Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:14:20 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:52:12 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
The same people who'll end up paying for heathrows white elephant - us.

Nope. There are plenty of people who will happily invest in Heathrow's
success. There weren't any investors in Manston's flop of an airport.

As I've said - we'll see. Talking is one thing, actually putting up hard cash
is another.

My career is fine thanks, however I also have a life outside of it too. I
suspect you don't which is why you're constantly travelling, no doubt to
alleviate the boredom of sitting at home staring at the walls with only
jeremey kyle for company.

Yes, as I said, you're rationalising your career failure, just as you
rationalise your fear of flying (first, it was that you didn't like
travelling economy, then it was that you didn't like travelling in
business class, not that you ever have, of course).

I've never travelled in business class so its highly unlikely I ever said that.
Just another made up "fact" amongst all your others to provide some feeble
weight to what pass for your debating abilities.

Of course, these two problems might be connected: your fear of flying
has stopped you getting a decent job. That may explain your obvious
frustration and permanent anger: no-one likes being judged as a
failure. So here's a date for your diary: 30 June.

https://www.flyingwithconfidence.com

I had a colleague who took it, and it transformed him, and his career
prospects.

Is he a trolley dolly now?

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:54:04 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:14:20 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:52:12 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
The same people who'll end up paying for heathrows white elephant - us.

Nope. There are plenty of people who will happily invest in Heathrow's
success. There weren't any investors in Manston's flop of an airport.

As I've said - we'll see. Talking is one thing, actually putting up hard cash
is another.

My career is fine thanks, however I also have a life outside of it too. I
suspect you don't which is why you're constantly travelling, no doubt to
alleviate the boredom of sitting at home staring at the walls with only
jeremey kyle for company.

Yes, as I said, you're rationalising your career failure, just as you
rationalise your fear of flying (first, it was that you didn't like
travelling economy, then it was that you didn't like travelling in
business class, not that you ever have, of course).

I've never travelled in business class so its highly unlikely I ever said that.

Your poor memory can't help your career prospects, either. You said,
"No way would I fly 50 times to the US simply for work business class
or not. They could shove the job."

No wonder you're low paid.

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

On 13/06/2018 12:02, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:31:18 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low
opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong

Someone better tell London City where final approach starts over southwark
all of 6 miles away when landing from the west. Admittedly its smaller planes
but they're still airliners, not cessnas.

Puddle jumpers. Now try the same trick with a 747 or Airbus 380, which
are the size of plane that is needed for a decent hub and long distance
airport to survive. Technical differences include the approach glide
path descent angle for city airport being 6 degrees as against the
normal 3 degrees for Heathrow and other major airports. A big jet can't
approach at 6 degrees safely anywhere near full load, as they tend to
stall and fall out of the sky.

Pilots don't like City airport much, either.



If you lived in north london like I do you'd see airliners on approach and
departure from heathrow passing each other with minimum vertical and almost
no horizontal seperation every day.

You do, of course have the radar records to back this up. However, it
does make the point that airspace is already very crowded over London
and the South East of England, and adding an extra airport would only
make things worse.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:59:00 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:54:04 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:14:20 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:52:12 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
The same people who'll end up paying for heathrows white elephant - us.

Nope. There are plenty of people who will happily invest in Heathrow's
success. There weren't any investors in Manston's flop of an airport.

As I've said - we'll see. Talking is one thing, actually putting up hard cash
is another.

My career is fine thanks, however I also have a life outside of it too. I
suspect you don't which is why you're constantly travelling, no doubt to
alleviate the boredom of sitting at home staring at the walls with only
jeremey kyle for company.

Yes, as I said, you're rationalising your career failure, just as you
rationalise your fear of flying (first, it was that you didn't like
travelling economy, then it was that you didn't like travelling in
business class, not that you ever have, of course).

I've never travelled in business class so its highly unlikely I ever said
that.

Your poor memory can't help your career prospects, either. You said,
"No way would I fly 50 times to the US simply for work business class
or not. They could shove the job."

No wonder you're low paid.

It seems your english comprehension is somewhat lacking too. Not wanting to
travel a lot for work even if in business class is not the same as saying I
don't like travelling in business class. I wouldn't have done your job for
200K a year, that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to have 200K. Not exactly a
subtle distinction but nonetheless you apparently need it signposted in
flashing neon.

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:52:47 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 13/06/2018 12:02, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:31:18 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low
opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong

Someone better tell London City where final approach starts over southwark
all of 6 miles away when landing from the west. Admittedly its smaller planes
but they're still airliners, not cessnas.

Puddle jumpers. Now try the same trick with a 747 or Airbus 380, which

According to wonkypedia the largest aircraft that can use london city is
the bombardier C100. 108 pax and 60 tons MTOW. Hardly a puddle jumper.

normal 3 degrees for Heathrow and other major airports. A big jet can't
approach at 6 degrees safely anywhere near full load, as they tend to
stall and fall out of the sky.

That sounds iffy to me, got a citation? Military transport aircraft have to
come down pretty steep slopes and a lot of them are just modified civilian
craft. Plus they wouldn't be near full load anyway as they'd have used up most
of the fuel.

Pilots don't like City airport much, either.

I can't imagine pax are too thrilled about it either. Visited it once , bugger
all facilities and a right slog on the DLR.

If you lived in north london like I do you'd see airliners on approach and
departure from heathrow passing each other with minimum vertical and almost
no horizontal seperation every day.

You do, of course have the radar records to back this up. However, it

Flightradar24 is your friend.

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:52:47 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 13/06/2018 12:02, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:31:18 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low
opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong

Someone better tell London City where final approach starts over southwark
all of 6 miles away when landing from the west. Admittedly its smaller planes
but they're still airliners, not cessnas.

Puddle jumpers. Now try the same trick with a 747 or Airbus 380, which

According to wonkypedia the largest aircraft that can use london city is
the bombardier C100. 108 pax and 60 tons MTOW. Hardly a puddle jumper.

normal 3 degrees for Heathrow and other major airports. A big jet can't
approach at 6 degrees safely anywhere near full load, as they tend to
stall and fall out of the sky.

That sounds iffy to me, got a citation?

Your extraordinary ignorance is on display, yet again.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flexjet-demonstrates-london-steep-approach-with-lega-425613

Military transport aircraft have to
come down pretty steep slopes and a lot of them are just modified civilian
craft. Plus they wouldn't be near full load anyway as they'd have used up most
of the fuel.

Pilots don't like City airport much, either.

I can't imagine pax are too thrilled about it either. Visited it once , bugger
all facilities and a right slog on the DLR.

Your extraordinary ignorance is on display, yet again.
https://www.londoncityairport.com/media-centre/london-city-airport-wins-skytrax-award

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:30:38 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:52:47 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 13/06/2018 12:02, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:31:18 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low
opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong

Someone better tell London City where final approach starts over southwark
all of 6 miles away when landing from the west. Admittedly its smaller
planes
but they're still airliners, not cessnas.

Puddle jumpers. Now try the same trick with a 747 or Airbus 380, which

According to wonkypedia the largest aircraft that can use london city is
the bombardier C100. 108 pax and 60 tons MTOW. Hardly a puddle jumper.

normal 3 degrees for Heathrow and other major airports. A big jet can't
approach at 6 degrees safely anywhere near full load, as they tend to
stall and fall out of the sky.

That sounds iffy to me, got a citation?

Your extraordinary ignorance is on display, yet again.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...london-steep-a
proach-with-lega-425613

Sorry, that article is supposed to tell me what? Nowhere does it state that
big jets would stall at a 6 deg approach angle.

Once again you demonstrate your inability to follow simple exglish.

Pilots don't like City airport much, either.

I can't imagine pax are too thrilled about it either. Visited it once ,
bugger
all facilities and a right slog on the DLR.

Your extraordinary ignorance is on display, yet again.
https://www.londoncityairport.com/me...rt-wins-skytra
-award

Just saying what I saw rather than reading it off a website. This was 10 years
ago so it may well have improved. It could hardly have got any worse.

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:30:38 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:52:47 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 13/06/2018 12:02, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:31:18 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low
opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong

Someone better tell London City where final approach starts over southwark
all of 6 miles away when landing from the west. Admittedly its smaller
planes
but they're still airliners, not cessnas.

Puddle jumpers. Now try the same trick with a 747 or Airbus 380, which

According to wonkypedia the largest aircraft that can use london city is
the bombardier C100. 108 pax and 60 tons MTOW. Hardly a puddle jumper.

normal 3 degrees for Heathrow and other major airports. A big jet can't
approach at 6 degrees safely anywhere near full load, as they tend to
stall and fall out of the sky.

That sounds iffy to me, got a citation?

Your extraordinary ignorance is on display, yet again.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...london-steep-a
proach-with-lega-425613

Sorry, that article is supposed to tell me what? Nowhere does it state that
big jets would stall at a 6 deg approach angle.

It says they can't land at more than a 3° angle. If you knew even a little
about this subject, you'd know that Heathrow was targeting an increase to
3.5°, but even this will be hard. It's taking years of investigation:
https://www.heathrow.com/file_source/HeathrowNoise/Static/Slightly_Steeper_Approach_trial_(phase_2)_fact_she et.pdf

But they could just have saved themselves all that time and trouble just by
consulting our village idiot.


Once again you demonstrate your inability to follow simple exglish.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with 'exglish'. Is that your native language? I
realise English isn't.


Pilots don't like City airport much, either.

I can't imagine pax are too thrilled about it either. Visited it once ,
bugger
all facilities and a right slog on the DLR.

Your extraordinary ignorance is on display, yet again.
https://www.londoncityairport.com/me...rt-wins-skytra
-award

Just saying what I saw rather than reading it off a website. This was 10 years
ago so it may well have improved. It could hardly have got any worse.

If you mixed with more cosmopolitan people you'd know that LCY flyers love
it, though less than they did a decade ago, when it was less crowded.

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:52:20 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:30:38 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:52:47 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 13/06/2018 12:02, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:31:18 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low
opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong

Someone better tell London City where final approach starts over
southwark
all of 6 miles away when landing from the west. Admittedly its smaller
planes
but they're still airliners, not cessnas.

Puddle jumpers. Now try the same trick with a 747 or Airbus 380, which

According to wonkypedia the largest aircraft that can use london city is
the bombardier C100. 108 pax and 60 tons MTOW. Hardly a puddle jumper.

normal 3 degrees for Heathrow and other major airports. A big jet can't
approach at 6 degrees safely anywhere near full load, as they tend to
stall and fall out of the sky.

That sounds iffy to me, got a citation?

Your extraordinary ignorance is on display, yet again.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...london-steep-a
proach-with-lega-425613

Sorry, that article is supposed to tell me what? Nowhere does it state that
big jets would stall at a 6 deg approach angle.

It says they can't land at more than a 3° angle. If you knew even a little

It says nothing of the sort. Are you such a complete ****ing moron that you
don't even read the articles you post links to??

"The approach glidepath angle to land at most airports is a steady 3°"

Feel free to point out where exactly that means airliners are incapable of
landing at more than 3 degs and will stall at 6. I notice the other guy never
posted a link to back up this assertion. Funny that.

about this subject, you'd know that Heathrow was targeting an increase to
3.5°, but even this will be hard. It's taking years of investigation:
https://www.heathrow.com/file_source...ly_Steeper_App
oach_trial_(phase_2)_fact_sheet.pdf

But they could just have saved themselves all that time and trouble just by
consulting our village idiot.

Well it seems someone used you as a consultant in the past so why not again.

Once again you demonstrate your inability to follow simple exglish.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with 'exglish'. Is that your native language? I
realise English isn't.

Oh dear, resorting to typo spotting? How the mighty... oh wait, you never were.

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:52:20 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:30:38 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:52:47 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 13/06/2018 12:02, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:31:18 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low
opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong

Someone better tell London City where final approach starts over
southwark
all of 6 miles away when landing from the west. Admittedly its smaller
planes
but they're still airliners, not cessnas.

Puddle jumpers. Now try the same trick with a 747 or Airbus 380, which

According to wonkypedia the largest aircraft that can use london city is
the bombardier C100. 108 pax and 60 tons MTOW. Hardly a puddle jumper.

normal 3 degrees for Heathrow and other major airports. A big jet can't
approach at 6 degrees safely anywhere near full load, as they tend to
stall and fall out of the sky.

That sounds iffy to me, got a citation?

Your extraordinary ignorance is on display, yet again.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...london-steep-a
proach-with-lega-425613

Sorry, that article is supposed to tell me what? Nowhere does it state that
big jets would stall at a 6 deg approach angle.

It says they can't land at more than a 3° angle. If you knew even a little

It says nothing of the sort. Are you such a complete ****ing moron that you
don't even read the articles you post links to??

"The approach glidepath angle to land at most airports is a steady 3°"

Feel free to point out where exactly that means airliners are incapable of
landing at more than 3 degs and will stall at 6. I notice the other guy never
posted a link to back up this assertion. Funny that.

You've had your free education for this month. Go and do your own research.