As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 14:16:48 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 05/09/2014 09:21, d wrote:

On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 21:18:00 +0100
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2014-09-04 16:33:29 +0000, d said:

When if ever there are street protests and riots about people not being able
to book a last minute break to Ayia Napa for a hundred quid I might change
my mind. But somehow I don't see that happening.

People aren't taking those kinds of holiday from Heathrow. They're
going with the orange and blue teams from Luton, Stansted and Gatwick,
and all three have spare capacity already. So Heathrow expansion has
nothing to do with cheap holidays in the sun (or cheap anything).

That was in response to it being suggested that flying is a necessity.
It might be for the military and a few other assorted professions, but for
the average person in the street it is not and with video conferencing
now pretty good neither is it for business a lot of the time.
Anyway , plenty of flights to north america leave from heathrow no doubt with
a lot of tourists on board.

The obvious innocent retort would be to ask whereabouts in the USA Ayia
Napa is.

But you raise an interesting point.

I can travel to Europe by train or by car. NL is fairly cheap by car
(part of the cheapness being avoidance of the need to hire a car
locally), but Italy is expensive in time and in fuel, tolls, overnight
stay en-route, etc.

OTOH, how do I get to the USA or Canada (let's not even mention the
Antipodes) except by flying?

Or is it your thesis that because you don't accept that I need to go to
those places (on your own definition of "need"), nothing should be done
which might facilitate my getting there?

I think that people like Boltar, with a fear of flying, rationalise it
by asserting that flying is a bad idea for everyone. That way, they
don't feel they're losing out so much.

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

On 05/09/2014 15:26, Recliner wrote:
[...]
I think that people like Boltar, with a fear of flying, rationalise it
by asserting that flying is a bad idea for everyone. That way, they
don't feel they're losing out so much.

It's hardly a wondrous gift for the environment though.

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:28:11 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:


On 05/09/2014 15:26, Recliner wrote:
[...]
I think that people like Boltar, with a fear of flying, rationalise it
by asserting that flying is a bad idea for everyone. That way, they
don't feel they're losing out so much.

It's hardly a wondrous gift for the environment though.

True, but making UK passengers fly via a hub in another city doesn't
improve matters. Unless we all go back to travelling by sea, which
might have to happen one day in the distant future, people are going
to fly anyway.

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

On 05/09/2014 15:38, Recliner wrote:

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:28:11 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:

On 05/09/2014 15:26, Recliner wrote:
[...]
I think that people like Boltar, with a fear of flying, rationalise it
by asserting that flying is a bad idea for everyone. That way, they
don't feel they're losing out so much.

It's hardly a wondrous gift for the environment though.

True, but making UK passengers fly via a hub in another city doesn't
improve matters.

Arguably depends on the efficiencies - aggregating lots of passengers
through hubs in say the middle east or Turkey might be more efficient
for many journeys.

[...] Unless we all go back to travelling by sea, which
might have to happen one day in the distant future, people are going
to fly anyway.

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:52:47 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:


On 05/09/2014 15:38, Recliner wrote:

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:28:11 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:

On 05/09/2014 15:26, Recliner wrote:
[...]
I think that people like Boltar, with a fear of flying, rationalise it
by asserting that flying is a bad idea for everyone. That way, they
don't feel they're losing out so much.

It's hardly a wondrous gift for the environment though.

True, but making UK passengers fly via a hub in another city doesn't
improve matters.

Arguably depends on the efficiencies - aggregating lots of passengers
through hubs in say the middle east or Turkey might be more efficient
for many journeys.

Unless the planes doing that route are significantly more efficient
(which would be true if the direct flight is on, say, an old 767 and
the indirect hub flight is on a large modern plane such as a 777-300ER
or 380), the indirect route is going to be less efficient than a
direct route. But it might have other advantages, such as being
available at least daily, whereas a thin direct route might only have
one or two flights a week.

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

On 2014-09-05 14:52:47 +0000, Mizter T said:

Arguably depends on the efficiencies - aggregating lots of passengers
through hubs in say the middle east or Turkey might be more efficient
for many journeys.

Which probably depends if one A380 is less polluting than two
777-300ERs, which might not be the case given that the former uses 4
engines and the latter 2.

There's arguably a lot more inefficiency on shorthaul.

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

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

Neil Williams wrote:
On 2014-09-05 14:52:47 +0000, Mizter T said:

Arguably depends on the efficiencies - aggregating lots of passengers
through hubs in say the middle east or Turkey might be more efficient for many journeys.

Which probably depends if one A380 is less polluting than two 777-300ERs,
which might not be the case given that the former uses 4 engines and the latter 2.

There's arguably a lot more inefficiency on shorthaul.

The 77W and 38W are both clean and efficient, the latter slightly better
than the former. One single 388 would be much cleaner than two 77Ws. But,
yes, shorthaul is certainly much less efficient.

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 14:16:48 +0100
JNugent wrote:
OTOH, how do I get to the USA or Canada (let's not even mention the
Antipodes) except by flying?

Or is it your thesis that because you don't accept that I need to go to
those places (on your own definition of "need"), nothing should be done
which might facilitate my getting there?

Well personally I couldn't care less if you could get there or not. But what
I'm saying is there should be a limit on flights. If that means people can't
go to New York or Ibiza or wherever the next day then thats just too bad.
Only children expect to get what they want straight away. Society is
infantilised enough already.

--
Spud

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:26:20 +0100
Recliner wrote:
I think that people like Boltar, with a fear of flying, rationalise it

Who said anything about a fear of flying? Though it is the most miserable and
unpleasent way to travel long distance this side of a NEx bus.

by asserting that flying is a bad idea for everyone. That way, they
don't feel they're losing out so much.

Its a bad idea for the enviroment.

--
Spud

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:26:20 +0100
Recliner wrote:
I think that people like Boltar, with a fear of flying, rationalise it

Who said anything about a fear of flying? Though it is the most miserable and
unpleasent way to travel long distance this side of a NEx bus.

by asserting that flying is a bad idea for everyone. That way, they
don't feel they're losing out so much.

Its a bad idea for the enviroment.

Sure, and if you weren't afraid of flying, you'd be doing it anyway, just
as you show off about always having gas guzzling cars.