 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Destinations USA and CanadaEuropeAustralia and NZAsiaLatin AmericaCaribbean IslandsAfricaTravel Types Air TravelCruisesRV Travel |
Travel Forum / Travel Types / Air Travel / July 2008Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow From: "hacan-news-admin@hacan.org.uk" <hacan-news-admin@hacan.org.uk> To: hacan-news@hacan.org.uk Dear All, We have just learnt that Panorama will be devoting its programme on Monday (7th July) to Heathrow expansion. John Stewart > Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > We have just learnt that Panorama will be devoting its programme on > Monday (7th July) to Heathrow expansion. One can only hope they are unbiased and show the vast benefits it will bring rather than just pandering to the NIMBYs. > > Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > One can only hope they are unbiased and show the vast benefits it will bring > rather than just pandering to the NIMBYs. Vast benefits to whom? What about the vast noise and pollution, waste of precious resources and harm to the environment? -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net Travel broadens the damage. >> > Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Vast benefits to whom? To the millions of people who travel through Heathrow every year.  Signature"Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one." [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk] >>> > Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > To the millions of people who travel through Heathrow every year. I pass through Heathrow on a regular basis. It's hell on earth. Everyone who flies hates the place It's dirty, expensive, too big, the security staff are rude, they loose your luggage and in busy times all sort of systems just break down. Try going through immigration on a Bank Holiday weekend, you too can spend an hour in a queue for no very good reason. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>>> > Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Try going through immigration on a Bank Holiday weekend, you too can > spend an hour in a queue for no very good reason. have you been to any American airports recently? They make Heathrow seem like a relaxing holiday. I've experienced Atlanta, Pittsburgh and Cinncinnati recently. All, without a shadow of a doubt, staffed by the rudest people I've ever come across at airports, and I've been to many worldwide. Mike P >>>>> > Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > rudest people I've ever come across at airports, and I've been to many > worldwide. Miami International ... now there IS the arsehole of the World :o( > I pass through Heathrow on a regular basis. > > It's hell on earth. > > Everyone who flies hates the place Hence the need for expansion, they should also open up more late night slots to spread demand. There isn't enough investment as there isn't the capacity for expansion thus for additional profits. >> I pass through Heathrow on a regular basis. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > slots to spread demand. There isn't enough investment as there isn't the > capacity for expansion thus for additional profits. It's too big already. The only people who want expansion there are the people who own it, because they want to make more money because of 'economies of scale'. What they should do is have more of the provincial airports hosting international long haul flights. They have woefully underused customs and immigration facilities. Last year I flew from Newcastle to the Middle East and it was a completely different experience from Heathrow, with polite efficient staff, clean uncluttered waiting areas and plenty of customs and immigration people (on the return leg) who do nothing very much most of the time. Heathrow is a mess and if it gets any bigger it'll just be messier and more unpleasant. The road and rail links are creaking under the weight of the traffic already. A new runway will mean vast disruption as even more road links are put in. If London needs more capacity, and I am starting to doubt it, I think Stanstead hosting far more scheduled flights is the solution rather than the ghastly mess that is Heathrow. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > It's too big already. Yet dosn't have the capacity to handel the number of people and goods that want to use it, that dosn't sound like to big to me. > The only people who want expansion there are the people who own it, because > they want to make more money because of 'economies of scale'. I don't own it yet think the expansion is a good thing. >> It's too big already. > > Yet dosn't have the capacity to handel the number of people and goods > that want to use it, that dosn't sound like to big to me. Mere size is not a guide to efficiency. >> The only people who want expansion there are the people who own it, >> because they want to make more money because of 'economies of scale'. > > I don't own it yet think the expansion is a good thing. Why, so that they can make less use of more space? BAA need to make better use of what they've got already before demolishing ancient villages. >>> It's too big already. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Why, so that they can make less use of more space? BAA need to make better > use of what they've got already before demolishing ancient villages. Depends what you mean by "better use". From BAA's PoV, that means making more money. There was an interesting article in The Economist recently. It made the claim that 1/3 of the people who use Heathrow merely do so to change planes. They never get out of the airport, so make no contribution to the UK's economy (apart from increasing Ferrovial's profits). The only benefit that brits get from having Heathrow as large as it is, is the increased number of destinations available without changing planes. Personally, that's something I'd willingly give up in exchange for not being regularly woken at 4:45 in the morning when the first flight of the day leaves. Signature. Pete Lynch I have learned from my mistakes and . Marlow ... I am sure I can repeat them exactly . www.pete-lynch.com --- Peter Cooke. >There was an interesting article in The Economist recently. It >made the claim that 1/3 of the people who use Heathrow merely do so to >change planes. They never get out of the airport, so make no contribution >to the UK's economy (apart from increasing Ferrovial's profits). I'm not a Heathrow fan, but that claim is simply ludicrous. Transit passengers need attending to by many airport staff, baggage handlers and crew on their planes. Not to mention the money they spend while waiting. SignatureRoland Perry >>There was an interesting article in The Economist recently. It >>made the claim that 1/3 of the people who use Heathrow merely do so to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > passengers need attending to by many airport staff, baggage handlers and > crew on their planes. Not to mention the money they spend while waiting. True, but LHR's limited by the number of flights in/out, not by the number of burger-flippers and plastic-piggies they can employ. If transit passengers were sent elsewhere, to an airport with more capacity, then the slots freed up would bring in people who spent more money either as tourists or on business. They'd still need the same number of low-paid ancillary staff (for the same number of passengers - natch) but by catering to people who actually want to come to Britain, rather than merely pass through it, the whole economy - at least in the S.E. would benefit. Signature. Pete Lynch I have learned from my mistakes and . Marlow ... I am sure I can repeat them exactly . www.pete-lynch.com --- Peter Cooke. >>>There was an interesting article in The Economist recently. It >>>made the claim that 1/3 of the people who use Heathrow merely do so to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >True, but LHR's limited by the number of flights in/out, not by the >number of burger-flippers and plastic-piggies they can employ. So you really think that if 1/3 of the passengers disappeared overnight the shortfall would be filled? >If transit passengers were sent elsewhere, to an airport with more >capacity, But that's exactly backwards. Transit passengers need an airport with a good choice of onward flights. Have them all arriving at (say) Birmingham, and that choice is vastly reduced. So they'll transit in a different country. What you actually need to do is persuade as many as possible of the *non* transit passengers to use whichever other airport might serve their required destination. > then the slots freed up would bring in people who spent more money >either as tourists or on business. Why do they spend money - they are trying to leave the place as quickly as possible. >They'd still need the same number of low-paid ancillary staff (for the >same number of passengers - natch) but by catering to people who >actually want to come to Britain, rather than merely pass through it, >the whole economy - at least in the S.E. would benefit. A lot of those transit passengers are actually heading for domestic locations! (For example 75% of the people on BA's Manchester flights). SignatureRoland Perry >>If transit passengers were sent elsewhere, to an airport with more >>capacity, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Birmingham, and that choice is vastly reduced. So they'll transit in a > different country. Yes, have them use a different country. I forget the numbers, but doesn't Schipol have 4 or 5 runways, and CDG a similar number. How about having people from southern europe transiting via. Madrid? Makes more sense than having them come through London for their final (international) destinations.. > What you actually need to do is persuade as many as possible of the > *non* transit passengers to use whichever other airport might serve [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why do they spend money - they are trying to leave the place as quickly > as possible. Eh? A person flying from (say) Istanbul to New York, via London will buy a burger and chips while waiting for their onward flight. If that passenger capacity was available to a tourist (or business person) instead, they'd spend money on a hotel, meals out, sightseeing etc. >>They'd still need the same number of low-paid ancillary staff (for the >>same number of passengers - natch) but by catering to people who [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A lot of those transit passengers are actually heading for domestic > locations! (For example 75% of the people on BA's Manchester flights). Doesn't matter. If you're going from Birmingham to (e.g.) Cape Town, or vice-versa it makes no difference to you if you change planes at LHR or CDG. I.e. Birmingham to London to Cape Town, rather than Birmingham to Paris to Cape Town. However if you change at Heathrow, you're using up capacity that denies a visitor (not a transit passsenger) a flight into London. Signature. Pete Lynch I have learned from my mistakes and . Marlow ... I am sure I can repeat them exactly . www.pete-lynch.com --- Peter Cooke. >>>If transit passengers were sent elsewhere, to an airport with more >>>capacity, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Yes, have them use a different country. Many people make a point of trying to avoid LHR. >I forget the numbers, but doesn't Schipol have 4 or 5 runways, and CDG >a similar number. Schiphol has five main ones, but they only use about three at a time (because they criss-cross). CDG is really two airports on the same site, with T1 and T3 each having one main and one secondary (parallel) runway. >How about having people >from southern europe transiting via. Madrid? Makes more sense than having >them come through London for their final (international) destinations.. But Madrid doesn't have as many longhaul destinations, and is therefore less attractive. So people put up with LHR. >> What you actually need to do is persuade as many as possible of the >> *non* transit passengers to use whichever other airport might serve [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >capacity was available to a tourist (or business person) instead, they'd >spend money on a hotel, meals out, sightseeing etc. I agree, but that assumes that more people will fly to the UK on business/holiday if there was more capacity at Heathrow. I really don't see that being the main determining factor. >>>They'd still need the same number of low-paid ancillary staff (for the >>>same number of passengers - natch) but by catering to people who [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >CDG. I.e. Birmingham to London to Cape Town, rather than Birmingham to >Paris to Cape Town. It makes a big difference to BA. If you change at LHR you are much more likely to make that long haul flight on BA, than if you changed at CDG (Air France etc). >However if you change at Heathrow, you're using up capacity that denies >a visitor (not a transit passsenger) a flight into London. I don't agree with that assumption. SignatureRoland Perry >Doesn't matter. If you're going from Birmingham to (e.g.) Cape Town, or vice-versa >it makes no difference to you if you change planes at LHR or CDG. I.e. Birmingham >to London to Cape Town, rather than Birmingham to Paris to Cape Town. However >if you change at Heathrow, you're using up capacity that denies a visitor >(not a transit passsenger) a flight into London. If you have them transit in another country they are very likely to be using a non British airline, hence revenue lost to a British company. Like wise the passenger handling fee is lost to BAA. While I don't doubt some of those transit passengers would be replaced by staying passengers it would take some considerable time to replace 22 million transit passengers a year. -- Lansbury (Retired) www.uk-air.net FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup >> Doesn't matter. If you're going from Birmingham to (e.g.) Cape Town, >> or vice-versa it makes no difference to you if you change planes at [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > replaced by staying passengers it would take some considerable time > to replace 22 million transit passengers a year. Whilst there would be no income from them, there would also be no expenditure to provide for them. Sometime one can be better of by not accepting business (up to a point of course). >>Doesn't matter. If you're going from Birmingham to (e.g.) Cape Town, or >>vice-versa [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > million > transit passengers a year. The problem that I have with the Heathrow expansion plan is the expectation that it is going to be funded by putting up fees to pay for it, before (and whilst) it is built. ISTM that either the expansion is a commercial venture or it is strategically necessity (or some combination thereof). If it is claimed to be a commercial venture then it should be paid for in the same way that every other commercial venture is paid for - by borrowing money in the markets and repaying that money out of the extra fees that the new facility gain (or not paying if that extra business doesn't materialise). Tesco don't put up their prices in Little Piddleton to pay for the building of a new, bigger, store in Greater Piddleton, so why should BAA? OTOH, if it is claimed to be a strategic necessity then ISTM that transfer pax are of little benefit to the bulk of GB PLC and should be disregarded when assessing the strategic need. Tim >OTOH, if it is claimed to be a strategic necessity then ISTM that transfer >pax are of little benefit to the bulk of GB PLC and should be disregarded >when assessing the strategic need. Transfer passengers are of benefit (ignoring the money they spend waiting for a plane) because a significant number have transferred from a UK domestic destination, and would otherwise have changed planes at Schiphol, CDG, or even New York, to get to their eventual destination. And *all* the transfer passengers whether domestic or from further afield help maintain the critical mass of flights especially direct ones to slightly less popular destinations. I can remember when it was only possible to fly direct to Seattle three times a week, for example, even from Heathrow. SignatureRoland Perry >>OTOH, if it is claimed to be a strategic necessity then ISTM that transfer >>pax are of little benefit to the bulk of GB PLC and should be disregarded [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > domestic destination, and would otherwise have changed planes at Schiphol, > CDG, or even New York, to get to their eventual destination. Yes you are right, I should have said international (to international) transfer pax. > And *all* the transfer passengers whether domestic or from further afield > help maintain the critical mass of flights especially direct ones I agree that this is an advantage, but I just don't think that LHR scores any points for this, there are more than enough flights to lots of destinations already. tim > to slightly less popular destinations. I can remember when it was only > possible to fly direct to Seattle three times a week, for example, even > from Heathrow. >> And *all* the transfer passengers whether domestic or from further afield >> help maintain the critical mass of flights especially direct ones > >I agree that this is an advantage, but I just don't think that LHR scores >any points for this, there are more than enough flights to lots of >destinations already. [Just picking one example] I don't think you can fly to Seattle from anywhere else in the UK, and as I've noted earlier, there wasn't enough demand to fly daily last time I went; but there is now. Having international transfer passengers helps boost the numbers and make a daily flight economic. SignatureRoland Perry >>> And *all* the transfer passengers whether domestic or from further >>> afield [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > international transfer passengers helps boost the numbers and make a daily > flight economic. You don't think that the increase in importance of the town as an IT centre may have created more of a reason for business people to want to fly there? tim >> [Just picking one example] I don't think you can fly to Seattle from >> anywhere else in the UK, and as I've noted earlier, there wasn't enough [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You don't think that the increase in importance of the town as an IT centre >may have created more of a reason for business people to want to fly there? It doesn't matter why they fly there, it's flying via London that matters. As for people flying "because of IT" I am constantly surprised that I can fly halfway across the world to a conference where I know I'll be meeting 500+ colleagues, and very rarely is there even one of them on the same plane as myself. So I think most travel is not IT-industry related. The exception was last autumn when a group of us ended up on the same flight home from Rio, via CDG. I think Rio is one of those places without a daily flight form Heathrow. And Air France runs different sized planes on different days of the week, presumably to tune their offering to the demand. SignatureRoland Perry >>> [Just picking one example] I don't think you can fly to Seattle from >>> anywhere else in the UK, and as I've noted earlier, there wasn't enough [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It doesn't matter why they fly there, it's flying via London that matters. No, what I meant was, the demand from London (and surrounding) has gone up because of this reason and hence the frequency of the flights increased because of local demand, not because of connecting opportunities. tim >> It doesn't matter why they fly there, it's flying via London that matters. > >No, what I meant was, the demand from London (and surrounding) has gone up >because of this reason and hence the frequency of the flights increased >because of local demand, not because of connecting opportunities. I don't think the demand to go there has increased purely because of the IT companies there that need to be visited by so many more Brits. SignatureRoland Perry >If it is claimed to be a commercial venture then it should be paid for in >the same way that every other commercial venture is paid for - by borrowing >money in the markets Problem with that is Ferrovial borrowed so much to buy BAA, and are desperately trying to restructure those loans, that I doubt especially in the current financial climate that anyone is going to lend them money to make improvements with. -- Lansbury (Retired) www.uk-air.net FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup >>If it is claimed to be a commercial venture then it should be paid for in >>the same way that every other commercial venture is paid for - by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > current financial climate that anyone is going to lend them money to make > improvements with. But that is their problem, Making this problem for themselves does not entitle them to demand that someone else pay for the new construction tim >But that is their problem, Indeed so they can solve it how they want. >Making this problem for themselves does not entitle them to demand that >someone else pay for the new construction They are entitled to ask whatever they like for the services they provide, as is anyone else who sells something. Whether people choose to buy it is they choice. What BAA do with the money they raise from selling their services is their choice. -- Lansbury (Retired) www.uk-air.net FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup >>But that is their problem, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > as > is anyone else who sells something. Not they aren't they are a regulated supplier. They cannot chose to increase their prices. The Government has to give permission. > Whether people choose to buy it is they choice. They are regulated for a reason. That reason being that their customers (the airlines) can't (logistically) just go elsewhere. tim >> They are entitled to ask whatever they like for the services they provide, >> as >> is anyone else who sells something. > >Not they aren't they are a regulated supplier. They cannot chose to >increase their prices. The Government has to give permission. Regulation doesn't alter the fact they can choose to ask the Government for whatever raise they wish. >> Whether people choose to buy it is they choice. > >They are regulated for a reason. That reason being that their customers >(the airlines) can't (logistically) just go elsewhere. The passenger handling fee is collected by the airlines, but paid for in the extra taxes and fees by the passenger. The passenger can choose whatever airport or other method of travel they want too. Nobody is forced to us Heathrow, there are other choices. Again how they choose to finance improvements is their business decision and they can do it however they think best for themselves. Now it might not be fair or reasonable to make current passengers pay for future improvements but BAA can do so if they wish. -- Lansbury (Retired) www.uk-air.net FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup >>> They are entitled to ask whatever they like for the services they >>> provide, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > for > whatever raise they wish. I never suggested that they shouldn't be allowed to ask I was suggesing that they shouldn't be given permission. My previous comments were aimed squarely at the people who are going to give permission for this expansion, not those seeking it. >>> Whether people choose to buy it is they choice. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > but > BAA can do so if they wish. Only if HMG lets them. tim >> If it is claimed to be a commercial venture then it should be paid for in >> the same way that every other commercial venture is paid for - by borrowing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > current financial climate that anyone is going to lend them money to make > improvements with. This is the technique of so-called private equity take over, usually by companies with putting very little equity in. They borrow loads of money, put that on the target companies balance sheet, and then the profits of said company are used both to provide a return to the PE company and pay the interest on the huge loan. This was the way of the world till credit became tighter and more expensive. Now as you say, there are frantic attempts to "restructure" these enormous debts the companies never asked for in the first place. BAA is caught in that trap at the moment. SignatureJohn Wright "What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool? You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin >> It's too big already. > > Yet dosn't have the capacity to handel the number of people and goods that > want to use it, that dosn't sound like to big to me. It's not the people who want to use it, they want to use the aircraft. The aircraft can use any airport. You've only got to see the vast industrial area in Crawly to realise that the air freight business at Gatwick is on a huge scale as well. But why do freight aircraft have to use Heathrow? It just adds to the problem. >> The only people who want expansion there are the people who own it, >> because they want to make more money because of 'economies of scale'. > > I don't own it yet think the expansion is a good thing. Why? SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > > I pass through Heathrow on a regular basis. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to spread demand. There isn't enough investment as there isn't the capacity > for expansion thus for additional profits. Excellent idea. They should have 24 hour operation. And two more runways. And reconfigure it into a sensible layout. Just a few problems, the main one being Heathrow's in the wrong place. Either we need to move London, or we need to move the main airport. I think its easier to build the runways elsewhere. Just admit that Heathrow was a mistake and stop throwing good concrete after bad. >> > I pass through Heathrow on a regular basis. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Excellent idea. They should have 24 hour operation. And two more > runways. And reconfigure it into a sensible layout. How will you stop the good people of Hounslow burning the place to the ground? SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > >> Hence the need for expansion, they should also open up more late night > >> slots to spread demand. There isn't enough investment as there isn't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > How will you stop the good people of Hounslow burning the place to the > ground? Why would anyone in Hounslow protest about their place of employment in such a way? >> >> Hence the need for expansion, they should also open up more late night >> >> slots to spread demand. There isn't enough investment as there isn't [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Why would anyone in Hounslow protest about their place of employment in > such a way? Not all of them work there. Indeed, the majority don't... Even those that do like to sleep now and again... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > >> >> Hence the need for expansion, they should also open up more late night > >> >> slots to spread demand. There isn't enough investment as there isn't [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Even those that do like to sleep now and again... yes it is painfully loud around there. roger Signaturewww.rogermerriman.com > >> >> Hence the need for expansion, they should also open up more late night > >> >> slots to spread demand. There isn't enough investment as there isn't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Not all of them work there. Reductio ad absurdem. > Indeed, the majority don't... Failure to understand economics. > Even those that do like to sleep now and again... Inappropriate use of ellipsis. You're posting in one of the wanky activist groups, aren't you? >> >> >> Hence the need for expansion, they should also open up more late >> >> >> night [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > You're posting in one of the wanky activist groups, aren't you? Lack of content noted. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > >> >> >> Hence the need for expansion, they should also open up more late > >> >> >> night [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Lack of content noted. AH yes, thanks for the correction. Indeed your post was without content. "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> Can reasonably obviously be safely ignored. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> >> >> Anyone who makes unmarked alterations to the post >> they reply to. >> > Can reasonably obviously be safely ignored. Oh I agree. >>> > I pass through Heathrow on a regular basis. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > How will you stop the good people of Hounslow burning the place to the > ground? Don't most of them work there? SignatureJohnT >How will you stop the good people of Hounslow burning the place to the >ground? A Glock or a Heckler and Kock MP5 are quite good for stopping most acts like that, and there are quite a few of those being carrier around the airport on a 24 hour basis. -- Lansbury (Retired) www.uk-air.net FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup >>How will you stop the good people of Hounslow burning the place to the >>ground? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > on a > 24 hour basis. Silly man. You can't stop a popular uprising with the cops. The cops rule with the agreement of the population. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > You can't stop a popular uprising with the cops. Tell that to the desaparecidos who fell victom to Operation Condor. >> You can't stop a popular uprising with the cops. > > Tell that to the desaparecidos who fell victom to Operation Condor. Organised murder of activists in not the putting down of a popular uprising. There never seems to have been any popular uprising from the people who were murdered. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > >> You can't stop a popular uprising with the cops. > > > > Tell that to the desaparecidos who fell victom to Operation Condor. > > Organised murder of activists in not the putting down of a popular uprising. It stopped a populat uprising. As in "prevented it from happening". > There never seems to have been any popular uprising from the people who were > murdered. There was no popular uprising at all. The citizens were too terrified to protest. The cops very effectively suppressed even the possibility of a popular uprising. You were wrong. Live with it. >> >> You can't stop a popular uprising with the cops. >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It stopped a populat uprising. As in "prevented it from happening". Well no. As far as anyone knows the murderous South American dictatorships killed people for wanting representative democracy. To its eternal shame the USA backed them in this policy... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > >> >> You can't stop a popular uprising with the cops. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Well no. Well, yes, actually. There was no popular uprising. > As far as anyone knows the murderous South American dictatorships killed > people for wanting representative democracy. Why they did it is of little matter, what happened was that the cops prevented any popular uprising from occurring. > To its eternal shame the USA backed them in this policy... Blah, blah. But you were wrong, and you seem to have difficulty admitting that fact. >> >> >> You can't stop a popular uprising with the cops. >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Well, yes, actually. There was no popular uprising. There is no evidence that any was ever planned. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >You can't stop a popular uprising with the cops. > >The cops rule with the agreement of the population. Really most of the population never seemed to agree with anything I did, they soon changed their minds when a uniform officer visibly armed to the teeth arrived. -- Lansbury (Retired) www.uk-air.net FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup >>>> > Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I pass through Heathrow on a regular basis. So do I. > It's hell on earth. It's not that bad. > Everyone who flies hates the place Everyone? Hates? That's a little extreme. > It's dirty, expensive, too big, the security staff are rude, they loose > your luggage and in busy times all sort of systems just break down. Just like virtually every other airport in the world, then. > Try going through immigration on a Bank Holiday weekend, you too can spend > an hour in a queue for no very good reason. Anyone who travels on a Bank Holiday deserves whatever they get. Signature"Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one." [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk] >> It's dirty, expensive, too big, the security staff are rude, they >> loose >> your luggage and in busy times all sort of systems just break down. > > Just like virtually every other airport in the world, then. Well no. UK provincial airports don't seem anywhere near as dirty or prone to breakdown. I realise that they're not as busy, but that's rather the point. Manchester is very busy, but it's clean and stuff seems to work. >> Try going through immigration on a Bank Holiday weekend, you too can >> spend >> an hour in a queue for no very good reason. > > Anyone who travels on a Bank Holiday deserves whatever they get. Some people have little choice... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >Manchester is very busy, but it's clean and stuff seems to work. You've not been to Terminal 3, then? SignatureRoland Perry >>> It's dirty, expensive, too big, the security staff are rude, they >>> loose [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Well no. Well, yes. I travelled regularly and often all over the world for 11 years for my employer, and still regularly go to the USA. Heathrow ain't so bad. Try Delhi. Or Newark. Or (the thankfully now redeveloped) Milan Linate. Or Philadelphia when the "International Terminal" was an un-airconditioned tin shed. Signature"Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one." [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk] >>>> It's dirty, expensive, too big, the security staff are rude, they >>>> loose [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Or (the thankfully now redeveloped) Milan Linate. Or Philadelphia when the > "International Terminal" was an un-airconditioned tin shed. We're not talking about 'way back when'. I remember when Bombay International was a cess-pit as well. But these days it's reasonably clean, the staff are polite and even the immigration people smile and get you through in about ten minutes. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>>>> It's dirty, expensive, too big, the security staff are rude, they >>>>> loose [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > We're not talking about 'way back when'. Neither was I. I've flown through Delhi (domestic and international) and Newark in the last 6 months. Both shitholes. Signature"Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one." [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk] > Or Newark. Or (the thankfully now redeveloped) Milan Linate. Or > Philadelphia when the "International Terminal" was an un-airconditioned > tin shed. The Rome airports are still crap, and while Linate has improved a bit it's still not that great. Malpensa is a bloody joke, but the only airport near Milan that can be used from some UK regional airports. Since I refuse to do LHR, I end up on Gatwick/Malpensa or Birmingham/Malpensa more often than I like. > The Rome airports are still crap, and while Linate has improved a bit > it's still not that great. Malpensa is a bloody joke, but the only > airport near Milan that can be used from some UK regional airports. > Since I refuse to do LHR, I end up on Gatwick/Malpensa or > Birmingham/Malpensa more often than I like. <http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4791951> SignaturePd > > The Rome airports are still crap, and while Linate has improved a bit > > it's still not that great. Malpensa is a bloody joke, but the only [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > <http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4791951> Hmm, a bit painful for me. The last time I flew from Rome (Ciampino) that's exactly what happened to my luggage. I could see it lying on the tarmac as the plane taxied away from the stand. When we got to Gatwick we were told it would be "a few days", it turned out to be three weeks before we saw it again, battered, opened with a note saying it had been examined by the Surete. Yes that's right, not the Carabinieri, Surete. So where it had been heaven only knows. >>> > Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > To the millions of people who travel through Heathrow every year. Or all the people who buy goods that are flown in. Say those who insist on eating imported food. > >> One can only hope they are unbiased and show the vast benefits it will > >> bring rather than just pandering to the NIMBYs. > > > > Vast benefits to whom? > > To the millions of people who travel through Heathrow every year. And si nce there are more passengers than there are NIMBYs complaining Duhg will agree with expansion because it is for the greater good of the greater number of people. Or he'll swivel on a sixpence and drop all his previous "principles." Prace bets NOW! >>>> One can only hope they are unbiased and show the vast benefits it >>>> will bring rather than just pandering to the NIMBYs. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Prace bets NOW! Since Doug believes in minority rule you're on to a loser. > >> "CJB" <chrisjbr...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > To the millions of people who travel through Heathrow every year. You mean the hypermobile who cause so many problems for the rest of the population? -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net Travel broadens the damage. >> >> "CJB" <chrisjbr...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > You mean the hypermobile who cause so many problems for the rest of > the population? No, Duhg. Hypermobile people do not cause any problems for the rest of the population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermobility Signature"Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one." [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk] > >> >> "CJB" <chrisjbr...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > No, Duhg. Hypermobile people do not cause any problems for the rest of > the population. By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage, pollution and environmental damage in holiday locations and by flying their noise disturbs millions of people and puts homes and lives at risk in the event of a possible crash. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net Travel broadens the damage. In message <1edcde77-e7c1-4c96-9629-48255042095a@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, at 23:39:40 on Sun, 6 Jul 2008, Doug <jagmad@riseup.net> remarked: >> No, Duhg. Hypermobile people do not cause any problems for the rest of >> the population. >> >By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage, pollution >and environmental damage in holiday locations The people who fly the most are probably doing it for business. SignatureRoland Perry > In message > <1edcde77-e7c1-4c96-9629-48255042095a@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The people who fly the most are probably doing it for business. Just because one travels for business doesn't mean that the travel is necessary. I can reel of a lot of occasions when managers I worked with went on jollies: a) to keep their airline mileage card the correct colour b) to get their car mileage into the next tax band (when that had an effect). I am sure there are many other unnecessary reasons that people make business journeys. tim >>>> No, Duhg. Hypermobile people do not cause any problems for the rest of >>>> the population. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Just because one travels for business doesn't mean that the travel is >necessary. The compliant wasn't about travel as such, but "damaging holiday locations". >I can reel of a lot of occasions when managers I worked with went on >jollies: >a) to keep their airline mileage card the correct colour >b) to get their car mileage into the next tax band (when that had an >effect). The company needs better financial controls! SignatureRoland Perry >>>>> No, Duhg. Hypermobile people do not cause any problems for the rest of >>>>> the population. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > The company needs better financial controls! It most definately isn't one compay, or two or three ..... tim >>>I can reel of a lot of occasions when managers I worked with went on >>>jollies: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >It most definately isn't one compay, or two or three ..... No wonder the country is in the state it is. SignatureRoland Perry >>>>I can reel of a lot of occasions when managers I worked with went on >>>>jollies: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No wonder the country is in the state it is. Not all of the examples are in this country. It's the way middle management in large companies (and some smaller ones) works the world over IME. tim >By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage, pollution >and environmental damage in holiday locations and by flying their >noise disturbs millions of people and puts homes and lives at risk in >the event of a possible crash. Lugless Duhgless wants a man walking in front of every aircraft carrying a red flag. Derek >>By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage, pollution >>and environmental damage in holiday locations and by flying their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Lugless Duhgless wants a man walking in front of every aircraft >carrying a red flag. I think he should have the courage of his convictions and walk with a red flag in front of nuclear submarines. SignatureEd Banger [snip] > > > You mean the hypermobile who cause so many problems for the rest of > > > the population? > > > > No, Duhg. Hypermobile people do not cause any problems for the rest of > > the population. [Restore unmarked deletion] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermobility [End of unmarked deletion] > By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage, pollution > and environmental damage in holiday locations and by flying their > noise disturbs millions of people and puts homes and lives at risk in > the event of a possible crash. And what makes you think[1] that individuals with joint hypermobility travel "excessively" compared to other individuals? [1] Term used in its loosest possible sense. >> No, Duhg. Hypermobile people do not cause any problems for the rest of >> the population. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > noise disturbs millions of people and puts homes and lives at risk in > the event of a possible crash. Do we know that double-jointed people travel more than ordinary mortals? SignatureJohn Wright "What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool? You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin >>> No, Duhg. Hypermobile people do not cause any problems for the rest >>> of the population. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Do we know that double-jointed people travel more than ordinary > mortals? If Doug Bollen says so then it must be true. >>>> No, Duhg. Hypermobile people do not cause any problems for the rest >>>> of the population. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > If Doug Bollen says so then it must be true. Oh, I see. Bow to the great Duhg who knows everything :-) SignatureJohn Wright "What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool? You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin >>>>> No, Duhg. Hypermobile people do not cause any problems for the >>>>> rest of the population. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Oh, I see. Bow to the great Duhg who knows everything :-) Bowing isn't good enough. You must prostrate yourself. >>>>>> No, Duhg. Hypermobile people do not cause any problems for the >>>>>> rest of the population. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Bowing isn't good enough. You must prostrate yourself. Would the Great One allow us to tug a forelock while prostrating ourselves? SignatureEd Banger See Duhg admit to being Doug Bollen: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/c7c992ee0d86b40b >>>>>>> No, Duhg. Hypermobile people do not cause any problems for the >>>>>>> rest of the population. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Would the Great One allow us to tug a forelock while prostrating > ourselves? You'll need to ask him very nicely whilst begging his forgiveness. >>>>>> No, Duhg. Hypermobile people do not cause any problems for the >>>>>> rest of the population. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Bowing isn't good enough. You must prostrate yourself. Especially if you are double jointed and properly hypermobile SignatureJohn Wright "What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool? You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin >Do we know that double-jointed people travel more than ordinary >mortals? Their transportation is arriving momentarily. (or in English: The prison ship heading for Australia will be here for only a very short time). SignatureRoland Perry |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.