London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21   Report Post  
Old February 28th 20, 01:54 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,065
Default Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"



"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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.


really

show your working,

cos I don't believe it

tim




  #22   Report Post  
Old February 28th 20, 01:55 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,065
Default Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"



"Jarle Hammen Knudsen" wrote in message
...
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.


NIN are good at filtering Spam.

ES, not so much

tim



  #23   Report Post  
Old February 28th 20, 03:16 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2019
Posts: 581
Default Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"

tim... wrote:


"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)


Sure, so they'll be using LHR instead of some other hub. That brings
business to a UK airline and the many businesses that serve 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,


really

pure speculation


Everything about the future is 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.


There will be fewer of them if they lose their UK pax.


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


No, they either won't operate, or they'll be down-gauged.

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?


They wouldn't operate them if they couldn't get a decent load factor.


  #24   Report Post  
Old February 28th 20, 03:32 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,983
Default Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"

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
(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.

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.

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.

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.
--
Roland Perry
  #25   Report Post  
Old February 28th 20, 03:50 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,588
Default Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"

On 28/02/2020 12:15, 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.


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


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.



  #26   Report Post  
Old February 28th 20, 04:02 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2019
Posts: 280
Default Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"

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'm surprised Google did anything. I'd assumed that their news server had
long been lost at the back of some massive server room and virtually forgotten
about in Mountain View.


  #27   Report Post  
Old February 28th 20, 05:36 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Mar 2018
Posts: 45
Default not at all Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"

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? I agree
Dallas is hard, but Houston is not.

--
Regards,
John Levine, , Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
https://jl.ly
  #28   Report Post  
Old February 28th 20, 05:42 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,983
Default Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"

In message , at 16:16:00 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.
--
Roland Perry
  #29   Report Post  
Old February 28th 20, 05:47 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,983
Default not at all Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"

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.
--
Roland Perry
  #30   Report Post  
Old February 28th 20, 05:48 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,588
Default not at all Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"

On 28/02/2020 18:36, John Levine wrote:
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? I agree
Dallas is hard, but Houston is not.


What size ships can use the St Lawrence these days?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras isHeathrow T6, again) Mizter T London Transport 37 October 16th 08 12:51 PM
DofT Deliberately Witholding Documents Heathrow Expansion? Dr Ivan D. Reid London Transport 0 December 16th 07 08:47 AM
"Hidden" Plans for TWO new Terminals at Heathrow. CJB London Transport 63 August 23rd 07 08:51 PM
Circumcision Should Be Made Illegal [email protected] London Transport 2 February 3rd 06 01:10 AM
Congestion charging expansion plans: zone expansion. Gordon Joly London Transport 9 January 3rd 04 02:58 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017