On 2014-09-04 11:40:56 +0000, David Cantrell said:

It doesn't matter how they're reached. Almost all places from where
Gatwick is preferable to Heathrow, Gatwick is also preferable to Luton
and Stansted. The exceptions being places on the Thameslink line north
of, roughly, Blackfriars.

Or the WCML where we have the "via Kensington Olympia" options.

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

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 11:10:04 GMT, d wrote:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 16:49:14 +0100
Recliner wrote:
I think we know that Boltar doesn't get the concept of a hub airport.
He asks the same questions every time it comes up, but never reads the
answers. And unlike Mr Bell, he's rude with it.

When I see a proper answer I'll let you know.

That's very kind of you, Boltar.

On 2014-09-04 11:11:35 +0000, Roland Perry said:

The "personality" of the ECML operation has changed very little since
privatisation so it would be interesting to see if it changed.

I suppose the difference with the WCML is that it *is* a completely
different operation to what it was before privatisation. The other
lines like the ECML less so. It was a hotch potch of knackered Mk3s
operating unpunctually on a basically hourly service with a few peak
extras and a rather random stopping pattern. It's now a 3tph operation
on the key flows with newer rolling stock (easy to forget the
Pendolinos are now over 10 years old, they are wearing very well),
hugely reduced journey times and a largely consistent Taktfahrplan.

If BR did that it'd have changed the feel as well. It would have been
interesting to see what the APT might have made it.

How much has XC mainline changed since Arriva took over (I've only used
XC-lite, the ex-Central Trains services, and they remain very much in
that rut).

Don't really know, TBH. I never used it heavily. The impression I
have of it is of a relatively downmarket National Express coach
replacement with a severe overcrowding problem which started in VT days
but was never completely solved. It'd have to do a lot to lose that
reputation.

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

On 04/09/2014 12:10, d wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 11:35:29 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 02:24:12PM +0000, d wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
d 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.

Thats not a need , its a desire. Its not even in the same ballpark.

Needs - in the sense implied by what you say - are very basic and are
satisfied by a medieval economy.

That really can't be what you mean, but it's what you are saying.

In message , at 11:09:39 on Thu, 4 Sep
2014, d remarked:
You still don't get it do you? Infrastructure needs to be *operated* as

well as built. Planes need servicing, fuelling, crewing and so on.

Without transit passengers, the number of flights at Heathrow (and thus

the revenue generated for the area) would be down by around a third. So

that's a third of both the direct and indirect workforce laid off.



Exactly. Thats all it is. A few airport/airline specific jobs whose benefit

to the country as a whole would be barely measurable.

A third of Heathrow's contribution to the economy is getting on for
£2BN.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:23:53 +0100
JNugent wrote:
On 04/09/2014 12:10, d wrote:
Thats not a need , its a desire. Its not even in the same ballpark.

Needs - in the sense implied by what you say - are very basic and are
satisfied by a medieval economy.

That really can't be what you mean, but it's what you are saying.

There needs to be a balance of desires against consequences. Currently wrt
air travel its baised way too far to the former. I'm not saying ban air
travel but I am saying that the presumption that constant growth must always
trump anything else is ********. There are enough aircraft flying into and
through the southeast already. If the air industry isn't satisfied with that
then tough ****. Screw them.

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.

--
Spud

On 04/09/2014 00:42, wrote:
In article , (Roland Perry)


flying people back and forth to one horse towns in
Eastern Europe.

I think Krakow is a bit more than that.

When I last went to Krakow there were lots of them, taking tourists on
open carriage tours of the city.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

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).

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

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.


--
Spud

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?