• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Heathrow expansion

A bank can't loan out more than it is worth because the loans are assets. The more it lends the more it is worth. It was very much a liquidity problem.

They aren't assets if they are worthless and junk. That was the problem. The ratings agencies had given them tripple a ratings and they turned to junk. Because they could not be paid back.
 
What do you guys think of this viewpoint? You can skip to 40 mins if you want to jump to the nub.


This guys a total fraud, claimed he was the top trader during his time at Citi but several sources have said he was just a junior and nowhere near the top performers. Very arrogant though he's made a mark promoting himself I'll give him that.
 
The way I look at this one is that 7-8% of this country work in construction. If any government don't create big projects then these guys and gals are out of work and this has an impact on our benefits system and even NHS. You have major projects like HS2 and Hinkley C that consume a fair amount.

I've never been an advocate of increasing the capacity of LHR though.
 
Estimate of costs for this project have increased from £14 billion to £63 billion according to the airlines.
Yeah because the government decided to increase public spending by hammering businesses only to find that public sector costs are now rising as they're being charged more by their private sector contractors and suppliers due to rising costs for private sector businesses....where's my Rachel Reeves faceplanting into a locked door she thought was open signed "growth" GIF?
 
Yeah because the government decided to increase public spending by hammering businesses only to find that public sector costs are now rising as they're being charged more by their private sector contractors and suppliers due to rising costs for private sector businesses....where's my Rachel Reeves faceplanting into a locked door she thought was open signed "growth"

No the original costs were from 2014. I don’t think they have quadrupled in the few months she has been chancellor.

That sort of money is a significant national outlay.

It won’t be paid for by the people who will benefit but like everything else these people do it will be a burden for every tax payer for the rest of their lives.
 
No the original costs were from 2014. I don’t think they have quadrupled in the few months she has been chancellor.

That sort of money is a significant national outlay.

It won’t be paid for by the people who will benefit but like everything else these people do it will be a burden for every tax payer for the rest of their lives.

Most people will benefit. Even if they don't fly.
 
Because heathrow is over capacity. If there are any problems there are masive delays. Like the nhs.
From the BBC.

Note the third runway is manned to add the following capacity:

A) headroom for 50% more flights pa (even I had worked this out)
B) 75% increase in passenger numbers (don’t know how this works - bigger planes?)

How does any of that mean less time spent in the air - an extra 240000 flights just as prone to delays caused by fog or service issues on the ground?

How would Heathrow Airport be expanded?​

Heathrow is already the UK's busiest airport, serving more than 80 million travellers a year with its four passenger terminals and two runways.
A third runway would mean demolishing hundreds of homes, diverting rivers, and rerouting the M25 motorway between junctions 14 and 15 through a tunnel under the new runway.
The number of flights, currently capped at 480,000 a year, could go up to 720,000 - or nearly 2,000 a day on average.
Heathrow told the BBC that it would eventually be able to serve up to 140 million passengers a year once the third runway is in operation.
 
From the BBC.

Note the third runway is manned to add the following capacity:

A) headroom for 50% more flights pa (even I had worked this out)
B) 75% increase in passenger numbers (don’t know how this works - bigger planes?)

How does any of that mean less time spent in the air - an extra 240000 flights just as prone to delays caused by fog or service issues on the ground?

How would Heathrow Airport be expanded?​

Heathrow is already the UK's busiest airport, serving more than 80 million travellers a year with its four passenger terminals and two runways.
A third runway would mean demolishing hundreds of homes, diverting rivers, and rerouting the M25 motorway between junctions 14 and 15 through a tunnel under the new runway.
The number of flights, currently capped at 480,000 a year, could go up to 720,000 - or nearly 2,000 a day on average.
Heathrow told the BBC that it would eventually be able to serve up to 140 million passengers a year once the third runway is in operation.

Because you are incapable of understanding what i've been saying. But carry on.
 
Because you are incapable of understanding what i've been saying. But carry on.

I have to, I genuinely don’t understand what you are getting at with your statements planes will spend less time circling round and also there is no additional demand for flights.

I am trying to set out my concerns over the massive increase in traffic this will lead to but you said it at least means less pollution because the planes will be in the air for less time.

I can’t scratch my head anymore it is bleeding.
 
Of all the competing demands for things to be done in this country adding airplane capacity seems a trivial thing to focus on and spend money on when it actually has such net negative impact on so many residents.
 
I have to, I genuinely don’t understand what you are getting at with your statements planes will spend less time circling round and also there is no additional demand for flights.

I am trying to set out my concerns over the massive increase in traffic this will lead to but you said it at least means less pollution because the planes will be in the air for less time.

I can’t scratch my head anymore it is bleeding.

Seperate what i'm saying into the different things i'm saying.

If a flight from italy takes 1 hour instead of 1.5 hours. It's less pollution.

An extra runway does not increase demand for flights. The demand is there or it isn't.

I've said nothing about the number of flights from or to heathrow.
 
Of all the competing demands for things to be done in this country adding airplane capacity seems a trivial thing to focus on and spend money on when it actually has such net negative impact on so many residents.

You don't go abroad on holiday?
 
Here's one that may shock you. Immigrants are more frequent flyers than english people. Evil people they are going home to see their families.
 
Seperate what i'm saying into the different things i'm saying.

If a flight from italy takes 1 hour instead of 1.5 hours. It's less pollution.

An extra runway does not increase demand for flights. The demand is there or it isn't.

I've said nothing about the number of flights from or to heathrow.

If you can’t be bothered to join up your own thinking I am not going to do it for you.
 
The guy in charge of Heathrow has made it clear this week the M25 will be closed during the duration of the construction project.

It’s a complete bust. I mean even afterwards the roads will need to cater for 50% more airport traffic - it’s impossible.
 
The guy in charge of Heathrow has made it clear this week the M25 will be closed during the duration of the construction project.

It’s a complete bust. I mean even afterwards the roads will need to cater for 50% more airport traffic - it’s impossible.

Who's goingvto be on these flights? Are we all planning on having 50% more holidays a year?
 
Back