>From The Sunday TimesSeptember 16, 2007

BAA calls for long runway at Heathrow - Dominic O'Connell

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article2459633.ece

BAA has begun lobbying for a full-length new runway at Heathrow ahead
of the expected launch next month of a consultation document on
expansion of the London airport.

The move represents a switch for BAA, which has in the past advocated
only a short extra runway, suitable for the small aircraft used on
short-haul flights.

A full-length strip - Heathrow's existing runways are full-size at
about 4,000 metres - would allow more flights by larger, long-haul
aircraft.

BAA declined to comment, but industry sources confirmed the change in
policy. "They are pushing hard on a full-length runway - which I find
difficult to understand. I think it is because they think, possibly
rightly, that getting any new runway at Heathrow is going to be a
monumental battle, so they may as well go the whole way," said one
executive.

The government is expected to publish a consultation document on the
expansion of Heathrow next month. This will cover proposals for more
flights on the airport's two present runways, and for a third runway.

Both plans are expected to be bitterly opposed by local residents and
environmental groups. Heathrow was last month the scene of a "climate
camp" at which green campaigners gathered to protest against
aviation's contribution to global warming.

The consultation is the result of a government white paper on the
future of air transport issued four years ago. It said that while
there was an economic case for expanding Heathrow, it could not
proceed until local air-pollution issues were addressed. Stansted was
chosen as the location for the southeast's first new runway.

Meanwhile BAA has appointed Merrill Lynch to conduct a review of the
future of World Duty Free, its airport retail business.

SB  wrote:

> BAA calls for long runway at Heathrow

Excellent news.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:46:01 +0100, I waved a wand and this message
magically appears in front of Steve Firth:

> SB  wrote:
> 
> > BAA calls for long runway at Heathrow
> 
> Excellent news.

Seconded!
-- 
http://www.munted.org.uk

Fearsome grindings.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:28:20 -0700, SB wrote:

> BAA calls for long runway at Heathrow - Dominic O'Connell
 
> It said that while
> there was an economic case for expanding Heathrow, it could not
> proceed until local air-pollution issues were addressed. 

<Uri Geller>I will make the NO2 disappear, watch my eyes, watch my
eyes</Uri Geller>

Whats this weeks solution, burying the roads still? Perhaps big fans over
the airport?

Steve

"Alex Buell"  wrote in message 
news:20070917222347.99d9bace.alex.buell@munted.org.uk...
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:46:01 +0100, I waved a wand and this message
> magically appears in front of Steve Firth:
>
>> SB  wrote:
>>
>> > BAA calls for long runway at Heathrow
>>
>> Excellent news.
>
> Seconded!

Thirded.

Alan

"Alex Buell"  wrote in message 
news:20070917222347.99d9bace.alex.buell@munted.org.uk...
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:46:01 +0100, I waved a wand and this message
> magically appears in front of Steve Firth:
>
>> SB  wrote:
>>
>> > BAA calls for long runway at Heathrow
>>
>> Excellent news.
>
> Seconded!

I hope to god they do not get permisssion!

Alan Holmes  wrote:

> "Alex Buell"  wrote in message 
> news:20070917222347.99d9bace.alex.buell@munted.org.uk...
> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:46:01 +0100, I waved a wand and this message
> > magically appears in front of Steve Firth:
> >
> >> SB  wrote:
> >>
> >> > BAA calls for long runway at Heathrow
> >>
> >> Excellent news.
> >
> > Seconded!
> 
> I hope to god they do not get permisssion!

Why?

-- 
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably 
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)"  wrote in message 
news:1i4nnqz.ukpodr7z7hdhN%d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk...
> Alan Holmes  wrote:
>
>> "Alex Buell"  wrote in message
>> news:20070917222347.99d9bace.alex.buell@munted.org.uk...
>> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:46:01 +0100, I waved a wand and this message
>> > magically appears in front of Steve Firth:
>> >
>> >> SB  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > BAA calls for long runway at Heathrow
>> >>
>> >> Excellent news.
>> >
>> > Seconded!
>>
>> I hope to god they do not get permisssion!
>
> Why?

Because it will generate more noise and polution for the hundreds of 
thousands, if not millions, who live under the flight path.

And one should bear in mind that more than 80% of the people who fly in just 
change aeroplanes and fly out again, bringing little to the benefit of the 
population of england.

Alan Holmes wrote:

> 
> And one should bear in mind that more than 80% of the people who fly in just 
> change aeroplanes and fly out again, bringing little to the benefit of the 
> population of england.
> 

Airport tax?

"NM"  wrote in message 
news:hi0Ii.8834$gZ.4149@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
> Alan Holmes wrote:
>
>>
>> And one should bear in mind that more than 80% of the people who fly in 
>> just change aeroplanes and fly out again, bringing little to the benefit 
>> of the population of england.
>>
>
> Airport tax?

How does that help me?

Alan Holmes wrote:
> "NM"  wrote in message 
> news:hi0Ii.8834$gZ.4149@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>
>>> And one should bear in mind that more than 80% of the people who fly in 
>>> just change aeroplanes and fly out again, bringing little to the benefit 
>>> of the population of england.
>>>
>> Airport tax?
> 
> How does that help me?
> 
> 
Eases you overall tax burden

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:16:43 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
 wrote:

>
>"NM"  wrote in message 
>news:hi0Ii.8834$gZ.4149@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And one should bear in mind that more than 80% of the people who fly in 
>>> just change aeroplanes and fly out again, bringing little to the benefit 
>>> of the population of england.
>>>
>>
>> Airport tax?
>
>How does that help me?
>

Airport tax helps fight global warming and pollution. It also helps
keep down domestic taxes such as income tax and VAT. 

The above must be true as Gordon Brown said that's what it would do. 

On the other hand...

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:47:53 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
 wrote:


>
>Because it will generate more noise and polution for the hundreds of 
>thousands, if not millions, who live under the flight path.
>

I've told you before, Holmes ...

You soft, effete, plonkers in the South East have had it plush too
long. 

If you don't want the air traffic we'll have it, plenty of disused WW2
bomber bases up here in The North, so we'll take the air traffic and
you can have the heavy industry, the coal mines (Such as is left of
it), the electrical energy generation, and the offshore oil and gas
terminals, you'll need to look hard for that as well mind, but now's
just the time to start. 

We'll let you keep the Financial Services "Industry"...

For what it's worth.  

>And one should bear in mind that more than 80% of the people who fly in just 
>change aeroplanes and fly out again, bringing little to the benefit of the 
>population of england.

Presumably you have a source for that, but whilst you are doing
nothing perhaps you could just explain precisely what it is you mean.

DG

"Derek Geldard"  wrote in message 
news:ih93f3dtc1d8e31jvbbgf0j7jb7cpg1528@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:47:53 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
>  wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Because it will generate more noise and polution for the hundreds of
>>thousands, if not millions, who live under the flight path.
>>
>
> I've told you before, Holmes ...
>
> You soft, effete, plonkers in the South East have had it plush too
> long.
>
> If you don't want the air traffic we'll have it, plenty of disused WW2
> bomber bases up here in The North, so we'll take the air traffic and
> you can have the heavy industry, the coal mines (Such as is left of
> it), the electrical energy generation, and the offshore oil and gas
> terminals, you'll need to look hard for that as well mind, but now's
> just the time to start.

I would love you to have the airports and the traffic it creates.

As would several hundreds of thousands people who live within about 20 miles 
of the noise generating system.

> We'll let you keep the Financial Services "Industry"...
>
> For what it's worth.
>
>>And one should bear in mind that more than 80% of the people who fly in 
>>just
>>change aeroplanes and fly out again, bringing little to the benefit of the
>>population of england.
>
> Presumably you have a source for that, but whilst you are doing
> nothing perhaps you could just explain precisely what it is you mean.

I do not have exact figures but the local transport system could not cope 
with more than about 15% of the number of people who fly in, so, it is 
obvious that they just fly out again.

About 360 people fly in every minute of the day, for about 16 hours.


>
> DG
>

"NM"  wrote in message 
news:hi0Ii.8834$gZ.4149@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
> Alan Holmes wrote:
>
>>
>> And one should bear in mind that more than 80% of the people who fly in 
>> just change aeroplanes and fly out again, bringing little to the benefit 
>> of the population of england.
>>
>
> Airport tax?

The Government passenger levy is not charged on pax
transiting to another country.

tim

In message , Peter 
 writes
>Airport tax helps fight global warming and pollution. It also helps
>keep down domestic taxes such as income tax and VAT.
>
>The above must be true as Gordon Brown said that's what it would do.
>
>On the other hand...
I think I'll believe the "On the other hand".
-- 
Clive.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:43:23 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
 wrote:


>> Presumably you have a source for that, but whilst you are doing
>> nothing perhaps you could just explain precisely what it is you mean.
>
>I do not have exact figures but the local transport system could not cope 
>with more than about 15% of the number of people who fly in, so, it is 
>obvious that they just fly out again.

Thank You.

Your method of analysis, viz. taking all of what you think you know
and subtracting that from what you estimate to be 100% to get the
supposed result you want is prone to such great errors that it has to
be disregarded. 

Firstly, in numerical methods,  it's bad in principle to try get to
your result by subtracting one large number from another, (best
avoided). Both of the two large numbers are bound to include errors,
and the residue of subtracting one from the other is mostly error.

Secondly there could be factors you have not taken into account such
as planes flying in for maintenance etc a small number of these will
have a big effect on the error.

Thirdly a geat many flyers to/ from the provinces change planes at
Heathrow, I remain surprised, because it cannot be the cheapest
airfield to operate from, but it is the case that national flag
carriers want to keep flying out of Heathrow. These travellers such as
an oil man flying in from Houston changing at Heathrow for Aberdeen
are people who's journey starts or ends within the UK and their trip
does benefit the UK economy.

If you are in charge of an orchard and want to know how many apples
are being lost due to kids scrumping them, then you have to measure
that statistic, it's no good starting from the area of the orchard and
subtracting the crop you got paid for, you might have neglected the
effect of galloping fruit rot, or "Global Warming", or a dry summer,
or ...   

>About 360 people fly in every minute of the day, for about 16 hours.

That's one reason I don't live there, preferring to put up with the
all the effects of "Megawatt Alley" 10 minutes from here, such as
childhood asthma.

As I said, I'd be prepared to swap, you take the power stations and
what's left of the coal mines and heavy industry incuding oil
infrastructure, and steel and we'll take the air traffic dispersing it
around disused WW2 bomber bases. They are practically touching each
other in Yorks/Lincs.

DG

"Derek Geldard"  wrote in message 
news:98dbf3dd8kg6emvehu2jq4vj4obnb8gvli@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:43:23 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
>  wrote:
>
>
>>> Presumably you have a source for that, but whilst you are doing
>>> nothing perhaps you could just explain precisely what it is you mean.
>>
>>I do not have exact figures but the local transport system could not cope
>>with more than about 15% of the number of people who fly in, so, it is
>>obvious that they just fly out again.
>
> Thank You.
>
> Your method of analysis, viz. taking all of what you think you know
> and subtracting that from what you estimate to be 100% to get the
> supposed result you want is prone to such great errors that it has to
> be disregarded.

Well it is a fact that about 300 people fly in every minute.

And that the local transport network could only cope with about 15% of that 
number!

> Firstly, in numerical methods,  it's bad in principle to try get to
> your result by subtracting one large number from another, (best
> avoided). Both of the two large numbers are bound to include errors,
> and the residue of subtracting one from the other is mostly error.

Each aeroplane which flies in holds about 300 people!
>
> Secondly there could be factors you have not taken into account such
> as planes flying in for maintenance etc a small number of these will
> have a big effect on the error.

The local transport system still cannot cope with more than 15% pf the 
people flying in, and they fly in for about 17 hours a day, so a couple of 
planes coming in for servicing would be a miniscule number, and I would 
doubt that any aircraft flying in would come in empty.
>
> Thirdly a geat many flyers to/ from the provinces change planes at
> Heathrow, I remain surprised, because it cannot be the cheapest
> airfield to operate from, but it is the case that national flag
> carriers want to keep flying out of Heathrow. These travellers such as
> an oil man flying in from Houston changing at Heathrow for Aberdeen
> are people who's journey starts or ends within the UK and their trip
> does benefit the UK economy.

As I've said the number of passengers who remain are very low.
>
> If you are in charge of an orchard and want to know how many apples
> are being lost due to kids scrumping them, then you have to measure
> that statistic, it's no good starting from the area of the orchard and
> subtracting the crop you got paid for, you might have neglected the
> effect of galloping fruit rot, or "Global Warming", or a dry summer,
> or ...
>
>>About 360 people fly in every minute of the day, for about 16 hours.
>
> That's one reason I don't live there, preferring to put up with the
> all the effects of "Megawatt Alley" 10 minutes from here, such as
> childhood asthma.
>
> As I said, I'd be prepared to swap, you take the power stations and
> what's left of the coal mines and heavy industry incuding oil
> infrastructure, and steel and we'll take the air traffic dispersing it
> around disused WW2 bomber bases. They are practically touching each
> other in Yorks/Lincs.
>
> DG
>

Alan Holmes wrote:
> 
> Well it is a fact that about 300 people fly in every minute.

Agreed.  (although not 24 hours)
> 
> And that the local transport network could only cope with about 15% of that 
> number!

Source?

Seems to me you can get about a car every 2 seconds down each of the 2 
lanes of the M4 slip.  At 2 people per car, that's 120 people per 
minute.  So where did I go wrong?

Andy

On 18 Sep, 23:47, "Alan Holmes"  wrote:
> "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)"  wrote in messagenews:1i4nnqz.ukpodr7z7hdhN%d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Alan Holmes  wrote:
>
> >> "Alex Buell"  wrote in message
> >>news:20070917222347.99d9bace.alex.buell@munted.org.uk...
> >> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:46:01 +0100, I waved a wand and this message
> >> > magically appears in front of Steve Firth:
>
> >> >> SB  wrote:
>
> >> >> > BAA calls for long runway at Heathrow
>
> >> >> Excellent news.
>
> >> > Seconded!
>
> >> I hope to god they do not get permisssion!
>
> > Why?
>
> Because it will generate more noise and polution for the hundreds of
> thousands, if not millions, who live under the flight path.
>
> And one should bear in mind that more than 80% of the people who fly in just
> change aeroplanes and fly out again, bringing little to the benefit of the
> population of england.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There's no point in living near an airport and complaining about
noise. Move house to somewhere quieter.

Alan Holmes  wrote:

[Heathrow]

> Each aeroplane which flies in holds about 300 people!

Cobblers.

737 about 100
A319 about 140
757 about 200-230
A330 about 240

The 300 seaters exist, and indeed larger aircraft, but "each" is not the
same as "some" or even "many".

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:29:02 -0700, Sir Jeremy 
wrote:


>
>There's no point in living near an airport and complaining about
>noise. Move house to somewhere quieter.

Precisely, it's like a captain in the Navy complaining to the
Admiralty about the sea.

AFAIAA they don't do anthing else useful in Hounslow /Sipson/Datchet.

DG

In message 
          Andy Champ  wrote:

> Alan Holmes wrote:
> > 
> > Well it is a fact that about 300 people fly in every minute.
> 
> Agreed.  (although not 24 hours)
> > 
> > And that the local transport network could only cope with about 15% of
> > that  number!
> 
> Source?
> 
> Seems to me you can get about a car every 2 seconds down each of the 2 
> lanes of the M4 slip.  At 2 people per car, that's 120 people per 
> minute.  So where did I go wrong?
> 

You forgot the road works...

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

"Andy Champ"  wrote in message 
news:c7ydnaqqLa6NemvbnZ2dnUVZ8qSnnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>
>> Well it is a fact that about 300 people fly in every minute.
>
> Agreed.  (although not 24 hours)

No, only about 16 hours every day, which is roughly 300,000 each day
>>
>> And that the local transport network could only cope with about 15% of 
>> that number!
>
> Source?

The number of people travelling in, and the capability of the local 
transport system, which is just not able to cope with 300 people every 
minute.
>
> Seems to me you can get about a car every 2 seconds down each of the 2 
> lanes of the M4 slip.  At 2 people per car, that's 120 people per minute. 
> So where did I go wrong?

Your arithmetic!(:-)

"Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
news:345a45274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> In message 
>          Andy Champ  wrote:
>
>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>> >
>> > Well it is a fact that about 300 people fly in every minute.
>>
>> Agreed.  (although not 24 hours)
>> >
>> > And that the local transport network could only cope with about 15% of
>> > that  number!
>>
>> Source?
>>
>> Seems to me you can get about a car every 2 seconds down each of the 2
>> lanes of the M4 slip.  At 2 people per car, that's 120 people per
>> minute.  So where did I go wrong?
>>
>
> You forgot the road works...

What road works?(:-)

No one in authority ever notices that!

"Sir Jeremy"  wrote in message 
news:1190586542.896706.120960@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On 18 Sep, 23:47, "Alan Holmes"  wrote:
>> "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)"  wrote in 
>> messagenews:1i4nnqz.ukpodr7z7hdhN%d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Alan Holmes  wrote:
>>
>> >> "Alex Buell"  wrote in message
>> >>news:20070917222347.99d9bace.alex.buell@munted.org.uk...
>> >> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:46:01 +0100, I waved a wand and this message
>> >> > magically appears in front of Steve Firth:
>>
>> >> >> SB  wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > BAA calls for long runway at Heathrow
>>
>> >> >> Excellent news.
>>
>> >> > Seconded!
>>
>> >> I hope to god they do not get permisssion!
>>
>> > Why?
>>
>> Because it will generate more noise and polution for the hundreds of
>> thousands, if not millions, who live under the flight path.
>>
>> And one should bear in mind that more than 80% of the people who fly in 
>> just
>> change aeroplanes and fly out again, bringing little to the benefit of 
>> the
>> population of england.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> There's no point in living near an airport and complaining about
> noise. Move house to somewhere quieter.

When I was a young man and someone retired it was common for them to say, we 
are moving to (somewher like) Cornwall, and I'd ask why, the answer was 
usually it's a lovely place, we go there every summer.

A short while later you would ask whether anyone had heard from this fellow, 
and the answer would usually be, oh he's dead, so he has left his wife in a 
strange place with no friends!

This happened frequently, so I decided where I was at 40 that is where I 
would die, why should I burden my wife with moving to a strange place when 
all that is needed is for the bulk of the unneccessary air traffic could be 
dealt with elsewhere in a more suitable place.

Is that a really simple answer to the problem?

And for all those who live near the airport it would mean around a million 
people moving.

And I don't exactly live that near the airport!


>

"Derek Geldard"  wrote in message 
news:sgrdf3p0pf754lamadup72l888sn8amq3f@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:29:02 -0700, Sir Jeremy 
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>There's no point in living near an airport and complaining about
>>noise. Move house to somewhere quieter.
>
> Precisely, it's like a captain in the Navy complaining to the
> Admiralty about the sea.
>
> AFAIAA they don't do anthing else useful in Hounslow /Sipson/Datchet.

Quite correct, BAA do nothing useful in any of those places!

>
> DG
>

In message <9pNJi.37439$Db6.28479@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
          "Alan Holmes"  wrote:

> 
> "Andy Champ"  wrote in message 
> news:c7ydnaqqLa6NemvbnZ2dnUVZ8qSnnZ2d@pipex.net...
> > Alan Holmes wrote:
> >>
> >> Well it is a fact that about 300 people fly in every minute.
> >
> > Agreed.  (although not 24 hours)
> 
> No, only about 16 hours every day, which is roughly 300,000 each day
> >>
> >> And that the local transport network could only cope with about 15% of 
> >> that number!
> >
> > Source?
> 
> The number of people travelling in, and the capability of the local 
> transport system, which is just not able to cope with 300 people every 
> minute.

Proof by assertion is not convincing.


-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

In message <2qNJi.37440$Db6.14135@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
          "Alan Holmes"  wrote:

> 
> "Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
> news:345a45274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> > In message 
> >          Andy Champ  wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Holmes wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Well it is a fact that about 300 people fly in every minute.
> >>
> >> Agreed.  (although not 24 hours)
> >> >
> >> > And that the local transport network could only cope with about 15% of
> >> > that  number!
> >>
> >> Source?
> >>
> >> Seems to me you can get about a car every 2 seconds down each of the 2
> >> lanes of the M4 slip.  At 2 people per car, that's 120 people per
> >> minute.  So where did I go wrong?
> >>
> >
> > You forgot the road works...
> 
> What road works?(:-)
> 
> No one in authority ever notices that!
> 
> 

There's always road works...

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On 24 Sep, 12:52, "Alan Holmes"  wrote:
> "Sir Jeremy"  wrote in message
>
> news:1190586542.896706.120960@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 18 Sep, 23:47, "Alan Holmes"  wrote:
> >> "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)"  wrote in
> >> messagenews:1i4nnqz.ukpodr7z7hdhN%d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk...
>
> >> > Alan Holmes  wrote:
>
> >> >> "Alex Buell"  wrote in message
> >> >>news:20070917222347.99d9bace.alex.buell@munted.org.uk...
> >> >> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:46:01 +0100, I waved a wand and this message
> >> >> > magically appears in front of Steve Firth:
>
> >> >> >> SB  wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > BAA calls for long runway at Heathrow
>
> >> >> >> Excellent news.
>
> >> >> > Seconded!
>
> >> >> I hope to god they do not get permisssion!
>
> >> > Why?
>
> >> Because it will generate more noise and polution for the hundreds of
> >> thousands, if not millions, who live under the flight path.
>
> >> And one should bear in mind that more than 80% of the people who fly in
> >> just
> >> change aeroplanes and fly out again, bringing little to the benefit of
> >> the
> >> population of england.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > There's no point in living near an airport and complaining about
> > noise. Move house to somewhere quieter.
>
> When I was a young man and someone retired it was common for them to say, we
> are moving to (somewher like) Cornwall, and I'd ask why, the answer was
> usually it's a lovely place, we go there every summer.
>
> A short while later you would ask whether anyone had heard from this fellow,
> and the answer would usually be, oh he's dead, so he has left his wife in a
> strange place with no friends!
>
> This happened frequently, so I decided where I was at 40 that is where I
> would die, why should I burden my wife with moving to a strange place when
> all that is needed is for the bulk of the unneccessary air traffic could be
> dealt with elsewhere in a more suitable place.
>
> Is that a really simple answer to the problem?
>
> And for all those who live near the airport it would mean around a million
> people moving.
>
> And I don't exactly live that near the airport!
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


If you aren't prepared to move, then you'll have to live with the
noise. I take your point about moving at retirement, but at 40 you've
got at least 20 years to go and even retiring at 60-65 most people
live another 10-15 years  so plenty of time to make new friends.

Alan Holmes wrote:
> "Sir Jeremy"  wrote in message
> news:1190586542.896706.120960@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>> On 18 Sep, 23:47, "Alan Holmes"  wrote:
>>> "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)"  wrote in
>>> messagenews:1i4nnqz.ukpodr7z7hdhN%d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Alan Holmes  wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Alex Buell"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:20070917222347.99d9bace.alex.buell@munted.org.uk...
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:46:01 +0100, I waved a wand and this
>>>>>> message magically appears in front of Steve Firth:
>>>
>>>>>>> SB  wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> BAA calls for long runway at Heathrow
>>>
>>>>>>> Excellent news.
>>>
>>>>>> Seconded!
>>>
>>>>> I hope to god they do not get permisssion!
>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Because it will generate more noise and polution for the hundreds of
>>> thousands, if not millions, who live under the flight path.
>>>
>>> And one should bear in mind that more than 80% of the people who
>>> fly in just
>>> change aeroplanes and fly out again, bringing little to the benefit
>>> of the
>>> population of england.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> There's no point in living near an airport and complaining about
>> noise. Move house to somewhere quieter.
>
> When I was a young man and someone retired it was common for them to
> say, we are moving to (somewher like) Cornwall, and I'd ask why, the
> answer was usually it's a lovely place, we go there every summer.
>
> A short while later you would ask whether anyone had heard from this
> fellow, and the answer would usually be, oh he's dead, so he has left
> his wife in a strange place with no friends!
>
> This happened frequently, so I decided where I was at 40 that is
> where I would die, why should I burden my wife with moving to a
> strange place when all that is needed is for the bulk of the
> unneccessary air traffic could be dealt with elsewhere in a more
> suitable place.
> Is that a really simple answer to the problem?
>
> And for all those who live near the airport it would mean around a
> million people moving.

Cheap housing for the deaf!

In message <SyNJi.37444$Db6.917@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, Alan Holmes 
 writes
>
>"Derek Geldard"  wrote in message
>news:sgrdf3p0pf754lamadup72l888sn8amq3f@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:29:02 -0700, Sir Jeremy 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>There's no point in living near an airport and complaining about
>>>noise. Move house to somewhere quieter.
>>
>> Precisely, it's like a captain in the Navy complaining to the
>> Admiralty about the sea.
>>
>> AFAIAA they don't do anthing else useful in Hounslow /Sipson/Datchet.
>
>Quite correct, BAA do nothing useful in any of those places!
>
>>
>> DG
>>
>
>
OTT, but why is it MPs and police get to drive at any speed, even in bus 
lanes and the rest of us get shafted?
-- 
Clive.

Clive.  wrote:

> OTT, but why is it MPs and police get to drive at any speed, even in bus
> lanes and the rest of us get shafted?

Because they are very important and we are just nobodies.

The day that the M4 was closed for hours, a few friends of mine were on
their way to a meeting with Blair, A. They were towards the end of the
M4 near the bus lane, obviously going to be late and had just started to
call the CO to let them know of the delay. They heard sirens and up the
bus lane swept Blair, A. chauffered in a Jag with police outriders - on
his way to keep an appointment that they could not.

Amusing to a slight degree.

Alan Holmes  wrote:

> BAA do nothing useful in any of those places!

Nor anywhere.

I spent half an hour sitting in a plane on Saturday because BAA couldn't
be arsed to provide a bus to the terminal. Then of course luggage had
been on the carousel for about half an hour before we could get there
and several passengers discovered other people had walked off with their
luggage.

BAA staff couldn't give a bugger.

In article <92b757274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>, rail@greywall.demon.co.uk 
says...

> Proof by assertion is not convincing.

Indeed and perhaps you should remember that - you have previous.

Jim

-- 
Remove `spamtrapped` to reply off-list

http://jim-mason.fotopic.net/

"Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
news:92b757274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> In message <9pNJi.37439$Db6.28479@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
>          "Alan Holmes"  wrote:
>
>>
>> "Andy Champ"  wrote in message
>> news:c7ydnaqqLa6NemvbnZ2dnUVZ8qSnnZ2d@pipex.net...
>> > Alan Holmes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Well it is a fact that about 300 people fly in every minute.
>> >
>> > Agreed.  (although not 24 hours)
>>
>> No, only about 16 hours every day, which is roughly 300,000 each day
>> >>
>> >> And that the local transport network could only cope with about 15% of
>> >> that number!
>> >
>> > Source?
>>
>> The number of people travelling in, and the capability of the local
>> transport system, which is just not able to cope with 300 people every
>> minute.
>
> Proof by assertion is not convincing.

How much more proof do you want other than the fact that about 300 people 
per minute arrive at Heathrow?

"John Rowland"  wrote in message 
news:fd8a6t$k28$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> Alan Holmes wrote:
>> "Sir Jeremy"  wrote in message
>> news:1190586542.896706.120960@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 18 Sep, 23:47, "Alan Holmes"  wrote:
>>>> "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)"  wrote in
>>>> messagenews:1i4nnqz.ukpodr7z7hdhN%d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Alan Holmes  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "Alex Buell"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:20070917222347.99d9bace.alex.buell@munted.org.uk...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:46:01 +0100, I waved a wand and this
>>>>>>> message magically appears in front of Steve Firth:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> SB  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BAA calls for long runway at Heathrow
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Excellent news.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Seconded!
>>>>
>>>>>> I hope to god they do not get permisssion!
>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> Because it will generate more noise and polution for the hundreds of
>>>> thousands, if not millions, who live under the flight path.
>>>>
>>>> And one should bear in mind that more than 80% of the people who
>>>> fly in just
>>>> change aeroplanes and fly out again, bringing little to the benefit
>>>> of the
>>>> population of england.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> There's no point in living near an airport and complaining about
>>> noise. Move house to somewhere quieter.
>>
>> When I was a young man and someone retired it was common for them to
>> say, we are moving to (somewher like) Cornwall, and I'd ask why, the
>> answer was usually it's a lovely place, we go there every summer.
>>
>> A short while later you would ask whether anyone had heard from this
>> fellow, and the answer would usually be, oh he's dead, so he has left
>> his wife in a strange place with no friends!
>>
>> This happened frequently, so I decided where I was at 40 that is
>> where I would die, why should I burden my wife with moving to a
>> strange place when all that is needed is for the bulk of the
>> unneccessary air traffic could be dealt with elsewhere in a more
>> suitable place.
>> Is that a really simple answer to the problem?
>>
>> And for all those who live near the airport it would mean around a
>> million people moving.
>
> Cheap housing for the deaf!

Doesn't stop the ground shaking when the damned things fly over!

Alan Holmes wrote:
> "John Rowland"  wrote in
> message news:fd8a6t$k28$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>> And for all those who live near the airport it would mean around a
>>> million people moving.
>>
>> Cheap housing for the deaf!
>
> Doesn't stop the ground shaking when the damned things fly over!

You could just pretend the HiFi's playing early PiL.

In message 
          Jim Mason  wrote:

> In article <92b757274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>, rail@greywall.demon.co.uk 
> says...
> 
> > Proof by assertion is not convincing.
> 
> Indeed and perhaps you should remember that - you have previous.
> 

Really...

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

In message <6iXJi.53000$rr5.45391@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>
          "Alan Holmes"  wrote:

> 
> "Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
> news:92b757274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> > In message <9pNJi.37439$Db6.28479@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
> >          "Alan Holmes"  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Andy Champ"  wrote in message
> >> news:c7ydnaqqLa6NemvbnZ2dnUVZ8qSnnZ2d@pipex.net...
> >> > Alan Holmes wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Well it is a fact that about 300 people fly in every minute.
> >> >
> >> > Agreed.  (although not 24 hours)
> >>
> >> No, only about 16 hours every day, which is roughly 300,000 each day
> >> >>
> >> >> And that the local transport network could only cope with about 15% of
> >> >> that number!
> >> >
> >> > Source?
> >>
> >> The number of people travelling in, and the capability of the local
> >> transport system, which is just not able to cope with 300 people every
> >> minute.
> >
> > Proof by assertion is not convincing.
> 
> How much more proof do you want other than the fact that about 300 people 
> per minute arrive at Heathrow?
> 
> 

You still haven't shown that the local transport system can't cope with such
amounts.  Casual observation seems to indicate that it actually can as there
is no ever-increasing pile of humanity stacked in a hangar somewhere unable
to leave the airport.

Also, if we believe your figures about transit passengers, only about 50
people per minute actually want to use the local transport facilities. 
That's one bus load per minute. 

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

"Alan Holmes"  wrote in message 
news:6iXJi.53000$rr5.45391@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
> news:92b757274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <9pNJi.37439$Db6.28479@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
>>          "Alan Holmes"  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Andy Champ"  wrote in message
>>> news:c7ydnaqqLa6NemvbnZ2dnUVZ8qSnnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>> > Alan Holmes wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Well it is a fact that about 300 people fly in every minute.
>>> >
>>> > Agreed.  (although not 24 hours)
>>>
>>> No, only about 16 hours every day, which is roughly 300,000 each day
>>> >>
>>> >> And that the local transport network could only cope with about 15% 
>>> >> of
>>> >> that number!
>>> >
>>> > Source?
>>>
>>> The number of people travelling in, and the capability of the local
>>> transport system, which is just not able to cope with 300 people every
>>> minute.
>>
>> Proof by assertion is not convincing.
>
> How much more proof do you want other than the fact that about 300 people 
> per minute arrive at Heathrow?

I thought someone had already suggested that you are
wrong by a factor of 2-3.

If you are right in your claim that PT can only handle 15%
of 300 pax pm, if the actual number of pax is 100 pm then
PT can handle 60% which is far more significant.

tim

Alan Holmes  wrote:

> Doesn't stop the ground shaking when the damned things fly over!

Did you not notice this when you bought your low-rent hovel?

In message 
          "tim....."  wrote:

> 
> "Alan Holmes"  wrote in message 
> news:6iXJi.53000$rr5.45391@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
[snip]
> > 
> > How much more proof do you want other than the fact that about 300 people
> > per minute arrive at Heathrow?
> 
> I thought someone had already suggested that you are
> wrong by a factor of 2-3.
> 

There are several errors in Alan's arithmentic.  For a start, not every
aircraft is a 300+ seater, most are in the range 110-170 seats, as others
have pointed out, so lets take an average of 150 seats/plane.  Very few
planes fly with 100% load factors so lets take an average load factor of 75%
which gives us about 110 passengers per plane.

Second problem, Alan claims that an aircraft lands every minute whereas in
fact peak periods are limited to a landing every 90 seconds.  Averaged over
the day that's probably a plane every 2 minutes which gives us 55 passengers
per minute.

Thirdly Alan claims that 85% of these passengers are in transit and leave
again by plane so we are down to around 10 passengers per minute wanting to
use the local transport network.  That's a double decker bus every 5 to 7
minutes, not exactly going to strain the infrastructure.

Double the figures to include departures gives you 3 double deckers every ten
minutes.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

Graeme Wall wrote:
> In message 
>          "tim....."  wrote:
>
>>
>> "Alan Holmes"  wrote in message
>> news:6iXJi.53000$rr5.45391@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> [snip]
>>>
>>> How much more proof do you want other than the fact that about 300
>>> people per minute arrive at Heathrow?
>>
>> I thought someone had already suggested that you are
>> wrong by a factor of 2-3.
>>
>
> There are several errors in Alan's arithmentic.  For a start, not
> every aircraft is a 300+ seater, most are in the range 110-170 seats,
> as others have pointed out, so lets take an average of 150
> seats/plane.  Very few planes fly with 100% load factors so lets take
> an average load factor of 75% which gives us about 110 passengers per
> plane.
>
> Second problem, Alan claims that an aircraft lands every minute
> whereas in fact peak periods are limited to a landing every 90
> seconds.  Averaged over the day that's probably a plane every 2
> minutes which gives us 55 passengers per minute.
>
> Thirdly Alan claims that 85% of these passengers are in transit and
> leave again by plane so we are down to around 10 passengers per
> minute wanting to use the local transport network.  That's a double
> decker bus every 5 to 7 minutes, not exactly going to strain the
> infrastructure.
>
> Double the figures to include departures gives you 3 double deckers
> every ten minutes.

Sorry Graham, you've missed a point. It's still only a double decker every 
5-7 minutes as those disembarking will be replaced by those boarding.

Graeme Wall wrote:
> In message 
>           "tim....."  wrote:
> 
>> "Alan Holmes"  wrote in message 
>> news:6iXJi.53000$rr5.45391@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> [snip]
>>> How much more proof do you want other than the fact that about 300 people
>>> per minute arrive at Heathrow?
>> I thought someone had already suggested that you are
>> wrong by a factor of 2-3.
>>
> 
> There are several errors in Alan's arithmentic.  For a start, not every
> aircraft is a 300+ seater, most are in the range 110-170 seats, as others
> have pointed out, so lets take an average of 150 seats/plane.  Very few
> planes fly with 100% load factors so lets take an average load factor of 75%
> which gives us about 110 passengers per plane.
> 
> Second problem, Alan claims that an aircraft lands every minute whereas in
> fact peak periods are limited to a landing every 90 seconds.  Averaged over
> the day that's probably a plane every 2 minutes which gives us 55 passengers
> per minute.
> 
> Thirdly Alan claims that 85% of these passengers are in transit and leave
> again by plane so we are down to around 10 passengers per minute wanting to
> use the local transport network.  That's a double decker bus every 5 to 7
> minutes, not exactly going to strain the infrastructure.
> 
> Double the figures to include departures gives you 3 double deckers every ten
> minutes.
> 
Whereas going to the airport and using your eyes gives you a totally 
different picture.

Graeme Wall  wrote:

> Second problem, Alan claims that an aircraft lands every minute whereas in
> fact peak periods are limited to a landing every 90 seconds. 

I'm out of touch with commercial landing procedures, but isn't that
interval also longer after a heavy aircraft has landed? ISTR that after
a 747 touches down there's a longer gap before a 737 or similar is
permitted to land. This means that even if the aircraft are larger, the
number of passengers landed per hour tends to stay similar.

In message 
          "Brimstone"  wrote:

> Graeme Wall wrote:
> > In message 
> >          "tim....."  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Alan Holmes"  wrote in message
> >> news:6iXJi.53000$rr5.45391@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> > [snip]
> >>>
> >>> How much more proof do you want other than the fact that about 300
> >>> people per minute arrive at Heathrow?
> >>
> >> I thought someone had already suggested that you are
> >> wrong by a factor of 2-3.
> >>
> >
> > There are several errors in Alan's arithmentic.  For a start, not
> > every aircraft is a 300+ seater, most are in the range 110-170 seats,
> > as others have pointed out, so lets take an average of 150
> > seats/plane.  Very few planes fly with 100% load factors so lets take
> > an average load factor of 75% which gives us about 110 passengers per
> > plane.
> >
> > Second problem, Alan claims that an aircraft lands every minute
> > whereas in fact peak periods are limited to a landing every 90
> > seconds.  Averaged over the day that's probably a plane every 2
> > minutes which gives us 55 passengers per minute.
> >
> > Thirdly Alan claims that 85% of these passengers are in transit and
> > leave again by plane so we are down to around 10 passengers per
> > minute wanting to use the local transport network.  That's a double
> > decker bus every 5 to 7 minutes, not exactly going to strain the
> > infrastructure.
> >
> > Double the figures to include departures gives you 3 double deckers
> > every ten minutes.
> 
> Sorry Graham, you've missed a point. It's still only a double decker every 
> 5-7 minutes as those disembarking will be replaced by those boarding. 
> 
> 

3 double decker bus movements...

Actually that involves half a bus at some point...  Must be a low bridge in
the area :-)

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

In message <Oa8Ki.37895$Db6.27889@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
          NM  wrote:

> Graeme Wall wrote:
> > In message 
> >           "tim....."  wrote:
> > 
> > > "Alan Holmes"  wrote in message 
> > > news:6iXJi.53000$rr5.45391@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> > [snip]
> > > > How much more proof do you want other than the fact that about 300
> > > > people per minute arrive at Heathrow?
> > > I thought someone had already suggested that you are wrong by a factor
> > > of 2-3.
> > > 
> > 
> > There are several errors in Alan's arithmentic.  For a start, not every
> > aircraft is a 300+ seater, most are in the range 110-170 seats, as others
> > have pointed out, so lets take an average of 150 seats/plane.  Very few
> > planes fly with 100% load factors so lets take an average load factor of
> > 75% which gives us about 110 passengers per plane.
> > 
> > Second problem, Alan claims that an aircraft lands every minute whereas
> > in fact peak periods are limited to a landing every 90 seconds.  Averaged
> > over the day that's probably a plane every 2 minutes which gives us 55
> > passengers per minute.
> > 
> > Thirdly Alan claims that 85% of these passengers are in transit and leave
> > again by plane so we are down to around 10 passengers per minute wanting
> > to use the local transport network.  That's a double decker bus every 5
> > to 7 minutes, not exactly going to strain the infrastructure.
> > 
> > Double the figures to include departures gives you 3 double deckers every
> > ten minutes.
> > 
> Whereas going to the airport and using your eyes gives you a totally 
> different picture.

Of course it does.  I wonder what all those other people are doing, can't all
be planespotters.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

In message <1i504gw.1osuo5p116by8dN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
          %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:

> Graeme Wall  wrote:
> 
> > Second problem, Alan claims that an aircraft lands every minute whereas
> > in fact peak periods are limited to a landing every 90 seconds. 
> 
> I'm out of touch with commercial landing procedures, but isn't that
> interval also longer after a heavy aircraft has landed? ISTR that after
> a 747 touches down there's a longer gap before a 737 or similar is
> permitted to land. This means that even if the aircraft are larger, the
> number of passengers landed per hour tends to stay similar.

AIUI the distance requirement is for seperation in the air, 5 kms for a
jumbo, 3 kms for a normal aircraft because of the greater turbulence in the
wake of the bigger aircraft at cruising speed.  The landing times are more to
do with allowing time for the previous aircraft to clear the runway and for
ATC procedures.  Some airports in the States, I believe, operate on 1 minute
landing intervals and I know it has been suggested, and rejected, for
Heathrow.  The BBC did a doco on it some 20 years ago.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

"Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
news:1a3bdc274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> In message 
>          "tim....."  wrote:
>
>>
>> "Alan Holmes"  wrote in message
>> news:6iXJi.53000$rr5.45391@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> [snip]
>> >
>> > How much more proof do you want other than the fact that about 300 
>> > people
>> > per minute arrive at Heathrow?
>>
>> I thought someone had already suggested that you are
>> wrong by a factor of 2-3.
>>
>
> There are several errors in Alan's arithmentic.  For a start, not every
> aircraft is a 300+ seater, most are in the range 110-170 seats, as others
> have pointed out, so lets take an average of 150 seats/plane.  Very few
> planes fly with 100% load factors so lets take an average load factor of 
> 75%
> which gives us about 110 passengers per plane.
>
> Second problem, Alan claims that an aircraft lands every minute whereas in
> fact peak periods are limited to a landing every 90 seconds.  Averaged 
> over
> the day that's probably a plane every 2 minutes which gives us 55 
> passengers
> per minute.
>
> Thirdly Alan claims that 85% of these passengers are in transit and leave
> again by plane so we are down to around 10 passengers per minute wanting 
> to
> use the local transport network.  That's a double decker bus every 5 to 7
> minutes, not exactly going to strain the infrastructure.

You've misused his figure.  His claim that 85% of pax were
in transit came about because of his original claim that only
15% could be handled by ground transportation.  If you
show (as I  think you have done) that 60-70% of pax can be
handled by ground transportation then you get a figure of
30-40% for transit pax.  This figure seems reasonable to me
for somwhere like LHR.

tim

In message 
          "tim....."  wrote:

> 
> "Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
> news:1a3bdc274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> > In message 
> >          "tim....."  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Alan Holmes"  wrote in message
> >> news:6iXJi.53000$rr5.45391@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> > [snip]
> >> >
> >> > How much more proof do you want other than the fact that about 300 
> >> > people
> >> > per minute arrive at Heathrow?
> >>
> >> I thought someone had already suggested that you are
> >> wrong by a factor of 2-3.
> >>
> > 
> > There are several errors in Alan's arithmentic.  For a start, not every
> > aircraft is a 300+ seater, most are in the range 110-170 seats, as others
> > have pointed out, so lets take an average of 150 seats/plane.  Very few
> > planes fly with 100% load factors so lets take an average load factor of 
> > 75% which gives us about 110 passengers per plane.
> > 
> > Second problem, Alan claims that an aircraft lands every minute whereas
> > in fact peak periods are limited to a landing every 90 seconds.  Averaged 
> > over the day that's probably a plane every 2 minutes which gives us 55 
> > passengers per minute.
> > 
> > Thirdly Alan claims that 85% of these passengers are in transit and leave
> > again by plane so we are down to around 10 passengers per minute wanting 
> > to use the local transport network.  That's a double decker bus every 5
> > to 7 minutes, not exactly going to strain the infrastructure.
> 
> You've misused his figure.  His claim that 85% of pax were in transit came
> about because of his original claim that only 15% could be handled by
> ground transportation.  If you show (as I  think you have done) that 60-70%
> of pax can be handled by ground transportation then you get a figure of
> 30-40% for transit pax.  

I have?  I'll take your word for it :-) I was just trying to show that Alan's
conclusions were invalid.

> This figure seems reasonable to me
> for somwhere like LHR.
> 

Certainly sounds more realistic than 80-85%.  On my rather loose calculations
above that would be around 40 passengers a minute so we are getting back to
my original guestimate of 1 bus per minute.

Of course I haven't taken into account people working at the airport, some
50,000 according to BAA, or meeters and greeters.  Never come across any
figures for the latter.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

"Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
news:fc60fb274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> In message 
>          "tim....."  wrote:
>
>>
>> "Graeme Wall"  wrote in message
>> news:1a3bdc274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
>> > In message 
>> >          "tim....."  wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "Alan Holmes"  wrote in message
>> >> news:6iXJi.53000$rr5.45391@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>> > [snip]
>> >> >
>> >> > How much more proof do you want other than the fact that about 300
>> >> > people
>> >> > per minute arrive at Heathrow?
>> >>
>> >> I thought someone had already suggested that you are
>> >> wrong by a factor of 2-3.
>> >>
>> >
>> > There are several errors in Alan's arithmentic.  For a start, not every
>> > aircraft is a 300+ seater, most are in the range 110-170 seats, as 
>> > others
>> > have pointed out, so lets take an average of 150 seats/plane.  Very few
>> > planes fly with 100% load factors so lets take an average load factor 
>> > of
>> > 75% which gives us about 110 passengers per plane.
>> >
>> > Second problem, Alan claims that an aircraft lands every minute whereas
>> > in fact peak periods are limited to a landing every 90 seconds. 
>> > Averaged
>> > over the day that's probably a plane every 2 minutes which gives us 55
>> > passengers per minute.
>> >
>> > Thirdly Alan claims that 85% of these passengers are in transit and 
>> > leave
>> > again by plane so we are down to around 10 passengers per minute 
>> > wanting
>> > to use the local transport network.  That's a double decker bus every 5
>> > to 7 minutes, not exactly going to strain the infrastructure.
>>
>> You've misused his figure.  His claim that 85% of pax were in transit 
>> came
>> about because of his original claim that only 15% could be handled by
>> ground transportation.  If you show (as I  think you have done) that 
>> 60-70%
>> of pax can be handled by ground transportation then you get a figure of
>> 30-40% for transit pax.
>
> I have?  I'll take your word for it :-) I was just trying to show that 
> Alan's
> conclusions were invalid.
>
>> This figure seems reasonable to me
>> for somwhere like LHR.
>>
>
> Certainly sounds more realistic than 80-85%.  On my rather loose 
> calculations
> above that would be around 40 passengers a minute so we are getting back 
> to
> my original guestimate of 1 bus per minute.

There are trains and tube as well to consider

tim

"Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
news:d815bf274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> In message <6iXJi.53000$rr5.45391@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>
>          "Alan Holmes"  wrote:
>
>>
>> "Graeme Wall"  wrote in message
>> news:92b757274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
>> > In message <9pNJi.37439$Db6.28479@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
>> >          "Alan Holmes"  wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "Andy Champ"  wrote in message
>> >> news:c7ydnaqqLa6NemvbnZ2dnUVZ8qSnnZ2d@pipex.net...
>> >> > Alan Holmes wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well it is a fact that about 300 people fly in every minute.
>> >> >
>> >> > Agreed.  (although not 24 hours)
>> >>
>> >> No, only about 16 hours every day, which is roughly 300,000 each day
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And that the local transport network could only cope with about 15% 
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> that number!
>> >> >
>> >> > Source?
>> >>
>> >> The number of people travelling in, and the capability of the local
>> >> transport system, which is just not able to cope with 300 people every
>> >> minute.
>> >
>> > Proof by assertion is not convincing.
>>
>> How much more proof do you want other than the fact that about 300 people
>> per minute arrive at Heathrow?
>
> You still haven't shown that the local transport system can't cope with 
> such
> amounts.  Casual observation seems to indicate that it actually can as 
> there
> is no ever-increasing pile of humanity stacked in a hangar somewhere 
> unable
> to leave the airport.

Not at all, as they have just boarded another plane to fly out!

Which I thought I had made clear.

And do not forget that 300 per minute is 18,000 per hour, or 223,000 per day 
of 16 hours!
>
> Also, if we believe your figures about transit passengers, only about 50
> people per minute actually want to use the local transport facilities.
> That's one bus load per minute.

Which leaves 250 waiting in the queue for the next one, which will not 
arrive for about 30 minutes, in the meantime another 9,000 have arrived.

"tim....."  wrote in message 
news:5ls1hgF9nfmfU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Alan Holmes"  wrote in message 
> news:6iXJi.53000$rr5.45391@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
>> news:92b757274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <9pNJi.37439$Db6.28479@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
>>>          "Alan Holmes"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Andy Champ"  wrote in message
>>>> news:c7ydnaqqLa6NemvbnZ2dnUVZ8qSnnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>>> > Alan Holmes wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Well it is a fact that about 300 people fly in every minute.
>>>> >
>>>> > Agreed.  (although not 24 hours)
>>>>
>>>> No, only about 16 hours every day, which is roughly 300,000 each day
>>>> >>
>>>> >> And that the local transport network could only cope with about 15% 
>>>> >> of
>>>> >> that number!
>>>> >
>>>> > Source?
>>>>
>>>> The number of people travelling in, and the capability of the local
>>>> transport system, which is just not able to cope with 300 people every
>>>> minute.
>>>
>>> Proof by assertion is not convincing.
>>
>> How much more proof do you want other than the fact that about 300 people 
>> per minute arrive at Heathrow?
>
> I thought someone had already suggested that you are
> wrong by a factor of 2-3.
>
> If you are right in your claim that PT can only handle 15%
> of 300 pax pm, if the actual number of pax is 100 pm then
> PT can handle 60% which is far more significant.

Public transport cannot handle 100 per minute.

"Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
news:1a3bdc274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> In message 
>          "tim....."  wrote:
>
>>
>> "Alan Holmes"  wrote in message
>> news:6iXJi.53000$rr5.45391@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> [snip]
>> >
>> > How much more proof do you want other than the fact that about 300 
>> > people
>> > per minute arrive at Heathrow?
>>
>> I thought someone had already suggested that you are
>> wrong by a factor of 2-3.
>>
>
> There are several errors in Alan's arithmentic.  For a start, not every
> aircraft is a 300+ seater, most are in the range 110-170 seats, as others
> have pointed out, so lets take an average of 150 seats/plane.  Very few
> planes fly with 100% load factors so lets take an average load factor of 
> 75%
> which gives us about 110 passengers per plane.
>
> Second problem, Alan claims that an aircraft lands every minute whereas in
> fact peak periods are limited to a landing every 90 seconds.

You have clearly never been anywhere near Heathrow, if you had you could 
have counted one plane every minute.

"tim....."  wrote in message 
news:5lt2kaF9s3s2U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
> news:fc60fb274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
>> In message 
>>          "tim....."  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Graeme Wall"  wrote in message
>>> news:1a3bdc274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
>>> > In message 
>>> >          "tim....."  wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> "Alan Holmes"  wrote in message
>>> >> news:6iXJi.53000$rr5.45391@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>>> > [snip]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > How much more proof do you want other than the fact that about 300
>>> >> > people
>>> >> > per minute arrive at Heathrow?
>>> >>
>>> >> I thought someone had already suggested that you are
>>> >> wrong by a factor of 2-3.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > There are several errors in Alan's arithmentic.  For a start, not 
>>> > every
>>> > aircraft is a 300+ seater, most are in the range 110-170 seats, as 
>>> > others
>>> > have pointed out, so lets take an average of 150 seats/plane.  Very 
>>> > few
>>> > planes fly with 100% load factors so lets take an average load factor 
>>> > of
>>> > 75% which gives us about 110 passengers per plane.
>>> >
>>> > Second problem, Alan claims that an aircraft lands every minute 
>>> > whereas
>>> > in fact peak periods are limited to a landing every 90 seconds. 
>>> > Averaged
>>> > over the day that's probably a plane every 2 minutes which gives us 55
>>> > passengers per minute.
>>> >
>>> > Thirdly Alan claims that 85% of these passengers are in transit and 
>>> > leave
>>> > again by plane so we are down to around 10 passengers per minute 
>>> > wanting
>>> > to use the local transport network.  That's a double decker bus every 
>>> > 5
>>> > to 7 minutes, not exactly going to strain the infrastructure.
>>>
>>> You've misused his figure.  His claim that 85% of pax were in transit 
>>> came
>>> about because of his original claim that only 15% could be handled by
>>> ground transportation.  If you show (as I  think you have done) that 
>>> 60-70%
>>> of pax can be handled by ground transportation then you get a figure of
>>> 30-40% for transit pax.
>>
>> I have?  I'll take your word for it :-) I was just trying to show that 
>> Alan's
>> conclusions were invalid.
>>
>>> This figure seems reasonable to me
>>> for somwhere like LHR.
>>>
>>
>> Certainly sounds more realistic than 80-85%.  On my rather loose 
>> calculations
>> above that would be around 40 passengers a minute so we are getting back 
>> to
>> my original guestimate of 1 bus per minute.
>
> There are trains and tube as well to consider

There is only the underground which is used, and again the trains do not run 
every minute.

There are no other trains to or from Heathrow.

"Alan Holmes"  wrote in message 
news:uLcKi.5333$X%4.1099@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
> "tim....."  wrote in message 
> news:5ls1hgF9nfmfU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Alan Holmes"  wrote in message 
>> news:6iXJi.53000$rr5.45391@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>>>
>>> "Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
>>> news:92b757274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <9pNJi.37439$Db6.28479@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
>>>>          "Alan Holmes"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Andy Champ"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:c7ydnaqqLa6NemvbnZ2dnUVZ8qSnnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>>>> > Alan Holmes wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Well it is a fact that about 300 people fly in every minute.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Agreed.  (although not 24 hours)
>>>>>
>>>>> No, only about 16 hours every day, which is roughly 300,000 each day
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> And that the local transport network could only cope with about 15% 
>>>>> >> of
>>>>> >> that number!
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Source?
>>>>>
>>>>> The number of people travelling in, and the capability of the local
>>>>> transport system, which is just not able to cope with 300 people every
>>>>> minute.
>>>>
>>>> Proof by assertion is not convincing.
>>>
>>> How much more proof do you want other than the fact that about 300 
>>> people per minute arrive at Heathrow?
>>
>> I thought someone had already suggested that you are
>> wrong by a factor of 2-3.
>>
>> If you are right in your claim that PT can only handle 15%
>> of 300 pax pm, if the actual number of pax is 100 pm then
>> PT can handle 60% which is far more significant.
>
> Public transport cannot handle 100 per minute.

60% of 100 is 60 people!

And, how many people do you think fits into an 8 car
tube train, once every 5 minutes?

Plus buses, and the Express.

60 pm is piss easy, 100pm is possible

tim

"Alan Holmes"  wrote in message 
news:CScKi.5335$X%4.1544@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
> "tim....."  wrote in message 
> news:5lt2kaF9s3s2U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
>> news:fc60fb274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message 
>>>          "tim....."  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Graeme Wall"  wrote in message
>>>> news:1a3bdc274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
>>>> > In message 
>>>> >          "tim....."  wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "Alan Holmes"  wrote in message
>>>> >> news:6iXJi.53000$rr5.45391@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>>>> > [snip]
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > How much more proof do you want other than the fact that about 300
>>>> >> > people
>>>> >> > per minute arrive at Heathrow?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I thought someone had already suggested that you are
>>>> >> wrong by a factor of 2-3.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > There are several errors in Alan's arithmentic.  For a start, not 
>>>> > every
>>>> > aircraft is a 300+ seater, most are in the range 110-170 seats, as 
>>>> > others
>>>> > have pointed out, so lets take an average of 150 seats/plane.  Very 
>>>> > few
>>>> > planes fly with 100% load factors so lets take an average load factor 
>>>> > of
>>>> > 75% which gives us about 110 passengers per plane.
>>>> >
>>>> > Second problem, Alan claims that an aircraft lands every minute 
>>>> > whereas
>>>> > in fact peak periods are limited to a landing every 90 seconds. 
>>>> > Averaged
>>>> > over the day that's probably a plane every 2 minutes which gives us 
>>>> > 55
>>>> > passengers per minute.
>>>> >
>>>> > Thirdly Alan claims that 85% of these passengers are in transit and 
>>>> > leave
>>>> > again by plane so we are down to around 10 passengers per minute 
>>>> > wanting
>>>> > to use the local transport network.  That's a double decker bus every 
>>>> > 5
>>>> > to 7 minutes, not exactly going to strain the infrastructure.
>>>>
>>>> You've misused his figure.  His claim that 85% of pax were in transit 
>>>> came
>>>> about because of his original claim that only 15% could be handled by
>>>> ground transportation.  If you show (as I  think you have done) that 
>>>> 60-70%
>>>> of pax can be handled by ground transportation then you get a figure of
>>>> 30-40% for transit pax.
>>>
>>> I have?  I'll take your word for it :-) I was just trying to show that 
>>> Alan's
>>> conclusions were invalid.
>>>
>>>> This figure seems reasonable to me
>>>> for somwhere like LHR.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Certainly sounds more realistic than 80-85%.  On my rather loose 
>>> calculations
>>> above that would be around 40 passengers a minute so we are getting back 
>>> to
>>> my original guestimate of 1 bus per minute.
>>
>> There are trains and tube as well to consider
>
> There is only the underground which is used,

what do you mean by "which is used"?

> and again the trains do not run every minute.
>
> There are no other trains to or from Heathrow.

Have you not seen the Heathrow Express.
The marketing must be really shite.

tim

In message 
          "tim....."  wrote:

> 
> "Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
> news:fc60fb274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
[snip]
> >
> > Certainly sounds more realistic than 80-85%.  On my rather loose 
> > calculations
> > above that would be around 40 passengers a minute so we are getting back 
> > to
> > my original guestimate of 1 bus per minute.
> 
> There are trains and tube as well to consider
> 

<sigh>

All right 1 bus per minute or train and tube equivalent, eg one of either
every 10 minutes...

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

In message <lJcKi.5332$X%4.3932@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>
          "Alan Holmes"  wrote:

> 
> "Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
> news:d815bf274f%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> > In message <6iXJi.53000$rr5.45391@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>
> >          "Alan Holmes"  wrote:
> >
[snip]
> > > 
> > > How much more proof do you want other than the fact that about 300
> > > people per minute arrive at Heathrow?
> > 
> > You still haven't shown that the local transport system can't cope with 
> > such amounts.  Casual observation seems to indicate that it actually can
> > as  there is no ever-increasing pile of humanity stacked in a hangar
> > somewhere  unable to leave the airport.
> 
> Not at all, as they have just boarded another plane to fly out!
> 
> Which I thought I had made clear.

As mud.
> 
> And do not forget that 300 per minute is 18,000 per hour, or 223,000 per
> day  of 16 hours!
> >
> > Also, if we believe your figures about transit passengers, only about 50
> > people per minute actually want to use the local transport facilities.
> > That's one bus load per minute.
> 
> Which leaves 250 waiting in the queue for the next one, which will not 
> arrive for about 30 minutes, in the meantime another 9,000 have arrived.
> 
> 

No they don't they are on another plane according to you above.  You can't
have it both ways, either they are all in transit or they are all trying to
get a bus to Piccadilly, they can't be doing both.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

In message <uLcKi.5333$X%4.1099@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>
          "Alan Holmes"  wrote:

[snip]
> 
> Public transport cannot handle 100 per minute.
> 

Rubbish, it does so regularly.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>