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

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]

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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…