On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 09:08:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <cgvomilk8o9pt58suu4nko8jl8gbnnmsl8@4ax.com>, at 13:28:51 on
>Sun, 3 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>When you stated "I'm sure we could find a bigger airport somewhere in
>>>>the provinces" I took you to be using the Royal "we". Even if not, I
>>>>see nothing to stop you citing numbers, source etc.
>>>
>>>Indeed so, but as I've already explained, it will take some time for me
>>>to do the necessary research to a satisfactory standard.
>>>
>>>We have one quite promising submission, which is an overlay of the
>>>alleged footprints of Stansted and Heathrow, but they need fact-checking
>>>to see if they comparing like with like.
>>>
>>>As an example, we need to whether establish as part of the methodology
>>>which airport-owned staff, medium and short stay car parks should be
>>>included; perhaps even peripheral hotels too. I already mentioned the
>>>hangar areas at Heathrow.
>>>
>>>We'd get different answers if just plotting the areas most of the public
>>>associate with airports: Terminal buildings, apron and runways.
>>
>>Just use the official figures. Don't try and invent your own definition.
>
>Because official figures are always based on perfect criteria?
>
>Do you even know the original journalist wasn't just making up *his*
>definition?

He was right by every conceivable definition. And, almost a month later, you still have nothing to add. Why respond so
late if you have nothing to contribute?

Get over it: the journalist was right, and you were wrong. At least have the decency to admit it.

In message <wpZaN.3631$XUo2.1186@fx14.ams1>, at 11:13:32 on Sun, 3 Dec
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <b971c79f-db2d-4e6f-a467-bcf5011ead85@outlook.com>, at
>> 23:41:47 on Sat, 2 Dec 2023, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> remarked:
>>> On 02/12/2023 14:14, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 13:58:18 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <ukcvcl$1tr0b$5@dont-email.me>, at 15:50:45 on Fri, 1 Dec
>>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 01/12/2023 09:36, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <Q0Z9N.12461$vz%.9173@fx12.ams1>, at 09:58:08 on Thu, 30
>>>>>>> Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>>>>>> Saudis buy stake in Heathrow as Spain’s Ferrovial sells up
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9f8f0501-2335-423b-a731-8999b3588279?
>>>>>>>> shareToken=9304240b99d553a03527c46e1c384034
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I could believe Heathrow is the country's busiest airport, but is it
>>>>>>> really the biggest? Or perhaps another case of even paid-for
>>>>>>> journalism being low quality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which one would you reckon is bigger?
>>>>>
>>>>> If I knew that yesterday, I'd have said which. More research required,
>>>>> rather than just a hunch. I'll be looking at various airports' acreage
>>>>> later.
>>>>>
>>>>> LHR is maybe 1,227ha, just as a starting point. Unfortunately I haven't
>>>>> yet found any other candidates where Wonkypedia has a figure published.
>>>>> Crowd sourcing, eh? Can't get the staff.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've found three wildly different numbers for Stansted, and of course
>>>>> there's no guarantee the one for Heathrow is appropriate (especially as
>>>>> I specified not to include the hangers).
>>>>
>>>
>>> "The land within the airport’s boundaries is approximately 957
>>> hectares in extent."
>>>
>>> Source: LONDON STANSTED AIRPORT Stansted Transformation Programme
>>> Terminal Extension Design and Access Statement (July 2023)
>>>
>>> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64d0fc8ae5491a000d4b5941/
>>> Transport_Statement_-_checked.pdf
>>
>> At least that's towards the upper end of the varying stats I found.
>>
>>> And you need to justify "not to include the hangers" - e.g. why would
>>> any sane person not count land within the perimeter covered by a hanger
>>> as part of the area of an airport?
>>
>> See also other uses for land I described in a posting a few minutes ago.
>
>Airports have an official footprint, clearly shown in Google Maps (and
>which corresponds with that shown in that official planning document).

Without finding those planning documents (which I've been waiting to
find time to do) I'm not in a position to confirm or deny that
assertion.

>There may be hotels and car parks inside it, and others outside it. But
>hangers will definitely be part of the airport area.
>
>Note that the airport may also own other land or properties in the vicinity
>that are not part of the airport area.

Ex-RAF airports will tend to include include a lot of residential.

>> Would you for example include any of the rail corridors (and if so,
>> stretching how far away from the terminal buildings) after all they only
>> exist to serve the airport, just as the hangers only exist to service
>> the planes (and not the passengers directly).
>
>Google Maps indicates the airport footprint in grey. In Gatwick's case, the
>Brighton main line and the A23 pass through the official airport area on
>the surface. Those transport corridors serve the airport, but don't exist
>only for that purpose.

Meanwhile a Google search for "largest airport" almost always returns
results for the number of passengers.

And they can't agree even then. One search says Manchester is the only
one of the top 5 not in London, and another ranks them: Heathrow,
Manchester, Gatwick, Birmingham BZZT!, Glasgow BZZT! With Stansted at
12th and Luton at 14th.
--
Roland Perry

In message <gij5pipkrjpd6p2vgb8o8aenls98o5t76r@4ax.com>, at 14:40:07 on
Mon, 1 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 09:08:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <cgvomilk8o9pt58suu4nko8jl8gbnnmsl8@4ax.com>, at 13:28:51 on
>>Sun, 3 Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>When you stated "I'm sure we could find a bigger airport somewhere in
>>>>>the provinces" I took you to be using the Royal "we". Even if not, I
>>>>>see nothing to stop you citing numbers, source etc.
>>>>
>>>>Indeed so, but as I've already explained, it will take some time for me
>>>>to do the necessary research to a satisfactory standard.
>>>>
>>>>We have one quite promising submission, which is an overlay of the
>>>>alleged footprints of Stansted and Heathrow, but they need fact-checking
>>>>to see if they comparing like with like.
>>>>
>>>>As an example, we need to whether establish as part of the methodology
>>>>which airport-owned staff, medium and short stay car parks should be
>>>>included; perhaps even peripheral hotels too. I already mentioned the
>>>>hangar areas at Heathrow.
>>>>
>>>>We'd get different answers if just plotting the areas most of the public
>>>>associate with airports: Terminal buildings, apron and runways.
>>>
>>>Just use the official figures. Don't try and invent your own definition.
>>
>>Because official figures are always based on perfect criteria?
>>
>>Do you even know the original journalist wasn't just making up *his*
>>definition?
>
>He was right by every conceivable definition. And, almost a month
>later, you still have nothing to add. Why respond so late if you have
>nothing to contribute?

Because I'm busy, and it'll take quite a bit of research, but I do want
to get to the bottom of it eventually. This isn't a chatline, and a
month is no time at all. After all we are still discussing the Luton
carpark fire three months after it happened.

>Get over it: the journalist was right, and you were wrong. At least
>have the decency to admit it.

Until we've established a definition, it's impossible to make an
assertion like that.
--
Roland Perry

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Saudis buy stake in Heathrow as Spain’s Ferrovial sells up
>
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9f8f0501-2335-423b-a731-8999b3588279?shareToken=9304240b99d553a03527c46e1c384034
>
>
>

An interesting twist in this story:

More turbulence at Heathrow as investors plan to sell up

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e05c5bda-8f65-4bdd-9bea-d5518458342b?shareToken=75816d7bc1da99ba3d9f198039a0a0f4

This is despite Heathrow recovering to pre-pandemic levels of traffic, and
finally getting back into the black.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/britains-heathrow-airport-posts-smaller-nine-month-loss-2023-10-26/