PPRuNe Forums - Heathrow-2

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Airlines, Airports & Routes (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes-85/)

- - Heathrow-2 (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/599818-heathrow-2-a.html)

....but Labour doesn't rely on logical argument when it comes to any other of its policies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by inOban (Post 9871811)

Remember that the air quality issues are mainly caused by motor vehicles, not planes.

That will be the motor vehicles that look like lorries carrying freight, supplies etc, and coaches for staff transport & passengers to LHR. Also the construction vehicles, and of course the tankers fuelling the aircraft.:ouch:

Which they're trying to mitigate by discouraging the use of private cars to Heathrow. I hope this will come down to UNITE pressuring Corbyn to put jobs before student politics, reminding him it was a Labour gov that approved this only for Cameron to stop it again.

A Labour Govt run by Corbyn's old mates Tony Bliar and Big Gordo...

oh yes - I'm sure that'll convince him.........................

Blair and Gordo are OUT of the frame.

To return the airport, good to see this eventhough it will make no diff.

BA attacks Border Force for 'dreadful' delays - BBC News

Quote:

Originally Posted by PAXboy (Post 9872838)

BA attacks Border Force for 'dreadful' delays - BBC News

Presumably if the ePassport gates worked as originally intended, they could be left operating 24 hours a day, with only a token number of Border Force personnel required to be on hand to deal with poor souls like me who have a passport with a duff chip. :O

"Blair and Gordo are OUT of the frame."

True but suggesting, as Skipness did, that mentioning them to the Sainted Jeremy will get him to back R3 is.... mistaken IMHO. He's viscerally against ANYTHING & EVERYTHING the two muppets were behind

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK (Post 9872853)

Dave, I said exactly the same thing about Gatwick...damn things never, ever work for me.

And then the roaming Border Security agent has to direct you back into another queue...

(It's probably not very PC of me to say this, but same Border Security agent is quite often not of these parishes...)

I was suggesting that a Labour govt approved expansion on the grounds of jobs and the economy, something a lot of people in the wider party and more importantly the unions, strongly support.

As for "not of this parish", was flying out of LHR T5 a few weeks back when a Somali Muslim lady in head to foot black coverings walked past me in the queue and discreetly took a small package proferred to her by one of the HAL asian security staff who was about to go through the arch to go airside. Now they say "report anything suspicious" and I was actually about to ask what they were up to. On closer inspection, the muslim lady had a lanyard, so "staff" but not in uniform. Indeed exempt from uniform I think as she was then directing the queue of angol saxon post-Christian Europeans to keep us all safe from Islamist terror. She was even wearing black leather gloves......

TBH she's probably a damn sight better at spotting a wrong 'un than you would be - on the other hand I'm sure you can spot someone wearing the wrong regimental tie at the Golf Club that she might miss....................

A few questions

Does a direct LHr to XXX flight from LHR cause more or less pollution than the same trip via YYY and another few hours flying plus a second JetA 1 guzzling take off and climb?

How much more environmental damage would building Boris island cause than just building R3 ?

How will lack of long haul flights and destinations affect this country's ability to trade after Brexit. Surely the muppet show we have for a cabinet should 100% pro.

How many more runways will AMS FRA CDG have built by the time LHR 3 or an alternative is built

How many current Prune members will be still alive when this saga ends

Heathrow Harry, disagree. Never played golf so shows you that judging people you've never clapped eyes on might not be your forte. In all seriousness given the stated wish of ISIS to recruit insiders, I genuinely believe hiring devout muslims who refuse to even adhere to the uniform is in any way smart

A jest dear boy, a jest ........

And not all security or customs are in uniform anyway - I had a meeting last week with a senior Police Offcier who was on duty but in civis..................

TBH the best people to spot a rat are those who used to be rats....... or are close enough to know. A trotskyite can spot a communist at 400 yards (and vice versa) whereas to you or I they may well look like members of the Labour Party.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pax britanica (Post 9873583)

Does a direct LHR to XXX flight from LHR cause more or less pollution than the same trip via YYY and another few hours flying plus a second JetA 1 guzzling take off and climb?

It depends on the distance.

Landing at, say, Leeds on the way from LHR to Edinburgh is clearly going to burn more fuel than flying direct.

But flying non-stop from UK to Australia, as QF will do next year, burns more fuel than stopping enroute because of the need to depart heavy and tanker many tonnes of fuel over several thousand miles, instead of picking half of it up en route. Even allowing for the extra takeoff and landing, you still burn less if you stop halfway and fly lighter.

Dave - didn't they talk about IF Rrefuelling at some point in the past?.........

Qantas ran an April Fool's spoof ad many years ago featuring non-stop UK/Australia 747 flights made possible by in-flight refuelling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trinity 09L (Post 9871998)

That will be ... and of course the tankers fuelling the aircraft.

You are aware, of course, that Heathrow fuel is delivered by pipeline, and through a stand hydrant system ?

WHBM

I'm pleased that someone actually corrected that schoolboy error, I was going to comment on that myself!

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHBM (Post 9874369)

You are aware, of course, that Heathrow fuel is delivered by pipeline, and through a stand hydrant system ?

Yes, but you don't just connect one end of a hose to the hydrant and the other to the aircraft - there's still a vehicle involved, albeit not a tanker:

http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/9f411dd7e6...ork-j913f8.jpg

Quote:

Labour could turn against Heathrow expansion
Quote:
Labour leaders could vote against allowing a third runway to be built at Heathrow due to environmental concerns about pollution.

The government wants to go ahead with Heathrow expansion but a final vote will not be taken in the House of Commons until 2018.

Labour has acknowledged the need for extra runway capacity in the south-east but has raised questions about the potential pollution and reduction in air quality created by Heathrow expansion.

Party sources have told the Financial Times that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is likely to vote against Heathrow expansion. Shadow chancellor John McDonnell is also an opponent of a third runway.

One Labour source told the FT: "It has to pass our tests and no one here expects that to be likely”; while another said: “If the vote is any time soon there is no way we would back it, mainly on the basis of air quality, and that’s unlikely to change any time soon."
Labour could turn against Heathrow expansion | Buying Business Travel

Flip flop flip flop

Same with brexit.

Quote:

Those "two muppets", masters of indecision, procrastinated, prevaricated and dithered just like those before and since, hence Cameron and his Libdem mates getting the opportunity to scrap it.

Quote:

I was suggesting that a Labour govt approved expansion on the grounds of jobs and the economy, something a lot of people in the wider party and more importantly the unions, strongly support.

Dear oh dear, the unions and most Labour MPs support Heathrow expansion.

Quote:

How much more environmental damage would building Boris island cause than just building R3 ?

Good question, but academic, Boris Island will never be built, even in the unlikely event of Boris becoming PM.