"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
On 28/02/2020 08:51, tim... wrote:
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.

Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without "OT".

Since when was Heathrow not in London
and air travel not a legitimate form of transport?

And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.

It was a joke

tim

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 28/02/2020 08:51, tim... wrote:
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.

The more interesting thing is campaigners are intending to challenge
road schemes on the same grounds which could have a beneficial effect on
the economics of rail expansion and electrification schemes.


The same campaigners also challenge rail schemes, as we've seen with HS2.

The same ruling will also apply to any other airport expansion, which may
not please the government and London mayor quite so much.

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.

AISI the problem with LHR expansion when performing that test, is that its
business case is based upon the increased use of LHR as a global hub and
therefore encouraging extra people to travel via LHR, for whom neither their
source nor destination is in the UK.

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) and that
that economic benefit justifies meeting/overriding whatever requirement the
afore mentioned act requires. Something that a stand alone improvement of
UK point to point travel (rail, road or air) might manage.

tim

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

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.

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.

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:15:57 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 28/02/2020 08:51, tim... wrote:
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.

The more interesting thing is campaigners are intending to challenge
road schemes on the same grounds which could have a beneficial effect on
the economics of rail expansion and electrification schemes.


The same campaigners also challenge rail schemes, as we've seen with HS2.

The same ruling will also apply to any other airport expansion, which may
not please the government and London mayor quite so much.

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.

Yup, another gift from that nice Mr Grayling!


AISI the problem with LHR expansion when performing that test, is that its
business case is based upon the increased use of LHR as a global hub and
therefore encouraging extra people to travel via LHR, for whom neither their
source nor destination is in the UK.

Many of those hub users will be based in the UK, just not near
Heathrow. For example, there will be more UK regional flights to an
expanded Heathrow.


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) and that
that economic benefit justifies meeting/overriding whatever requirement the
afore mentioned act requires. Something that a stand alone improvement of
UK point to point travel (rail, road or air) might manage.

There are many other benefits from Heathrow expansion, including
having more direct flights from it to places like South America, thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents and the planet.

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:22:06 +0000, Recliner
wrote:

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.

I was getting a lot of spam for a period, but now there is none. I
presume my server individual.net took action.

(Which reminds me to pay up for another year.)

--
jhk

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:29:32 +0100, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:22:06 +0000, Recliner
wrote:

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.

I was getting a lot of spam for a period, but now there is none. I
presume my server individual.net took action.

(Which reminds me to pay up for another year.)

No, the spam all came from Gmail accounts, posting via Google Groups.
It stopped instantly when Google Groups dropped it. Other servers
didn't have to do anything.

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:31:26 +0000, Recliner
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:29:32 +0100, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:22:06 +0000, Recliner
wrote:

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.

I was getting a lot of spam for a period, but now there is none. I
presume my server individual.net took action.

(Which reminds me to pay up for another year.)

No, the spam all came from Gmail accounts, posting via Google Groups.
It stopped instantly when Google Groups dropped it. Other servers
didn't have to do anything.

When did they drop it?

I did send in a spam report to individual.net on 28 Aug 2018, and they
responded the same day saying they would check. I don't remember how
soon after the spam stopped.

--
jhk

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:42:50 +0100, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:31:26 +0000, Recliner
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 13:29:32 +0100, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:22:06 +0000, Recliner
wrote:

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.

I was getting a lot of spam for a period, but now there is none. I
presume my server individual.net took action.

(Which reminds me to pay up for another year.)

No, the spam all came from Gmail accounts, posting via Google Groups.
It stopped instantly when Google Groups dropped it. Other servers
didn't have to do anything.

When did they drop it?

I did send in a spam report to individual.net on 28 Aug 2018, and they
responded the same day saying they would check. I don't remember how
soon after the spam stopped.

I don't recall, either.

In message , at 12:15:57 on Fri, 28 Feb
2020, tim... remarked:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 28/02/2020 08:51, tim... wrote:
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.

The more interesting thing is campaigners are intending to challenge
road schemes on the same grounds which could have a beneficial effect on
the economics of rail expansion and electrification schemes.


The same campaigners also challenge rail schemes, as we've seen with HS2.

The same ruling will also apply to any other airport expansion, which may
not please the government and London mayor quite so much.

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.

AISI the problem with LHR expansion when performing that test, is that
its business case is based upon the increased use of LHR as a global
hub and therefore encouraging extra people to travel via LHR, for whom
neither their source nor destination is in the UK.

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.

and that that economic benefit justifies meeting/overriding whatever
requirement the afore mentioned act requires. Something that a stand
alone improvement of UK point to point travel (rail, road or air) might
manage.

tim


--
Roland Perry

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:15:57 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 28/02/2020 08:51, tim... wrote:
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.

The more interesting thing is campaigners are intending to challenge
road schemes on the same grounds which could have a beneficial effect
on
the economics of rail expansion and electrification schemes.


The same campaigners also challenge rail schemes, as we've seen with
HS2.

The same ruling will also apply to any other airport expansion, which
may
not please the government and London mayor quite so much.

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.

Yup, another gift from that nice Mr Grayling!


AISI the problem with LHR expansion when performing that test, is that its
business case is based upon the increased use of LHR as a global hub and
therefore encouraging extra people to travel via LHR, for whom neither
their
source nor destination is in the UK.

Many of those hub users will be based in the UK, just not near
Heathrow. For example, there will be more UK regional flights to an
expanded Heathrow.

that's not the point

many of them aren't (based in the UK)

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) and that
that economic benefit justifies meeting/overriding whatever requirement
the
afore mentioned act requires. Something that a stand alone improvement of
UK point to point travel (rail, road or air) might manage.

There are many other benefits from Heathrow expansion, including
having more direct flights from it to places like South America,

really

pure speculation

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.

If there are more flights from London extracting passengers, those flights
will operate less full

I couldn't believe how empty my flight with Emirates last month was. Barely
a quarter full.

I understand their business mode of proving a hub and spoke from Europe to
the Far East.

But do they really need three flights from Heathrow, 2 from Gatwick and at
least one from Stansted - every day?