On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 16:47:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 16:29:10 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
Arguably a second runway at Gatwick is more practical and a lot cheaper
than a third at Heathrow. But the former directly affects more tory
voters than the latter.


The commission found that both the costs and the benefits were lower at
Gatwick, but Heathrow was better overall.

For whom exactly other than Heathrow Plc and its spanish owners?

They weren't measuring benefits to airport owners.

Oh I think they were. In fact the airports and subsidiary companies who work
for them are about the only businesses who will benefit. That guff about
businesses flying to meetings in Ping Pong province in china if only the routes
were there was plucked out of the airport owners backsides.


There is no Heathrow plc. If you actually meant Heathrow Airport Holdings
Limited, it's only 25% Spanish-owned.

It seems quebec and singapore companies own most of the rest. So thats ok then.

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:24:22 +0000, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 15/01/2018 17:16, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 15/01/2018 16:57, Robin wrote:
On 15/01/2018 16:40, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 15/01/2018 16:29, Recliner wrote:
snip

But isn't the point of this discussion that if (and it's a whopping
great if) using the Hyperloop technology could give us inter-airport
transfers in the time it typically takes to change terminals in an
airport then that might change the dynamics and cost-benefit analysis
of where to put additional airport capacity in the overall London area.

But could hyperloop deliver this for airside transfers?Â* Many
passengers at an international hub don't want a transfer that requires
immigration+baggage collection+customs followed by baggage
drop+security+emigration.Â* Not impossible but segregating "airside"
passengers (and their through-booked baggage) securely on hyperloop
seems to me non-trivial.



Airside passengers board cars with doors only on one side, other
passengers board cars with doors only on the other side.Â* Stations are
designed accordingly.

Yes - surely it's not beyond the wit of man that certain cars (for want
of a different word) are designated air-side, land-side, luggage or
cargo (presumably the latter two may need to transfer terminals/airports
too) and routed to different end-points (which for want of a different
words we'll call stations).

That's more or less what they do with Eurostar between Brussels and Lille.

In article , Robin
writes
But could hyperloop deliver this for airside transfers? Many passengers
at an international hub don't want a transfer that requires
immigration+baggage collection+customs followed by baggage
drop+security+emigration. Not impossible but segregating "airside"
passengers (and their through-booked baggage) securely on hyperloop
seems to me non-trivial.

Actually that shouldn't be hard.

A couple of years ago I was at Taipei airport with a bit of time to
kill. They've got one of those transit "rail" systems like the ones at
Stansted, Gatwick, and Heathrow T5. The train was two units, with one
used for groundside travel and the other for airside travel. There were
staggered platforms on opposite sides of the track for the two so that
the passenger flows remained completely separate.

--
Clive D.W. Feather