Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow

[CJB]

Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow

From: "hacan-news-***@hacan.org.uk" <hacan-news-***@hacan.org.uk>
To: hacan-***@hacan.org.uk

Dear All,

We have just learnt that Panorama will be devoting its programme on
Monday (7th July) to Heathrow expansion.

John Stewart

[Depresion]

Post by CJB
Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
Dear All,
We have just learnt that Panorama will be devoting its programme on
Monday (7th July) to Heathrow expansion.

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

[Doug]

Post by Depresion

Post by CJB
Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
Dear All,
We have just learnt that Panorama will be devoting its programme on
Monday (7th July) to Heathrow expansion.

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

Vast benefits to whom? What about the vast noise and pollution, waste
of precious resources and harm to the environment?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

[Huge]

Post by Doug

Post by Depresion

Post by CJB
Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
Dear All,
We have just learnt that Panorama will be devoting its programme on
Monday (7th July) to Heathrow expansion.

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

Vast benefits to whom?

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

[William Black]

Post by Huge

Post by Doug

Post by Depresion

Post by CJB
Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
Dear All,
We have just learnt that Panorama will be devoting its programme on
Monday (7th July) to Heathrow expansion.

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

Vast benefits to whom?

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

I pass through Heathrow on a regular basis.

It's hell on earth.

Everyone who flies hates the place

It's dirty, expensive, too big, the security staff are rude, they loose
your luggage and in busy times all sort of systems just break down.

Try going through immigration on a Bank Holiday weekend, you too can spend
an hour in a queue for no very good reason.

[Mike P]

Post by William Black

Post by Huge

Post by Doug

Post by Depresion

Post by CJB
Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
Dear All,
We have just learnt that Panorama will be devoting its programme on
Monday (7th July) to Heathrow expansion.

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

Vast benefits to whom?

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

I pass through Heathrow on a regular basis.
It's hell on earth.
Everyone who flies hates the place
It's dirty, expensive, too big, the security staff are rude, they
loose your luggage and in busy times all sort of systems just break down.
Try going through immigration on a Bank Holiday weekend, you too can
spend an hour in a queue for no very good reason.

have you been to any American airports recently? They make Heathrow seem
like a relaxing holiday. I've experienced Atlanta, Pittsburgh and
Cinncinnati recently. All, without a shadow of a doubt, staffed by the
rudest people I've ever come across at airports, and I've been to many
worldwide.

Mike P

[Gizmo.]

Post by Mike P

Post by William Black

Post by Huge

Post by Doug

Post by Depresion

Post by CJB
Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
Dear All,
We have just learnt that Panorama will be devoting its programme on
Monday (7th July) to Heathrow expansion.

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

Vast benefits to whom?

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

I pass through Heathrow on a regular basis.
It's hell on earth.
Everyone who flies hates the place
It's dirty, expensive, too big, the security staff are rude, they
loose your luggage and in busy times all sort of systems just break down.
Try going through immigration on a Bank Holiday weekend, you too can
spend an hour in a queue for no very good reason.

have you been to any American airports recently? They make Heathrow seem
like a relaxing holiday. I've experienced Atlanta, Pittsburgh and
Cinncinnati recently. All, without a shadow of a doubt, staffed by the
rudest people I've ever come across at airports, and I've been to many
worldwide.

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

[Depresion]

Post by William Black
I pass through Heathrow on a regular basis.
It's hell on earth.
Everyone who flies hates the place

Hence the need for expansion, they should also open up more late night slots
to spread demand. There isn't enough investment as there isn't the capacity
for expansion thus for additional profits.

[William Black]

Post by Depresion

Post by William Black
I pass through Heathrow on a regular basis.
It's hell on earth.
Everyone who flies hates the place

Hence the need for expansion, they should also open up more late night
slots to spread demand. There isn't enough investment as there isn't the
capacity for expansion thus for additional profits.

It's too big already.

The only people who want expansion there are the people who own it, because
they want to make more money because of 'economies of scale'.

What they should do is have more of the provincial airports hosting
international long haul flights.

They have woefully underused customs and immigration facilities.

Last year I flew from Newcastle to the Middle East and it was a completely
different experience from Heathrow, with polite efficient staff, clean
uncluttered waiting areas and plenty of customs and immigration people (on
the return leg) who do nothing very much most of the time.

Heathrow is a mess and if it gets any bigger it'll just be messier and more
unpleasant. The road and rail links are creaking under the weight of the
traffic already. A new runway will mean vast disruption as even more road
links are put in.

If London needs more capacity, and I am starting to doubt it, I think
Stanstead hosting far more scheduled flights is the solution rather than the
ghastly mess that is Heathrow.

[Depresion]

Post by William Black
It's too big already.

Yet dosn't have the capacity to handel the number of people and goods that
want to use it, that dosn't sound like to big to me.

Post by William Black
The only people who want expansion there are the people who own it, because
they want to make more money because of 'economies of scale'.

I don't own it yet think the expansion is a good thing.

[Brimstone]

Post by Depresion

Post by William Black
It's too big already.

Yet dosn't have the capacity to handel the number of people and goods
that want to use it, that dosn't sound like to big to me.

Mere size is not a guide to efficiency.

Post by Depresion

Post by William Black
The only people who want expansion there are the people who own it,
because they want to make more money because of 'economies of scale'.

I don't own it yet think the expansion is a good thing.

Why, so that they can make less use of more space? BAA need to make better
use of what they've got already before demolishing ancient villages.

[Peter Lynch]

Post by Brimstone

Post by Depresion

Post by William Black
It's too big already.

Yet dosn't have the capacity to handel the number of people and goods
that want to use it, that dosn't sound like to big to me.

Mere size is not a guide to efficiency.

Post by Depresion

Post by William Black
The only people who want expansion there are the people who own it,
because they want to make more money because of 'economies of scale'.

I don't own it yet think the expansion is a good thing.

Why, so that they can make less use of more space? BAA need to make better
use of what they've got already before demolishing ancient villages.

Depends what you mean by "better use". From BAA's PoV, that means making
more money. There was an interesting article in The Economist recently. It
made the claim that 1/3 of the people who use Heathrow merely do so to
change planes. They never get out of the airport, so make no contribution
to the UK's economy (apart from increasing Ferrovial's profits).
The only benefit that brits get from having Heathrow as large as it is, is
the increased number of destinations available without changing planes.
Personally, that's something I'd willingly give up in exchange for not
being regularly woken at 4:45 in the morning when the first flight of the
day leaves.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Peter Lynch
There was an interesting article in The Economist recently. It
made the claim that 1/3 of the people who use Heathrow merely do so to
change planes. They never get out of the airport, so make no contribution
to the UK's economy (apart from increasing Ferrovial's profits).

I'm not a Heathrow fan, but that claim is simply ludicrous. Transit
passengers need attending to by many airport staff, baggage handlers and
crew on their planes. Not to mention the money they spend while waiting.

[Peter Lynch]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Peter Lynch
There was an interesting article in The Economist recently. It
made the claim that 1/3 of the people who use Heathrow merely do so to
change planes. They never get out of the airport, so make no contribution
to the UK's economy (apart from increasing Ferrovial's profits).

I'm not a Heathrow fan, but that claim is simply ludicrous. Transit
passengers need attending to by many airport staff, baggage handlers and
crew on their planes. Not to mention the money they spend while waiting.

True, but LHR's limited by the number of flights in/out, not by the
number of burger-flippers and plastic-piggies they can employ. If transit
passengers were sent elsewhere, to an airport with more capacity, then
the slots freed up would bring in people who spent more money either as
tourists or on business. They'd still need the same number of low-paid
ancillary staff (for the same number of passengers - natch) but by catering
to people who actually want to come to Britain, rather than merely pass
through it, the whole economy - at least in the S.E. would benefit.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Peter Lynch

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Peter Lynch
There was an interesting article in The Economist recently. It
made the claim that 1/3 of the people who use Heathrow merely do so to
change planes. They never get out of the airport, so make no contribution
to the UK's economy (apart from increasing Ferrovial's profits).

I'm not a Heathrow fan, but that claim is simply ludicrous. Transit
passengers need attending to by many airport staff, baggage handlers and
crew on their planes. Not to mention the money they spend while waiting.

True, but LHR's limited by the number of flights in/out, not by the
number of burger-flippers and plastic-piggies they can employ.

So you really think that if 1/3 of the passengers disappeared overnight
the shortfall would be filled?

Post by Peter Lynch
If transit passengers were sent elsewhere, to an airport with more
capacity,

But that's exactly backwards. Transit passengers need an airport with a
good choice of onward flights. Have them all arriving at (say)
Birmingham, and that choice is vastly reduced. So they'll transit in a
different country.

What you actually need to do is persuade as many as possible of the
*non* transit passengers to use whichever other airport might serve
their required destination.

Post by Peter Lynch
then the slots freed up would bring in people who spent more money
either as tourists or on business.

Why do they spend money - they are trying to leave the place as quickly
as possible.

Post by Peter Lynch
They'd still need the same number of low-paid ancillary staff (for the
same number of passengers - natch) but by catering to people who
actually want to come to Britain, rather than merely pass through it,
the whole economy - at least in the S.E. would benefit.

A lot of those transit passengers are actually heading for domestic
locations! (For example 75% of the people on BA's Manchester flights).

[Peter Lynch]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Peter Lynch
If transit passengers were sent elsewhere, to an airport with more
capacity,

But that's exactly backwards. Transit passengers need an airport with a
good choice of onward flights. Have them all arriving at (say)
Birmingham, and that choice is vastly reduced. So they'll transit in a
different country.

Yes, have them use a different country. I forget the numbers, but doesn't
Schipol have 4 or 5 runways, and CDG a similar number. How about having people
from southern europe transiting via. Madrid? Makes more sense than having
them come through London for their final (international) destinations..

Post by Roland Perry
What you actually need to do is persuade as many as possible of the
*non* transit passengers to use whichever other airport might serve
their required destination.

Post by Peter Lynch
then the slots freed up would bring in people who spent more money
either as tourists or on business.

Why do they spend money - they are trying to leave the place as quickly
as possible.

Eh? A person flying from (say) Istanbul to New York, via London will buy
a burger and chips while waiting for their onward flight. If that passenger
capacity was available to a tourist (or business person) instead, they'd
spend money on a hotel, meals out, sightseeing etc.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Peter Lynch
They'd still need the same number of low-paid ancillary staff (for the
same number of passengers - natch) but by catering to people who
actually want to come to Britain, rather than merely pass through it,
the whole economy - at least in the S.E. would benefit.

A lot of those transit passengers are actually heading for domestic
locations! (For example 75% of the people on BA's Manchester flights).

Doesn't matter. If you're going from Birmingham to (e.g.) Cape Town, or vice-versa
it makes no difference to you if you change planes at LHR or CDG. I.e. Birmingham
to London to Cape Town, rather than Birmingham to Paris to Cape Town. However
if you change at Heathrow, you're using up capacity that denies a visitor
(not a transit passsenger) a flight into London.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Peter Lynch

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Peter Lynch
If transit passengers were sent elsewhere, to an airport with more
capacity,

But that's exactly backwards. Transit passengers need an airport with a
good choice of onward flights. Have them all arriving at (say)
Birmingham, and that choice is vastly reduced. So they'll transit in a
different country.

Yes, have them use a different country.

Many people make a point of trying to avoid LHR.

Post by Peter Lynch
I forget the numbers, but doesn't Schipol have 4 or 5 runways, and CDG
a similar number.

Schiphol has five main ones, but they only use about three at a time
(because they criss-cross). CDG is really two airports on the same site,
with T1 and T3 each having one main and one secondary (parallel) runway.

Post by Peter Lynch
How about having people
from southern europe transiting via. Madrid? Makes more sense than having
them come through London for their final (international) destinations..

But Madrid doesn't have as many longhaul destinations, and is therefore
less attractive. So people put up with LHR.

Post by Peter Lynch

Post by Roland Perry
What you actually need to do is persuade as many as possible of the
*non* transit passengers to use whichever other airport might serve
their required destination.

