Roland Perry wrote:
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.

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

But I'm sure they now wish they'd invested in BEV technology instead.

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
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?

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

"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.

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.

if they lose their UK pax.

there aren't enough Brits on many of these suggested routes to make a
difference

tim

"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
(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

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. (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.

like East Mids.

And oh look, that exactly what happens.

tim

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
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.

Whilst that is not an end result that I am unhappy with,

I'm not convinced that it is possible for someone to make that claim.

There is every possibility that a different proposal could pass.

But it will take LHR another 3 years to get there - and may require extra
spending that makes the financial even more shaky than they are.

For example, one of the things that LHR claim that they can improve in their
plan is to lessened their carbon footprint by making more people come by PT
by using a "congestion charge" to encourage them.

But a Congestion charge cannot possibly discourage people who have no
alternative travel option, those people will just have to "suck it up" and
will carry on driving to the airport.

LHR have, three times, at previous planning enquires "promised" that
building the Western rail route into the airport would *come* as part of he
new development, and three times when push come to shove they didn't provide
it.

If it were me evaluating LHR's proposals, any calculations for future carbon
footprint based upon passengers using PT would have to be met *before* the
ground work on the runway is started. I.E the rail improvement have to be
in place (and shown to be effective) first, not just proposed for later and
then forgotten (again).

tim

"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?

tim

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. It also contradicts what the air
freight industry said. 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.

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

"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
(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

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. (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. It also contradicts what the air
freight industry said. 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).

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

tim

On 28/02/2020 22:12, John Levine wrote:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
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?


Just out of interest, so significantly less than Panamax.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 29/02/2020 08:00, tim... wrote:


"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
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.

Whilst that is not an end result that I am unhappy with,

I'm not convinced that it is possible for someone to make that claim.

There is every possibility that a different proposal could pass.

There is not currently, or in the foreseeable future, any technology
that will enable it to pass.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.