|
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 05/09/2014 14:16, JNugent wrote:
OTOH, how do I get to the USA or Canada (let's not even mention the Antipodes) except by flying? http://www.cunard.co.uk/cruise-ships/queen-mary-2/ -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 05/09/2014 14:16, JNugent wrote: OTOH, how do I get to the USA or Canada (let's not even mention the Antipodes) except by flying? http://www.cunard.co.uk/cruise-ships/queen-mary-2/ This is more my kind of cruise liner (admittedly not very practical as a way of getting to New York in a hurry, and it doesn't have a 3D or any other kind of cinema, nor a shopping mall, swimming pool, casino, theatre, etc): https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...57646248350410 I took this pic in the Minch. Here's another, with a sliver of railway relevance, taken off Thurso: https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...57647048741926 |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
|
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 2014-09-05 19:42:21 +0000, Arthur Figgis said:
On 05/09/2014 14:16, JNugent wrote: OTOH, how do I get to the USA or Canada (let's not even mention the Antipodes) except by flying? http://www.cunard.co.uk/cruise-ships/queen-mary-2/ Though ships are not spectacularly environmentally friendly, either. And flying is no worse than if each passenger had driven an average family car, though obviously that isn't an overly practical way of crossing the Atlantic. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2014-09-05 19:07:44 +0000, d said: 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. Some of us happen to disagree. I personally quite enjoy it. Me too, but then, unlike Boltar, I'm not afraid of flying. I've also noticed that most people with that fear dress it up in other ways, just as he does. Then, if they go on a fear of flying course, they suddenly change, and are quite happy to fly, forgetting all their previous reasons for not doing so. People I've met with this fear sometimes developed it after a bad flight, while others are just afraid of not being in control when the plane manoeuvres in the sky. When they do fly, they avoid window seats (I love them) and some also have a fear of heights. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2014-09-05 19:42:21 +0000, Arthur Figgis said: On 05/09/2014 14:16, JNugent wrote: OTOH, how do I get to the USA or Canada (let's not even mention the Antipodes) except by flying? http://www.cunard.co.uk/cruise-ships/queen-mary-2/ Though ships are not spectacularly environmentally friendly, either. And flying is no worse than if each passenger had driven an average family car, though obviously that isn't an overly practical way of crossing the Atlantic. Ships have traditionally burnt cheap, dirty bunker fuel, but the rules have been tightened up at US and EU ports, so they now have to buy more expensive, but cleaner fuel. But that's not true everywhere, so ships in those areas emit dirty black smoke. Cruise liners also travel much more slowly than the old express ocean liners, which keeps down the pollution, though that's not why they do it. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 2014-09-05 22:31:16 +0000, Recliner said:
People I've met with this fear sometimes developed it after a bad flight, while others are just afraid of not being in control when the plane manoeuvres in the sky. When they do fly, they avoid window seats (I love them) and some also have a fear of heights. Exit row window is my preference (exit row for the legroom, window for looking out!) For tomorrow's flight to Milan I have 11A - spot on. BA from T5 as well, should be nice and civilised. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2014-09-05 22:31:16 +0000, Recliner said: People I've met with this fear sometimes developed it after a bad flight, while others are just afraid of not being in control when the plane manoeuvres in the sky. When they do fly, they avoid window seats (I love them) and some also have a fear of heights. Exit row window is my preference (exit row for the legroom, window for looking out!) For tomorrow's flight to Milan I have 11A - spot on. BA from T5 as well, should be nice and civilised. Yes, I really like T5 and BA. Enjoy your flight! |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 17:31:16 -0500, Recliner wrote: People I've met with this fear sometimes developed it after a bad flight, while others are just afraid of not being in control when the plane manoeuvres in the sky. When they do fly, they avoid window seats (I love them) and some also have a fear of heights. Reminds me of my first flight. I'd not given it a second thought despite never having flown. I was sat next to a young woman who was repeatedly fiddling with a bracelet. She obviously saw me looking at what she was doing and said it was some sort of "calming" device as she didn't like flying. I probably didn't help by saying "I've never flown and have no idea whether I am scared or not". I'm not good with heights but have no issue with looking out of an aeroplane even when coming in to land. I also enjoy take off as you hurtle down the runway wondering if several tons of plane, people and cargo can make it off the ground. ;-) The thing that gets me is taking off in a propeller plane. They always seem to be slow to get off the ground, making me wonder if it'll ever take off, but then rise up anyway. They often have nice big windows, too. Perhaps my hairiest flight was in a small single-engined sight-seeing plane over the Grand Canyon, where I occupied the co-pilot's seat. The pilot could see me taking pics, so he went out of his way to bank steeply as we manoeuvred over the Canyon, so I got the best possible shots. The rising air was bumpy, so I felt the need to hang on, but not to any of the moving dual controls in front of me. It was one of those exhilarating flights which you simultaneously want to go on forever, and to end immediately. A more amusing flight was taking off from Aberdeen's short runway. The pilot has to go for maximum thrust, and an ice bucket came loose in the forward galley as we banked away. The ice cubes slid smoothly right down the full length of the 757, staying perfectly in the centre, demonstrating how well balanced a plane is, with zero cant deficiency. The loneliest flight is from Santiago to Easter Island, the world's most isolated airport. The entire route is over the South Pacific, with nothing at all underneath and no diversion airports. Consequently, no more than one plane at a time can be en route to it, lest one have a bad landing and block the single runway. I've no idea where the nearest railway station is, but it's certainly thousands of miles away. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
|
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 19:02:56 -0500 Recliner wrote :
The thing that gets me is taking off in a propeller plane. They always seem to be slow to get off the ground, making me wonder if it'll ever take off, but then rise up anyway. They often have nice big windows, too. Perhaps my hairiest flight was in a small single-engined sight-seeing plane over the Grand Canyon, where I occupied the co-pilot's seat. The pilot could see me taking pics, so he went out of his way to bank steeply as we manoeuvred over the Canyon, so I got the best possible shots. The rising air was bumpy, so I felt the need to hang on, but not to any of the moving dual controls in front of me. It was one of those exhilarating flights which you simultaneously want to go on forever, and to end immediately. I did the same, save that it was a four seater with two of us tourists. The other guy had a video camera so I gallantly let him have the back seat where he could film from either side and I took the co-pilot's seat. No sooner had we taken off than I started remembering those films where the pilot has a heart attack and someone who has never flown a plane before has to take the controls .... No need to worry though: he was an off duty airline pilot making some extra money. -- Tony B |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 2014-09-05 23:24:06 +0000, Recliner said:
Yes, I really like T5 and BA. Enjoy your flight! Indeed, T5 has taken Heathrow off my avoid list. I hope the new terminal is as good, I hear plenty to suggest it is. So just T4 to avoid now. Cheers. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 11:05:44 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote: On 2014-09-05 23:24:06 +0000, Recliner said: Yes, I really like T5 and BA. Enjoy your flight! Indeed, T5 has taken Heathrow off my avoid list. I hope the new terminal is as good, I hear plenty to suggest it is. So just T4 to avoid now. Yes, T4 is really awful now, much worse than when it was BA's main terminal. Finding the right executive lounge is hard, too. I flew Sri Lankan earlier this year, and they don't have their own lounge, but share the Gulf Air lounge. Needless to say, the breakfast on offer missed out some of the usual components, and though booze was available, you couldn't help yourself. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 06/09/2014 11:05, Neil Williams wrote: On 2014-09-05 23:24:06 +0000, Recliner said: Yes, I really like T5 and BA. Enjoy your flight! Indeed, T5 has taken Heathrow off my avoid list. I hope the new terminal is as good, I hear plenty to suggest it is. So just T4 to avoid now. Blimey, you've changed your tune pretty radically! Not so long ago you seemed to consider Heathrow as one of the gates of hell. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 03/09/2014 00:23, Recliner wrote: wrote: [...] They aren't being very rational then. The time to Gatwick from central London is as good as that to Heathrow, especially if you don't pay the extortionate fares on Heathrow Express. Many Heathrow passengers come from locations other than Central London. I live in West London, and Heathrow is far more convenient than any other airport. Gatwick is only good for people near Victoria or Thameslink stations. Ever heard of a small station called Clapham Junction? Or noticed all those railway lines in south London that can get one to East Croydon? etc etc... |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 02/09/2014 12:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:50:51 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Someone Somewhere remarked: I haven't looked at the schedules but I can well believe every London airport has several flights a day to particular european destinations that could easily be consolidated into less "movements" in larger, more efficient, planes if that were the case. Heathrow/Gatwick don't have flights to very many European destinations. That market is dominated by low-cost airlines from other airports. I did say "particular" and I did say "every London airport" not just Gatwick and Heathrow. I can imagine that flights to Amsterdam for example are pretty much available from every London airport (not counting piddling ones like Southend) |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
wrote in message ... 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. As someone who: Rarely has a car, usually travelling by bus/train/walk/bike Keeps the thermostat down low so as not to over heat the house always takes my own reusable bags to the supermarket Puts everything possible in the recycling bag never disposes of material things until they have worn out and never in my life have I thrown away a food item because I let it get out of date/go stale I have a problem with someone else deciding what particular things I have to do to make my contribution to saving the planet tim |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 02/09/2014 12:08, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:50:51 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Someone Somewhere remarked: I haven't looked at the schedules but I can well believe every London airport has several flights a day to particular european destinations that could easily be consolidated into less "movements" in larger, more efficient, planes if that were the case. Heathrow/Gatwick don't have flights to very many European destinations. That market is dominated by low-cost airlines from other airports. I did say "particular" and I did say "every London airport" not just Gatwick and Heathrow. I can imagine that flights to Amsterdam for example are pretty much available from every London airport (not counting piddling ones like Southend) Why not count Southend? easyJet has direct SEN-AMS flights. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 06/09/2014 16:46, Recliner wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote: On 02/09/2014 12:08, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:50:51 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Someone Somewhere remarked: I haven't looked at the schedules but I can well believe every London airport has several flights a day to particular european destinations that could easily be consolidated into less "movements" in larger, more efficient, planes if that were the case. Heathrow/Gatwick don't have flights to very many European destinations. That market is dominated by low-cost airlines from other airports. I did say "particular" and I did say "every London airport" not just Gatwick and Heathrow. I can imagine that flights to Amsterdam for example are pretty much available from every London airport (not counting piddling ones like Southend) Why not count Southend? easyJet has direct SEN-AMS flights. Ok - didn't realise that and when I was last there didn't notice them. Happy to include it then! |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
|
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 06/09/2014 16:37, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 02/09/2014 12:08, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:50:51 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Someone Somewhere remarked: I haven't looked at the schedules but I can well believe every London airport has several flights a day to particular european destinations that could easily be consolidated into less "movements" in larger, more efficient, planes if that were the case. Heathrow/Gatwick don't have flights to very many European destinations. That market is dominated by low-cost airlines from other airports. I did say "particular" and I did say "every London airport" not just Gatwick and Heathrow. I can imagine that flights to Amsterdam for example are pretty much available from every London airport (not counting piddling ones like Southend) There *are* routes to Amsterdam from Southend, and from City Airport. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 14:36:44 -0500
Recliner wrote: 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. Oh dear. Is this really the best you can do? I guess because I'm not a great fan of the M25 I'm afraid of cars too, right? -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 17:31:16 -0500
Recliner wrote: Neil Williams wrote: On 2014-09-05 19:07:44 +0000, d said: 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. Some of us happen to disagree. I personally quite enjoy it. Me too, but then, unlike Boltar, I'm not afraid of flying. I've also noticed that most people with that fear dress it up in other ways, just as he does. Then, if they go on a fear of flying course, they suddenly change, and are quite happy to fly, forgetting all their previous reasons for not doing so. People I've met with this fear sometimes developed it after a bad flight, while others are just afraid of not being in control when the plane manoeuvres in the sky. When they do fly, they avoid window seats (I love them) and some also have a fear of heights. Poor old recliner. The old straw man arguments are the best eh? -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 01:14:39 +0100
JNugent wrote: On 05/09/2014 20:05, d wrote: But what I'm saying is there should be a limit on flights. Why? Are you unable to read or just stupid? Try and figure it out from previous posts. If that means people can't go to New York or Ibiza or wherever the next day then thats just too bad. The market takes care of that. An immediate ticket LHR - JFK costs a LOT of money (more than I'd care to pay). Like the market took care of acid rain, NOx in car exhaust, DDT etc? The market is merely the result of individual self interest. Sometimes that self interest needs to be tempered in the interests of everyone as a whole. Only children expect to get what they want straight away. Society is infantilised enough already. You say that people travelling at short notice to the places they wish to travel to are childish, do you? If its simply for recreation then I'm saying people who get ****ed off because they can't are, yes. I assume you exempt yourself from that. Yup. -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 16:41:29 +0100
"tim....." wrote: wrote in message As someone who: Rarely has a car, usually travelling by bus/train/walk/bike Keeps the thermostat down low so as not to over heat the house always takes my own reusable bags to the supermarket Puts everything possible in the recycling bag never disposes of material things until they have worn out and never in my life have I thrown away a food item because I let it get out of date/go stale I have a problem with someone else deciding what particular things I have to do to make my contribution to saving the planet Thats odd given the above reads like a Greenpeace wish list. Did you coincidentaly think it up all by yourself in a vacuum? -- Spud |
Quote:
They are extending the Northern Line to a housing development on the site of the old Battersea Power Station instead of to Clapham Junction and Wandsworth even though Wandsworth Council have offered to pay for the extension to Wandsworth. That Clapham Junction is not on the London Underground remains the most absurd anomaly of London's public transport system |
Quote:
uses a car at least five days a week makes a point of not heating rooms that are not being used always takes reusable bags to the supermarket recycles everything that can be recycled never wastes food by letting it go stale or "off" and doesn't give a tu'penny-ha'penny damn about other people's contribution to the environment . . . . . . may I point out that throwing away food should be perfectly acceptable to the pseudo-environmentalists as long as the food is "returned to nature" and not added to the general refuse destined for land-fill or incinerator. All food will decompose quickly into high quality topsoil. Your garden's flower beds or a local woodland will be the ideal receptacle for tea leaves, orange peal, apple cores, bread crumbs, coffee grounds, vegetable stalks, banana skins . . . and any food you have let go stale. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
wrote in message ... On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 16:41:29 +0100 "tim....." wrote: wrote in message As someone who: Rarely has a car, usually travelling by bus/train/walk/bike Keeps the thermostat down low so as not to over heat the house always takes my own reusable bags to the supermarket Puts everything possible in the recycling bag never disposes of material things until they have worn out and never in my life have I thrown away a food item because I let it get out of date/go stale I have a problem with someone else deciding what particular things I have to do to make my contribution to saving the planet Thats odd given the above reads like a Greenpeace wish list. Did you coincidentaly think it up all by yourself in a vacuum? It's the list of things that I do that the press regularly complains that people don't do that wastes energy of course it's going to look like the list of things that people want us to do if I do, in fact, do them. I could have added, "I save energy by not ironing my sheets" which isn't on anybody's list AFAICT if you want me to add some variety tim |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message , at 13:26:53 on Sun, 7 Sep
2014, tim..... remarked: never disposes of material things until they have worn out .... It's the list of things that I do that the press regularly complains that people don't do that wastes energy How strictly is "dispose of" correlated with "throw away"? It's also possible to sell things, freecycle/eBay/Gumtree, give to friends/relatives/neighbours/Oxfam and so on. Does a PC that'll only run Windows XP now qualify as "worn out", even if the only thing which has expired is Microsoft's enthusiasm to continue support (I could give numerous similar examples). -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 13:26:53 on Sun, 7 Sep 2014, tim..... remarked: never disposes of material things until they have worn out ... It's the list of things that I do that the press regularly complains that people don't do that wastes energy How strictly is "dispose of" correlated with "throw away"? I was just making the point that I don't: wear something once and never again or replace electrical goods because they aren't the latest colour, or even because they don't have the most recent number on the front It's also possible to sell things, freecycle/eBay/Gumtree, give to friends/relatives/neighbours/Oxfam and so on. I know, but that isn't always a useful disposal, and if the person who buys it is only going to wear it once and than they throw it away, it hasn't solved the problem Does a PC that'll only run Windows XP now qualify as "worn out", I don't know. I've never got a PC to last longer than about 4 years without "blowing up" in some way. tim |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
In message , at 15:24:56 on Sun, 7 Sep
2014, tim..... remarked: never disposes of material things until they have worn out ... It's the list of things that I do that the press regularly complains that people don't do that wastes energy How strictly is "dispose of" correlated with "throw away"? I was just making the point that I don't: wear something once and never again or replace electrical goods because they aren't the latest colour, or even because they don't have the most recent number on the front It's also possible to sell things, freecycle/eBay/Gumtree, give to friends/relatives/neighbours/Oxfam and so on. I know, but that isn't always a useful disposal, and if the person who buys it is only going to wear it once and than they throw it away, it hasn't solved the problem Ah, perhaps when you said "material" you mainly meant "clothing" rather than "tangible". Does a PC that'll only run Windows XP now qualify as "worn out", I don't know. I've never got a PC to last longer than about 4 years without "blowing up" in some way. Gosh. My laptop is over four years old and I still regard it as "new". My desktop PC is coming up for ten years old and the only real problem with it is the XP [I have upgraded its HDD capacity though]. -- Roland Perry |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
Robin9 wrote:
Mizter T;144379 Wrote: On 03/09/2014 00:23, Recliner wrote: - wrote:- [...] They aren't being very rational then. The time to Gatwick from central London is as good as that to Heathrow, especially if you don't pay the extortionate fares on Heathrow Express.- Many Heathrow passengers come from locations other than Central London. I live in West London, and Heathrow is far more convenient than any other airport. Gatwick is only good for people near Victoria or Thameslink stations.- Ever heard of a small station called Clapham Junction? Or noticed all those railway lines in south London that can get one to East Croydon? etc etc... Has Boris Johnson or London Underground ever heard of Clapham Junction? They are extending the Northern Line to a housing development on the site of the old Battersea Power Station instead of to Clapham Junction and Wandsworth even though Wandsworth Council have offered to pay for the extension to Wandsworth. Isn't it because they're afraid that every Northern Line train would leave Clapham Junction already loaded to capacity in the rush hour, leaving no space for the Battersea residents and workers who've paid for the extension? Crossrail 2 is planned as the way to get people from Clapham Junction directly to Central London. That Clapham Junction is not on the London Underground remains the most absurd anomaly of London's public transport system True |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
wrote:
In article , (Robin9) wrote: Mizter T;144379 Wrote: On 03/09/2014 00:23, Recliner wrote: - wrote:- [...] They aren't being very rational then. The time to Gatwick from central London is as good as that to Heathrow, especially if you don't pay the extortionate fares on Heathrow Express.- Many Heathrow passengers come from locations other than Central London. I live in West London, and Heathrow is far more convenient than any other airport. Gatwick is only good for people near Victoria or Thameslink stations.- Ever heard of a small station called Clapham Junction? Or noticed all those railway lines in south London that can get one to East Croydon? etc etc... Has Boris Johnson or London Underground ever heard of Clapham Junction? They are extending the Northern Line to a housing development on the site of the old Battersea Power Station instead of to Clapham Junction and Wandsworth even though Wandsworth Council have offered to pay for the extension to Wandsworth. That Clapham Junction is not on the London Underground remains the most absurd anomaly of London's public transport system At least it's on London Overground now, Maybe they will start to notice it? Yes, that's certainly helped. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 15:34:17 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 15:24:56 on Sun, 7 Sep Gosh. My laptop is over four years old and I still regard it as "new". My desktop PC is coming up for ten years old and the only real problem with it is the XP [I have upgraded its HDD capacity though]. I've still got a machine from 99 that I use for backup. Still works perfectly plus it has a pair of old style RS232 serial ports which come in handy occasionally which is why I'm hanging onto it until it dies. -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 09:58:43 -0500
Recliner wrote: That Clapham Junction is not on the London Underground remains the most absurd anomaly of London's public transport system True Any tube station built to clapham junction would almost certainly become overcrowded from day 1 as huge numbers of city workers avoided the central london termini. -- Spud |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 07/09/2014 15:58, Recliner wrote: Robin9 wrote: [...] Ever heard of a small station called Clapham Junction? Or noticed all those railway lines in south London that can get one to East Croydon? etc etc... Has Boris Johnson or London Underground ever heard of Clapham Junction? They are extending the Northern Line to a housing development on the site of the old Battersea Power Station instead of to Clapham Junction and Wandsworth even though Wandsworth Council have offered to pay for the extension to Wandsworth. Isn't it because they're afraid that every Northern Line train would leave Clapham Junction already loaded to capacity in the rush hour, leaving no space for the Battersea residents and workers who've paid for the extension? Crossrail 2 is planned as the way to get people from Clapham Junction directly to Central London. That's exactly why. Robin should visit Clapham Jn during the peak and he'd quickly see that any Northern line extension would be completely overrun. (Similar logic applies to the hypothetical extension of the Victoria line south from Brixton to Streatham - Streathamites would love it, but it's already over capacity.) |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On 06/09/2014 21:21, d wrote:
JNugent wrote: d wrote: But what I'm saying is there should be a limit on flights. Why? Are you unable to read or just stupid? Neither of those. Try and figure it out from previous posts. Why? Are you unable to justify your desire to prevent others from living their lives as they wish and to force them to be like you? If that means people can't go to New York or Ibiza or wherever the next day then thats just too bad. The market takes care of that. An immediate ticket LHR - JFK costs a LOT of money (more than I'd care to pay). Like the market took care of acid rain, NOx in car exhaust, DDT etc? Those things are not subject to market pressures so you wouldn't expect the market to "deal" with them. Not if you have any common sense, at least. Do you actually know anything about economics? The market is merely the result of individual self interest. Correct. Sometimes that self interest needs to be tempered in the interests of everyone as a whole. And you should be the temperer, right? Only children expect to get what they want straight away. Society is infantilised enough already. You say that people travelling at short notice to the places they wish to travel to are childish, do you? If its simply for recreation then I'm saying people who get ****ed off because they can't are, yes. But they *can*, if they are prepared to pay the spot price. I assume you exempt yourself from that. Yup. Right. |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
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. Maybe not so politically toxic after all? From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...rd-runway.html Quote: "The Ipsos Mori poll, seen by The Telegraph, of 143 MPs, including 58 Conservatives and 66 Labour MPs, is the first commissioned by the airport since a third runway was controversially put back on the table through the Airports Commission inquiry, which has short-listed two possible designs for expansion at the hub. A decision by the last Government to expand Heathrow was over-turned by the Coalition and opponents have since claimed that there would be insurmountable political hurdles even if a third runway is recommended by the commission in its final report next year. The opinion poll shows that 88pc of the MPs questioned believe a hub airport, such as Heathrow, is “critical” to Britain’s future economic success. When asked which option they thought would best solve the issue of hub airport capacity in the UK, 58pc answered a third runway at Heathrow while 13pc backed a second air strip at Gatwick. Just 8pc favoured a new airport in the Thames Estuary - the Mayor’s preferred option which was last week ruled out by the commission. Only 4pc backed a scheme put forward by Heathrow Hub, a private company backed by the former JP Morgan Cazenove banker, Ian Hannam, to extend Heathrow’s existing northern runway and effectively operate it as two air strips." |
As predicted, Boris Island sunk
On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 22:22:15 +0100
JNugent wrote: On 06/09/2014 21:21, d wrote: JNugent wrote: d wrote: But what I'm saying is there should be a limit on flights. Why? Are you unable to read or just stupid? Neither of those. And yet... Try and figure it out from previous posts. Why? Well you see , the point of a post is so you can read it and the point doesn't have to be made again for people too stupid to understand it first time. Are you unable to justify your desire to prevent others from living their lives as they wish and to force them to be like you? Everyone living their lives exactly the way they want with no regards to anyone else is whats known as anarchy. Like the market took care of acid rain, NOx in car exhaust, DDT etc? Those things are not subject to market pressures so you wouldn't expect the market to "deal" with them. Not if you have any common sense, at least. Oh, well do explain how aircraft noise and pollution is subject to market pressures then. Do you actually know anything about economics? Somewhat more than you apparently. Sometimes that self interest needs to be tempered in the interests of everyone as a whole. And you should be the temperer, right? Why not? Who should do it, you with your screw everyone else, I'm alright jack attitude? -- Spud |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk