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]