Discussion:
Manchester serves more destinations than Heathrow?!
(too old to reply)
Michael Bell
2011-04-08 09:23:01 UTC
Permalink
In the holidays section of The Observer last Sunday there was a little
bit saying that (surprise, astonishment!) Manchester serves more
destinations than Heathrow. I cannot find this on The Observer
website, maybe because it was in the holiday section.

But can this really be true? More noise doesn't always mean more
substance!

Michael Bell

--
Recliner
2011-04-08 11:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Bell
In the holidays section of The Observer last Sunday there was a little
bit saying that (surprise, astonishment!) Manchester serves more
destinations than Heathrow. I cannot find this on The Observer
website, maybe because it was in the holiday section.
But can this really be true? More noise doesn't always mean more
substance!
Why are you so surprised? Manchester is both a business and a leisure
airport, with relatively few business flights but numerous infrequent
services to minor holiday destinations on low cost airlines. London has
plenty of these too, but most of the minor holiday destinations are
served from airports other than Heathrow. The major business routes from
Heathrow have a dozen or more flights a day (many on wide-bodied
aircraft), whereas the minor holiday routes from Manchester may have an
average of less than one flight a day.

Here's a personal example: I'm flying to Madrid tomorrow morning, on
holiday, but travelling BA Club class. The flight from Heathrow is on a
767, and I've pre-selected a seat on the right hand side to avoid
getting the sun in my eyes (try doing that on a low cost airline!).
Manchester airport doesn't even have any direct Madrid flights, but
probably has several to the Spanish beach resorts not served from
Heathrow.

Turning to specifics, Manchester airport's Web site lists services to
184 destinations (www.manchesterairport.co.uk/Info/MAN/AllDestinations),
while Heathrow claims to serve 176 destinations (I suspect a few of
these may be multiple airports in single cities).
<www.heathrowairport.com/portal/page/Heathrow%5EGeneral%5EOur+business+and+community%5EMedia+centre%5EFacts+and+figures/3cff846f3bba2010VgnVCM100000147e120a____/448c6a4c7f1b0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____/>

In your many posts attacking Heathrow, you always seem to forget that
it's just of five busy international London airports. For example,
Gatwick alone, which probably has a mixed business/leisure profile more
like Manchester, claims to serve more than 200 destinations:
www.gatwickairport.com/business/about/facts-figures/

So, before you get on to your usual hobbyhorse, Heathrow does NOT need
yet more pax from the north arriving via HS2 -- it already has more than
it can handle. What it would much rather have is a third runway, to
accommodate the demand that already exists.
Michael Bell
2011-04-08 12:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Michael Bell
In the holidays section of The Observer last Sunday there was a little
bit saying that (surprise, astonishment!) Manchester serves more
destinations than Heathrow. I cannot find this on The Observer
website, maybe because it was in the holiday section.
But can this really be true? More noise doesn't always mean more
substance!
Why are you so surprised?
Because the brag is that Heathrow is the biggest and best.

[snip]
Post by Recliner
In your many posts attacking Heathrow, you always seem to forget that
it's just of five busy international London airports.
I want to be sure of my facts.
Post by Recliner
So, before you get on to your usual hobbyhorse, Heathrow does NOT need
yet more pax from the north arriving via HS2 -- it already has more than
it can handle.
The implication of the publicity is that it does want traffic from the
North. "Our national gateway" and all that sort of stuff.

HS2's report is pretty withering about it too.
Post by Recliner
What it would much rather have is a third runway, to accommodate the
demand that already exists.
I was astonished that the Tories cancelled the third runway. I can't
see what game they're playing. Or do they not want the flight path to
over Oxford St and Buckingham palace?

Michael Bell






--
Graeme Wall
2011-04-08 16:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Recliner
Post by Michael Bell
In the holidays section of The Observer last Sunday there was a little
bit saying that (surprise, astonishment!) Manchester serves more
destinations than Heathrow. I cannot find this on The Observer
website, maybe because it was in the holiday section.
But can this really be true? More noise doesn't always mean more
substance!
Why are you so surprised?
Because the brag is that Heathrow is the biggest and best.
Is it? Who says?
Post by Michael Bell
[snip]
Post by Recliner
In your many posts attacking Heathrow, you always seem to forget that
it's just of five busy international London airports.
I want to be sure of my facts.
Post by Recliner
So, before you get on to your usual hobbyhorse, Heathrow does NOT need
yet more pax from the north arriving via HS2 -- it already has more than
it can handle.
The implication of the publicity is that it does want traffic from the
North. "Our national gateway" and all that sort of stuff.
HS2's report is pretty withering about it too.
Post by Recliner
What it would much rather have is a third runway, to accommodate the
demand that already exists.
I was astonished that the Tories cancelled the third runway. I can't
see what game they're playing. Or do they not want the flight path to
over Oxford St and Buckingham palace?
They wanted to get elected.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Michael Bell
2011-04-08 17:13:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Recliner
Post by Michael Bell
In the holidays section of The Observer last Sunday there was a little
bit saying that (surprise, astonishment!) Manchester serves more
destinations than Heathrow. I cannot find this on The Observer
website, maybe because it was in the holiday section.
But can this really be true? More noise doesn't always mean more
substance!
Why are you so surprised?
Because the brag is that Heathrow is the biggest and best.
Is it? Who says?
Post by Michael Bell
[snip]
Post by Recliner
In your many posts attacking Heathrow, you always seem to forget that
it's just of five busy international London airports.
I want to be sure of my facts.
Post by Recliner
So, before you get on to your usual hobbyhorse, Heathrow does NOT need
yet more pax from the north arriving via HS2 -- it already has more than
it can handle.
The implication of the publicity is that it does want traffic from the
North. "Our national gateway" and all that sort of stuff.
HS2's report is pretty withering about it too.
Post by Recliner
What it would much rather have is a third runway, to accommodate the
demand that already exists.
I was astonished that the Tories cancelled the third runway. I can't
see what game they're playing. Or do they not want the flight path to
over Oxford St and Buckingham palace?
They wanted to get elected.
Did they really make this political calculation? Who were the voters
they were trying to please? Just those around Heathrow?

Is this really a serious political calculation?

Michael Bell




--
Recliner
2011-04-08 17:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Recliner
What it would much rather have is a third runway, to accommodate
the demand that already exists.
I was astonished that the Tories cancelled the third runway. I can't
see what game they're playing. Or do they not want the flight path
to over Oxford St and Buckingham palace?
They wanted to get elected.
Did they really make this political calculation? Who were the voters
they were trying to please? Just those around Heathrow?
Is this really a serious political calculation?
The noise nuisance occurs for about 15 miles to the east and west of the
airport, rather than just around the airport itself (though the Sibson
villagers did a pretty good job at objecting to the threatened
demolition of their village). Just take a look at the political
complexion of those constituencies...
Michael Bell
2011-04-09 11:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Recliner
What it would much rather have is a third runway, to accommodate
the demand that already exists.
I was astonished that the Tories cancelled the third runway. I can't
see what game they're playing. Or do they not want the flight path
to over Oxford St and Buckingham palace?
They wanted to get elected.
Did they really make this political calculation? Who were the voters
they were trying to please? Just those around Heathrow?
Is this really a serious political calculation?
The noise nuisance occurs for about 15 miles to the east and west of the
airport,
This is dealt with in another post.

Michael Bell




--
Graeme Wall
2011-04-08 18:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Michael Bell
I was astonished that the Tories cancelled the third runway. I can't
Post by Michael Bell
see what game they're playing. Or do they not want the flight path to
over Oxford St and Buckingham palace?
They wanted to get elected.
Did they really make this political calculation? Who were the voters
they were trying to please? Just those around Heathrow?
Is this really a serious political calculation?
Did you not see all the fuss the labour party created when it approved
the go-ahead for the third runway? Easy political target for even
Cameron to find.

It was aimed at the right (as opposed to left, not wrong) end of the
green vote, not just around Heathrow. Oh and the existing flight paths
come over Oxford Street and Buck House already so that wouldn't have
entered the calculation.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Recliner
2011-04-08 18:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Michael Bell
I was astonished that the Tories cancelled the third runway. I can't
Post by Michael Bell
see what game they're playing. Or do they not want the flight
path to over Oxford St and Buckingham palace?
They wanted to get elected.
Did they really make this political calculation? Who were the voters
they were trying to please? Just those around Heathrow?
Is this really a serious political calculation?
Did you not see all the fuss the labour party created when it approved
the go-ahead for the third runway? Easy political target for even
Cameron to find.
It was aimed at the right (as opposed to left, not wrong) end of the
green vote, not just around Heathrow. Oh and the existing flight
paths come over Oxford Street and Buck House already so that wouldn't
have entered the calculation.
Actually a little south of Buck House and Oxford St. You get the best
views over central London when routing in to 27L from the Lambourne and
Bovingdon stacks. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7196158.stm

But it's the voters in the affluent residential areas just south of the
river who don't want any more Heathrow flights, let alone more runways
(or even mixed mode operation).
Graeme Wall
2011-04-08 19:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Michael Bell
I was astonished that the Tories cancelled the third runway. I can't
Post by Michael Bell
see what game they're playing. Or do they not want the flight
path to over Oxford St and Buckingham palace?
They wanted to get elected.
Did they really make this political calculation? Who were the voters
they were trying to please? Just those around Heathrow?
Is this really a serious political calculation?
Did you not see all the fuss the labour party created when it approved
the go-ahead for the third runway? Easy political target for even
Cameron to find.
It was aimed at the right (as opposed to left, not wrong) end of the
green vote, not just around Heathrow. Oh and the existing flight
paths come over Oxford Street and Buck House already so that wouldn't
have entered the calculation.
Actually a little south of Buck House and Oxford St. You get the best
views over central London when routing in to 27L from the Lambourne and
Bovingdon stacks. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7196158.stm
Which would tend to indicate that the approach to what would be 27R+
would be somewhat north of those landmarks. Actually the real reason
the tories stopped the third runway was because the FA complained about
passengers being able to see part of matches at Wembley without a Sky Box.
Post by Recliner
But it's the voters in the affluent residential areas just south of the
river who don't want any more Heathrow flights, let alone more runways
(or even mixed mode operation).
Them too.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Michael Bell
2011-04-09 12:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Michael Bell
I was astonished that the Tories cancelled the third runway. I can't
Post by Michael Bell
see what game they're playing. Or do they not want the flight
path to over Oxford St and Buckingham palace?
They wanted to get elected.
Did they really make this political calculation? Who were the voters
they were trying to please? Just those around Heathrow?
Is this really a serious political calculation?
Did you not see all the fuss the labour party created when it approved
the go-ahead for the third runway? Easy political target for even
Cameron to find.
It was aimed at the right (as opposed to left, not wrong) end of the
green vote, not just around Heathrow. Oh and the existing flight
paths come over Oxford Street and Buck House already so that wouldn't
have entered the calculation.
Actually a little south of Buck House and Oxford St. You get the best
views over central London when routing in to 27L from the Lambourne and
Bovingdon stacks. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7196158.stm
But it's the voters in the affluent residential areas just south of the
river who don't want any more Heathrow flights, let alone more runways
(or even mixed mode operation).
I believe it.

Michael Bell




--
Graeme Wall
2011-04-09 13:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Michael Bell
I was astonished that the Tories cancelled the third runway. I can't
Post by Michael Bell
see what game they're playing. Or do they not want the flight
path to over Oxford St and Buckingham palace?
They wanted to get elected.
Did they really make this political calculation? Who were the voters
they were trying to please? Just those around Heathrow?
Is this really a serious political calculation?
Did you not see all the fuss the labour party created when it approved
the go-ahead for the third runway? Easy political target for even
Cameron to find.
It was aimed at the right (as opposed to left, not wrong) end of the
green vote, not just around Heathrow. Oh and the existing flight
paths come over Oxford Street and Buck House already so that wouldn't
have entered the calculation.
Actually a little south of Buck House and Oxford St. You get the best
views over central London when routing in to 27L from the Lambourne and
Bovingdon stacks. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7196158.stm
But it's the voters in the affluent residential areas just south of the
river who don't want any more Heathrow flights, let alone more runways
(or even mixed mode operation).
I believe it.
Except that the approach to R3 from the east doesn't go over the
affluent areas south of the river.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Michael Bell
2011-04-09 12:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Michael Bell
I was astonished that the Tories cancelled the third runway. I can't
Post by Michael Bell
see what game they're playing. Or do they not want the flight path to
over Oxford St and Buckingham palace?
They wanted to get elected.
Did they really make this political calculation? Who were the voters
they were trying to please? Just those around Heathrow?
Is this really a serious political calculation?
Did you not see all the fuss the labour party created when it approved
the go-ahead for the third runway? Easy political target for even
Cameron to find.
It was aimed at the right (as opposed to left, not wrong) end of the
green vote, not just around Heathrow. Oh and the existing flight paths
come over Oxford Street and Buck House already so that wouldn't have
entered the calculation.
At one stage I used to wait on Elephant and Castle Thameslink station
at 8 - 9 pm and believe me the planes came RIGHT overhead and I
thought it was a pretty miserable experience, though hightlighted of
course by the fact that the station itself was relatively quiet, so
the planes stood out. Buckingham Palace and Oxford St are far enough
away to make a big difference.

Michael Bell



--
Graeme Wall
2011-04-09 12:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Michael Bell
I was astonished that the Tories cancelled the third runway. I can't
Post by Michael Bell
see what game they're playing. Or do they not want the flight path to
over Oxford St and Buckingham palace?
They wanted to get elected.
Did they really make this political calculation? Who were the voters
they were trying to please? Just those around Heathrow?
Is this really a serious political calculation?
Did you not see all the fuss the labour party created when it approved
the go-ahead for the third runway? Easy political target for even
Cameron to find.
It was aimed at the right (as opposed to left, not wrong) end of the
green vote, not just around Heathrow. Oh and the existing flight paths
come over Oxford Street and Buck House already so that wouldn't have
entered the calculation.
At one stage I used to wait on Elephant and Castle Thameslink station
at 8 - 9 pm and believe me the planes came RIGHT overhead and I
thought it was a pretty miserable experience, though hightlighted of
course by the fact that the station itself was relatively quiet, so
the planes stood out. Buckingham Palace and Oxford St are far enough
away to make a big difference.
Speaking as one who has spent a fair few tedious hours standing in front
of Buck House it doesn't make that much difference. Remember they swap
the runways around during the day to spread the misery around. The
track for 27R is about a kilometre north of 27L and the point where they
should be on the runway centre line is 10nm from threshold. Before that
point the approach from the holding stacks varies according to the
vagaries of wind and weather. The track for runway 3E would be some two
kilometres further north at a rough guess

Don't really understand your obsession with Oxford Street though. You
can't hear the planes above the traffic.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Michael Bell
2011-04-09 14:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Michael Bell
I was astonished that the Tories cancelled the third runway. I can't
Post by Michael Bell
see what game they're playing. Or do they not want the flight path to
over Oxford St and Buckingham palace?
They wanted to get elected.
Did they really make this political calculation? Who were the voters
they were trying to please? Just those around Heathrow?
Is this really a serious political calculation?
Did you not see all the fuss the labour party created when it approved
the go-ahead for the third runway? Easy political target for even
Cameron to find.
It was aimed at the right (as opposed to left, not wrong) end of the
green vote, not just around Heathrow. Oh and the existing flight paths
come over Oxford Street and Buck House already so that wouldn't have
entered the calculation.
At one stage I used to wait on Elephant and Castle Thameslink station
at 8 - 9 pm and believe me the planes came RIGHT overhead and I
thought it was a pretty miserable experience, though hightlighted of
course by the fact that the station itself was relatively quiet, so
the planes stood out. Buckingham Palace and Oxford St are far enough
away to make a big difference.
Speaking as one who has spent a fair few tedious hours standing in front
of Buck House it doesn't make that much difference. Remember they swap
the runways around during the day to spread the misery around. The
track for 27R is about a kilometre north of 27L and the point where they
should be on the runway centre line is 10nm from threshold. Before that
point the approach from the holding stacks varies according to the
vagaries of wind and weather. The track for runway 3E would be some two
kilometres further north at a rough guess
Don't really understand your obsession with Oxford Street though. You
can't hear the planes above the traffic.
I'm not obsessed by Oxford St. It is just a point in central London
that I can name, and it is in "the heart of London" though I am sure
you're right that general traffic noise masks the aircraft noise.

Michael Bell



--

Recliner
2011-04-08 17:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Recliner
Post by Michael Bell
In the holidays section of The Observer last Sunday there was a
little bit saying that (surprise, astonishment!) Manchester serves
more destinations than Heathrow. I cannot find this on The Observer
website, maybe because it was in the holiday section.
But can this really be true? More noise doesn't always mean more
substance!
Why are you so surprised?
Because the brag is that Heathrow is the biggest and best.
No, the brag is that it's Europe's busiest airport, and the world
airport with the most international flights, despite only having a pair
of runways. Having lots of cheap flights to obscure holiday destinations
is not part of the boast.
Post by Michael Bell
[snip]
Post by Recliner
In your many posts attacking Heathrow, you always seem to forget that
it's just of five busy international London airports.
I want to be sure of my facts.
I suppose there's a first time for everything, though as usual, you
failed to do a couple of minutes research before posting your query. It
didn't take me long to find the numbers about the destinations served.
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Recliner
So, before you get on to your usual hobbyhorse, Heathrow does NOT
need yet more pax from the north arriving via HS2 -- it already has
more than it can handle.
The implication of the publicity is that it does want traffic from the
North. "Our national gateway" and all that sort of stuff.
Cite?
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Recliner
What it would much rather have is a third runway, to accommodate the
demand that already exists.
I was astonished that the Tories cancelled the third runway. I can't
see what game they're playing. Or do they not want the flight path to
over Oxford St and Buckingham palace?
Yes, the Tories are well aware of what would lie under the flightpath of
a third Heathrow runway.
Michael Bell
2011-04-09 11:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Recliner
Post by Michael Bell
In the holidays section of The Observer last Sunday there was a
little bit saying that (surprise, astonishment!) Manchester serves
more destinations than Heathrow. I cannot find this on The Observer
website, maybe because it was in the holiday section.
But can this really be true? More noise doesn't always mean more
substance!
Why are you so surprised?
Because the brag is that Heathrow is the biggest and best.
No, the brag is that it's Europe's busiest airport, and the world
airport with the most international flights, despite only having a pair
of runways. Having lots of cheap flights to obscure holiday destinations
is not part of the boast.
Post by Michael Bell
[snip]
Post by Recliner
In your many posts attacking Heathrow, you always seem to forget that
it's just of five busy international London airports.
I want to be sure of my facts.
I suppose there's a first time for everything, though as usual, you
failed to do a couple of minutes research before posting your query. It
didn't take me long to find the numbers about the destinations served.
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Recliner
So, before you get on to your usual hobbyhorse, Heathrow does NOT
need yet more pax from the north arriving via HS2 -- it already has
more than it can handle.
The implication of the publicity is that it does want traffic from the
North. "Our national gateway" and all that sort of stuff.
Cite?
I've got to admit that Google can't find any quotations. But I'm sure
I've seen many such statements, asides so maybe not high-ranking in
Google searches.
Post by Recliner
Post by Michael Bell
Post by Recliner
What it would much rather have is a third runway, to accommodate the
demand that already exists.
I was astonished that the Tories cancelled the third runway. I can't
see what game they're playing. Or do they not want the flight path to
over Oxford St and Buckingham palace?
Yes, the Tories are well aware of what would lie under the flightpath of
a third Heathrow runway.
I meant it partly in jest. But you take it in earnest?

Michael Bell




--
tim....
2011-04-08 14:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Bell
In the holidays section of The Observer last Sunday there was a little
bit saying that (surprise, astonishment!) Manchester serves more
destinations than Heathrow. I cannot find this on The Observer
website, maybe because it was in the holiday section.
But can this really be true? More noise doesn't always mean more
substance!
One flight a week for 15 weeks of the year is not a particularly useful
service IMHO

tim
Loading...