On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:27:41 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:

On 03/09/2014 14:53, Recliner wrote:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:40:12 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:

On 02/09/2014 07:57, Recliner wrote:
To no-ones's surprise, Boris Island hasn't made the airport expansion short
list. Indeed, it's only pressure from Boris that left it on the list for so
long at all. So what remains are three options, two for Heathrow expansion,
and one for Gatwick. The business vote strongly favours Heathrow, but
Gatwick is easier politically. The decision is due after the election, and
I wonder which will win?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29026484


Gatwick. Eventually.

So why all the procrastination then? The reason they keep deferring
the decision is that Heathrow is the only one that makes economic
sense, but it's politically very difficult. The only safe time to
choose it is right after an election.


It's political dynamite! The parties policies on the airports question
going into the general election could be interesting - that said, they
might well just say 'we'll follow the recommendations of the Airports
Commission', when said recommendations (when they arrive) aren't likely
to offer such an easy get out of jail free card. Individual candidates
might do their own thing anyway.

My reckoning is that Heathrow expansion will ultimately just be too
politically toxic a path to take (remember the widespread pre-2010
opposition).

If a decision was made to expand Heathrow, I wouldn't necessarily
consider that the end of the story.

Ah well, assuming that the Scots don't vote for independence in a
couple of weeks, that will probably be the big political debate next
summer. In the meantime, I notice Gatwick have a lot of ads and
posters up, pushing its case.

On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 15:16:16 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

On 2014-09-03 13:06:09 +0000, Recliner said:

You might think Gatwick is full, but it's not:

Airports should not be operated to "full" - it gives them poor
contingency, a big problem with LHR. LTN is rarely hit hard by
disruption simply because it has the slack to catch up if it needs to.

If LHR's flights were cut by a third its punctuality and reliability
would skyrocket.

Yes, that's certainly true. The same would be true if it had another
runway.

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:25:11 GMT, d wrote:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:00:47 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:00:25 GMT, d wrote:

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:50:36 -0500
Recliner wrote:
wrote:


The CBI is a private political lobbying organisation that represents a
small
fraction of businesses in this country.

Got a proper example?

Perhaps the Royal Company of Self-Employed Contract Programmers Who Don't
Fly Very Often has a view?

That'll be a no then.

It'll be a no to answering your repeated silly questions.

When you don't have an answer its usually best not to say anything rather
than dig the hole even deeper. Your spade must be wearing out by now.

I can't be bothered repeatedly answering your questions on this topic.
We know you're afraid of flying and resent others doing what you
can't, and nothing anyone says changes that.

On 2014-09-03 16:07:35 +0000, Recliner said:

Yes, that's certainly true. The same would be true if it had another
runway.

Also true - but will it just end up as full?

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 02/09/2014 21:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
19:33:48 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Arthur Figgis
remarked:
One of life's big ironies a few years back was a Which? report slagging
off foreign airports that falsely claimed to be close to well known
cities. In the same issue they gave "London Stansted" a ringing
endorsement, despite being further from its eponymous city than any of
the foreign airports they were complaining about.

To a certain extent, distance is less important than transport links.

A distant airport with a fast and easy-to-use train to the city centre
every 30 min, perhaps even a mainline connection to anywhere in the
country, is less of an issue than a edge-of-town airport with a
solitary bus...

Stansted is OK southbound to London,

And as it isn't calling itself "(somewhere that isn't London) Stansted",
there isn't really a problem in the case under discussion.

Bremen airport sucks if you are hoping to get a tram from the front door
to somewhere that isn't Bremen, but of you actually want Bremen then
it's great.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:48:11 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

On 2014-09-03 16:07:35 +0000, Recliner said:

Yes, that's certainly true. The same would be true if it had another
runway.

Also true - but will it just end up as full?

Given half a chance, it probably would. I think part of a possible
deal for a third runway is that they don't normally run at more than,
say, 90% capacity, rather than the current 99%.

On 03/09/2014 00:23, Recliner wrote:

I
live in West London, and Heathrow is far more convenient than any other
airport.

I live in south London, and...
A friend lives in a village near Luton, and...
Another friend lives near a stop for the direct bus to Leeds-Bradford,
and...

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In message , at 16:22:06 on Wed, 3 Sep
2014, Neil Williams remarked:
Are you saying that the branding I mentioned is already what the
general public understands to be the case?

Branding by the airport? Probably not. But it is certainly well
understood that, essentially, you go to Stansted to fly Ryanair (or to
a much lesser extent easyJet) to Europe.

It's certainly been increasingly dominated by Ryanair, who no doubt make
lots of money flying people back and forth to one horse towns in Eastern
Europe.

But this doesn't make it a useful set of routes for most of us, nor the
airline we'd choose to use on business (they aren't the only one, people
using holiday charters could run into the same problem).

It isnt *branded* as anything other than London Stansted Airport, which
says nothing about where you can fly from there.

Branding extends to much more than the name.
--
Roland Perry

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:22:49 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
,
at 02:36:55 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner
remarked:
Having lived through the "Third airport" debacle, where unless I'm
very
much mistaken the result was expanding the biggest existing
shortlisted
airport (and rejecting otherwise preferred but more expensive
builds), I
wouldn't be surprised to see Gatwick being chosen for the "next new
runway".

By that logic, surely Heathrow would be chosen?

Lots of local opposition, and much more expensive.

True, but also much, much more demand for it. Apart from Gatwick
airport itself, not many people are demanding a second runway there.
Pretty much the entire business community and airline industry want
Heathrow to expand.

That's because they've all bought into the fiction that it will mean
there is space for daily flights to Ulan Bator (insert list of other out
of the way places that only 3 people a week want to travel to) thus
increasing the trade that we do with um, Mongolia.

Frankfurt already has direct flights to Ulaanbaatar. If there's enough
business to justify flights from London, why shouldn't they be offered?
If
not, they obviously won't be. The point is that the market should decide,
without artificial restraints.


But IMHO the extra capacity wont be used this way. It'll be used to
increase the number of flights a day to NYC from 30 to 60 to no-ones
benefit except BA/AA/Etc

That's your fantasy, not what the market is telling us. If there was a
market for a lot more NYC flights,

like this you mean:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...cus-on-US.html

"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:22:49 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
,
at 02:36:55 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner
remarked:
Having lived through the "Third airport" debacle, where unless I'm very
much mistaken the result was expanding the biggest existing shortlisted
airport (and rejecting otherwise preferred but more expensive builds), I
wouldn't be surprised to see Gatwick being chosen for the "next new
runway".

By that logic, surely Heathrow would be chosen?

Lots of local opposition, and much more expensive.

True, but also much, much more demand for it. Apart from Gatwick
airport itself, not many people are demanding a second runway there.
Pretty much the entire business community and airline industry want
Heathrow to expand.

That's because they've all bought into the fiction that it will mean
there is space for daily flights to Ulan Bator (insert list of other out
of the way places that only 3 people a week want to travel to) thus
increasing the trade that we do with um, Mongolia.

Frankfurt already has direct flights to Ulaanbaatar. If there's enough
business to justify flights from London, why shouldn't they be offered? If
not, they obviously won't be. The point is that the market should decide,
without artificial restraints.


But IMHO the extra capacity wont be used this way. It'll be used to
increase the number of flights a day to NYC from 30 to 60 to no-ones
benefit except BA/AA/Etc

That's your fantasy, not what the market is telling us. If there was a
market for a lot more NYC flights,

like this you mean:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...cus-on-US.html

Interesting, I hadn't seen that.mi suppose it reflects Virgin's change if
ownership, with Singapore's 49% being sold to Delta, which is using Virgin
almost as an offshoot. I imagine it can feed a lot more of its frequent
fliers from the US on to Virgin's transatlantic routes than it could the
routes to Asia and Africa. But it's still sad to see Virgin pulling back
from its world network (having dropped it's hard fought-for Sydney route a
while ago).