On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:40:12 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:


On 02/09/2014 07:57, Recliner wrote:
To no-ones's surprise, Boris Island hasn't made the airport expansion short
list. Indeed, it's only pressure from Boris that left it on the list for so
long at all. So what remains are three options, two for Heathrow expansion,
and one for Gatwick. The business vote strongly favours Heathrow, but
Gatwick is easier politically. The decision is due after the election, and
I wonder which will win?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29026484


Gatwick. Eventually.

So why all the procrastination then? The reason they keep deferring
the decision is that Heathrow is the only one that makes economic
sense, but it's politically very difficult. The only safe time to
choose it is right after an election.

On 2014-09-03 12:41:52 +0000, David Cantrell said:

If you lived in, for example, Hastings, which airport would you prefer
to go to? Obviously Gatwick, yet Hastings is neither near Victoria or a
Thameslink station.

There are modes of transport other than trains. Luton and Stansted are
mainly reached by car and taxi, and serve a wide area of the Home
Counties and East Anglia as such. Indeed Luton is to a fairly
significant extent a "South Midlands and Home Counties Airport" rather
than a London one.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2014-09-03 12:50:28 +0000, Roland Perry said:

I used to fly to Geneva a lot (on business all year round) and all they
seem to have now is one seasonal route.

Sleazy have for at least the last few years concentrated GVA on Luton
and Gatwick, because of a larger number of business travellers (there
are a lot of regulars on LTN-GVA, I was for 2 years).

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2014-09-03 12:52:54 +0000, Roland Perry said:

I used to drive to Luton (where the parking in the mid-stay just
outside the tunnel[1], from where you can walk to the terminal) wasn't
too bad. Like you, the times of the flights ruled out using public
transport.

They like to ban you from walking from there now (the pavement on the
far side of the road is fenced off for its full length now) but I think
(fewer) people still do.

FWIW, the long term also isn't bad (it is my first choice), it's just
round the back, and its big advantage is that you can reach it from the
approach road by going the back way without queueing at the approach
road roundabout (the shuttle bus is quite good at pushing in). Though
the queues aren't half as bad as they were when they had that stupid
set of traffic lights in.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2014-09-03 13:06:09 +0000, Recliner said:

You might think Gatwick is full, but it's not:

Airports should not be operated to "full" - it gives them poor
contingency, a big problem with LHR. LTN is rarely hit hard by
disruption simply because it has the slack to catch up if it needs to.

If LHR's flights were cut by a third its punctuality and reliability
would skyrocket.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:10:58 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:00:07 on Wed, 3 Sep
2014, d remarked:
Just how exactly does a hub airport help UK plc when
most of the
passengers will be passing through on to elsewhere and will
probably
just spend a few quid in duty free?

It helps because they don't just buy a few duty-frees, they buy a whole
onward flight, with all the infrastructure and staffing which that
implies.

So some construction work and a couple of hundred airport staffing jobs plus
air fares that probably go to a foreign airline in a foreign bank. Well
obviously thats really worth all the pollution , noise and a few billion
quid of taxpayers money.

--
Spud

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:13:20 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 04:00:52PM +0000, d wrote:
If we see air travel as a necessity, even if that is an evil necessity,
Do we?

Yes. Taking society as a whole, yes we do. That you personally don't
isn't of any importance.

So you think if a survey was done asking whether air travel was a necessity
like food or water or public transport you think most people would answer
yes?

Really?

--
Spud

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:00:47 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:00:25 GMT, d wrote:

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:50:36 -0500
Recliner wrote:
wrote:


The CBI is a private political lobbying organisation that represents a
small
fraction of businesses in this country.

Got a proper example?

Perhaps the Royal Company of Self-Employed Contract Programmers Who Don't
Fly Very Often has a view?

That'll be a no then.

It'll be a no to answering your repeated silly questions.

When you don't have an answer its usually best not to say anything rather
than dig the hole even deeper. Your spade must be wearing out by now.

--
Spud

On 03/09/2014 14:53, Recliner wrote:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:40:12 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:

On 02/09/2014 07:57, Recliner wrote:
To no-ones's surprise, Boris Island hasn't made the airport expansion short
list. Indeed, it's only pressure from Boris that left it on the list for so
long at all. So what remains are three options, two for Heathrow expansion,
and one for Gatwick. The business vote strongly favours Heathrow, but
Gatwick is easier politically. The decision is due after the election, and
I wonder which will win?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29026484


Gatwick. Eventually.

So why all the procrastination then? The reason they keep deferring
the decision is that Heathrow is the only one that makes economic
sense, but it's politically very difficult. The only safe time to
choose it is right after an election.


It's political dynamite! The parties policies on the airports question
going into the general election could be interesting - that said, they
might well just say 'we'll follow the recommendations of the Airports
Commission', when said recommendations (when they arrive) aren't likely
to offer such an easy get out of jail free card. Individual candidates
might do their own thing anyway.

My reckoning is that Heathrow expansion will ultimately just be too
politically toxic a path to take (remember the widespread pre-2010
opposition).

If a decision was made to expand Heathrow, I wouldn't necessarily
consider that the end of the story.

In message , at 13:58:17 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014,
Mizter T remarked:
don't forget they just decided to cut
the last two trains to London in the evening.

I guess you're referring to the 0100 and 0130 trains which only ran on
Friday and Saturday mornings, rather than throughout the week.

The announcement just said "the current 0100 and 0130 services", no
mentions of days of the week.

They only ever ran on Friday and Saturday mornings. Thus the
announcement is not inaccurate.

But apparently a bit misleading. Why would they deliberately put out an
announcement that made things seems worse than they really are?
--
Roland Perry