teapot Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 I know why they're building 200 more parking spaces, it's so people can park their cars and get the train into Douglas, thus at a stroke solving some of the parking problem in Dougie! How clever of them, we should have known (and trusted) that our MHKs would not be wasting money and would have a solution to all our ills!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 From MR: Director delighted by extension approval. She says it's: "the start of a new era." More like a new error methinks, and an exercise in bullsh1t sales techniques cornering clueless politicians, too frightened of analysing other, far cheaper, solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 I think this lady needs to be interviewed by Stu again. Then he can apologise for mentioning £40million and concentrate on the £44million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 I wonder if they actually look at the parking tickets to see how many are issued and exit again within a few minutes showing that the place is full ? next you need a little train like Disney to get you to your car as it's so far away ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Another interesting fact that an EMAS (mechanical means of preventing overruns and something many airports in america favour as land for extensions is not readily available ) does not appear to have been considered. An EMAS is 89% effective at preventing aircraft overruns as compared to 84% effective for a RESA (FAA research) would fit on what we have and comply with the "perhaps" mandatory requirements and of course much cheaper ! Here's how you get something like this approved, 1. Commission a report designed from page 1 to support a desired conclusion. 2. Produce a business case which cannot hold water. 3. Put a presentation to the public and MHK's showing only the bits you want them to see. 4. When business case is shot full of holes bang on about the safety aspect. It is very difficult for people to vote against a project when the issue of safety becomes paramount especially when it requires a degree of technical knowledge which they do not have. What he said (again). This option seems to have been pretty much ignored. of course it's ignored. it is not a grand plan at great expense to the tax payer with good pocket lining opportunities. i'm surprised the shaftum group haven't got plans for a hotel at the end yet. when have you ever known a government funded project do what is needed in the most cost effective fashion?? grandious, expensive and shite = must have inobtrusive, cheaper and effective = not wanted if every local boycotted air travel from the isle of man as the place is not sufficiently safe ( that is why we 'need' the extension isn't it? ) there would be plenty of reteric from the airport and government telling us all was satisfactory and perfectly useable, as it is being used at present. if it's not safe enough it should be shut down untill it is!!. just out of feigned interest, when was the last time a comercial flight ran out of runway at 'reynolds way'?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Another interesting fact that an EMAS (mechanical means of preventing overruns and something many airports in america favour as land for extensions is not readily available ) does not appear to have been considered. An EMAS is 89% effective at preventing aircraft overruns as compared to 84% effective for a RESA (FAA research) would fit on what we have and comply with the "perhaps" mandatory requirements and of course much cheaper ! Here's how you get something like this approved, 1. Commission a report designed from page 1 to support a desired conclusion. 2. Produce a business case which cannot hold water. 3. Put a presentation to the public and MHK's showing only the bits you want them to see. 4. When business case is shot full of holes bang on about the safety aspect. It is very difficult for people to vote against a project when the issue of safety becomes paramount especially when it requires a degree of technical knowledge which they do not have. What he said (again). This option seems to have been pretty much ignored. of course it's ignored. it is not a grand plan at great expense to the tax payer with good pocket lining opportunities. i'm surprised the shaftum group haven't got plans for a hotel at the end yet. when have you ever known a government funded project do what is needed in the most cost effective fashion?? grandious, expensive and shite = must have inobtrusive, cheaper and effective = not wanted if every local boycotted air travel from the isle of man as the place is not sufficiently safe ( that is why we 'need' the extension isn't it? ) there would be plenty of reteric from the airport and government telling us all was satisfactory and perfectly useable, as it is being used at present. if it's not safe enough it should be shut down untill it is!!. just out of feigned interest, when was the last time a comercial flight ran out of runway at 'reynolds way'?? LOL excellent WTF, the good old boys are on the brandy and cigars !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutley Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 when was the last time a comercial flight ran out of runway at 'reynolds way'?? When was the last time a Flybe flight was on time? When was the last time a Govt project was wanted, needed or suitable? When am I going to get some cake? Far too many questions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 When am I going to get some cake? when you beat spam crowe to Mr B's..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 when was the last time a comercial flight ran out of runway at 'reynolds way'?? When was the last time a Flybe flight was on time? When was the last time a Govt project was wanted, needed or suitable? When am I going to get some cake? Far too many questions... Every time I've flown with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 when was the last time a comercial flight ran out of runway at 'reynolds way'?? When was the last time a Flybe flight was on time? When was the last time a Govt project was wanted, needed or suitable? When am I going to get some cake? Far too many questions... Every time I've flown with them. 1 out of 1 then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 when was the last time a comercial flight ran out of runway at 'reynolds way'?? When was the last time a Flybe flight was on time? When was the last time a Govt project was wanted, needed or suitable? When am I going to get some cake? Far too many questions... Every time I've flown with them. 1 out of 1 then? I think it's 6 out of 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 I think this lady needs to be interviewed by Stu again. Then he can apologise for mentioning £40million and concentrate on the £44million. Or the next years' increase where they admit that they missed the tide slot for the hardcore being shipped from Norway and the cost will go up again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryMcCann Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 I think this lady needs to be interviewed by Stu again. Then he can apologise for mentioning £40million and concentrate on the £44million. Or the next years' increase where they admit that they missed the tide slot for the hardcore being shipped from Norway and the cost will go up again. Surely if they want Scandanavian hardcore they can download it from the internet for free like everyone else does What a waste of taxpayers money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 I think this lady needs to be interviewed by Stu again. Then he can apologise for mentioning £40million and concentrate on the £44million. Or the next years' increase where they admit that they missed the tide slot for the hardcore being shipped from Norway and the cost will go up again. Surely if they want Scandanavian hardcore they can download it from the internet for free like everyone else does What a waste of taxpayers money A very good point. Maybe questions in the House on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Well here we go, the new scales of charges have been released, interestingly after the money was granted ! the charges for visiting light aircraft have over doubled !! another death knell for what little tourism we have here. A light single now costs bout £38.80 + handling to land, increased from £18.60 ? Stu knows about this sort of thing, hope he can get her back to ask her why and why not released on the 1st April as in every other year ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.