tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents

if it happens

and the planet.

how?

Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.

There will be fewer of them

but, certainly in the case of South America, that's not going to happen

I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the long
haul part are Spanish Speaking.

Which routes have you flown? Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights, so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .


Their source/destination for this journey was Spain.

They aren't going to switch to flying via LON, it adds 6 hours to their
journey.

Agreed

Recliner wrote:

Air freight is generally only used for items with a short shelf-life
or needed quickly. For example, Scotch whisky by sea, Scottish salmon
by air. Cars by sea, urgently needed car spares by air.

Or high value to weight/volume. Think electronic components, jewelry, etc...

In message , at 07:33:31 on Sat, 29 Feb
2020, tim... remarked:

I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the
long haul part are Spanish Speaking.

Their source/destination for this journey was Spain.

They aren't going to switch to flying via LON, it adds 6 hours to their
journey.

It's ironic that in a debate about the efficacy of transit hubs you are
justifying their useless by an example of when you were using one!

And while Spain-London-S/America might add a bit to a trip, I've just
looked up some flights where changing at the hub known as Lisbon saves
40% of the fare and only adds 2hrs to the end-to-end time.

Possibly less, if checking in for a Madrid-Lisbon flight can be done
later than a Madrid-S/America one.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:09:05 on Sat, 29 Feb
2020, Recliner remarked:

I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the long
haul part are Spanish Speaking.

Which routes have you flown? Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights, so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .

I've flown UK-AMS-USA several times, when not only was the fare a couple
of hundred pounds cheaper per person (adds up, if four of you) but the
time we needed to leave home to get to the departure airport and to
check in was later.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 19:59:16 on Fri, 28 Feb
2020, Recliner remarked:

Everything about the future is speculation.

Apart perhaps from the folly of building a new plant to produce diesel
engines to prospectively fit in JLR vehicles manufactured in the 2030's.

Yes, that was a very expensive decision. The sad thing is that it produces
particularly clean diesel engines.

I was more thinking about such a decision being taken this year or next.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 07:46:30 on Sat, 29 Feb
2020, tim... remarked:

It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased
opportunity for air travel is necessary for the overall good of the
UK economy (except in the trivial amount that air side purchases
form of the economy)

You still banging on about that? The economic benefits of
passengers (and cargo) in transit go *way* beyond people buying a
cup of coffee.

really

show your working,

cos I don't believe it

Every passenger in transit uses up two seats, and all the supporting
logistics for two seats. Not just at the airport, but all the service
industries whose customers are Heathrow based.

And it's not just a handful of seats on the planes, 35% of passengers
are doing transit.

but it's still a tiny amount of effect on total UK economy

A few billion here and there, adds up.

Also not just all that extra money being spent locally to facilitate
their flights, but in many cases there very presence is what support
the number of destinations served, and in some cases the number of
days a week those flights operate.

but that not, of itself, an improvement for the UK Economy.

If business people have to extend their trips because destinations are
only served 3 days a week, that has an effect upon their ability to
efficiently manage "UK plc".

In other news, a statistics from the news this week: 40% of all our
exports (to countries outside the EU - they sometimes forget to make
that qualification) go out of Heathrow. That's by value rather than
volume, of course.

but freight doesn't *need* to go from LHR.

It could go from somewhere else at greater cost (not last because of
being indirect having lost the benefit of agglomeration), agreed.

--
Roland Perry

In message , at 08:15:48 on Sat, 29 Feb
2020, tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:36:25 on Fri, 28 Feb
2020, John Levine remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
The biggest destination is the USA, which isn't surprising, not because
of the size of the market, but shipping something by sea to Seattle or
Los Angeles is a bit time consuming, and to Dallas or Chicago really
quite difficult. Whereas the planes can land anywhere just as easily.

Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult?

Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

I agree Dallas is hard, but Houston is not.

So you have to trans-ship it, rather than land nearby.

you think that they don't do that with freight anyway

what do you think happens to all the freight that lands at Rotterdam or
Hamburg?

And does that stop people long-hauling by ship?

No

Why are US landings any different?

Because the USA is as big as the Atlantic.

--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?

Because the most efficient way to ship stuff by sea (even in smallish
consignments that might otherwise fit inside a plane) is to bung it onto
a large container vessel (inside a container, obviously). Sounds like
transhipping it onto a much smaller boat to do the final 1,500miles is
going to be a pain, compared to air-freighting it end to end.

30,000 tonnes is small? I am reasonably sure that the ships that
transit the St Lawrence to and from the Great Lakes continue on to
ports all over the world. It's not like they unload in Halifax.

--
Regards,
John Levine, , Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?

Just out of interest, so significantly less than Panamax.

Yes. I presume it's due to the limits of what they could build in the
St Lawrence Seaway. The locks within the Great Lakes are apparently a
lot larger and there are large bulk carriers that never get east of
Toronto.

--
Regards,
John Levine, , Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

John Levine wrote:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?

Because the most efficient way to ship stuff by sea (even in smallish
consignments that might otherwise fit inside a plane) is to bung it onto
a large container vessel (inside a container, obviously). Sounds like
transhipping it onto a much smaller boat to do the final 1,500miles is
going to be a pain, compared to air-freighting it end to end.

30,000 tonnes is small? I am reasonably sure that the ships that
transit the St Lawrence to and from the Great Lakes continue on to
ports all over the world. It's not like they unload in Halifax.


That's called Seawaymax, and it's pretty small:
http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/ship-sizes/

Aframax

AFRA stands for Average Freight Rate Assessment. As the name suggests,
Aframax are medium-sized oil tankers with a dead weight tonnage (DWT)
between 80,000 and 119,999. Though relatively small in size in comparison
to VLCC and ULCC, Aframax tankers have a capacity to carry up to 120,000
metric tonnes of crude oil. They are just ideal for short to medium-haul
oil trades, and are primarily used in regions of lower crude production, or
the areas that lack large ports to accommodate giant oil carriers.

Capesize

They are very large and ultra large cargo vessels with a capacity over
150,000 DWT. They are categorised under VLCC, ULCC, VLOC and ULOC and can
be as large as 400,000 DWT or even more. They serve regions with largest
deepwater terminals in the world and are primarily used for transporting
coal and iron ore. Because of their giant size, they are suitable to serve
only a small number of ports with deepwater terminals.

Chinamax

Chinamax ships are very large bulk carrier which can't be longer than 360m
(1,180 ft), wider than 65 m (213 ft) and her draft can't be more than 24 m
(79 ft). The deadweight tonnage of these vessels is 380,000–400,000 DWT.

Ship's maximum measurements are defined by the Chinamax standars, allowing
ports to determine whether they can accommodate ships in this class. As the
name suggests, these ships are often used to move cargo to and from China
along several trade routes, such as the iron ore route from Brazil to
China.

Handymax/ Supramax

Handymax are small-sized cargo ships with a size less than 60,000 DWT.
Supramax vessels have capacity between 50,000 to 60,000 DWT. Due to their
small size, they are capable of operating in regions with small ports with
length and draught restrictions. They form the majority of ocean going
cargo vessels in the world.

Handysize

Handysize are small-sized ships with a capacity ranging between 15,000 and
35,000 DWT. These vessels are ideal for small as well as large ports, and
so make up the majority of ocean cargo vessels in the world. They are
mainly used in transporting finished petroleum products and for bulk cargo.

Malaccamax

As the name suggests, Malaccamax ships are the largest ships that can pass
through the Strait off Malacca which is 25 m (82 ft) deep. As per the
current permissible limits, a Malaccamax vessel can have a maximum length
of 400 m (1,312ft), beam of 59 m (193.5 ft), and draught of 14.5 m (47.5
ft).


Panamax and New Panamax

As the name suggests, Panamax and New Panamax ships are travelling through
the Panama Canal. They strictly follow the size regulations set by the
Panama Canal Authority, as the entry and exit points of the Canal are
narrow. A Panamax vessel can't be longer than 294,13 m (965 ft), wider than
32,31 m (106 ft) and her draught can't be more than 12,04 m (39.5 ft).
These vessels have an average capacity of 65,000 DWT, and are primarily
used in transporting coal, crude oil and petroleum products. They operate
in the Caribbean and Latin American regions.

The New Panamax has been created as a result of the expanding plans for
Panama Canal locks. Expanded locks will be around 427 m (1400 ft) long, 55
m (180 ft) wide and 18,30 m (60 ft) deep so Panama Canal will be able to
handle larger vessels .

Q-Max (Qatar-max)

Q-Max's are largest LNG carriers that can dock at the LNG terminals in
Qatar.

Q-Max ship is 345 metres (1,132 ft) long, 53.8 metres (177 ft) wide and
34.7 metres (114 ft) high, with a draught of approximately 12 metres (39
ft). It has a capacity of 266,000 cubic metres (9,400,000 cu ft), equal to
161,994,000 cubic metres (5.7208×109 cu ft) of natural gas.

Seawaymax

As the name suggests, Seawaymax ships are the largest ships that can pass
through the locks of St. Lawrence Seaway.

These ships are 225,6 m (740 ft) long, 23,8 m (78 ft) wide and 35,5 m (116
ft) high, with a draught of 7,92 metres (26 ft).

Suezmax

Suezmax are named after the famous Suez Canal. They are mid-sized cargo
vessels with a capacity ranging between 120,000 to 200,000 DWT. They are
designed to pass through the majority of the ports in the world. Currently
the permissible limits for suezmax ships are 20.1 m (66 ft) of draught with
the beam no wider than 50 m (164.0 ft), or 12.2 m (40 ft) of draught with
maximum allowed beam of 77.5 m (254 ft).