Post by Peter Lynch
then the slots freed up would bring in people who spent more money
either as tourists or on business.

Why do they spend money - they are trying to leave the place as quickly
as possible.

Eh? A person flying from (say) Istanbul to New York, via London will buy
a burger and chips while waiting for their onward flight. If that passenger
capacity was available to a tourist (or business person) instead, they'd
spend money on a hotel, meals out, sightseeing etc.

I agree, but that assumes that more people will fly to the UK on
business/holiday if there was more capacity at Heathrow. I really don't
see that being the main determining factor.

Post by Peter Lynch

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Peter Lynch
They'd still need the same number of low-paid ancillary staff (for the
same number of passengers - natch) but by catering to people who
actually want to come to Britain, rather than merely pass through it,
the whole economy - at least in the S.E. would benefit.

A lot of those transit passengers are actually heading for domestic
locations! (For example 75% of the people on BA's Manchester flights).

Doesn't matter. If you're going from Birmingham to (e.g.) Cape Town, or
vice-versa it makes no difference to you if you change planes at LHR or
CDG. I.e. Birmingham to London to Cape Town, rather than Birmingham to
Paris to Cape Town.

It makes a big difference to BA. If you change at LHR you are much more
likely to make that long haul flight on BA, than if you changed at CDG
(Air France etc).

Post by Peter Lynch
However if you change at Heathrow, you're using up capacity that denies
a visitor (not a transit passsenger) a flight into London.

I don't agree with that assumption.

[Lansbury]

Post by Peter Lynch
Doesn't matter. If you're going from Birmingham to (e.g.) Cape Town, or vice-versa
it makes no difference to you if you change planes at LHR or CDG. I.e. Birmingham
to London to Cape Town, rather than Birmingham to Paris to Cape Town. However
if you change at Heathrow, you're using up capacity that denies a visitor
(not a transit passsenger) a flight into London.

If you have them transit in another country they are very likely to be using a
non British airline, hence revenue lost to a British company.

Like wise the passenger handling fee is lost to BAA.

While I don't doubt some of those transit passengers would be replaced by
staying passengers it would take some considerable time to replace 22 million
transit passengers a year.
--
Lansbury (Retired)
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

[Brimstone]

Post by Lansbury

Post by Peter Lynch
Doesn't matter. If you're going from Birmingham to (e.g.) Cape Town,
or vice-versa it makes no difference to you if you change planes at
LHR or CDG. I.e. Birmingham to London to Cape Town, rather than
Birmingham to Paris to Cape Town. However
if you change at Heathrow, you're using up capacity that denies a
visitor (not a transit passsenger) a flight into London.

If you have them transit in another country they are very likely to
be using a non British airline, hence revenue lost to a British
company.
Like wise the passenger handling fee is lost to BAA.
While I don't doubt some of those transit passengers would be
replaced by staying passengers it would take some considerable time
to replace 22 million transit passengers a year.

Whilst there would be no income from them, there would also be no
expenditure to provide for them. Sometime one can be better of by not
accepting business (up to a point of course).

[tim.....]

Post by Lansbury

Post by Peter Lynch
Doesn't matter. If you're going from Birmingham to (e.g.) Cape Town, or vice-versa
it makes no difference to you if you change planes at LHR or CDG. I.e. Birmingham
to London to Cape Town, rather than Birmingham to Paris to Cape Town. However
if you change at Heathrow, you're using up capacity that denies a visitor
(not a transit passsenger) a flight into London.

If you have them transit in another country they are very likely to be using a
non British airline, hence revenue lost to a British company.
Like wise the passenger handling fee is lost to BAA.
While I don't doubt some of those transit passengers would be replaced by
staying passengers it would take some considerable time to replace 22 million
transit passengers a year.

The problem that I have with the Heathrow expansion plan is the expectation
that it is going to be funded by putting up fees to pay for it, before (and
whilst) it is built.

ISTM that either the expansion is a commercial venture or it is
strategically necessity (or some combination thereof).

If it is claimed to be a commercial venture then it should be paid for in
the same way that every other commercial venture is paid for - by borrowing
money in the markets and repaying that money out of the extra fees that the
new facility gain (or not paying if that extra business doesn't
materialise). Tesco don't put up their prices in Little Piddleton to pay
for the building of a new, bigger, store in Greater Piddleton, so why should
BAA?

OTOH, if it is claimed to be a strategic necessity then ISTM that transfer
pax are of little benefit to the bulk of GB PLC and should be disregarded
when assessing the strategic need.

Tim

[Roland Perry]

Post by tim.....
OTOH, if it is claimed to be a strategic necessity then ISTM that transfer
pax are of little benefit to the bulk of GB PLC and should be disregarded
when assessing the strategic need.

Transfer passengers are of benefit (ignoring the money they spend
waiting for a plane) because a significant number have transferred from
a UK domestic destination, and would otherwise have changed planes at
Schiphol, CDG, or even New York, to get to their eventual destination.

And *all* the transfer passengers whether domestic or from further
afield help maintain the critical mass of flights especially direct ones
to slightly less popular destinations. I can remember when it was only
possible to fly direct to Seattle three times a week, for example, even
from Heathrow.

[tim.....]

Post by tim.....
OTOH, if it is claimed to be a strategic necessity then ISTM that transfer
pax are of little benefit to the bulk of GB PLC and should be disregarded
when assessing the strategic need.

Transfer passengers are of benefit (ignoring the money they spend waiting
for a plane) because a significant number have transferred from a UK
domestic destination, and would otherwise have changed planes at Schiphol,
CDG, or even New York, to get to their eventual destination.

Yes you are right, I should have said international (to international)
transfer pax.

And *all* the transfer passengers whether domestic or from further afield
help maintain the critical mass of flights especially direct ones

I agree that this is an advantage, but I just don't think that LHR scores
any points for this, there are more than enough flights to lots of
destinations already.

tim

to slightly less popular destinations. I can remember when it was only
possible to fly direct to Seattle three times a week, for example, even
from Heathrow.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

Post by tim.....

And *all* the transfer passengers whether domestic or from further afield
help maintain the critical mass of flights especially direct ones

I agree that this is an advantage, but I just don't think that LHR scores
any points for this, there are more than enough flights to lots of
destinations already.

[Just picking one example] I don't think you can fly to Seattle from
anywhere else in the UK, and as I've noted earlier, there wasn't enough
demand to fly daily last time I went; but there is now. Having
international transfer passengers helps boost the numbers and make a
daily flight economic.

[tim.....]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by tim.....

And *all* the transfer passengers whether domestic or from further afield
help maintain the critical mass of flights especially direct ones

I agree that this is an advantage, but I just don't think that LHR scores
any points for this, there are more than enough flights to lots of
destinations already.

[Just picking one example] I don't think you can fly to Seattle from
anywhere else in the UK, and as I've noted earlier, there wasn't enough
demand to fly daily last time I went; but there is now. Having
international transfer passengers helps boost the numbers and make a daily
flight economic.

You don't think that the increase in importance of the town as an IT centre
may have created more of a reason for business people to want to fly there?

tim

[Roland Perry]

Post by tim.....

Post by Roland Perry
[Just picking one example] I don't think you can fly to Seattle from
anywhere else in the UK, and as I've noted earlier, there wasn't enough
demand to fly daily last time I went; but there is now. Having
international transfer passengers helps boost the numbers and make a daily
flight economic.

You don't think that the increase in importance of the town as an IT centre
may have created more of a reason for business people to want to fly there?

It doesn't matter why they fly there, it's flying via London that
matters.

As for people flying "because of IT" I am constantly surprised that I
can fly halfway across the world to a conference where I know I'll be
meeting 500+ colleagues, and very rarely is there even one of them on
the same plane as myself. So I think most travel is not IT-industry
related.

The exception was last autumn when a group of us ended up on the same
flight home from Rio, via CDG. I think Rio is one of those places
without a daily flight form Heathrow. And Air France runs different
sized planes on different days of the week, presumably to tune their
offering to the demand.

[tim.....]

Post by tim.....

Post by Roland Perry
[Just picking one example] I don't think you can fly to Seattle from
anywhere else in the UK, and as I've noted earlier, there wasn't enough
demand to fly daily last time I went; but there is now. Having
international transfer passengers helps boost the numbers and make a daily
flight economic.

You don't think that the increase in importance of the town as an IT centre
may have created more of a reason for business people to want to fly there?

It doesn't matter why they fly there, it's flying via London that matters.

No, what I meant was, the demand from London (and surrounding) has gone up
because of this reason and hence the frequency of the flights increased
because of local demand, not because of connecting opportunities.

tim

[Roland Perry]

Post by tim.....

It doesn't matter why they fly there, it's flying via London that matters.

No, what I meant was, the demand from London (and surrounding) has gone up
because of this reason and hence the frequency of the flights increased
because of local demand, not because of connecting opportunities.

I don't think the demand to go there has increased purely because of the
IT companies there that need to be visited by so many more Brits.

[Lansbury]

Post by tim.....
If it is claimed to be a commercial venture then it should be paid for in
the same way that every other commercial venture is paid for - by borrowing
money in the markets

Problem with that is Ferrovial borrowed so much to buy BAA, and are
desperately trying to restructure those loans, that I doubt especially in the
current financial climate that anyone is going to lend them money to make
improvements with.

--
Lansbury (Retired)
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

[tim.....]

Post by Lansbury

Post by tim.....
If it is claimed to be a commercial venture then it should be paid for in
the same way that every other commercial venture is paid for - by borrowing
money in the markets

Problem with that is Ferrovial borrowed so much to buy BAA, and are
desperately trying to restructure those loans, that I doubt especially in the
current financial climate that anyone is going to lend them money to make
improvements with.

But that is their problem,

Making this problem for themselves does not entitle them to demand that
someone else pay for the new construction


tim

[Lansbury]

Post by tim.....
But that is their problem,

Indeed so they can solve it how they want.

Post by tim.....
Making this problem for themselves does not entitle them to demand that
someone else pay for the new construction

They are entitled to ask whatever they like for the services they provide, as
is anyone else who sells something.

Whether people choose to buy it is they choice.

What BAA do with the money they raise from selling their services is their
choice.
--
Lansbury (Retired)
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

[tim.....]

Post by Lansbury

Post by tim.....
But that is their problem,

Indeed so they can solve it how they want.

Post by tim.....
Making this problem for themselves does not entitle them to demand that
someone else pay for the new construction

They are entitled to ask whatever they like for the services they provide, as
is anyone else who sells something.

Not they aren't they are a regulated supplier. They cannot chose to
increase their prices. The Government has to give permission.

Post by Lansbury
Whether people choose to buy it is they choice.

They are regulated for a reason. That reason being that their customers
(the airlines) can't (logistically) just go elsewhere.

tim

[Lansbury]

Post by tim.....

Post by Lansbury
They are entitled to ask whatever they like for the services they provide, as
is anyone else who sells something.

Not they aren't they are a regulated supplier. They cannot chose to
increase their prices. The Government has to give permission.

Regulation doesn't alter the fact they can choose to ask the Government for
whatever raise they wish.

Post by tim.....

Post by Lansbury
Whether people choose to buy it is they choice.

They are regulated for a reason. That reason being that their customers
(the airlines) can't (logistically) just go elsewhere.

The passenger handling fee is collected by the airlines, but paid for in the
extra taxes and fees by the passenger. The passenger can choose whatever
airport or other method of travel they want too. Nobody is forced to us
Heathrow, there are other choices.

Again how they choose to finance improvements is their business decision and
they can do it however they think best for themselves. Now it might not be
fair or reasonable to make current passengers pay for future improvements but
BAA can do so if they wish.

--
Lansbury (Retired)
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

[tim.....]

Post by Lansbury

Post by tim.....

Post by Lansbury
They are entitled to ask whatever they like for the services they
provide,
as
is anyone else who sells something.

Not they aren't they are a regulated supplier. They cannot chose to
increase their prices. The Government has to give permission.

Regulation doesn't alter the fact they can choose to ask the Government for
whatever raise they wish.

I never suggested that they shouldn't be allowed to ask

I was suggesing that they shouldn't be given permission.

My previous comments were aimed squarely at the people who are going to give
permission for this expansion, not those seeking it.

Post by Lansbury

Post by tim.....

Post by Lansbury
Whether people choose to buy it is they choice.

They are regulated for a reason. That reason being that their customers
(the airlines) can't (logistically) just go elsewhere.

The passenger handling fee is collected by the airlines, but paid for in the
extra taxes and fees by the passenger. The passenger can choose whatever
airport or other method of travel they want too. Nobody is forced to us
Heathrow, there are other choices.
Again how they choose to finance improvements is their business decision and
they can do it however they think best for themselves. Now it might not be
fair or reasonable to make current passengers pay for future improvements but
BAA can do so if they wish.

Only if HMG lets them.

tim

[John Wright]

Post by Lansbury

Post by tim.....
If it is claimed to be a commercial venture then it should be paid for in
the same way that every other commercial venture is paid for - by borrowing
money in the markets

Problem with that is Ferrovial borrowed so much to buy BAA, and are
desperately trying to restructure those loans, that I doubt especially in the
current financial climate that anyone is going to lend them money to make
improvements with.

This is the technique of so-called private equity take over, usually by
companies with putting very little equity in. They borrow loads of
money, put that on the target companies balance sheet, and then the
profits of said company are used both to provide a return to the PE
company and pay the interest on the huge loan.

This was the way of the world till credit became tighter and more
expensive. Now as you say, there are frantic attempts to "restructure"
these enormous debts the companies never asked for in the first place.

BAA is caught in that trap at the moment.

[William Black]

Post by Depresion

Post by William Black
It's too big already.

Yet dosn't have the capacity to handel the number of people and goods that
want to use it, that dosn't sound like to big to me.

It's not the people who want to use it, they want to use the aircraft.

The aircraft can use any airport.

You've only got to see the vast industrial area in Crawly to realise that
the air freight business at Gatwick is on a huge scale as well.

But why do freight aircraft have to use Heathrow?

It just adds to the problem.

Post by Depresion

Post by William Black
The only people who want expansion there are the people who own it,
because they want to make more money because of 'economies of scale'.

I don't own it yet think the expansion is a good thing.

Why?

[disgoftunwells]

Post by Depresion

Post by William Black
I pass through Heathrow on a regular basis.
It's hell on earth.
Everyone who flies hates the place

Hence the need for expansion, they should also open up more late night slots
to spread demand. There isn't enough investment as there isn't the capacity
for expansion thus for additional profits.

Excellent idea. They should have 24 hour operation. And two more
runways. And reconfigure it into a sensible layout.

Just a few problems, the main one being Heathrow's in the wrong place.

Either we need to move London, or we need to move the main airport.

I think its easier to build the runways elsewhere. Just admit that
Heathrow was a mistake and stop throwing good concrete after bad.

[William Black]

Post by disgoftunwells

Post by Depresion

Post by William Black
I pass through Heathrow on a regular basis.
It's hell on earth.
Everyone who flies hates the place

Hence the need for expansion, they should also open up more late night slots
to spread demand. There isn't enough investment as there isn't the capacity
for expansion thus for additional profits.

Excellent idea. They should have 24 hour operation. And two more
runways. And reconfigure it into a sensible layout.

How will you stop the good people of Hounslow burning the place to the
ground?

[unknown]

Post by William Black

Post by disgoftunwells

Post by Depresion
Hence the need for expansion, they should also open up more late night
slots to spread demand. There isn't enough investment as there isn't
the capacity for expansion thus for additional profits.

Excellent idea. They should have 24 hour operation. And two more
runways. And reconfigure it into a sensible layout.

How will you stop the good people of Hounslow burning the place to the
ground?

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

[William Black]

Post by unknown

Post by William Black

Post by disgoftunwells

Post by Depresion
Hence the need for expansion, they should also open up more late night
slots to spread demand. There isn't enough investment as there isn't
the capacity for expansion thus for additional profits.

Excellent idea. They should have 24 hour operation. And two more
runways. And reconfigure it into a sensible layout.

How will you stop the good people of Hounslow burning the place to the
ground?

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

Not all of them work there.

Indeed, the majority don't...

Even those that do like to sleep now and again...

[Roger Merriman]

Post by William Black

Post by unknown

Post by William Black

Post by disgoftunwells

Post by Depresion
Hence the need for expansion, they should also open up more late night
slots to spread demand. There isn't enough investment as there isn't
the capacity for expansion thus for additional profits.

Excellent idea. They should have 24 hour operation. And two more
runways. And reconfigure it into a sensible layout.

How will you stop the good people of Hounslow burning the place to the
ground?

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

Not all of them work there.
Indeed, the majority don't...
Even those that do like to sleep now and again...

yes it is painfully loud around there.

roger

[unknown]

Post by William Black

Post by unknown

Post by William Black

Post by disgoftunwells

Post by Depresion
Hence the need for expansion, they should also open up more late night
slots to spread demand. There isn't enough investment as there isn't
the capacity for expansion thus for additional profits.

Excellent idea. They should have 24 hour operation. And two more
runways. And reconfigure it into a sensible layout.

How will you stop the good people of Hounslow burning the place to the
ground?

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

Not all of them work there.

Reductio ad absurdem.

Post by William Black
Indeed, the majority don't...

Failure to understand economics.

Post by William Black
Even those that do like to sleep now and again...

Inappropriate use of ellipsis.

You're posting in one of the wanky activist groups, aren't you?

[William Black]

Post by unknown

Post by William Black

Post by unknown

Post by William Black

Post by disgoftunwells

Post by Depresion
Hence the need for expansion, they should also open up more late night
slots to spread demand. There isn't enough investment as there isn't
the capacity for expansion thus for additional profits.

Excellent idea. They should have 24 hour operation. And two more
runways. And reconfigure it into a sensible layout.

How will you stop the good people of Hounslow burning the place to the
ground?

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

Not all of them work there.

Reductio ad absurdem.

Post by William Black
Indeed, the majority don't...

Failure to understand economics.

Post by William Black
Even those that do like to sleep now and again...

Inappropriate use of ellipsis.
You're posting in one of the wanky activist groups, aren't you?

Lack of content noted.

[unknown]

Post by William Black

Post by unknown

Post by William Black

Post by unknown

Post by William Black

Post by disgoftunwells

Post by Depresion
Hence the need for expansion, they should also open up more late night
slots to spread demand. There isn't enough investment as there isn't
the capacity for expansion thus for additional profits.

Excellent idea. They should have 24 hour operation. And two more
runways. And reconfigure it into a sensible layout.

How will you stop the good people of Hounslow burning the place to the
ground?

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

Not all of them work there.

Reductio ad absurdem.

Post by William Black
Indeed, the majority don't...

Failure to understand economics.

Post by William Black
Even those that do like to sleep now and again...

Inappropriate use of ellipsis.
You're posting in one of the wanky activist groups, aren't you?

Lack of content noted.

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

[William Black]

"Steve Firth" <[e-mail]>

Can reasonably obviously be safely ignored.

[unknown]

Post by William Black

Anyone who makes unmarked alterations to the post
they reply to.

Can reasonably obviously be safely ignored.

Oh I agree.

[JohnT]

Post by William Black

Post by disgoftunwells

Post by Depresion

Post by William Black
I pass through Heathrow on a regular basis.
It's hell on earth.
Everyone who flies hates the place

Hence the need for expansion, they should also open up more late night slots
to spread demand. There isn't enough investment as there isn't the capacity
for expansion thus for additional profits.

Excellent idea. They should have 24 hour operation. And two more
runways. And reconfigure it into a sensible layout.

How will you stop the good people of Hounslow burning the place to the
ground?

Don't most of them work there?

[Lansbury]

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

Post by William Black
How will you stop the good people of Hounslow burning the place to the
ground?

A Glock or a Heckler and Kock MP5 are quite good for stopping most acts like
that, and there are quite a few of those being carrier around the airport on a
24 hour basis.


--
Lansbury (Retired)
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

[unknown]

Post by Lansbury
A Glock or a Heckler and Kock MP5

Heckler and Koch.

You're welcome.

[William Black]

Post by Lansbury
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:09:38 +0100, "William Black"

Post by William Black
How will you stop the good people of Hounslow burning the place to the
ground?

A Glock or a Heckler and Kock MP5 are quite good for stopping most acts like
that, and there are quite a few of those being carrier around the airport on a
24 hour basis.

Silly man.

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

The cops rule with the agreement of the population.

[unknown]

Post by William Black
You can't stop a popular uprising with the cops.

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

[William Black]

Post by unknown

Post by William Black
You can't stop a popular uprising with the cops.

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

Organised murder of activists in not the putting down of a popular uprising.

There never seems to have been any popular uprising from the people who were
murdered.

[unknown]

Post by William Black

Post by unknown

Post by William Black
You can't stop a popular uprising with the cops.

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

Organised murder of activists in not the putting down of a popular uprising.

It stopped a populat uprising. As in "prevented it from happening".

Post by William Black
There never seems to have been any popular uprising from the people who were
murdered.

There was no popular uprising at all. The citizens were too terrified to
protest. The cops very effectively suppressed even the possibility of a
popular uprising.

You were wrong. Live with it.

[William Black]

Post by unknown

Post by William Black

Post by unknown

Post by William Black
You can't stop a popular uprising with the cops.

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

Organised murder of activists in not the putting down of a popular uprising.

It stopped a populat uprising. As in "prevented it from happening".

Well no.

As far as anyone knows the murderous South American dictatorships killed
people for wanting representative democracy.

To its eternal shame the USA backed them in this policy...

[unknown]

Post by William Black

Post by unknown

Post by William Black

Post by unknown

Post by William Black
You can't stop a popular uprising with the cops.

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

Organised murder of activists in not the putting down of a popular uprising.

It stopped a populat uprising. As in "prevented it from happening".

Well no.

Well, yes, actually. There was no popular uprising.

Post by William Black
As far as anyone knows the murderous South American dictatorships killed
people for wanting representative democracy.

Why they did it is of little matter, what happened was that the cops
prevented any popular uprising from occurring.

Post by William Black
To its eternal shame the USA backed them in this policy...

Blah, blah.

But you were wrong, and you seem to have difficulty admitting that fact.

[William Black]

Post by unknown

Post by William Black

Post by unknown

Post by William Black

Post by unknown

Post by William Black
You can't stop a popular uprising with the cops.

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

Organised murder of activists in not the putting down of a popular uprising.

It stopped a populat uprising. As in "prevented it from happening".

Well no.

Well, yes, actually. There was no popular uprising.

There is no evidence that any was ever planned.

[Lansbury]

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:38:12 +0100, "William Black"

Post by William Black
You can't stop a popular uprising with the cops.
The cops rule with the agreement of the population.

Really most of the population never seemed to agree with anything I did, they
soon changed their minds when a uniform officer visibly armed to the teeth
arrived.

--
Lansbury (Retired)
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

[Huge]

Post by William Black

Post by Huge

Post by Doug

Post by Depresion

Post by CJB
Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
Dear All,
We have just learnt that Panorama will be devoting its programme on
Monday (7th July) to Heathrow expansion.

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

Vast benefits to whom?

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

I pass through Heathrow on a regular basis.

So do I.

Post by William Black
It's hell on earth.

It's not that bad.

Post by William Black
Everyone who flies hates the place

Everyone? Hates? That's a little extreme.

Post by William Black
It's dirty, expensive, too big, the security staff are rude, they loose
your luggage and in busy times all sort of systems just break down.

Just like virtually every other airport in the world, then.

Post by William Black
Try going through immigration on a Bank Holiday weekend, you too can spend
an hour in a queue for no very good reason.

Anyone who travels on a Bank Holiday deserves whatever they get.

[William Black]

Post by Huge

Post by William Black
It's dirty, expensive, too big, the security staff are rude, they loose
your luggage and in busy times all sort of systems just break down.

Just like virtually every other airport in the world, then.

Well no.

UK provincial airports don't seem anywhere near as dirty or prone to
breakdown.

I realise that they're not as busy, but that's rather the point.

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

Post by Huge

Post by William Black
Try going through immigration on a Bank Holiday weekend, you too can spend
an hour in a queue for no very good reason.

Anyone who travels on a Bank Holiday deserves whatever they get.

Some people have little choice...

[Roland Perry]

Post by William Black
Manchester is very busy, but it's clean and stuff seems to work.

You've not been to Terminal 3, then?

[Huge]

Post by William Black

Post by Huge

Post by William Black
It's dirty, expensive, too big, the security staff are rude, they loose
your luggage and in busy times all sort of systems just break down.

Just like virtually every other airport in the world, then.

Well no.

Well, yes.

I travelled regularly and often all over the world for 11 years for my employer,
and still regularly go to the USA. Heathrow ain't so bad. Try Delhi. Or Newark.
Or (the thankfully now redeveloped) Milan Linate. Or Philadelphia when the
"International Terminal" was an un-airconditioned tin shed.

[William Black]

Post by Huge

Post by William Black

Post by Huge

Post by William Black
It's dirty, expensive, too big, the security staff are rude, they loose
your luggage and in busy times all sort of systems just break down.

Just like virtually every other airport in the world, then.

Well no.

Well, yes.
I travelled regularly and often all over the world for 11 years for my employer,
and still regularly go to the USA. Heathrow ain't so bad. Try Delhi. Or Newark.
Or (the thankfully now redeveloped) Milan Linate. Or Philadelphia when the
"International Terminal" was an un-airconditioned tin shed.

We're not talking about 'way back when'.

I remember when Bombay International was a cess-pit as well.

But these days it's reasonably clean, the staff are polite and even the
immigration people smile and get you through in about ten minutes.

[Huge]

Post by William Black

Post by Huge

Post by William Black

Post by Huge

Post by William Black
It's dirty, expensive, too big, the security staff are rude, they loose
your luggage and in busy times all sort of systems just break down.

Just like virtually every other airport in the world, then.

Well no.

Well, yes.
I travelled regularly and often all over the world for 11 years for my employer,
and still regularly go to the USA. Heathrow ain't so bad. Try Delhi. Or Newark.
Or (the thankfully now redeveloped) Milan Linate. Or Philadelphia when the
"International Terminal" was an un-airconditioned tin shed.

We're not talking about 'way back when'.

Neither was I. I've flown through Delhi (domestic and international) and Newark
in the last 6 months. Both shitholes.

[unknown]

Or Newark. Or (the thankfully now redeveloped) Milan Linate. Or
Philadelphia when the "International Terminal" was an un-airconditioned
tin shed.

The Rome airports are still crap, and while Linate has improved a bit
it's still not that great. Malpensa is a bloody joke, but the only
airport near Milan that can be used from some UK regional airports.
Since I refuse to do LHR, I end up on Gatwick/Malpensa or
Birmingham/Malpensa more often than I like.

[Pd]

Post by unknown
The Rome airports are still crap, and while Linate has improved a bit
it's still not that great. Malpensa is a bloody joke, but the only
airport near Milan that can be used from some UK regional airports.
Since I refuse to do LHR, I end up on Gatwick/Malpensa or
Birmingham/Malpensa more often than I like.

<http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4791951>

[unknown]

Post by Pd

Post by unknown
The Rome airports are still crap, and while Linate has improved a bit
it's still not that great. Malpensa is a bloody joke, but the only
airport near Milan that can be used from some UK regional airports.
Since I refuse to do LHR, I end up on Gatwick/Malpensa or
Birmingham/Malpensa more often than I like.

<http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4791951>

Hmm, a bit painful for me. The last time I flew from Rome (Ciampino)
that's exactly what happened to my luggage. I could see it lying on the
tarmac as the plane taxied away from the stand. When we got to Gatwick
we were told it would be "a few days", it turned out to be three weeks
before we saw it again, battered, opened with a note saying it had been
examined by the Surete.

Yes that's right, not the Carabinieri, Surete. So where it had been
heaven only knows.

[Depresion]

Post by Huge

Post by Doug

Post by Depresion

Post by CJB
Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
Dear All,
We have just learnt that Panorama will be devoting its programme on
Monday (7th July) to Heathrow expansion.

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

Vast benefits to whom?

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

Or all the people who buy goods that are flown in. Say those who insist on
eating imported food.

[unknown]

Post by Huge

Post by Doug

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

Vast benefits to whom?

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

And si nce there are more passengers than there are NIMBYs complaining
Duhg will agree with expansion because it is for the greater good of the
greater number of people.

Or he'll swivel on a sixpence and drop all his previous "principles."

Prace bets NOW!

[Brimstone]

Post by unknown

Post by Huge

Post by Doug

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

Vast benefits to whom?

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

And si nce there are more passengers than there are NIMBYs complaining
Duhg will agree with expansion because it is for the greater good of
the greater number of people.
Or he'll swivel on a sixpence and drop all his previous "principles."
Prace bets NOW!

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

[Doug]

Post by Huge

Post by Doug

Post by Depresion

Post by CJB
Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
Dear All,
We have just learnt that Panorama will be devoting its programme on
Monday (7th July) to Heathrow expansion.

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

Vast benefits to whom?

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

You mean the hypermobile who cause so many problems for the rest of
the population?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

[Huge]

Post by Doug

Post by Huge

Post by Doug

Post by Depresion

Post by CJB
Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
Dear All,
We have just learnt that Panorama will be devoting its programme on
Monday (7th July) to Heathrow expansion.

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

Vast benefits to whom?

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

You mean the hypermobile who cause so many problems for the rest of
the population?

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

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

[Doug]

Post by Huge

Post by Doug

Post by Huge

Post by Doug

Post by Depresion

Post by CJB
Monday 7th July: Panorama on Heathrow
Dear All,
We have just learnt that Panorama will be devoting its programme on
Monday (7th July) to Heathrow expansion.

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

Vast benefits to whom?

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

You mean the hypermobile who cause so many problems for the rest of
the population?

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

By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage, pollution
and environmental damage in holiday locations and by flying their
noise disturbs millions of people and puts homes and lives at risk in
the event of a possible crash.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

[Roland Perry]

In message

Post by Doug

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

By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage, pollution
and environmental damage in holiday locations

The people who fly the most are probably doing it for business.

[tim.....]

Post by Roland Perry
In message

Post by Doug

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

By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage, pollution
and environmental damage in holiday locations

The people who fly the most are probably doing it for business.

Just because one travels for business doesn't mean that the travel is
necessary.

I can reel of a lot of occasions when managers I worked with went on
jollies:
a) to keep their airline mileage card the correct colour
b) to get their car mileage into the next tax band (when that had an
effect).

I am sure there are many other unnecessary reasons that people make business
journeys.

tim

[Roland Perry]

Post by tim.....

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Doug

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

By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage, pollution
and environmental damage in holiday locations

The people who fly the most are probably doing it for business.

Just because one travels for business doesn't mean that the travel is
necessary.

The compliant wasn't about travel as such, but "damaging holiday
locations".

Post by tim.....
I can reel of a lot of occasions when managers I worked with went on
a) to keep their airline mileage card the correct colour
b) to get their car mileage into the next tax band (when that had an
effect).

The company needs better financial controls!

[tim.....]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by tim.....

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Doug

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

By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage, pollution
and environmental damage in holiday locations

The people who fly the most are probably doing it for business.

Just because one travels for business doesn't mean that the travel is
necessary.

The compliant wasn't about travel as such, but "damaging holiday
locations".

Post by tim.....
I can reel of a lot of occasions when managers I worked with went on
a) to keep their airline mileage card the correct colour
b) to get their car mileage into the next tax band (when that had an
effect).

The company needs better financial controls!

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

tim

[Roland Perry]

Post by tim.....

Post by Roland Perry

Post by tim.....
I can reel of a lot of occasions when managers I worked with went on
a) to keep their airline mileage card the correct colour
b) to get their car mileage into the next tax band (when that had an
effect).

The company needs better financial controls!

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

No wonder the country is in the state it is.

[tim.....]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by tim.....

Post by Roland Perry

Post by tim.....
I can reel of a lot of occasions when managers I worked with went on
a) to keep their airline mileage card the correct colour
b) to get their car mileage into the next tax band (when that had an
effect).

The company needs better financial controls!

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

No wonder the country is in the state it is.

Not all of the examples are in this country.

It's the way middle management in large companies (and some smaller ones)
works the world over IME.

tim

[Derek Geldard]

Post by Doug
By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage, pollution
and environmental damage in holiday locations and by flying their
noise disturbs millions of people and puts homes and lives at risk in
the event of a possible crash.

Lugless Duhgless wants a man walking in front of every aircraft
carrying a red flag.

Derek

[Ed Banger]

Post by Derek Geldard

Post by Doug
By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage, pollution
and environmental damage in holiday locations and by flying their
noise disturbs millions of people and puts homes and lives at risk in
the event of a possible crash.

Lugless Duhgless wants a man walking in front of every aircraft
carrying a red flag.

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

[unknown]

Doug <***@riseup.net> wrote:

[snip]

Post by Doug

Post by Huge

Post by Doug
You mean the hypermobile who cause so many problems for the rest of
the population?

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

[Restore unmarked deletion]

Post by Doug

Post by Huge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermobility

[End of unmarked deletion]

Post by Doug
By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage, pollution
and environmental damage in holiday locations and by flying their
noise disturbs millions of people and puts homes and lives at risk in
the event of a possible crash.

And what makes you think[1] that individuals with joint hypermobility
travel "excessively" compared to other individuals?


[1] Term used in its loosest possible sense.

[John Wright]

Post by Doug

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

By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage, pollution
and environmental damage in holiday locations and by flying their
noise disturbs millions of people and puts homes and lives at risk in
the event of a possible crash.

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

[Brimstone]

Post by John Wright

Post by Doug

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

By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage,
pollution and environmental damage in holiday locations and by
flying their noise disturbs millions of people and puts homes and
lives at risk in the event of a possible crash.

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

If Doug Bollen says so then it must be true.

[John Wright]

Post by Brimstone

Post by John Wright

Post by Doug

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

By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage,
pollution and environmental damage in holiday locations and by
flying their noise disturbs millions of people and puts homes and
lives at risk in the event of a possible crash.

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

If Doug Bollen says so then it must be true.

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

[Brimstone]

Post by John Wright

Post by Brimstone

Post by John Wright

Post by Doug

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

By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage,
pollution and environmental damage in holiday locations and by
flying their noise disturbs millions of people and puts homes and
lives at risk in the event of a possible crash.

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

If Doug Bollen says so then it must be true.

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

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

[Ed Banger]

Post by Brimstone

Post by John Wright

Post by Brimstone

Post by John Wright

Post by Doug

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

By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage,
pollution and environmental damage in holiday locations and by
flying their noise disturbs millions of people and puts homes and
lives at risk in the event of a possible crash.

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

If Doug Bollen says so then it must be true.

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

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

Would the Great One allow us to tug a forelock while prostrating
ourselves?

[Brimstone]

Post by Ed Banger

Post by Brimstone

Post by John Wright

Post by Brimstone

Post by John Wright

Post by Doug

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

By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage,
pollution and environmental damage in holiday locations and by
flying their noise disturbs millions of people and puts homes and
lives at risk in the event of a possible crash.

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

If Doug Bollen says so then it must be true.

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

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

Would the Great One allow us to tug a forelock while prostrating
ourselves?

You'll need to ask him very nicely whilst begging his forgiveness.

[John Wright]

Post by Brimstone

Post by John Wright

Post by Brimstone

Post by John Wright

Post by Doug

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

By travelling excessively they contribute to energy wastage,
pollution and environmental damage in holiday locations and by
flying their noise disturbs millions of people and puts homes and
lives at risk in the event of a possible crash.

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

If Doug Bollen says so then it must be true.

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

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

Especially if you are double jointed and properly hypermobile

[Roland Perry]

Post by John Wright
Do we know that double-jointed people travel more than ordinary
mortals?

Their transportation is arriving momentarily.

(or in English: The prison ship heading for Australia will be here for
only a very short time).