Discussion:
Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
(too old to reply)
tim...
2020-02-28 08:51:46 UTC
Permalink
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.
Graeme Wall
2020-02-28 08:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.
The more interesting thing is campaigners are intending to challenge
road schemes on the same grounds which could have a beneficial effect on
the economics of rail expansion and electrification schemes.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2020-02-28 09:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim...
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.
The more interesting thing is campaigners are intending to challenge
road schemes on the same grounds which could have a beneficial effect on
the economics of rail expansion and electrification schemes.
The same campaigners also challenge rail schemes, as we've seen with HS2.

The same ruling will also apply to any other airport expansion, which may
not please the government and London mayor quite so much.
tim...
2020-02-28 12:15:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim...
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.
The more interesting thing is campaigners are intending to challenge
road schemes on the same grounds which could have a beneficial effect on
the economics of rail expansion and electrification schemes.
The same campaigners also challenge rail schemes, as we've seen with HS2.
The same ruling will also apply to any other airport expansion, which may
not please the government and London mayor quite so much.
The point about the ruling is that it didn't say that the airport expansion,
wasn't, or couldn't be, compliant with <whatever law it is that it's suppose
to comply with>, just noted that the proposals hadn't been tested against
that requirement, when they should have been.

AISI the problem with LHR expansion when performing that test, is that its
business case is based upon the increased use of LHR as a global hub and
therefore encouraging extra people to travel via LHR, for whom neither their
source nor destination is in the UK.

It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased opportunity for
air travel is necessary for the overall good of the UK economy (except in
the trivial amount that air side purchases form of the economy) and that
that economic benefit justifies meeting/overriding whatever requirement the
afore mentioned act requires. Something that a stand alone improvement of
UK point to point travel (rail, road or air) might manage.

tim
Recliner
2020-02-28 12:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim...
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.
The more interesting thing is campaigners are intending to challenge
road schemes on the same grounds which could have a beneficial effect on
the economics of rail expansion and electrification schemes.
The same campaigners also challenge rail schemes, as we've seen with HS2.
The same ruling will also apply to any other airport expansion, which may
not please the government and London mayor quite so much.
The point about the ruling is that it didn't say that the airport expansion,
wasn't, or couldn't be, compliant with <whatever law it is that it's suppose
to comply with>, just noted that the proposals hadn't been tested against
that requirement, when they should have been.
Yup, another gift from that nice Mr Grayling!
Post by tim...
AISI the problem with LHR expansion when performing that test, is that its
business case is based upon the increased use of LHR as a global hub and
therefore encouraging extra people to travel via LHR, for whom neither their
source nor destination is in the UK.
Many of those hub users will be based in the UK, just not near
Heathrow. For example, there will be more UK regional flights to an
expanded Heathrow.
Post by tim...
It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased opportunity for
air travel is necessary for the overall good of the UK economy (except in
the trivial amount that air side purchases form of the economy) and that
that economic benefit justifies meeting/overriding whatever requirement the
afore mentioned act requires. Something that a stand alone improvement of
UK point to point travel (rail, road or air) might manage.
There are many other benefits from Heathrow expansion, including
having more direct flights from it to places like South America, thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents and the planet.
tim...
2020-02-28 14:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim...
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.
The more interesting thing is campaigners are intending to challenge
road schemes on the same grounds which could have a beneficial effect on
the economics of rail expansion and electrification schemes.
The same campaigners also challenge rail schemes, as we've seen with HS2.
The same ruling will also apply to any other airport expansion, which may
not please the government and London mayor quite so much.
The point about the ruling is that it didn't say that the airport expansion,
wasn't, or couldn't be, compliant with <whatever law it is that it's suppose
to comply with>, just noted that the proposals hadn't been tested against
that requirement, when they should have been.
Yup, another gift from that nice Mr Grayling!
Post by tim...
AISI the problem with LHR expansion when performing that test, is that its
business case is based upon the increased use of LHR as a global hub and
therefore encouraging extra people to travel via LHR, for whom neither their
source nor destination is in the UK.
Many of those hub users will be based in the UK, just not near
Heathrow. For example, there will be more UK regional flights to an
expanded Heathrow.
that's not the point

many of them aren't (based in the UK)
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased opportunity for
air travel is necessary for the overall good of the UK economy (except in
the trivial amount that air side purchases form of the economy) and that
that economic benefit justifies meeting/overriding whatever requirement the
afore mentioned act requires. Something that a stand alone improvement of
UK point to point travel (rail, road or air) might manage.
There are many other benefits from Heathrow expansion, including
having more direct flights from it to places like South America,
really

pure speculation
Post by Recliner
thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents
if it happens
Post by Recliner
and the planet.
how?

Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.

If there are more flights from London extracting passengers, those flights
will operate less full

I couldn't believe how empty my flight with Emirates last month was. Barely
a quarter full.

I understand their business mode of proving a hub and spoke from Europe to
the Far East.

But do they really need three flights from Heathrow, 2 from Gatwick and at
least one from Stansted - every day?
Recliner
2020-02-28 16:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim...
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.
The more interesting thing is campaigners are intending to challenge
road schemes on the same grounds which could have a beneficial effect on
the economics of rail expansion and electrification schemes.
The same campaigners also challenge rail schemes, as we've seen with HS2.
The same ruling will also apply to any other airport expansion, which may
not please the government and London mayor quite so much.
The point about the ruling is that it didn't say that the airport expansion,
wasn't, or couldn't be, compliant with <whatever law it is that it's suppose
to comply with>, just noted that the proposals hadn't been tested against
that requirement, when they should have been.
Yup, another gift from that nice Mr Grayling!
Post by tim...
AISI the problem with LHR expansion when performing that test, is that its
business case is based upon the increased use of LHR as a global hub and
therefore encouraging extra people to travel via LHR, for whom neither their
source nor destination is in the UK.
Many of those hub users will be based in the UK, just not near
Heathrow. For example, there will be more UK regional flights to an
expanded Heathrow.
that's not the point
many of them aren't (based in the UK)
Sure, so they'll be using LHR instead of some other hub. That brings
business to a UK airline and the many businesses that serve Heathrow.
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased opportunity for
air travel is necessary for the overall good of the UK economy (except in
the trivial amount that air side purchases form of the economy) and that
that economic benefit justifies meeting/overriding whatever requirement the
afore mentioned act requires. Something that a stand alone improvement of
UK point to point travel (rail, road or air) might manage.
There are many other benefits from Heathrow expansion, including
having more direct flights from it to places like South America,
really
pure speculation
Everything about the future is speculation.
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents
if it happens
Post by Recliner
and the planet.
how?
Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.
There will be fewer of them if they lose their UK pax.
Post by tim...
If there are more flights from London extracting passengers, those flights
will operate less full
No, they either won't operate, or they'll be down-gauged.
Post by tim...
I couldn't believe how empty my flight with Emirates last month was. Barely
a quarter full.
I understand their business mode of proving a hub and spoke from Europe to
the Far East.
But do they really need three flights from Heathrow, 2 from Gatwick and at
least one from Stansted - every day?
They wouldn't operate them if they couldn't get a decent load factor.
Roland Perry
2020-02-28 18:42:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Everything about the future is speculation.
Apart perhaps from the folly of building a new plant to produce diesel
engines to prospectively fit in JLR vehicles manufactured in the 2030's.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2020-02-28 19:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Everything about the future is speculation.
Apart perhaps from the folly of building a new plant to produce diesel
engines to prospectively fit in JLR vehicles manufactured in the 2030's.
Yes, that was a very expensive decision. The sad thing is that it produces
particularly clean diesel engines.

But I'm sure they now wish they'd invested in BEV technology instead.
Roland Perry
2020-02-29 19:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Everything about the future is speculation.
Apart perhaps from the folly of building a new plant to produce diesel
engines to prospectively fit in JLR vehicles manufactured in the 2030's.
Yes, that was a very expensive decision. The sad thing is that it produces
particularly clean diesel engines.
I was more thinking about such a decision being taken this year or next.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2020-02-29 07:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents
if it happens
Post by Recliner
and the planet.
how?
Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.
There will be fewer of them
but, certainly in the case of South America, that's not going to happen

I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the long
haul part are Spanish Speaking.

Their source/destination for this journey was Spain.

They aren't going to switch to flying via LON, it adds 6 hours to their
journey.
Post by Recliner
if they lose their UK pax.
there aren't enough Brits on many of these suggested routes to make a
difference

tim
Recliner
2020-02-29 16:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents
if it happens
Post by Recliner
and the planet.
how?
Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.
There will be fewer of them
but, certainly in the case of South America, that's not going to happen
I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the long
haul part are Spanish Speaking.
Which routes have you flown? Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights, so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .
Post by tim...
Their source/destination for this journey was Spain.
They aren't going to switch to flying via LON, it adds 6 hours to their
journey.
Agreed
Roland Perry
2020-02-29 19:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the long
haul part are Spanish Speaking.
Which routes have you flown? Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights, so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .
I've flown UK-AMS-USA several times, when not only was the fare a couple
of hundred pounds cheaper per person (adds up, if four of you) but the
time we needed to leave home to get to the departure airport and to
check in was later.
--
Roland Perry
Martin Smith
2020-03-03 13:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents
if it happens
Post by Recliner
and the planet.
how?
Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.
There will be fewer of them
but, certainly in the case of South America, that's not going to happen
I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the long
haul part are Spanish Speaking.
Which routes have you flown? Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights, so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .
TAM fly direct from LHR to Sao Paulo and Rio, but as I discovered this
week its at least £200 cheaper to fly via Zurich as I have a further
flight when I get there, and the layover is shorter, my final
destination is SLZ which calls itself an international airport but only
has internal flights
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Their source/destination for this journey was Spain.
They aren't going to switch to flying via LON, it adds 6 hours to their
journey.
Agreed
--
Martin
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-03-05 16:44:59 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 13:10:07 +0000
Post by Martin Smith
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents
if it happens
Post by Recliner
and the planet.
how?
Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.
There will be fewer of them
but, certainly in the case of South America, that's not going to happen
I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the long
haul part are Spanish Speaking.
Which routes have you flown? Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights, so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .
TAM fly direct from LHR to Sao Paulo and Rio, but as I discovered this
week its at least £200 cheaper to fly via Zurich as I have a further
flight when I get there, and the layover is shorter, my final
destination is SLZ which calls itself an international airport but only
has internal flights
Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely I
imagine.
Martin Smith
2020-03-06 09:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 13:10:07 +0000
Post by Martin Smith
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents
if it happens
Post by Recliner
and the planet.
how?
Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.
There will be fewer of them
but, certainly in the case of South America, that's not going to happen
I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the long
haul part are Spanish Speaking.
Which routes have you flown? Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights, so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .
TAM fly direct from LHR to Sao Paulo and Rio, but as I discovered this
week its at least £200 cheaper to fly via Zurich as I have a further
flight when I get there, and the layover is shorter, my final
destination is SLZ which calls itself an international airport but only
has internal flights
Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely I
imagine.
Due to the extreme political situation in Brazil its unlikely that I
will be going, havent been there for 5 years. the president has made it
legal to kill indigenous people and take their land.
--
Martin
MissRiaElaine
2020-03-06 16:53:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely I
imagine.
My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the land.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-03-07 12:14:44 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely I
imagine.
My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the land.
Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared off
to live 4000 miles away.
MissRiaElaine
2020-03-07 23:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely I
imagine.
My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the land.
Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared off
to live 4000 miles away.
Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-03-09 09:22:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:02:47 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely I
imagine.
My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the land.
Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared off
to live 4000 miles away.
Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?
Perhaps you have a different definition of friends. For me a friend is someone
who I can phone and meet down the pub, not someone I have to fly > 3000 miles
to see maybe and shell out a small fortune to do so.
Roland Perry
2020-03-09 10:19:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:02:47 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely I
imagine.
My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the land.
Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared off
to live 4000 miles away.
Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?
Perhaps you have a different definition of friends. For me a friend is someone
who I can phone
Apparently, phone wires extend beyond Little England.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
and meet down the pub,
That must reduce the available pool significantly
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
not someone I have to fly > 3000 miles to see maybe and shell out a
small fortune to do so.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2020-03-09 10:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:02:47 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely I
imagine.
My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the land.
Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared off
to live 4000 miles away.
Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?
Perhaps you have a different definition of friends. For me a friend is someone
who I can phone
Apparently, phone wires extend beyond Little England.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
and meet down the pub,
That must reduce the available pool significantly
Especially as Neil has previously told us he doesn't drink beer or go to
the pub.
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-03-09 11:02:21 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 10:48:43 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:02:47 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along
nicely I
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
imagine.
My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the
land.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared off
to live 4000 miles away.
Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?
Perhaps you have a different definition of friends. For me a friend is
someone
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
who I can phone
Apparently, phone wires extend beyond Little England.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
and meet down the pub,
That must reduce the available pool significantly
Especially as Neil has previously told us he doesn't drink beer or go to
the pub.
And when did I say that Billy?
Recliner
2020-03-09 11:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 10:48:43 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:02:47 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along
nicely I
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
imagine.
My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the
land.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared off
to live 4000 miles away.
Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?
Perhaps you have a different definition of friends. For me a friend is
someone
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
who I can phone
Apparently, phone wires extend beyond Little England.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
and meet down the pub,
That must reduce the available pool significantly
Especially as Neil has previously told us he doesn't drink beer or go to
the pub.
And when did I say that Billy?
Have you forgotten already?
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-03-09 11:56:34 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 11:08:17 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 10:48:43 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:02:47 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along
nicely I
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
imagine.
My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this
year
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the
land.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared
off
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
to live 4000 miles away.
Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?
Perhaps you have a different definition of friends. For me a friend is
someone
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
who I can phone
Apparently, phone wires extend beyond Little England.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
and meet down the pub,
That must reduce the available pool significantly
Especially as Neil has previously told us he doesn't drink beer or go to
the pub.
And when did I say that Billy?
Have you forgotten already?
So it would seem. Do enlighten me.
Recliner
2020-03-09 12:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 11:08:17 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 10:48:43 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:02:47 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along
nicely I
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
imagine.
My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this
year
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the
land.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared
off
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
to live 4000 miles away.
Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?
Perhaps you have a different definition of friends. For me a friend is
someone
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
who I can phone
Apparently, phone wires extend beyond Little England.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
and meet down the pub,
That must reduce the available pool significantly
Especially as Neil has previously told us he doesn't drink beer or go to
the pub.
And when did I say that Billy?
Have you forgotten already?
So it would seem. Do enlighten me.
It was almost two years ago, so no doubt your memory has faded:

***@cylonhq.com
- hide quoted text -
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 14:02:07 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 12:56:50 +0100
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 11:49:00 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Tbh most pubs these days are now just family (ie you get to enjoy
screaming
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
kids) restaurants that also have a license. If they couldn't serve booze
I
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
doubt it would affect many of them as they can make more profit selling
coffee
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
for 3 quid a cup. The old style boozer pub is long gone except maybe in a
few
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
places here and there.
I take it you don't visit Wetherspoon pubs?
No idea. I tend not to take much notice of the bewery name when we drop in.
It's not a brewery.
Fine, I don't take much notice of the conglomorate owners name when we drop
in.
I take it that you're not a beer drinker, then?
Like cigarettes, beer is something that you have to aquire a taste for
because
its so digusting. I never bothered.
MissRiaElaine
2020-03-09 14:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Like cigarettes, beer is something that you have to aquire a taste for
because
its so digusting. I never bothered.
I like both, although I was forced to give up smoking due to price, not
for any other reason. I still drink occasionally, but again price has an
effect.

Forcing people to give up what they enjoy by pricing them out of the
market achieves little or nothing except raising tax revenue from the
wealthy, but I'd better shut up or I'll get too political even for this
group.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Recliner
2020-03-09 15:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Recliner
Like cigarettes, beer is something that you have to aquire a taste for
because its so digusting. I never bothered.
I like both, although I was forced to give up smoking due to price, not
for any other reason. I still drink occasionally, but again price has an
effect.
Forcing people to give up what they enjoy by pricing them out of the
market achieves little or nothing except raising tax revenue from the
wealthy, but I'd better shut up or I'll get too political even for this
group.
Just to avoid confusion, it was Boltar (Neil Robertson) who said he found
beer disgusting, not me. I certainly don't! And, unlike Neil, I do go to
pubs.
MissRiaElaine
2020-03-09 16:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Just to avoid confusion, it was Boltar (Neil Robertson) who said he found
beer disgusting, not me. I certainly don't! And, unlike Neil, I do go to
pubs.
Sorry, it's difficult to know who said what sometimes on here, what with
all the quoting.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Recliner
2020-03-09 16:08:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Recliner
Just to avoid confusion, it was Boltar (Neil Robertson) who said he found
beer disgusting, not me. I certainly don't! And, unlike Neil, I do go to
pubs.
Sorry, it's difficult to know who said what sometimes on here, what with
all the quoting.
I was quoting back to him his remark from 2018, after he denied all
knowledge of making it.
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-03-09 16:38:53 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 12:50:21 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Have you forgotten already?
So it would seem. Do enlighten me.
Thats nice. I'll ask again - when did I say I didn't visit pubs? In fact its
pretty clear in that post that I do and FWIW I generally have a coffee.

Just in case your senile old brain doesn't realise, its not 1970 anymore, pubs
serve non alcoholic drinks and many also serve food. So toddle off and find
the post where I said I never enter pubs or be a big boy and admit you've had
yet another of your many senior moments.
Recliner
2020-03-09 19:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 12:50:21 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Have you forgotten already?
So it would seem. Do enlighten me.
Thats nice. I'll ask again - when did I say I didn't visit pubs? In fact its
pretty clear in that post that I do and FWIW I generally have a coffee.
Just in case your senile old brain doesn't realise, its not 1970 anymore, pubs
serve non alcoholic drinks and many also serve food. So toddle off and find
the post where I said I never enter pubs or be a big boy and admit you've had
yet another of your many senior moments.
Read that thread again: you obviously seldom visit a pub.
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-03-10 11:08:34 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 19:14:21 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 12:50:21 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Have you forgotten already?
So it would seem. Do enlighten me.
Thats nice. I'll ask again - when did I say I didn't visit pubs? In fact its
pretty clear in that post that I do and FWIW I generally have a coffee.
Just in case your senile old brain doesn't realise, its not 1970 anymore,
pubs
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
serve non alcoholic drinks and many also serve food. So toddle off and find
the post where I said I never enter pubs or be a big boy and admit you've had
yet another of your many senior moments.
Read that thread again: you obviously seldom visit a pub.
I was in one the w/e before last having lunch and I have better things to do
that re-read a thread from 2 years ago in order to prove that you're even more
of a plank than I already thought.
Recliner
2020-03-10 11:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 19:14:21 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 12:50:21 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Have you forgotten already?
So it would seem. Do enlighten me.
Thats nice. I'll ask again - when did I say I didn't visit pubs? In fact its
pretty clear in that post that I do and FWIW I generally have a coffee.
Just in case your senile old brain doesn't realise, its not 1970 anymore,
pubs
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
serve non alcoholic drinks and many also serve food. So toddle off and find
the post where I said I never enter pubs or be a big boy and admit you've had
yet another of your many senior moments.
Read that thread again: you obviously seldom visit a pub.
I was in one the w/e before last having lunch and I have better things to do
that re-read a thread from 2 years ago in order to prove that you're even more
of a plank than I already thought.
You mean, because it proved you were lying?

I can imagine your knitting circle gathering in the pub for their coffee
mornings, followed by lunch. Yeah, right.
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-03-10 16:53:17 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 11:25:07 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 19:14:21 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 12:50:21 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Have you forgotten already?
So it would seem. Do enlighten me.
Thats nice. I'll ask again - when did I say I didn't visit pubs? In fact
its
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
pretty clear in that post that I do and FWIW I generally have a coffee.
Just in case your senile old brain doesn't realise, its not 1970 anymore,
pubs
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
serve non alcoholic drinks and many also serve food. So toddle off and find
the post where I said I never enter pubs or be a big boy and admit you've
had
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
yet another of your many senior moments.
Read that thread again: you obviously seldom visit a pub.
I was in one the w/e before last having lunch and I have better things to do
that re-read a thread from 2 years ago in order to prove that you're even
more
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
of a plank than I already thought.
You mean, because it proved you were lying?
If thats the case you'll be able to post something to that effect otherwise
go do one.
Post by Recliner
I can imagine your knitting circle gathering in the pub for their coffee
mornings, followed by lunch. Yeah, right.
Don't project your own weekends into my life.
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-03-09 11:04:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 10:19:07 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:02:47 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely
I
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
imagine.
My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the
land.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared off
to live 4000 miles away.
Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?
Perhaps you have a different definition of friends. For me a friend is someone
who I can phone
Apparently, phone wires extend beyond Little England.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
and meet down the pub,
That must reduce the available pool significantly
Don't be jealous, its not a good look.
MissRiaElaine
2020-03-09 14:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:02:47 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely I
imagine.
My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the land.
Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared off
to live 4000 miles away.
Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?
Perhaps you have a different definition of friends. For me a friend is someone
who I can phone and meet down the pub, not someone I have to fly > miles
to see maybe and shell out a small fortune to do so.
A friend to me is someone I relate to, common interests and such like.
Distance doesn't come into it in the present era of t'interweb. I speak
to my friends in the US on the phone often, and as a result would like
to visit.

I do have friends I can go to the pub with, but that's not my sole
definition of the word.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-03-09 16:41:24 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 14:31:37 +0000
Post by tim...
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:02:47 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely
I
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
imagine.
My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the
land.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared off
to live 4000 miles away.
Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?
Perhaps you have a different definition of friends. For me a friend is
someone
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
who I can phone and meet down the pub, not someone I have to fly > miles
to see maybe and shell out a small fortune to do so.
A friend to me is someone I relate to, common interests and such like.
Distance doesn't come into it in the present era of t'interweb. I speak
to my friends in the US on the phone often, and as a result would like
to visit.
Ah online "friends". Not the same thing at all.
Post by tim...
I do have friends I can go to the pub with, but that's not my sole
definition of the word.
We'll have to agree to differ on that then.
MissRiaElaine
2020-03-09 19:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 14:31:37 +0000
Post by MissRiaElaine
A friend to me is someone I relate to, common interests and such like.
Distance doesn't come into it in the present era of t'interweb. I speak
to my friends in the US on the phone often, and as a result would like
to visit.
Ah online "friends". Not the same thing at all.
Not the same, but to me as equally a friend as someone who lives
locally. I can pick up the phone and call them, if I feel so inclined
and have made myself look reasonably presentable, I can have a video
call with them.

The only thing I can't do is go to the pub with them, but there are
plenty of people I know that I wouldn't want to be in the same pub as..!
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by MissRiaElaine
I do have friends I can go to the pub with, but that's not my sole
definition of the word.
We'll have to agree to differ on that then.
Indeed. I see no reason not to call someone a friend just because we
aren't in the same location.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Roland Perry
2020-03-09 20:01:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Ah online "friends". Not the same thing at all.
Not the same, but to me as equally a friend as someone who lives
locally. I can pick up the phone and call them,
The expression "online friend" has become a bit devalued over the years,
but I try to stick to only people I have earlier met in person.

As a bit of a social butterfly at conferences, that's several hundred.

(More than 600 on Linked-in, 250 on Facebook, and 500 Twitter followers
although they are the least-curated)

Both Facebook and Linked-In try to nag one into befriending strangers
(based on second-order connections as well as pure spammers).

I'm prepared to accept a few well-qualified persons who have also gone
to the trouble of phoning me, otherwise only people I have actually met.
Post by MissRiaElaine
if I feel so inclined and have made myself look reasonably presentable,
I can have a video call with them.
That's a whole new can of worms. A bit like the apocryphal TV news
presenter with no trousers on under the desk.
--
Roland Perry
MissRiaElaine
2020-03-09 20:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by MissRiaElaine
 Ah online "friends". Not the same thing at all.
Not the same, but to me as equally a friend as someone who lives
locally. I can pick up the phone and call them,
The expression "online friend" has become a bit devalued over the years,
but I try to stick to only people I have earlier met in person.
As a bit of a social butterfly at conferences, that's several hundred.
(More than 600 on Linked-in, 250 on Facebook, and 500 Twitter followers
 although they are the least-curated)
Both Facebook and Linked-In try to nag one into befriending strangers
(based on second-order connections as well as pure spammers).
I'm prepared to accept a few well-qualified persons who have also gone
to the trouble of phoning me, otherwise only people I have actually met.
Post by MissRiaElaine
if I feel so inclined and have made myself look reasonably
presentable, I can have a video call with them.
That's a whole new can of worms. A bit like the apocryphal TV news
presenter with no trousers on under the desk.
I don't mean so-called "friends" on FarceBuke or Twitface, the people I
consider friends are those with whom I share a common interest and can
speak to on the phone.

And I have no wish to know if you are currently wearing trousers or not..!!!
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Roland Perry
2020-03-10 11:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Roland Perry
The expression "online friend" has become a bit devalued over the
years, but I try to stick to only people I have earlier met in person.
...
Post by MissRiaElaine
I don't mean so-called "friends" on FarceBuke or Twitface, the people I
consider friends are those with whom I share a common interest and can
speak to on the phone.
As I said earlier, my 'social media friends' are almost all people who I
have met (and that will have been because we have - or had at the time -
a common interest). Almost none would I ever speak to on the phone,
because it's so much easier to contact them online.

This week, chatting to someone in Australia, who should have been in
Mexico, and thus won't be passing through London again for a month
or too.
Post by MissRiaElaine
And I have no wish to know if you are currently wearing trousers or not..!!!
That's for me to know and you [not] to find out
--
Roland Perry
MissRiaElaine
2020-03-10 19:00:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by MissRiaElaine
 The expression "online friend" has become a bit devalued over the
years,  but I try to stick to only people I have earlier met in person.
...
Post by MissRiaElaine
I don't mean so-called "friends" on FarceBuke or Twitface, the people
I consider friends are those with whom I share a common interest and
can speak to on the phone.
As I said earlier, my 'social media friends' are almost all people who I
have met (and that will have been because we have - or had at the time -
a common interest). Almost none would I ever speak to on the phone,
because it's so much easier to contact them online.
This week, chatting to someone in Australia, who should have been in
Mexico, and thus won't be passing through London again for a month
or too.
Post by MissRiaElaine
And I have no wish to know if you are currently wearing trousers or not..!!!
That's for me to know and you [not] to find out
I don't *want* to find out, thanks all the same..!!

I am not a great "typer" and this is an awkward way of communicating for
me. I am a talker and could spend hours on the phone (and frequently do..!)
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Sammi Gray-Jones
2020-03-11 20:30:38 UTC
Permalink
On 10/03/2020 19:00, MissRiaElaine wrote:
<<snip>>
Post by MissRiaElaine
I am not a great "typer" and this is an awkward way of communicating for
me. I am a talker and could spend hours on the phone (and frequently do..!)
As am I, we frequently have to set a timer so that we don't go over the
60 minutes, then hang up and redial. It has be known for us to it three
timea in one conversation.
tim...
2020-04-06 13:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents
if it happens
Post by Recliner
and the planet.
how?
Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.
There will be fewer of them
but, certainly in the case of South America, that's not going to happen
I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the long
haul part are Spanish Speaking.
Which routes have you flown?
I flew to Bolivia and Panama

not destinations noted for direct flights from London (if there was I would
have used them), and yet there were few non Spanish on the flight
Post by Recliner
Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights,
agreed

ones which are currently popular destination for Brits to go to (business or
pleasure)

that's the point

the ones that Brits mostly want to go to already have direct flights

opening up slots to enable direct flights to extra destinations will not
result in these extra destinations being South America destinations
currently not served, as they aren't popular enough
Post by Recliner
so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .
they do it because the only alternative is having to pass through US
immigration (or sometimes KLM via AMS)

tim
Graham Harrison
2020-04-06 20:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents
if it happens
Post by Recliner
and the planet.
how?
Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.
There will be fewer of them
but, certainly in the case of South America, that's not going to happen
I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the long
haul part are Spanish Speaking.
Which routes have you flown?
I flew to Bolivia and Panama
not destinations noted for direct flights from London (if there was I would
have used them), and yet there were few non Spanish on the flight
Post by Recliner
Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights,
agreed
ones which are currently popular destination for Brits to go to (business or
pleasure)
that's the point
the ones that Brits mostly want to go to already have direct flights
opening up slots to enable direct flights to extra destinations will not
result in these extra destinations being South America destinations
currently not served, as they aren't popular enough
Post by Recliner
so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .
they do it because the only alternative is having to pass through US
immigration (or sometimes KLM via AMS)
tim
The economics of aircraft like the 787 are changing route structures.
I very much doubt BA would have opened routes like London/Santiago or
London/Lima without it even allowing for the increase in people going
to such destinations.

