Heathrow-2
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No direct service doesn't mean no service, this myth is clearly utter codswallop.
There Is a rich irony however that all the MPs who supported this and are now bleating about basic standards of health care were told by Grayling that airport expansion would not cost the taxpayer a penny, the terminal and runway wont, but reroute, tunneling and expansion of the M25 plus all the rail connectivity needed will fall in the taxpayers lap, that's double the cost of the actual runway itself....and that's st today's prices.
The image of the child with pneumonia might be political capital to the left but I can assure you that is the norm in AE every day, it only becomes a story if it effects you personally.
if I was the parent of that child I would suspect they would much rather have the benefits of a decent health service than a daily service to Venezuela from an airport 200 miles away.
Maybe we should ALL think about that next time we clutch our chest with a possible cardio event.... or carry a limp child into a waiting area that resembles a Baghdad field hospital.....!
Last edited by Navpi; 10th Dec 2019 at 08:49.
Caracas? very good choice. Venezuela 168 of 180 in the world corruption index. I can see what there best export service is, and the only import required = cash.
Caracas - Miami - London. Did there DC8 make it non stop in the past?
.
Caracas - Miami - London. Did there DC8 make it non stop in the past?
.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our Fly Quiet and Green league table has become a real asset in our arsenal. Every quarter we rank our top 50 airlines across a variety of metrics. It helps our airline customers gain the recognition they deserve for their achievements, while creating healthy competition.
Last edited by 118.70; 10th Dec 2019 at 10:06. Reason: remove formatting
Flights from AMS were with stops, and from other euro points went from Paris Orly Madrid Lisbon Rome Milan - nowt was non-stop - All on a DC8 or DC8S
Code shares were with KL AZ and IB plus BA services too on VC-10
I'm amazed it hasnt featured more widely as an election issue given the eye watering level of taxpayer subsidies.
I suspect the road and rail infrastructure which is taxpayer funded is now in the region of £20bn using HS2 and Crossrail as a yardstick.
It seems incredible that Labour have not picked up on this
Must confess I'm more right wing than Attila The Hun but I'm scratching my head as to the value of providing infrastructure for a new service to say Caracas if people are in AE for 36hours, nanny has zero support in terms of social care placement and criminals are allowed to roam our streets with impunity as we have a failed justice system cut to the bone and no police !
Maybe do the basics to provide a good standard of living for everyone and then subsidise a 3rd runway?
I suspect the road and rail infrastructure which is taxpayer funded is now in the region of £20bn using HS2 and Crossrail as a yardstick.
It seems incredible that Labour have not picked up on this
Must confess I'm more right wing than Attila The Hun but I'm scratching my head as to the value of providing infrastructure for a new service to say Caracas if people are in AE for 36hours, nanny has zero support in terms of social care placement and criminals are allowed to roam our streets with impunity as we have a failed justice system cut to the bone and no police !
Maybe do the basics to provide a good standard of living for everyone and then subsidise a 3rd runway?
The money that LHR brings in must be very small, mere pennies, and who needs all those jobs anyway?
Hint : If you want to pay for Social Care then you need a commercial revenue stream flooding into a strong economy. Wittering on about edge cases like Caracas is classic #whataboutery
The pretense here is that core national infrastructure like railways, airports, nuclear power etc are in some way purely commercial enterprises. That does not stack up given 2 seconds of serious thought. They're commercial but intrinsically linked into public infrastructure, stop pretending they're not. TfL et al are massively inflating costs because, they are *ANGLING FOR THE BIGGEST BUDGET SETTLEMENT POSSIBLE*. It's in their interests to inflate to (in some cases), frankly silly levels of cost.
But yeah, cos HS2 is insane, then LHR must be too.
Have you been through an American airport of late? Is that the model you are advocating?
Boris said ?yesterday? that LHR was a private operation with no public money involved which had yet to prove it could meet the environmental air quality challenges
A longgg way from a ringing endorsement apparently - and the other parties are even less supportive
A longgg way from a ringing endorsement apparently - and the other parties are even less supportive
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's very important to conflate unrelated matters in a random way to make an argument. That's very important. Somehow....
The money that LHR brings in must be very small, mere pennies, and who needs all those jobs anyway?
Hint : If you want to pay for Social Care then you need a commercial revenue stream flooding into a strong economy. Wittering on about edge cases like Caracas is classic #whataboutery
The pretense here is that core national infrastructure like railways, airports, nuclear power etc are in some way purely commercial enterprises. That does not stack up given 2 seconds of serious thought. They're commercial but intrinsically linked into public infrastructure, stop pretending they're not. TfL et al are massively inflating costs because, they are *ANGLING FOR THE BIGGEST BUDGET SETTLEMENT POSSIBLE*. It's in their interests to inflate to (in some cases), frankly silly levels of cost.
But yeah, cos HS2 is insane, then LHR must be too.
Have you been through an American airport of late? Is that the model you are advocating?
The money that LHR brings in must be very small, mere pennies, and who needs all those jobs anyway?
Hint : If you want to pay for Social Care then you need a commercial revenue stream flooding into a strong economy. Wittering on about edge cases like Caracas is classic #whataboutery
The pretense here is that core national infrastructure like railways, airports, nuclear power etc are in some way purely commercial enterprises. That does not stack up given 2 seconds of serious thought. They're commercial but intrinsically linked into public infrastructure, stop pretending they're not. TfL et al are massively inflating costs because, they are *ANGLING FOR THE BIGGEST BUDGET SETTLEMENT POSSIBLE*. It's in their interests to inflate to (in some cases), frankly silly levels of cost.
But yeah, cos HS2 is insane, then LHR must be too.
Have you been through an American airport of late? Is that the model you are advocating?
Any profit goes direct to shareholders and they are ALL offshore, as for corporation tax, its not paid any for years.
Again I'm no friend of The Mirror but facts are facts.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/heathrow-airport-owners-120m-tax-14021838
Paxing All Over The World
No political party wants to talk about air travel. Irrespective of what they think of it. If criticised, they know that the frequent travellers would not vote for them and infrequents would be worried too.
All major parties have ensured NOT to talk about LHR and to keep it in the long grass.
The Billionaire press love LHR but know when to keep quiet to support their friends.
All major parties have ensured NOT to talk about LHR and to keep it in the long grass.
The Billionaire press love LHR but know when to keep quiet to support their friends.
Well I think you are way off the mark if you think Heathrow is flooding the exchequer with taxes to pay for the NHS, social Care , Education, Police etc.
Any profit goes direct to shareholders and they are ALL offshore, as for corporation tax, its not paid any for years.
Any profit goes direct to shareholders and they are ALL offshore, as for corporation tax, its not paid any for years.
I note these are the good years, we need the money, we really do.
The British ability to have a good moan is legendary, but the economy is beginning to resemble pyramid scheme, sometimes real infrastructure investment is really what you need
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that makes perfect sense once you strip out the tens of thousands of people who pay tax and national insurance via the thousands of businesses linked to the airport. But who needs employment and a world class international hub airport? (We do!) Just a jolly extravagance really, I mean it's not as if we need to trade our way to close a £32.3B deficit and pay down a debt of £1.82TRILLION.
I note these are the good years, we need the money, we really do.
The British ability to have a good moan is legendary, but the economy is beginning to resemble pyramid scheme, sometimes real infrastructure investment is really what you need
I note these are the good years, we need the money, we really do.
The British ability to have a good moan is legendary, but the economy is beginning to resemble pyramid scheme, sometimes real infrastructure investment is really what you need
But you are now talking as though i want to shut Heathrow down, that's complete nonsense, infact I would go further and suggest if it wishes to expand by all means make a reasonable contribution to the infrastructure that relates very specifically to that expansion.
I'm simply making the point that if we had a pot of £20bn i suspect the public and the majority of MPs would support that spend on more pressing cases for that money than rail and road infrastructure at Heathrow.
The majority of MPs did support LHR expansion but if you were to ask them today where should we spend that money I suspect 99% would say the NHS. Graying was very clear "no public money for Heathrow", he conned the public and he conned the thickos in the House of Commons, all of them.
I'll wager you haven't sat in AE recently but trust me the service really is absolutely broke.
Paxing All Over The World
It is true that no politician, local or national is going to prioritise an airport.
I worked in telecommunications for 27 years, usually for large end-users not on the supply side. I recall a friend who worked for a major hospital group telling me that he could never get funding to replace the 20+ year old telephone system. It was always the medical facilities that needed the money. Eventually, he was able to prove that, due to the failing phone system - two patients had died. He got the money, provided the report remained private. That was in the late 1980s. Consider the situation now?
I agree with the need for the expansion of EGLL and have done so for over 30 years. BUT airports are not going to get discussed and money will have to be squeezed out of a stone.
I worked in telecommunications for 27 years, usually for large end-users not on the supply side. I recall a friend who worked for a major hospital group telling me that he could never get funding to replace the 20+ year old telephone system. It was always the medical facilities that needed the money. Eventually, he was able to prove that, due to the failing phone system - two patients had died. He got the money, provided the report remained private. That was in the late 1980s. Consider the situation now?
I agree with the need for the expansion of EGLL and have done so for over 30 years. BUT airports are not going to get discussed and money will have to be squeezed out of a stone.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Election gamechanger?
Skip wont like this but given the revised make up of Parliament and the fact nothing has happened with Heathrow in the intervening months since the 3rw was approved, is there a case for a revised vote ?
When the vote was taken the Transport Secretary was unequivocal
________________________________________________
Hansard National Policy Statement 25th June 2018
Chris Grayling
In answer to questions about the taxpayer contribution
"Improvements to nearby roads and paying for parts of the rail projects that are due to happen are built into the plans. It is absolutely essential that that is the case. Heathrow airport will make a substantial contribution"
"I can also confirm that expansion can and will be privately financed, at no cost to the taxpayer."
_____________________________________________________
18 months on and we are no wiser what that contribution is ?
However one wishes to dress this up MPs were left with the very definite impression they were supporting a project that would not cost the taxpayer a bean.
That was clearly a blatant lie. If you were to ask Parliamentarians today
Do you wish to proceed with Heathrow expansion at a cost of £XXbillion to the taxpayer would they still support it ?
The only figures we have to go on in terms of the cost of supporting road and rail infrastructure are those put forward by TFL. These were in the order of £14 billion 5 years ago perhaps £20bn seems a more realistic figure today given the eye watering jump in f'cast costs for HS2 and Crossrail.
The original figures put forward by TFL to create a new underground station, new platforms, new tunneling, widening the M25, reconfiguring the M25 etc is somewhat fanciful but we have little else to go on.
Surely there can be no progress until costs are nailed down and its made clear to this new Parliament who is paying for what ?
Given costs on HS2 and Crossrail have been woefully underestimated and with no timeframe for completion on the horizon would it not be wise for the new Dept of Transport to take a fresh look at costs ? costs which I suspect have risen exponentially in the intervening 3 years to that £20bn figure. This depts involvement (or lack) of thus far has been woeful.
Today's Sunday papers suggest a long overdue cull in Whitehall to include Dept of Transport civil servants who have been involved in this process thus far and whom Johnson believes have been focused on London and to hell with the North. A revolving door policy of civil servants inexplicably finding themselves directly employed in projects they signed off has not helped.
Again does that not raise alarm bells that some civil servants may have treated Heathrow with a somewhat light touch whilst scrutinizing the costs of projects up North to within an inch of their life whilst adopting a "laissez faire" attitude to projects in London.
.....this of course assumes there are some projects up north, last time I looked the cupboard was somewhat threadbare.
With no work started on the rw3 and 50 plus new MPs most being located North of Birmingham, would they not want their say on the possibilities of direct investment in the N West and N East NOW, or the benefits of Heathrow connectivity in 40 years time ?
When the vote was taken the Transport Secretary was unequivocal
________________________________________________
Hansard National Policy Statement 25th June 2018
Chris Grayling
In answer to questions about the taxpayer contribution
"Improvements to nearby roads and paying for parts of the rail projects that are due to happen are built into the plans. It is absolutely essential that that is the case. Heathrow airport will make a substantial contribution"
"I can also confirm that expansion can and will be privately financed, at no cost to the taxpayer."
_____________________________________________________
18 months on and we are no wiser what that contribution is ?
However one wishes to dress this up MPs were left with the very definite impression they were supporting a project that would not cost the taxpayer a bean.
That was clearly a blatant lie. If you were to ask Parliamentarians today
Do you wish to proceed with Heathrow expansion at a cost of £XXbillion to the taxpayer would they still support it ?
The only figures we have to go on in terms of the cost of supporting road and rail infrastructure are those put forward by TFL. These were in the order of £14 billion 5 years ago perhaps £20bn seems a more realistic figure today given the eye watering jump in f'cast costs for HS2 and Crossrail.
The original figures put forward by TFL to create a new underground station, new platforms, new tunneling, widening the M25, reconfiguring the M25 etc is somewhat fanciful but we have little else to go on.
Surely there can be no progress until costs are nailed down and its made clear to this new Parliament who is paying for what ?
Given costs on HS2 and Crossrail have been woefully underestimated and with no timeframe for completion on the horizon would it not be wise for the new Dept of Transport to take a fresh look at costs ? costs which I suspect have risen exponentially in the intervening 3 years to that £20bn figure. This depts involvement (or lack) of thus far has been woeful.
Today's Sunday papers suggest a long overdue cull in Whitehall to include Dept of Transport civil servants who have been involved in this process thus far and whom Johnson believes have been focused on London and to hell with the North. A revolving door policy of civil servants inexplicably finding themselves directly employed in projects they signed off has not helped.
Again does that not raise alarm bells that some civil servants may have treated Heathrow with a somewhat light touch whilst scrutinizing the costs of projects up North to within an inch of their life whilst adopting a "laissez faire" attitude to projects in London.
.....this of course assumes there are some projects up north, last time I looked the cupboard was somewhat threadbare.
With no work started on the rw3 and 50 plus new MPs most being located North of Birmingham, would they not want their say on the possibilities of direct investment in the N West and N East NOW, or the benefits of Heathrow connectivity in 40 years time ?
Last edited by Navpi; 15th Dec 2019 at 08:14.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: up north
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that makes perfect sense once you strip out the tens of thousands of people who pay tax and national insurance via the thousands of businesses linked to the airport. But who needs employment and a world class international hub airport? (We do!) Just a jolly extravagance really, I mean it's not as if we need to trade our way to close a £32.3B deficit and pay down a debt of £1.82TRILLION.
I note these are the good years, we need the money, we really do.
The British ability to have a good moan is legendary, but the economy is beginning to resemble pyramid scheme, sometimes real infrastructure investment is really what you need
I note these are the good years, we need the money, we really do.
The British ability to have a good moan is legendary, but the economy is beginning to resemble pyramid scheme, sometimes real infrastructure investment is really what you need
Skip wont like this but given the revised make up of Parliament and the fact nothing has happened with Heathrow in the intervening months since the 3rw was approved, is there a case for a revised vote ?
Or maybe they’ll cancel the whole lot? Justo keep LibDem and Labour voters in West London sweet? Hmmm
Any infrastructure spending will go north of Birmingham. People like Cummings can see a once in a life-time opportunity to wipe out Labour in their heartlands (as the SNP did in Scotland)
Expect money for the N Powerhouse, HST3 etc etc instead of London
As C London is Labour territory to a large extent why spend the cash there? Cancel R3 and defer HST2 - that's what the suburbs and the county set want
Expect money for the N Powerhouse, HST3 etc etc instead of London
As C London is Labour territory to a large extent why spend the cash there? Cancel R3 and defer HST2 - that's what the suburbs and the county set want
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As C London is Labour territory to a large extent why spend the cash there? Cancel R3 and defer HST2 - that's what the suburbs and the county set want"
I honestly don't think they will cancel Rw3 but I can see an element of stalemate creeping in with reference to the support infrastructure.
I agree with the emphasis now on the North the Tories if they are clever could actually wipe Labour out totally.
Over the week end the Sunday Papers were highlighting £100bn available for transport infrastructure spend over the next 5 years, they stated and I quote The Sunday Times that £20bn is ALREADY earmarked for HS2, roads, potholes, and flood defence, leaving a balance of £80bn specifically for Transport For the North who just happen to have wish list that also came to £79bn. Coincidence?
What was conspicuous was zero money for Heathrow???
Having given LHR the go ahead I cannot see them bringing a decision back to Parliament although i wouldn't bet against it if Boris was so minded. As I said previously there is an excuse with so many new MPs, but what they could do is of course suggest "there you go , you have the go ahead already but its all fully funded by you".
HAL of course will not accept that and then it becomes brinkmanship in terms of the Government tieing themselves in knots. If you follow the Grayilng line I suspect many senior MPs took him at his word and didn't read the ANPS report, they assumed they would not have to stump up any government money and you would simply plonk another runway in without realising it needs massive investment beyond the runway and terminal to make it work !
I honestly don't think they will cancel Rw3 but I can see an element of stalemate creeping in with reference to the support infrastructure.
I agree with the emphasis now on the North the Tories if they are clever could actually wipe Labour out totally.
Over the week end the Sunday Papers were highlighting £100bn available for transport infrastructure spend over the next 5 years, they stated and I quote The Sunday Times that £20bn is ALREADY earmarked for HS2, roads, potholes, and flood defence, leaving a balance of £80bn specifically for Transport For the North who just happen to have wish list that also came to £79bn. Coincidence?
What was conspicuous was zero money for Heathrow???
Having given LHR the go ahead I cannot see them bringing a decision back to Parliament although i wouldn't bet against it if Boris was so minded. As I said previously there is an excuse with so many new MPs, but what they could do is of course suggest "there you go , you have the go ahead already but its all fully funded by you".
HAL of course will not accept that and then it becomes brinkmanship in terms of the Government tieing themselves in knots. If you follow the Grayilng line I suspect many senior MPs took him at his word and didn't read the ANPS report, they assumed they would not have to stump up any government money and you would simply plonk another runway in without realising it needs massive investment beyond the runway and terminal to make it work !
Last edited by Navpi; 16th Dec 2019 at 11:51.
They'll just let it wither on the vine - let the environmentalists make the running , drag it through the courts and just keep murmuring "it still doesn't have the permits to go ahead" until it finally dies
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I prefer to focus on the political discussion not the environmental one.
Paxing All Over The World
Political and Environmental are now entwined.
I agree with Asturias 56, it will just be kicked into ever longer grass. About three years ago, I started observing that R3 will not be built.
I agree with Asturias 56, it will just be kicked into ever longer grass. About three years ago, I started observing that R3 will not be built.