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.

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.
--
Roland Perry

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.

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

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

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

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

"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

wrote in message news
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message news
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

"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