Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On 29/02/2020 09:15, tim... wrote:


"Robin" wrote in message
...
On 29/02/2020 07:46, tim... wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:54:44 on Fri, 28 Feb
2020, tim... remarked:

It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased
opportunity for air travel is necessary for the overall good of
the UK economy (except in the trivial amount that air side
purchases form of the economy)

You still banging on about that? The economic benefits of
passengers (andÂ* cargo) in transit go *way* beyond people buying a
cup of coffee.

really

show your working,

cos I don't believe it

Every passenger in transit uses up two seats, and all the supporting
logistics for two seats. Not just at the airport, but all the
service industries whose customers are Heathrow based.

And it's not just a handful of seats on the planes, 35% of
passengers are doing transit.

but it's still a tiny amount of effect on total UK economy

Also not just all that extra money being spent locally to facilitate
their flights, but in many cases there very presence is what support
the number of destinations served, and in some cases the number of
days a week those flights operate.

but that not, of itself, an improvement for the UK Economy.

It's just an "Opportunity" benefit.Â* (one that wont be accepted as
overriding the environmental dis-benefit)

In other news, a statistics from the news this week: 40% of all our
exports (to countries outside the EU - they sometimes forget to make
that qualification) go out of Heathrow. That's by value rather than
volume, of course.

but freight doesn't *need* to go from LHR.

That freight is presumably there because suitable passenger flights
with space in the hold, are currently there

and when the flights (to wherever it is) go from someone else (LGW
for example), International freight goes from that somewhere else.

and in many cases dedicated freight flights are set up from less
used, but strategically placed, airports as in the DHL hub at East Mids.

there's no pull factor from freight to fly from LHR, and no benefit
to UK GDP to move it there from where it currently flies from.

The biggest destination is the USA, which isn't surprising, not
because of the size of the market, but shipping something by sea to
Seattle or Los Angeles is a bit time consuming, and to Dallas or
Chicago really quite difficult. Whereas the planes can land anywhere
just as easily.

That contradicts just about everything the Airports Commission had to
say about freight in its final report.Â* It also contradicts what the
air freight industry said.Â* One of their points was that some services
are simply not economic if flights (and all the overheads of freight
handling) are distributed among several airports. They require the
diversity of destinations at a hub and the concentration of functions
there.

Can you not see that that's contradictory

"We want all of *our* flights to go from one airport

but we want to be able to ship stuff to multiple airports"

But then shippers at the other end probably wants all their shipments to
go from one airport and ship to multiple destinations.

they can't both be satisfied (unless loads of aircraft are going to fly
around empty on return legs).

First, many destinations are other /hub/ airports.

Second, other countries can make their own decisions. The UK's
geography and locations of other airports militates for Heathrow (as
documented in the report).

Of course UK reps are going to say in some governmental committee
meeting, with none of the foreign representatives present, that they
want that.Â* But out in the real world, it's impossible to give it to
them (that's logically impossible not physically/financially impossible)


I have no idea why you think government committees are relevant. The
Airport Commission carried out open consultations. The freight industry
made their views public at the time and later*. But then they're only
the people who run the logistics and freight businesses "in the real world".

*e.g.
"The decision to increase capacity at Heathrow is the right choice for
the UK economy, the freight industry and the nation. FTA has forged a
detailed campaign highlighting the vital importance of air freight to
the UK economy and why a decision backing the Airports Commission's
recommendation for a third runway is essential for UK importers and
exporters who rely on the expansion of Heathrow. About 40% of UK imports
and exports by value are dependent on air freight and the wide range of
services provided by Heathrow to access our overseas markets."

https://fta.co.uk/campaigns/issues/heathrow-expansion



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On 28/02/2020 16:50, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 28/02/2020 12:15, tim... wrote:

The point about the ruling is that it didn't say that the airport
expansion, wasn't, or couldn't be, compliant with whatever law it is
that it's suppose to comply with, just noted that the proposals
hadn't been tested against that requirement, when they should have been.

If you read on, the problem for the proponents is that if it is tested
against the requirements, it cannot pass.


I still say that a second runway at Gatwick is a better option.

--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On 29/02/2020 11:49, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 28/02/2020 16:50, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 28/02/2020 12:15, tim... wrote:

The point about the ruling is that it didn't say that the airport
expansion, wasn't, or couldn't be, compliant with whatever law it is
that it's suppose to comply with, just noted that the proposals
hadn't been tested against that requirement, when they should have been.

If you read on, the problem for the proponents is that if it is tested
against the requirements, it cannot pass.


I still say that a second runway at Gatwick is a better option.


Objectively yes, the problem is it won't pass the criteria of the
legislation either. And they can't even blame this on Brussels.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

not at all Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

In message , at 22:12:28 on Fri, 28 Feb
2020, John Levine remarked:

Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult?

Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?

Because the most efficient way to ship stuff by sea (even in smallish
consignments that might otherwise fit inside a plane) is to bung it onto
a large container vessel (inside a container, obviously). Sounds like
transhipping it onto a much smaller boat to do the final 1,500miles is
going to be a pain, compared to air-freighting it end to end.
--
Roland Perry

not at all Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 13:58:49 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 22:12:28 on Fri, 28 Feb
2020, John Levine remarked:

Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult?

Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?

Because the most efficient way to ship stuff by sea (even in smallish
consignments that might otherwise fit inside a plane) is to bung it onto
a large container vessel (inside a container, obviously). Sounds like
transhipping it onto a much smaller boat to do the final 1,500miles is
going to be a pain, compared to air-freighting it end to end.

It will still be far cheaper to send it by sea, even if the containers
have to be trans-shipped. The huge container vessels unload (very
efficiently) at a large port, then the containers continue by smaller
ship/barge, train or truck.

Air freight is generally only used for items with a short shelf-life
or needed quickly. For example, Scotch whisky by sea, Scottish salmon
by air. Cars by sea, urgently needed car spares by air.

PS: A lot of container ships are not currently being loaded in China,
so there's now a shortage of containers! And in a couple of months,
there will be gaps on our shelves.

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

Op 28-2-2020 om 13:22 schreef Recliner:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 11:32:45 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:16:41 +0100
Eric wrote:
On 2020-02-28, Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 09:02:50 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without "OT".
And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.

Is there an official description of topics for this group?


http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.transport.london.html

Thanks for the link, Eric.

"This group is for the discussion of matters relating to any form of
transport, be it public or private, in the London area."

So it is not OT....
It also could be in uk.transport.air
(which I do not read)



There was a sudden drastic drop in the number of posts to this group last
year. I suspect its no longer carried on a number of servers for whatever
reason.

This group has enough posts to carry it.
Most newsservers do not delete newsgroups because of too little posts.
(only Google Groups does this)


We know exactly why: huge amounts of drugs spam messages were being
posted via Google Groups, from Gmail accounts, to this news group.
Instead of fixing the Gmail spammers problem, or making the group
read-only via Google Groups, Google simply stopped carrying the group.
So anyone who accesses usenet via Google Groups thinks that this
newsgroup no longer exists. The good news is that we no longer get any
of the spam, but we also don't get some legitimate posts.

As far as I'm aware, other news servers continue to carry it, though
it's possible that all the drugs spam caused it to be dropped from
some other servers, too.


eternal.september carries this newsgroup.
nntp.aioe.org also carries it.

Rink

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On 29/02/2020 15:43, Rink wrote:
Op 28-2-2020 om 13:22 schreef Recliner:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 11:32:45 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:16:41 +0100
Eric wrote:
On 2020-02-28, Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 09:02:50 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without
"OT".
And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.

Is there an official description of topics for this group?


http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.transport.london.html

Thanks for the link, Eric.

"This group is for the discussion of matters relating to any form of
transport, be it public or private, in the London area."

So it is not OT....
It also could be in uk.transport.air
(which I do not read)


Neither does anybody else it would seem.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

not at all Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

Recliner wrote:

It will still be far cheaper to send it by sea, even if the containers
have to be trans-shipped. The huge container vessels unload (very
efficiently) at a large port, then the containers continue by smaller
ship/barge, train or truck.

Air freight is generally only used for items with a short shelf-life
or needed quickly. For example, Scotch whisky by sea, Scottish salmon
by air. Cars by sea, urgently needed car spares by air.

And on one occasion a GM locomotive to Irish Rail but that was more to
meet a crew training schedule
rather than the loco perishing on a sea voyage.

PS: A lot of container ships are not currently being loaded in China,
so there's now a shortage of containers! And in a couple of months,
there will be gaps on our shelves.


At least one of the large container shipping companies that was already
heavily in debt is attracting concern as to how it may ride a period of
downturn.

https://gcaptain.com/cma-cgms-debt-p...d-virus-fears/

The knock on effects of reduced trade will be felt here by others as well,
not many days pass without a CMA vessel calling in to Southampton. There
is some relevance to UK Railway ,many of the containers they carry are
moved to and from the Port by train. We could see trains of container
flats progressing with lots of gaps in a few weeks time.

If things get too bad then companies may reassess their dependence on
somewhere like China for production behind the brandnames and no longer put
all their eggs in one basket , we may even see some manufacturing return.
One thing we may have give up is buying some cheap electrical components
sourced from China that cost little more than the postage. I reckon ebay
will soon have a lot less items available for immediate delivery before
too long has passed.

GH

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 29/02/2020 15:43, Rink wrote:
Op 28-2-2020 om 13:22 schreef Recliner:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 11:32:45 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:16:41 +0100
Eric wrote:
On 2020-02-28, Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 09:02:50 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without
"OT".
And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.

Is there an official description of topics for this group?


http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.transport.london.html

Thanks for the link, Eric.

"This group is for the discussion of matters relating to any form of
transport, be it public or private, in the London area."

So it is not OT....
It also could be in uk.transport.air
(which I do not read)


Neither does anybody else it would seem.

Yes, that group seems to have died ages ago, probably because of the
excellent web forums on similar topics.

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

Rink wrote:
Op 28-2-2020 om 13:22 schreef Recliner:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 11:32:45 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:16:41 +0100
Eric wrote:
On 2020-02-28, Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 09:02:50 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without "OT".
And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.

Is there an official description of topics for this group?


http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.transport.london.html

Thanks for the link, Eric.

"This group is for the discussion of matters relating to any form of
transport, be it public or private, in the London area."

So it is not OT....
It also could be in uk.transport.air
(which I do not read)



There was a sudden drastic drop in the number of posts to this group last
year. I suspect its no longer carried on a number of servers for whatever
reason.

This group has enough posts to carry it.
Most newsservers do not delete newsgroups because of too little posts.
(only Google Groups does this)

Of course, Google Groups dropped this one because there were too many
posts…

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents

if it happens

and the planet.

how?

Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.

There will be fewer of them

but, certainly in the case of South America, that's not going to happen

I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the long
haul part are Spanish Speaking.

Which routes have you flown? Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights, so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .


Their source/destination for this journey was Spain.

They aren't going to switch to flying via LON, it adds 6 hours to their
journey.

Agreed

not at all Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

Recliner wrote:

Air freight is generally only used for items with a short shelf-life
or needed quickly. For example, Scotch whisky by sea, Scottish salmon
by air. Cars by sea, urgently needed car spares by air.

Or high value to weight/volume. Think electronic components, jewelry, etc...

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

In message , at 07:33:31 on Sat, 29 Feb
2020, tim... remarked:

I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the
long haul part are Spanish Speaking.

Their source/destination for this journey was Spain.

They aren't going to switch to flying via LON, it adds 6 hours to their
journey.

It's ironic that in a debate about the efficacy of transit hubs you are
justifying their useless by an example of when you were using one!

And while Spain-London-S/America might add a bit to a trip, I've just
looked up some flights where changing at the hub known as Lisbon saves
40% of the fare and only adds 2hrs to the end-to-end time.

Possibly less, if checking in for a Madrid-Lisbon flight can be done
later than a Madrid-S/America one.
--
Roland Perry

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

In message , at 16:09:05 on Sat, 29 Feb
2020, Recliner remarked:

I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the long
haul part are Spanish Speaking.

Which routes have you flown? Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights, so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .

I've flown UK-AMS-USA several times, when not only was the fare a couple
of hundred pounds cheaper per person (adds up, if four of you) but the
time we needed to leave home to get to the departure airport and to
check in was later.
--
Roland Perry

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

In message , at 19:59:16 on Fri, 28 Feb
2020, Recliner remarked:

Everything about the future is speculation.

Apart perhaps from the folly of building a new plant to produce diesel
engines to prospectively fit in JLR vehicles manufactured in the 2030's.

Yes, that was a very expensive decision. The sad thing is that it produces
particularly clean diesel engines.

I was more thinking about such a decision being taken this year or next.
--
Roland Perry

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

In message , at 07:46:30 on Sat, 29 Feb
2020, tim... remarked:

It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased
opportunity for air travel is necessary for the overall good of the
UK economy (except in the trivial amount that air side purchases
form of the economy)

You still banging on about that? The economic benefits of
passengers (and cargo) in transit go *way* beyond people buying a
cup of coffee.

really

show your working,

cos I don't believe it

Every passenger in transit uses up two seats, and all the supporting
logistics for two seats. Not just at the airport, but all the service
industries whose customers are Heathrow based.

And it's not just a handful of seats on the planes, 35% of passengers
are doing transit.

but it's still a tiny amount of effect on total UK economy

A few billion here and there, adds up.

Also not just all that extra money being spent locally to facilitate
their flights, but in many cases there very presence is what support
the number of destinations served, and in some cases the number of
days a week those flights operate.

but that not, of itself, an improvement for the UK Economy.

If business people have to extend their trips because destinations are
only served 3 days a week, that has an effect upon their ability to
efficiently manage "UK plc".

In other news, a statistics from the news this week: 40% of all our
exports (to countries outside the EU - they sometimes forget to make
that qualification) go out of Heathrow. That's by value rather than
volume, of course.

but freight doesn't *need* to go from LHR.

It could go from somewhere else at greater cost (not last because of
being indirect having lost the benefit of agglomeration), agreed.

--
Roland Perry

not at all Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

In message , at 08:15:48 on Sat, 29 Feb
2020, tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:36:25 on Fri, 28 Feb
2020, John Levine remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
The biggest destination is the USA, which isn't surprising, not because
of the size of the market, but shipping something by sea to Seattle or
Los Angeles is a bit time consuming, and to Dallas or Chicago really
quite difficult. Whereas the planes can land anywhere just as easily.

Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult?

Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

I agree Dallas is hard, but Houston is not.

So you have to trans-ship it, rather than land nearby.

you think that they don't do that with freight anyway

what do you think happens to all the freight that lands at Rotterdam or
Hamburg?

And does that stop people long-hauling by ship?

No

Why are US landings any different?

Because the USA is as big as the Atlantic.

--
Roland Perry

not at all Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?

Because the most efficient way to ship stuff by sea (even in smallish
consignments that might otherwise fit inside a plane) is to bung it onto
a large container vessel (inside a container, obviously). Sounds like
transhipping it onto a much smaller boat to do the final 1,500miles is
going to be a pain, compared to air-freighting it end to end.

30,000 tonnes is small? I am reasonably sure that the ships that
transit the St Lawrence to and from the Great Lakes continue on to
ports all over the world. It's not like they unload in Halifax.

--
Regards,
John Levine, , Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

not at all Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?

Just out of interest, so significantly less than Panamax.

Yes. I presume it's due to the limits of what they could build in the
St Lawrence Seaway. The locks within the Great Lakes are apparently a
lot larger and there are large bulk carriers that never get east of
Toronto.

--
Regards,
John Levine, , Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

not at all Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

John Levine wrote:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?

Because the most efficient way to ship stuff by sea (even in smallish
consignments that might otherwise fit inside a plane) is to bung it onto
a large container vessel (inside a container, obviously). Sounds like
transhipping it onto a much smaller boat to do the final 1,500miles is
going to be a pain, compared to air-freighting it end to end.

30,000 tonnes is small? I am reasonably sure that the ships that
transit the St Lawrence to and from the Great Lakes continue on to
ports all over the world. It's not like they unload in Halifax.


That's called Seawaymax, and it's pretty small:
http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/ship-sizes/

Aframax

AFRA stands for Average Freight Rate Assessment. As the name suggests,
Aframax are medium-sized oil tankers with a dead weight tonnage (DWT)
between 80,000 and 119,999. Though relatively small in size in comparison
to VLCC and ULCC, Aframax tankers have a capacity to carry up to 120,000
metric tonnes of crude oil. They are just ideal for short to medium-haul
oil trades, and are primarily used in regions of lower crude production, or
the areas that lack large ports to accommodate giant oil carriers.

Capesize

They are very large and ultra large cargo vessels with a capacity over
150,000 DWT. They are categorised under VLCC, ULCC, VLOC and ULOC and can
be as large as 400,000 DWT or even more. They serve regions with largest
deepwater terminals in the world and are primarily used for transporting
coal and iron ore. Because of their giant size, they are suitable to serve
only a small number of ports with deepwater terminals.

Chinamax

Chinamax ships are very large bulk carrier which can't be longer than 360m
(1,180 ft), wider than 65 m (213 ft) and her draft can't be more than 24 m
(79 ft). The deadweight tonnage of these vessels is 380,000–400,000 DWT.

Ship's maximum measurements are defined by the Chinamax standars, allowing
ports to determine whether they can accommodate ships in this class. As the
name suggests, these ships are often used to move cargo to and from China
along several trade routes, such as the iron ore route from Brazil to
China.

Handymax/ Supramax

Handymax are small-sized cargo ships with a size less than 60,000 DWT.
Supramax vessels have capacity between 50,000 to 60,000 DWT. Due to their
small size, they are capable of operating in regions with small ports with
length and draught restrictions. They form the majority of ocean going
cargo vessels in the world.

Handysize

Handysize are small-sized ships with a capacity ranging between 15,000 and
35,000 DWT. These vessels are ideal for small as well as large ports, and
so make up the majority of ocean cargo vessels in the world. They are
mainly used in transporting finished petroleum products and for bulk cargo.

Malaccamax

As the name suggests, Malaccamax ships are the largest ships that can pass
through the Strait off Malacca which is 25 m (82 ft) deep. As per the
current permissible limits, a Malaccamax vessel can have a maximum length
of 400 m (1,312ft), beam of 59 m (193.5 ft), and draught of 14.5 m (47.5
ft).


Panamax and New Panamax

As the name suggests, Panamax and New Panamax ships are travelling through
the Panama Canal. They strictly follow the size regulations set by the
Panama Canal Authority, as the entry and exit points of the Canal are
narrow. A Panamax vessel can't be longer than 294,13 m (965 ft), wider than
32,31 m (106 ft) and her draught can't be more than 12,04 m (39.5 ft).
These vessels have an average capacity of 65,000 DWT, and are primarily
used in transporting coal, crude oil and petroleum products. They operate
in the Caribbean and Latin American regions.

The New Panamax has been created as a result of the expanding plans for
Panama Canal locks. Expanded locks will be around 427 m (1400 ft) long, 55
m (180 ft) wide and 18,30 m (60 ft) deep so Panama Canal will be able to
handle larger vessels .

Q-Max (Qatar-max)

Q-Max's are largest LNG carriers that can dock at the LNG terminals in
Qatar.

Q-Max ship is 345 metres (1,132 ft) long, 53.8 metres (177 ft) wide and
34.7 metres (114 ft) high, with a draught of approximately 12 metres (39
ft). It has a capacity of 266,000 cubic metres (9,400,000 cu ft), equal to
161,994,000 cubic metres (5.7208×109 cu ft) of natural gas.

Seawaymax

As the name suggests, Seawaymax ships are the largest ships that can pass
through the locks of St. Lawrence Seaway.

These ships are 225,6 m (740 ft) long, 23,8 m (78 ft) wide and 35,5 m (116
ft) high, with a draught of 7,92 metres (26 ft).

Suezmax

Suezmax are named after the famous Suez Canal. They are mid-sized cargo
vessels with a capacity ranging between 120,000 to 200,000 DWT. They are
designed to pass through the majority of the ports in the world. Currently
the permissible limits for suezmax ships are 20.1 m (66 ft) of draught with
the beam no wider than 50 m (164.0 ft), or 12.2 m (40 ft) of draught with
maximum allowed beam of 77.5 m (254 ft).

not at all Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

In message , at 22:18:12 on Sat, 29 Feb 2020,
John Levine remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?

Because the most efficient way to ship stuff by sea (even in smallish
consignments that might otherwise fit inside a plane) is to bung it onto
a large container vessel (inside a container, obviously). Sounds like
transhipping it onto a much smaller boat to do the final 1,500miles is
going to be a pain, compared to air-freighting it end to end.

30,000 tonnes is small?

Big container ships are typically 200,000 tonnes.

I am reasonably sure that the ships that transit the St Lawrence to and
from the Great Lakes continue on to ports all over the world. It's not
like they unload in Halifax.

Wonkypedia says "mostly of inbound steel and outbound grain" and I think
we can agree neither of those are susceptible to air freight (or indeed
very urgent).
--
Roland Perry

not at all Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On 29/02/2020 22:20, John Levine wrote:
In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?

Just out of interest, so significantly less than Panamax.

Yes. I presume it's due to the limits of what they could build in the
St Lawrence Seaway. The locks within the Great Lakes are apparently a
lot larger and there are large bulk carriers that never get east of
Toronto.


Apparently container traffic doesn't figure at the moment though there
are proposals for a feeder service from Oswego to Nova Scotia for
transhipment to ocean going services.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

not at all Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On 01/03/2020 07:25, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:18:12 on Sat, 29 Feb 2020,
John Levine remarked:
In article ,
Roland PerryÂ* wrote:
Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes.Â* Why do you ask?

Because the most efficient way to ship stuff by sea (even in smallish
consignments that might otherwise fit inside a plane) is to bung it onto
a large container vessel (inside a container, obviously). Sounds like
transhipping it onto a much smaller boat to do the final 1,500miles is
going to be a pain, compared to air-freighting it end to end.

30,000 tonnes is small?

Big container ships are typically 200,000 tonnes.

I am reasonably sure that the ships that transit the St Lawrence to
and from the Great Lakes continue on to ports all over the world.
It's not like they unload in Halifax.

Wonkypedia says "mostly of inbound steel and outbound grain" and I think
we can agree neither of those are susceptible to air freight (or indeed
very urgent).

Also grain shipments tend to go west these days via the railways.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

not at all Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

In message , at 14:58:09 on
Sat, 29 Feb 2020, Recliner remarked:
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 13:58:49 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 22:12:28 on Fri, 28 Feb
2020, John Levine remarked:

Why do you think shipping by sea to Chicago is difficult?

Apart from it being 1,500 miles from the Atlantic? What's the biggest
container ship you can get that far.

The limit is 225m long, 23.8m wide, draft 8 m, height above water
35.5m, capacity up to 30,000 tonnes. Why do you ask?

Because the most efficient way to ship stuff by sea (even in smallish
consignments that might otherwise fit inside a plane) is to bung it onto
a large container vessel (inside a container, obviously). Sounds like
transhipping it onto a much smaller boat to do the final 1,500miles is
going to be a pain, compared to air-freighting it end to end.

It will still be far cheaper to send it by sea, even if the containers
have to be trans-shipped. The huge container vessels unload (very
efficiently) at a large port, then the containers continue by smaller
ship/barge, train or truck.

Air freight is generally only used for items with a short shelf-life
or needed quickly. For example, Scotch whisky by sea, Scottish salmon
by air. Cars by sea, urgently needed car spares by air.

It's a lot more stuff than you imagine, if it's 40% of our exports (to
outside EU) going through LHR, and there's also Stansted & East Midlands
doing dedicated freight, as well as passenger aircraft from Birmingham,
Manchester etc.

PS: A lot of container ships are not currently being loaded in China,
so there's now a shortage of containers! And in a couple of months,
there will be gaps on our shelves.

One of the things I've noticed the last week or two is a lot of empty
container trains (flats-only) heading towards Felixstowe. I was
wondering if that was because ships aren't deporting for China at the
moment, and they prefer not to stack up the empties at the port.
--
Roland Perry

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On 29/02/2020 16:09, Recliner wrote:
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents

if it happens

and the planet.

how?

Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.

There will be fewer of them

but, certainly in the case of South America, that's not going to happen

I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the long
haul part are Spanish Speaking.

Which routes have you flown? Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights, so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .

TAM fly direct from LHR to Sao Paulo and Rio, but as I discovered this
week its at least £200 cheaper to fly via Zurich as I have a further
flight when I get there, and the layover is shorter, my final
destination is SLZ which calls itself an international airport but only
has internal flights


Their source/destination for this journey was Spain.

They aren't going to switch to flying via LON, it adds 6 hours to their
journey.

Agreed



--
Martin

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 13:10:07 +0000
Martin Smith wrote:
On 29/02/2020 16:09, Recliner wrote:
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents

if it happens

and the planet.

how?

Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.

There will be fewer of them

but, certainly in the case of South America, that's not going to happen

I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the long

haul part are Spanish Speaking.

Which routes have you flown? Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights, so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .

TAM fly direct from LHR to Sao Paulo and Rio, but as I discovered this
week its at least £200 cheaper to fly via Zurich as I have a further
flight when I get there, and the layover is shorter, my final
destination is SLZ which calls itself an international airport but only
has internal flights

Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely I
imagine.

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On 05/03/2020 16:44, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 13:10:07 +0000
Martin Smith wrote:
On 29/02/2020 16:09, Recliner wrote:
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents

if it happens

and the planet.

how?

Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.

There will be fewer of them

but, certainly in the case of South America, that's not going to happen

I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the long

haul part are Spanish Speaking.

Which routes have you flown? Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights, so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .

TAM fly direct from LHR to Sao Paulo and Rio, but as I discovered this
week its at least £200 cheaper to fly via Zurich as I have a further
flight when I get there, and the layover is shorter, my final
destination is SLZ which calls itself an international airport but only
has internal flights

Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely I
imagine.


Due to the extreme political situation in Brazil its unlikely that I
will be going, havent been there for 5 years. the president has made it
legal to kill indigenous people and take their land.


--
Martin

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On 05/03/2020 16:44, wrote:

Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely I
imagine.

My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the land.



--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 05/03/2020 16:44, wrote:

Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely I
imagine.

My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the land.

Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared off
to live 4000 miles away.

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On 07/03/2020 12:14, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 05/03/2020 16:44, wrote:

Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely I
imagine.

My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the land.

Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared off
to live 4000 miles away.

Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:02:47 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 07/03/2020 12:14, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 05/03/2020 16:44, wrote:

Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely I
imagine.

My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the land.

Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared off
to live 4000 miles away.

Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?

Perhaps you have a different definition of friends. For me a friend is someone
who I can phone and meet down the pub, not someone I have to fly 3000 miles
to see maybe and shell out a small fortune to do so.

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

In message , at 09:22:10 on Mon, 9 Mar
2020, remarked:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:02:47 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 07/03/2020 12:14, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 05/03/2020 16:44, wrote:

Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely I
imagine.

My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the land.

Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared off
to live 4000 miles away.

Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?

Perhaps you have a different definition of friends. For me a friend is someone
who I can phone

Apparently, phone wires extend beyond Little England.

and meet down the pub,

That must reduce the available pool significantly

not someone I have to fly 3000 miles to see maybe and shell out a
small fortune to do so.

--
Roland Perry

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:22:10 on Mon, 9 Mar
2020, remarked:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:02:47 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 07/03/2020 12:14, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 05/03/2020 16:44, wrote:

Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely I
imagine.

My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the land.

Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared off
to live 4000 miles away.

Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?

Perhaps you have a different definition of friends. For me a friend is someone
who I can phone

Apparently, phone wires extend beyond Little England.

and meet down the pub,

That must reduce the available pool significantly

Especially as Neil has previously told us he doesn't drink beer or go to
the pub.

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 10:48:43 -0000 (UTC)
Billy No Mates wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:22:10 on Mon, 9 Mar
2020, remarked:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:02:47 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 07/03/2020 12:14, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 05/03/2020 16:44, wrote:

Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along
nicely I
imagine.

My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the
land.

Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared off

to live 4000 miles away.

Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?

Perhaps you have a different definition of friends. For me a friend is
someone
who I can phone

Apparently, phone wires extend beyond Little England.

and meet down the pub,

That must reduce the available pool significantly

Especially as Neil has previously told us he doesn't drink beer or go to
the pub.

And when did I say that Billy?

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 10:19:07 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:22:10 on Mon, 9 Mar
2020, remarked:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:02:47 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 07/03/2020 12:14, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 05/03/2020 16:44, wrote:

Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely
I
imagine.

My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the
land.

Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared off
to live 4000 miles away.

Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?

Perhaps you have a different definition of friends. For me a friend is someone

who I can phone

Apparently, phone wires extend beyond Little England.

and meet down the pub,

That must reduce the available pool significantly

Don't be jealous, its not a good look.

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 10:48:43 -0000 (UTC)
Billy No Mates wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:22:10 on Mon, 9 Mar
2020, remarked:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:02:47 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 07/03/2020 12:14, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 05/03/2020 16:44, wrote:

Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along
nicely I
imagine.

My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the
land.

Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared off

to live 4000 miles away.

Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?

Perhaps you have a different definition of friends. For me a friend is
someone
who I can phone

Apparently, phone wires extend beyond Little England.

and meet down the pub,

That must reduce the available pool significantly

Especially as Neil has previously told us he doesn't drink beer or go to
the pub.

And when did I say that Billy?



Have you forgotten already?

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 11:08:17 -0000 (UTC)
Billy No Mates wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 10:48:43 -0000 (UTC)
Billy No Mates wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:22:10 on Mon, 9 Mar
2020, remarked:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:02:47 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 07/03/2020 12:14, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 05/03/2020 16:44, wrote:

Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along
nicely I
imagine.

My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this
year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the
land.

Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared
off

to live 4000 miles away.

Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?

Perhaps you have a different definition of friends. For me a friend is
someone
who I can phone

Apparently, phone wires extend beyond Little England.

and meet down the pub,

That must reduce the available pool significantly

Especially as Neil has previously told us he doesn't drink beer or go to
the pub.

And when did I say that Billy?



Have you forgotten already?

So it would seem. Do enlighten me.

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 11:08:17 -0000 (UTC)
Billy No Mates wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 10:48:43 -0000 (UTC)
Billy No Mates wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:22:10 on Mon, 9 Mar
2020, remarked:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:02:47 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 07/03/2020 12:14, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 05/03/2020 16:44, wrote:

Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along
nicely I
imagine.

My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this
year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the
land.

Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared
off

to live 4000 miles away.

Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?

Perhaps you have a different definition of friends. For me a friend is
someone
who I can phone

Apparently, phone wires extend beyond Little England.

and meet down the pub,

That must reduce the available pool significantly

Especially as Neil has previously told us he doesn't drink beer or go to
the pub.

And when did I say that Billy?



Have you forgotten already?

So it would seem. Do enlighten me.



It was almost two years ago, so no doubt your memory has faded:


- hide quoted text -
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 14:02:07 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 12:56:50 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 11:33:23 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 11:49:00 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 10:48:00 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
Tbh most pubs these days are now just family (ie you get to enjoy
screaming
kids) restaurants that also have a license. If they couldn't serve booze
I
doubt it would affect many of them as they can make more profit selling
coffee
for 3 quid a cup. The old style boozer pub is long gone except maybe in a
few
places here and there.

I take it you don't visit Wetherspoon pubs?

No idea. I tend not to take much notice of the bewery name when we drop in.

It's not a brewery.

Fine, I don't take much notice of the conglomorate owners name when we drop
in.

I take it that you're not a beer drinker, then?

Like cigarettes, beer is something that you have to aquire a taste for
because
its so digusting. I never bothered.

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On 09/03/2020 09:22, wrote:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 23:02:47 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 07/03/2020 12:14, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 16:53:09 +0000
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 05/03/2020 16:44, wrote:

Yet another long haul? Your carbon bootprint must be coming along nicely I
imagine.

My other half and I will probably be going to the States later this year
to visit friends. I *would* row the Atlantic, but I'm a bit out of
practice and I suspect I'd lose puff before I got out of sight of the land.

Or alternatively don't go. They can't be close friends if they cleared off
to live 4000 miles away.

Who says they cleared off..? They were born there. What, I can't make
friends with people in other countries now..?

Perhaps you have a different definition of friends. For me a friend is someone
who I can phone and meet down the pub, not someone I have to fly miles
to see maybe and shell out a small fortune to do so.

A friend to me is someone I relate to, common interests and such like.
Distance doesn't come into it in the present era of t'interweb. I speak
to my friends in the US on the phone often, and as a result would like
to visit.

I do have friends I can go to the pub with, but that's not my sole
definition of the word.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On 09/03/2020 12:50, Recliner wrote:

Like cigarettes, beer is something that you have to aquire a taste for
because
its so digusting. I never bothered.

I like both, although I was forced to give up smoking due to price, not
for any other reason. I still drink occasionally, but again price has an
effect.

Forcing people to give up what they enjoy by pricing them out of the
market achieves little or nothing except raising tax revenue from the
wealthy, but I'd better shut up or I'll get too political even for this
group.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]