Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/449...twick-airports

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.

it's apparently just to stop Boris being too negative.

Glad to see the guy dis the idea that London *has* to have a hub.

I've never bought into that one bit

tim

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:40:39 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.


I think it translates as "We don't want to embarrass the 2nd most powerful
conservative politician in the country but pointing out that his idea would
even be too daft for Cuckoo Lands Xmas Festival of Really Stupid Ideas"

Far too expensive
Enviromental disaster
Wrong side of London for most of the population
Obstruction to shipping
Would blight key Tory constituencies
Airlines not interested anyway

--
Spud

Basil Jet wrote:
Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/449...twick-airports

It means the commissions' arms were twisted to keep another non-Heathrow
option technically in consideration to stop Boris creating too much noise.

"tim......" wrote:
"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.

it's apparently just to stop Boris being too negative.

Glad to see the guy dis the idea that London *has* to have a hub.

I've never bought into that one bit

London does have a hub. It's just too small.

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:54:58 -0600
Recliner wrote:
"tim......" wrote:
"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.

it's apparently just to stop Boris being too negative.

Glad to see the guy dis the idea that London *has* to have a hub.

I've never bought into that one bit

London does have a hub. It's just too small.

Too small for what? Too small to have even more transit passengers spending
hardly any money in the UK in the few hours they spend here before they fly
off again? Too bad. There is more than enough runway capacity in the southeast,
we don't need any more. If BA gave up its regional slots at heathrow there'd
be no issue there either. Theres zero good reason for flights to leeds and
newcastle from london in the first place when the train can do the job
perfectly adequately, and such flights if they must happen could easily be
done from City or Luton.

--
Spud

On 2013\12\17 17:13, d wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:54:58 -0600
Recliner wrote:
"tim......" wrote:
"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.

it's apparently just to stop Boris being too negative.

Glad to see the guy dis the idea that London *has* to have a hub.

I've never bought into that one bit

London does have a hub. It's just too small.

Too small for what? Too small to have even more transit passengers spending
hardly any money in the UK in the few hours they spend here before they fly
off again? Too bad. There is more than enough runway capacity in the southeast,
we don't need any more. If BA gave up its regional slots at heathrow there'd
be no issue there either. Theres zero good reason for flights to leeds and
newcastle from london in the first place when the train can do the job
perfectly adequately, and such flights if they must happen could easily be
done from City or Luton.

.... which would cause people flying from Australia to Newcastle or Leeds
to change at Frankfurt or Amsterdam instead.

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 17:31:35 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2013\12\17 17:13, d wrote:
Too small for what? Too small to have even more transit passengers spending
hardly any money in the UK in the few hours they spend here before they fly
off again? Too bad. There is more than enough runway capacity in the
southeast,
we don't need any more. If BA gave up its regional slots at heathrow there'd
be no issue there either. Theres zero good reason for flights to leeds and
newcastle from london in the first place when the train can do the job
perfectly adequately, and such flights if they must happen could easily be
done from City or Luton.

.... which would cause people flying from Australia to Newcastle or Leeds
to change at Frankfurt or Amsterdam instead.

Umm , so? They'll still be coming to the UK. I think the UK economy can handle
the lost sales of crap in duty free while they wait for their connecting
flight if it means we don't have even more flights blighting the southeast.

This whole airport expansion argument comes across as a juvenile mines bigger
that yours ****ing match. Its pathetic.

--
Spud

wrote in message
news
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:54:58 -0600
Recliner wrote:
"tim......" wrote:
"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.

it's apparently just to stop Boris being too negative.

Glad to see the guy dis the idea that London *has* to have a hub.

I've never bought into that one bit

London does have a hub. It's just too small.

Too small for what? Too small to have even more transit passengers
spending
hardly any money in the UK in the few hours they spend here before they
fly
off again? Too bad. There is more than enough runway capacity in the
southeast,
we don't need any more. If BA gave up its regional slots at heathrow
there'd
be no issue there either. Theres zero good reason for flights to leeds and
newcastle from london in the first place when the train can do the job
perfectly adequately, and such flights if they must happen could easily be
done from City or Luton.

Intra UK transit pax are not the problem. It's the perceived need to steal
pax from other European carries at major European "hubs", that is

I was researching flights to SA the other day and it is 20% cheaper to fly
LHR-FRA-CPT with LH than it is to fly FRA-CPT

OTOH it is 20% cheaper to fly FRA-LHR-CPT with BA than it is to fly LHR-CPT.

So the reason that LHR needs to be a hub is because BA (apparently) can't
fill a plane from LHR to CPT without "bribing" pax from Germany to fly via
London.

Except that the only reason that here are seats on the plane is because LH
have bribed Brits to fly via FRA.

This isn't a reason to create a hub, the solution to this problem is to make
sure that your direct flights are competitively priced in the first place!

tim

On 2013\12\17 19:21, tim...... wrote:

wrote in message
news
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:54:58 -0600
Recliner wrote:
"tim......" wrote:
"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

Apparently, Boris Island will be considered next year, but isn't on
the
shortlist. How that sentence can mean anything is beyond me.

it's apparently just to stop Boris being too negative.

Glad to see the guy dis the idea that London *has* to have a hub.

I've never bought into that one bit

London does have a hub. It's just too small.

Too small for what? Too small to have even more transit passengers
spending
hardly any money in the UK in the few hours they spend here before
they fly
off again? Too bad. There is more than enough runway capacity in the
southeast,
we don't need any more. If BA gave up its regional slots at heathrow
there'd
be no issue there either. Theres zero good reason for flights to leeds
and
newcastle from london in the first place when the train can do the job
perfectly adequately, and such flights if they must happen could
easily be
done from City or Luton.

Intra UK transit pax are not the problem. It's the perceived need to
steal pax from other European carries at major European "hubs", that is

I was researching flights to SA the other day and it is 20% cheaper to
fly LHR-FRA-CPT with LH than it is to fly FRA-CPT

OTOH it is 20% cheaper to fly FRA-LHR-CPT with BA than it is to fly
LHR-CPT.

So the reason that LHR needs to be a hub is because BA (apparently)
can't fill a plane from LHR to CPT without "bribing" pax from Germany to
fly via London.

Except that the only reason that here are seats on the plane is because
LH have bribed Brits to fly via FRA.

This isn't a reason to create a hub, the solution to this problem is to
make sure that your direct flights are competitively priced in the first
place!

standing ovation