Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?

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

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

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.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

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

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Pom Poko - 2019 - Birthday

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

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.

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

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?

--
jhk

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

Basil Jet 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.

Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without "OT".
And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.


Why is it off topic? Is London's major airport not something to do with
transport in London?

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On 28/02/2020 09:13, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet 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.

Thank you for posting an off-topic message to the group, without "OT".
And then insulting everyone else for not doing it before you.


Why is it off topic? Is London's major airport not something to do with
transport in London?


I thought I was in a different group!

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Pom Poko - 2019 - Birthday

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

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

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

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.

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

On 2020-02-28, 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.

That was because Google blocked it in Google Groups - because it was
full of spam - which was only there because they allowed it. I don't
think that there's any evidence that other servers have dropped it.

I don't quite see what that has to do with me posting a link to the
group charter.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

"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

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

"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

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

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.

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

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.

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

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

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

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.

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

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

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 don't recall, either.

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

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

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

"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?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

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.

not at all Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

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

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

"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

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

"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

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

"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

not at all Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

"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

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

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

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

"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

not at all Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

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.

Heathrow expansion plans "illegal"
 

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.