On Monday, 3 June 2013 07:08:44 UTC+1, Offramp wrote:
Very Keynsian.

I notice that Ferrovial is also involved with Crossrail. They are notorious for part-owning Heathrow and promoting its vast expansion to the detriment of the life=style and well-being of at least 2 million residents of London and surrounds.

CJB wrote:
On Monday, 3 June 2013 07:08:44 UTC+1, Offramp wrote:
Very Keynsian.

I notice that Ferrovial is also involved with Crossrail. They are
notorious for part-owning Heathrow and promoting its vast expansion to
the detriment of the life=style and well-being of at least 2 million
residents of London and surrounds.

Vast expansion??? Heathrow has fewer runways than any other major hub
airport in the world and is bursting at the seams. Many London residents
either work at or use Heathrow regularly, and so benefit from it, and would
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would benefit
the city and the country as a whole.

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:33:53 -0500
Recliner wrote:
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would benefit
the city and the country as a whole.

Also as a Londoner, you can speak for yourself. Anyone who thinks the economy
will be rescued by an extra runway at an airport is living on a cloud higher
than any 747 can reach.

--
Spud

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 10:01:14 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:33:53 -0500
Recliner wrote:
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would benefit
the city and the country as a whole.

Also as a Londoner, you can speak for yourself. Anyone who thinks the economy
will be rescued by an extra runway at an airport is living on a cloud higher
than any 747 can reach.

Presumably, as a potato farmer, you have no interest in increasing the
UK's exports?

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:19:31 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 10:01:14 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:33:53 -0500
Recliner wrote:
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would benefit
the city and the country as a whole.

Also as a Londoner, you can speak for yourself. Anyone who thinks the economy
will be rescued by an extra runway at an airport is living on a cloud higher
than any 747 can reach.

Presumably, as a potato farmer, you have no interest in increasing the
UK's exports?

99.9% of the UKs exports go by ship. And I'm afraid if you've fallen for the
"more businessmen from china will fly into london" BS put out by the vested
interests then more fool you. London is far better served for airports than
ANY other city in europe (heathrow, gatwick, luton, stansted, city, southend)
and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is.
We don't need any more.

--
Spud

On 03/06/2013 11:51, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:19:31 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 10:01:14 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:33:53 -0500
Recliner wrote:
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would benefit
the city and the country as a whole.

Also as a Londoner, you can speak for yourself. Anyone who thinks the economy
will be rescued by an extra runway at an airport is living on a cloud higher
than any 747 can reach.

Presumably, as a potato farmer, you have no interest in increasing the
UK's exports?

99.9% of the UKs exports go by ship. And I'm afraid if you've fallen for the
"more businessmen from china will fly into london" BS put out by the vested
interests then more fool you. London is far better served for airports than
ANY other city in europe (heathrow, gatwick, luton, stansted, city, southend)
and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is.
We don't need any more.

Add Biggin Hill and Lydd to those. BH is actually inside the London
boundary.

On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 10:51:54AM +0000, wrote:

and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is.
We don't need any more.

And the reasoning behind these statements is what?

--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire

Blessed are the pessimists, for they test their backups

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:00:03 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 10:51:54AM +0000, wrote:

and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is.
We don't need any more.

And the reasoning behind these statements is what?

Look out the window right now. Can you see that smeary haze where there should
be blue sky? Apart from looking vile, for all that ice from the vapour trails
you can see theres just as much CO2 released that you can't see. Not to mention
all the other pollutants being shoved into the stratosphere.

Plus I'm currently working virtually right under the heathrow flight path and
its not much fun. Thank god I don't live here.

--
Spud

I think you need to read posts more carefully before you respond to them with
such venom. He wrote that an extra runway "would benefit . . . the country"
which is something most sensible people agree with. Transforming the
economy will take more than any one project or policy, as George Osborne is
slowly and painfully learning.

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:56:55 +0200
Robin9 wrote:
;137181 Wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:33:53 -0500
Recliner wrote:-
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to
have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would
benefit
the city and the country as a whole.-

Also as a Londoner, you can speak for yourself. Anyone who thinks the
economy will be rescued by an extra runway at an airport is living on a
cloud
higher than any 747 can reach.

--
Spud

I think you need to read posts more carefully before you respond to them
with
such venom. He wrote that an extra runway "would benefit . . . the
country"

Wasn't meant to be venomous , just robust )

Anyway, I disagree. The only people an extra runway would benefit are
the shareholders and directors of Ferrovia and even that would be marginal
since AFAIK air traffic control in the southeast is getting close to its
limit too.

which is something most sensible people agree with. Transforming the
economy will take more than any one project or policy, as George Osborne
is
slowly and painfully learning.

Well quite.

--
Spud