|
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
|
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
Robin wrote:
On 11/06/2018 15:31, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:24:59 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 11/06/2018 14:40, wrote: I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact on french or dutch airspace. Check the prevailing wind directions, also the location of the stacks for LHR and LGW. It might be convenient to have a stack downwind of an airport but its not essential. So do you reckon the head of UK ATC was wrong to see problems for Schipol and the Netherlands with "Boris Island"? Or that with Manston, some 45km further East, they just wouldn't feature? Boltar thinks everyone less ignorant than him is wrong. That's most of the population. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:43:03 +0100
Robin wrote: On 11/06/2018 15:31, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:24:59 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 11/06/2018 14:40, wrote: I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact on french or dutch airspace. Check the prevailing wind directions, also the location of the stacks for LHR and LGW. It might be convenient to have a stack downwind of an airport but its not essential. So do you reckon the head of UK ATC was wrong to see problems for Schipol and the Netherlands with "Boris Island"? Or that with Manston, some 45km further East, they just wouldn't feature? Well somehow planes managed to land at manston for decades so why not ask them how they solved it. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:54:55 +0100
John Williamson wrote: On 11/06/2018 14:36, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:52:34 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: If a third [approximately] of all flights are generated by transfer passengers then all the maintenance and support (eg airline meals and baggage handling, and cleaning and fuelling and dispatch) for those flights creates work in the local economy. A trivial amount. Equivalent to about 20,000 full time jobs, mostly customers of local businesses, for an extra 5,000 full time jobs in local businesses. LOL, yes, I'm sure it says that in Heathrow Plcs strategy document. Now how about a link to some projections by a neutral 3rd party? Heathrow employs about 60,000 people, or the entire population of a small town, all of whom need entertainment, food and other services. Not to mention the 23 million or so passengers per year who will need feedingand other services, again supplied by local businesses. Trivial? Yes, because your projected figures are bull****. Give some examples then of routes that will be used by transfer passengers but not in any significant amount by locals. It's a marginal problem. Some destinations aren't worth flying to with either the transfer passengers or the local passengers as the sole load. Add the two together, and you have a full plane which makes a profit, as against two part full ones, neither of which is profitable. It costs almost the same to fly empty as full. So currently no actual examples from either roland or you. Got it. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 14:55:21 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: Robin wrote: On 11/06/2018 15:31, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:24:59 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 11/06/2018 14:40, wrote: I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact on french or dutch airspace. Check the prevailing wind directions, also the location of the stacks for LHR and LGW. It might be convenient to have a stack downwind of an airport but its not essential. So do you reckon the head of UK ATC was wrong to see problems for Schipol and the Netherlands with "Boris Island"? Or that with Manston, some 45km further East, they just wouldn't feature? Boltar thinks everyone less ignorant than him is wrong. That's most of the population. You just think everyone is wrong. Go slurp some booze, maybe you'll have something more worthwhile to say. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On 11/06/2018 16:21, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:43:03 +0100 Robin wrote: On 11/06/2018 15:31, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:24:59 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 11/06/2018 14:40, wrote: I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact on french or dutch airspace. Check the prevailing wind directions, also the location of the stacks for LHR and LGW. It might be convenient to have a stack downwind of an airport but its not essential. So do you reckon the head of UK ATC was wrong to see problems for Schipol and the Netherlands with "Boris Island"? Or that with Manston, some 45km further East, they just wouldn't feature? Well somehow planes managed to land at manston for decades so why not ask them how they solved it. I do know that actually, having first landed at Manston in 1965 in a Chipmunk. But why not share your figures for Manston's previous peak performance and tell us where the extra flight paths will come from to justify I also know that Manson never achieved a fraction of the movements necessary to justify the infrastructure investment you are calling for? Or are they Scotch mist (mist being something Manston used to be rather good at) -- Robin reply-to address is (intended to be) valid |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 14:55:21 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: Robin wrote: On 11/06/2018 15:31, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:24:59 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 11/06/2018 14:40, wrote: I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact on french or dutch airspace. Check the prevailing wind directions, also the location of the stacks for LHR and LGW. It might be convenient to have a stack downwind of an airport but its not essential. So do you reckon the head of UK ATC was wrong to see problems for Schipol and the Netherlands with "Boris Island"? Or that with Manston, some 45km further East, they just wouldn't feature? Boltar thinks everyone less ignorant than him is wrong. That's most of the population. You just think everyone is wrong. No, just you. Let me translate the remark you were replying to: most of the population is smarter than you. Go slurp some booze, maybe you'll have something more worthwhile to say. I'd have to be seriously drunk to spout the waffle you do, supposedly while sober. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:54:55 +0100 John Williamson wrote: On 11/06/2018 14:36, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:52:34 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: If a third [approximately] of all flights are generated by transfer passengers then all the maintenance and support (eg airline meals and baggage handling, and cleaning and fuelling and dispatch) for those flights creates work in the local economy. A trivial amount. Equivalent to about 20,000 full time jobs, mostly customers of local businesses, for an extra 5,000 full time jobs in local businesses. LOL, yes, I'm sure it says that in Heathrow Plcs strategy document. There's no such organisation. Now how about a link to some projections by a neutral 3rd party? Heathrow employs about 60,000 people, or the entire population of a small town, all of whom need entertainment, food and other services. Not to mention the 23 million or so passengers per year who will need feedingand other services, again supplied by local businesses. Trivial? Yes, because your projected figures are bull****. Those figures are at least credible. You have no figures at all. You just have your paranoia about flying, that overwhelms your limited reasoning ability. Give some examples then of routes that will be used by transfer passengers but not in any significant amount by locals. It's a marginal problem. Some destinations aren't worth flying to with either the transfer passengers or the local passengers as the sole load. Add the two together, and you have a full plane which makes a profit, as against two part full ones, neither of which is profitable. It costs almost the same to fly empty as full. So currently no actual examples from either roland or you. Got it. Why would people bother researching things for an imbecile incapable of understanding anything? |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On 11/06/2018 15:32, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:25:57 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 11/06/2018 14:38, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:00:46 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 11/06/2018 12:42, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100 "tim..." wrote: wrote in message ... No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and a motorway going to it. Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive If it didn't have any PT links or a motorway it would take a damn site more than 1.5 hours to reach it - the roads would be gridlocked. Unless you have a car you can't get to Manston yet those in power throw their hands up and say "Look, no one uses it!". Well quelle surprise. There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by car Yet they manage to achieve a critical mass of customers - because they have a large enough local catchment Manston does not Yet oddly it worked for Hong Kong. You can't get a tailor made suit in 24 hours in Manston. Obviously not, but the cost and disruption would be far less than for any current london airport. And if the 3rd runway really is just for hub flights (and if my granny had wheels she'd be a bus) then all you'd need to build at Manston would be a nice terminal for the pax to wait in, you wouldn't even need to bother with transport links - even cheaper. That's not how a hub airport works. Oh ok, are we going to get yet another definition of a hub airport from you too? Nope, same one as everyone else. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On 11/06/2018 15:31, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:24:59 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 11/06/2018 14:40, wrote: I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact on french or dutch airspace. Check the prevailing wind directions, also the location of the stacks for LHR and LGW. It might be convenient to have a stack downwind of an airport but its not essential. It is essential to know which direction you planes are coming from. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
|
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On 11/06/2018 18:39, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:24:43 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018, remarked: It's a marginal problem. Some destinations aren't worth flying to with either the transfer passengers or the local passengers as the sole load. Add the two together, and you have a full plane which makes a profit, as against two part full ones, neither of which is profitable. It costs almost the same to fly empty as full. So currently no actual examples from either roland or you. I remember when flights to Seattle from Heathrow were only four times a week. Picking up transfer passengers from Europe meant they could go to daily. Although I quite liked being "stranded" in Seattle for a day after my meeting ended - I could play tourist. Not every businessman would think the same. As long as you weren't sleepless… -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
In message , at 20:22:32 on Mon, 11 Jun
2018, Graeme Wall remarked: It's a marginal problem. Some destinations aren't worth flying to with either the transfer passengers or the local passengers as the sole load. Add the two together, and you have a full plane which makes a profit, as against two part full ones, neither of which is profitable. It costs almost the same to fly empty as full. So currently no actual examples from either roland or you. I remember when flights to Seattle from Heathrow were only four times a week. Picking up transfer passengers from Europe meant they could go to daily. Although I quite liked being "stranded" in Seattle for a day after my meeting ended - I could play tourist. Not every businessman would think the same. As long as you weren't sleepless I was there almost a decade before the film. On the other hand, in between then and the film, I did arrange to meet someone on that same viewing deck of the Empire State Building. Art imitating life. -- Roland Perry |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:24:43 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018, remarked: It's a marginal problem. Some destinations aren't worth flying to with either the transfer passengers or the local passengers as the sole load. Add the two together, and you have a full plane which makes a profit, as against two part full ones, neither of which is profitable. It costs almost the same to fly empty as full. So currently no actual examples from either roland or you. I remember when flights to Seattle from Heathrow were only four times a week. Picking up transfer passengers from Europe meant they could go to daily. Heathrow has a poor network to South and central America. That could improve if it had more slots and could provide more transfer opportunities. Although I quite liked being "stranded" in Seattle for a day after my meeting ended - I could play tourist. Not every businessman would think the same. True |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On 11/06/2018 13:00, Graeme Wall wrote:
You can't get a tailor made suit in 24 hours in Manston. Unless Mr Raja Daswani is at the Premier Inn? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On 11/06/2018 12:57, Graeme Wall wrote:
JOOI what's the travel time from a London terminal to Luton? About 20/30/40 minutes from St Pancras to Luton Airport Parkway, 5 minutes negotiating the stairs, then weird relativistic effects kick in which mean the bus takes maybe 10 minutes from joining the queue to getting off but it feels like about a week. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
"Recliner" wrote in message ... On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:21:52 +0100, "tim..." wrote: "John Williamson" wrote in message ... On 11/06/2018 09:35, wrote: No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and a motorway going to it. For about half the passengers who fly in to and out of Heathrow, the I'd be surprised if it's as much as 50% Prepare to be surprised: it's 30% how is 30% *as much as" 50% 10% would be nearer my guess (I can't actually find the number) It takes less time to find than it took you to say you couldn't find it. https://www.heathrow.com/company/company-news-and-information/company-information/facts-and-figures only if you know which of the 100s of links that you get is the one that you need to open what I meant was the details did not appear in the summary I clicked on a few, but none of them gave me the data that I was looking for. I didn't have time for the other 397. LHR is a ****ty (and expensive) place to connect at. True, it's what comes of having multiple, widely-separated terminals. It's not bad if the transfer is within one terminal, but pretty bad if it involves a bus journey between terminals. road and rail links outside the airport don't matter, as they fly in from one airport, possibly change terminals, and fly out to another one. This is the target audience for expansion, and is IMHO a target market that we should not be seeking London/SE England/rUK is a popular enough market in itself to attract passengers and make the airport vibrant. Subjecting a much greater number of residents of West Londoner to unacceptable noise levels, just to attract connecting passages is not a game we should be entering (IMHO). as Heathrow is the biggest hub airport in Europe, is it? It might be the biggest airport that's a hub. I doubt very much it is the airport with the largest number of connecting passengers. That may well be true: AMS or CDG may be ahead in terms of transfer passengers. and has a wider choice of international destinations than any other. No it doesn't True. In fact, even Gatwick has more foreign destinations than Heathrow, and I've had to use hubs in Amsterdam, Madrid and Paris to travel to airports that really ought to have direct UK flights. "Heathrow serves 185 destinations in 84 countries, while Gatwick serves 200 destinations in 90 countries." https://www.pinkelephantparking.com/heathrow-vs-gatwick-the-facts/ Thanks tim |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
wrote in message ... On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100 "tim..." wrote: wrote in message ... No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and a motorway going to it. Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive If it didn't have any PT links or a motorway it would take a damn site more than 1.5 hours to reach it - the roads would be gridlocked. why would you build an airport where there were unsuitable roads? Unless you have a car you can't get to Manston yet those in power throw their hands up and say "Look, no one uses it!". Well quelle surprise. There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by car Yet they manage to achieve a critical mass of customers - because they have a large enough local catchment Manston does not Yet oddly it worked for Hong Kong. because they closed the alternative. IS Hong Kong airport really 1 and half hours from the "city", I wouldn't have thought the province was big enough for that tim |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
"Recliner" wrote in message ... Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 15:24:43 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018, remarked: It's a marginal problem. Some destinations aren't worth flying to with either the transfer passengers or the local passengers as the sole load. Add the two together, and you have a full plane which makes a profit, as against two part full ones, neither of which is profitable. It costs almost the same to fly empty as full. So currently no actual examples from either roland or you. I remember when flights to Seattle from Heathrow were only four times a week. Picking up transfer passengers from Europe meant they could go to daily. Heathrow has a poor network to South and central America. That could improve if it had more slots and could provide more transfer opportunities. It could but I'd put money on it not unfortunately, I think we will all be dead before we find out tim |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
In message
-septe mber.org, at 21:15:52 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Recliner remarked: Although I quite liked being "stranded" in Seattle for a day after my meeting ended - I could play tourist. Not every businessman would think the same. True Luckily I was in a hotel in Downtown, so a trip on the monorail to the Space Needle was a no-brainer. Another trip I did was more difficult because I had half a day spare in a hotel in the suburbs near the Microsoft office[1] with nothing obvious to do. [1] I see job descriptions from time to time which say "Must be familiar with Microsoft Office" - that's OK I've been there three times now. -- Roland Perry |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
tim... wrote:
wrote in message ... On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100 "tim..." wrote: wrote in message ... No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and a motorway going to it. Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive If it didn't have any PT links or a motorway it would take a damn site more than 1.5 hours to reach it - the roads would be gridlocked. why would you build an airport where there were unsuitable roads? Unless you have a car you can't get to Manston yet those in power throw their hands up and say "Look, no one uses it!". Well quelle surprise. There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by car Yet they manage to achieve a critical mass of customers - because they have a large enough local catchment Manston does not Yet oddly it worked for Hong Kong. because they closed the alternative. IS Hong Kong airport really 1 and half hours from the "city", I wouldn't have thought the province was big enough for that And you're right: it takes 24 minutes (less to Kowloon), and the trains run every 12 minutes. Even by bus, it only takes 45 minutes. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
Roland Perry wrote:
In message -septe mber.org, at 21:15:52 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Recliner remarked: Although I quite liked being "stranded" in Seattle for a day after my meeting ended - I could play tourist. Not every businessman would think the same. True Luckily I was in a hotel in Downtown, so a trip on the monorail to the Space Needle was a no-brainer. Another trip I did was more difficult because I had half a day spare in a hotel in the suburbs near the Microsoft office[1] with nothing obvious to do. [1] I see job descriptions from time to time which say "Must be familiar with Microsoft Office" - that's OK I've been there three times now. Presumably you visited Microsoft's Office and Home of the Future exhibitions? It would be interesting to compare their predictions of the time to the reality of today. And did you get taken to the Microsoft Store? |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 16:37:28 +0100
Robin wrote: On 11/06/2018 16:21, wrote: Well somehow planes managed to land at manston for decades so why not ask them how they solved it. I do know that actually, having first landed at Manston in 1965 in a Chipmunk. But why not share your figures for Manston's previous peak performance and tell us where the extra flight paths will come from to justify I also know that Manson never achieved a fraction of the movements necessary to justify the infrastructure investment you are calling for? Or are they Scotch mist (mist being something Manston used to be rather good at) Flight paths are not fixed tracks in the sky, they can be adjusted to suit. You're just putting up made up problems to back up the feeble assertion that manston is unsuitable. The planes could use exactly the same stacks as heathrow and gatwick with obviously a different final approach. How do you think City Airport manages? |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:43:28 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: You just think everyone is wrong. No, just you. Let me translate the remark you were replying to: most of the population is smarter than you. Is that your opinion before or after you've pickled yourself. Its quite obvious from your past posts that you're a boozing old soak so its fair to say that anything you say should be taken with an entire cellar of salt. Go slurp some booze, maybe you'll have something more worthwhile to say. I'd have to be seriously drunk to spout the waffle you do, supposedly while sober. I suspect you're drunk most of the time. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:43:28 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:54:55 +0100 John Williamson wrote: On 11/06/2018 14:36, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:52:34 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: If a third [approximately] of all flights are generated by transfer passengers then all the maintenance and support (eg airline meals and baggage handling, and cleaning and fuelling and dispatch) for those flights creates work in the local economy. A trivial amount. Equivalent to about 20,000 full time jobs, mostly customers of local businesses, for an extra 5,000 full time jobs in local businesses. LOL, yes, I'm sure it says that in Heathrow Plcs strategy document. There's no such organisation. There's no such organisation as UK Plc either. Its a figure of speech you cretin. Yes, because your projected figures are bull****. Those figures are at least credible. You have no figures at all. You just Are they? Lets seem some links to them then. So currently no actual examples from either roland or you. Got it. Why would people bother researching things for an imbecile incapable of understanding anything? Good point, I guess thats why no one is backing up your position. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:43:28 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: You just think everyone is wrong. No, just you. Let me translate the remark you were replying to: most of the population is smarter than you. Is that your opinion before or after you've pickled yourself. Its quite obvious from your past posts that you're a boozing old soak so its fair to say that anything you say should be taken with an entire cellar of salt. Go slurp some booze, maybe you'll have something more worthwhile to say. I'd have to be seriously drunk to spout the waffle you do, supposedly while sober. I suspect you're drunk most of the time. As usual with you, plenty of invective, but zero useful information. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:43:28 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:54:55 +0100 John Williamson wrote: On 11/06/2018 14:36, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:52:34 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: If a third [approximately] of all flights are generated by transfer passengers then all the maintenance and support (eg airline meals and baggage handling, and cleaning and fuelling and dispatch) for those flights creates work in the local economy. A trivial amount. Equivalent to about 20,000 full time jobs, mostly customers of local businesses, for an extra 5,000 full time jobs in local businesses. LOL, yes, I'm sure it says that in Heathrow Plcs strategy document. There's no such organisation. There's no such organisation as UK Plc either. Its a figure of speech you cretin. If only you weren't so ignorant, you'd know that the correct name is much shorter than your invented name. Yes, because your projected figures are bull****. Those figures are at least credible. You have no figures at all. You just Are they? Lets seem some links to them then. So currently no actual examples from either roland or you. Got it. Why would people bother researching things for an imbecile incapable of understanding anything? Good point, I guess thats why no one is backing up your position. Except that everyone else has. You're the ignorant dope. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:03:52 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:43:28 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: You just think everyone is wrong. No, just you. Let me translate the remark you were replying to: most of the population is smarter than you. Is that your opinion before or after you've pickled yourself. Its quite obvious from your past posts that you're a boozing old soak so its fair to say that anything you say should be taken with an entire cellar of salt. Go slurp some booze, maybe you'll have something more worthwhile to say. I'd have to be seriously drunk to spout the waffle you do, supposedly while sober. I suspect you're drunk most of the time. As usual with you, plenty of invective, but zero useful information. Not denying it then? |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:03:53 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: There's no such organisation as UK Plc either. Its a figure of speech you cretin. If only you weren't so ignorant, you'd know that the correct name is much shorter than your invented name. And your name isn't invented? Your mother christened you Recliner did she? Why would people bother researching things for an imbecile incapable of understanding anything? Good point, I guess thats why no one is backing up your position. Except that everyone else has. You're the ignorant dope. No, they've been putting up fatuous reasons why it can't happen - tho all different. I'm still waiting for someone to post something that validates their arguments against manston - you lot make the assertions so back them up. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:03:52 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:43:28 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: You just think everyone is wrong. No, just you. Let me translate the remark you were replying to: most of the population is smarter than you. Is that your opinion before or after you've pickled yourself. Its quite obvious from your past posts that you're a boozing old soak so its fair to say that anything you say should be taken with an entire cellar of salt. Go slurp some booze, maybe you'll have something more worthwhile to say. I'd have to be seriously drunk to spout the waffle you do, supposedly while sober. I suspect you're drunk most of the time. You certainly behave as if you are. I'm usually cold stone sober when I post. As usual with you, plenty of invective, but zero useful information. Not denying it then? You'll be able to tell if I'm drunk if I agree with you. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:03:53 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: There's no such organisation as UK Plc either. Its a figure of speech you cretin. If only you weren't so ignorant, you'd know that the correct name is much shorter than your invented name. And your name isn't invented? Your mother christened you Recliner did she? Why would people bother researching things for an imbecile incapable of understanding anything? Good point, I guess thats why no one is backing up your position. Except that everyone else has. You're the ignorant dope. No, they've been putting up fatuous reasons why it can't happen - tho all different. You really need a spell checker: it's spelled 'factual'. I'm still waiting for someone to post something that validates their arguments against manston - you lot make the assertions so back them up. The fact that no airlines want it. Even the airport didn't. As others have correctly pointed out, its local catchment area is small, and it's much too far from the main markets, and too close to other busy airports. It's never even made the short lists of the various commissions over the decades on expanding airport capacity. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-37552369 Anyway, who does someone who's terrified of flying, and would be too scared to use whatever new runway is built (or the existing ones), have opinions on this matter? You know nothing about the airline industry, have never flown long-haul, never used a hub airport, so even by your exalted standards, this is a topic on which you're profoundly ignorant. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:54:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: I'm still waiting for someone to post something that validates their arguments against manston - you lot make the assertions so back them up. The fact that no airlines want it. Even the airport didn't. The airport didn't because the current owners could get more money by turning it into housing. The local council tried to save it but had no luck. The airlines don't want it because there's no infrastructure or transport links to speak of there. As others have correctly pointed out, its local catchment area is small, WHy does the local catchment area matter? You think Heathrow is bothered how many people from Hounslow fly from it? and it's much too far from the main markets, and too close to other busy airports. It's never even made the short lists of the various commissions over the decades on expanding airport capacity. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-37552369 Not financially viable? Compared to a 14 billion quid load to Heathrow? Anyway, who does someone who's terrified of flying, and would be too scared People who are terrified don't fly. You're mistaking being terrified with finding it a miserable unpleasent experience. But then what would someone who flies ****ed in 1st class know what its like to slum it in economy for 8 hours anyway. to use whatever new runway is built (or the existing ones), have opinions on this matter? You know nothing about the airline industry, have never flown long-haul, never used a hub airport, so even by your exalted Haven't I? Guess I must've imagined visited the USA a number of times. standards, this is a topic on which you're profoundly ignorant. You're so full of **** you probaly need to keep some toilet duck handy just in case. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
In message
-sept ember.org, at 08:32:34 on Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Recliner remarked: Although I quite liked being "stranded" in Seattle for a day after my meeting ended - I could play tourist. Not every businessman would think the same. True Luckily I was in a hotel in Downtown, so a trip on the monorail to the Space Needle was a no-brainer. Another trip I did was more difficult because I had half a day spare in a hotel in the suburbs near the Microsoft office[1] with nothing obvious to do. [1] I see job descriptions from time to time which say "Must be familiar with Microsoft Office" - that's OK I've been there three times now. Presumably you visited Microsoft's Office and Home of the Future exhibitions? I don't remember an Office of the Future, but definitely saw the Home of the Future on a later trip. It would be interesting to compare their predictions of the time to the reality of today. One which did come true was the shifting (aka ripping) of music off DVDs and onto a home server, which was a bit controversial legally at the time in Europe (although long permitted in USA). And did you get taken to the Microsoft Store? Yes, and got staff discount. But maybe everyone gets that? -- Roland Perry |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
