On 11/06/2018 12:42, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message news
No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.

Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a
population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive

If it didn't have any PT links or a motorway it would take a damn site more
than 1.5 hours to reach it - the roads would be gridlocked.

Unless you have a car you can't get to Manston
yet those in power throw their hands up and say "Look, no one uses it!".
Well
quelle surprise.

There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by car

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

Manston does not

Yet oddly it worked for Hong Kong.



You can't get a tailor made suit in 24 hours in Manston.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at 11:16:23 on Mon, 11 Jun
2018, remarked:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:05:21 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:53:46 on Mon, 11 Jun
2018, remarked:

a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc.

It brings a great deal of employment (on the airport and off it).

Really? Where? A few extra staff at the terminals

If a third [approximately] of all flights are generated by transfer
passengers then all the maintenance and support (eg airline meals and
baggage handling, and cleaning and fuelling and dispatch) for those
flights creates work in the local economy.

and a few extra journeys for cabbies. Thats about it.

Transfer flights don't create work for cabbies. Please try to get a
grip.

I suspect it would take a few millenia to recoup
the billions that will be spent on it the extra tax income from those jobs.

The capital cost is recouped from the air fares.

It also makes routes which were not otherwise economic to operate,
available to locals to fly on.

How so? You think Heathrow are going to drop their landing fees? More likely
they'll raise them significantly.

It's nothing to do with landing fees, simply without the transfer
passengers numerous of the final destinations would no longer be
economic for the airlines to service.

--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:41:06 on
Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Recliner remarked:

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

It takes less time to find than it took you to say you couldn't find
it.

sigh the Tim effect in its full glory.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:52:34 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:16:23 on Mon, 11 Jun
2018, remarked:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:05:21 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:53:46 on Mon, 11 Jun
2018, remarked:

a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc.

It brings a great deal of employment (on the airport and off it).

Really? Where? A few extra staff at the terminals

If a third [approximately] of all flights are generated by transfer
passengers then all the maintenance and support (eg airline meals and
baggage handling, and cleaning and fuelling and dispatch) for those
flights creates work in the local economy.

A trivial amount.

and a few extra journeys for cabbies. Thats about it.

Transfer flights don't create work for cabbies. Please try to get a
grip.

I'm assuming it won't all be transfer passengers. I said a few extra.

I suspect it would take a few millenia to recoup
the billions that will be spent on it the extra tax income from those jobs.

The capital cost is recouped from the air fares.

Ah, I see you're a comedian too. For a start the airlines arn't funding it
and secondly if heathrow raise their fees too high some of them may simply
clear off elsewhere.

How so? You think Heathrow are going to drop their landing fees? More likely
they'll raise them significantly.

It's nothing to do with landing fees, simply without the transfer
passengers numerous of the final destinations would no longer be
economic for the airlines to service.

Give some examples then of routes that will be used by transfer passengers
but not in any significant amount by locals.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:00:46 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/06/2018 12:42, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message news No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.

Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a
population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive

If it didn't have any PT links or a motorway it would take a damn site more
than 1.5 hours to reach it - the roads would be gridlocked.

Unless you have a car you can't get to Manston
yet those in power throw their hands up and say "Look, no one uses it!".
Well
quelle surprise.

There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by car

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

Manston does not

Yet oddly it worked for Hong Kong.



You can't get a tailor made suit in 24 hours in Manston.

Obviously not, but the cost and disruption would be far less than for any
current london airport. And if the 3rd runway really is just for hub flights
(and if my granny had wheels she'd be a bus) then all you'd need to build
at Manston would be a nice terminal for the pax to wait in, you wouldn't even
need to bother with transport links - even cheaper.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:00:39 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 11/06/2018 11:53, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:15:01 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 11/06/2018 09:35, wrote:

No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.

For about half the passengers who fly in to and out of Heathrow, the
road and rail links outside the airport don't matter, as they fly in
from one airport, possibly change terminals, and fly out to another one.

Which means there's even less reason not to use Manston.

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

And a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc. The fact that the cabinet has been suckered into
approving the new runway demonstrates - if we didn't know already - what a
dim
bunch of 2nd raters they are.

Among the many problems with using Manston as London's major airport,
there's fitting the flight paths in with those over mainland Europe for
airports there. Do you reckon France and the Netherlands would nicely
move those for Schipol and CDG to make room?

I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even
if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact on
french or dutch airspace.

On 11/06/2018 14:40, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:00:39 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 11/06/2018 11:53, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:15:01 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 11/06/2018 09:35, wrote:

No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.

For about half the passengers who fly in to and out of Heathrow, the
road and rail links outside the airport don't matter, as they fly in
from one airport, possibly change terminals, and fly out to another one.

Which means there's even less reason not to use Manston.

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

And a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc. The fact that the cabinet has been suckered into
approving the new runway demonstrates - if we didn't know already - what a
dim
bunch of 2nd raters they are.

Among the many problems with using Manston as London's major airport,
there's fitting the flight paths in with those over mainland Europe for
airports there. Do you reckon France and the Netherlands would nicely
move those for Schipol and CDG to make room?

I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even
if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact on
french or dutch airspace.


Check the prevailing wind directions, also the location of the stacks
for LHR and LGW.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 11/06/2018 14:38, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:00:46 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/06/2018 12:42, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message news No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.

Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a
population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive

If it didn't have any PT links or a motorway it would take a damn site more
than 1.5 hours to reach it - the roads would be gridlocked.

Unless you have a car you can't get to Manston
yet those in power throw their hands up and say "Look, no one uses it!".
Well
quelle surprise.

There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by car

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

Manston does not

Yet oddly it worked for Hong Kong.



You can't get a tailor made suit in 24 hours in Manston.

Obviously not, but the cost and disruption would be far less than for any
current london airport. And if the 3rd runway really is just for hub flights
(and if my granny had wheels she'd be a bus) then all you'd need to build
at Manston would be a nice terminal for the pax to wait in, you wouldn't even
need to bother with transport links - even cheaper.


That's not how a hub airport works.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:24:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/06/2018 14:40, wrote:
I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even
if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact on
french or dutch airspace.


Check the prevailing wind directions, also the location of the stacks
for LHR and LGW.

It might be convenient to have a stack downwind of an airport but its not
essential.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:25:57 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/06/2018 14:38, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:00:46 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/06/2018 12:42, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message news No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.

Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a
population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive

If it didn't have any PT links or a motorway it would take a damn site more
than 1.5 hours to reach it - the roads would be gridlocked.

Unless you have a car you can't get to Manston
yet those in power throw their hands up and say "Look, no one uses it!".
Well
quelle surprise.

There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by
car

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

Manston does not

Yet oddly it worked for Hong Kong.



You can't get a tailor made suit in 24 hours in Manston.

Obviously not, but the cost and disruption would be far less than for any
current london airport. And if the 3rd runway really is just for hub flights
(and if my granny had wheels she'd be a bus) then all you'd need to build
at Manston would be a nice terminal for the pax to wait in, you wouldn't even
need to bother with transport links - even cheaper.


That's not how a hub airport works.

Oh ok, are we going to get yet another definition of a hub airport from you
too?