In message , at 11:16:23 on Mon, 11 Jun
2018, remarked:
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

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.

and a few extra journeys for cabbies. Thats about it.

Transfer flights don't create work for cabbies. Please try to get a
grip.

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.

The capital cost is recouped from the air fares.

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.

It's nothing to do with landing fees, simply without the transfer
passengers numerous of the final destinations would no longer be
economic for the airlines to service.

--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:52:34 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:16:23 on Mon, 11 Jun
2018, remarked:
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

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.

and a few extra journeys for cabbies. Thats about it.

Transfer flights don't create work for cabbies. Please try to get a
grip.

I'm assuming it won't all be transfer passengers. I said a few extra.

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.

The capital cost is recouped from the air fares.

Ah, I see you're a comedian too. For a start the airlines arn't funding it
and secondly if heathrow raise their fees too high some of them may simply
clear off elsewhere.

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

It's nothing to do with landing fees, simply without the transfer
passengers numerous of the final destinations would no longer be
economic for the airlines to service.

Give some examples then of routes that will be used by transfer passengers
but not in any significant amount by locals.

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.
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?

It's nothing to do with landing fees, simply without the transfer
passengers numerous of the final destinations would no longer be
economic for the airlines to service.

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.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

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.

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?

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:
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.

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