Harlington's Fate is Sealed

Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity

Daily Telegraph

By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent

22/10/2002

Heathrow expansion hits space problem

A new runway at Heathrow would bring only half the capacity gain the
Government expected unless extensive additional space for aircraft
parking was provided, airport planners have discovered.

An analysis of the Department for Transport's proposal for a short
third runway has found that officials severely under-estimated the
problems of aircraft reaching it.

As the new strip would be to the north of the existing northern
runway, aircraft preparing to depart would have to cross the northern
runway.
Planes landing on the new runway would similarly need to manoeuvre
across the existing northern strip.

A confidential technical study of the plan by Heathrow's owners, BAA,
has calculated that about 600 crossings would be required every day.
To ensure safety, this would mean that take-offs and landings on the
present northern runway would have to be reduced.

The analysis concludes that the net capacity increase the third runway
would bring Heathrow would be the equivalent of 13 million passengers
a year, compared with the 27 million assumed in the Government's
consultation paper.

It is estimated that the airport would need extra land, equivalent to
at least 25 football pitches, for further aircraft parking space and
terminal buildings north of the current northern runway.

"CJB"  wrote in message
news:1187173378.747011.22400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>
> Daily Telegraph
>
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>
> 22/10/2002
>
> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>
> A new runway at Heathrow would bring only half the capacity gain the
> Government expected unless extensive additional space for aircraft
> parking was provided, airport planners have discovered.
>
> An analysis of the Department for Transport's proposal for a short
> third runway has found that officials severely under-estimated the
> problems of aircraft reaching it.
>
> As the new strip would be to the north of the existing northern
> runway, aircraft preparing to depart would have to cross the northern
> runway.
> Planes landing on the new runway would similarly need to manoeuvre
> across the existing northern strip.
>
> A confidential technical study of the plan by Heathrow's owners, BAA,
> has calculated that about 600 crossings would be required every day.
> To ensure safety, this would mean that take-offs and landings on the
> present northern runway would have to be reduced.
>
> The analysis concludes that the net capacity increase the third runway
> would bring Heathrow would be the equivalent of 13 million passengers
> a year, compared with the 27 million assumed in the Government's
> consultation paper.
>
> It is estimated that the airport would need extra land, equivalent to
> at least 25 football pitches, for further aircraft parking space and
> terminal buildings north of the current northern runway.

Why post an outdated story from almost five years ago?  The plan is to 
have a dedicated terminal 6 near the third runway, so this 'analysis' is 
plain wrong.

"CJB"  wrote in message
news:1187173378.747011.22400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>
> Daily Telegraph
>
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>
> 22/10/2002
>
> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>
> A new runway at Heathrow would bring only half the capacity gain the
> Government expected unless extensive additional space for aircraft
> parking was provided, airport planners have discovered.
>
> An analysis of the Department for Transport's proposal for a short
> third runway has found that officials severely under-estimated the
> problems of aircraft reaching it.
>
> As the new strip would be to the north of the existing northern
> runway, aircraft preparing to depart would have to cross the northern
> runway.
> Planes landing on the new runway would similarly need to manoeuvre
> across the existing northern strip.
>
> A confidential technical study of the plan by Heathrow's owners, BAA,
> has calculated that about 600 crossings would be required every day.
> To ensure safety, this would mean that take-offs and landings on the
> present northern runway would have to be reduced.
>
> The analysis concludes that the net capacity increase the third runway
> would bring Heathrow would be the equivalent of 13 million passengers
> a year, compared with the 27 million assumed in the Government's
> consultation paper.
>
> It is estimated that the airport would need extra land, equivalent to
> at least 25 football pitches, for further aircraft parking space and
> terminal buildings north of the current northern runway.

Why post an outdated story from almost five years ago?  The plan is to 
have a dedicated terminal 6 near the third runway, so this 'analysis' is 
plain wrong.

CJB wrote:
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>
> Daily Telegraph
>
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>
> 22/10/2002
>
> Heathrow expansion hits space problem

Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come up with 
a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying to alleviate.

I've lost the will to care anymore for anything that happens there.

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Dogpoop wrote:
> CJB wrote:
>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>
>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>
>> Daily Telegraph
>>
>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>
>> 22/10/2002
>>
>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>
> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying
> to alleviate.

There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make even 
more money.

Brimstone wrote:
> Dogpoop wrote:
>> CJB wrote:
>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>
>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>
>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>
>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>
>>> 22/10/2002
>>>
>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>
>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
>> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying
>> to alleviate.
>
> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
> even more money.

Is it wrong to try to make more money then?

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Dogpoop wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>> CJB wrote:
>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>
>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>
>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>
>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>
>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>
>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
>>> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is
>>> trying to alleviate.
>>
>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
>> even more money.
>
> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?

Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.

Brimstone wrote:
> Dogpoop wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>>> CJB wrote:
>>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>>
>>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>>
>>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>>
>>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>>
>>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>>
>>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors,
>>>> come up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is
>>>> trying to alleviate.
>>>
>>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
>>> even more money.
>>
>> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?
>
> Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.

OK, is it wrong for this 'large company' to try to make more money?

If it is, why is it?

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

In article , CJB 
says...
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
> 
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
> 
> Daily Telegraph
> 
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
> 
> 22/10/2002
> 
Got anything more relevent than a 5 year old story?


-- 
Conor

The United States, increasing quality by lowering standards since 1776.

Dogpoop wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>>>> CJB wrote:
>>>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors,
>>>>> come up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme
>>>>> is trying to alleviate.
>>>>
>>>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to
>>>> make even more money.
>>>
>>> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?
>>
>> Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.
>
> OK, is it wrong for this 'large company' to try to make more money?

No.

>
> If it is, why is it?

"CJB"  wrote in message
news:1187173378.747011.22400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>
> Daily Telegraph
>
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>
> 22/10/2002
>
> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>
> A new runway at Heathrow would bring only half the capacity gain the
> Government expected unless extensive additional space for aircraft
> parking was provided, airport planners have discovered.
>
> An analysis of the Department for Transport's proposal for a short
> third runway has found that officials severely under-estimated the
> problems of aircraft reaching it.
>
> As the new strip would be to the north of the existing northern
> runway, aircraft preparing to depart would have to cross the northern
> runway.
> Planes landing on the new runway would similarly need to manoeuvre
> across the existing northern strip.
>
> A confidential technical study of the plan by Heathrow's owners, BAA,
> has calculated that about 600 crossings would be required every day.
> To ensure safety, this would mean that take-offs and landings on the
> present northern runway would have to be reduced.
>
> The analysis concludes that the net capacity increase the third runway
> would bring Heathrow would be the equivalent of 13 million passengers
> a year, compared with the 27 million assumed in the Government's
> consultation paper.
>
> It is estimated that the airport would need extra land, equivalent to
> at least 25 football pitches, for further aircraft parking space and
> terminal buildings north of the current northern runway.

Why post an outdated story from almost five years ago?  The plan is to 
have a dedicated terminal 6 near the third runway, so this 'analysis' is 
plain wrong.

CJB wrote:
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>
> Daily Telegraph
>
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>
> 22/10/2002
>
> Heathrow expansion hits space problem

Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come up with 
a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying to alleviate.

I've lost the will to care anymore for anything that happens there.

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Dogpoop wrote:
> CJB wrote:
>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>
>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>
>> Daily Telegraph
>>
>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>
>> 22/10/2002
>>
>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>
> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying
> to alleviate.

There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make even 
more money.

Brimstone wrote:
> Dogpoop wrote:
>> CJB wrote:
>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>
>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>
>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>
>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>
>>> 22/10/2002
>>>
>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>
>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
>> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying
>> to alleviate.
>
> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
> even more money.

Is it wrong to try to make more money then?

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Dogpoop wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>> CJB wrote:
>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>
>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>
>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>
>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>
>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>
>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
>>> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is
>>> trying to alleviate.
>>
>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
>> even more money.
>
> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?

Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.

Brimstone wrote:
> Dogpoop wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>>> CJB wrote:
>>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>>
>>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>>
>>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>>
>>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>>
>>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>>
>>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors,
>>>> come up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is
>>>> trying to alleviate.
>>>
>>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
>>> even more money.
>>
>> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?
>
> Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.

OK, is it wrong for this 'large company' to try to make more money?

If it is, why is it?

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

In article , CJB 
says...
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
> 
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
> 
> Daily Telegraph
> 
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
> 
> 22/10/2002
> 
Got anything more relevent than a 5 year old story?


-- 
Conor

The United States, increasing quality by lowering standards since 1776.

Dogpoop wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>>>> CJB wrote:
>>>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors,
>>>>> come up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme
>>>>> is trying to alleviate.
>>>>
>>>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to
>>>> make even more money.
>>>
>>> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?
>>
>> Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.
>
> OK, is it wrong for this 'large company' to try to make more money?

No.

>
> If it is, why is it?

"CJB"  wrote in message
news:1187173378.747011.22400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>
> Daily Telegraph
>
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>
> 22/10/2002
>
> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>
> A new runway at Heathrow would bring only half the capacity gain the
> Government expected unless extensive additional space for aircraft
> parking was provided, airport planners have discovered.
>
> An analysis of the Department for Transport's proposal for a short
> third runway has found that officials severely under-estimated the
> problems of aircraft reaching it.
>
> As the new strip would be to the north of the existing northern
> runway, aircraft preparing to depart would have to cross the northern
> runway.
> Planes landing on the new runway would similarly need to manoeuvre
> across the existing northern strip.
>
> A confidential technical study of the plan by Heathrow's owners, BAA,
> has calculated that about 600 crossings would be required every day.
> To ensure safety, this would mean that take-offs and landings on the
> present northern runway would have to be reduced.
>
> The analysis concludes that the net capacity increase the third runway
> would bring Heathrow would be the equivalent of 13 million passengers
> a year, compared with the 27 million assumed in the Government's
> consultation paper.
>
> It is estimated that the airport would need extra land, equivalent to
> at least 25 football pitches, for further aircraft parking space and
> terminal buildings north of the current northern runway.

Why post an outdated story from almost five years ago?  The plan is to 
have a dedicated terminal 6 near the third runway, so this 'analysis' is 
plain wrong.

CJB wrote:
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>
> Daily Telegraph
>
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>
> 22/10/2002
>
> Heathrow expansion hits space problem

Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come up with 
a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying to alleviate.

I've lost the will to care anymore for anything that happens there.

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Dogpoop wrote:
> CJB wrote:
>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>
>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>
>> Daily Telegraph
>>
>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>
>> 22/10/2002
>>
>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>
> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying
> to alleviate.

There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make even 
more money.

Brimstone wrote:
> Dogpoop wrote:
>> CJB wrote:
>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>
>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>
>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>
>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>
>>> 22/10/2002
>>>
>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>
>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
>> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying
>> to alleviate.
>
> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
> even more money.

Is it wrong to try to make more money then?

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Dogpoop wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>> CJB wrote:
>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>
>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>
>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>
>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>
>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>
>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
>>> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is
>>> trying to alleviate.
>>
>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
>> even more money.
>
> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?

Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.

Brimstone wrote:
> Dogpoop wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>>> CJB wrote:
>>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>>
>>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>>
>>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>>
>>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>>
>>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>>
>>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors,
>>>> come up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is
>>>> trying to alleviate.
>>>
>>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
>>> even more money.
>>
>> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?
>
> Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.

OK, is it wrong for this 'large company' to try to make more money?

If it is, why is it?

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

In article , CJB 
says...
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
> 
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
> 
> Daily Telegraph
> 
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
> 
> 22/10/2002
> 
Got anything more relevent than a 5 year old story?


-- 
Conor

The United States, increasing quality by lowering standards since 1776.

Dogpoop wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>>>> CJB wrote:
>>>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors,
>>>>> come up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme
>>>>> is trying to alleviate.
>>>>
>>>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to
>>>> make even more money.
>>>
>>> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?
>>
>> Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.
>
> OK, is it wrong for this 'large company' to try to make more money?

No.

>
> If it is, why is it?

"CJB"  wrote in message
news:1187173378.747011.22400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>
> Daily Telegraph
>
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>
> 22/10/2002
>
> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>
> A new runway at Heathrow would bring only half the capacity gain the
> Government expected unless extensive additional space for aircraft
> parking was provided, airport planners have discovered.
>
> An analysis of the Department for Transport's proposal for a short
> third runway has found that officials severely under-estimated the
> problems of aircraft reaching it.
>
> As the new strip would be to the north of the existing northern
> runway, aircraft preparing to depart would have to cross the northern
> runway.
> Planes landing on the new runway would similarly need to manoeuvre
> across the existing northern strip.
>
> A confidential technical study of the plan by Heathrow's owners, BAA,
> has calculated that about 600 crossings would be required every day.
> To ensure safety, this would mean that take-offs and landings on the
> present northern runway would have to be reduced.
>
> The analysis concludes that the net capacity increase the third runway
> would bring Heathrow would be the equivalent of 13 million passengers
> a year, compared with the 27 million assumed in the Government's
> consultation paper.
>
> It is estimated that the airport would need extra land, equivalent to
> at least 25 football pitches, for further aircraft parking space and
> terminal buildings north of the current northern runway.

Why post an outdated story from almost five years ago?  The plan is to 
have a dedicated terminal 6 near the third runway, so this 'analysis' is 
plain wrong.

CJB wrote:
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>
> Daily Telegraph
>
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>
> 22/10/2002
>
> Heathrow expansion hits space problem

Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come up with 
a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying to alleviate.

I've lost the will to care anymore for anything that happens there.

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Dogpoop wrote:
> CJB wrote:
>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>
>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>
>> Daily Telegraph
>>
>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>
>> 22/10/2002
>>
>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>
> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying
> to alleviate.

There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make even 
more money.

Brimstone wrote:
> Dogpoop wrote:
>> CJB wrote:
>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>
>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>
>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>
>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>
>>> 22/10/2002
>>>
>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>
>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
>> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying
>> to alleviate.
>
> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
> even more money.

Is it wrong to try to make more money then?

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Dogpoop wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>> CJB wrote:
>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>
>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>
>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>
>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>
>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>
>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
>>> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is
>>> trying to alleviate.
>>
>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
>> even more money.
>
> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?

Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.

Brimstone wrote:
> Dogpoop wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>>> CJB wrote:
>>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>>
>>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>>
>>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>>
>>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>>
>>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>>
>>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors,
>>>> come up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is
>>>> trying to alleviate.
>>>
>>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
>>> even more money.
>>
>> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?
>
> Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.

OK, is it wrong for this 'large company' to try to make more money?

If it is, why is it?

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

In article , CJB 
says...
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
> 
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
> 
> Daily Telegraph
> 
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
> 
> 22/10/2002
> 
Got anything more relevent than a 5 year old story?


-- 
Conor

The United States, increasing quality by lowering standards since 1776.

Dogpoop wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>>>> CJB wrote:
>>>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors,
>>>>> come up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme
>>>>> is trying to alleviate.
>>>>
>>>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to
>>>> make even more money.
>>>
>>> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?
>>
>> Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.
>
> OK, is it wrong for this 'large company' to try to make more money?

No.

>
> If it is, why is it?

"CJB"  wrote in message
news:1187173378.747011.22400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>
> Daily Telegraph
>
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>
> 22/10/2002
>
> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>
> A new runway at Heathrow would bring only half the capacity gain the
> Government expected unless extensive additional space for aircraft
> parking was provided, airport planners have discovered.
>
> An analysis of the Department for Transport's proposal for a short
> third runway has found that officials severely under-estimated the
> problems of aircraft reaching it.
>
> As the new strip would be to the north of the existing northern
> runway, aircraft preparing to depart would have to cross the northern
> runway.
> Planes landing on the new runway would similarly need to manoeuvre
> across the existing northern strip.
>
> A confidential technical study of the plan by Heathrow's owners, BAA,
> has calculated that about 600 crossings would be required every day.
> To ensure safety, this would mean that take-offs and landings on the
> present northern runway would have to be reduced.
>
> The analysis concludes that the net capacity increase the third runway
> would bring Heathrow would be the equivalent of 13 million passengers
> a year, compared with the 27 million assumed in the Government's
> consultation paper.
>
> It is estimated that the airport would need extra land, equivalent to
> at least 25 football pitches, for further aircraft parking space and
> terminal buildings north of the current northern runway.

Why post an outdated story from almost five years ago?  The plan is to 
have a dedicated terminal 6 near the third runway, so this 'analysis' is 
plain wrong.

CJB wrote:
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>
> Daily Telegraph
>
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>
> 22/10/2002
>
> Heathrow expansion hits space problem

Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come up with 
a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying to alleviate.

I've lost the will to care anymore for anything that happens there.

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Dogpoop wrote:
> CJB wrote:
>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>
>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>
>> Daily Telegraph
>>
>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>
>> 22/10/2002
>>
>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>
> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying
> to alleviate.

There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make even 
more money.

Brimstone wrote:
> Dogpoop wrote:
>> CJB wrote:
>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>
>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>
>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>
>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>
>>> 22/10/2002
>>>
>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>
>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
>> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying
>> to alleviate.
>
> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
> even more money.

Is it wrong to try to make more money then?

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Dogpoop wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>> CJB wrote:
>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>
>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>
>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>
>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>
>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>
>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
>>> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is
>>> trying to alleviate.
>>
>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
>> even more money.
>
> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?

Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.

Brimstone wrote:
> Dogpoop wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>>> CJB wrote:
>>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>>
>>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>>
>>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>>
>>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>>
>>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>>
>>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors,
>>>> come up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is
>>>> trying to alleviate.
>>>
>>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
>>> even more money.
>>
>> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?
>
> Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.

OK, is it wrong for this 'large company' to try to make more money?

If it is, why is it?

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

In article , CJB 
says...
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
> 
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
> 
> Daily Telegraph
> 
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
> 
> 22/10/2002
> 
Got anything more relevent than a 5 year old story?


-- 
Conor

The United States, increasing quality by lowering standards since 1776.

Dogpoop wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>>>> CJB wrote:
>>>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors,
>>>>> come up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme
>>>>> is trying to alleviate.
>>>>
>>>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to
>>>> make even more money.
>>>
>>> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?
>>
>> Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.
>
> OK, is it wrong for this 'large company' to try to make more money?

No.

>
> If it is, why is it?

"CJB"  wrote in message
news:1187173378.747011.22400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>
> Daily Telegraph
>
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>
> 22/10/2002
>
> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>
> A new runway at Heathrow would bring only half the capacity gain the
> Government expected unless extensive additional space for aircraft
> parking was provided, airport planners have discovered.
>
> An analysis of the Department for Transport's proposal for a short
> third runway has found that officials severely under-estimated the
> problems of aircraft reaching it.
>
> As the new strip would be to the north of the existing northern
> runway, aircraft preparing to depart would have to cross the northern
> runway.
> Planes landing on the new runway would similarly need to manoeuvre
> across the existing northern strip.
>
> A confidential technical study of the plan by Heathrow's owners, BAA,
> has calculated that about 600 crossings would be required every day.
> To ensure safety, this would mean that take-offs and landings on the
> present northern runway would have to be reduced.
>
> The analysis concludes that the net capacity increase the third runway
> would bring Heathrow would be the equivalent of 13 million passengers
> a year, compared with the 27 million assumed in the Government's
> consultation paper.
>
> It is estimated that the airport would need extra land, equivalent to
> at least 25 football pitches, for further aircraft parking space and
> terminal buildings north of the current northern runway.

Why post an outdated story from almost five years ago?  The plan is to 
have a dedicated terminal 6 near the third runway, so this 'analysis' is 
plain wrong.

CJB wrote:
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>
> Daily Telegraph
>
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>
> 22/10/2002
>
> Heathrow expansion hits space problem

Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come up with 
a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying to alleviate.

I've lost the will to care anymore for anything that happens there.

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Dogpoop wrote:
> CJB wrote:
>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>
>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>
>> Daily Telegraph
>>
>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>
>> 22/10/2002
>>
>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>
> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying
> to alleviate.

There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make even 
more money.

Brimstone wrote:
> Dogpoop wrote:
>> CJB wrote:
>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>
>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>
>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>
>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>
>>> 22/10/2002
>>>
>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>
>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
>> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying
>> to alleviate.
>
> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
> even more money.

Is it wrong to try to make more money then?

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Dogpoop wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>> CJB wrote:
>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>
>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>
>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>
>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>
>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>
>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
>>> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is
>>> trying to alleviate.
>>
>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
>> even more money.
>
> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?

Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.

Brimstone wrote:
> Dogpoop wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>>> CJB wrote:
>>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>>
>>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>>
>>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>>
>>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>>
>>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>>
>>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors,
>>>> come up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is
>>>> trying to alleviate.
>>>
>>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
>>> even more money.
>>
>> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?
>
> Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.

OK, is it wrong for this 'large company' to try to make more money?

If it is, why is it?

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

In article , CJB 
says...
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
> 
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
> 
> Daily Telegraph
> 
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
> 
> 22/10/2002
> 
Got anything more relevent than a 5 year old story?


-- 
Conor

The United States, increasing quality by lowering standards since 1776.

Dogpoop wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>>>> CJB wrote:
>>>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors,
>>>>> come up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme
>>>>> is trying to alleviate.
>>>>
>>>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to
>>>> make even more money.
>>>
>>> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?
>>
>> Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.
>
> OK, is it wrong for this 'large company' to try to make more money?

No.

>
> If it is, why is it?

"CJB"  wrote in message
news:1187173378.747011.22400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>
> Daily Telegraph
>
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>
> 22/10/2002
>
> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>
> A new runway at Heathrow would bring only half the capacity gain the
> Government expected unless extensive additional space for aircraft
> parking was provided, airport planners have discovered.
>
> An analysis of the Department for Transport's proposal for a short
> third runway has found that officials severely under-estimated the
> problems of aircraft reaching it.
>
> As the new strip would be to the north of the existing northern
> runway, aircraft preparing to depart would have to cross the northern
> runway.
> Planes landing on the new runway would similarly need to manoeuvre
> across the existing northern strip.
>
> A confidential technical study of the plan by Heathrow's owners, BAA,
> has calculated that about 600 crossings would be required every day.
> To ensure safety, this would mean that take-offs and landings on the
> present northern runway would have to be reduced.
>
> The analysis concludes that the net capacity increase the third runway
> would bring Heathrow would be the equivalent of 13 million passengers
> a year, compared with the 27 million assumed in the Government's
> consultation paper.
>
> It is estimated that the airport would need extra land, equivalent to
> at least 25 football pitches, for further aircraft parking space and
> terminal buildings north of the current northern runway.

Why post an outdated story from almost five years ago?  The plan is to 
have a dedicated terminal 6 near the third runway, so this 'analysis' is 
plain wrong.

CJB wrote:
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>
> Daily Telegraph
>
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>
> 22/10/2002
>
> Heathrow expansion hits space problem

Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come up with 
a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying to alleviate.

I've lost the will to care anymore for anything that happens there.

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Dogpoop wrote:
> CJB wrote:
>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>
>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>
>> Daily Telegraph
>>
>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>
>> 22/10/2002
>>
>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>
> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying
> to alleviate.

There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make even 
more money.

Brimstone wrote:
> Dogpoop wrote:
>> CJB wrote:
>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>
>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>
>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>
>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>
>>> 22/10/2002
>>>
>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>
>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
>> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying
>> to alleviate.
>
> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
> even more money.

Is it wrong to try to make more money then?

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Dogpoop wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>> CJB wrote:
>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>
>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>
>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>
>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>
>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>
>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
>>> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is
>>> trying to alleviate.
>>
>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
>> even more money.
>
> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?

Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.

Brimstone wrote:
> Dogpoop wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>>> CJB wrote:
>>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>>
>>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>>
>>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>>
>>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>>
>>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>>
>>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors,
>>>> come up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is
>>>> trying to alleviate.
>>>
>>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
>>> even more money.
>>
>> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?
>
> Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.

OK, is it wrong for this 'large company' to try to make more money?

If it is, why is it?

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

In article , CJB 
says...
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
> 
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
> 
> Daily Telegraph
> 
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
> 
> 22/10/2002
> 
Got anything more relevent than a 5 year old story?


-- 
Conor

The United States, increasing quality by lowering standards since 1776.

Dogpoop wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>>>> CJB wrote:
>>>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors,
>>>>> come up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme
>>>>> is trying to alleviate.
>>>>
>>>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to
>>>> make even more money.
>>>
>>> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?
>>
>> Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.
>
> OK, is it wrong for this 'large company' to try to make more money?

No.

>
> If it is, why is it?

"CJB"  wrote in message
news:1187173378.747011.22400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>
> Daily Telegraph
>
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>
> 22/10/2002
>
> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>
> A new runway at Heathrow would bring only half the capacity gain the
> Government expected unless extensive additional space for aircraft
> parking was provided, airport planners have discovered.
>
> An analysis of the Department for Transport's proposal for a short
> third runway has found that officials severely under-estimated the
> problems of aircraft reaching it.
>
> As the new strip would be to the north of the existing northern
> runway, aircraft preparing to depart would have to cross the northern
> runway.
> Planes landing on the new runway would similarly need to manoeuvre
> across the existing northern strip.
>
> A confidential technical study of the plan by Heathrow's owners, BAA,
> has calculated that about 600 crossings would be required every day.
> To ensure safety, this would mean that take-offs and landings on the
> present northern runway would have to be reduced.
>
> The analysis concludes that the net capacity increase the third runway
> would bring Heathrow would be the equivalent of 13 million passengers
> a year, compared with the 27 million assumed in the Government's
> consultation paper.
>
> It is estimated that the airport would need extra land, equivalent to
> at least 25 football pitches, for further aircraft parking space and
> terminal buildings north of the current northern runway.

Why post an outdated story from almost five years ago?  The plan is to 
have a dedicated terminal 6 near the third runway, so this 'analysis' is 
plain wrong.

CJB wrote:
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>
> Daily Telegraph
>
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>
> 22/10/2002
>
> Heathrow expansion hits space problem

Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come up with 
a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying to alleviate.

I've lost the will to care anymore for anything that happens there.

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Dogpoop wrote:
> CJB wrote:
>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>
>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>
>> Daily Telegraph
>>
>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>
>> 22/10/2002
>>
>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>
> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying
> to alleviate.

There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make even 
more money.

Brimstone wrote:
> Dogpoop wrote:
>> CJB wrote:
>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>
>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>
>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>
>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>
>>> 22/10/2002
>>>
>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>
>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
>> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying
>> to alleviate.
>
> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
> even more money.

Is it wrong to try to make more money then?

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Dogpoop wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>> CJB wrote:
>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>
>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>
>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>
>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>
>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>
>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
>>> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is
>>> trying to alleviate.
>>
>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
>> even more money.
>
> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?

Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.

Brimstone wrote:
> Dogpoop wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>>> CJB wrote:
>>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>>
>>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>>
>>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>>
>>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>>
>>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>>
>>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors,
>>>> come up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is
>>>> trying to alleviate.
>>>
>>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
>>> even more money.
>>
>> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?
>
> Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.

OK, is it wrong for this 'large company' to try to make more money?

If it is, why is it?

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

In article , CJB 
says...
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
> 
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
> 
> Daily Telegraph
> 
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
> 
> 22/10/2002
> 
Got anything more relevent than a 5 year old story?


-- 
Conor

The United States, increasing quality by lowering standards since 1776.

Dogpoop wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>>>> CJB wrote:
>>>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors,
>>>>> come up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme
>>>>> is trying to alleviate.
>>>>
>>>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to
>>>> make even more money.
>>>
>>> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?
>>
>> Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.
>
> OK, is it wrong for this 'large company' to try to make more money?

No.

>
> If it is, why is it?

"CJB"  wrote in message
news:1187173378.747011.22400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>
> Daily Telegraph
>
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>
> 22/10/2002
>
> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>
> A new runway at Heathrow would bring only half the capacity gain the
> Government expected unless extensive additional space for aircraft
> parking was provided, airport planners have discovered.
>
> An analysis of the Department for Transport's proposal for a short
> third runway has found that officials severely under-estimated the
> problems of aircraft reaching it.
>
> As the new strip would be to the north of the existing northern
> runway, aircraft preparing to depart would have to cross the northern
> runway.
> Planes landing on the new runway would similarly need to manoeuvre
> across the existing northern strip.
>
> A confidential technical study of the plan by Heathrow's owners, BAA,
> has calculated that about 600 crossings would be required every day.
> To ensure safety, this would mean that take-offs and landings on the
> present northern runway would have to be reduced.
>
> The analysis concludes that the net capacity increase the third runway
> would bring Heathrow would be the equivalent of 13 million passengers
> a year, compared with the 27 million assumed in the Government's
> consultation paper.
>
> It is estimated that the airport would need extra land, equivalent to
> at least 25 football pitches, for further aircraft parking space and
> terminal buildings north of the current northern runway.

Why post an outdated story from almost five years ago?  The plan is to 
have a dedicated terminal 6 near the third runway, so this 'analysis' is 
plain wrong.

CJB wrote:
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>
> Daily Telegraph
>
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>
> 22/10/2002
>
> Heathrow expansion hits space problem

Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come up with 
a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying to alleviate.

I've lost the will to care anymore for anything that happens there.

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Dogpoop wrote:
> CJB wrote:
>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>
>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>
>> Daily Telegraph
>>
>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>
>> 22/10/2002
>>
>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>
> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying
> to alleviate.

There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make even 
more money.

Brimstone wrote:
> Dogpoop wrote:
>> CJB wrote:
>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>
>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>
>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>
>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>
>>> 22/10/2002
>>>
>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>
>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
>> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is trying
>> to alleviate.
>
> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
> even more money.

Is it wrong to try to make more money then?

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

Dogpoop wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>> CJB wrote:
>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>
>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>
>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>
>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>
>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>
>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors, come
>>> up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is
>>> trying to alleviate.
>>
>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
>> even more money.
>
> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?

Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.

Brimstone wrote:
> Dogpoop wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Dogpoop wrote:
>>>> CJB wrote:
>>>>> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
>>>>>
>>>>> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
>>>>>
>>>>> Daily Telegraph
>>>>>
>>>>> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
>>>>>
>>>>> 22/10/2002
>>>>>
>>>>> Heathrow expansion hits space problem
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps someone should protest about it, or, horror of horrors,
>>>> come up with a reasonable alternative to the problems the scheme is
>>>> trying to alleviate.
>>>
>>> There are no problems, except that a large company is trying to make
>>> even more money.
>>
>> Is it wrong to try to make more money then?
>
> Not necessarily. However, as usual, context is all.

OK, is it wrong for this 'large company' to try to make more money?

If it is, why is it?

-- 
Dog Poop

Stand by me,

In article , CJB 
says...
> Harlington's Fate is Sealed
> 
> Third Runway only achieves 45% required capacity
> 
> Daily Telegraph
> 
> By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
> 
> 22/10/2002
> 
Got anything more relevent than a 5 year old story?


-- 
Conor

The United States, increasing quality by lowering standards since 1776.