It's my belief we will see more and more "long, thin, routes" in years
to come and that, in the case of South America, the need to travel via
Madrid or Amsterdam will slowly fade. In any case, my own preference
in recent years has been to use a non stop flight from London to one
of the few places in South America (e.g. Sao Paulo) and then get my
connection rather than going via Madrid although I accept that for
destinations in countries in the northwest corner of the continent
(e.g. Ecuador) that might not be ideal.
tim...
2020-04-07 07:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Harrison
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents
if it happens
Post by Recliner
and the planet.
how?
Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.
There will be fewer of them
but, certainly in the case of South America, that's not going to happen
I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the long
haul part are Spanish Speaking.
Which routes have you flown?
I flew to Bolivia and Panama
not destinations noted for direct flights from London (if there was I would
have used them), and yet there were few non Spanish on the flight
Post by Recliner
Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights,
agreed
ones which are currently popular destination for Brits to go to (business or
pleasure)
that's the point
the ones that Brits mostly want to go to already have direct flights
opening up slots to enable direct flights to extra destinations will not
result in these extra destinations being South America destinations
currently not served, as they aren't popular enough
Post by Recliner
so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .
they do it because the only alternative is having to pass through US
immigration (or sometimes KLM via AMS)
tim
The economics of aircraft like the 787 are changing route structures.
I very much doubt BA would have opened routes like London/Santiago or
London/Lima without it even allowing for the increase in people going
to such destinations.
It's my belief we will see more and more "long, thin, routes" in years
to come and that, in the case of South America, the need to travel via
Madrid or Amsterdam will slowly fade.
I hope to live long enough to find out

unfortunately, I don't think I will
Post by Graham Harrison
In any case, my own preference
in recent years has been to use a non stop flight from London to one
of the few places in South America (e.g. Sao Paulo) and then get my
connection rather than going via Madrid although I accept that for
destinations in countries in the northwest corner of the continent
(e.g. Ecuador) that might not be ideal.
the North of the continent is served directly by Avianca to Bogotá

you can decide for yourself whether that's ideal
Recliner
2020-04-07 08:17:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Graham Harrison
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents
if it happens
Post by Recliner
and the planet.
how?
Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.
There will be fewer of them
but, certainly in the case of South America, that's not going to happen
I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the long
haul part are Spanish Speaking.
Which routes have you flown?
I flew to Bolivia and Panama
not destinations noted for direct flights from London (if there was I would
have used them), and yet there were few non Spanish on the flight
Post by Recliner
Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights,
agreed
ones which are currently popular destination for Brits to go to (business or
pleasure)
that's the point
the ones that Brits mostly want to go to already have direct flights
opening up slots to enable direct flights to extra destinations will not
result in these extra destinations being South America destinations
currently not served, as they aren't popular enough
Post by Recliner
so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .
they do it because the only alternative is having to pass through US
immigration (or sometimes KLM via AMS)
tim
The economics of aircraft like the 787 are changing route structures.
I very much doubt BA would have opened routes like London/Santiago or
London/Lima without it even allowing for the increase in people going
to such destinations.
It's my belief we will see more and more "long, thin, routes" in years
to come and that, in the case of South America, the need to travel via
Madrid or Amsterdam will slowly fade.
I hope to live long enough to find out
unfortunately, I don't think I will
Post by Graham Harrison
In any case, my own preference
in recent years has been to use a non stop flight from London to one
of the few places in South America (e.g. Sao Paulo) and then get my
connection rather than going via Madrid although I accept that for
destinations in countries in the northwest corner of the continent
(e.g. Ecuador) that might not be ideal.
the North of the continent is served directly by Avianca to Bogotá
When I flew to Bogotá, it was va Amsterdam.
Post by tim...
you can decide for yourself whether that's ideal
It wasn't ideal.

b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-04-07 07:50:42 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 06 Apr 2020 21:06:43 +0100
Post by Graham Harrison
It's my belief we will see more and more "long, thin, routes" in years
to come and that, in the case of South America, the need to travel via
Madrid or Amsterdam will slowly fade. In any case, my own preference
in recent years has been to use a non stop flight from London to one
of the few places in South America (e.g. Sao Paulo) and then get my
connection rather than going via Madrid although I accept that for
destinations in countries in the northwest corner of the continent
(e.g. Ecuador) that might not be ideal.
First world problems eh?
Roland Perry
2020-02-29 19:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the
long haul part are Spanish Speaking.
Their source/destination for this journey was Spain.
They aren't going to switch to flying via LON, it adds 6 hours to their
journey.
It's ironic that in a debate about the efficacy of transit hubs you are
justifying their useless by an example of when you were using one!

And while Spain-London-S/America might add a bit to a trip, I've just
looked up some flights where changing at the hub known as Lisbon saves
40% of the fare and only adds 2hrs to the end-to-end time.

Possibly less, if checking in for a Madrid-Lisbon flight can be done
later than a Madrid-S/America one.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2020-02-28 13:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim...
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.
The more interesting thing is campaigners are intending to challenge
road schemes on the same grounds which could have a beneficial effect on
the economics of rail expansion and electrification schemes.
The same campaigners also challenge rail schemes, as we've seen with HS2.
The same ruling will also apply to any other airport expansion, which may
not please the government and London mayor quite so much.
The point about the ruling is that it didn't say that the airport
expansion, wasn't, or couldn't be, compliant with <whatever law it is
that it's suppose to comply with>, just noted that the proposals hadn't
been tested against that requirement, when they should have been.
AISI the problem with LHR expansion when performing that test, is that
its business case is based upon the increased use of LHR as a global
hub and therefore encouraging extra people to travel via LHR, for whom
neither their source nor destination is in the UK.
It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased opportunity
for air travel is necessary for the overall good of the UK economy
(except in the trivial amount that air side purchases form of the
economy)
You still banging on about that? The economic benefits of passengers
(and cargo) in transit go *way* beyond people buying a cup of coffee.
Post by tim...
and that that economic benefit justifies meeting/overriding whatever
requirement the afore mentioned act requires. Something that a stand
alone improvement of UK point to point travel (rail, road or air) might
manage.
tim
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2020-02-28 14:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim...
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.
The more interesting thing is campaigners are intending to challenge
road schemes on the same grounds which could have a beneficial effect on
the economics of rail expansion and electrification schemes.
The same campaigners also challenge rail schemes, as we've seen with HS2.
The same ruling will also apply to any other airport expansion, which may
not please the government and London mayor quite so much.
The point about the ruling is that it didn't say that the airport
expansion, wasn't, or couldn't be, compliant with <whatever law it is that
it's suppose to comply with>, just noted that the proposals hadn't been
tested against that requirement, when they should have been.
AISI the problem with LHR expansion when performing that test, is that its
business case is based upon the increased use of LHR as a global hub and
therefore encouraging extra people to travel via LHR, for whom neither
their source nor destination is in the UK.
It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased opportunity for
air travel is necessary for the overall good of the UK economy (except in
the trivial amount that air side purchases form of the economy)
You still banging on about that? The economic benefits of passengers (and
cargo) in transit go *way* beyond people buying a cup of coffee.
really

show your working,

cos I don't believe it

tim
Roland Perry
2020-02-28 16:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased
opportunity for air travel is necessary for the overall good of the
UK economy (except in the trivial amount that air side purchases form
of the economy)
You still banging on about that? The economic benefits of passengers
(and cargo) in transit go *way* beyond people buying a cup of coffee.
really
show your working,
cos I don't believe it
Every passenger in transit uses up two seats, and all the supporting
logistics for two seats. Not just at the airport, but all the service
industries whose customers are Heathrow based.

And it's not just a handful of seats on the planes, 35% of passengers
are doing transit.

Also not just all that extra money being spent locally to facilitate
their flights, but in many cases there very presence is what support the
number of destinations served, and in some cases the number of days a
week those flights operate.

In other news, a statistics from the news this week: 40% of all our
exports (to countries outside the EU - they sometimes forget to make
that qualification) go out of Heathrow. That's by value rather than
volume, of course.

The biggest destination is the USA, which isn't surprising, not because
of the size of the market, but shipping something by sea to Seattle or
Los Angeles is a bit time consuming, and to Dallas or Chicago really
quite difficult. Whereas the planes can land anywhere just as easily.
--
Roland Perry
John Levine
2020-02-28 18:36:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
The biggest destination is the USA, which isn't surprising, not because
of the size of the market, but shipping something by sea to Seattle or
Los Angeles is a bit time consuming, and to Dallas or Chicago really
quite difficult. Whereas the planes can land anywhere just as easily.
Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult? I agree
Dallas is hard, but Houston is not.
--
Regards,
John Levine, ***@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Graeme Wall
2020-02-28 18:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by Roland Perry
The biggest destination is the USA, which isn't surprising, not because
of the size of the market, but shipping something by sea to Seattle or
Los Angeles is a bit time consuming, and to Dallas or Chicago really
quite difficult. Whereas the planes can land anywhere just as easily.
Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult? I agree
Dallas is hard, but Houston is not.
What size ships can use the St Lawrence these days?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Roland Perry
2020-02-28 18:47:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by Roland Perry
The biggest destination is the USA, which isn't surprising, not because
of the size of the market, but shipping something by sea to Seattle or
Los Angeles is a bit time consuming, and to Dallas or Chicago really
quite difficult. Whereas the planes can land anywhere just as easily.
Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult?
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.
Post by John Levine
I agree Dallas is hard, but Houston is not.
So you have to trans-ship it, rather than land nearby.
--
Roland Perry
John Levine
2020-02-28 22:12:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Levine
Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult?
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.
The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?
--
Regards,
John Levine, ***@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Graeme Wall
2020-02-29 09:41:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Levine
Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult?
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.
The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?
Just out of interest, so significantly less than Panamax.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
John Levine
2020-02-29 22:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by John Levine
Post by Roland Perry
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.
The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?
Just out of interest, so significantly less than Panamax.
Yes. I presume it's due to the limits of what they could build in the
St Lawrence Seaway. The locks within the Great Lakes are apparently a
lot larger and there are large bulk carriers that never get east of
Toronto.
--
Regards,
John Levine, ***@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Graeme Wall
2020-03-01 07:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by John Levine
Post by Roland Perry
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.
The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?
Just out of interest, so significantly less than Panamax.
Yes. I presume it's due to the limits of what they could build in the
St Lawrence Seaway. The locks within the Great Lakes are apparently a
lot larger and there are large bulk carriers that never get east of
Toronto.
Apparently container traffic doesn't figure at the moment though there
are proposals for a feeder service from Oswego to Nova Scotia for
transhipment to ocean going services.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Roland Perry
2020-02-29 13:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Levine
Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult?
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.
The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?
Because the most efficient way to ship stuff by sea (even in smallish
consignments that might otherwise fit inside a plane) is to bung it onto
a large container vessel (inside a container, obviously). Sounds like
transhipping it onto a much smaller boat to do the final 1,500miles is
going to be a pain, compared to air-freighting it end to end.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2020-02-29 14:58:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Levine
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Levine
Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult?
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.
The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?
Because the most efficient way to ship stuff by sea (even in smallish
consignments that might otherwise fit inside a plane) is to bung it onto
a large container vessel (inside a container, obviously). Sounds like
transhipping it onto a much smaller boat to do the final 1,500miles is
going to be a pain, compared to air-freighting it end to end.
It will still be far cheaper to send it by sea, even if the containers
have to be trans-shipped. The huge container vessels unload (very
efficiently) at a large port, then the containers continue by smaller
ship/barge, train or truck.

Air freight is generally only used for items with a short shelf-life
or needed quickly. For example, Scotch whisky by sea, Scottish salmon
by air. Cars by sea, urgently needed car spares by air.

PS: A lot of container ships are not currently being loaded in China,
so there's now a shortage of containers! And in a couple of months,
there will be gaps on our shelves.
Marland
2020-02-29 16:08:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
It will still be far cheaper to send it by sea, even if the containers
have to be trans-shipped. The huge container vessels unload (very
efficiently) at a large port, then the containers continue by smaller
ship/barge, train or truck.
Air freight is generally only used for items with a short shelf-life
or needed quickly. For example, Scotch whisky by sea, Scottish salmon
by air. Cars by sea, urgently needed car spares by air.
And on one occasion a GM locomotive to Irish Rail but that was more to
meet a crew training schedule
rather than the loco perishing on a sea voyage.
Post by Recliner
PS: A lot of container ships are not currently being loaded in China,
so there's now a shortage of containers! And in a couple of months,
there will be gaps on our shelves.
At least one of the large container shipping companies that was already
heavily in debt is attracting concern as to how it may ride a period of
downturn.

https://gcaptain.com/cma-cgms-debt-plan-seen-at-risk-amid-virus-fears/

The knock on effects of reduced trade will be felt here by others as well,
not many days pass without a CMA vessel calling in to Southampton. There
is some relevance to UK Railway ,many of the containers they carry are
moved to and from the Port by train. We could see trains of container
flats progressing with lots of gaps in a few weeks time.

If things get too bad then companies may reassess their dependence on
somewhere like China for production behind the brandnames and no longer put
all their eggs in one basket , we may even see some manufacturing return.
One thing we may have give up is buying some cheap electrical components
sourced from China that cost little more than the postage. I reckon ebay
will soon have a lot less items available for immediate delivery before
too long has passed.

GH
Arthur Conan Doyle
2020-02-29 16:37:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Air freight is generally only used for items with a short shelf-life
or needed quickly. For example, Scotch whisky by sea, Scottish salmon
by air. Cars by sea, urgently needed car spares by air.
Or high value to weight/volume. Think electronic components, jewelry, etc...
Roland Perry
2020-03-01 13:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Levine
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Levine
Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult?
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.
The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?
Because the most efficient way to ship stuff by sea (even in smallish
consignments that might otherwise fit inside a plane) is to bung it onto
a large container vessel (inside a container, obviously). Sounds like
transhipping it onto a much smaller boat to do the final 1,500miles is
going to be a pain, compared to air-freighting it end to end.
It will still be far cheaper to send it by sea, even if the containers
have to be trans-shipped. The huge container vessels unload (very
efficiently) at a large port, then the containers continue by smaller
ship/barge, train or truck.
Air freight is generally only used for items with a short shelf-life
or needed quickly. For example, Scotch whisky by sea, Scottish salmon
by air. Cars by sea, urgently needed car spares by air.
It's a lot more stuff than you imagine, if it's 40% of our exports (to
outside EU) going through LHR, and there's also Stansted & East Midlands
doing dedicated freight, as well as passenger aircraft from Birmingham,
Manchester etc.
Post by Recliner
PS: A lot of container ships are not currently being loaded in China,
so there's now a shortage of containers! And in a couple of months,
there will be gaps on our shelves.
One of the things I've noticed the last week or two is a lot of empty
container trains (flats-only) heading towards Felixstowe. I was
wondering if that was because ships aren't deporting for China at the
moment, and they prefer not to stack up the empties at the port.
--
Roland Perry
John Levine
2020-02-29 22:18:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Levine
Post by Roland Perry
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.
The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?
Because the most efficient way to ship stuff by sea (even in smallish
consignments that might otherwise fit inside a plane) is to bung it onto
a large container vessel (inside a container, obviously). Sounds like
transhipping it onto a much smaller boat to do the final 1,500miles is
going to be a pain, compared to air-freighting it end to end.
30,000 tonnes is small? I am reasonably sure that the ships that
transit the St Lawrence to and from the Great Lakes continue on to
ports all over the world. It's not like they unload in Halifax.
--
Regards,
John Levine, ***@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Recliner
2020-02-29 23:26:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Levine
Post by Roland Perry
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.
The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?
Because the most efficient way to ship stuff by sea (even in smallish
consignments that might otherwise fit inside a plane) is to bung it onto
a large container vessel (inside a container, obviously). Sounds like
transhipping it onto a much smaller boat to do the final 1,500miles is
going to be a pain, compared to air-freighting it end to end.
30,000 tonnes is small? I am reasonably sure that the ships that
transit the St Lawrence to and from the Great Lakes continue on to
ports all over the world. It's not like they unload in Halifax.
That's called Seawaymax, and it's pretty small:
<http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/ship-sizes/>

Aframax

AFRA stands for Average Freight Rate Assessment. As the name suggests,
Aframax are medium-sized oil tankers with a dead weight tonnage (DWT)
between 80,000 and 119,999. Though relatively small in size in comparison
to VLCC and ULCC, Aframax tankers have a capacity to carry up to 120,000
metric tonnes of crude oil. They are just ideal for short to medium-haul
oil trades, and are primarily used in regions of lower crude production, or
the areas that lack large ports to accommodate giant oil carriers.

Capesize

They are very large and ultra large cargo vessels with a capacity over
150,000 DWT. They are categorised under VLCC, ULCC, VLOC and ULOC and can
be as large as 400,000 DWT or even more. They serve regions with largest
deepwater terminals in the world and are primarily used for transporting
coal and iron ore. Because of their giant size, they are suitable to serve
only a small number of ports with deepwater terminals.

Chinamax

Chinamax ships are very large bulk carrier which can't be longer than 360m
(1,180 ft), wider than 65 m (213 ft) and her draft can't be more than 24 m
(79 ft). The deadweight tonnage of these vessels is 380,000–400,000 DWT.

Ship's maximum measurements are defined by the Chinamax standars, allowing
ports to determine whether they can accommodate ships in this class. As the
name suggests, these ships are often used to move cargo to and from China
along several trade routes, such as the iron ore route from Brazil to
China.

Handymax/ Supramax

Handymax are small-sized cargo ships with a size less than 60,000 DWT.
Supramax vessels have capacity between 50,000 to 60,000 DWT. Due to their
small size, they are capable of operating in regions with small ports with
length and draught restrictions. They form the majority of ocean going
cargo vessels in the world.

Handysize

Handysize are small-sized ships with a capacity ranging between 15,000 and
35,000 DWT. These vessels are ideal for small as well as large ports, and
so make up the majority of ocean cargo vessels in the world. They are
mainly used in transporting finished petroleum products and for bulk cargo.

Malaccamax

As the name suggests, Malaccamax ships are the largest ships that can pass
through the Strait off Malacca which is 25 m (82 ft) deep. As per the
current permissible limits, a Malaccamax vessel can have a maximum length
of 400 m (1,312ft), beam of 59 m (193.5 ft), and draught of 14.5 m (47.5
ft).


Panamax and New Panamax

As the name suggests, Panamax and New Panamax ships are travelling through
the Panama Canal. They strictly follow the size regulations set by the
Panama Canal Authority, as the entry and exit points of the Canal are
narrow. A Panamax vessel can't be longer than 294,13 m (965 ft), wider than
32,31 m (106 ft) and her draught can't be more than 12,04 m (39.5 ft).
These vessels have an average capacity of 65,000 DWT, and are primarily
used in transporting coal, crude oil and petroleum products. They operate
in the Caribbean and Latin American regions.

