Liverpool John Lennon Airport (vi)

[Paul D]

Originally Posted by Uomo Senza Nome

Stuart Hall was a national news headline. He broadcast nationally, not to Ashton. Often from Anfield and Goodison.
I did not realise the full hate you have.

You're talking like you know me and yet you're relatively new to the forum.

It's National news but it shouldn't be on our local page, going on what you're saying it should be on every local news page in the Country, is he? no thought not. Why does this thread and our forum in general attract so much hate, people have serious issues that need addressing by a professional, you like many others have a lifelong obsession with Liverpool, I'll leave you to it you crank.

[Uomo Senza Nome]

It is my local airport, that I use.

Unlike you I do not make that an issue and I am not paranoid.

I use Liverpool airport therefore I have as much right as you do.

GM people own their airport, I wish Merseyside owned theirs and not some foreign bunch leeching any future profits to Vancouver.

High horse? Too right.

[iamafreeman]

Originally Posted by buggedboy

I agree that the PR budget cannot be that massive, but their operation is much bigger, active and professional.

The first rule of PR. Keep talking to the press, even when you have nothing to say.

Maybe LJLthey should employ Max Clifford!

On second thoughts perhaps not.

[iamafreeman]

Originally Posted by Rollingstone Gather

I did consider recording stories on BBC's R4 Today program in a spreadsheet to highlight to the BBC editors that every single art/culture story (well 90% it seemed) was based on exhibitions/museums in London. Its probably nothing malicious - just plain laziness. However if it was pointed out to them statistically it would make them think - about what, I cant answer.

No wonder Scotland wants to go it alone - the centralised, patronage based media and government systems of England just aren't relevant to anyone living outside of London (and to a much lesser extent the model is copied in Manchester)

The today programme is massively London centred because well there is no culture elsewhere is there?

In truth they occasionally put on something about a major art event in Lliverpool or Manchester or wherever but it's very unusual and as you say there is an element of lazyness about it too.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by Uomo Senza Nome

GM people own their airport, I wish Merseyside owned theirs and not some foreign bunch leeching any future profits to Vancouver.

I doubt very much that Vantage bought Liverpool for all the profits that it makes. The airport now seems to be making a profit (depending on the accounting system that you use) but it is the result of years of investment since the Peel takeover in the late 90s. To make decent profits, the airport needs to be expanded and its yield's increased and that means more passengers and cargo throughput and more jobs in the local economy.

Merseyside did once own Liverpool Airport but, at that time it was a drain on the ratepayers and they were happy to hand it over to British Aerospace.

[Uomo Senza Nome]

Originally Posted by Martin S

I doubt very much that Vantage bought Liverpool for all the profits that it makes. The airport now seems to be making a profit (depending on the accounting system that you use) but it is the result of years of investment since the Peel takeover in the late 90s. To make decent profits, the airport needs to be expanded and its yield's increased and that means more passengers and cargo throughput and more jobs in the local economy.

Merseyside did once own Liverpool Airport but, at that time it was a drain on the ratepayers and they were happy to hand it over to British Aerospace.

GM people own their airport, I wish Merseyside owned theirs and not some foreign bunch leeching any future profits to Vancouver

The long-term future will see profits exported. Fact
The long-term future will see the airport sold to an offshore fund?

This is why the UK if &ucked. People keep telling us that being foreign owned is fine and normal in a global economy. It is simply impossible for profits going to another country/off-shore tax haven to benefit the UK. It is absurd to think otherwise. The last 25 years have been the greatest scam/fraud/catastrophe in our history.

Still chin up just the £1.2trillion to pay off now!

[thecityofgold]

Originally Posted by Uomo Senza Nome

The long-term future will see profits exported. Fact
The long-term future will see the airport sold to an offshore fund?

This is why the UK if &ucked. People keep telling us that being foreign owned is fine and normal in a global economy. It is simply impossible for profits going to another country/off-shore tax haven to benefit the UK. It is absurd to think otherwise. The last 25 years have been the greatest scam/fraud/catastrophe in our history.

Still chin up just the £1.2trillion to pay off now!

Regardless of how much profit the airport does or doesn't make, a large number of people are employed by it and these people spend their money and pay taxes in the UK / Merseyside. The jobs created and sustained are much more important than (often none existent) profits to foreign owners.

In many industries, foreign firms have shown better management and organisational skills than their UK equivalent and these firms are therefore the better option for UK jobs. The car industry is the classic example. It's now doing fantastically well in this country under foreign ownership. Anybody remember the 70s? British Leyland anybody? How did that go?

The Japanese came to the UK and showed us how to make cars. That's benefited the UK without any doubt. Maybe the owners of Liverpool airport will demonstrate similar ability in the airport business.

[Uomo Senza Nome]

Come in and build a new car plant=fine
Come in and take-over existing business=suicide

There is a key difference.

LJL was and always will be here, any future profits will go to Canada to shareholders and not in re-investment. Some re-investment but not as much as if locally owned, for a variety of reasons. Which is why I don't want MAG to get Stansted because it dilutes the focus and drags profits elsewhere,

Simple business logic.

[livermouse]

Originally Posted by Uomo Senza Nome

Come in and build a new car plant=fine
Come in and take-over existing business=suicide

There is a key difference.

LJL was and always will be here, any future profits will go to Canada to shareholders and not in re-investment. Some re-investment but not as much as if locally owned, for a variety of reasons. Which is why I don't want MAG to get Stansted because it dilutes the focus and drags profits elsewhere,

Simple business logic.

God you have a strange sense of business, this is why the country is in the state it is.
The country no longer has the means to go it alone, we no-longer have an empire with ample natural resources,we need other countries if we are to survive

[Rollingstone Gather]

Originally Posted by thecityofgold

Regardless of how much profit the airport does or doesn't make, a large number of people are employed by it and these people spend their money and pay taxes in the UK / Merseyside. The jobs created and sustained are much more important than (often none existent) profits to foreign owners.

In many industries, foreign firms have shown better management and organisational skills than their UK equivalent and these firms are therefore the better option for UK jobs. The car industry is the classic example. It's now doing fantastically well in this country under foreign ownership. Anybody remember the 70s? British Leyland anybody? How did that go?

The Japanese came to the UK and showed us how to make cars. That's benefited the UK without any doubt. Maybe the owners of Liverpool airport will demonstrate similar ability in the airport business.

After the second world war, the Japanese used Demming's quality approach to improve the reliability of their cars/products thus meaning they were a success in the market place. They also used Demming's ideas on managing people, so that every person who worked on a car had more of a 'say' in how the product was made. This approach again improved quality.

This new quality driven and innovation approach was able to out-compete the hierarchical Anglo Saxon top down approach of managing organisations.

I believe Britain has the most innovative people, but most of it it shackled by the wrong type of organisational processes, cultures and structures.

[Uomo Senza Nome]

Originally Posted by livermouse

God you have a strange sense of business, this is why the country is in the state it is.
The country no longer has the means to go it alone, we no-longer have an empire with ample natural resources,we need other countries if we are to survive

You are of course joking? You are aware that Corporation Tax income has plummeted, not because of the economic downturn but because of globalisation over the last two decades and the use of largely UK owned tax havens by the worlds mega-companies. Ownership does not mean investment into the UK, it is a mirage, a one-off bounty for shareholders, who, as in the case of Peel, use any windfall to purchase more debt, withholding profit from taxation.

The UK is not saved by this ownership model, since there is no investment. Building a car plant, afresh, yes. Buying an existing plant and using UK owned tax-havens and/or the repatriation of profits is a catastrophe that you are living in now!

In the eighties ITN ran balance of trade figures as part of the news. They stopped when it was always red. 20 years later we owe £1trillion and rising. We have to sell more than we import and foreign ownership of LJL means we are loosing money on balance of trade for any profits leached back to Canada.

Jeez.

[livermouse]

Originally Posted by Uomo Senza Nome

You are of course joking? You are aware that Corporation Tax income has plummeted, not because of the economic downturn but because of globalisation over the last two decades and the use of largely UK owned tax havens by the worlds mega-companies. Ownership does not mean investment into the UK, it is a mirage, a one-off bounty for shareholders, who, as in the case of Peel, use any windfall to purchase more debt, withholding profit from taxation.

The UK is not saved by this ownership model, since there is no investment. Building a car plant, afresh, yes. Buying an existing plant and using UK owned tax-havens and/or the repatriation of profits is a catastrophe that you are living in now!

In the eighties ITN ran balance of trade figures as part of the news. They stopped when it was always red. 20 years later we owe £1trillion and rising. We have to sell more than we import and foreign ownership of LJL means we are loosing money on balance of trade for any profits leached back to Canada.

Jeez.

I give up you are blind to world trade lets leave it at that

[Rollingstone Gather]

Originally Posted by Uomo Senza Nome

You are of course joking? You are aware that Corporation Tax income has plummeted, not because of the economic downturn but because of globalisation over the last two decades and the use of largely UK owned tax havens by the worlds mega-companies. Ownership does not mean investment into the UK, it is a mirage, a one-off bounty for shareholders, who, as in the case of Peel, use any windfall to purchase more debt, withholding profit from taxation.

The UK is not saved by this ownership model, since there is no investment. Building a car plant, afresh, yes. Buying an existing plant and using UK owned tax-havens and/or the repatriation of profits is a catastrophe that you are living in now!

In the eighties ITN ran balance of trade figures as part of the news. They stopped when it was always red. 20 years later we owe £1trillion and rising. We have to sell more than we import and foreign ownership of LJL means we are loosing money on balance of trade for any profits leached back to Canada.

Jeez.

One small point, I dont think LJL actually makes significant profit. Much more likely is the economies of scale and leverage that Vantage can bring. For example they may be able to offer new innovative management processes from their other airports, or group buy commodities/products/services from supplies that all their airports needs.

These are the generally accepted claims for acquisitions (and of course they are entitled to bring profits back to the HQ). Howwver if they have increased profitability then they can grow their business (or potentially sell it on). I dont think they are following the 'corporate raider model' of loading lots of debt onto a cash cow business and extracting all the value - see Manchester United or Woolworths for example

[Uomo Senza Nome]

Originally Posted by Rollingstone Gather

One small point, I dont think LJL actually makes significant profit. Much more likely is the economies of scale and leverage that Vantage can bring. For example they may be able to offer new innovative management processes from their other airports, or group buy commodities/products/services from supplies that all their airports needs.

These are the generally accepted claims for acquisitions (and of course they are entitled to bring profits back to the HQ). Howwver if they have increased profitability then they can grow their business (or potentially sell it on). I dont think they are following the 'corporate raider model' of loading lots of debt onto a cash cow business and extracting all the value - see Manchester United or Woolworths for example

True, but it is the future: medium-long term that is the worry. No matter what success comes, we know for certain that profits will go to shareholders many miles away. It will defo have an impact on an airport growth/planning time-frame ie decade(s) to come.

It matters less now than in the future. Foreign owned is bad, always. Foreign investment in new plant/site/product is fine-we never had it to start with.

I think national infrastructure: airports/roads/trains/utilities should be 100% UK owned by law. The current situation is horrific.

[Rollingstone Gather]

Originally Posted by Uomo Senza Nome

True, but it is the future: medium-long term that is the worry. No matter what success comes, we know for certain that profits will go to shareholders many miles away. It will defo have an impact on an airport growth/planning time-frame ie decade(s) to come.

It matters less now than in the future. Foreign owned is bad, always. Foreign investment in new plant/site/product is fine-we never had it to start with.

I think national infrastructure: airports/roads/trains/utilities should be 100% UK owned by law. The current situation is horrific.

Not really - capital is global now, investors want returns anywhere in the world.

Shareholders do want a return, that why they invest their personal money in the first place. Naturally they don't want to lose their money so they choose the least risk for the highest return - or a level of risk/return that they are prepared for - no more no less. If you have a private pension you will have had to choose the level of risk for your pension investment - its those massive pension companies that are most likely to invest in large infrastructure projects, and inadvertently [yours if you have one] pension contributions are paying for it and getting a return for the next 10/20/30 years.

[Uomo Senza Nome]

Originally Posted by Rollingstone Gather

Not really - capital is global now, investors want returns anywhere in the world.

That has no benefit to UK plc.

Globalisation only works because of the, mainly UK owned, tax havens.

Otherwise, as an example, Vodafone, would have gibbed in £5bn instead of the £1bn that was fraudulently agreed by Mr Hartnet. Mr Hartnet who agreed the deal over meals and confirmed to parliament "I know nothing about accounting".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011...-deal-vodafone


With regret the fraud against us over the last 20 years by "globalisation" has destroyed the western economies. It is terrifying in it's scale. Meetings in Davos anyone?

[Duh!]

Originally Posted by thecityofgold

In many industries, foreign firms have shown better management and organisational skills than their UK equivalent and these firms are therefore the better option for UK jobs. The car industry is the classic example. It's now doing fantastically well in this country under foreign ownership. Anybody remember the 70s? British Leyland anybody? How did that go?

British management blamed unions for their ineptitude. Their mouthpiece, the CBI, got the media on their side. Union action was symptom not a cause. The British hierarchical system was partly to blame.

This was in the days of the UK's post-war Socialist Terror when everybody was properly housed and in work waiting in eager anticipation for liberation by Margaret Thatcher who gave us four million unemployed, off-shoring of manufacturing, little control of the financial sector, cheap as chips labour and the ensuing collapse of the capitalist banking system.

Yep! They couldn't wait for it.

[iamafreeman]

Originally Posted by Duh!

British management blamed unions for their ineptitude. Their mouthpiece, the CBI, got the media on their side. Union action was symptom not a cause. The British hierarchical system was partly to blame.

This was in the days of the UK's post-war Socialist Terror when everybody was properly housed and in work waiting in eager anticipation for liberation by Margaret Thatcher who gave us four million unemployed, off-shoring of manufacturing, little control of the financial sector, cheap as chips labour and the ensuing collapse of the capitalist banking system.

Yep! They couldn't wait for it.

Problem was management was incompetent and weak and the workforce, in many cases, stupid - remember Red Robbo for example?

Insofar as cars were concerned British makers were either bbuilding poor quality cars people didn't want or had missed crucial opportunities
to cash in on great ideas.

I recall the first time I rode in a Datsun Cherry in the 70s it was a revelation compared to small British built cars.

At the time I was into motorbikes and there too the Japs built reliable clean bikes that didn't drip oil everywhere and were well marketed.

We had to change the entire mentally of British industry and industrial relations somehow and Thatcher started the ball rolling. The relationship now in much of industry is far more like the Japanese model even in entirely British companies.

I'm no lover of Thatcher but the reality is in a revolution some necessary but unpleasant things happen.

[Duh!]

Originally Posted by iamafreeman

We had to change the entire mentally of British industry and industrial relations somehow and Thatcher started the ball rolling.

Yep, by offshoreing it to China.

I'm no lover of Thatcher but the reality is in a revolution some necessary but unpleasant things happen.

Yes, like, poverty, deprivation, mass homelessness, mass foreclosures, mass unemployment, record debt public & personal and even the Tory PM is asking people to rent out rooms because after 2 years they haven't started addressing the chronic housing shortage.

Yes, we must be thankful for this Thatcher inspired revolution. They couldn't wait for this mass poverty in the 1970s. Being properly housed and in work must have been so boring for them.

[Uomo Senza Nome]

Done one for Manchester so why not for you guys:

Which is quite probably the most stupendous growth spurt seen since Lurch popped out?


Freaks