Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at 15:19:19 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:

Doesn't this simply show that "Virgin" airlines is just Delta (was
Singapore Airlines) with a subsidiary that happens to pay a lot for an
iconic branding. Just like Virgin Media is NTL paying slightly less for the same.

Not quite the same

I'm quite sure it's much more "the same" than the picture you paint (that
picture being what they want us to believe).

The key point is that an EU airline has to be majority owned and seen to be
controlled by EU entities. There's no such rule for cable TV or mobile
phone companies, and Virgin Media is a US-owned and controlled company. So
even if Branson was happy to sell most of his 51% of VS to Delta (which he
might well be), he couldn't. He could, of course, sell it to Air
France-KLM, and maybe that will happen.

wrote:
In article , (Mizter T) wrote:

*Subject:* As predicted, Boris Island sunk
*From:* Mizter T
*Date:* Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:27:41 +0100

On 03/09/2014 14:53, Recliner wrote:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:40:12 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:

On 02/09/2014 07:57, Recliner wrote:
To no-ones's surprise, Boris Island hasn't made the airport
expansion short
list. Indeed, it's only pressure from Boris that left it on the
list for so
long at all. So what remains are three options, two for Heathrow
expansion,
and one for Gatwick. The business vote strongly favours Heathrow,
but
Gatwick is easier politically. The decision is due after the
election, and
I wonder which will win?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29026484


Gatwick. Eventually.

So why all the procrastination then? The reason they keep deferring
the decision is that Heathrow is the only one that makes economic
sense, but it's politically very difficult. The only safe time to
choose it is right after an election.


It's political dynamite! The parties policies on the airports
question going into the general election could be interesting - that
said, they might well just say 'we'll follow the recommendations of
the Airports Commission', when said recommendations (when they
arrive) aren't likely to offer such an easy get out of jail free
card. Individual candidates might do their own thing anyway.

My reckoning is that Heathrow expansion will ultimately just be too
politically toxic a path to take (remember the widespread pre-2010
opposition).

If a decision was made to expand Heathrow, I wouldn't necessarily
consider that the end of the story.

A bit like student tuition fees then? Kicked into the long grass by the
Labour government with a muddled implementation by the coalition.

I reckon a Labour government would expand Heathrow because they don't have
enough marginal seats at stake. The Tories have some big troublemakers if
they try to do the same. Didn't Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) threaten to
resign and cause a byelection? And Justine Greening (Putney) blocked it
while Transport Secretary and got moved for her pains.

Yes, I think you're right. Ironically, therefore, the business lobby that
wants Heathrow expansion might actually prefer a Labour victory next year,
as that would also make it more likely that we stay in the EU.

On 2014-09-03 17:02:56 +0000, Recliner said:

Given half a chance, it probably would. I think part of a possible
deal for a third runway is that they don't normally run at more than,
say, 90% capacity, rather than the current 99%.

That would make sense.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2014-09-03 19:46:41 +0000, Roland Perry said:

Doesn't this simply show that "Virgin" airlines is just Delta (was
Singapore Airlines) with a subsidiary that happens to pay a lot for an
iconic branding. Just like Virgin Media is NTL paying slightly less for
the same.

I would say "and Virgin Trains is just Stagecoach", but the style of
the operation as a whole, not just the branding, is very different to
EMT.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

Neil Williams wrote:
On 2014-09-03 19:46:41 +0000, Roland Perry said:

Doesn't this simply show that "Virgin" airlines is just Delta (was
Singapore Airlines) with a subsidiary that happens to pay a lot for an
iconic branding. Just like Virgin Media is NTL paying slightly less for the same.

I would say "and Virgin Trains is just Stagecoach", but the style of the
operation as a whole, not just the branding, is very different to EMT.

Yes, Virgin Trains, like Virgin Atlantic, is 51% Virgin, so Stagecoach is
definitely the minority partner. But if Virgin-Stagecoach wins the EC
franchise, that will be essentially Stagecoach (90%) with Virgin branding.

On 2014-09-03 22:14:02 +0000, Recliner said:

Yes, Virgin Trains, like Virgin Atlantic, is 51% Virgin, so Stagecoach is
definitely the minority partner. But if Virgin-Stagecoach wins the EC
franchise, that will be essentially Stagecoach (90%) with Virgin branding.

If they do it will be interesting to see the differences, if any,
noticeable between the two different management and ownership changes
of what will no doubt also be known as "Virgin Trains".

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 16:22:06 on Wed, 3
Sep 2014, Neil Williams remarked:
Are you saying that the branding I mentioned is already what the
general public understands to be the case?

Branding by the airport? Probably not. But it is certainly well
understood that, essentially, you go to Stansted to fly Ryanair (or
to a much lesser extent easyJet) to Europe.

It's certainly been increasingly dominated by Ryanair, who no doubt
make lots of money flying people back and forth to one horse towns in
Eastern Europe.

I think Krakow is a bit more than that. I found out tonight my daughter is
flying there from Stansted next month.

But this doesn't make it a useful set of routes for most of us, nor
the airline we'd choose to use on business (they aren't the only one,
people using holiday charters could run into the same problem).

That was my problem. I don't think she's flying back there because she's
coming back via Berlin.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
In article , (Mizter
T) wrote:

On 03/09/2014 14:53, Recliner wrote:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:40:12 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:

On 02/09/2014 07:57, Recliner wrote:
To no-ones's surprise, Boris Island hasn't made the airport
expansion short list. Indeed, it's only pressure from Boris that
left it on the list for so long at all. So what remains are three
options, two for Heathrow expansion, and one for Gatwick. The
business vote strongly favours Heathrow, but Gatwick is easier
politically. The decision is due after the election, and I wonder
which will win? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29026484

Gatwick. Eventually.

So why all the procrastination then? The reason they keep deferring
the decision is that Heathrow is the only one that makes economic
sense, but it's politically very difficult. The only safe time to
choose it is right after an election.

It's political dynamite! The parties policies on the airports
question going into the general election could be interesting - that
said, they might well just say 'we'll follow the recommendations of
the Airports Commission', when said recommendations (when they
arrive) aren't likely to offer such an easy get out of jail free
card. Individual candidates might do their own thing anyway.

My reckoning is that Heathrow expansion will ultimately just be too
politically toxic a path to take (remember the widespread pre-2010
opposition).

If a decision was made to expand Heathrow, I wouldn't necessarily
consider that the end of the story.

A bit like student tuition fees then? Kicked into the long grass by
the Labour government with a muddled implementation by the
coalition.

I reckon a Labour government would expand Heathrow because they
don't have enough marginal seats at stake. The Tories have some big
troublemakers if they try to do the same. Didn't Zac Goldsmith
(Richmond Park) threaten to resign and cause a byelection? And
Justine Greening (Putney) blocked it while Transport Secretary and
got moved for her pains.

Yes, I think you're right. Ironically, therefore, the business lobby that
wants Heathrow expansion might actually prefer a Labour victory next year,
as that would also make it more likely that we stay in the EU.

YMTTICPC! That's also a whole lot more complicated. To get anywhere near
winning next year, the Tory party has to find a way of not tearing itself
apart over the EU, not helped by Mr Carswell.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message

, at 15:54:49 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Recliner
remarked:
Doesn't this simply show that "Virgin" airlines is just Delta (was
Singapore Airlines) with a subsidiary that happens to pay a lot for an
iconic branding. Just like Virgin Media is NTL paying slightly less for the same.

Not quite the same

I'm quite sure it's much more "the same" than the picture you paint (that
picture being what they want us to believe).

The key point is that an EU airline has to be majority owned and seen to be
controlled by EU entities. There's no such rule for cable TV or mobile
phone companies, and Virgin Media is a US-owned and controlled company. So
even if Branson was happy to sell most of his 51% of VS to Delta (which he
might well be), he couldn't. He could, of course, sell it to Air
France-KLM, and maybe that will happen.

The percentage shareholding is not inextricably linked to who makes
decisions about which routes to operate on a day to day basis.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 02:24:12PM +0000, d wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
wrote:
If we see air travel as a necessity, even if that is an evil necessity,
Do we?
Yes. Taking society as a whole, yes we do. That you personally don't
isn't of any importance.
So you think if a survey was done asking whether air travel was a necessity
like food or water or public transport you think most people would answer
yes?

Of course not. It is, however, a necessity like private ownership of
cars and fast internet connections. That is, it is something that people
want to have available, and they want it enough that they get very
****ed off if it's not available.

There are different levels of needs.

--
David Cantrell | Pope | First Church of the Symmetrical Internet

engineer: n. one who, regardless of how much effort he puts in
to a job, will never satisfy either the suits or the scientists