|
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk