About Us

Robin[_4_] · June 11th 18, 03:43 PM posted to uk.transport.london

On 11/06/2018 15:31, wrote:
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.

So do you reckon the head of UK ATC was wrong to see problems for
Schipol and the Netherlands with "Boris Island"? Or that with Manston,
some 45km further East, they just wouldn't feature?

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

John Williamson · June 11th 18, 03:54 PM posted to uk.transport.london

On 11/06/2018 14:36, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:52:34 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
If a third [approximately] of all flights are generated by transfer
passengers then all the maintenance and support (eg airline meals and
baggage handling, and cleaning and fuelling and dispatch) for those
flights creates work in the local economy.

A trivial amount.

Equivalent to about 20,000 full time jobs, mostly customers of local
businesses, for an extra 5,000 full time jobs in local businesses.
Heathrow employs about 60,000 people, or the entire population of a
small town, all of whom need entertainment, food and other services.

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

Trivial?

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.

It's a marginal problem. Some destinations aren't worth flying to with
either the transfer passengers or the local passengers as the sole load.
Add the two together, and you have a full plane which makes a profit, as
against two part full ones, neither of which is profitable. It costs
almost the same to fly empty as full.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Recliner[_3_] · June 11th 18, 03:55 PM posted to uk.transport.london

Robin wrote:
On 11/06/2018 15:31, wrote:
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.

So do you reckon the head of UK ATC was wrong to see problems for
Schipol and the Netherlands with "Boris Island"? Or that with Manston,
some 45km further East, they just wouldn't feature?

Boltar thinks everyone less ignorant than him is wrong. That's most of the
population.

[email protected] · June 11th 18, 04:21 PM posted to uk.transport.london

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:43:03 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 11/06/2018 15:31, wrote:
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.

So do you reckon the head of UK ATC was wrong to see problems for
Schipol and the Netherlands with "Boris Island"? Or that with Manston,
some 45km further East, they just wouldn't feature?

Well somehow planes managed to land at manston for decades so why not ask them
how they solved it.

[email protected] · June 11th 18, 04:24 PM posted to uk.transport.london

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:54:55 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 11/06/2018 14:36, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:52:34 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
If a third [approximately] of all flights are generated by transfer
passengers then all the maintenance and support (eg airline meals and
baggage handling, and cleaning and fuelling and dispatch) for those
flights creates work in the local economy.

A trivial amount.

Equivalent to about 20,000 full time jobs, mostly customers of local
businesses, for an extra 5,000 full time jobs in local businesses.

LOL, yes, I'm sure it says that in Heathrow Plcs strategy document. Now how
about a link to some projections by a neutral 3rd party?

Heathrow employs about 60,000 people, or the entire population of a
small town, all of whom need entertainment, food and other services.

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

Trivial?

Yes, because your projected figures are bull****.

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

It's a marginal problem. Some destinations aren't worth flying to with
either the transfer passengers or the local passengers as the sole load.
Add the two together, and you have a full plane which makes a profit, as
against two part full ones, neither of which is profitable. It costs
almost the same to fly empty as full.

So currently no actual examples from either roland or you. Got it.

[email protected] · June 11th 18, 04:25 PM posted to uk.transport.london

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 14:55:21 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Robin wrote:
On 11/06/2018 15:31, wrote:
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.

So do you reckon the head of UK ATC was wrong to see problems for
Schipol and the Netherlands with "Boris Island"? Or that with Manston,
some 45km further East, they just wouldn't feature?

Boltar thinks everyone less ignorant than him is wrong. That's most of the
population.

You just think everyone is wrong. Go slurp some booze, maybe you'll have
something more worthwhile to say.

Robin[_4_] · June 11th 18, 04:37 PM posted to uk.transport.london

On 11/06/2018 16:21, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:43:03 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 11/06/2018 15:31, wrote:
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.

So do you reckon the head of UK ATC was wrong to see problems for
Schipol and the Netherlands with "Boris Island"? Or that with Manston,
some 45km further East, they just wouldn't feature?

Well somehow planes managed to land at manston for decades so why not ask them
how they solved it.

I do know that actually, having first landed at Manston in 1965 in a
Chipmunk. But why not share your figures for Manston's previous peak
performance and tell us where the extra flight paths will come from to
justify I also know that Manson never achieved a fraction of the
movements necessary to justify the infrastructure investment you are
calling for? Or are they Scotch mist (mist being something Manston used
to be rather good at)

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Recliner[_3_] · June 11th 18, 04:43 PM posted to uk.transport.london

wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 14:55:21 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Robin wrote:
On 11/06/2018 15:31, wrote:
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.

So do you reckon the head of UK ATC was wrong to see problems for
Schipol and the Netherlands with "Boris Island"? Or that with Manston,
some 45km further East, they just wouldn't feature?

Boltar thinks everyone less ignorant than him is wrong. That's most of the
population.

You just think everyone is wrong.

No, just you. Let me translate the remark you were replying to: most of the
population is smarter than you.

Go slurp some booze, maybe you'll have
something more worthwhile to say.

I'd have to be seriously drunk to spout the waffle you do, supposedly while
sober.

Recliner[_3_] · June 11th 18, 04:43 PM posted to uk.transport.london

wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:54:55 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 11/06/2018 14:36, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:52:34 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
If a third [approximately] of all flights are generated by transfer
passengers then all the maintenance and support (eg airline meals and
baggage handling, and cleaning and fuelling and dispatch) for those
flights creates work in the local economy.

A trivial amount.

Equivalent to about 20,000 full time jobs, mostly customers of local
businesses, for an extra 5,000 full time jobs in local businesses.

LOL, yes, I'm sure it says that in Heathrow Plcs strategy document.

There's no such organisation.

Now how
about a link to some projections by a neutral 3rd party?

Heathrow employs about 60,000 people, or the entire population of a
small town, all of whom need entertainment, food and other services.

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

Trivial?

Yes, because your projected figures are bull****.

Those figures are at least credible. You have no figures at all. You just
have your paranoia about flying, that overwhelms your limited reasoning
ability.

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

It's a marginal problem. Some destinations aren't worth flying to with
either the transfer passengers or the local passengers as the sole load.
Add the two together, and you have a full plane which makes a profit, as
against two part full ones, neither of which is profitable. It costs
almost the same to fly empty as full.

So currently no actual examples from either roland or you. Got it.

Why would people bother researching things for an imbecile incapable of
understanding anything?

Graeme Wall · June 11th 18, 05:38 PM posted to uk.transport.london

On 11/06/2018 15:32, wrote:
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?

Nope, same one as everyone else.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
No Crossrail stations to be scrapped in cost-cutting	1506[_2_]	London Transport	1	September 28th 10 11:01 PM
LEZ phase 3 for vans and minibuses scrapped - Boris has no balls	Mizter T	London Transport	7	February 4th 09 08:07 PM
Western Extension Scrapped	Tom Barry	London Transport	18	November 29th 08 06:52 PM
Boundary zone n fares scrapped?	Colin Rosenstiel	London Transport	9	January 6th 07 05:04 PM
Massive Oxford Street Traffic Jam Saturday 28 Feb ?	Jonathan	London Transport	1	February 29th 04 04:26 PM

Menu

About Us