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

tim... wrote:


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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.