrates - if we didn't know already - what a
dim
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
bunch of 2nd raters they are.
Among the many problems with using Manston as London's major airport,
there's fitting the flight paths in with those over mainland Europe for
airports there. Do you reckon France and the Netherlands would nicely
move those for Schipol and CDG to make room?
I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even
if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact on
french or dutch airspace.
Graeme Wall
2018-06-11 14:24:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:00:39 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:15:01 +0100
Post by John Williamson
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.
For about half the passengers who fly in to and out of Heathrow, the
road and rail links outside the airport don't matter, as they fly in
from one airport, possibly change terminals, and fly out to another one.
Which means there's even less reason not to use Manston.
Post by John Williamson
This is the target audience for expansion, as Heathrow is the biggest
hub airport in Europe, and has a wider choice of international
destinations than any other. They are trying to keep their lead in this
over Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol.
And a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc. The fact that the cabinet has been suckered into
approving the new runway demonstrates - if we didn't know already - what a
dim
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
bunch of 2nd raters they are.
Among the many problems with using Manston as London's major airport,
there's fitting the flight paths in with those over mainland Europe for
airports there. Do you reckon France and the Netherlands would nicely
move those for Schipol and CDG to make room?
I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even
if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact on
french or dutch airspace.
Check the prevailing wind directions, also the location of the stacks
for LHR and LGW.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-11 14:31:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:24:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even
if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact on
french or dutch airspace.
Check the prevailing wind directions, also the location of the stacks
for LHR and LGW.
It might be convenient to have a stack downwind of an airport but its not
essential.
Robin
2018-06-11 14:43:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:24:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even
if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact on
french or dutch airspace.
Check the prevailing wind directions, also the location of the stacks
for LHR and LGW.
It might be convenient to have a stack downwind of an airport but its not
essential.
So do you reckon the head of UK ATC was wrong to see problems for
Schipol and the Netherlands with "Boris Island"? Or that with Manston,
some 45km further East, they just wouldn't feature?
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Recliner
2018-06-11 14:55:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robin
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:24:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even
if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact on
french or dutch airspace.
Check the prevailing wind directions, also the location of the stacks
for LHR and LGW.
It might be convenient to have a stack downwind of an airport but its not
essential.
So do you reckon the head of UK ATC was wrong to see problems for
Schipol and the Netherlands with "Boris Island"? Or that with Manston,
some 45km further East, they just wouldn't feature?
Boltar thinks everyone less ignorant than him is wrong. That's most of the
population.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-11 15:25:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 14:55:21 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:24:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But
even
Post by Robin
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact
on
Post by Robin
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
french or dutch airspace.
Check the prevailing wind directions, also the location of the stacks
for LHR and LGW.
It might be convenient to have a stack downwind of an airport but its not
essential.
So do you reckon the head of UK ATC was wrong to see problems for
Schipol and the Netherlands with "Boris Island"? Or that with Manston,
some 45km further East, they just wouldn't feature?
Boltar thinks everyone less ignorant than him is wrong. That's most of the
population.
You just think everyone is wrong. Go slurp some booze, maybe you'll have
something more worthwhile to say.
Recliner
2018-06-11 15:43:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 14:55:21 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:24:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But
even
Post by Robin
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact
on
Post by Robin
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
french or dutch airspace.
Check the prevailing wind directions, also the location of the stacks
for LHR and LGW.
It might be convenient to have a stack downwind of an airport but its not
essential.
So do you reckon the head of UK ATC was wrong to see problems for
Schipol and the Netherlands with "Boris Island"? Or that with Manston,
some 45km further East, they just wouldn't feature?
Boltar thinks everyone less ignorant than him is wrong. That's most of the
population.
You just think everyone is wrong.
No, just you. Let me translate the remark you were replying to: most of the
population is smarter than you.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Go slurp some booze, maybe you'll have
something more worthwhile to say.
I'd have to be seriously drunk to spout the waffle you do, supposedly while
sober.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-12 08:52:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:43:28 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
You just think everyone is wrong.
No, just you. Let me translate the remark you were replying to: most of the
population is smarter than you.
Is that your opinion before or after you've pickled yourself. Its quite
obvious from your past posts that you're a boozing old soak so its fair to
say that anything you say should be taken with an entire cellar of salt.
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Go slurp some booze, maybe you'll have
something more worthwhile to say.
I'd have to be seriously drunk to spout the waffle you do, supposedly while
sober.
I suspect you're drunk most of the time.
Recliner
2018-06-12 09:03:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:43:28 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
You just think everyone is wrong.
No, just you. Let me translate the remark you were replying to: most of the
population is smarter than you.
Is that your opinion before or after you've pickled yourself. Its quite
obvious from your past posts that you're a boozing old soak so its fair to
say that anything you say should be taken with an entire cellar of salt.
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Go slurp some booze, maybe you'll have
something more worthwhile to say.
I'd have to be seriously drunk to spout the waffle you do, supposedly while
sober.
I suspect you're drunk most of the time.
As usual with you, plenty of invective, but zero useful information.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-12 09:33:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:03:52 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:43:28 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
You just think everyone is wrong.
No, just you. Let me translate the remark you were replying to: most of the
population is smarter than you.
Is that your opinion before or after you've pickled yourself. Its quite
obvious from your past posts that you're a boozing old soak so its fair to
say that anything you say should be taken with an entire cellar of salt.
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Go slurp some booze, maybe you'll have
something more worthwhile to say.
I'd have to be seriously drunk to spout the waffle you do, supposedly while
sober.
I suspect you're drunk most of the time.
As usual with you, plenty of invective, but zero useful information.
Not denying it then?
Recliner
2018-06-12 09:52:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:03:52 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:43:28 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
You just think everyone is wrong.
No, just you. Let me translate the remark you were replying to: most of the
population is smarter than you.
Is that your opinion before or after you've pickled yourself. Its quite
obvious from your past posts that you're a boozing old soak so its fair to
say that anything you say should be taken with an entire cellar of salt.
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Go slurp some booze, maybe you'll have
something more worthwhile to say.
I'd have to be seriously drunk to spout the waffle you do, supposedly while
sober.
I suspect you're drunk most of the time.
You certainly behave as if you are. I'm usually cold stone sober when I
post.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
As usual with you, plenty of invective, but zero useful information.
Not denying it then?
You'll be able to tell if I'm drunk if I agree with you.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-11 15:21:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:43:03 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:24:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even
if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact
on
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
french or dutch airspace.
Check the prevailing wind directions, also the location of the stacks
for LHR and LGW.
It might be convenient to have a stack downwind of an airport but its not
essential.
So do you reckon the head of UK ATC was wrong to see problems for
Schipol and the Netherlands with "Boris Island"? Or that with Manston,
some 45km further East, they just wouldn't feature?
Well somehow planes managed to land at manston for decades so why not ask them
how they solved it.
Robin
2018-06-11 15:37:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:43:03 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:24:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even
if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact
on
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
french or dutch airspace.
Check the prevailing wind directions, also the location of the stacks
for LHR and LGW.
It might be convenient to have a stack downwind of an airport but its not
essential.
So do you reckon the head of UK ATC was wrong to see problems for
Schipol and the Netherlands with "Boris Island"? Or that with Manston,
some 45km further East, they just wouldn't feature?
Well somehow planes managed to land at manston for decades so why not ask them
how they solved it.
I do know that actually, having first landed at Manston in 1965 in a
Chipmunk. But why not share your figures for Manston's previous peak
performance and tell us where the extra flight paths will come from to
justify I also know that Manson never achieved a fraction of the
movements necessary to justify the infrastructure investment you are
calling for? Or are they Scotch mist (mist being something Manston used
to be rather good at)
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-12 08:50:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 16:37:28 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Well somehow planes managed to land at manston for decades so why not ask
them
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
how they solved it.
I do know that actually, having first landed at Manston in 1965 in a
Chipmunk. But why not share your figures for Manston's previous peak
performance and tell us where the extra flight paths will come from to
justify I also know that Manson never achieved a fraction of the
movements necessary to justify the infrastructure investment you are
calling for? Or are they Scotch mist (mist being something Manston used
to be rather good at)
Flight paths are not fixed tracks in the sky, they can be adjusted to suit.
You're just putting up made up problems to back up the feeble assertion that
manston is unsuitable. The planes could use exactly the same stacks as
heathrow and gatwick with obviously a different final approach. How do you
think City Airport manages?
Graeme Wall
2018-06-12 19:20:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 16:37:28 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Well somehow planes managed to land at manston for decades so why not ask
them
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
how they solved it.
I do know that actually, having first landed at Manston in 1965 in a
Chipmunk. But why not share your figures for Manston's previous peak
performance and tell us where the extra flight paths will come from to
justify I also know that Manson never achieved a fraction of the
movements necessary to justify the infrastructure investment you are
calling for? Or are they Scotch mist (mist being something Manston used
to be rather good at)
Flight paths are not fixed tracks in the sky, they can be adjusted to suit.
Actually they are.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-13 08:28:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:20:44 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 16:37:28 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Well somehow planes managed to land at manston for decades so why not ask
them
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
how they solved it.
I do know that actually, having first landed at Manston in 1965 in a
Chipmunk. But why not share your figures for Manston's previous peak
performance and tell us where the extra flight paths will come from to
justify I also know that Manson never achieved a fraction of the
movements necessary to justify the infrastructure investment you are
calling for? Or are they Scotch mist (mist being something Manston used
to be rather good at)
Flight paths are not fixed tracks in the sky, they can be adjusted to suit.
Actually they are.
They're not fixed infrastructure such as roads and rails, they can be changed
with little effort.
Graeme Wall
2018-06-13 09:02:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:20:44 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 16:37:28 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Well somehow planes managed to land at manston for decades so why not ask
them
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
how they solved it.
I do know that actually, having first landed at Manston in 1965 in a
Chipmunk. But why not share your figures for Manston's previous peak
performance and tell us where the extra flight paths will come from to
justify I also know that Manson never achieved a fraction of the
movements necessary to justify the infrastructure investment you are
calling for? Or are they Scotch mist (mist being something Manston used
to be rather good at)
Flight paths are not fixed tracks in the sky, they can be adjusted to suit.
Actually they are.
They're not fixed infrastructure such as roads and rails, they can be changed
with little effort.
No they can't. It takes quite a lot of effort on an international scale
to change them.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-13 10:10:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:02:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:20:44 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 16:37:28 +0100
Post by Robin
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Well somehow planes managed to land at manston for decades so why not ask
them
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
how they solved it.
I do know that actually, having first landed at Manston in 1965 in a
Chipmunk. But why not share your figures for Manston's previous peak
performance and tell us where the extra flight paths will come from to
justify I also know that Manson never achieved a fraction of the
movements necessary to justify the infrastructure investment you are
calling for? Or are they Scotch mist (mist being something Manston used
to be rather good at)
Flight paths are not fixed tracks in the sky, they can be adjusted to suit.
Actually they are.
They're not fixed infrastructure such as roads and rails, they can be changed
with little effort.
No they can't. It takes quite a lot of effort on an international scale
to change them.
Why would low level approach flight paths purely over the UK require an
international effort to change?
John Williamson
2018-06-13 10:31:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:20:44 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Flight paths are not fixed tracks in the sky, they can be adjusted to suit.
Actually they are.
They're not fixed infrastructure such as roads and rails, they can be changed
with little effort.
They are fixed to a large extent by the positioning of the runways. To
land safely, most airliners need a straight line approach exceeding 25
miles, entered from a turn of about 10 miles in radius,so for Heathrow,
they start their final approach over the Thames estuary area. For
Manston, that approach would skirt the French coast, so would need
international co-operation between air traffic controllers.

Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low
opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong
airport (AKA Kai Tak, aka HEart attack airport) used to be regularly
voted the worst airport in the World by pilots, due to the twisty
approach between high rise buildings. The new one is rated as being much
safer, due to its unobstructed approach over water.

Air traffic control would also have a low opinion of aircraft taking off
from Manston into the densely occupied landing approach areas round
Heathrow and Gatwick. This would be even more fun when the wind changed
and all of them were taking off and landing while travelling East, so
that Heathrow and Gatwick traffic was taking off into Manston's approach
pattern.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-13 11:02:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:31:18 +0100
Post by John Williamson
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:20:44 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Flight paths are not fixed tracks in the sky, they can be adjusted to suit.
Actually they are.
They're not fixed infrastructure such as roads and rails, they can be changed
with little effort.
They are fixed to a large extent by the positioning of the runways. To
land safely, most airliners need a straight line approach exceeding 25
miles, entered from a turn of about 10 miles in radius,so for Heathrow,
they start their final approach over the Thames estuary area. For
Manston, that approach would skirt the French coast, so would need
international co-operation between air traffic controllers.
Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low
opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong
Someone better tell London City where final approach starts over southwark
all of 6 miles away when landing from the west. Admittedly its smaller planes
but they're still airliners, not cessnas.
Post by John Williamson
Air traffic control would also have a low opinion of aircraft taking off
from Manston into the densely occupied landing approach areas round
Heathrow and Gatwick. This would be even more fun when the wind changed
and all of them were taking off and landing while travelling East, so
that Heathrow and Gatwick traffic was taking off into Manston's approach
pattern.
If you lived in north london like I do you'd see airliners on approach and
departure from heathrow passing each other with minimum vertical and almost
no horizontal seperation every day.
Graeme Wall
2018-06-11 16:38:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:24:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even
if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact on
french or dutch airspace.
Check the prevailing wind directions, also the location of the stacks
for LHR and LGW.
It might be convenient to have a stack downwind of an airport but its not
essential.
It is essential to know which direction you planes are coming from.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
tim...
2018-06-11 11:21:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Williamson
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.
For about half the passengers who fly in to and out of Heathrow, the
I'd be surprised if it's as much as 50%

10% would be nearer my guess (I can't actually find the number)

LHR is a shitty (and expensive) place to connect at.
Post by John Williamson
road and rail links outside the airport don't matter, as they fly in from
one airport, possibly change terminals, and fly out to another one.
This is the target audience for expansion,
and is IMHO a target market that we should not be seeking

London/SE England/rUK is a popular enough market in itself to attract
passengers and make the airport vibrant.

Subjecting a much greater number of residents of West Londoner to
unacceptable noise levels, just to attract connecting passages is not a game
we should be entering (IMHO).
Post by John Williamson
as Heathrow is the biggest hub airport in Europe,
is it?

It might be the biggest airport that's a hub. I doubt very much it is the
airport with the largest number of connecting passengers.
Post by John Williamson
and has a wider choice of international destinations than any other.
No it doesn't

one of the stated reasons for claiming that we need the extra runway is that
it has fallen behind in terms of choice of destinations

tim
Recliner
2018-06-11 11:41:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by John Williamson
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.
For about half the passengers who fly in to and out of Heathrow, the
I'd be surprised if it's as much as 50%
Prepare to be surprised: it's 30%
Post by tim...
10% would be nearer my guess (I can't actually find the number)
It takes less time to find than it took you to say you couldn't find
it.
<https://www.heathrow.com/company/company-news-and-information/company-information/facts-and-figures>
Post by tim...
LHR is a shitty (and expensive) place to connect at.
True, it's what comes of having multiple, widely-separated terminals.
It's not bad if the transfer is within one terminal, but pretty bad if
it involves a bus journey between terminals.
Post by tim...
Post by John Williamson
road and rail links outside the airport don't matter, as they fly in from
one airport, possibly change terminals, and fly out to another one.
This is the target audience for expansion,
and is IMHO a target market that we should not be seeking
London/SE England/rUK is a popular enough market in itself to attract
passengers and make the airport vibrant.
Subjecting a much greater number of residents of West Londoner to
unacceptable noise levels, just to attract connecting passages is not a game
we should be entering (IMHO).
Post by John Williamson
as Heathrow is the biggest hub airport in Europe,
is it?
It might be the biggest airport that's a hub. I doubt very much it is the
airport with the largest number of connecting passengers.
That may well be true: AMS or CDG may be ahead in terms of transfer
passengers.
Post by tim...
Post by John Williamson
and has a wider choice of international destinations than any other.
No it doesn't
True. In fact, even Gatwick has more foreign destinations than
Heathrow, and I've had to use hubs in Amsterdam, Madrid and Paris to
travel to airports that really ought to have direct UK flights.

"Heathrow serves 185 destinations in 84 countries, while Gatwick
serves 200 destinations in 90 countries."

<https://www.pinkelephantparking.com/heathrow-vs-gatwick-the-facts/>
Post by tim...
one of the stated reasons for claiming that we need the extra runway is that
it has fallen behind in terms of choice of destinations
True
Roland Perry
2018-06-11 12:53:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
10% would be nearer my guess (I can't actually find the number)
It takes less time to find than it took you to say you couldn't find
it.
<sigh> the Tim effect in its full glory.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2018-06-12 05:59:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by John Williamson
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.
For about half the passengers who fly in to and out of Heathrow, the
I'd be surprised if it's as much as 50%
Prepare to be surprised: it's 30%
how is 30% *as much as" 50%
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
10% would be nearer my guess (I can't actually find the number)
It takes less time to find than it took you to say you couldn't find
it.
<https://www.heathrow.com/company/company-news-and-information/company-information/facts-and-figures>
only if you know which of the 100s of links that you get is the one that you
need to open

what I meant was the details did not appear in the summary

I clicked on a few, but none of them gave me the data that I was looking
for.

I didn't have time for the other 397.
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
LHR is a shitty (and expensive) place to connect at.
True, it's what comes of having multiple, widely-separated terminals.
It's not bad if the transfer is within one terminal, but pretty bad if
it involves a bus journey between terminals.
Post by tim...
Post by John Williamson
road and rail links outside the airport don't matter, as they fly in from
one airport, possibly change terminals, and fly out to another one.
This is the target audience for expansion,
and is IMHO a target market that we should not be seeking
London/SE England/rUK is a popular enough market in itself to attract
passengers and make the airport vibrant.
Subjecting a much greater number of residents of West Londoner to
unacceptable noise levels, just to attract connecting passages is not a game
we should be entering (IMHO).
Post by John Williamson
as Heathrow is the biggest hub airport in Europe,
is it?
It might be the biggest airport that's a hub. I doubt very much it is the
airport with the largest number of connecting passengers.
That may well be true: AMS or CDG may be ahead in terms of transfer
passengers.
Post by tim...
Post by John Williamson
and has a wider choice of international destinations than any other.
No it doesn't
True. In fact, even Gatwick has more foreign destinations than
Heathrow, and I've had to use hubs in Amsterdam, Madrid and Paris to
travel to airports that really ought to have direct UK flights.
"Heathrow serves 185 destinations in 84 countries, while Gatwick
serves 200 destinations in 90 countries."
<https://www.pinkelephantparking.com/heathrow-vs-gatwick-the-facts/>
Thanks

tim
John Williamson
2018-06-11 11:55:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
I'd be surprised if it's as much as 50%
10% would be nearer my guess (I can't actually find the number)
Half is a slightly misremembered approximation. LHR claim 30%.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
tim...
2018-06-11 11:13:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 16:41:14 +0100
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Sure, and Porcine Airlines will be the first flight out. There is simply no
way they can raise that sort of money on the open market, the government will
be coughing up if they want it finished. And thats before you factor in the
economic chaos that the delays on the M25 caused by putting it in a tunnel
will create. All because some idiots believed the spin that we don't have
enough runways in the SE. Obviously nobody mentioned Gatwick, Stansted, Luton,
all filling up
Hardly. Look at flightradar24 to see the stream of planes not landing at
Luton.
OK Luton's a bit further from being full than the other 2, but it's still
filling up
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
London City and Southend to them. And then there's Marsden in kent which is
soon to be turned into a housing estate. Go figure.
because next to no-one wants to fly from there
three attempts to encourage people to do so have failed.
It's pointless trying again.
Actually I got the name wrong, its Manston, not marsden, but doesn't matter.
I have to say that I didn't notice, as I know exactly where the airport in
"Kent" is, that it is not at Marsden is moot
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.
Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a
population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive

an hour and a half from Manston sees you reach about a million people

The road to Manston isn't bad, it's just at (one of) the farthest corner(s)
of the country
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Theres a rail line spitting distance from Manston which
could easily have a short branch line built to the airport just as happened at
Stansted and it would be a lot cheaper than any new runway at any london
airport, never mind heathrow.
Agreed

It would be easy to rail link Manston (moving the terminal would be easier
than building a rail spur)

But it's still going to be 1 and half hour away from a London Terminal.
That's just too far
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Unless you have a car you can't get to Manston
yet those in power throw their hands up and say "Look, no one uses it!". Well
quelle surprise.
There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by car

Yet they manage to achieve a critical mass of customers - because they have
a large enough local catchment

Manston does not
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-11 11:42:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.
Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a
population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive
If it didn't have any PT links or a motorway it would take a damn site more
than 1.5 hours to reach it - the roads would be gridlocked.
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Unless you have a car you can't get to Manston
yet those in power throw their hands up and say "Look, no one uses it!". Well
quelle surprise.
There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by car
Yet they manage to achieve a critical mass of customers - because they have
a large enough local catchment
Manston does not
Yet oddly it worked for Hong Kong.
Graeme Wall
2018-06-11 12:00:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.
Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a
population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive
If it didn't have any PT links or a motorway it would take a damn site more
than 1.5 hours to reach it - the roads would be gridlocked.
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Unless you have a car you can't get to Manston
yet those in power throw their hands up and say "Look, no one uses it!". Well
quelle surprise.
There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by car
Yet they manage to achieve a critical mass of customers - because they have
a large enough local catchment
Manston does not
Yet oddly it worked for Hong Kong.
You can't get a tailor made suit in 24 hours in Manston.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-11 13:38:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:00:46 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.
Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a
population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive
If it didn't have any PT links or a motorway it would take a damn site more
than 1.5 hours to reach it - the roads would be gridlocked.
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Unless you have a car you can't get to Manston
yet those in power throw their hands up and say "Look, no one uses it!". Well
quelle surprise.
There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by car
Yet they manage to achieve a critical mass of customers - because they have
a large enough local catchment
Manston does not
Yet oddly it worked for Hong Kong.
You can't get a tailor made suit in 24 hours in Manston.
Obviously not, but the cost and disruption would be far less than for any
current london airport. And if the 3rd runway really is just for hub flights
(and if my granny had wheels she'd be a bus) then all you'd need to build
at Manston would be a nice terminal for the pax to wait in, you wouldn't even
need to bother with transport links - even cheaper.
Graeme Wall
2018-06-11 14:25:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:00:46 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.
Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a
population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive
If it didn't have any PT links or a motorway it would take a damn site more
than 1.5 hours to reach it - the roads would be gridlocked.
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Unless you have a car you can't get to Manston
yet those in power throw their hands up and say "Look, no one uses it!". Well
quelle surprise.
There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by car
Yet they manage to achieve a critical mass of customers - because they have
a large enough local catchment
Manston does not
Yet oddly it worked for Hong Kong.
You can't get a tailor made suit in 24 hours in Manston.
Obviously not, but the cost and disruption would be far less than for any
current london airport. And if the 3rd runway really is just for hub flights
(and if my granny had wheels she'd be a bus) then all you'd need to build
at Manston would be a nice terminal for the pax to wait in, you wouldn't even
need to bother with transport links - even cheaper.
That's not how a hub airport works.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-06-11 14:32:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:25:57 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:00:46 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.
Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a
population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive
If it didn't have any PT links or a motorway it would take a damn site more
than 1.5 hours to reach it - the roads would be gridlocked.
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Unless you have a car you can't get to Manston
yet those in power throw their hands up and say "Look, no one uses it!". Well
quelle surprise.
There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by
car
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by tim...
Yet they manage to achieve a critical mass of customers - because they
have
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by tim...
a large enough local catchment
Manston does not
Yet oddly it worked for Hong Kong.
You can't get a tailor made suit in 24 hours in Manston.
Obviously not, but the cost and disruption would be far less than for any
current london airport. And if the 3rd runway really is just for hub flights
(and if my granny had wheels she'd be a bus) then all you'd need to build
at Manston would be a nice terminal for the pax to wait in, you wouldn't even
need to bother with transport links - even cheaper.
That's not how a hub airport works.
Oh ok, are we going to get yet another definition of a hub airport from you
too?
Graeme Wall
2018-06-11 16:38:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:25:57 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:00:46 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.
Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a
population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive
If it didn't have any PT links or a motorway it would take a damn site more
than 1.5 hours to reach it - the roads would be gridlocked.
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Unless you have a car you can't get to Manston
yet those in power throw their hands up and say "Look, no one uses it!". Well
quelle surprise.
There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by
car
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by tim...
Yet they manage to achieve a critical mass of customers - because they
have
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by tim...
a large enough local catchment
Manston does not
Yet oddly it worked for Hong Kong.
You can't get a tailor made suit in 24 hours in Manston.
Obviously not, but the cost and disruption would be far less than for any
current london airport. And if the 3rd runway really is just for hub flights
(and if my granny had wheels she'd be a bus) then all you'd need to build
at Manston would be a nice terminal for the pax to wait in, you wouldn't even
need to bother with transport links - even cheaper.
That's not how a hub airport works.
Oh ok, are we going to get yet another definition of a hub airport from you
too?
Nope, same one as everyone else.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Arthur Figgis
2018-06-11 22:26:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
You can't get a tailor made suit in 24 hours in Manston.
Unless Mr Raja Daswani is at the Premier Inn?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
tim...
2018-06-12 06:03:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.
Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a
population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive
If it didn't have any PT links or a motorway it would take a damn site more
than 1.5 hours to reach it - the roads would be gridlocked.
why would you build an airport where there were unsuitable roads?
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Unless you have a car you can't get to Manston
yet those in power throw their hands up and say "Look, no one uses it!". Well
quelle surprise.
There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by car
Yet they manage to achieve a critical mass of customers - because they have
a large enough local catchment
Manston does not
Yet oddly it worked for Hong Kong.
because they closed the alternative.

IS Hong Kong airport really 1 and half hours from the "city", I wouldn't
have thought the province was big enough for that

tim
Recliner
2018-06-12 08:32:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.
Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a
population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive
If it didn't have any PT links or a motorway it would take a damn site more
than 1.5 hours to reach it - the roads would be gridlocked.
why would you build an airport where there were unsuitable roads?
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Unless you have a car you can't get to Manston
yet those in power throw their hands up and say "Look, no one uses it!". Well
quelle surprise.
There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by car
Yet they manage to achieve a critical mass of customers - because they have
a large enough local catchment
Manston does not
Yet oddly it worked for Hong Kong.
because they closed the alternative.
IS Hong Kong airport really 1 and half hours from the "city", I wouldn't
have thought the province was big enough for that
And you're right: it takes 24 minutes (less to Kowloon), and the trains run
every 12 minutes. Even by bus, it only takes 45 minutes.
Graeme Wall
2018-06-11 11:57:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 16:41:14 +0100
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Sure, and Porcine Airlines will be the first flight out. There is
simply
no
way they can raise that sort of money on the open market, the
government
will
be coughing up if they want it finished. And thats before you factor in the
economic chaos that the delays on the M25 caused by putting it in a tunnel
will create. All because some idiots believed the spin that we don't have
enough runways in the SE. Obviously nobody mentioned Gatwick, Stansted, Luton,
all filling up
Hardly. Look at flightradar24 to see the stream of planes not landing at
Luton.
OK Luton's a bit further from being full than the other 2, but it's
still filling up
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by tim...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
London City and Southend to them. And then there's Marsden in kent
which
is
soon to be turned into a housing estate. Go figure.
because next to no-one wants to fly from there
three attempts to encourage people to do so have failed.
It's pointless trying again.
Actually I got the name wrong, its Manston, not marsden, but doesn't matter.
I have to say that I didn't notice, as I know exactly where the airport
in "Kent" is, that it is not at Marsden is moot
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.
Don't be silly.  It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a
population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive
an hour and a half from Manston sees you reach about a million people
The road to Manston isn't bad, it's just at (one of) the farthest
corner(s) of the country
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Theres a rail line spitting distance from Manston which
could easily have a short branch line built to the airport just as happened at
Stansted and it would be a lot cheaper than any new runway at any london
airport, never mind heathrow.
Agreed
It would be easy to rail link Manston (moving the terminal would be
easier than building a rail spur)
But it's still going to be 1 and half hour away from a London Terminal.
That's just too far
JOOI what's the travel time from a London terminal to Luton?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Arthur Figgis
2018-06-11 22:35:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
JOOI what's the travel time from a London terminal to Luton?
About 20/30/40 minutes from St Pancras to Luton Airport Parkway, 5
minutes negotiating the stairs, then weird relativistic effects kick in
which mean the bus takes maybe 10 minutes from joining the queue to
getting off but it feels like about a week.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Roland Perry
2018-06-08 15:35:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<1392373127.550159577.712157.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>, at 14:12:06 on Fri, 8 Jun 2018, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
I thought the whole idea of airport expansion was that the airport was
expected to pay for it themselves
They are: the expansion will be privately funded by HAL, ultimately funded
by airline access charges (currently around £20/passenger, but which may
rise). But TfL has warned that HAL may not be so willing to pay for
infrastructure and public transport upgrades outside the airport.
Are HAL paying the whole cost of the M25 tunnel (after the runway's
finished, it'll be within the airport's footprint).
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2018-06-08 19:03:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 14:12:06 on Fri, 8 Jun 2018, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
I thought the whole idea of airport expansion was that the airport was
expected to pay for it themselves
They are: the expansion will be privately funded by HAL, ultimately funded
by airline access charges (currently around £20/passenger, but which may
rise). But TfL has warned that HAL may not be so willing to pay for
infrastructure and public transport upgrades outside the airport.
Are HAL paying the whole cost of the M25 tunnel (after the runway's
finished, it'll be within the airport's footprint).
I'm not sure. It's not even clear if there will be a tunnel.
Richard J.
2018-06-08 23:32:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 14:12:06 on Fri, 8 Jun 2018, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
I thought the whole idea of airport expansion was that the airport was
expected to pay for it themselves
They are: the expansion will be privately funded by HAL, ultimately funded
by airline access charges (currently around £20/passenger, but which may
rise). But TfL has warned that HAL may not be so willing to pay for
infrastructure and public transport upgrades outside the airport.
Are HAL paying the whole cost of the M25 tunnel (after the runway's
finished, it'll be within the airport's footprint).
I'm not sure. It's not even clear if there will be a tunnel.
As I understand it, the runway will cross the M25 on a bridge or viaduct, and will have a slight uphill gradient towards the west in order to clear the motorway. Such gradients on runways are not uncommon, with Birmingham being a notable example (see for example
)
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)
Recliner
2018-06-09 02:44:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard J.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 14:12:06 on Fri, 8 Jun 2018, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
I thought the whole idea of airport expansion was that the airport was
expected to pay for it themselves
They are: the expansion will be privately funded by HAL, ultimately funded
by airline access charges (currently around £20/passenger, but which may
rise). But TfL has warned that HAL may not be so willing to pay for
infrastructure and public transport upgrades outside the airport.
Are HAL paying the whole cost of the M25 tunnel (after the runway's
finished, it'll be within the airport's footprint).
I'm not sure. It's not even clear if there will be a tunnel.
As I understand it, the runway will cross the M25 on a bridge or viaduct,
and will have a slight uphill gradient towards the west in order to clear
the motorway. Such gradients on runways are not uncommon, with
Birmingham being a notable example (see for example
http://youtu.be/lP35ULU6IcQ )
That's one of the possibilities. There are several competing proposals.

The airlines are afraid that HAL will go for the most expensive option, as
that allows it to charge them more, so they're campaigning for a cheaper
option, such as the viaduct runway over an undisturbed M25, and no new
terminal.
Someone Somewhere
2018-06-09 06:34:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard J.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
In message
ember.org>, at 14:12:06 on Fri, 8 Jun 2018, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
I thought the whole idea of airport expansion was that the airport was
expected to pay for it themselves
They are: the expansion will be privately funded by HAL, ultimately funded
by airline access charges (currently around £20/passenger, but which may
rise). But TfL has warned that HAL may not be so willing to pay for
infrastructure and public transport upgrades outside the airport.
Are HAL paying the whole cost of the M25 tunnel (after the runway's
finished, it'll be within the airport's footprint).
I'm not sure. It's not even clear if there will be a tunnel.
As I understand it, the runway will cross the M25 on a bridge or
viaduct, and will have a slight uphill gradient towards the west in
order to clear the motorway.  Such gradients on runways are not
uncommon, with Birmingham being a notable example (see for example
http://youtu.be/lP35ULU6IcQ )
Why not take it to its extreme and follow the example of aircraft
carriers and have a ski jump at the end? Would make takeoff more
exciting, but I can see it may cause some problems for landing.

Maybe take the lead from aircraft carriers again and have some kind of
arrestor wire arrangement on a short piece of runway?
Loading...