Roland Perry wrote:
In message -sept ember.org, at 08:32:34 on Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Recliner remarked: Although I quite liked being "stranded" in Seattle for a day after my meeting ended - I could play tourist. Not every businessman would think the same. True Luckily I was in a hotel in Downtown, so a trip on the monorail to the Space Needle was a no-brainer. Another trip I did was more difficult because I had half a day spare in a hotel in the suburbs near the Microsoft office[1] with nothing obvious to do. [1] I see job descriptions from time to time which say "Must be familiar with Microsoft Office" - that's OK I've been there three times now. Presumably you visited Microsoft's Office and Home of the Future exhibitions? I don't remember an Office of the Future, but definitely saw the Home of the Future on a later trip. It would be interesting to compare their predictions of the time to the reality of today. One which did come true was the shifting (aka ripping) of music off DVDs and onto a home server, which was a bit controversial legally at the time in Europe (although long permitted in USA). And did you get taken to the Microsoft Store? Yes, and got staff discount. But maybe everyone gets that? I thought you had to be accompanied by a Microsoft employee. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:54:29 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: I'm still waiting for someone to post something that validates their arguments against manston - you lot make the assertions so back them up. The fact that no airlines want it. Even the airport didn't. The airport didn't because the current owners could get more money by turning it into housing. The local council tried to save it but had no luck. The airlines don't want it because there's no infrastructure or transport links to speak of there. As others have correctly pointed out, its local catchment area is small, WHy does the local catchment area matter? You think Heathrow is bothered how many people from Hounslow fly from it? So how would people from, say, Oxford or Northampton, have got to Manston? and it's much too far from the main markets, and too close to other busy airports. It's never even made the short lists of the various commissions over the decades on expanding airport capacity. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-37552369 Not financially viable? Compared to a 14 billion quid load to Heathrow? HAL will be funding the airport expansion itself, with funds raised based on the increased business that the new runway will bring in. Nobody was prepared to advance money for Manston expansion, as it was so obviously not viable. Anyway, who does someone who's terrified of flying, and would be too scared People who are terrified don't fly. You're mistaking being terrified with finding it a miserable unpleasent experience. But then what would someone who flies ****ed in 1st class know what its like to slum it in economy for 8 hours anyway. to use whatever new runway is built (or the existing ones), have opinions on this matter? You know nothing about the airline industry, have never flown long-haul, never used a hub airport, so even by your exalted Haven't I? Guess I must've imagined visited the USA a number of times. Actually, my first dozen or so trips to the US were in cattle class. Luckily, my career took off, so I longer needed to mix with the loud-mouthed ignorant plebs like you in the back. My next 50 or so trips to North America were in business (or occasionally first) class. So will all future trips. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
In message
-sept ember.org, at 15:03:59 on Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Recliner remarked: And did you get taken to the Microsoft Store? Yes, and got staff discount. But maybe everyone gets that? I thought you had to be accompanied by a Microsoft employee. I was, because that's who I was visiting, so they showed me around. -- Roland Perry |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:03:59 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:54:29 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: I'm still waiting for someone to post something that validates their arguments against manston - you lot make the assertions so back them up. The fact that no airlines want it. Even the airport didn't. The airport didn't because the current owners could get more money by turning it into housing. The local council tried to save it but had no luck. The airlines don't want it because there's no infrastructure or transport links to speak of there. As others have correctly pointed out, its local catchment area is small, WHy does the local catchment area matter? You think Heathrow is bothered how many people from Hounslow fly from it? So how would people from, say, Oxford or Northampton, have got to Manston? The same way they currently get to Gatwick. Road or train via London (if a station was built there). and it's much too far from the main markets, and too close to other busy airports. It's never even made the short lists of the various commissions over the decades on expanding airport capacity. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-37552369 Not financially viable? Compared to a 14 billion quid load to Heathrow? HAL will be funding the airport expansion itself, with funds raised based on the increased business that the new runway will bring in. Nobody was We'll see. I won't hold my breath. prepared to advance money for Manston expansion, as it was so obviously not viable. Manston is not currently viable whereas heathrow is. Its always easier to make a business case to expand something that already works than something that doesn't and needs investment to work. The government however should take a long term view beyond simple profit and loss. If the country really needs another runway near london then Manston would fit the job if the govn really gave a toss about urban air and noise pollution. If its actually more about profit for Heathrows owners then obviously it stands no chance. Haven't I? Guess I must've imagined visited the USA a number of times. Actually, my first dozen or so trips to the US were in cattle class. Luckily, my career took off, so I longer needed to mix with the loud-mouthed ignorant plebs like you in the back. My next 50 or so trips to North America were in business (or occasionally first) class. So will all future trips. I endure flying because the holiday at the other end is worth it. No way would I fly 50 times to the US simply for work business class or not. They could shove the job. Still, there's always some mug who'll do it because he thinks it gives him status, just like the guys who think being tethered to their business phone is an "I've made it" status symbol rather that an indication that they're nothing but obedient cattle at their bosses beck and call. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
Roland Perry wrote:
In message -sept ember.org, at 15:03:59 on Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Recliner remarked: And did you get taken to the Microsoft Store? Yes, and got staff discount. But maybe everyone gets that? I thought you had to be accompanied by a Microsoft employee. I was, because that's who I was visiting, so they showed me around. Yes, I think that's part of the standard offer to Redmond visitors. They were quite surprised when I politely declined, on each of the occasions I was invited to visit the Store. Like you, when I had spare time on one visit, I rode the monorail to the Space Needle, but was disappointed by how dated it seemed. On the other hand, the Underground Seattle tour, highly recommended to me by a MSFT super techie, was excellent. He had a large collection of little cubes on his shelf, each representing a patent he'd been awarded. He had dozens of them. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:03:59 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:54:29 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: I'm still waiting for someone to post something that validates their arguments against manston - you lot make the assertions so back them up. The fact that no airlines want it. Even the airport didn't. The airport didn't because the current owners could get more money by turning it into housing. The local council tried to save it but had no luck. The airlines don't want it because there's no infrastructure or transport links to speak of there. As others have correctly pointed out, its local catchment area is small, WHy does the local catchment area matter? You think Heathrow is bothered how many people from Hounslow fly from it? So how would people from, say, Oxford or Northampton, have got to Manston? The same way they currently get to Gatwick. Road or train via London (if a station was built there). Gatwick is already too far for such people, and it has excellent motorway and rail links. and it's much too far from the main markets, and too close to other busy airports. It's never even made the short lists of the various commissions over the decades on expanding airport capacity. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-37552369 Not financially viable? Compared to a 14 billion quid load to Heathrow? HAL will be funding the airport expansion itself, with funds raised based on the increased business that the new runway will bring in. Nobody was We'll see. I won't hold my breath. prepared to advance money for Manston expansion, as it was so obviously not viable. Manston is not currently viable whereas heathrow is. Its always easier to make a business case to expand something that already works than something that doesn't and needs investment to work. The government however should take a long term view beyond simple profit and loss. If the country really needs another runway near london then Manston would fit the job if the govn really gave a toss about urban air and noise pollution. If its actually more about profit for Heathrows owners then obviously it stands no chance. Haven't I? Guess I must've imagined visited the USA a number of times. Actually, my first dozen or so trips to the US were in cattle class. Luckily, my career took off, so I longer needed to mix with the loud-mouthed ignorant plebs like you in the back. My next 50 or so trips to North America were in business (or occasionally first) class. So will all future trips. I endure flying because the holiday at the other end is worth it. No way would I fly 50 times to the US simply for work business class or not. They could shove the job. Obviously you wouldn't, as you're afraid of flying. I enjoy it. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk