In message , at 09:57:30 on
Fri, 27 Sep 2019, Trolleybus remarked:
There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140.

Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route?

I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight?

And do either go where the staff actually live..?

When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early
00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the stupid-
o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the garage
(5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive or
not work. The company had the attitude that it was your
responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever
reason, tough, find another job...

It's a bit more difficult to have that attitude at a place like
Heathrow. I think their solution is to provide ample staff car
parking, it's not as if they don't have the room.

but they do have a mandate to lessen car arrivals at the airport

I doubt that staff travel is exempted from that requirement

Which is precisely why Heathrow Connect exists[1]. It's not a back-door
into Heathrow for skinflint passengers, it's for staff.

Staff are also latgely the reason that bus travel is free in and
around Heathrow (and subsidised to/from Stansted and I suspect other
airports).

The shuttle bus from the railway station to Luton Airport is free for
holders of staff passes. (It used to be free for everyone, but that's
another long story).

I've caught service buses from Bath Road to T5 and been charged a zero
fare.

Indeed, but more of an issue in the circumstances was when the first bus
of the day ran.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:21:23 +0100
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 23/09/2019 20:47, Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 23/09/2019 16:32, wrote:

I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would

change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking
pounds
of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those
****wits
got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again.

They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second
runway at Gatwick would make far more sense.

Not according to the official Airports Commission, the majority of
passengers or the airlines.

Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than
Heathrow any day.

Bit of a PITA to get to unless you live near the airport or the brighton main
line.

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:55 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:23:25 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.

Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.

It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god
knows
how they calculate that.

By doing proper professional surveys.

Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a brexit
referendum win for remain?

of one of the private parking companies.

Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes?

Nope. North side.

QED.

Why? The parking pounds arn't in the airport are they. I'm not talking about
the carparks run by Heathrow Plc.

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 19:47:45 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:44:25 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:04:12 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:58:53 +0100, Basil Jet
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of

fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.


Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for?

They don't fly, so they're not drones.

They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful
enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In
any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise
be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes,
but not aviation fuel.

If you knew anything about physics you'd be aware that using a jet engine
to

push a vehicle on the ground is far less efficient than using powered
wheels.

Half of the energy is wasted on chucking air backwards rather than making
the

aircraft go forwards.

Who are you arguing with? Nobody claimed that jet engines were an
efficient way of moving large vehicles slowly round an airport. We were
discussing diesel vs battery pushback tugs.

At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using
reverse thrusters.

Name one.

Borispol, Kiev.

wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 19:47:45 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:44:25 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:04:12 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:58:53 +0100, Basil Jet
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of

fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.


Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for?

They don't fly, so they're not drones.

They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful
enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In
any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise
be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes,
but not aviation fuel.

If you knew anything about physics you'd be aware that using a jet engine
to

push a vehicle on the ground is far less efficient than using powered
wheels.

Half of the energy is wasted on chucking air backwards rather than making
the

aircraft go forwards.

Who are you arguing with? Nobody claimed that jet engines were an
efficient way of moving large vehicles slowly round an airport. We were
discussing diesel vs battery pushback tugs.

At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using
reverse thrusters.

Name one.

Borispol, Kiev.

https://www.123rf.com/photo_113415088_borispol-ukraine-october-05-2018-the-pushback-of-the-ellinair-airbus-a320-200-aircraft-in-the-borisp.html

https://youtu.be/7ifDnXNNeLM

On 27/09/2019 20:26, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:55 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:23:25 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.

Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.

It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god
knows
how they calculate that.

By doing proper professional surveys.

Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a brexit
referendum win for remain?

I hereby propose a new law, based on Godwin's Law. Anyone who mentions
Brexit in a thread that is nothing to do with it automatically loses the
argument.

Let's call it Boris's Law.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

In message , at 19:26:11 on Fri, 27 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:55 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:23:25 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.

Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.

It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god
knows
how they calculate that.

By doing proper professional surveys.

Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a brexit
referendum win for remain?

Doing a historical traffic survey is a rather different task to opinion
polling.

of one of the private parking companies.

Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes?

Nope. North side.

QED.

Why? The parking pounds arn't in the airport are they. I'm not talking about
the carparks run by Heathrow Plc.

Not sure *what* you are talking about. But one thing's clear, you
couldn't have seen but small fraction of the car traffic in/out of the
Heathrow complex.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 19:24:25 on Fri, 27 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:21:23 +0100
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 23/09/2019 20:47, Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 23/09/2019 16:32, wrote:

I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why
that would

change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking
pounds
of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those
****wits
got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again.

They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second
runway at Gatwick would make far more sense.

Not according to the official Airports Commission, the majority of
passengers or the airlines.

Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than
Heathrow any day.

Bit of a PITA to get to unless you live near the airport

Or the M25. The eastern section of which I find much more reliable than
the western.

or the brighton main line.

Which serves Central London with its connections and even direct trains
from counties norf of the river, that latter something which Heathrow
lacks (until Crossrail serves parts of Essex).
--
Roland Perry

On 27/09/2019 21:48, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 27/09/2019 20:26, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:55 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:23:25 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling
there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.

Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the
last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.

It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train
so god
knows
how they calculate that.

By doing proper professional surveys.

Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a
brexit
referendum win for remain?

I hereby propose a new law, based on Godwin's Law. Anyone who mentions
Brexit in a thread that is nothing to do with it automatically loses the
argument.

Let's call it Boris's Law.



Godwin's law doesn't say you lose the argument, just "As an online
discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis
or Hitler approaches 1"

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 28/09/2019 07:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:26:11 on Fri, 27 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:55 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:23:25 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling
there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.

Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the
last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.

It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train
so god
knows
how they calculate that.

By doing proper professional surveys.

Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a
brexit
referendum win for remain?

Doing a historical traffic survey is a rather different task to opinion
polling.

of one of the private parking companies.

Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes?

Nope. North side.

QED.

Why? The parking pounds arn't in the airport are they. I'm not talking
about
the carparks run by Heathrow Plc.

Not sure *what* you are talking about. But one thing's clear, you
couldn't have seen but small fraction of the car traffic in/out of the
Heathrow complex.

And if you were staring out of the window you weren't doing your job.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.