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.