In message , at 11:59:12
on Fri, 19 Mar 2010, David Cantrell remarked:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 04:52:10PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

I'm not sure that this vendetta against domestic flights is all that
productive. You might just as well bash away at any other easily
describable modal shift: eg get people to abandon any car that costs
more than £50k, in favour of the train.

It would free up valuable slots at the airports for the sort of flights
that rail can't realistically replace, such as to Ireland, Scandinavia,
northern Germany etc.

Freeing up the slots is useful, but there comes a point of diminishing
returns where some other carrot is required. I've suggested that this
carrot should be making sure fares don't encourage the use of short
feeder flights over direct flights.

It also has the "benefit" of pushing people away from a mode of
transport whose fuel isn't taxed to one where it is.

Airline travel is taxed quite high enough, thanks. About half the
(cheapest economy) fare to the USA is tax.

*I'm* in favour of high-speed rail because trains are far more civilised
than planes these days, more comfortable, more convenient, faster ...

I've travelled first class (or whatever it's called) on domestic
flights. Second class train seats are more comfortable and cheaper.
FIRST class train tickets are also cheaper.

That all depends on the specific train and plane. I was shocked what a
rattly rough-riding old rust bucket was provided for the Stansted
Express when I used it earlier this week. And some short haul business
class is very civilised (eg hops to Paris/Amsterdam from Birmingham).
2+2 seating rather than 3+3, free lounge, quite acceptable food/drink on
plane.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 02:06:56PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:59:12
on Fri, 19 Mar 2010, David Cantrell remarked:
I've travelled first class (or whatever it's called) on domestic
flights. Second class train seats are more comfortable and cheaper.
FIRST class train tickets are also cheaper.
That all depends on the specific train and plane. I was shocked what a
rattly rough-riding old rust bucket was provided for the Stansted
Express when I used it earlier this week.

The Stansted "Express" is just a local commuter train with a fancy name.
Does it even *have* first class?

And some short haul business
class is very civilised (eg hops to Paris/Amsterdam from Birmingham).
2+2 seating rather than 3+3, free lounge, quite acceptable food/drink on
plane.

You speak of the "lounge" as if it were a benefit, but in reality it's
just a way of papering over the hideousness that is having to turn up at
the airport six weeks before flying so there's time to strip-search
everyone and post the videos to Youtube.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

On 22/03/2010 14:26, David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 02:06:56PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In o.uk, at 11:59:12
on Fri, 19 Mar 2010, David remarked:
I've travelled first class (or whatever it's called) on domestic
flights. Second class train seats are more comfortable and cheaper.
FIRST class train tickets are also cheaper.
That all depends on the specific train and plane. I was shocked what a
rattly rough-riding old rust bucket was provided for the Stansted
Express when I used it earlier this week.

The Stansted "Express" is just a local commuter train with a fancy name.
Does it even *have* first class?


It does.

In message , at 14:26:36
on Mon, 22 Mar 2010, David Cantrell remarked:
And some short haul business
class is very civilised (eg hops to Paris/Amsterdam from Birmingham).
2+2 seating rather than 3+3, free lounge, quite acceptable food/drink on
plane.

You speak of the "lounge" as if it were a benefit,

The airline lounges at Birmingham are comfortable places to wait (with
free drinks and snacks).

but in reality it's just a way of papering over the hideousness that is
having to turn up at the airport six weeks before flying

If you are flying FC you get a "Fast Track" pass for security and your
own check-in desk. At Birmingham there's absolutely no need to be there
for FC more than an hour before departure. And even flying economy, the
only time I've ever encountered a problem queue there was in the week or
two after the "liquids ban" was originally brought in (and the
equivalent queue at Gatwick was truly awesome).

so there's time to strip-search everyone and post the videos to
Youtube.

This is getting a bit off topic.
--
Roland Perry

On Mar 22, 3:26*pm, David Cantrell wrote:

You speak of the "lounge" as if it were a benefit, but in reality it's
just a way of papering over the hideousness that is having to turn up at
the airport six weeks before flying so there's time to strip-search
everyone and post the videos to Youtube.

Twaddle. One hour beforehand is plenty of time for a short-haul
flight with hand luggage[1] from any civilised[2] airport.

[1] Actually, it's plenty at Luton with checked luggage as well. But
that depends on the airline.

[2] Heathrow and Gatwick are, of course, excluded from this by
default.

Neil

"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 04:52:10PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

I'm not sure that this vendetta against domestic flights is all that
productive. You might just as well bash away at any other easily
describable modal shift: eg get people to abandon any car that costs
more than £50k, in favour of the train.

It would free up valuable slots at the airports for the sort of
flights that rail can't realistically replace, such as to Ireland,
Scandinavia, northern Germany etc.

It also has the "benefit" of pushing people away from a mode of
transport whose fuel isn't taxed to one where it is.

*I'm* in favour of high-speed rail because trains are far more
civilised than planes these days, more comfortable, more convenient,
faster ...

I've travelled first class (or whatever it's called) on domestic
flights. Second class train seats are more comfortable and cheaper.
FIRST class train tickets are also cheaper.

I don't think any airline offers first class on UK domestic flights. In
the US, first class domestic seats are much wider than even first class
train seats on UK trains, and of course some food and unlimited drink is
usally included.

David Cantrell wrote:

On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 02:14:07PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

The other day I posted a list of ten separate destinations served in a
couple of hours from the much smaller airport, East Midlands.

You might delight everyone with 2tph to Paris, but what of the dozens of
other places they might want to be going instead?

Paris is an excellent place to change trains. But there's very little
point in running direct services from London to cities all over Europe -
the unavoidable constraint that high speed trains *must* pass through
Kent and the Channel Tunnel means that the only way to do that would be
to run lots of half-empty trains to lots of places, with none (or
perhaps just one) of them getting a frequent service.

How you looked at the figures for air travel? During August UK - rest of the
EU amounts to 25 Eurostar trains per hour, 24 hours a day.


Likewise, it's more
efficient to go from London to Copenhagen, Berlin, Warsaw, Prague,
Geneva, Pisa and Barcelona via a central hub: Paris.

Their is easily enough demand for a daily sleeper service, and distance is
long enough.

And consequently,
it's more efficient to offer service from Norwich or Newcastle to Prague
or Pisa via two hubs: London and Paris.

If the railways are to make a major dent in air travel, London and Paris
won't have enough capacity. LGV Nord-Europe might lack capacity for that.

Of course I suspect a restriction on air travel will be needed.

In message , at 00:36:44
on Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Timothy Baldwin
remarked:
How you looked at the figures for air travel? During August UK - rest of the
EU amounts to 25 Eurostar trains per hour, 24 hours a day.

Can you point us at the figures - I'd like to see how much is the to
mainland, for example, (rather than various holiday islands) and how
much is to places like Portugal and Greece, which aren't currently
viable rail destinations from UK.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:36:44 +0100, Timothy Baldwin
wrote:

Of course I suspect a restriction on air travel will be needed.

"We'll only get people to choose an inferior, slower, expensive option
by restricting the superior, faster, cheaper option"?

I'm all in favour of rail, but air travel is a more effective way (for
the passenger) to cover long distances. You may be right in a way,
but restricting air travel would basically be restricting travel in
general, and that's something we should think very carefully about
rather than slipping it in as "of course".

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On Apr 6, 10:09*am, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:36:44 +0100, Timothy Baldwin
wrote:
Of course I suspect a restriction on air travel will be needed.

"We'll only get people to choose an inferior, slower, expensive option
by restricting the superior, faster, cheaper option"?

I'm all in favour of rail, but air travel is a more effective way (for
the passenger) to cover long distances. *You may be right in a way,
but restricting air travel would basically be restricting travel in
general, and that's something we should think very carefully about
rather than slipping it in as "of course".

Air travel is a rather effective way of polluting the atmosphere as
well of course, though many other things do that as well quite
prodigiously. But given that climate change has now been cancelled (as
per the Daily Mail et al after the UEA email leaks) or the planet is
f**ked anyhow (Lovelock), I suppose that can be discounted.