| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
On Jan 15, 10:23*am, wrote:
When you're in a bust you don't start spending billions on vanity projects. JM Keynes called. He'd like a word. Even in the boom years heathrow could cope with the passenger numbers so why build a new runway now when they're dropping?? Its like saying "oh , theres less traffic on the roads - lets build some bypasses!" Have you ever been to Heathrow? The suggestion that it's been able to cope with passenger numbers at *any* point in the last 25 years is, erm, counter-intuitive. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
On Jan 15, 3:45*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
You may not have noticed the number of layoffs in banking and retail, and the reduction of consumer spending (shops in Oxford St need customers as well as staff). So the tube is now nice and relaxed then in the rush hour? Everyone can get a seat , there are no packed platforms and the trains all run on time? That would be a first. Heathrow is far from being essential and isn't overloaded anyway. It's severely overloaded, and "essential" for UK plc's international business ambitions. Yeah right. We keep hearing that , I'd love to see some figures and explanations of how a single runway is suddenly going to rescue our economy. Southern briitain is already the biggest airport hub in the whole of europe so if we can't sort the economy out based on that then this will do naff all. *The amount of economic activity provided to the economy by air travel *is minimal... Even most business can be done using phone or email. *From these remarks I can see you are completely out of touch with reality. Although large volumes of "grunt trading" can be done hands-off, you can generally only set up the initial relationships in person. I'm not saying theres *no* business travel, but the amount of essential business travel is minute compared to the overall traffic flows at heathrow. When you turn up at the airport how many people do you see in suits compared to jeans and t-shirts with optional kids in tow? Ok , some are off in first or business class lounges but thats a small minority compared to economy. Once upon a time the answer was a third airport - which ended up at Stansted. You may have noticed that Stansted has expansion plans too. Right , so the expansion that was Stansted didn't work so now we need yet more. Tell me, where does it stop? You're not good with analogies are you. Hoon has just announced more roadbuilding. Thats just road widening , not new roads. These plans have been on the cards for ages and would probably have happened bust or not. Also roads are a lot more important than airports to the economy. B2003 |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
On Jan 15, 3:45*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 03:44:34 on Thu, 15 Jan 2009, remarked: Heathrow is far from being essential and isn't overloaded anyway. It's severely overloaded, and "essential" for UK plc's international business ambitions. Is it really? Please name all the companies deserting the UK because their CEOs have to wait around a bit at Heathrow. In fact, just one will do. It seems the pro camp continually switches its argument between the importance of transit traffic (a blinkered obsession with competition with Frankfurt and Schiphol) and the collapse of UK business if the runway doesn't happen. As for the growth forecasts, a better example of a self-fulfilling prophecy is hard to imagine now, with no pricing strategy to lock-in the benefits, such as they are, of additional capacity. Then there's the small issue of the net present value of carbon emissions. If the 2003 White Paper's ambitions are realised in full, the cost will be minus £18bn, excluding additional radiative forcing [1]. Wonderful for UK Plc, coming on top of the perverse subsidies for aviation resulting from a lack of taxation on fuel and tickets. Wasn't the Climate Change Act enacted last year too? Which sectors are expected to make cuts of 80% to allow aviation's to increase? Bloody hell, our only hope is the Tories getting in and sticking to their pledges. [1] Environmental Audit Committee (2003): Budget 2003 and Aviation. |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
On 15 Jan, 16:29, "Peter Masson" wrote: (snip) I really can't see how a HSL from St Pancras, or more likely Euston as that's the only obvious space for the terminus, via Heathrow, will work. It would have to be in tunnel at least pretty well all the way to Heathrow, and with a stop there is only going to be marginally quicker to the West Midlands than going at 125 mph down the WCML. The Greengauge proposals (head out of London via Northolt Junction, and follow the general alignment of the Chiltern Line/M40, serving Heathrow with a branch, joining the main HSL in the vicinity of Denham) seem to me to be more rational. Quite - the basic fact that is that none of these places fall neatly in a straight line. No spin can change that. I suppose Heathrow could be a branch off a more direct Brum to London HS2 line, perhaps as a simple terminus. Obvious this would mean separate train services would need to run from either Heathrow or Euston to and from points north. If the CTRL had been built via a southern route then this Heathrow branch could have been extended on to meet the CTRL, perhaps in a subterranean junction somewhere under south London. This could have provided for through international services via Heathrow to the continent and beyond. But it wasn't so it can't! |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
wrote in message
On Jan 15, 3:45 pm, Roland Perry wrote: From these remarks I can see you are completely out of touch with reality. Although large volumes of "grunt trading" can be done hands-off, you can generally only set up the initial relationships in person. I'm not saying theres *no* business travel, but the amount of essential business travel is minute compared to the overall traffic flows at heathrow. When you turn up at the airport how many people do you see in suits compared to jeans and t-shirts with optional kids in tow? Ok , some are off in first or business class lounges but thats a small minority compared to economy. Most C, J and F class pax check-in online, travel with little luggage and go straight to the lounge, so they're not visible for long (though that can be a bit of hike in LHR T5, as you have to come down and then go up again after going through security -- they don't want you to bypass the shops). And most no longer wear suits to fly. And, of course, many/most Y class LHR pax are also travelling on business, specially on the European routes (leisure pax take a more convenient, cheaper flight from their local airport). You don't see many families in LHR, except those travelling on long-haul routes which only fly from Heathrow. |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
In message , at 16:34:39 on
Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Recliner remarked: I doubt that the current St P has enough domestic platforms (on either side) to be the London Terminus for the high speed link to the north. Also, are they long enough? Not enough of them, and they are approx 10 carriages long - is that sufficient? I would have thought new high speed trains would be longer than that (even the Pendos will soon be 11 cars long). It would be awkward if the Javelins were longer. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
|
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
In message
, at 09:20:48 on Thu, 15 Jan 2009, EE507 remarked: Heathrow is far from being essential and isn't overloaded anyway. It's severely overloaded, and "essential" for UK plc's international business ambitions. Is it really? Please name all the companies deserting the UK because their CEOs have to wait around a bit at Heathrow. Name those who will do the same if we cancel Crossrail. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
In message , at 16:34:39 on Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Recliner remarked: I doubt that the current St P has enough domestic platforms (on either side) to be the London Terminus for the high speed link to the north. Also, are they long enough? Not enough of them, and they are approx 10 carriages long - is that sufficient? I would have thought new high speed trains would be longer than that (even the Pendos will soon be 11 cars long). It would be awkward if the Javelins were longer. The Class 395 trains are six cars long, but I don't know if they'll be running doubled up for some services. If so, I assume the Kent platforms can handle 12 trains. |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
In message , at 18:02:32 on
Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Recliner remarked: The Class 395 trains are six cars long, but I don't know if they'll be running doubled up for some services. If so, I assume the Kent platforms can handle 12 trains. I think that needs verifying, as I don't think there's much room left at the end of the similar EMT platforms when there's 4+5 car Meridian parked there. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
On Jan 15, 5:51*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:20:48 on Thu, 15 Jan 2009, EE507 remarked: Heathrow is far from being essential and isn't overloaded anyway. It's severely overloaded, and "essential" for UK plc's international business ambitions. Is it really? Please name all the companies deserting the UK because their CEOs have to wait around a bit at Heathrow. Name those who will do the same if we cancel Crossrail. Who's claiming that? Not me. I do know that it can be physically impossible to board the Hammersmith & City at Paddington in the morning peak though. It's not good for UK Plc when the labour market can't get to work... Can we now return to the subject in hand, starting with wild claims relating to the economic benefits of aviation and the other points you snipped? |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
In message
, at 10:50:02 on Thu, 15 Jan 2009, EE507 remarked: Heathrow is far from being essential and isn't overloaded anyway. It's severely overloaded, and "essential" for UK plc's international business ambitions. Is it really? Please name all the companies deserting the UK because their CEOs have to wait around a bit at Heathrow. Name those who will do the same if we cancel Crossrail. Who's claiming that? I was merely comparing the companies who would desert the UK if Heathrow wasn't expanded, with those of a similar view regarding Crossrail. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:21:53 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote: Crossrail is not an 'express' service. Its services are all stations stoppers from the airport, which is why it takes over Connect, not HEx. Unless it is to have overtaking loops of course... And unless they find that nobody wants to use HEx any more, because Crossrail will go where people want, not Paddington. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:00:51 -0000, "Peter Masson"
wrote: I envisage an underground terminus, possibly double ended, with one entrance from the concourse at St Pancras (near the access to the Thameslink platforms, and another with an entrance from Euston (may need a travelator). Why St P? Most people don't want to go there either. Crossrail is about as ideal a service to be joined to it as you can get. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:09:54 -0800 (PST), John B
wrote: Have you ever been to Heathrow? The suggestion that it's been able to cope with passenger numbers at *any* point in the last 25 years is, erm, counter-intuitive. IMO, the best thing to do with LHR would be to set a maximum throughput of about 30% lower than it currently is. International transfer business doesn't provide a lot to the UK economy. Let them change at CDG or Schiphol instead. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
In message , at 20:16:36 on Thu,
15 Jan 2009, Neil Williams remarked: Why St P? For connections to you-rope? -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
In message , at 20:18:58 on Thu,
15 Jan 2009, Neil Williams remarked: International transfer business doesn't provide a lot to the UK economy. It "tops up" the long haul flights that wouldn't have been economic to run otherwise. So the transfer passengers are assisting UK residents ability to fly almost anywhere in the world daily. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:25:00 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: For connections to you-rope? I doubt it. Why fly to Thiefrow and take a train to Paris/Bruxelles when you could fly direct? Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
In message , at 20:33:39 on Thu,
15 Jan 2009, Neil Williams remarked: For connections to you-rope? I doubt it. Why fly to Thiefrow and take a train to Paris/Bruxelles when you could fly direct? Depends where you are starting from. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
On 15 Jan, 18:06, Roland Perry wrote:
I think that needs verifying, as I don't think there's much room left at the end of the similar EMT platforms when there's 4+5 car Meridian parked there. The 395's carriages are shorter: (6+6)* 20m = 240m (5+4)* 23m = 207 m We also know a 5+5 Meridian fits, which is 230m. The Kent platforms do extend a bit further north than the MML ones, though they start a little further north also. I think both sets have a usable length of at least 250m, possibly 260m, although I don't have a detailed enough diagram handy to say for sure. U |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 20:16:36 on Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Neil Williams remarked: Why St P? For connections to you-rope? Or better still, direct services that don't actually stop at St P. tim |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 20:18:58 on Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Neil Williams remarked: International transfer business doesn't provide a lot to the UK economy. It "tops up" the long haul flights that wouldn't have been economic to run otherwise. So the transfer passengers are assisting UK residents ability to fly almost anywhere in the world daily. I don't buy this arguement. Most of the places that business people want to fly to, that are currently served from LHR, would have have more than enough frequency if they were supported by the UK demand alone. I accept that there are one or two places (like say, Nairobi) that need connecting pax but most don't. Claiming that we need 10 flights a day to FRA so that Germans can connect onto flights to NYC (or Americans in the reverse direction) is a nonsense, yet because of the way that tickets are sold, I bet quite a few do. Personally, I don't believe that we should be encouraging this traffic. tim |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
On Jan 15, 9:22*pm, "tim....." wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 20:18:58 on Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Neil Williams remarked: International transfer business doesn't provide a lot to the UK economy. It "tops up" the long haul flights that wouldn't have been economic to run otherwise. So the transfer passengers are assisting UK residents ability to fly almost anywhere in the world daily. I don't buy this arguement. Most of the places that business people want to fly to, that are currently served from LHR, would have have more than enough frequency if they were supported by the UK demand alone. *I accept that there are one or two places (like say, Nairobi) that need connecting pax but most don't. I'm flying to Hyderabad next month on a direct BA flight (the same one I went on in December). When I went last time, at least 25% of the passengers I saw were transfer passengers - mostly from the US. Most places aren't New York... Claiming that we need 10 flights a day to FRA so that Germans can connect onto flights to NYC (or Americans in the reverse direction) is a nonsense, yet because of the way that tickets are sold, I bet quite a few do. Indeed, and if ~all the transfer pax at LHR were doing FRA-LHR-JFK, then it'd be pretty much non-beneficial for the rest of us. But the average transfer journey AFAICT looks a lot more like Vancouver- Hyderabad than Frankfurt-New York. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:11:01 -0000, "tim....."
wrote: "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 20:16:36 on Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Neil Williams remarked: Why St P? For connections to you-rope? Or better still, direct services that don't actually stop at St P. You don't understand the rules of the game. Only London is allowed to have direct links to the rest of the world. |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
|
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
On 16 Jan, 00:41, wrote: In article , (Recliner) wrote: Most C, J and F class pax check-in online, travel with little luggage and go straight to the lounge, so they're not visible for long (though that can be a bit of hike in LHR T5, as you have to come down and then go up again after going through security -- they don't want you to bypass the shops). And most no longer wear suits to fly. And, of course, many/most Y class LHR pax are also travelling on business, specially on the European routes (leisure pax take a more convenient, cheaper flight from their local airport). You don't see many families in LHR, except those travelling on long-haul routes which only fly from Heathrow. Huh? That would be why my family travelled out and in through Heathrow at Christmas then? Agreed - Recliner's picture of a family-free Heathrow is not one I recognise either. |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
In message , at 21:22:31 on Thu, 15
Jan 2009, tim..... remarked: International transfer business doesn't provide a lot to the UK economy. It "tops up" the long haul flights that wouldn't have been economic to run otherwise. So the transfer passengers are assisting UK residents ability to fly almost anywhere in the world daily. I don't buy this arguement. Most of the places that business people want to fly to, that are currently served from LHR, would have have more than enough frequency if they were supported by the UK demand alone. I accept that there are one or two places (like say, Nairobi) that need connecting pax but most don't. I disagree. It's not hard to find destinations with less than one flight a day (ie 3 or 4 per week), or where it's clear that a service can only be supported from major hub cities (with transfer passengers feeding in). A recent example is Hyderabad (India's Silicon Valley) where until the end of last year the only direct flights from Europe were one a day from AMS and FRA, but BA has now added a daily flight from LHR. Claiming that we need 10 flights a day to FRA so that Germans can connect onto flights to NYC (or Americans in the reverse direction) is a nonsense, yet because of the way that tickets are sold, I bet quite a few do. The issue here isn't flights to popular destinations like NYC (where you can also fly to from Manchester, as well as dozens of direct flights already from LHR). Obviously, the more places are served direct from London, the less people have to hop over to FRA if that's the only place with an onward service. And those direct flights from London need to be supported by transit passengers from elsewhere in Europe (that don't have their own direct flights). -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
tim..... wrote:
When you're in a bust you don't start spending billions on vanity projects. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The one (and only) good thing about this decision, is that it isn't a decision to spend their (aka our) money, but to allow a PLC to spend its money. If there is no business case for the plan, the banks wont lend BAA the funds. tim but hang on i thought WE owned the banks (the taxpayers one and all have given the banks[except Barclays who are in bed with mid eastern investors] copious amounts of ackers to prevent their demise |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:41:45 +0000, dave hill wrote
The one (and only) good thing about this decision, is that it isn't a decision to spend their (aka our) money, but to allow a PLC to spend its money. If there is no business case for the plan, the banks wont lend BAA the funds. but hang on i thought WE owned the banks No, we have a stake in the banks. That's a VERY different thing to owning them |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, EE507 wrote:
Then there's the small issue of the net present value of carbon emissions. If the 2003 White Paper's ambitions are realised in full, the cost will be minus £18bn, excluding additional radiative forcing [1]. Wonderful for UK Plc, coming on top of the perverse subsidies for aviation resulting from a lack of taxation on fuel and tickets. Wasn't the Climate Change Act enacted last year too? Which sectors are expected to make cuts of 80% to allow aviation's to increase? Bloody hell, our only hope is the Tories getting in and sticking to their pledges. So basically, we're ****ed, then? tom -- Oh, and sometimes in order to survive you have to drink the irradiated water from an old toilet. -- Jon, on Fallout |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
"Stimpy" wrote
but hang on i thought WE owned the banks No, we have a stake in the banks. That's a VERY different thing to owning them. Very different indeed. basically, we've assumed their debts in exchange for a large share, which interestingly gives the taxpayer what politicians call 'bugger all' control. And our leaders have chosen not to exercise what little control they have, anyway. Not what I'd call a good deal, but nobody consulted me - they took advice from merchant bankers, and most of them were the ones responsible for the mess. That's democracy, apparently ;o) -- Andrew |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
On 16 Jan, 08:36, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 21:22:31 on Thu, 15 Jan 2009, tim..... remarked: International transfer business doesn't provide a lot to the UK economy. It "tops up" the long haul flights that wouldn't have been economic to run otherwise. So the transfer passengers are assisting UK residents ability to fly almost anywhere in the world daily. I don't buy this argument. Most of the places that business people want to fly to, that are currently served from LHR, would have have more than enough frequency if they were supported by the UK demand alone. *I accept that there are one or two places (like say, Nairobi) that need connecting pax but most don't. I disagree. It's not hard to find destinations with less than one flight a day (ie 3 or 4 per week), or where it's clear that a service can only be supported from major hub cities (with transfer passengers feeding in). A recent example is Hyderabad (India's Silicon Valley) where until the end of last year the only direct flights from Europe were one a day from AMS and FRA, but BA has now added a daily flight from LHR. Claiming that we need 10 flights a day to FRA so that Germans can connect onto flights to NYC (or Americans in the reverse direction) is a nonsense, yet because of the way that tickets are sold, I bet quite a few do. The issue here isn't flights to popular destinations like NYC (where you can also fly to from Manchester, as well as dozens of direct flights already from LHR). Obviously, the more places are served direct from London, the less people have to hop over to FRA if that's the only place with an onward service. And those direct flights from London need to be supported by transit passengers from elsewhere in Europe (that don't have their own direct flights). This is ultimately what it's all about, is it not? Basically the idea is that London and hence Britain benefit from being the crossroads to anywhere (or at least the air travel equivalent of such!). (Though I suppose to an extent there is a separate but connected argument of there being a critical mass of passengers from the UK using Heathrow as opposed to flying direct from a regional airport - of course those regional airports generally don't offer flights to more obscure destinations, but the critical mass of passengers using LHR may well mean that the frequency of flights to less-obscure destinations is greater.) I certainly understand this transfer passenger argument and by no means do I discount it, but I guess essentially my take on it is a bit different - which is basically ok, so London will lose (or never get in the first place) some direct flights to obscurer destinations in the world, but to what extent does that matter? How badly would this really affect business in Britain? I wouldn't suggest it would have no effect, but I can't help but think that the supposed ill-effects on British business are simply overblown. What's more I would further put forward the argument that there is a quality-of-life versus (big) business calculus in play here, and if some of these travellers to obscurer destinations were not in fact to make that trip at all (as opposed to making it via a transfer as AMS, CDG or wherever) then there is also a environmental effects versus (big) business calculus in play as well. Incidentally the quality-of-life argument basically revolves around how many people would be affected by aircraft noise (the far broader quality-of-life relating to environmental damage from CO2 emission argument is really part of the latter calculus concerning environmental effects), and also by the levelling of a town to make way for the runway. There are some quite different takes on this - John B's take in a previous discussion was basically that only a relatively small number of people are affected by this, whilst I essentially fundamentally disagreed with this and think the noise has a far wider effect over a lot of London and western Home Counties (if you really want you can read what we both had to say in this recent uk.r thread [1]). Of course I could be wrong. I guess at least part of the counter argument runs like this - Britain is just a small island in northern Europe which essentially has to survive and has prospered on it's wits. It is significantly helped in this regard by the fact that English is a 'world language' (or should that be pure accident of English being a world language?!), but it has no intrinsic right to find itself to the forefront of world affairs and business. In order to maintain and grow on its position and success it has to stay on the ball and ensure that it remains in the game - securing Heathrow as one of the major crossroads of the world means that London and Britain benefit from this. As I said above, I'm simply not entirely convinced by this argument. For example, everyone said Frankfurt would become the European centre of finance after the Euro was established and London would be left out in the cold - this didn't happen (and instead it was many fine British minds that helped to devise house of cards style financial instruments but we'll leave that point well aside!). That said, there are some speculating that Frankfurt the understudy is waiting in the wings ready to pounce on London as soon as the global economy gets back on the up, and perhaps better air connections to Frankfurt would help in this regard when for example a company is choosing where to locate. (A further argument some might come out with is something like 'whatever', let Frankfurt play host to the financial services circus instead - but then we'd kind of need to work out what we could do to replace that sector in Britain, though of course in many ways perhaps we need to be looking at being good at doing some other sorts of stuff anyway!) What happens at Heathrow does rather seem to depend upon who wins the next general election - and I dare say the present government's decision to press ahead on the third runway may be a contributory factor in them not being re-elected - though of course how big the 'Heathrow factor' will be in the eyes of the electorate remains to be seen - will it just be a very local issue, or will it be a factor for a rather larger number of voters. This last question can basically be seen as a variant on the disagreement that John B and I had over how will be affected by the expansion of Heathrow - he might say that it's only really a niche issue, I would respond by saying it's a rather wider concern than that. (Though I don't really want to put words into John's mouth as he's perfectly capable of speaking for himself!) ----- [1] "Gatwick second runway again" - uk.r thread from December '08: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....06bd255bb0d0e/ |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
In message
, at 08:06:21 on Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Mizter T remarked: The issue here isn't flights to popular destinations like NYC (where you can also fly to from Manchester, as well as dozens of direct flights already from LHR). Obviously, the more places are served direct from London, the less people have to hop over to FRA if that's the only place with an onward service. And those direct flights from London need to be supported by transit passengers from elsewhere in Europe (that don't have their own direct flights). This is ultimately what it's all about, is it not? Basically the idea is that London and hence Britain benefit from being the crossroads to anywhere (or at least the air travel equivalent of such!). Just like people who happen to live in the Kings Cross area benefit from the "rail station to Europe" on their doorstep - and there aren't enough of them to justify it without lots of other people travelling to Stp/Kings Cross to change trains. (Though I suppose to an extent there is a separate but connected argument of there being a critical mass of passengers from the UK using Heathrow as opposed to flying direct from a regional airport - of course those regional airports generally don't offer flights to more obscure destinations, but the critical mass of passengers using LHR may well mean that the frequency of flights to less-obscure destinations is greater.) Generally, we are talking about a different set of destinations from the regional airports - holiday places; whereas Heathrow has more of the business destinations. You can see a lot of this in the seasonality of the schedules. I haven't looked recently, but the only place with anything like 365 day service to Lisbon 2 years ago was London, plus some regional airports only in the summer. I certainly understand this transfer passenger argument and by no means do I discount it, but I guess essentially my take on it is a bit different - which is basically ok, so London will lose (or never get in the first place) some direct flights to obscurer destinations in the world, but to what extent does that matter? How badly would this really affect business in Britain? I wouldn't suggest it would have no effect, but I can't help but think that the supposed ill-effects on British business are simply overblown. You'd be surprised how disruptive it is to a business schedule to discover you need to go somewhere with flights only 3 or 4 days a week. Especially if getting to a Monday meeting means leaving on Saturday! Or alternatively doing what people here seem to hate, taking a hop via AMS, CDG or FRA instead. What's more I would further put forward the argument that there is a quality-of-life versus (big) business calculus in play here, and if some of these travellers to obscurer destinations were not in fact to make that trip at all (as opposed to making it via a transfer as AMS, CDG or wherever) then there is also a environmental effects versus (big) business calculus in play as well. Few people fly anywhere on business unless they *have* to - that's my experience anyway. It gets pretty boring pretty quickly, and costs a lot of money as well. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
On Jan 16, 1:40*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, EE507 wrote: Then there's the small issue of the net present value of carbon emissions. If the 2003 White Paper's ambitions are realised in full, the cost will be minus £18bn, excluding additional radiative forcing [1]. Wonderful for UK Plc, coming on top of the perverse subsidies for aviation resulting from a lack of taxation on fuel and tickets. Wasn't the Climate Change Act enacted last year too? Which sectors are expected to make cuts of 80% to allow aviation's to increase? Bloody hell, our only hope is the Tories getting in and sticking to their pledges. So basically, we're ****ed, then? tom Well, quite. |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:00:11 +0000, Andrew Heenan wrote
"Stimpy" wrote but hang on i thought WE owned the banks No, we have a stake in the banks. That's a VERY different thing to owning them. Very different indeed. basically, we've assumed their debts in exchange for a large share, which interestingly gives the taxpayer what politicians call 'bugger all' control. And our leaders have chosen not to exercise what little control they have, anyway. Not what I'd call a good deal, but nobody consulted me - they took advice from merchant bankers, and most of them were the ones responsible for the mess. That's democracy, apparently ;o) My thoughts exactly |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
Stimpy wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:41:45 +0000, dave hill wrote The one (and only) good thing about this decision, is that it isn't a decision to spend their (aka our) money, but to allow a PLC to spend its money. If there is no business case for the plan, the banks wont lend BAA the funds. but hang on i thought WE owned the banks No, we have a stake in the banks. That's a VERY different thing to owning them well according to the BBC we (government) have about a 60% stake in Royal Bank of Scotland that would mean on the Stock market that there would have to be a bid for the whole schee bang IF it was just another company building up a stake of that magnitude And it looks as though more might be needed - where all this money is coming from god knows |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
"Recliner" wrote The Class 395 trains are six cars long, but I don't know if they'll be running doubled up for some services. If so, I assume the Kent platforms can handle 12 trains. AIUI the peak trains will be 12 cars, apart from the Rochester - St Pancras service which will be a single unit because of short platforms. The trains via Ashford will consist of separate portions from Thanet via Canterbury West and Dover, joining at Ashford. Peter |
Heathrow third runway to get the go ahead
"Neil Williams" wrote Why St P? Most people don't want to go there either. Crossrail is about as ideal a service to be joined to it as you can get. We had an earlier thread about the usefulness of HEx once Crossrail starts. ISTM that an HEx terminus at Paddington will lose a lot of passengers to Crossrail, and I was considering another practical terminus for HEx. Even with HS2 there'll be a lot of passengers into Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross, a not insignificant proportion of whom will want to get to Heathrow. Peter |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:19 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk