BAWC

OK folks, let's get a grip before hysteria takes hold.

There have been mutterings in the undergrowth for a while, and now ITV Meridian are obediently repeating the carefully leaked PR drivel. BAWC are going to save the whole of south-east England from flight congestion by, er, moving their flights from one part of the south-east to another.

Hmmm... well, first of all, we've been here before. In February 2009, BAWC pounced on an unsuspecting and unprepared TDC and tried to bounce them into allowing BAWC to schedule night flights if they moved their operation from Stansted to Manston.

TDC complied almost immediately, and were left looking a bit daft when BAWC pulled out just a few weeks later in mid-March 2009. It turned out (as some had suspected) that this had been no more than a ploy on BAWC's part to screw better terms out of Stansted - they were re-negotiating their contract at the time. I wonder if it was a three year contract?

Anyway, fast forward three years, and here we are, déjà vu-ing all over again - BAWC are, allegedly, showing an interest in Manston. The talk is of them "moving their operations". Nobody has so far suggested that BAWC would be buying Manston.

Three years ago, the main spin was jobs, with the then Leader of TDC Sandy Ezekiel (whatever happened to him?) repeating BAWC's line that some 200 jobs would be created. This time round, however, the spin and hype is much more grandiose - by moving to Manston, BAWC will free up so much capacity at Stansted that the south-east will have no need of third runways or estuary airports. Marvellous!

Working on the assumption that if something looks too good to be true, it probably is, I had a look at BAWC's use of Stansted. Their online timetables show that Stansted is used for long-haul freight - these are the departures:

STN Monday 08:30 CGN Monday 10:50

STN Monday 08:30 MAD Monday 15:10

STN Monday 08:30 JNB Tuesday 04:40

STN Monday 08:30 NBO Wednesday 00:05

STN Monday 11:35 DMM Monday 21:10

STN Monday 11:35 DXB Tuesday 01:25

STN Monday 11:35 PVG Tuesday 23:00

STN Wednesday 14:35 FRA Wednesday 17:00

STN Wednesday 14:35 ORD Wednesday 21:15

STN Wednesday 14:35 ATL Thursday 02:15

STN Wednesday 14:50 ZAZ Wednesday 18:10

STN Wednesday 14:50 BAH Thursday 04:25

STN Wednesday 14:50 HKG Thursday 18:20

STN Thursday 10:25 CGN Thursday 12:45

STN Thursday 10:25 DEL Friday 06:15

STN Thursday 10:25 HKG Friday 15:45

STN Thursday 19:45 FRA Thursday 22:00

STN Thursday 19:45 PVG Friday 23:59

STN Friday 10:20 DXB Friday 21:20

STN Friday 10:20 HKG Saturday 10:10

STN Saturday 11:50 FRA Saturday 14:15

STN Saturday 11:50 ATL Sunday 00:15

STN Saturday 15:45 FRA Saturday 18:15

STN Saturday 15:45 HKG Sunday 16:55

STN Sunday 03:10 FRA Sunday 05:40

STN Sunday 03:10 ORD Sunday 09:50

STN Sunday 03:10 IAH Sunday 14:05

STN Sunday 17:50 FRA Sunday 20:20

STN Sunday 17:50 DEL Monday 17:15

The arrivals look like this:

America

ATL Thursday 04:15 STN Thursday 17:05

ATL Sunday 02:15 STN Sunday 15:05

IAH Sunday 18:30 STN Monday 09:15

ORD Wednesday 23:15 STN Thursday 17:05

ORD Sunday 11:50 STN Monday 09:15

India/Bangladesh

BOM Saturday 18:05 STN Saturday 22:10

DAC Thursday 00:40 STN Thursday 08:00

DAC Friday 23:40 STN Saturday 07:00

DEL Thursday 04:30 STN Thursday 08:00

DEL Saturday 03:30 STN Saturday 07:00

MAA Wednesday 07:10 STN Wednesday 12:20

MAA Friday 00:40 STN Friday 06:00

MAA Saturday 07:55 STN Saturday 13:05

MAA Sunday 23:20 STN Monday 04:30

Middle East & Africa

JNB Tuesday 19:10 STN Wednesday 11:15

NBO Wednesday 02:05 STN Wednesday 11:15

Far East

HKG Wednesday 20:15 DAC Wednesday 22:40

HKG Wednesday 20:15 STN Thursday 08:00

HKG Thursday 20:20 STN Friday 06:00

HKG Friday 19:15 STN Saturday 07:00

HKG Saturday 12:10 STN Saturday 22:10

HKG Sunday 18:55 STN Monday 04:30

PVG Wednesday 01:10 STN Wednesday 12:20

PVG Saturday 02:15 STN Saturday 13:05

However, and it's a big however, I really don't see how relocating this number of flights from Essex to Kent would remove the (alleged) need for a £50 billion mega-airport in the Thames.

So, dear reader, two little twists of spin to loook out for whenever this story pops up:

1. Jobs: 58 flights a week isn't that much more than Manston is currently handling - averaging 38 flights a week in 2011. Manston has told the government that it could handle double the current freight tonnage (and 750,000 passengers) with just 23 extra staff. Promises of hundreds of jobs resulting from BAWC's presence should be taken with a large pinch of salt - it's just as well we're so near the sea and salt is plentiful.
2. Congestion: judging by their timetable, BAWC doesn't seem to be such a large operation that moving it from one county to another would shift the national strategic aviation requirements for the coming decades.

Comments

[Earplugz]

Don't be silly Aaron. Are you mad? Why on earth would anyone want to get a good night sleep after a hard day at work? Or some decent rest period after having to face the difficulties that life's rich tapestry already throws at you?...

Like the cost of fuel. The cost of living. Trying to make ends meet. Run a home. A family. The battle through traffic to get home from work and cook dinner, sort the children out, get them off to bed. Get things ready for the next day before bed, knowing the alarm is due to go off at 6.00am... Lay there all night waiting, for the next 747, listening to the thundering, bone shaking noise of continuous cargo planes a couple of hundred feet above your roof with defeningly loud engines coming in to land. Only to drift off again before another one comes over. Then another one...etc. Then - have to get up, bleary eyed after laying awake most of the night looking at the ceiling in the dark. Get the kids up and ready, get them off for the day, get yourself ready, drive to work, get stuck in traffic, get to work not remembering the journey because you've gone way past fatigued. Do your days work and try and do it well so you can pay your mortgage on your house that is worth about half of what it was a year ago. Then leave to come home and face it all again knowing your not going to get any sleep that night either... Or indeed again... ever...

These thrilling thoughts fill me with excitment, joy and optimism..... Sigh!

Think I need a holiday! Is there an airport nearby? :) :) :)

[Nick]

If you to want to fly to Iran disguised as a runner bean there is one cheap flight per month up the road! After all it's the middle class, out of season vege munching, moon worshipping, taste buds that justify the skid marks on the Tarmac!

[Oh Dear]

So can I expect a visit from the "boy's" soon? How utterly ridiculous that one person can cause you so much consternation. It really goes to show you in your true light. Incidentally I would be very, very careful where you go with this particular course of action careful. . .

[David Ayecliffe]

I actually quite admire Oh Dear for his tenacity and humour and, at times, he/she/it is a welcome diversion from some of the more mundane posters on this site. That doesn't mean that I support his views though - I live within a mile of the airport, it's very pleasant here and a few planes flying in and out of the airport from time to time don't bother me. I hope the airport eventually becomes a success and contrary to some of your contributors here think it would be another very bad day for Thanet if it closed down. BUT night flights are a different matter! I understand at times the need to have the odd aircraft fly in and out during the night (it happens anyway) but certainly do not want aircraft to come flying close to my house on a regular basis at 3am - that would be grossly unfair on all of us who live close by and I fully support and thank you for your efforts on our behalf.

One final word on Oh Dear - personally I think he brings some humour to this site which at times is sorely needed. Incidentally, I too like one of your other posters have been in IT for a long time, so if you are that concerned about him then simply blacklist him but "outing" him is certainly not something I would recommend even if his ISP were to provide you with his details which I seriously doubt they would.
Once again many thanks for your efforts
David

[James]

Who said anything about sending the boys around??..lol Blimey you need to get out more mate as this ain't the home of the Ramsgate Mafia....lol

I would personally just think a little before you hide behind your computer firing off insults to fellow posters. You are not invisible unless your using a proxy.

I was just concerned that some poor chap called Gerry was going to become even more unpopular at the expense of somebody else's guise.

[Oh Dear]

It was you lot on here who for whatever reason got it into your heads that I must be this bloke ice cream selling Jerry, I just played along. Thanks to David for his remarks but I am a strapping lad and have faced far worse onslaughts than anything this site can chuck at me. By the way you can rest peacefully in your beds for the moment, the rumour mill is way off beam.

[nick]

We seek him here, we seek him there,
Those bourgeoisie seek him everywhere.
Sprinkling at the esplinade?—Or proxy internet poster?
That demmed, elusive Interloper.

Apologies Orczy!

[Igloo]

I don't remember anybody except you mentioning ice-cream sales.

[Oh Dear]

Then I suggest you trawl back though back through the acres of postings on this site and see how many references there are to me being "Jerry" and that I should crawl back to my little kiosk. Jerry I ain't!

['eastcliff]

Oh Dear, what were the results of Mr Buchanan's consultation on night flights?

[Oh Dear]

Horse's mouth or horse's head? Personally I would go for the head, why don't you ring him up and ask him?

['eastcliff]

I'm surprised you don't know as I thought you were the horses mouth. And what's with the horse reference anyway...you're not cleaning out the stables at the airport are you?

[Igloo]

Nobody said you were Jerry. They said you were Gerry. And you were the only one wh mentioned ice-creams.

[Igloo]

" Business as usual" chirps Charlie. It's going to be quiet then?

[Adrian]

Calm down everybody, this is turning into a slanging match on account of one sad little troll. Trolls are attention seekers who deliberately take an opposing view to the majority and post comments intended to stir up argument with them rather than focussing our attention on the true issue.

The best way to deal with a troll is to IGNORE them completely, I know this is difficult when you think that their comments are completely unreasonable and should be rebuked, but it is the only way to cut off their 'bit of fun' at our expense! Their purpose for posting is removed and they usually shrivel up like plants that have lost their source of water.

Let's not waste any more time and get back to the real issue - the whole of this night flights argument should be based on balance, the advantages of allowing increased commercial activity against the disadvantages of the disruption that it will cause. In my view the advantages are purely hypothetical and it is very difficult to envisage the scenario put forward by the airport owners as being realistic, whereas the degradation in quality of life and loss of property value to those residents DIRECTLY affected by the proposal are certainly real.

A.M.

[Rob (Manston)]

Being relatively new to this blog a lot of the comments from the main players are very 'playgroundish' (probably not a real work but does sum up some of the juevenile content in some of the posts).

If you feel so passionate about a topic, why hide behind a false name, Igloo, Oh Dear etc etc?

If the number of residents who are aginst the night flights is in question there is a simple solution .... have local referrendum, to include all villages and towns outside of Thanet that are affected by night ops. As long as this is independent and the results are open and honest I am sure the true picture will clearly show the Pro-night flighters that most ... if not all residents ... are not against a successful airport, only against the morons trying to operate at night. Not sure TDC would do this as it would probably show they have been backing the wrong horse for a long time now (not only the wrong horse but probably at the wrong race meeting!!).

Liked the comment about the anonymous people "growing a pair" , but then I suppose they do have a pair, the only difference is their "pair" is supported by a bra as they seem to interact like a bunch of old women.

Have a nice day :-)

[Tits aren't us!]

Rob I was with you all the way until:-

"Liked the comment about the anonymous people "growing a pair" , but then I suppose they do have a pair, the only difference is their "pair" is supported by a bra as they seem to interact like a bunch of old women."

Appropos man boobs - fair enough - but to then denigrate the sisters with your qualification "interact like a bunch of old women".

In the words of Betty White "..........If you wanna get tough grow a vagina! Those things really take a pounding!"

And we still don't want any night-flights!

[Rob (Manston)]

Dear Tits arn't us

Perhaps I was a little hasty in grouping some of the more juvenile bloggers within the 'female' genre, but whatever pair they do have probably are probably very small and insignificant .... pretty much like their "Pro-Airport night flying ideas".

You still continue to have a nice day. :-)

[Igloo]

You don't have a clue what you are dealing with. Oh Dear isn't some lone troll. He's part of an organised campaign to promote night-flights. His purpose in posting is to be able to say that you couldn't deal with the questions he raised. I totally disagree with your approach. In your world the troll continues to live under the bridge and eventually gobbles up a little kid. In my world, the troll is butted into the water by the biggest billy-goat and everybody lives happily ever after. Call me puerile, if you like, but I like my world better than yours.

No doubt you are one of the thousands of people who say they don't want night-flights but won't write to the paper to rebut the rubbish that gets posted there. If all you can contribute is to sit in your ivory tower looking down your long nose at the ground troops and tut tut tutting , then you shouldn't be surprised if the Antonov that just flew over starts making regular night excursions. What will you do then?

[Tits aren't us!]

A bit harsh Igloo, poor Rob doesn't yet realise that the airport employees have nothing better to do than attempt, pathetically, to de-bunk the many voices of reason: the residents of Ramsgate and Herne Bay, who the local authority in conjunction with Infratil have been attempting to feck over.

Was it this Igloo, the tailplane appeared to be like this?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wzpLmQ3hSqY/TPqSrn-0cgI/AAAAAAAAAJI/KMmCUErYzw4/s1600/antonov_an124_ur-82009_1.jpg

Do you think it was full of kalashnikov AK47's, vodka and borscht or poor Moscovites on a "package" holiday? Or worse - packages of caesium from the Kremlin to take out more poor souls like Alexander Litvinenko? We all know how shoddy border control is at Manston!

[Kiwi Frutus]

Igloo

It all looks a bit flaky to me!

[Tits aren't us!]

Is this Oh Dear's Goliath?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cClHZEd_CJQ

This was the cargo plane at Manston

[Tits aren't us!]

Significantly this aircraft doesn't require any ground facilities...or people!
Read this extract, some of you might find it interesting.

Cargo carrying capabilities of the An-124-100 long-range heavy transport aircraft

The two cargo hatches are a distinctive structural feature. The fuselage nose can be hinged upward to open the front cargo hatch and there is a rear cargo hatch in the rear fuselage to speed up the cargo loading and unloading operations.

The onboard system of cargo handling equipment makes it possible to load and unload the aircraft without the help of ground facilities.

The paradropping and cargo-handling equipment comprise two travelling cranes, two winches, rollgang and tiedown equipment. The aircraft is often compared to the US Lockheed Martin C-5 Galaxy. The An-124 has a transportation capability 25% higher than that of the C-5A and 10% higher than the C-5B.

[Rob]

I moved to Ellington Road 2 years ago with my family. We tolerate the current level of flights (although they seem laughable in their frequency) but we would, as Mr Oh Dear suggests, move if it increased to a level we found unacceptable.

We'd take all the money we put into the local economy elsewhere. All the community stuff we do would go elsewhere. Somewhere quieter.
So all the money i commute for, and bring back into Ramsgate will go somewhere else. Other people may do the same. My efforts to support Ramsgate will no longer mean anything.

Is that a good policy to have in order to support a dubious business which has been a financial failure since it's conversion from a strategic military base? Simply suggesting people move is ridiculous!

I'm sure i'm one of the middle class NIMBYs who's missing the point but i love where i live and want to stay there.

We need to bring money in, not slightly increase what's already here by this method. And making Manston busier will ward people off, not bring them in.

[Igloo]

Hi Rob. You are right to be confused. The problem is that nobody at TDC thinks you matter. You may feel that you have worked hard to get where you are now, and you may feel that you are having to work increasingly hard just to stand still. But in the eyes of the Labour group you are just lucky to have a job. They see their role purely in terms of helping the unemployed, by inventing low-paid unskilled work that they could do. Of course, these jobs never actually materialise but reality isn't important in thsi debate. The airport is an ideal vehicle for dream-jobs inc. Anybody who has a job is deemed to be fortunate and does not need help. This appears to be Oh Dear's view as well. One might have thought that those who pay the taxes might be afforded a voice.

Curiously the Tories don't seem to be on your side either. This is caused because control of Thanet is split on party line. Labour controls most of Ramsgate and the Tories control Broadstairs and Margate. The Tories don't care about Ramsgate because they don't get many votes here. The only people who seem to carry sway with the Tories are the likes of Mr. Foley, who doesn't even live round here.

We can discount the Liberal-democrats because there aren't any. They only surface when there's an election; which, I'm afraid. leaves you in the hands of the Independents. So far, they've come down on our side, but they don't live in Ramsgate and we can't assume that they will continue to bail us out.