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.

"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it gave to the inquiry, the T5 permission will be withdrawn and the building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

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it gave to the inquiry, the T5 permission will be withdrawn and the building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.

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.

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

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

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.

"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

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.

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.