The New Panamax has been created as a result of the expanding plans for
Panama Canal locks. Expanded locks will be around 427 m (1400 ft) long, 55
m (180 ft) wide and 18,30 m (60 ft) deep so Panama Canal will be able to
handle larger vessels .

Q-Max (Qatar-max)

Q-Max's are largest LNG carriers that can dock at the LNG terminals in
Qatar.

Q-Max ship is 345 metres (1,132 ft) long, 53.8 metres (177 ft) wide and
34.7 metres (114 ft) high, with a draught of approximately 12 metres (39
ft). It has a capacity of 266,000 cubic metres (9,400,000 cu ft), equal to
161,994,000 cubic metres (5.7208×109 cu ft) of natural gas.

Seawaymax

As the name suggests, Seawaymax ships are the largest ships that can pass
through the locks of St. Lawrence Seaway.

These ships are 225,6 m (740 ft) long, 23,8 m (78 ft) wide and 35,5 m (116
ft) high, with a draught of 7,92 metres (26 ft).

Suezmax

Suezmax are named after the famous Suez Canal. They are mid-sized cargo
vessels with a capacity ranging between 120,000 to 200,000 DWT. They are
designed to pass through the majority of the ports in the world. Currently
the permissible limits for suezmax ships are 20.1 m (66 ft) of draught with
the beam no wider than 50 m (164.0 ft), or 12.2 m (40 ft) of draught with
maximum allowed beam of 77.5 m (254 ft).
Roland Perry
2020-03-01 07:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Levine
Post by Roland Perry
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.
The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?
Because the most efficient way to ship stuff by sea (even in smallish
consignments that might otherwise fit inside a plane) is to bung it onto
a large container vessel (inside a container, obviously). Sounds like
transhipping it onto a much smaller boat to do the final 1,500miles is
going to be a pain, compared to air-freighting it end to end.
30,000 tonnes is small?
Big container ships are typically 200,000 tonnes.
Post by John Levine
I am reasonably sure that the ships that transit the St Lawrence to and
from the Great Lakes continue on to ports all over the world. It's not
like they unload in Halifax.
Wonkypedia says "mostly of inbound steel and outbound grain" and I think
we can agree neither of those are susceptible to air freight (or indeed
very urgent).
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
2020-03-01 08:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Levine
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Levine
Post by Roland Perry
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.
The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes.  Why do you ask?
Because the most efficient way to ship stuff by sea (even in smallish
consignments that might otherwise fit inside a plane) is to bung it onto
a large container vessel (inside a container, obviously). Sounds like
transhipping it onto a much smaller boat to do the final 1,500miles is
going to be a pain, compared to air-freighting it end to end.
30,000 tonnes is small?
Big container ships are typically 200,000 tonnes.
Post by John Levine
I am reasonably sure that the ships that transit the St Lawrence to
and from the Great Lakes continue on to ports all over the world.
It's not like they unload in Halifax.
Wonkypedia says "mostly of inbound steel and outbound grain" and I think
we can agree neither of those are susceptible to air freight (or indeed
very urgent).
Also grain shipments tend to go west these days via the railways.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
tim...
2020-02-29 08:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Levine
Post by Roland Perry
The biggest destination is the USA, which isn't surprising, not because
of the size of the market, but shipping something by sea to Seattle or
Los Angeles is a bit time consuming, and to Dallas or Chicago really
quite difficult. Whereas the planes can land anywhere just as easily.
Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult?
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.
Post by John Levine
I agree Dallas is hard, but Houston is not.
So you have to trans-ship it, rather than land nearby.
you think that they don't do that with freight anyway

what do you think happens to all the freight that lands at Rotterdam or
Hamburg?

And does that stop people long-hauling by ship?

No

Why are US landings any different?

tim
Roland Perry
2020-02-29 19:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Levine
Post by Roland Perry
The biggest destination is the USA, which isn't surprising, not because
of the size of the market, but shipping something by sea to Seattle or
Los Angeles is a bit time consuming, and to Dallas or Chicago really
quite difficult. Whereas the planes can land anywhere just as easily.
Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult?
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.
Post by John Levine
I agree Dallas is hard, but Houston is not.
So you have to trans-ship it, rather than land nearby.
you think that they don't do that with freight anyway
what do you think happens to all the freight that lands at Rotterdam or
Hamburg?
And does that stop people long-hauling by ship?
No
Why are US landings any different?
Because the USA is as big as the Atlantic.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2020-02-29 07:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased opportunity
for air travel is necessary for the overall good of the UK economy
(except in the trivial amount that air side purchases form of the
economy)
You still banging on about that? The economic benefits of passengers
(and cargo) in transit go *way* beyond people buying a cup of coffee.
really
show your working,
cos I don't believe it
Every passenger in transit uses up two seats, and all the supporting
logistics for two seats. Not just at the airport, but all the service
industries whose customers are Heathrow based.
And it's not just a handful of seats on the planes, 35% of passengers are
doing transit.
but it's still a tiny amount of effect on total UK economy
Post by Roland Perry
Also not just all that extra money being spent locally to facilitate their
flights, but in many cases there very presence is what support the number
of destinations served, and in some cases the number of days a week those
flights operate.
but that not, of itself, an improvement for the UK Economy.

It's just an "Opportunity" benefit. (one that wont be accepted as
overriding the environmental dis-benefit)
Post by Roland Perry
In other news, a statistics from the news this week: 40% of all our
exports (to countries outside the EU - they sometimes forget to make that
qualification) go out of Heathrow. That's by value rather than volume, of
course.
but freight doesn't *need* to go from LHR.

That freight is presumably there because suitable passenger flights with
space in the hold, are currently there

and when the flights (to wherever it is) go from someone else (LGW for
example), International freight goes from that somewhere else.

and in many cases dedicated freight flights are set up from less used, but
strategically placed, airports as in the DHL hub at East Mids.

there's no pull factor from freight to fly from LHR, and no benefit to UK
GDP to move it there from where it currently flies from.
Post by Roland Perry
The biggest destination is the USA, which isn't surprising, not because of
the size of the market, but shipping something by sea to Seattle or Los
Angeles is a bit time consuming, and to Dallas or Chicago really quite
difficult. Whereas the planes can land anywhere just as easily.
like East Mids.

And oh look, that exactly what happens.

tim
Robin
2020-02-29 08:20:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased
opportunity for air travel is necessary for the overall good of the
UK economy (except in the trivial amount that air side purchases
form of the economy)
You still banging on about that? The economic benefits of passengers
(and  cargo) in transit go *way* beyond people buying a cup of coffee.
really
show your working,
cos I don't believe it
Every passenger in transit uses up two seats, and all the supporting
logistics for two seats. Not just at the airport, but all the service
industries whose customers are Heathrow based.
And it's not just a handful of seats on the planes, 35% of passengers
are doing transit.
but it's still a tiny amount of effect on total UK economy
Post by Roland Perry
Also not just all that extra money being spent locally to facilitate
their flights, but in many cases there very presence is what support
the number of destinations served, and in some cases the number of
days a week those flights operate.
but that not, of itself, an improvement for the UK Economy.
It's just an "Opportunity" benefit.  (one that wont be accepted as
overriding the environmental dis-benefit)
Post by Roland Perry
In other news, a statistics from the news this week: 40% of all our
exports (to countries outside the EU - they sometimes forget to make
that qualification) go out of Heathrow. That's by value rather than
volume, of course.
but freight doesn't *need* to go from LHR.
That freight is presumably there because suitable passenger flights with
space in the hold, are currently there
and when the flights (to wherever it is) go from someone else (LGW for
example), International freight goes from that somewhere else.
and in many cases dedicated freight flights are set up from less used,
but strategically placed, airports as in the DHL hub at East Mids.
there's no pull factor from freight to fly from LHR, and no benefit to
UK GDP to move it there from where it currently flies from.
Post by Roland Perry
The biggest destination is the USA, which isn't surprising, not
because of the size of the market, but shipping something by sea to
Seattle or Los Angeles is a bit time consuming, and to Dallas or
Chicago really quite difficult. Whereas the planes can land anywhere
just as easily.
That contradicts just about everything the Airports Commission had to
say about freight in its final report. It also contradicts what the air
freight industry said. One of their points was that some services are
simply not economic if flights (and all the overheads of freight
handling) are distributed among several airports. They require the
diversity of destinations at a hub and the concentration of functions there.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
tim...
2020-02-29 09:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased
opportunity for air travel is necessary for the overall good of the
UK economy (except in the trivial amount that air side purchases form
of the economy)
You still banging on about that? The economic benefits of passengers
(and cargo) in transit go *way* beyond people buying a cup of coffee.
really
show your working,
cos I don't believe it
Every passenger in transit uses up two seats, and all the supporting
logistics for two seats. Not just at the airport, but all the service
industries whose customers are Heathrow based.
And it's not just a handful of seats on the planes, 35% of passengers
are doing transit.
but it's still a tiny amount of effect on total UK economy
Post by Roland Perry
Also not just all that extra money being spent locally to facilitate
their flights, but in many cases there very presence is what support the
number of destinations served, and in some cases the number of days a
week those flights operate.
but that not, of itself, an improvement for the UK Economy.
It's just an "Opportunity" benefit. (one that wont be accepted as
overriding the environmental dis-benefit)
Post by Roland Perry
In other news, a statistics from the news this week: 40% of all our
exports (to countries outside the EU - they sometimes forget to make
that qualification) go out of Heathrow. That's by value rather than
volume, of course.
but freight doesn't *need* to go from LHR.
That freight is presumably there because suitable passenger flights with
space in the hold, are currently there
and when the flights (to wherever it is) go from someone else (LGW for
example), International freight goes from that somewhere else.
and in many cases dedicated freight flights are set up from less used,
but strategically placed, airports as in the DHL hub at East Mids.
there's no pull factor from freight to fly from LHR, and no benefit to UK
GDP to move it there from where it currently flies from.
Post by Roland Perry
The biggest destination is the USA, which isn't surprising, not because
of the size of the market, but shipping something by sea to Seattle or
Los Angeles is a bit time consuming, and to Dallas or Chicago really
quite difficult. Whereas the planes can land anywhere just as easily.
That contradicts just about everything the Airports Commission had to say
about freight in its final report. It also contradicts what the air
freight industry said. One of their points was that some services are
simply not economic if flights (and all the overheads of freight handling)
are distributed among several airports. They require the diversity of
destinations at a hub and the concentration of functions there.
Can you not see that that's contradictory

"We want all of *our* flights to go from one airport

but we want to be able to ship stuff to multiple airports"

But then shippers at the other end probably wants all their shipments to go
from one airport and ship to multiple destinations.

they can't both be satisfied (unless loads of aircraft are going to fly
around empty on return legs).

Of course UK reps are going to say in some governmental committee meeting,
with none of the foreign representatives present, that they want that. But
out in the real world, it's impossible to give it to them (that's logically
impossible not physically/financially impossible)

tim
Robin
2020-02-29 09:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Robin
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased
opportunity for air travel is necessary for the overall good of
the UK economy (except in the trivial amount that air side
purchases form of the economy)
You still banging on about that? The economic benefits of
passengers (and  cargo) in transit go *way* beyond people buying a
cup of coffee.
really
show your working,
cos I don't believe it
Every passenger in transit uses up two seats, and all the supporting
logistics for two seats. Not just at the airport, but all the
service industries whose customers are Heathrow based.
And it's not just a handful of seats on the planes, 35% of
passengers are doing transit.
but it's still a tiny amount of effect on total UK economy
Post by Roland Perry
Also not just all that extra money being spent locally to facilitate
their flights, but in many cases there very presence is what support
the number of destinations served, and in some cases the number of
days a week those flights operate.
but that not, of itself, an improvement for the UK Economy.
It's just an "Opportunity" benefit.  (one that wont be accepted as
overriding the environmental dis-benefit)
Post by Roland Perry
In other news, a statistics from the news this week: 40% of all our
exports (to countries outside the EU - they sometimes forget to make
that qualification) go out of Heathrow. That's by value rather than
volume, of course.
but freight doesn't *need* to go from LHR.
That freight is presumably there because suitable passenger flights
with space in the hold, are currently there
and when the flights (to wherever it is) go from someone else (LGW
for example), International freight goes from that somewhere else.
and in many cases dedicated freight flights are set up from less
used, but strategically placed, airports as in the DHL hub at East Mids.
there's no pull factor from freight to fly from LHR, and no benefit
to UK GDP to move it there from where it currently flies from.
Post by Roland Perry
The biggest destination is the USA, which isn't surprising, not
because of the size of the market, but shipping something by sea to
Seattle or Los Angeles is a bit time consuming, and to Dallas or
Chicago really quite difficult. Whereas the planes can land anywhere
just as easily.
That contradicts just about everything the Airports Commission had to
say about freight in its final report.  It also contradicts what the
air freight industry said.  One of their points was that some services
are simply not economic if flights (and all the overheads of freight
handling) are distributed among several airports. They require the
diversity of destinations at a hub and the concentration of functions there.
Can you not see that that's contradictory
"We want all of *our* flights to go from one airport
but we want to be able to ship stuff to multiple airports"
But then shippers at the other end probably wants all their shipments to
go from one airport and ship to multiple destinations.
they can't both be satisfied (unless loads of aircraft are going to fly
around empty on return legs).
First, many destinations are other /hub/ airports.

Second, other countries can make their own decisions. The UK's
geography and locations of other airports militates for Heathrow (as
documented in the report).
Post by tim...
Of course UK reps are going to say in some governmental committee
meeting, with none of the foreign representatives present, that they
want that.  But out in the real world, it's impossible to give it to
them (that's logically impossible not physically/financially impossible)
I have no idea why you think government committees are relevant. The
Airport Commission carried out open consultations. The freight industry
made their views public at the time and later*. But then they're only
the people who run the logistics and freight businesses "in the real world".

*e.g.
"The decision to increase capacity at Heathrow is the right choice for
the UK economy, the freight industry and the nation. FTA has forged a
detailed campaign highlighting the vital importance of air freight to
the UK economy and why a decision backing the Airports Commission's
recommendation for a third runway is essential for UK importers and
exporters who rely on the expansion of Heathrow. About 40% of UK imports
and exports by value are dependent on air freight and the wide range of
services provided by Heathrow to access our overseas markets."

https://fta.co.uk/campaigns/issues/heathrow-expansion
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Roland Perry
2020-02-29 19:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased
opportunity for air travel is necessary for the overall good of the
UK economy (except in the trivial amount that air side purchases
form of the economy)
You still banging on about that? The economic benefits of
passengers (and cargo) in transit go *way* beyond people buying a
cup of coffee.
really
show your working,
cos I don't believe it
Every passenger in transit uses up two seats, and all the supporting
logistics for two seats. Not just at the airport, but all the service
industries whose customers are Heathrow based.
And it's not just a handful of seats on the planes, 35% of passengers
are doing transit.
but it's still a tiny amount of effect on total UK economy
A few billion here and there, adds up.
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Also not just all that extra money being spent locally to facilitate
their flights, but in many cases there very presence is what support
the number of destinations served, and in some cases the number of
days a week those flights operate.
but that not, of itself, an improvement for the UK Economy.
If business people have to extend their trips because destinations are
only served 3 days a week, that has an effect upon their ability to
efficiently manage "UK plc".
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
In other news, a statistics from the news this week: 40% of all our
exports (to countries outside the EU - they sometimes forget to make
that qualification) go out of Heathrow. That's by value rather than
volume, of course.
but freight doesn't *need* to go from LHR.
It could go from somewhere else at greater cost (not last because of
being indirect having lost the benefit of agglomeration), agreed.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
2020-02-28 16:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim...
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.
The more interesting thing is campaigners are intending to challenge
road schemes on the same grounds which could have a beneficial effect on
the economics of rail expansion and electrification schemes.
The same campaigners also challenge rail schemes, as we've seen with HS2.
The same ruling will also apply to any other airport expansion, which may
not please the government and London mayor quite so much.
The point about the ruling is that it didn't say that the airport
expansion, wasn't, or couldn't be, compliant with <whatever law it is
that it's suppose to comply with>, just noted that the proposals hadn't
been tested against that requirement, when they should have been.
If you read on, the problem for the proponents is that if it is tested
against the requirements, it cannot pass.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
tim...
2020-02-29 08:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim...
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.
The more interesting thing is campaigners are intending to challenge
road schemes on the same grounds which could have a beneficial effect on
the economics of rail expansion and electrification schemes.
The same campaigners also challenge rail schemes, as we've seen with HS2.
The same ruling will also apply to any other airport expansion, which may
not please the government and London mayor quite so much.
The point about the ruling is that it didn't say that the airport
expansion, wasn't, or couldn't be, compliant with <whatever law it is
that it's suppose to comply with>, just noted that the proposals hadn't
been tested against that requirement, when they should have been.
If you read on, the problem for the proponents is that if it is tested
against the requirements, it cannot pass.
Whilst that is not an end result that I am unhappy with,

I'm not convinced that it is possible for someone to make that claim.

There is every possibility that a different proposal could pass.

But it will take LHR another 3 years to get there - and may require extra
spending that makes the financial even more shaky than they are.

For example, one of the things that LHR claim that they can improve in their
plan is to lessened their carbon footprint by making more people come by PT
by using a "congestion charge" to encourage them.

But a Congestion charge cannot possibly discourage people who have no
alternative travel option, those people will just have to "suck it up" and
will carry on driving to the airport.

LHR have, three times, at previous planning enquires "promised" that
building the Western rail route into the airport would *come* as part of he
new development, and three times when push come to shove they didn't provide
it.

If it were me evaluating LHR's proposals, any calculations for future carbon
footprint based upon passengers using PT would have to be met *before* the
ground work on the runway is started. I.E the rail improvement have to be
in place (and shown to be effective) first, not just proposed for later and
then forgotten (again).

tim
Graeme Wall
2020-02-29 09:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim...
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.
The more interesting thing is campaigners are intending to challenge
road schemes on the same grounds which could have a beneficial effect on
the economics of rail expansion and electrification schemes.
The same campaigners also challenge rail schemes, as we've seen with HS2.
The same ruling will also apply to any other airport expansion, which may
not please the government and London mayor quite so much.
The point about the ruling is that it didn't say that the airport
expansion, wasn't, or couldn't be, compliant with <whatever law it is
that it's suppose to comply with>, just noted that the proposals
hadn't been tested against that requirement, when they should have been.
If you read on, the problem for the proponents is that if it is tested
against the requirements, it cannot pass.
Whilst that is not an end result that I am unhappy with,
I'm not convinced that it is possible for someone to make that claim.
There is every possibility that a different proposal could pass.
There is not currently, or in the foreseeable future, any technology
that will enable it to pass.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
MissRiaElaine
2020-02-29 11:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim...
The point about the ruling is that it didn't say that the airport
expansion, wasn't, or couldn't be, compliant with <whatever law it is
that it's suppose to comply with>, just noted that the proposals
hadn't been tested against that requirement, when they should have been.
If you read on, the problem for the proponents is that if it is tested
against the requirements, it cannot pass.
I still say that a second runway at Gatwick is a better option.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Graeme Wall
2020-02-29 11:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by tim...
The point about the ruling is that it didn't say that the airport
expansion, wasn't, or couldn't be, compliant with <whatever law it is
that it's suppose to comply with>, just noted that the proposals
hadn't been tested against that requirement, when they should have been.
If you read on, the problem for the proponents is that if it is tested
against the requirements, it cannot pass.
I still say that a second runway at Gatwick is a better option.
Objectively yes, the problem is it won't pass the criteria of the
legislation either. And they can't even blame this on Brussels.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Basil Jet
2020-02-28 09:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.
Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without "OT".
And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.
--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Pom Poko - 2019 - Birthday
Jarle Hammen Knudsen
2020-02-28 09:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Basil Jet
Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without "OT".
And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.
Is there an official description of topics for this group?
--
jhk
Eric
2020-02-28 11:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by Basil Jet
Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without "OT".
And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.
Is there an official description of topics for this group?
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.transport.london.html

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-02-28 11:32:45 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:16:41 +0100
Post by Eric
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by Basil Jet
Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without "OT".
And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.
Is there an official description of topics for this group?
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.transport.london.html
There was a sudden drastic drop in the number of posts to this group last
year. I suspect its no longer carried on a number of servers for whatever
reason.
Eric
2020-02-28 11:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:16:41 +0100
Post by Eric
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by Basil Jet
Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without "OT".
And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.
Is there an official description of topics for this group?
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.transport.london.html
There was a sudden drastic drop in the number of posts to this group last
year. I suspect its no longer carried on a number of servers for whatever
reason.
That was because Google blocked it in Google Groups - because it was
full of spam - which was only there because they allowed it. I don't
think that there's any evidence that other servers have dropped it.

I don't quite see what that has to do with me posting a link to the
group charter.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry
Recliner
2020-02-28 12:22:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:16:41 +0100
Post by Eric
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by Basil Jet
Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without "OT".
And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.
Is there an official description of topics for this group?
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.transport.london.html
There was a sudden drastic drop in the number of posts to this group last
year. I suspect its no longer carried on a number of servers for whatever
reason.
We know exactly why: huge amounts of drugs spam messages were being
posted via Google Groups, from Gmail accounts, to this news group.
Instead of fixing the Gmail spammers problem, or making the group
read-only via Google Groups, Google simply stopped carrying the group.
So anyone who accesses usenet via Google Groups thinks that this
newsgroup no longer exists. The good news is that we no longer get any
of the spam, but we also don't get some legitimate posts.

As far as I'm aware, other news servers continue to carry it, though
it's possible that all the drugs spam caused it to be dropped from
some other servers, too.
Jarle Hammen Knudsen
2020-02-28 12:29:32 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:22:06 +0000, Recliner
Post by Recliner
As far as I'm aware, other news servers continue to carry it, though
it's possible that all the drugs spam caused it to be dropped from
some other servers, too.
I was getting a lot of spam for a period, but now there is none. I
presume my server individual.net took action.

(Which reminds me to pay up for another year.)
--
jhk
Recliner
2020-02-28 12:31:26 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:29:32 +0100, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:22:06 +0000, Recliner
Post by Recliner
As far as I'm aware, other news servers continue to carry it, though
it's possible that all the drugs spam caused it to be dropped from
some other servers, too.
I was getting a lot of spam for a period, but now there is none. I
presume my server individual.net took action.
(Which reminds me to pay up for another year.)
No, the spam all came from Gmail accounts, posting via Google Groups.
It stopped instantly when Google Groups dropped it. Other servers
didn't have to do anything.
Jarle Hammen Knudsen
2020-02-28 12:42:50 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:31:26 +0000, Recliner
Post by Recliner
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:29:32 +0100, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:22:06 +0000, Recliner
Post by Recliner
As far as I'm aware, other news servers continue to carry it, though
it's possible that all the drugs spam caused it to be dropped from
some other servers, too.
I was getting a lot of spam for a period, but now there is none. I
presume my server individual.net took action.
(Which reminds me to pay up for another year.)
No, the spam all came from Gmail accounts, posting via Google Groups.
It stopped instantly when Google Groups dropped it. Other servers
didn't have to do anything.
When did they drop it?

I did send in a spam report to individual.net on 28 Aug 2018, and they
responded the same day saying they would check. I don't remember how
soon after the spam stopped.
--
jhk
Recliner
2020-02-28 12:50:16 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:42:50 +0100, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:31:26 +0000, Recliner
Post by Recliner
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:29:32 +0100, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:22:06 +0000, Recliner
Post by Recliner
As far as I'm aware, other news servers continue to carry it, though
it's possible that all the drugs spam caused it to be dropped from
some other servers, too.
I was getting a lot of spam for a period, but now there is none. I
presume my server individual.net took action.
(Which reminds me to pay up for another year.)
No, the spam all came from Gmail accounts, posting via Google Groups.
It stopped instantly when Google Groups dropped it. Other servers
didn't have to do anything.
When did they drop it?
I did send in a spam report to individual.net on 28 Aug 2018, and they
responded the same day saying they would check. I don't remember how
soon after the spam stopped.
I don't recall, either.
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2020-02-28 17:02:51 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:42:50 +0100
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:31:26 +0000, Recliner
Post by Recliner
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:29:32 +0100, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:22:06 +0000, Recliner
Post by Recliner
As far as I'm aware, other news servers continue to carry it, though
it's possible that all the drugs spam caused it to be dropped from
some other servers, too.
I was getting a lot of spam for a period, but now there is none. I
presume my server individual.net took action.
(Which reminds me to pay up for another year.)
No, the spam all came from Gmail accounts, posting via Google Groups.
It stopped instantly when Google Groups dropped it. Other servers
didn't have to do anything.
When did they drop it?
I did send in a spam report to individual.net on 28 Aug 2018, and they
responded the same day saying they would check. I don't remember how
soon after the spam stopped.
I'm surprised Google did anything. I'd assumed that their news server had
long been lost at the back of some massive server room and virtually forgotten
about in Mountain View.
tim...
2020-02-28 14:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:22:06 +0000, Recliner
Post by Recliner
As far as I'm aware, other news servers continue to carry it, though
it's possible that all the drugs spam caused it to be dropped from
some other servers, too.
I was getting a lot of spam for a period, but now there is none. I
presume my server individual.net took action.
NIN are good at filtering Spam.

ES, not so much

tim
Rink
2020-02-29 15:43:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:16:41 +0100
Post by Eric
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by Basil Jet
Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without "OT".
And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.
Is there an official description of topics for this group?
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.transport.london.html
Thanks for the link, Eric.

"This group is for the discussion of matters relating to any form of
transport, be it public or private, in the London area."

So it is not OT....
It also could be in uk.transport.air
(which I do not read)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
There was a sudden drastic drop in the number of posts to this group last
year. I suspect its no longer carried on a number of servers for whatever
reason.
This group has enough posts to carry it.
Most newsservers do not delete newsgroups because of too little posts.
(only Google Groups does this)
Post by Recliner
We know exactly why: huge amounts of drugs spam messages were being
posted via Google Groups, from Gmail accounts, to this news group.
Instead of fixing the Gmail spammers problem, or making the group
read-only via Google Groups, Google simply stopped carrying the group.
So anyone who accesses usenet via Google Groups thinks that this
newsgroup no longer exists. The good news is that we no longer get any
of the spam, but we also don't get some legitimate posts.
As far as I'm aware, other news servers continue to carry it, though
it's possible that all the drugs spam caused it to be dropped from
some other servers, too.
eternal.september carries this newsgroup.
nntp.aioe.org also carries it.

Rink
Graeme Wall
2020-02-29 15:50:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:16:41 +0100
Post by Eric
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by Basil Jet
Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without "OT".
And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.
Is there an official description of topics for this group?
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.transport.london.html
Thanks for the link, Eric.
"This group is for the discussion of matters relating to any form of
transport, be it public or private, in the London area."
So it is not OT....
It also could be in uk.transport.air
(which I do not read)
Neither does anybody else it would seem.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2020-02-29 16:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Rink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:16:41 +0100
Post by Eric
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by Basil Jet
Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without "OT".
And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.
Is there an official description of topics for this group?
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.transport.london.html
Thanks for the link, Eric.
"This group is for the discussion of matters relating to any form of
transport, be it public or private, in the London area."
So it is not OT....
It also could be in uk.transport.air
(which I do not read)
Neither does anybody else it would seem.
Yes, that group seems to have died ages ago, probably because of the
excellent web forums on similar topics.
Recliner
2020-02-29 16:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:16:41 +0100
Post by Eric
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Post by Basil Jet
Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without "OT".
And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.
Is there an official description of topics for this group?
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.transport.london.html
Thanks for the link, Eric.
"This group is for the discussion of matters relating to any form of
transport, be it public or private, in the London area."
So it is not OT....
It also could be in uk.transport.air
(which I do not read)
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
There was a sudden drastic drop in the number of posts to this group last
year. I suspect its no longer carried on a number of servers for whatever
reason.
This group has enough posts to carry it.
Most newsservers do not delete newsgroups because of too little posts.
(only Google Groups does this)
Of course, Google Groups dropped this one because there were too many
posts…
Recliner
2020-02-28 09:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Basil Jet
Post by tim...
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.
Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without "OT".
And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.
Why is it off topic? Is London's major airport not something to do with
transport in London?
Basil Jet
2020-02-28 09:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by tim...
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.
Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without "OT".
And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.
Why is it off topic? Is London's major airport not something to do with
transport in London?
I thought I was in a different group!
--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Pom Poko - 2019 - Birthday
tim...
2020-02-28 11:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Basil Jet
Post by tim...
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.
Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without "OT".
Since when was Heathrow not in London
and air travel not a legitimate form of transport?
Post by Basil Jet
And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.
It was a joke

tim
Loading...