Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow

From: "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

"CJB"  wrote in message 
news:38c65984-f38c-43c6-9258-f9419391effa@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
>
> From: "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.

One can only hope they are unbiased and show the vast benefits it will bring 
rather than just pandering to the NIMBYs.

On 3 Jul, 02:00, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote:
> "CJB"  wrote in message
>
> news:38c65984-f38c-43c6-9258-f9419391effa@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
>
> > From: "hacan-news-ad...@hacan.org.uk" 
> > To: hacan-n...@hacan.org.uk
>
> > Dear All,
>
> > 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.

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.

On 2008-07-03, Doug  wrote:
> On 3 Jul, 02:00, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> "CJB"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:38c65984-f38c-43c6-9258-f9419391effa@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
>>
>> > From: "hacan-news-ad...@hacan.org.uk" 
>> > To: hacan-n...@hacan.org.uk
>>
>> > Dear All,
>>
>> > 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.
>
> Vast benefits to whom? 

To the millions of people who travel through Heathrow every year.


-- 
          "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]

"Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g4i6k2$31f$6@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> On 2008-07-03, Doug  wrote:
>> On 3 Jul, 02:00, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>> "CJB"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:38c65984-f38c-43c6-9258-f9419391effa@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> > Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
>>>
>>> > From: "hacan-news-ad...@hacan.org.uk" 
>>> > To: hacan-n...@hacan.org.uk
>>>
>>> > Dear All,
>>>
>>> > 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.
>>
>> Vast benefits to whom?
>
> 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.


-- 
William 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.

"William Black"  wrote in message 
news:g4i90m$mc8$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:g4i6k2$31f$6@anubis.demon.co.uk...
>> On 2008-07-03, Doug  wrote:
>>> On 3 Jul, 02:00, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>>> "CJB"  wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:38c65984-f38c-43c6-9258-f9419391effa@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> > Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
>>>>
>>>> > From: "hacan-news-ad...@hacan.org.uk" 
>>>> > To: hacan-n...@hacan.org.uk
>>>>
>>>> > Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> > 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.
>>>
>>> Vast benefits to whom?
>>
>> 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.
>

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

"Mike P"  wrote in message 
news:6d3ok4FmjfjU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "William Black"  wrote in message 
> news:g4i90m$mc8$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:g4i6k2$31f$6@anubis.demon.co.uk...
>>> On 2008-07-03, Doug  wrote:
>>>> On 3 Jul, 02:00, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>>>> "CJB"  wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:38c65984-f38c-43c6-9258-f9419391effa@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> > Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
>>>>>
>>>>> > From: "hacan-news-ad...@hacan.org.uk" 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > To: hacan-n...@hacan.org.uk
>>>>>
>>>>> > Dear All,
>>>>>
>>>>> > 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.
>>>>
>>>> Vast benefits to whom?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> 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.

Miami International ... now there IS the arsehole of the World   :o(

"Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g4i6k2$31f$6@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> On 2008-07-03, Doug  wrote:
>> On 3 Jul, 02:00, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>> "CJB"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:38c65984-f38c-43c6-9258-f9419391effa@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> > Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
>>>
>>> > From: "hacan-news-ad...@hacan.org.uk" 
>>> > To: hacan-n...@hacan.org.uk
>>>
>>> > Dear All,
>>>
>>> > 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.
>>
>> Vast benefits to whom?
>
> 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.

"William Black"  wrote in message 
news:g4i90m$mc8$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> 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.

"Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote in message 
news:QeCdnan6Kcg2LfHVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
> "William Black"  wrote in message 
> news:g4i90m$mc8$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> 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.

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.

-- 
William 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.

On 2008-07-03, William Black  wrote:
>
> "Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:g4i6k2$31f$6@anubis.demon.co.uk...
>> On 2008-07-03, Doug  wrote:
>>> On 3 Jul, 02:00, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>>> "CJB"  wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:38c65984-f38c-43c6-9258-f9419391effa@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> > Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
>>>>
>>>> > From: "hacan-news-ad...@hacan.org.uk" 
>>>> > To: hacan-n...@hacan.org.uk
>>>>
>>>> > Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> > 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.
>>>
>>> Vast benefits to whom?
>>
>> To the millions of people who travel through Heathrow every year.
>>
>
> 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.


-- 
          "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]

"William Black"  wrote in message 
news:g4icbp$b0d$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote in message 
> news:QeCdnan6Kcg2LfHVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>
>> "William Black"  wrote in message 
>> news:g4i90m$mc8$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> 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.
>

That won't work because people don't want to go to Stansted, especially for 
business travel. It's not in London, it's bloody miles away. If you want to 
go by train, you have to first go into London and then out again adding 
hours to your journey.

Mike P

"William Black"  wrote in message 
news:g4icbp$b0d$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> 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.

Depresion wrote:
> "William Black"  wrote in message
> news:g4icbp$b0d$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> 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.

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> >> 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!

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 12:56:37 +0100, Brimstone wrote:
> Depresion wrote:
>> "William Black"  wrote in message
>> news:g4icbp$b0d$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>> 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. 
>
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.


-- 
. Pete Lynch          I have learned from my mistakes and
. Marlow          ... I am sure I can repeat them exactly
. www.pete-lynch.com               --- Peter Cooke.

"Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g4icq1$519$2@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> On 2008-07-03, William Black  wrote:

>> 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...

-- 
William 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.

"Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote in message 
news:sZCdnfSwtZylIPHVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
> "William Black"  wrote in message 
> news:g4icbp$b0d$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> 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?

-- 
William 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 wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> 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!

Since Doug believes in minority rule you're on to a loser.

In message <slrng6phem.498.pete@freyr.local>, at 12:28:06 on Thu, 3 Jul 
2008, Peter Lynch <pete@freyr.local> remarked:
>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.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <g4igur$7vc$1@registered.motzarella.org>, at 13:33:31 on Thu, 
3 Jul 2008, William Black  remarked:

>Manchester is very busy,  but it's clean and stuff seems to work.

You've not been to Terminal 3, then?
-- 
Roland Perry

On 2008-07-03, William Black  wrote:
>
> "Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:g4icq1$519$2@anubis.demon.co.uk...
>> On 2008-07-03, William Black  wrote:
>
>>> 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.

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.

-- 
          "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]

Mike P  wrote:

> That won't work because people don't want to go to Stansted, especially for
> business travel. It's not in London, it's bloody miles away. If you want to
> go by train, you have to first go into London and then out again adding
> hours to your journey.

And every traveller in the UK wants to go to London, do they?

You're right about Stansted, but your reason is incorrect. Stansted is
useless because it's so far from the rest of the UK. What we need is
more use of other airports, such as Christchurch, Bristol, Manchester.

But the reason the government overlooks regional airports is that it's
had a policy of fovouring BAA for donkey's ages. It was IMO the death of
Southampton when BAA took over. Oh yes, more flights, burble etc. But
for passengers the experience has been ruined by BAA's usual restricitve
practices. There's no longer competition for taxis, for example, because
BAA only permit one taxi firm to pick up and drop off. Security staff
chase away other companies. As a result the taxi fares have tripled.

And don't get me started on the subject of parking.

I'm sure that if Manchester signed up to be run by BAA that it wouldn't
be long before the government treated it as a "major" airport. As it is,
the government moves mountains of paper in order to not give Manchester
a fair crack of the whip.

Same for Birmingham. How dare those councils operate successful
airports!

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:56:00 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <slrng6phem.498.pete@freyr.local>, at 12:28:06 on Thu, 3 Jul 
> 2008, Peter Lynch <pete@freyr.local> remarked:
>>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.

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.


-- 
. Pete Lynch          I have learned from my mistakes and
. Marlow          ... I am sure I can repeat them exactly
. www.pete-lynch.com               --- Peter Cooke.

"Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g4ij5c$6qp$2@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> On 2008-07-03, William Black  wrote:
>>
>> "Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:g4icq1$519$2@anubis.demon.co.uk...
>>> On 2008-07-03, William Black  wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>
> 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.

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.

-- 
William 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.

In message <slrng6porc.4pc.pete@freyr.local>, at 14:34:18 on Thu, 3 Jul 
2008, Peter Lynch <pete@freyr.local> remarked:
>>>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.
>
>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).
-- 
Roland Perry

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:50:46 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <slrng6porc.4pc.pete@freyr.local>, at 14:34:18 on Thu, 3 Jul 
> 2008, Peter Lynch <pete@freyr.local> remarked:

>>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.

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 
> 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.

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 
>>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).

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.

-- 
. Pete Lynch          I have learned from my mistakes and
. Marlow          ... I am sure I can repeat them exactly
. www.pete-lynch.com               --- Peter Cooke.

On 2008-07-03, William Black  wrote:
>
> "Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:g4ij5c$6qp$2@anubis.demon.co.uk...
>> On 2008-07-03, William Black  wrote:
>>>
>>> "Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:g4icq1$519$2@anubis.demon.co.uk...
>>>> On 2008-07-03, William Black  wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.



-- 
          "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]

In message <slrng6pvqp.53k.pete@freyr.local>, at 16:33:27 on Thu, 3 Jul 
2008, Peter Lynch <pete@freyr.local> remarked:

>>>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.
>
>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
>> 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.
>
>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.

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
>>>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).
>
>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.

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.
-- 
Roland Perry

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> 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.

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> 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>

-- 
Pd

Pd <peterd.news@gmail.invalid> wrote:

> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > 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>

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.

On 3 Jul, 10:37, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2008-07-03, Doug  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3 Jul, 02:00, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >> "CJB"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:38c65984-f38c-43c6-9258-f9419391effa@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
>
> >> > From: "hacan-news-ad...@hacan.org.uk" 
> >> > To: hacan-n...@hacan.org.uk
>
> >> > Dear All,
>
> >> > 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.
>
> > Vast benefits to whom?
>
> 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.

On 2008-07-04, Doug  wrote:
> On 3 Jul, 10:37, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2008-07-03, Doug  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 3 Jul, 02:00, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> >> "CJB"  wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:38c65984-f38c-43c6-9258-f9419391effa@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
>>
>> >> > From: "hacan-news-ad...@hacan.org.uk" 
>> >> > To: hacan-n...@hacan.org.uk
>>
>> >> > Dear All,
>>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> > Vast benefits to whom?
>>
>> 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?

No, Duhg. Hypermobile people do not cause any problems for the rest of
the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermobility


-- 
          "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]

On 3 Jul, 11:52, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote:
> "William Black"  wrote in message
>
> news:g4i90m$mc8$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
> > 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.

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.

On 4 Jul, 08:38, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2008-07-04, Doug  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3 Jul, 10:37, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 2008-07-03, Doug  wrote:
>
> >> > On 3 Jul, 02:00, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >> >> "CJB"  wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:38c65984-f38c-43c6-9258-f9419391effa@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
>
> >> >> > From: "hacan-news-ad...@hacan.org.uk" 
> >> >> > To: hacan-n...@hacan.org.uk
>
> >> >> > Dear All,
>
> >> >> > 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.
>
> >> > Vast benefits to whom?
>
> >> 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?
>
> 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 
, at 
23:39:40 on Sun, 6 Jul 2008, Doug  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.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 23:39:40 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:

>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

"disgoftunwells"  wrote in message 
news:3a880ab2-ca36-4323-b727-7bd02617e2a0@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 Jul, 11:52, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> "William Black"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:g4i90m$mc8$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>
> 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?

-- 
William 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.

Doug  wrote:

[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.

William Black  wrote:

> >> 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.
> >
> > 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?

Why would anyone in Hounslow protest about their place of employment in
such a way?

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1ijpgxt.1b5038ibhho2sN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> William Black  wrote:
>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > 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?
>
> 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...

-- 
William 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.

William Black  wrote:

> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:1ijpgxt.1b5038ibhho2sN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> > William Black  wrote:
> >
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> > 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?
> >
> > 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...

yes it is painfully loud around there.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

William Black  wrote:

> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:1ijpgxt.1b5038ibhho2sN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> > William Black  wrote:
> >
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> > 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?
> >
> > Why would anyone in Hounslow protest about their place of employment in
> > such a way?
> 
> 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?

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1ijpk1u.yqdx7pajogzfN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> William Black  wrote:
>
>> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1ijpgxt.1b5038ibhho2sN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>> > William Black  wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >
>> >> > 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?
>> >
>> > Why would anyone in Hounslow protest about their place of employment in
>> > such a way?
>>
>> 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?

Lack of content noted.

-- 
William 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.

"William Black"  wrote in message 
news:g4sq0t$a4e$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "disgoftunwells"  wrote in message 
> news:3a880ab2-ca36-4323-b727-7bd02617e2a0@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
>> On 3 Jul, 11:52, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>> "William Black"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:g4i90m$mc8$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > 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.
>>
>> 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?
>


Don't most of them work there?
-- 
JohnT

William Black  wrote:

> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:1ijpk1u.yqdx7pajogzfN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> > William Black  wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:1ijpgxt.1b5038ibhho2sN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> >> > William Black  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> 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.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 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?
> >> >
> >> > Why would anyone in Hounslow protest about their place of employment in
> >> > such a way?
> >>
> >> 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?
> 
> Lack of content noted.

AH yes, thanks for the correction. Indeed your post was without content.

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:E4Twr$X2CccIFAJZ@perry.co.uk...
> In message 
> , at 
> 23:39:40 on Sun, 6 Jul 2008, Doug  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.

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

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>

Can reasonably obviously be safely ignored.

-- 
William 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.

William Black  wrote:

> "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.

In message , at 18:33:01 on Mon, 7 
Jul 2008, tim.....  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.
>
>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!
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:bpun$U4AnmcIFAKx@perry.co.uk...
> In message , at 18:33:01 on Mon, 7 Jul 
> 2008, tim.....  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.
>>
>>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!

It most definately isn't one compay, or two or three .....

tim

In message , at 20:33:44 on Mon, 7 
Jul 2008, tim.....  remarked:
>>>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!
>
>It most definately isn't one compay, or two or three .....

No wonder the country is in the state it is.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:09:38 +0100, "William Black"
 wrote:

>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

Lansbury  wrote:

> A Glock or a Heckler and Kock MP5

Heckler and Koch.

You're welcome.

In message , Derek Geldard 
 writes
>On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 23:39:40 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>wrote:
>
>>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.

I think he should have the courage of his convictions and walk with a 
red flag in front of nuclear submarines.


-- 
Ed Banger

"Lansbury"  wrote in message 
news:4f0574t7gch7idvq0rcp9js3h023a4iksv@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:09:38 +0100, "William Black"
>  wrote:
>
>>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.

Silly man.

You can't stop a popular uprising with the cops.

The cops rule with the agreement of the population.

-- 
William 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.

William Black  wrote:

> You can't stop a popular uprising with the cops.

Tell that to the desaparecidos who fell victom to Operation Condor.

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1ijrjin.1kbwv7c3oqqviN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> William Black  wrote:
>
>> 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.

-- 
William 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.

William Black  wrote:

> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:1ijrjin.1kbwv7c3oqqviN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> > William Black  wrote:
> >
> >> 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.

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1ijrpoz.1sztr171j4r1raN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> William Black  wrote:
>
>> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1ijrjin.1kbwv7c3oqqviN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>> > William Black  wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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".

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...


-- 
William 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.

William Black  wrote:

> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:1ijrpoz.1sztr171j4r1raN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> > William Black  wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:1ijrjin.1kbwv7c3oqqviN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> >> > William Black  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> 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".
> 
> 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.

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:jWhZA7D$kncIFA+9@perry.co.uk...
> In message , at 20:33:44 on Mon, 7 Jul 
> 2008, tim.....  remarked:
>>>>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!
>>
>>It most definately isn't one compay, or two or three .....
>
> 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

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1ijrtve.14uhkao172cuf8N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> William Black  wrote:
>
>> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1ijrpoz.1sztr171j4r1raN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>> > William Black  wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> news:1ijrjin.1kbwv7c3oqqviN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>> >> > William Black  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> 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".
>>
>> Well no.
>
> Well, yes, actually. There was no popular uprising.

There is no evidence that any was ever planned.


-- 
William 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.

Doug wrote:
> On 4 Jul, 08:38, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> 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.

Do we know that double-jointed people travel more than ordinary mortals?


-- 
John 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

John Wright wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> On 4 Jul, 08:38, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Do we know that double-jointed people travel more than ordinary
> mortals?

If Doug Bollen says so then it must be true.

Brimstone wrote:
> John Wright wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 4 Jul, 08:38, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>> Do we know that double-jointed people travel more than ordinary
>> mortals?
> 
> If Doug Bollen says so then it must be true. 

Oh, I see. Bow to the great Duhg who knows everything :-)


-- 
John 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

John Wright wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> John Wright wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On 4 Jul, 08:38, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>> Do we know that double-jointed people travel more than ordinary
>>> mortals?
>>
>> If Doug Bollen says so then it must be true.
>
> Oh, I see. Bow to the great Duhg who knows everything :-)

Bowing isn't good enough. You must prostrate yourself.

In message , at 16:26:15 on 
Sat, 12 Jul 2008, John Wright  remarked:
>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).
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , Brimstone 
 writes
>John Wright wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> John Wright wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 4 Jul, 08:38, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No, Duhg. Hypermobile people do not cause any problems for the
>>>>>> rest of