|
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Claims by Spanish-owned BAA
There's lies, damned lies, statistics and claims by Spanish-owned BAA
about not wanting a third runway if it got a T5. HOWEVER the latest Govt. Consultation is for a new SHORT runway at Heathrow, and already (during the Climate Camp) BAA announced that what it really wants is a FULL-length runway. So the Govt. Consultation is a con. - it is for a short runway. A full-length runway will hugely increase pollution, noise and disruption; and will entail the demolition of Harmondsworth, Sipson, Harlington and Cranford - about 35,000 houses, 7 schools, and at least four historic churches. CJB. |
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Claims by Spanish-owned BAA
"CJB" wrote in message ... There's lies, damned lies, statistics and claims by Spanish-owned BAA about not wanting a third runway if it got a T5. BAA was not Spanish owned when the T5 inquiry was heard, but your point is right. ISTM that BAA should be told that, if it wishes to recind the evidence that it gave to the inquiry, the T5 permission will be withdrawn and the building must be knocked down. But ufortunately it doesn't work like that. tim |
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Claims by Spanish-owned BAA
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:35:13 +0100, "tim \(not at home\)"
wrote: ISTM that BAA should be told that, if it wishes to recind the evidence that it gave to the inquiry, the T5 permission will be withdrawn and the building must be knocked down. But ufortunately it doesn't work like that. That seems rather silly. What I would like to see, though, is for LHR to be restricted to the number of passengers/flights for which it was designed. Regional airports, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton can then take up the slack. It doesn't have to be LHR. One option worth considering might be to remove all short-haul from LHR, though connecting passengers won't like that. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Claims by Spanish-owned BAA
Stupid Heathrow, building a new Terminal 5 but not having any extra
capacity to operate flights with... What they should get rid of... are the Absolutely Stupid Short-Haul flights. Is it really that difficult to goto Euston to get a train to Manchester/KX for Leeds/St P for East Midlands?* If only there was a direct train to all those terminals (which would only be possible if they combined the HEX with the Circle Line). That way, they can free up space for longer-hauled flights. Bring on the A380s! Out with the locals to Manchester. *Yes I know the Picc but how much do you believe the Short-Haul Flight Clientèle like sitting next to "commoners" from Hounslow and Feltham? They prefer the HEX, which is far out of the price range of said travellers. |
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Claims by Spanish-owned BAA
On 22 Nov, 21:13, CJB wrote:
There's lies, damned lies, statistics and claims by Spanish-owned BAA about not wanting a third runway if it got a T5. HOWEVER the latest Govt. Consultation is for a new SHORT runway at Heathrow, and already (during the Climate Camp) BAA announced that what it really wants is a FULL-length runway. So the Govt. Consultation is a con. - it is for a short runway. A full-length runway will hugely increase pollution, noise and disruption; and will entail the demolition of Harmondsworth, Sipson, Harlington and Cranford - about 35,000 houses, 7 schools, and at least four historic churches. CJB. Your irrelevant mentioning of BA's foreign ownership proves that you're an ignorant bigot, and can therefore safely be ignored. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Claims by Spanish-owned BAA
On 22 Nov, 23:14, JL wrote:
Stupid Heathrow, building a new Terminal 5 but not having any extra capacity to operate flights with... What they should get rid of... are the Absolutely Stupid Short-Haul flights. Is it really that difficult to goto Euston to get a train to Manchester/KX for Leeds/St P for East Midlands?* If only there was a direct train to all those terminals (which would only be possible if they combined the HEX with the Circle Line). AIUI, the English domestic flights out of Heathrow are run for the benefit of connecting passengers - if you want to go from Ghana to Newcastle, the transfer within Heathrow (particularly when BA domestic and international are combined in the same terminal) is a lot easier than manhandling your luggage through KXSP (or Paddington and KXSP) in the morning peak. This is why routing HS2 via LHR would be a Very Good Idea. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Claims by Spanish-owned BAA
Neil Williams wrote:
What I would like to see, though, is for LHR to be restricted to the number of passengers/flights for which it was designed. Regional airports, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton can then take up the slack. It doesn't have to be LHR. One option worth considering might be to remove all short-haul from LHR, though connecting passengers won't like that. A minimum plane size - or charges that work out too expensive for smaller planes - would be a good start. It should be possible to increase terminal capacity to match. Then there needs to be a serious effort to replace short-haul flights with rail AND to provide express rail links to Stansted and Gatwick so that flight-changing between airports is practical. As far as number of flights goes, the limit should be low enough to make stacking rare. I think that runway alternation could be allowed with such a flight cap. BAA think in terms of flights. They need to be made to think in terms of people, and the journeys they want to make. Colin McKensie -- No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org. |
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Claims by Spanish-owned BAA
"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message ... Neil Williams wrote: What I would like to see, though, is for LHR to be restricted to the number of passengers/flights for which it was designed. Regional airports, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton can then take up the slack. It doesn't have to be LHR. One option worth considering might be to remove all short-haul from LHR, though connecting passengers won't like that. A minimum plane size - or charges that work out too expensive for smaller planes - would be a good start. It should be possible to increase terminal capacity to match. Then there needs to be a serious effort to replace short-haul flights with rail AND to provide express rail links to Stansted and Gatwick so that flight-changing between airports is practical. As far as number of flights goes, the limit should be low enough to make stacking rare. I think that runway alternation could be allowed with such a flight cap. BAA think in terms of flights. They need to be made to think in terms of people, and the journeys they want to make. ISTM the problem is that both BAA and BA see the journeys that they want their pax to make to be New York (insert other US starting point) to Paris/Frankfurt/Madrid/Rome/Etc. Such journeys help the UK economy not one jot [1] (except in the way that they change the profits of the above mentioned companies) but add considerably to the loading on the airport. Such jouirneys should be discouraged by HMG not encouraged. [1] pax not starting/terminating in the UK are excempt from passenger duty. tim |
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Claims by Spanish-owned BAA
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:36:56 -0800 (PST), John B
wrote: Your irrelevant mentioning of BA's foreign ownership proves that you're an ignorant bigot, and can therefore safely be ignored. It did, however, emphasize that BAA is no longer the state-owned British Airports Authority, and thus should not receive any consideration that it is, but instead should be treated like the profiteering private company that it is, and thus not pandered to at all. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Claims by Spanish-owned BAA
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:05:42 +0000, Colin McKenzie
wrote: A minimum plane size - or charges that work out too expensive for smaller planes - would be a good start. This is true. If BA and KLM both fly a 737 N times a day from AMS to LHR, perhaps they could consider combining forces and operating a widebody (say a 767) half as many times overall. Trouble is, competition law might prevent that, even though (to the business traveller at least where fares aren't the primary consideration) it would provide a benefit. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Claims by Spanish-owned BAA
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:39:13 +0100, "tim \(not at home\)"
wrote: Such journeys help the UK economy not one jot [1] (except in the way that they change the profits of the above mentioned companies) but add considerably to the loading on the airport. Such jouirneys should be discouraged by HMG not encouraged. Agreed. AMS has the capacity and sensible design for such activity, so let such pax and airlines go to AMS instead. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Claims by Spanish-owned BAA
On Nov 23, 8:36 am, John B wrote:
On 22 Nov, 21:13, CJB wrote: There's lies, damned lies, statistics and claims by Spanish-owned BAA about not wanting a third runway if it got a T5. HOWEVER the latest Govt. Consultation is for a new SHORT runway at Heathrow, and already (during the Climate Camp) BAA announced that what it really wants is a FULL-length runway. So the Govt. Consultation is a con. - it is for a short runway. A full-length runway will hugely increase pollution, noise and disruption; and will entail the demolition of Harmondsworth, Sipson, Harlington and Cranford - about 35,000 houses, 7 schools, and at least four historic churches. CJB. Your irrelevant mentioning of BA's foreign ownership proves that you're an ignorant bigot, and can therefore safely be ignored. -- John Band john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org Hello? Yes - BA is UK-owned. But I said BAA - which is owned by Spanish property development co. Ferovial - well actually two Spanish who are billionaires. They couldn't be bothered to change its name thereby allowing the less clear thinking public to believe that BAA still means British Airports Authority. Incidentally when Ferovial bought BAA it is rumoured that they also inherited grandfather rights of compulsory purchase of properties in the way of any development or expansion of their business. They are thought to be the ONLY foreign owned company operating in the UK that can compulsorily purchase UK citizen's property for demolition. CJB. |
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Claims by Spanish-owned BAA
On 26 Nov, 00:47, CJB wrote:
On Nov 23, 8:36 am, John B wrote: On 22 Nov, 21:13, CJB wrote: There's lies, damned lies, statistics and claims by Spanish-owned BAA about not wanting a third runway if it got a T5. HOWEVER the latest Govt. Consultation is for a new SHORT runway at Heathrow, and already (during the Climate Camp) BAA announced that what it really wants is a FULL-length runway. So the Govt. Consultation is a con. - it is for a short runway. A full-length runway will hugely increase pollution, noise and disruption; and will entail the demolition of Harmondsworth, Sipson, Harlington and Cranford - about 35,000 houses, 7 schools, and at least four historic churches. CJB. Your irrelevant mentioning of BA's foreign ownership proves that you're an ignorant bigot, and can therefore safely be ignored. Hello? Yes - BA is UK-owned. But I said BAA - which is owned by Spanish property development co. Ferovial - well actually two Spanish who are billionaires. They couldn't be bothered to change its name thereby allowing the less clear thinking public to believe that BAA still means British Airports Authority. Bother, that was a massively unhelpful typo on my part, sorry. The point I was trying to make was that it's entirely irrelevant that BAA is Spanish-owned - who cares whether the shareholders are British or Spanish pension funds? Incidentally when Ferovial bought BAA it is rumoured that they also inherited grandfather rights of compulsory purchase of properties in the way of any development or expansion of their business. They are thought to be the ONLY foreign owned company operating in the UK that can compulsorily purchase UK citizen's property for demolition. 1) rumoured by whom, thought by whom? 2) either it's acceptable for private companies to have compulsory purchase rights or it isn't, but that has bugger-all to do with nationality. Why the hell should it make a blind bit of difference whether the chap who turfs me out of my house to build an airport is called Dave or José? -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Claims by Spanish-owned BAA
John B wrote:
On 22 Nov, 23:14, JL wrote: Stupid Heathrow, building a new Terminal 5 but not having any extra capacity to operate flights with... What they should get rid of... are the Absolutely Stupid Short-Haul flights. Is it really that difficult to goto Euston to get a train to Manchester/KX for Leeds/St P for East Midlands?* If only there was a direct train to all those terminals (which would only be possible if they combined the HEX with the Circle Line). AIUI, the English domestic flights out of Heathrow are run for the benefit of connecting passengers - if you want to go from Ghana to Newcastle, the transfer within Heathrow (particularly when BA domestic and international are combined in the same terminal) is a lot easier than manhandling your luggage through KXSP (or Paddington and KXSP) in the morning peak. This is why routing HS2 via LHR would be a Very Good Idea. When you said that, did you know Arup were about to suggest exactly that? http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle2982649.ece |
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Claims by Spanish-owned BAA
On 5 Dec, 09:04, "John Rowland"
wrote: John B wrote: This is why routing HS2 via LHR would be a Very Good Idea. When you said that, did you know Arup were about to suggest exactly that? http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle2982649.ece I wish I could say yes - but no. It just seemed like a good idea (and I think it's been floated in previous HS2 studies). -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Claims by Spanish-owned BAA
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, John Rowland wrote:
John B wrote: On 22 Nov, 23:14, JL wrote: What they should get rid of... are the Absolutely Stupid Short-Haul flights. This is why routing HS2 via LHR would be a Very Good Idea. When you said that, did you know Arup were about to suggest exactly that? http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle2982649.ece Funnily enough, i was thinking about that myself last night. I was pondering a variety of high-speed routes on from London, and was thinking that one to the west, along the GWML, should go via Heathrow, so you could do Cardiff - Heathrow - London - Europe. Plus, with a route to the north along the WCML and a triangular junction around Old Oak Common, you could do The North - Heathrow, which you'd need to replace short-haul flights within the UK. It didn't occur to me to actually run the north-south route through Heathrow, which is a brilliant idea - simpler, allows trains from the North to serve both Heathrow and London (and Europe!), means you can do it before you build the western HSL. I wonder if they're thinking about a station actually at Heathrow, in which case i assume a new tunnel is called for, or a 'Heathrow International' station on the GWML, where it's a bugger to get to. How will they get from the GWML to the CML? Tunnel again? Hang on, this is the proposed Central Railway route, isn't it? IIRC, there's a plausible all-surface route, along the M25. Splendid. I'll be interested to see how they deal with going through (or under?) Birmingham. In my scheming, i was thinking of an HSL up the Midland mainline, coming off the WCML at Rugby and going to Leicester via a new route. I suppose you could still do this with the Chiltern route, but you'd want the link to run from Leamington Spa to Leicester (along the Fosse Way, nice and straight!). Or from Birmingham to Derby/Nottingham; that might make more sense either way. tom -- Every moloch that tends the great Machine down here in the darkness of the Lower Shafts has a number. If a moloch is destroyed or decommissioned, his number is given to another who is sent down from Above to take his empty place. This is the normal procedure. |
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Claims by Spanish-owned BAA
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, John Rowland wrote: John B wrote: On 22 Nov, 23:14, JL wrote: What they should get rid of... are the Absolutely Stupid Short-Haul flights. This is why routing HS2 via LHR would be a Very Good Idea. When you said that, did you know Arup were about to suggest exactly that? http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle2982649.ece Funnily enough, i was thinking about that myself last night. I was pondering a variety of high-speed routes on from London, and was thinking that one to the west, along the GWML, should go via Heathrow, so you could do Cardiff - Heathrow - London - Europe. Plus, with a route to the north along the WCML and a triangular junction around Old Oak Common, you could do The North - Heathrow, which you'd need to replace short-haul flights within the UK. The tracks are already there for Heathrow to the WCML (although new flyovers might be needed if you wanted to do it frequently). It didn't occur to me to actually run the north-south route through Heathrow, which is a brilliant idea - simpler, allows trains from the North to serve both Heathrow and London (and Europe!), means you can do it before you build the western HSL. I wonder if they're thinking about a station actually at Heathrow, in which case i assume a new tunnel is called for, or a 'Heathrow International' station on the GWML, where it's a bugger to get to. How will they get from the GWML to the CML? Tunnel again? Hang on, this is the proposed Central Railway route, isn't it? IIRC, there's a plausible all-surface route, along the M25. Splendid. I doubt if that route would be straight enough for high speed. |
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Claims by Spanish-owned BAA
On Dec 5, 3:09 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
In my scheming, i was thinking of an HSL up the Midland mainline, coming off the WCML at Rugby and going to Leicester via a new route. This could use the Great Central alignment - take it from Rugby then alongside the M1, past Lutterworth, joining up with the Nuneaton- Leicester line just north of Whetstone (the old trackbed has been built on by Whetstone, so it'd need to be a new alignment more closely following the M1). I don't know how the Rugby end works, or how it'll be affected by their new relief road. There's also another Rugby- Leicester alignment that criss-crosses that and could serve Magna Park, which might be a more interesting destination than Lutterworth. I suppose you could still do this with the Chiltern route, but you'd want the link to run from Leamington Spa to Leicester (along the Fosse Way, nice and straight!). Or from Birmingham to Derby/Nottingham; that might make more sense either way. -- Abi |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk