Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:03:05 on Thu, 16 Jun
2016, tim... remarked:
I was discussing "the whole low-cost flights thing is a result of EU
deregulation, and the allocation of slots is also an EU thing" the
slots being applicable to flights all over the world, so very relevant.

I don't believe that the allocation of slots at any particular airport
has a damned thing to do with the EU

Of course it does. The EU negotiated the Open Skies agreement, not the
UK. Without that, previously only two UK and two US airlines were
allowed UK-USA slots at Heathrow.

That's true.

There's also the matter of the joint venture agreements that the EU and US
have permitted, allowing each of the three alliances to pool their
trans-Atlantic businesses, swapping flights between airlines as they
choose.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:17:54 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:29:53 on Thu, 16 Jun
2016, d remarked:
You want the state telling you where and when you can travel?

No, but I want the state to limit a destructive free-for-all. If some vested
interest in roads was campaigning to build a new motorway do you think anyone
would listen? Yet for some reason we're supposed to build a new runway at
Heathrow to benefit whome exactly? Oh thats right, Heathrow Plc.

Not just the airport company, but the hundreds of thousands of auxiliary
workers and their employers.

So all these workers will suddenly get a pay rise and better conditions if
a new runway is built? Or perhaps you mean it'll lead to hundreds of thousands
of new jobs?

--
Spud

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:38:47 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:29:53 on Thu, 16 Jun
2016, d remarked:
You want the state telling you where and when you can travel?

No, but I want the state to limit a destructive free-for-all. If some vested
interest in roads was campaigning to build a new motorway do you think
anyone
would listen? Yet for some reason we're supposed to build a new runway at
Heathrow to benefit whome exactly? Oh thats right, Heathrow Plc.

Not just the airport company, but the hundreds of thousands of auxiliary
workers and their employers.

Plus the customers (ie, the airlines and their customers). It would never
get through if the only proponent was HAL. What's driving it is all the
businesses that want better connections from Heathrow. But now that BA has
managed to acquire more slots than it can use, it's much less keen on
Heathrow expansion than it used to be.

Do you not find it the slightest bit odd that Heathrow only started clamouring
for a 3rd runway after the owners were forced to sell Gatwick? Now isn't that
strange.

And FWIW, Stansted was built as the overflow airport for London. Apparently
that was future proofing air travel. Either they lied or they were stupid,
take your pick.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:38:47 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:29:53 on Thu, 16 Jun
2016, d remarked:
You want the state telling you where and when you can travel?

No, but I want the state to limit a destructive free-for-all. If some vested
interest in roads was campaigning to build a new motorway do you think
anyone
would listen? Yet for some reason we're supposed to build a new runway at
Heathrow to benefit whome exactly? Oh thats right, Heathrow Plc.

Not just the airport company, but the hundreds of thousands of auxiliary
workers and their employers.

Plus the customers (ie, the airlines and their customers). It would never
get through if the only proponent was HAL. What's driving it is all the
businesses that want better connections from Heathrow. But now that BA has
managed to acquire more slots than it can use, it's much less keen on
Heathrow expansion than it used to be.

Do you not find it the slightest bit odd that Heathrow only started clamouring
for a 3rd runway after the owners were forced to sell Gatwick? Now isn't that
strange.

It would be strange if it was true, but it isn't. There has been pressure
for a third Heathrow runway for many years, long before BAA was broken up.


And FWIW, Stansted was built as the overflow airport for London. Apparently
that was future proofing air travel. Either they lied or they were stupid,
take your pick.

It's not an airport that's popular with the customers. It's too far away,
with poor public transport, and on the wrong side of London. That's why an
estuary airport is an even worse idea.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:08:49 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Do you not find it the slightest bit odd that Heathrow only started
clamouring
for a 3rd runway after the owners were forced to sell Gatwick? Now isn't that
strange.

It would be strange if it was true, but it isn't. There has been pressure
for a third Heathrow runway for many years, long before BAA was broken up.

Pressure from whom? BAA weren't that bothered about it.

And FWIW, Stansted was built as the overflow airport for London. Apparently
that was future proofing air travel. Either they lied or they were stupid,
take your pick.

It's not an airport that's popular with the customers. It's too far away,
with poor public transport, and on the wrong side of London. That's why an
estuary airport is an even worse idea.

It has a high speed train service from London and Cambridge and is right
next door to the M11. I don't call that poor transport links.

--
Spud

"Dr J R Stockton" wrote in message
nvalid...
In uk.transport.london message N9SdnfG9t98L2f3KnZ2dnUU78TPNnZ2d@brightv
iew.co.uk, Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:53:24, Arthur Figgis
posted:

On 14/06/2016 12:47, Roland Perry wrote:

As this is Usenet then nothing is ever going to qualify as "all" (unless
it's something like "all of Queen Victoria's children are dead").

Until the demise of Carl XVI Gustaf, at which point there will be at
least two alive (unless something bad happens in the mean time).


There seems to be some error or misunderstanding :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert,_Prince_Consort#Issue indicates
that the last two surviving issue of Victoria and Albert died during
WWII, one near the beginning and one near the end. I wonder how many
here are old enough to have been able to have met either lady?

Yes definitely something going on in the generations here - Carl Gustaf is a
g-g-grandchild of Victoria and Albert.

At a glance, looks like their last grandchild was Princess Alice of Athlone,
who died in 1981 aged nearly 100.

James

In message , at 10:03:41 on Thu, 16 Jun
2016, d remarked:
FWIW, Stansted was built as the overflow airport for London. Apparently
that was future proofing air travel. Either they lied or they were stupid,
take your pick.

They failed (like so many others) to anticipate the effect on the market
of then-nonexistent low-cost airlines. Which is one of the reasons I
think that unpredictable things will happen if the UK detaches itself
from EU airspace policy.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:59:42 on Thu, 16 Jun
2016, d remarked:
You want the state telling you where and when you can travel?

No, but I want the state to limit a destructive free-for-all. If some vested
interest in roads was campaigning to build a new motorway do you think anyone
would listen? Yet for some reason we're supposed to build a new runway at
Heathrow to benefit whome exactly? Oh thats right, Heathrow Plc.

Not just the airport company, but the hundreds of thousands of auxiliary
workers and their employers.

So all these workers will suddenly get a pay rise and better conditions if
a new runway is built? Or perhaps you mean it'll lead to hundreds of thousands
of new jobs?

The latter.
--
Roland Perry

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 10:08:49 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016, Recliner
remarked:

FWIW, Stansted was built as the overflow airport for London. Apparently
that was future proofing air travel. Either they lied or they were stupid,
take your pick.

It's not an airport that's popular with the customers. It's too far away,
with poor public transport, and on the wrong side of London. That's why an
estuary airport is an even worse idea.

It lost its way when it never became a hub offering a choice of medium
and short haul flights, on account of being typecast as being for
low-cost airlines. There have been several attempts to offer
transatlantic flights (and I've even taken one from there) but they were
too out of step with the other destinations to succeed.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:49:35 on Thu, 16 Jun
2016, d remarked:

FWIW, Stansted was built as the overflow airport for London. Apparently
that was future proofing air travel. Either they lied or they were stupid,
take your pick.

It's not an airport that's popular with the customers. It's too far away,
with poor public transport, and on the wrong side of London. That's why an
estuary airport is an even worse idea.

It has a high speed train service from London

It's a rather slow speed service actually.

and Cambridge

And only 1tph to the north (plus very recently a few more trains in the
middle of the day when no-one really needs them). I think at one time
Central Trains even suspended the Cambridge-Stansted service for a few
years.

and is right next door to the M11.

That is what has saved its bacon.

I don't call that poor transport links.

--
Roland Perry