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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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

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

On 05/09/2014 20:05, d wrote:

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.

That's OK. I don't expect you (or anyone else equally unimportant* to
me) to care about that.

But neither do i expect you to be allowed to hinder me, as, in fact, I
don't expect that even you think that you ought to be allowed to hinder
others.

But what
I'm saying is there should be a limit on flights.

Why?

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).

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?

I assume you exempt yourself from that.