Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

wrote in message ...
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 16:41:14 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message ...
Sure, and Porcine Airlines will be the first flight out. There is simply
no
way they can raise that sort of money on the open market, the government
will
be coughing up if they want it finished. And thats before you factor in
the
economic chaos that the delays on the M25 caused by putting it in a
tunnel
will create. All because some idiots believed the spin that we don't
have
enough runways in the SE. Obviously nobody mentioned Gatwick, Stansted,
Luton,

all filling up

Hardly. Look at flightradar24 to see the stream of planes not landing at
Luton.

OK Luton's a bit further from being full than the other 2, but it's still
filling up

London City and Southend to them. And then there's Marsden in kent which
is
soon to be turned into a housing estate. Go figure.

because next to no-one wants to fly from there

three attempts to encourage people to do so have failed.

It's pointless trying again.

Actually I got the name wrong, its Manston, not marsden, but doesn't
matter.

I have to say that I didn't notice, as I know exactly where the airport in
"Kent" is, that it is not at Marsden is moot

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

an hour and a half from Manston sees you reach about a million people

The road to Manston isn't bad, it's just at (one of) the farthest corner(s)
of the country

Theres a rail line spitting distance from Manston which
could easily have a short branch line built to the airport just as
happened at
Stansted and it would be a lot cheaper than any new runway at any london
airport, never mind heathrow.

Agreed

It would be easy to rail link Manston (moving the terminal would be easier
than building a rail spur)

But it's still going to be 1 and half hour away from a London Terminal.
That's just too far

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

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:05:21 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:53:46 on Mon, 11 Jun
2018, remarked:

a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc.

It brings a great deal of employment (on the airport and off it).

Really? Where? A few extra staff at the terminals and a few extra journeys
for cabbies. Thats about it. I suspect it would take a few millenia to recoup
the billions that will be spent on it the extra tax income from those jobs.

It also makes routes which were not otherwise economic to operate,
available to locals to fly on.

How so? You think Heathrow are going to drop their landing fees? More likely
they'll raise them significantly.

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

"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%

10% would be nearer my guess (I can't actually find the number)

LHR is a ****ty (and expensive) place to connect at.

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.

and has a wider choice of international destinations than any other.

No it doesn't

one of the stated reasons for claiming that we need the extra runway is that
it has fallen behind in terms of choice of destinations

tim

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:16:23 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:05:21 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:53:46 on Mon, 11 Jun
2018, remarked:

a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc.

It brings a great deal of employment (on the airport and off it).

Really? Where? A few extra staff at the terminals and a few extra journeys
for cabbies. Thats about it. I suspect it would take a few millenia to recoup
the billions that will be spent on it the extra tax income from those jobs.

It also makes routes which were not otherwise economic to operate,
available to locals to fly on.

How so? You think Heathrow are going to drop their landing fees? More likely
they'll raise them significantly.

We seem to have this exact same discussion about once a year. Let's
just accept that you'll never understand the concept of a hub airport.
As someone who's afraid of flying, you've probably never used one.

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

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%


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


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/


one of the stated reasons for claiming that we need the extra runway is that
it has fallen behind in terms of choice of destinations

True

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

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.

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:30:18 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:16:23 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
How so? You think Heathrow are going to drop their landing fees? More likely
they'll raise them significantly.

We seem to have this exact same discussion about once a year. Let's
just accept that you'll never understand the concept of a hub airport.

A child could understand the concept. A child could also understand why we
don't need an even larger one in the west of london. However apparently you
and the comedians in government apparently don't.

As someone who's afraid of flying, you've probably never used one.

The fact that you constantly bring up that assertion you made up about once
a month in lieu of an actual argument shows you don't have one. But lets be
honest, all you give a damn about is being able to swill your booze in first
class at 35K feet, you don't give a monkeys about the millions of people who'll
have to suffer the construction and operation of this pointless white elephant.

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

On 11/06/2018 12:21, tim... wrote:

I'd be surprised if it's as much as 50%

10% would be nearer my guess (I can't actually find the number)

Half is a slightly misremembered approximation. LHR claim 30%.



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

On 11/06/2018 12:13, tim... wrote:


wrote in message ...
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 16:41:14 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message
...
Sure, and Porcine Airlines will be the first flight out. There is
simply
no
way they can raise that sort of money on the open market, the
government
will
be coughing up if they want it finished. And thats before you factor in
the
economic chaos that the delays on the M25 caused by putting it in a
tunnel
will create. All because some idiots believed the spin that we don't
have
enough runways in the SE. Obviously nobody mentioned Gatwick, Stansted,
Luton,

all filling up

Hardly. Look at flightradar24 to see the stream of planes not landing at
Luton.

OK Luton's a bit further from being full than the other 2, but it's
still filling up

London City and Southend to them. And then there's Marsden in kent
which
is
soon to be turned into a housing estate. Go figure.

because next to no-one wants to fly from there

three attempts to encourage people to do so have failed.

It's pointless trying again.

Actually I got the name wrong, its Manston, not marsden, but doesn't
matter.

I have to say that I didn't notice, as I know exactly where the airport
in "Kent" is, that it is not at Marsden is moot

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.Â* It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a
population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive

an hour and a half from Manston sees you reach about a million people

The road to Manston isn't bad, it's just at (one of) the farthest
corner(s) of the country

Theres a rail line spitting distance from Manston which
could easily have a short branch line built to the airport just as
happened at
Stansted and it would be a lot cheaper than any new runway at any london
airport, never mind heathrow.

Agreed

It would be easy to rail link Manston (moving the terminal would be
easier than building a rail spur)

But it's still going to be 1 and half hour away from a London Terminal.
That's just too far

JOOI what's the travel time from a London terminal to Luton?



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

On 11/06/2018 11:53, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:15:01 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
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
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.

Which means there's even less reason not to use Manston.

This is the target audience for expansion, as Heathrow is the biggest
hub airport in Europe, and has a wider choice of international
destinations than any other. They are trying to keep their lead in this
over Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol.

And a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc. The fact that the cabinet has been suckered into
approving the new runway demonstrates - if we didn't know already - what a dim
bunch of 2nd raters they are.

Among the many problems with using Manston as London's major airport,
there's fitting the flight paths in with those over mainland Europe for
airports there. Do you reckon France and the Netherlands would nicely
move those for Schipol and CDG to make room?


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid