Stansted drop off charging??????

Mr_Wang

rustyboy21 wrote: »

Well it just goes to show everyone, that there is an idiot lurking round every corner ! Never said that at all. I did, however say that due to the terrorist incident, you were not allowed to park anywhere near the terminal building and that is why they have sited car parks away from the terminal now. They have now decided that they can make some money out of it, to fund improvements, to pay for increased passenger traffic.


Just for yours and everyone else's information, I will give the charges that a small regional airport like Blackpool charge airlines for using them. Take into account, these are top prices, open to negotiation.
For a Boeing 737 series


Landing fees £240
passenger sup ( per pax 130 pax) £2200 ( inc Security)
Airport parking per day of no use £100. if using plane £0
Water/Toilet fees £35
Ground power unit £50
Ground Handling ( baggage/cleaning ) £500.


So for a 737 with 130 passengers the Airport gets
£3125.00.


Blackpool has approx. 8 flights a day, so they make £25,000 a day, to run the whole airport, without fixing anything, bills like electric etc, ATC costs, Catering, Staffing, Car parks etc.


And then you wonder why they have started charging for Car parks, They are not a Charity. You cannot even use the argument that Food etc sold in the Airport is on top, only a small % of this will come to them. The stores are Franchises.


So, There you go, wont respond to another one of your posts, just get your facts right in future, I do very well know and never said that charging£2.00 to park, is going to deter a terrorist, maybe on the planet you come from maybe, but not dear old Blighty !

You are failing to take into revenue from shops, parking, local authority concession etc etc etc

Oh, and the fact that Blackpool is airport is pretty much a portacabin at the side of a runway.

Photome: one of the ways to avoid the fees long haul is to fly out of somewhere else. For example, later this month I am flying to Kuwait, one way with Pegasus the cost is £90, this is because I change in Istanbul. It's a mess about, but one way with Etihad is £290 direct. Unfortunately this is not always possible, but where it is, you can save a small fortune.

rustyboy21

Mr_Wang wrote: »

You are failing to take into revenue from shops, parking, local authority concession etc etc etc

Oh, and the fact that Blackpool is airport is pretty much a portacabin at the side of a runway.

Photome: one of the ways to avoid the fees long haul is to fly out of somewhere else. For example, later this month I am flying to Kuwait, one way with Pegasus the cost is £90, this is because I change in Istanbul. It's a mess about, but one way with Etihad is £290 direct. Unfortunately this is not always possible, but where it is, you can save a small fortune.

Another one, who does not read a post properly. :wall:


Here you go then, Liverpool airport charges for services. Take into account the likes of Easyjet have their own ground operations, so the airport is not getting any of the revenue from that. Some of the pricing is cheaper than Blackpool.


http://www.liverpoolairport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/LAL-Conditions-of-Use-2014-15.pdf
If you want to work things out, a typical load factor of a 737 works out to about 66 tons. I worked on 130 pax per flight.


Also, with regards to the shops, They are all franchises, they are not owned by the airport operator. Looking at one airport, Gatwick. They charge no rent for the premises, but get a cut of the sales, currently 11% as discussed on another website. With the rise of low cost carriers, the passengers are used now to not buying anything on board,not buying food at the outlets, bringing sandwiches with them etc, so sales are down in the outlets.


And ref Parking, this is what we are talking about anyway.


And don't knock Blackpool, its a great little airport, fastest service I have ever experienced.

callum9999

rustyboy21 wrote: »

Well it just goes to show everyone, that there is an idiot lurking round every corner ! Never said that at all. I did, however say that due to the terrorist incident, you were not allowed to park anywhere near the terminal building and that is why they have sited car parks away from the terminal now. They have now decided that they can make some money out of it, to fund improvements, to pay for increased passenger traffic.

Stop digging. While you may not have actually meant that, what you typed CLEARLY suggests you believe it was done to avoid terrorist attacks. Hence why virtually everyone thinks that's what you said.

I suggest in future you either clarify what you meant politely (instead of the ridiculous replies you gave before getting aggressive like "Its a bit less dangerous , a terrorist exploding a bomb in a car park quite a few 100m away from the terminal building, than it is detonating one, after driving through the terminal dors and possibly killing 1000's of people" - and you wonder why people thought you were talking about preventing terrorist attacks...) or simply write coherently in the first place.

Mr_Wang wrote: »

For example, who remembers a few years ago when you couldn't look at a single news outlet without thinking the world was going to flooded and that the weather was going to get out of control. Taxes were introduced and labelled as green taxes that helped offset global warming. Half the worlds scientists argued with the other half about whether global warming was controllable and the issue was brushed under the carpet. Now we hear nothing about it - why? Because the taxes are already there and we've accepted them.

Complete and utter rubbish. I think you'll find 99% of the worlds scientists argued with 1% of scientists and a large assortment of clueless morons who can't tell the difference between variable and uncontrollable (presumably many of which also cannot grasp the difference between a theory and scientific theory, hence think evolution is some kind of wild guess).

It seems like a lot of hassle to manufacture such an enormous global conspiracy just so the government could introduce a handful of green taxes that bring in an almost insignificant amount of government revenue. And then reverse a lot of them.

Mr_Wang

callum9999 wrote: »

Complete and utter rubbish. I think you'll find 99% of the worlds scientists argued with 1% of scientists and a large assortment of clueless morons who can't tell the difference between variable and uncontrollable (presumably many of which also cannot grasp the difference between a theory and scientific theory, hence think evolution is some kind of wild guess).

It seems like a lot of hassle to manufacture such an enormous global conspiracy just so the government could introduce a handful of green taxes that bring in an almost insignificant amount of government revenue. And then reverse a lot of them.

Two things - First of all how about you show something that supports your first paragraph, that what you wrote isn't just some diatribe borne from ignorance and stupidity. Or would you like me to completely obliterate it for you?

Secondly, through your finger vented rant you missed the point of what I was saying. I never said it was invented, I simply pointed out a situation that was exploited for purposes of tax. Much like terrorism is exploited by those looking to go to war for oil. Or are you one of those that failed to notice that prior to the Iraq war fuel cost around £0.89 p per litre, or that whilst we see an increase in renewable fuels as a means of energy source we are still seeing huge energy price hikes?

Or is that rubbish too? Thanks by the way, you are one of those that by arguing their point strengthens the argument of the one they are arguing with

callum9999

Mr_Wang wrote: »

Two things - First of all how about you show something that supports your first paragraph, that what you wrote isn't just some diatribe borne from ignorance and stupidity. Or would you like me to completely obliterate it for you?

Secondly, through your finger vented rant you missed the point of what I was saying. I never said it was invented, I simply pointed out a situation that was exploited for purposes of tax. Much like terrorism is exploited by those looking to go to war for oil. Or are you one of those that failed to notice that prior to the Iraq war fuel cost around £0.89 p per litre, or that whilst we see an increase in renewable fuels as a means of energy source we are still seeing huge energy price hikes?

Or is that rubbish too? Thanks by the way, you are one of those that by arguing their point strengthens the argument of the one they are arguing with

Yes I would love you to obliterate it for me. Saves me the hassle.

Fair enough, though your view that the scientific community is split 50/50 (which you can allegedly prove?) certainly implies you don't accept the consensus.

It's not necessarily rubbish no, but it's rather incomprehensible to a simpleton like me. Going to war in Iraq for the oil doesn't logically correlate with petrol prices increasing by 50% - or are you saying we went to war with Iraq in order to make oil more expensive? And we see "huge energy price hikes" because the cost of energy is increasing... As renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuels, why on Earth are you shocked that prices increase as the renewable energy load increases?

rustyboy21

callum9999 wrote: »

I suggest in future you either clarify what you meant politely (instead of the ridiculous replies you gave before getting aggressive like "Its a bit less dangerous , a terrorist exploding a bomb in a car park quite a few 100m away from the terminal building, than it is detonating one, after driving through the terminal dors and possibly killing 1000's of people" - and you wonder why people thought you were talking about preventing terrorist attacks...) or simply write coherently in the first place.

.

Don't accept that at all. The wording was not incorrect. The decision to stop cars parking directly outside terminal buildings was made after the terrorist outrages. There is less likelihood of casualities, if a similar incident happened today, as they would be away from the main terminal building, therefore away from the main catchment of most population of an airport. It is not purely down to a money making scheme, the threat is still there and the cost of providing these car parks has to be met somewhere, therefore the charge. Anyone thinking it is really needs to look at themselves.


I may have turned slightly aggressive against one member, who wouldn't substantiate what he thought was incorrect, in an also aggressive and patronising attitude., in order to tell him, he was talking cobblers.


I don't know what it is with this forum anymore. There seems to be an increase in numpties trying to rile the more consistent of posters who regularly contribute. I come on here, mainly to help people out with regards to my field of expertise. I join in in some debates in which I have an interest and try not to get involved in the squabbling which is rife on here.


It seems to be turning into a twitter style forum now and it is not conducive to the overall workings of the site.


Perhaps time to withdraw and let the numpties ruin it for everyone.

POPPYOSCAR

rustyboy21 wrote: »

Don't accept that at all. The wording was not incorrect. The decision to stop cars parking directly outside terminal buildings was made after the terrorist outrages. There is less likelihood of casualities, if a similar incident happened today, as they would be away from the main terminal building, therefore away from the main catchment of most population of an airport. It is not purely down to a money making scheme, the threat is still there and the cost of providing these car parks has to be met somewhere, therefore the charge. Anyone thinking it is really needs to look at themselves.


I may have turned slightly aggressive against one member, who wouldn't substantiate what he thought was incorrect, in an also aggressive and patronising attitude., in order to tell him, he was talking cobblers.


I don't know what it is with this forum anymore. There seems to be an increase in numpties trying to rile the more consistent of posters who regularly contribute. I come on here, mainly to help people out with regards to my field of expertise. I join in in some debates in which I have an interest and try not to get involved in the squabbling which is rife on here.


It seems to be turning into a twitter style forum now and it is not conducive to the overall workings of the site.


Perhaps time to withdraw and let the numpties ruin it for everyone.

No need if you just ignore them

rustyboy21

I know... Retaliate and they have won, not as easy as that though, when they are slagging you off in a patronising attitude, when they don't have 2 brain cells to rub together themselves.

callum9999

rustyboy21 wrote: »

Don't accept that at all. The wording was not incorrect. The decision to stop cars parking directly outside terminal buildings was made after the terrorist outrages. There is less likelihood of casualities, if a similar incident happened today, as they would be away from the main terminal building, therefore away from the main catchment of most population of an airport. It is not purely down to a money making scheme, the threat is still there and the cost of providing these car parks has to be met somewhere, therefore the charge. Anyone thinking it is really needs to look at themselves.


I may have turned slightly aggressive against one member, who wouldn't substantiate what he thought was incorrect, in an also aggressive and patronising attitude., in order to tell him, he was talking cobblers.


I don't know what it is with this forum anymore. There seems to be an increase in numpties trying to rile the more consistent of posters who regularly contribute. I come on here, mainly to help people out with regards to my field of expertise. I join in in some debates in which I have an interest and try not to get involved in the squabbling which is rife on here.


It seems to be turning into a twitter style forum now and it is not conducive to the overall workings of the site.


Perhaps time to withdraw and let the numpties ruin it for everyone.

Someone wrote:

"Really? Do you realy think a £2.80 charge is going to stop a terrorist from taking a VED to an aiport and detonating it?"

You replied, and this is a direct quote:

"Its a bit less dangerous , a terrorist exploding a bomb in a car park quite a few 100m away from the terminal building, than it is detonating one, after driving through the terminal dors and possibly killing 1000's of people."


While you may have been talking about generic bans about parking directly outside terminal buildings, the people you were talking to were not. I fully accept that you didn't actually mean the £2.80 charge deters terrorists, but that is irrefutably what you wrote. Surely the fact virtually everyone misinterpreted you shows that your posts were very unclear?

If you feel that the forum is not conductive then by all means withdraw. I'd personally say you were far more aggressive than anyone else in this thread, especially as they were all acting on the assumption that you believed the charge deters terrorists so of course thought you were ignorant.

rustyboy21

Callum.


You are taking posts out of contet and suiting it for your own purposes. If you read what I have written throughout the thread, you will see that each one has answered a question, or comment made in reply. Certain posters, who have a genuine streak of mischief/nastiness running through them has tried to belittle and distort what I have written.
Read posts 4,8,10,13,15,etc, in fact read the whole thread again, instead of cherry picking certain comments and see how it panned out. It is very strange that the posts I have written, were actually thanked by various people, where as the anti-me ones had no thanks at all. So the people who thanked me, are also idiots, is that what you are saying?


And you say my posts made no sense? Dream on mate ! You are just trying to cause mischief.


End of story, you are now on ignore.