On 16/06/2016 12:11, James Heaton wrote:

"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

Isn't the point that when the King of Sweden dies, the heir apparent is
his daughter, Crown Princess Victoria, who is likely to become, drum
roll please, Queen Victoria.

She currently has two (alive) children hence satisfying the statements
above assuming no assumed caveats such as which particular Queen
Victoria, and of which country, we are talking about...

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:49:35 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

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.

You obviously weren't listening. BAA, and now HAL, have been pushing
for a third runway for many years, long before T5 was built.

Might I introduce you to Google to help your failing memory?

April 1994: "British Airways and Heathrow Airport Ltd gave evidence to
the RUCATSE Inquiry supporting a third runway at Heathrow which would
cause the destruction of the villages of Harmondsworth, Sipson and
Harlington."
http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/ctteedo...il_21apr94.pdf

and many more, eg:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2...r-takeoff.html
http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_stora...s/46733357.pdf
http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.as...conrunway2.htm
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/anger...w-7276566.html



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.

The service isn't fast, frequent or reliable, and nor does it operate
for the full airport working day. Given that you've probably never
used public transport to Stansted (have you ever even used the
airport?), I'm not sure you're an expert on the subject.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:59:42 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

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?

So you're opposed to hundreds of thousands of new jobs?

On 16/06/2016 12:26, Recliner wrote:

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.

The service isn't fast, frequent or reliable, and nor does it operate
for the full airport working day. Given that you've probably never
used public transport to Stansted (have you ever even used the
airport?), I'm not sure you're an expert on the subject.


As someone who lives in east London and has a 06:45 flight in a few days
time I am suddenly all too aware of the perils of getting to Stansted at
frankly awful times of the morning!

It appears my best bet is a taxi to Liverpool Street and then the 03:40
train.

For a similar flight from Heathrow I could leave at least an hour later
(admittedly getting a taxi all the way, but at approximately the same cost)

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:30:38AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

If all fares originating in the UK go up, then competitively it's still
a level playing field for the airlines

Not quite. Airlines that rely heavily on UK hubs will lose out to those
that use non-UK hubs, as more passengers will choose to change in Paris
or Frankfurt instead of London.

--
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing

Your call is important to me. To see if it's important to
you I'm going to make you wait on hold for five minutes.
All calls are recorded for blackmail and amusement purposes.

wrote in message ...
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,

It was a genuine miscalculation

whether that was out of stupidity, or something else - take your pick

tim

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:59:42 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

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?

So you're opposed to hundreds of thousands of new jobs?

Not in principle, but the area around Heathrow would be pretty near the
bottom of a list of places that need them (even if that list were only of
places less than 30 miles from London)

tim

In message , at 12:46:12
on Thu, 16 Jun 2016, David Cantrell remarked:
If all fares originating in the UK go up, then competitively it's still
a level playing field for the airlines

Not quite. Airlines that rely heavily on UK hubs will lose out to those
that use non-UK hubs, as more passengers will choose to change in Paris
or Frankfurt instead of London.

Both trips start with a flight out of the UK.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:15:58 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


wrote in message ...
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,

It was a genuine miscalculation

whether that was out of stupidity, or something else - take your pick

I think it was the same mindset that has been behind the various
estuary proposals: if you put the airport a long way from London,
fewer people will be affected by noise, so there will be fewer
protests. Stansted also had an existing long WWII runway.

But the problem with putting an airport a long way off is that it's
also a long way from the customers, who therefore don't want to use
it. BAA invested in a splendid Norman Foster terminal, a railway
station right under the terminal and direct links to the nearby M11,
but that still wasn't enough.

In message , at 12:21:14 on Thu, 16 Jun
2016, Someone Somewhere remarked:
assuming no assumed caveats such as which particular Queen Victoria,
and of which country, we are talking about...

cough UK.transport.LONDON cough
--
Roland Perry