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.

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.

wrote:
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.

You really need a spell checker: it's spelled 'factual'.

I'm still waiting for someone to post something that validates their arguments
against manston - you lot make the assertions so back them up.

The fact that no airlines want it. Even the airport didn't.

As others have correctly pointed out, its local catchment area is small,
and it's much too far from the main markets, and too close to other busy
airports. It's never even made the short lists of the various commissions
over the decades on expanding airport capacity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-37552369

Anyway, who does someone who's terrified of flying, and would be too scared
to use whatever new runway is built (or the existing ones), have opinions
on this matter? You know nothing about the airline industry, have never
flown long-haul, never used a hub airport, so even by your exalted
standards, this is a topic on which you're profoundly ignorant.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:54:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to post something that validates their
arguments
against manston - you lot make the assertions so back them up.

The fact that no airlines want it. Even the airport didn't.

The airport didn't because the current owners could get more money by turning
it into housing. The local council tried to save it but had no luck. The
airlines don't want it because there's no infrastructure or transport links
to speak of there.

As others have correctly pointed out, its local catchment area is small,

WHy does the local catchment area matter? You think Heathrow is bothered how
many people from Hounslow fly from it?

and it's much too far from the main markets, and too close to other busy
airports. It's never even made the short lists of the various commissions
over the decades on expanding airport capacity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-37552369

Not financially viable? Compared to a 14 billion quid load to Heathrow?

Anyway, who does someone who's terrified of flying, and would be too scared

People who are terrified don't fly. You're mistaking being terrified with
finding it a miserable unpleasent experience. But then what would someone
who flies ****ed in 1st class know what its like to slum it in economy for
8 hours anyway.

to use whatever new runway is built (or the existing ones), have opinions
on this matter? You know nothing about the airline industry, have never
flown long-haul, never used a hub airport, so even by your exalted

Haven't I? Guess I must've imagined visited the USA a number of times.

standards, this is a topic on which you're profoundly ignorant.

You're so full of **** you probaly need to keep some toilet duck handy just
in case.

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