Regated Image surfaces of Huma Abedin crying on plane as Clinton Campaign finds out the FBI has re-opened the email investigation. #HillarysEmails https://t.co/2yIUgiYOsV
How does that square with the story that they didn't find out about it until after the plane landed?
I think they had a brief bit of wifi during the flight.
The most delicious thing about it is that Annie Leibovitz was on the plane doing a photoshoot with Hillary.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport and miles easier to get to than Heathrow for anyone south of Newcastle on the east side of the country. Heathrow was a deeply stupid choice and we should have seen far greater expansion of one of the Midlands or North West airports.
Agreed. I think a side benefit of the Boris Island plan is that it would increase the catchment area for Birmingham or East Midlands airports.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
Try flying on BA from Las Vegas to Moscow and come back to me.
Can they change their vote again when Trump's tax affairs become public?
What have the Clintons got in the locker marked 'Break in an Emergency'? Anything tasty on Trump?
There's another 8hrs of NBC footage according to Wikileaks - TBH, it's more of the same mud throwing. A porn star claimed she'd been groped the other day and everyone went meh.
I've no idea what can bombshell him now - being a paedo? Sex with dead boys?
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
Try flying on BA from Las Vegas to Moscow and come back to me.
Terminal 3 is being demolished by 2019 and all the flights are moving to T5 for One World and T4 for SkyTeam and T2 for unaligned airlines.
We've still over a week to go - but I said yesterday that the media have given in trying to handwave and ignore - it's all got too big and messy. Now they're all running away from the train crash and trying to get ahead of the smash.
It began before the FBI bombshell and is now pretty universal. There's only a few days to restore their reputations.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
How much transferring between terminals actually happens? The entire point of T5 and everything subsequent to it has been with the aim of changing each terminal into virtually an independent airport with airlines and alliances only at a single terminal.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
How much transferring between terminals actually happens? The entire point of T5 and everything subsequent to it has been with the aim of changing each terminal into virtually an independent airport with airlines and alliances only at a single terminal.
Once T3 is demolished in 2019 that will be the case.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
Except T5 can't accommodate all of the BA flights, and some still leave from T3.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
Try flying on BA from Las Vegas to Moscow and come back to me.
Terminal 3 is being demolished by 2019 and all the flights are moving to T5 for One World and T4 for SkyTeam and T2 for unaligned airlines.
Which means there is a hub capacity limit built into the design of the airport, regardless of the number of runways, and also prevents people from picking and choosing their own connections which is possible at some hubs.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
An international transit passenger spends next to bugger all in the UK, maybe the price of a cup of coffee. It is true that someone has to be employed to shift their bags between aeroplanes and that by operating as a hub there maybe more destinations available from the airport than otherwise would be the case, that is to say more flights and more landing fees. However does that justify the full costs of expanding Heathrow?
Why not let Schipol become the hub? It is becoming the de facto hub now and by the time Heathrow 3 has been built will have embedded itself in that position. Does it make sense at this point in time to try and compete, especially when there will be no return on investment just added costs (the the airlines, the exchequer and to the wider economy) for decades to come.
What happened to 'Great' Britain? Where did our ambition go, our drive not just to be the best in the world, but to lead the world forwards?
Whether it's Heathrow R3, HS2, broadband, or a whole smorgasbord of issues, some people seem to count the pennies more than the opportunities. Dragging the country backwards because of the risk of moving forwards.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
An international transit passenger spends next to bugger all in the UK, maybe the price of a cup of coffee. It is true that someone has to be employed to shift their bags between aeroplanes and that by operating as a hub there maybe more destinations available from the airport than otherwise would be the case, that is to say more flights and more landing fees. However does that justify the full costs of expanding Heathrow?
Why not let Schipol become the hub? It is becoming the de facto hub now and by the time Heathrow 3 has been built will have embedded itself in that position. Does it make sense at this point in time to try and compete, especially when there will be no return on investment just added costs (the the airlines, the exchequer and to the wider economy) for decades to come.
Surely the business we get from this is not the cup of coffee but the fact that planes are landing here, taking off here, being supplied and maintained here and the staff are based here. There is a lot of business and jobs attracted to hub airports and we have been losing out.
And the fact that it means there are far more flights from London to wherever than there works be otherwise.
Still the POTUS ECV markets remain closed with Sporting and Spreadex ...... the former surprises me, the second not so. I draw two conclusions from this - firstly that they consider this to be BIG NEWS, a possible game changer even and secondly, following on from that, and as someone once said, they are Frit, Frit, Frit!
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
An international transit passenger spends next to bugger all in the UK, maybe the price of a cup of coffee. It is true that someone has to be employed to shift their bags between aeroplanes and that by operating as a hub there maybe more destinations available from the airport than otherwise would be the case, that is to say more flights and more landing fees. However does that justify the full costs of expanding Heathrow?
Why not let Schipol become the hub? It is becoming the de facto hub now and by the time Heathrow 3 has been built will have embedded itself in that position. Does it make sense at this point in time to try and compete, especially when there will be no return on investment just added costs (the the airlines, the exchequer and to the wider economy) for decades to come.
Surely the business we get from this is not the cup of coffee but the fact that planes are landing here, taking off here, being supplied and maintained here and the staff are based here. There is a lot of business and jobs attracted to hub airports and we have been losing out.
And the fact that it means there are far more flights from London to wherever than there works be otherwise.
Which in turn encourages international businesses to locate here, and gives exporting businesses here better access to overseas markets.
Some of economic logic on here is better suited to North-Korea-Political-Betting.com
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
Except T5 can't accommodate all of the BA flights, and some still leave from T3.
T5 is being expanded with a third satellite building (T5D) and new piers. That will then be able to accommodate the existing flights and additional destinations.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
An international transit passenger spends next to bugger all in the UK, maybe the price of a cup of coffee. It is true that someone has to be employed to shift their bags between aeroplanes and that by operating as a hub there maybe more destinations available from the airport than otherwise would be the case, that is to say more flights and more landing fees. However does that justify the full costs of expanding Heathrow?
Why not let Schipol become the hub? It is becoming the de facto hub now and by the time Heathrow 3 has been built will have embedded itself in that position. Does it make sense at this point in time to try and compete, especially when there will be no return on investment just added costs (the the airlines, the exchequer and to the wider economy) for decades to come.
Surely the business we get from this is not the cup of coffee but the fact that planes are landing here, taking off here, being supplied and maintained here and the staff are based here. There is a lot of business and jobs attracted to hub airports and we have been losing out.
And the fact that it means there are far more flights from London to wherever than there works be otherwise.
It's been explained about 1001 times that the transfer traffic from the eastern cost of the USA and Canada will open up new flights from Heathrow to provincial Asian cities. Some people just don't seem to listen or care. Additionally, the Asian consumers that fly via London to east coast USA are very high spenders. Even for the few hours they spend in the airport or days in London.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
Except T5 can't accommodate all of the BA flights, and some still leave from T3.
T5 is being expanded with a third satellite building (T5D) and new piers. That will then be able to accommodate the existing flights and additional destinations.
It's what's known as a sticking plaster solution.
What happens when you need to increase the capacity of T2? No space to put a satellite building there, and no-one likes having to get on shuttles.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
Except T5 can't accommodate all of the BA flights, and some still leave from T3.
T5 is being expanded with a third satellite building (T5D) and new piers. That will then be able to accommodate the existing flights and additional destinations.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
Except T5 can't accommodate all of the BA flights, and some still leave from T3.
T5 is being expanded with a third satellite building (T5D) and new piers. That will then be able to accommodate the existing flights and additional destinations.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
Except T5 can't accommodate all of the BA flights, and some still leave from T3.
T5 is being expanded with a third satellite building (T5D) and new piers. That will then be able to accommodate the existing flights and additional destinations.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
Except T5 can't accommodate all of the BA flights, and some still leave from T3.
T5 is being expanded with a third satellite building (T5D) and new piers. That will then be able to accommodate the existing flights and additional destinations.
Bleargh. T5C is a pain as it is.
Top tip - the 'secret' underground walkway!
I always walk back after long haul flights to stretch my legs
Edit: but thank you anyways . I don't want to sound ungrateful
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
An international transit passenger spends next to bugger all in the UK, maybe the price of a cup of coffee. It is true that someone has to be employed to shift their bags between aeroplanes and that by operating as a hub there maybe more destinations available from the airport than otherwise would be the case, that is to say more flights and more landing fees. However does that justify the full costs of expanding Heathrow?
Why not let Schipol become the hub? It is becoming the de facto hub now and by the time Heathrow 3 has been built will have embedded itself in that position. Does it make sense at this point in time to try and compete, especially when there will be no return on investment just added costs (the the airlines, the exchequer and to the wider economy) for decades to come.
Surely the business we get from this is not the cup of coffee but the fact that planes are landing here, taking off here, being supplied and maintained here and the staff are based here. There is a lot of business and jobs attracted to hub airports and we have been losing out.
And the fact that it means there are far more flights from London to wherever than there works be otherwise.
It's been explained about 1001 times that the transfer traffic from the eastern cost of the USA and Canada will open up new flights from Heathrow to provincial Asian cities. Some people just don't seem to listen or care. Additionally, the Asian consumers that fly via London to east coast USA are very high spenders. Even for the few hours they spend in the airport or days in London.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
An international transit passenger spends next to bugger all in the UK, maybe the price of a cup of coffee. It is true that someone has to be employed to shift their bags between aeroplanes and that by operating as a hub there maybe more destinations available from the airport than otherwise would be the case, that is to say more flights and more landing fees. However does that justify the full costs of expanding Heathrow?
Why not let Schipol become the hub? It is becoming the de facto hub now and by the time Heathrow 3 has been built will have embedded itself in that position. Does it make sense at this point in time to try and compete, especially when there will be no return on investment just added costs (the the airlines, the exchequer and to the wider economy) for decades to come.
Surely the business we get from this is not the cup of coffee but the fact that planes are landing here, taking off here, being supplied and maintained here and the staff are based here. There is a lot of business and jobs attracted to hub airports and we have been losing out.
And the fact that it means there are far more flights from London to wherever than there works be otherwise.
It's been explained about 1001 times that the transfer traffic from the eastern cost of the USA and Canada will open up new flights from Heathrow to provincial Asian cities. Some people just don't seem to listen or care. Additionally, the Asian consumers that fly via London to east coast USA are very high spenders. Even for the few hours they spend in the airport or days in London.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
Flew to Torinto BA from T5, where I parked my car. Flew back yesterday from Vancouver into T3. Took close to an hour to get between the two. Very, very annoying.
The main point about Heathrow expansion, surely, is new destinations. China and much of the rest of Asia are very poirly served from the UK currently.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
An international transit passenger spends next to bugger all in the UK, maybe the price of a cup of coffee. It is true that someone has to be employed to shift their bags between aeroplanes and that by operating as a hub there maybe more destinations available from the airport than otherwise would be the case, that is to say more flights and more landing fees. However does that justify the full costs of expanding Heathrow?
Why not let Schipol become the hub? It is becoming the de facto hub now and by the time Heathrow 3 has been built will have embedded itself in that position. Does it make sense at this point in time to try and compete, especially when there will be no return on investment just added costs (the the airlines, the exchequer and to the wider economy) for decades to come.
Surely the business we get from this is not the cup of coffee but the fact that planes are landing here, taking off here, being supplied and maintained here and the staff are based here. There is a lot of business and jobs attracted to hub airports and we have been losing out.
And the fact that it means there are far more flights from London to wherever than there works be otherwise.
It's been explained about 1001 times that the transfer traffic from the eastern cost of the USA and Canada will open up new flights from Heathrow to provincial Asian cities. Some people just don't seem to listen or care. Additionally, the Asian consumers that fly via London to east coast USA are very high spenders. Even for the few hours they spend in the airport or days in London.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
Flew to Torinto BA from T5, where I parked my car. Flew back yesterday from Vancouver into T3. Took close to an hour to get between the two. Very, very annoying.
The main point about Heathrow expansion, surely, is new destinations. China and much of the rest of Asia are very poirly served from the UK currently.
One World's Asia hub is Helsinki. It has the geographic advantage of being on the Great Circle route from western Europe to China, Japan, etc.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
Flew to Torinto BA from T5, where I parked my car. Flew back yesterday from Vancouver into T3. Took close to an hour to get between the two. Very, very annoying.
An hour? From reaching the T3 arrivals hall? Was HEX not working? It shouldn't take more than 25 minutes even if you just miss a train.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
Flew to Torinto BA from T5, where I parked my car. Flew back yesterday from Vancouver into T3. Took close to an hour to get between the two. Very, very annoying.
An hour? From reaching the T3 arrivals hall? Was HEX not working? It shouldn't take more than 25 minutes even if you just miss a train.
The passport reading machines brokedown, then the trains played up.
I can't believe it weight s three-quarters of a ton ...
(Wonders if Mrs J would allow me to build it in our living room. Or at least a part of it...)
I am seriously disappointed. Surely we should have had several years of lucrative planning inquiries for the good of the benighted legal profession before anyone was allowed to build a structure of this size?
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
Flew to Torinto BA from T5, where I parked my car. Flew back yesterday from Vancouver into T3. Took close to an hour to get between the two. Very, very annoying.
An hour? From reaching the T3 arrivals hall? Was HEX not working? It shouldn't take more than 25 minutes even if you just miss a train.
My record in Dundee (admittedly with only a carry on bag) from airplane door to car door was 50 odd seconds. Fantastic.
Dems won the Florida in-person vote by a new low of just 722 votes yesterday; 104813 to 104091. Total in-person lead still below 40k at 38513.
In total returned mail ballots Reps lead has gone up nearly 10k to 61249 votes; 784694 to 723445.
Overall EV Rep lead still slowly widening.
Also fascinating is while the Dems led vote-by-mail requests they are not returning them in the same numbers as the GOP. The lead for the mail is widening but the unreturned ballot gap is too and now stands at almost 67000 more unreturned by Dems compared to 29000 more at the start of in-person voting. If it was the case that Dems are still requesting more ballots you wouldn't expect the GOP lead to still be increasing in those returned.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
Except T5 can't accommodate all of the BA flights, and some still leave from T3.
T5 is being expanded with a third satellite building (T5D) and new piers. That will then be able to accommodate the existing flights and additional destinations.
Dems won the Florida in-person vote by a new low of just 722 votes yesterday; 104813 to 104091. Total in-person lead still below 40k at 38513.
In total returned mail ballots Reps lead has gone up nearly 10k to 61249 votes; 784694 to 723445.
Overall EV Rep lead still slowly widening.
Also fascinating is while the Dems led vote-by-mail requests they are not returning them in the same numbers as the GOP. The lead for the mail is widening but the unreturned ballot gap is too and now stands at almost 67000 more unreturned by Dems compared to 29000 more at the start of in-person voting. If it was the case that Dems are still requesting more ballots you wouldn't expect the GOP lead to still be increasing in those returned.
And I'll keep saying this - they may be registered Democrats - and they aren't all voting for Hillary.
I can't get over this lazy assumption on here. Not all registered GOPers are voting for Trump in Utah and it's crowed over. Take a step back folks - this isn't drone voting anymore.
Bernie voters are seriously pissed. And you can be pretty sure his Millennials have seen this
Now whether we think the analysis is accurate or not. It's not what you want to read about yourself.
"The latest Wikileaks release of emails is possibly one of the most telling example of how Hillary Clinton and her campaign view millennial voters, as idiots who only “vote for what’s cool.”
In the latest batch of emails, marketing executive Bronfein told John Podesta that Hillary Clinton “may not be the best face” simply because Hillary doesn’t appear to be “cool.” So the campaign plots to find people millennial’s do identify is cool, such as celebs, and use them in order to trick young voters into voting for Hillary “I hate to generalize a generation but by social media nature, they “follow”. So if someone they identify as cool endorses – they will likely fall in line with that candidate.”
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
Except T5 can't accommodate all of the BA flights, and some still leave from T3.
T5 is being expanded with a third satellite building (T5D) and new piers. That will then be able to accommodate the existing flights and additional destinations.
I lived in Maidenhead for eighteen months 99-00: I was there for the eclipse and read "Hannibal" in hardback in the "Hand and Flowers" wine bar, nursing many diet cokes. I loved it, to be blunt.
Yes it is "one of those south-east towns where the affluent live in surrounding villages while the town itself is much less so", but put it in context: the "surrounding villages" are Windsor and Henley, so it's hardly third-world, now is it? It's been redeveloped since I was there: the area around Broadway and Market St are newbuild shopping centres with Odeons and whatnot: although I understand the argument that these will date rapidly I quite like them to be honest. It's equivalent to, say, Reading, Horsham or Newbury in terms of prosperity and it's a good commute to London: about 30 mins to Paddington if memory serves, tho' Sunil will be able to advise better than I.
The blot on the horizon is the new runway, which will affect the town in terms of noise, tho it will still be less than Windsor: that extra mile counts.
In short, it's quite nice. In terms of quality of life it's probably the best you can do in the UK if you can afford it, unless you're in the Charles/SeanT class of wealth or you like good preVictorian architecture and that cultcha stuff, in which case better alternatives are available. I had the opportunity to buy a flat for £150K there and turned it down: damn, damn, damn...
Dems won the Florida in-person vote by a new low of just 722 votes yesterday; 104813 to 104091. Total in-person lead still below 40k at 38513.
In total returned mail ballots Reps lead has gone up nearly 10k to 61249 votes; 784694 to 723445.
Overall EV Rep lead still slowly widening.
Also fascinating is while the Dems led vote-by-mail requests they are not returning them in the same numbers as the GOP. The lead for the mail is widening but the unreturned ballot gap is too and now stands at almost 67000 more unreturned by Dems compared to 29000 more at the start of in-person voting. If it was the case that Dems are still requesting more ballots you wouldn't expect the GOP lead to still be increasing in those returned.
And I'll keep saying this - they may be registered Democrats - and they aren't all voting for Hillary.
Dems voting by mail probably are voting for Hillary. VBM skews affluent and educated. This is also not necessarily great for Trump as republicans who don't like him are probaby also voting by mail.
In-person is perhaps a bit more demographically normal and could presage election day enthusiasm.
Still the POTUS ECV markets remain closed with Sporting and Spreadex ...... the former surprises me, the second not so. I draw two conclusions from this - firstly that they consider this to be BIG NEWS, a possible game changer even and secondly, following on from that, and as someone once said, they are Frit, Frit, Frit!
Sporting Index (aka SPIN) closes if anything changes: it was suspended two-three weeks ago, for example.
You are hoping, but I'm betting he will hold on to this lifeline for all he's worth.
He's been given so many life lines and throws them away. No any other GOP candidate and she would be done for but with him, LOL.
If Trump wins this now, Plato really will have bragging rights.
I think that's fair :-)
My portfolio (as in my work portfolio) would do extremely well in the event of a Trump victory. But that is insufficient to make me root for him.
A racist, mysoginist, unstable, preening fool in the White House would clearly be a dream come true for some on here. Looks like it could well happen now, whatever the reality.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
Flew to Torinto BA from T5, where I parked my car. Flew back yesterday from Vancouver into T3. Took close to an hour to get between the two. Very, very annoying.
An hour? From reaching the T3 arrivals hall? Was HEX not working? It shouldn't take more than 25 minutes even if you just miss a train.
The passport reading machines brokedown, then the trains played up.
OK, so not to get between terminals. Thanks for clearing that up.
What they should be doing is expanding regional airports and having direct travel from somewhere other than London.
That's a good idea, in theory. Provided that the airlines want it, of course.
Airlines love hub and spoke
Exactly. And the airlines haven't shown any signs of wanting a UK hub anywhere except London (just looking at the destination lists for the various regional airlines demonstrates this).
With the delays through the coalition, Brown's government and Blair's government, for much of the country the "UK hub" has by default become Amsterdam, as various PBers have noted from their personal experiences.
No matter what they do with Heathrow I would still rather use Schipol as my hub It is a million times better arranged as an airport
Than T3 and T4, maybe. Not compared with T5 and new T2.
Your comment makes Richard's point for him. T5 and T2 are great, but the difficulty of transferring between terminals severely limits Heathrow's usefulness as a hub.
Not really since codeshare flights work on the basis of being in the same terminal. Terminal 2 is the defacto Star Alliance terminal and T5 is BA/One World.
Flew to Torinto BA from T5, where I parked my car. Flew back yesterday from Vancouver into T3. Took close to an hour to get between the two. Very, very annoying.
An hour? From reaching the T3 arrivals hall? Was HEX not working? It shouldn't take more than 25 minutes even if you just miss a train.
The passport reading machines brokedown, then the trains played up.
OK, so not to get between terminals. Thanks for clearing that up.
Wow, you caught me out! Ha, ha. And there was me thinking travelling between T3 and T5 was travelling between them!
You are hoping, but I'm betting he will hold on to this lifeline for all he's worth.
He's been given so many life lines and throws them away. No any other GOP candidate and she would be done for but with him, LOL.
If Trump wins this now, Plato really will have bragging rights.
I think that's fair :-)
My portfolio (as in my work portfolio) would do extremely well in the event of a Trump victory. But that is insufficient to make me root for him.
A racist, mysoginist, unstable, preening fool in the White House would clearly be a dream come true for some on here. Looks like it could well happen now, whatever the reality.
You are hoping, but I'm betting he will hold on to this lifeline for all he's worth.
He's been given so many life lines and throws them away. No any other GOP candidate and she would be done for but with him, LOL.
If Trump wins this now, Plato really will have bragging rights.
I think that's fair :-)
My portfolio (as in my work portfolio) would do extremely well in the event of a Trump victory. But that is insufficient to make me root for him.
Making a fortune out of a Trump victory would be pretty cold comfort if he started World War III.
You want to be poor in the rubble?
* If Trump wins and starts WWIII that isn't something you can control. * What you can control is how much you bet and on who * A lot of the discussion here is on the shittiness of Trump vs the shittyness of Clinton and none of it is relevant * What I want to know is who is winning and what are the odds. * If Trump starts looking as if he is winning and the odds remain above 2/1 then betting on him looks good. If not, not.
You are hoping, but I'm betting he will hold on to this lifeline for all he's worth.
He's been given so many life lines and throws them away. No any other GOP candidate and she would be done for but with him, LOL.
If Trump wins this now, Plato really will have bragging rights.
I think that's fair :-)
My portfolio (as in my work portfolio) would do extremely well in the event of a Trump victory. But that is insufficient to make me root for him.
Making a fortune out of a Trump victory would be pretty cold comfort if he started World War III.
You want to be poor in the rubble?
* If Trump wins and starts WWIII that isn't something you can control. * What you can control is how much you bet and on who * A lot of the discussion here is on the shittiness of Trump vs the shittyness of Clinton and none of it is relevant * What I want to know is who is winning and what are the odds. * If Trump starts looking as if he is winning and the odds remain above 2/1 then betting on him looks good. If not, not.
I was watching one of the US business channels yesterday, and shorting the Mexican peso is a good proxy for betting on Trump.
You are hoping, but I'm betting he will hold on to this lifeline for all he's worth.
He's been given so many life lines and throws them away. No any other GOP candidate and she would be done for but with him, LOL.
If Trump wins this now, Plato really will have bragging rights.
I think that's fair :-)
My portfolio (as in my work portfolio) would do extremely well in the event of a Trump victory. But that is insufficient to make me root for him.
A racist, mysoginist, unstable, preening fool in the White House would clearly be a dream come true for some on here. Looks like it could well happen now, whatever the reality.
You are hoping, but I'm betting he will hold on to this lifeline for all he's worth.
He's been given so many life lines and throws them away. No any other GOP candidate and she would be done for but with him, LOL.
If Trump wins this now, Plato really will have bragging rights.
I think that's fair :-)
My portfolio (as in my work portfolio) would do extremely well in the event of a Trump victory. But that is insufficient to make me root for him.
Making a fortune out of a Trump victory would be pretty cold comfort if he started World War III.
I really don't understand this "starting World War III" nonsense. I'm not a massive fan of the man but he has consistently taken the side of US isolationism and concentrating on internal issues. If anyone starts WW3 i doubt it will be him.
With Hillary on the ther hand you have a neocon war hawk under the influence of the Saudis who will bring even more chaos to the Middle East that could spiral out of control.
You are hoping, but I'm betting he will hold on to this lifeline for all he's worth.
He's been given so many life lines and throws them away. No any other GOP candidate and she would be done for but with him, LOL.
If Trump wins this now, Plato really will have bragging rights.
I think that's fair :-)
My portfolio (as in my work portfolio) would do extremely well in the event of a Trump victory. But that is insufficient to make me root for him.
Making a fortune out of a Trump victory would be pretty cold comfort if he started World War III.
I really don't understand this "starting World War III" nonsense. I'm not a massive fan of the man but he has consistently taken the side of US isolationism and concentrating on internal issues. If anyone starts WW3 i doubt it will be him.
With Hillary on the ther hand you have a neocon war hawk under the influence of the Saudis who will bring even more chaos to the Middle East that could spiral out of control.
He's talked about using nukes in a first strike capacity.
Comments
https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/29-p1-lcf.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=780
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303423-tracking-poll-trump-within-2-points-of-clinton-nationally
Deplorable Grn St
Robby Mook deleted all of his tweets today. Huma deleted past 4 months. Anthony deleted all social media. Shredding! @RobbyMook @HumaAbedin
Vili Wilson
SCHLONGED‼️
Does anyone else find the irony in that a WEINER is at the root of the latest presidential race controversy?
#hillarysemail https://t.co/58QOLII5aJ
Poll: The GOP is Trump's party now, not Ryan's @SpeakerRyan @realDonaldTrump #tcot #pjnet #p2 https://t.co/XEeWuF75sT … https://t.co/T8HY51Fuei
Video from Periscope archive Friday
LIVE on #Periscope: LETS ROLL #TrumpTrain! 3rd stop....IOWA!!!! #IAPolitics https://t.co/tpfJtiJEpU
https://twitter.com/ukipwebmaster/status/792111733234098177
I've no idea what can bombshell him now - being a paedo? Sex with dead boys?
It began before the FBI bombshell and is now pretty universal. There's only a few days to restore their reputations.
Whether it's Heathrow R3, HS2, broadband, or a whole smorgasbord of issues, some people seem to count the pennies more than the opportunities. Dragging the country backwards because of the risk of moving forwards.
Let's just do it.
I draw two conclusions from this - firstly that they consider this to be BIG NEWS, a possible game changer even and secondly, following on from that, and as someone once said, they are Frit, Frit, Frit!
Vili Wilson
WTF‼️
Anthony Weiner had a Dildo-Phone‼️
What?‼️ how exactly does that work?
I'm totally baffled
ET PHONE HOME‼ https://t.co/aCIhDlxuif
https://twitter.com/PotluckPolitico/status/792339436591845377
Some of economic logic on here is better suited to North-Korea-Political-Betting.com
What happens when you need to increase the capacity of T2? No space to put a satellite building there, and no-one likes having to get on shuttles.
Presidential race doesn't end when polls close on Nov. 8; it's just getting started. An Electoral College look: https://t.co/qFcyE4BORt
https://www.apnews.com/7898acdfbb5f4719a0eeb21337347306
Edit: but thank you anyways . I don't want to sound ungrateful
http://www.thebasource.com/british-airways-withdraw-london-heathrow-chengdu-route/
The main point about Heathrow expansion, surely, is new destinations. China and much of the rest of Asia are very poirly served from the UK currently.
Former US Attorney for DC: New Hillary Email Probe Was Result of 'Revolt' Inside FBI https://t.co/SccdJA4SDy #hillarysemail
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/engineering-the-record-breaking-lego-bridge/10014253.article?blocktitle=News-Insight&contentID=13613
I can't believe it weight s three-quarters of a ton ...
(Wonders if Mrs J would allow me to build it in our living room. Or at least a part of it...)
Bringing back the Weiner subplot is a classic season finale twist
In total returned mail ballots Reps lead has gone up nearly 10k to 61249 votes; 784694 to 723445.
Overall EV Rep lead still slowly widening.
Also fascinating is while the Dems led vote-by-mail requests they are not returning them in the same numbers as the GOP. The lead for the mail is widening but the unreturned ballot gap is too and now stands at almost 67000 more unreturned by Dems compared to 29000 more at the start of in-person voting. If it was the case that Dems are still requesting more ballots you wouldn't expect the GOP lead to still be increasing in those returned.
https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/792299892089753602
Taniel – Verified account @Taniel
.@vpapupdate's VA update: Turnout up 47% over equivalent 2012 point in Northern Virginia, up 11% in rest of state. http://www.vpap.org/visualizations/early-voting …
I can't get over this lazy assumption on here. Not all registered GOPers are voting for Trump in Utah and it's crowed over. Take a step back folks - this isn't drone voting anymore.
Bernie voters are seriously pissed. And you can be pretty sure his Millennials have seen this
http://www.jookos.com/2016/10/28/exposed-clinton-campaign-calls-young-voters-fucking-dumb-black-voters-stupid/
Now whether we think the analysis is accurate or not. It's not what you want to read about yourself.
"The latest Wikileaks release of emails is possibly one of the most telling example of how Hillary Clinton and her campaign view millennial voters, as idiots who only “vote for what’s cool.”
In the latest batch of emails, marketing executive Bronfein told John Podesta that Hillary Clinton “may not be the best face” simply because Hillary doesn’t appear to be “cool.” So the campaign plots to find people millennial’s do identify is cool, such as celebs, and use them in order to trick young voters into voting for Hillary “I hate to generalize a generation but by social media nature, they “follow”. So if someone they identify as cool endorses – they will likely fall in line with that candidate.”
My portfolio (as in my work portfolio) would do extremely well in the event of a Trump victory. But that is insufficient to make me root for him.
I lived in Maidenhead for eighteen months 99-00: I was there for the eclipse and read "Hannibal" in hardback in the "Hand and Flowers" wine bar, nursing many diet cokes. I loved it, to be blunt.
Yes it is "one of those south-east towns where the affluent live in surrounding villages while the town itself is much less so", but put it in context: the "surrounding villages" are Windsor and Henley, so it's hardly third-world, now is it? It's been redeveloped since I was there: the area around Broadway and Market St are newbuild shopping centres with Odeons and whatnot: although I understand the argument that these will date rapidly I quite like them to be honest. It's equivalent to, say, Reading, Horsham or Newbury in terms of prosperity and it's a good commute to London: about 30 mins to Paddington if memory serves, tho' Sunil will be able to advise better than I.
The blot on the horizon is the new runway, which will affect the town in terms of noise, tho it will still be less than Windsor: that extra mile counts.
In short, it's quite nice. In terms of quality of life it's probably the best you can do in the UK if you can afford it, unless you're in the Charles/SeanT class of wealth or you like good preVictorian architecture and that cultcha stuff, in which case better alternatives are available. I had the opportunity to buy a flat for £150K there and turned it down: damn, damn, damn...
In-person is perhaps a bit more demographically normal and could presage election day enthusiasm.
http://europe.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-comey-donald-trump-anthony-weiner-huma-abedin-514918?rm=eu
...although you will have to put up with giggles from people who know what the other meaning of "Maidenhead" is...
Adam Kredo
BIG BREAKING: Attorney General Lynch 'Pleads Fifth' To Congress on Secret Iran 'Ransom' Payments https://t.co/GhwL3QlNqU
Lithuania has updated its civil defence booklet telling citizens what to do in the event of a Russian invasion.
It includes large sections on survival techniques and warns that Russia would not hesitate to use military force against its neighbours.
Tens of thousands of copies of the 75-page guide have been distributed.
The government has also launched a telephone hotline for citizens to report anyone they suspect of being a spy.
Probably a false flag.
Pollster FLA
@mitchellvii @RainyWayBack @NolteNC Get this out there!! EQUAL PAY??? https://t.co/SDYB1btRuP
* If Trump wins and starts WWIII that isn't something you can control.
* What you can control is how much you bet and on who
* A lot of the discussion here is on the shittiness of Trump vs the shittyness of Clinton and none of it is relevant
* What I want to know is who is winning and what are the odds.
* If Trump starts looking as if he is winning and the odds remain above 2/1 then betting on him looks good. If not, not.
IBD/TIPP Clinton 45% Trump 41% Johnson 7% Stein 2% - Clinton lead up from 3 to 4.
With Hillary on the ther hand you have a neocon war hawk under the influence of the Saudis who will bring even more chaos to the Middle East that could spiral out of control.