"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 08:03:05 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016,
tim... remarked:
I was discussing "the whole low-cost flights thing is a result of EU
deregulation, and the allocation of slots is also an EU thing" the slots
being applicable to flights all over the world, so very relevant.

I don't believe that the allocation of slots at any particular airport has
a damned thing to do with the EU

Of course it does. The EU negotiated the Open Skies agreement, not the UK.
Without that, previously only two UK and two US airlines were allowed
UK-USA slots at Heathrow.

but that has nothing to do with the actual allocation of the slots.

LHR can sell their slots to whoever they like, without restriction

The reason that is relevant to the discussion is that they can sell them to
a non-EU airlines without restriction and that therefore the EU rules do
nothing to restrict a non EU airline flying to/from that airport.

Replace LHR with any other EU airport and the non EU airline with a UK one
if we leave the UK and you get the answer that the EU rules do nothing to
stop a UK airline flying to any EU airport were the UK to leave the EU.

But you claimed that the UK leaving the EU would mean that UK airlines would
be restricted in their rights to fly to the EU.

You still haven't presented any evidence of this.

tim




--
Roland Perry

"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k...
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:30:38AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

If all fares originating in the UK go up, then competitively it's still
a level playing field for the airlines

Not quite. Airlines that rely heavily on UK hubs will lose out to those
that use non-UK hubs, as more passengers will choose to change in Paris
or Frankfurt instead of London.

but just what is this underlying reason that will make (BA) fares go up in
the first place

I don't believe that it exists

tim

In message , at 13:31:01 on Thu, 16 Jun
2016, tim... remarked:

you claimed that the UK leaving the EU would mean that UK airlines
would be restricted in their rights to fly to the EU.

I only said it would cost more, and that having to re-negotiate the Open
Skies deal with the USA could result in restrictions on transatlantic
slots (compared to the currently EU-negotiated agreement).

People talk about "trade deals" being re-negotiated, and I don't know if
this sort of thing counts as "trade", but there will be hundreds of
deals needing looking at. Buy shares in long haul airlines!
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:35:22 on Thu, 16 Jun
2016, tim... remarked:
If all fares originating in the UK go up, then competitively it's still
a level playing field for the airlines

Not quite. Airlines that rely heavily on UK hubs will lose out to those
that use non-UK hubs, as more passengers will choose to change in Paris
or Frankfurt instead of London.

but just what is this underlying reason that will make (BA) fares go up
in the first place

All-round worse deals for the UK as: an EU outsider flying to the EU;
and [separately, remember] with less bargaining power for destinations
outside the EU.
--
Roland Perry

On 16/06/2016 13:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:21:14 on Thu, 16 Jun
2016, Someone Somewhere remarked:
assuming no assumed caveats such as which particular Queen Victoria,
and of which country, we are talking about...

cough UK.transport.LONDON cough

Yes special correspondant on Cambridge and other matters pertaining to
East Anglia?

The person in question is at least related to London by birth, even if
it is a few generations back...

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:12:56 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:59:42 on Thu, 16 Jun
2016, d remarked:
You want the state telling you where and when you can travel?

No, but I want the state to limit a destructive free-for-all. If some vested
interest in roads was campaigning to build a new motorway do you think
anyone
would listen? Yet for some reason we're supposed to build a new runway at
Heathrow to benefit whome exactly? Oh thats right, Heathrow Plc.

Not just the airport company, but the hundreds of thousands of auxiliary
workers and their employers.

So all these workers will suddenly get a pay rise and better conditions if
a new runway is built? Or perhaps you mean it'll lead to hundreds of thousands
of new jobs?

The latter.

Right, and presumably they'll all be working for Porcine Airways.

--
Spud

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:27:14 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:59:42 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:17:54 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:29:53 on Thu, 16 Jun
2016, d remarked:
You want the state telling you where and when you can travel?

No, but I want the state to limit a destructive free-for-all. If some vested
interest in roads was campaigning to build a new motorway do you think
anyone
would listen? Yet for some reason we're supposed to build a new runway at
Heathrow to benefit whome exactly? Oh thats right, Heathrow Plc.

Not just the airport company, but the hundreds of thousands of auxiliary
workers and their employers.

So all these workers will suddenly get a pay rise and better conditions if
a new runway is built? Or perhaps you mean it'll lead to hundreds of
thousands
of new jobs?

So you're opposed to hundreds of thousands of new jobs?

At the enviroment and social cost a 3rd runway would bring? Yes, I would be
opposed. Anyway we're always being told how great the UK job market is so we
don't need them it would seem.

--
Spud

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:26:39 +0100
Recliner wrote:
But the problem with putting an airport a long way off is that it's
also a long way from the customers, who therefore don't want to use
it. BAA invested in a splendid Norman Foster terminal, a railway
station right under the terminal and direct links to the nearby M11,
but that still wasn't enough.

Both Luton and Gatwick are miles out of London with arguably dodgy rail and
crowded motorway links, yet they're both very popular. There has to be more
to it than location and the train.

--
Spud

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 10:49:35 on Thu, 16 Jun
2016, d remarked:

FWIW, Stansted was built as the overflow airport for London. Apparently
that was future proofing air travel. Either they lied or they were
stupid, take your pick.

It's not an airport that's popular with the customers. It's too far
away, with poor public transport, and on the wrong side of London.
That's why an estuary airport is an even worse idea.

It has a high speed train service from London

It's a rather slow speed service actually.

It's not that bad.

and Cambridge

And only 1tph to the north (plus very recently a few more trains in
the middle of the day when no-one really needs them). I think at one
time Central Trains even suspended the Cambridge-Stansted service for
a few years.

It's slowly improving from that description actually. Hourly arrivals at
Stansted now from 10:00 to 16:00 and 22:00. But the main problem from
Cambridge is trains not early or late enough.

and is right next door to the M11.

That is what has saved its bacon.

I don't call that poor transport links.

Very handy for Cambridge. Shame about the limited range of flight
destinations though.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote in message ...
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:26:39 +0100
Recliner wrote:
But the problem with putting an airport a long way off is that it's
also a long way from the customers, who therefore don't want to use
it. BAA invested in a splendid Norman Foster terminal, a railway
station right under the terminal and direct links to the nearby M11,
but that still wasn't enough.

Both Luton and Gatwick are miles out of London with arguably dodgy rail
and
crowded motorway links, yet they're both very popular. There has to be
more
to it than location and the train.

Further back in the thread you said something about Stansted and its fast
rail link to London. Actually that's 4 trains/hour to Liverpool Street
which, to most of London, is somewhere on the eastern border of the City of
London that's not much fun to get to. There is also a connection to the
Victoria Line at Tottenham Hale.

Against that the "arguably dodgy" rail link from Gatwick to London has:

10 trains/hour to Victoria
4 trains/hour to London Bridge
4 trains/hour to Blackfriars/Farringdon/King's X then Bedford

So you're seeking to compare 18 trains/hour to various parts of
central/south London vs 4 trains/hour to Liverpool St (as previously
described).

I can't speak for Luton but it probably has better rail access to London and
the fact that it's not in East Anglia working in its favour.

--
DAS