"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 19:05:38 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016,
tim... remarked:
They are, if it means more profits for their (US-based) airlines, while
freezing out all but a couple of European-based airlines from the
routes.

Eh

US based airlines only exist in the US, there is about 170 countries
outside the EU that will want flights to the UK

The single busiest route is Heathrow-New York, and then there's all the
other US hubs.

I really don't understand why it is that you are introducing pointless, but
commonly know, facts into a discussion on us leaving the EU *forcing* fares
up.

What relevance has his tiny point to your original premise?

I really can't see it

please show your working?

I can just see that EU "interference" in the market might make flying
intra-EU fares cheaper [1] (I don't buy it, but it might), but what possible
effect can any EU meddling have on flights between two non-EU countries?

tim

[1] If anything the requirement for paying delay/cancelation compensation
will make it more expensive. (FTAOD I think those compensation requirements
are a good thing)

wrote in message
...
In article , (Roland
Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
16:07:36 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016, remarked:
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.

Luton's main disadvantage is the need to get on a bus between the
airport
and the station.

The station isn't any further from the check-in than many long term
car parks. The scandal is they have the nerve to charge for the bus
(although airport workers are carried free).

I'll take your word on that, having never in my life ever used an airport
long-term car park. All airports should have good public transport access.
It's a blot on Luton that its is so poor.

It's not that poor.

There are plenty of airports with worse. Bristol, Leeds/Bradford,
Liverpool, Glasgow, just to name a few in the UK.

The bus (and the charge) is an annoyance, but it hardy pushes the PT score
down to 2/10.

tim

In message , at 08:03:43 on Fri, 17 Jun
2016, tim... remarked:
I can just see that EU "interference" in the market might make flying
intra-EU fares cheaper [1] (I don't buy it, but it might),

I don't buy it either - along with most other commentators and several
of the airlines involved, I think fares will go up.

but what possible effect can any EU meddling have on flights between
two non-EU countries?

They aren't going to be "meddling" as you put it, but we will be
*removing* ourselves from arrangements the EU have negotiated on our
behalf to facilitate more/cheaper UK-USA flights. We will have to
re-negotiate, and with much less bargaining power are almost certain to
get a worse deal.

Of course some people think that the independence to negotiate these
sorts of things for ourself is a good thing, but it's naive to assume
that we'll end up with a more advantageous arrangement as a result.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:02:16 +0100
"D A Stocks" wrote:
wrote in message ...
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.

Liverpool street is in the centre of the City. Its **** easy to get to on
the tube. Certainly no harder than KX or St P.

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'm guessing the problems on Southern have passed you by. Endless delays and
cancelled trains.

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.

The station is also almost a mile away from the airport entrance.

--
Spud

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 08:03:43 on Fri, 17 Jun 2016,
tim... remarked:
I can just see that EU "interference" in the market might make flying
intra-EU fares cheaper [1] (I don't buy it, but it might),

I don't buy it either - along with most other commentators and several of
the airlines involved, I think fares will go up.

I think you misunderstand my point.

I was talking about flights between the remaining EU countries (after we
have left) being cheaper than similar types of flights from a non-EU
European country (which we will then be) to an EU one specifically because
of EU meddling. Obviously there will be price differentials caused by the
(lack of) popularity of the destination and differences in airport fees
imposed by the countries concerned.

but what possible effect can any EU meddling have on flights between two
non-EU countries?

They aren't going to be "meddling" as you put it, but we will be
*removing* ourselves from arrangements the EU have negotiated on our
behalf to facilitate more/cheaper UK-USA flights.

Then you should have been clearer at the start.

not for one minute did I think that your first point about flight prices
going up when/if we leave the EU was about the price of UK-US flights.

I naturally thought that you meant it to refer to UK - rest of EU flights,
and every one of my comments since then has been based upon that
understanding.

We will have to re-negotiate, and with much less bargaining power are
almost certain to get a worse deal.

as the single limiting resource that everybody wants are slots at LHR, how
can we possibly have such a poor hand that we get a worse deal?

Of course some people think that the independence to negotiate these sorts
of things for ourself is a good thing, but it's naive to assume that we'll
end up with a more advantageous arrangement as a result.

More advantageous doesn't always mean cheaper

tim

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 08:03:43 on Fri, 17 Jun
2016, tim... remarked:
I can just see that EU "interference" in the market might make flying
intra-EU fares cheaper [1] (I don't buy it, but it might),

I don't buy it either - along with most other commentators and
several of the airlines involved, I think fares will go up.

but what possible effect can any EU meddling have on flights between
two non-EU countries?

They aren't going to be "meddling" as you put it, but we will be
*removing* ourselves from arrangements the EU have negotiated on our
behalf to facilitate more/cheaper UK-USA flights. We will have to
re-negotiate, and with much less bargaining power are almost certain
to get a worse deal.

Of course some people think that the independence to negotiate these
sorts of things for ourself is a good thing, but it's naive to assume
that we'll end up with a more advantageous arrangement as a result.

That's the appalling chauvinism, reminiscent of the worst parts of Britain's
imperial past ("foreigners will do what we say"), that seems to keep coming
from the Leave side.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (tim...)
wrote:

wrote in message
...
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
16:07:36 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016, remarked:
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.

Luton's main disadvantage is the need to get on a bus between the
airport and the station.

The station isn't any further from the check-in than many long term
car parks. The scandal is they have the nerve to charge for the bus
(although airport workers are carried free).

I'll take your word on that, having never in my life ever used an
airport long-term car park. All airports should have good public
transport access. It's a blot on Luton that its is so poor.

It's not that poor.

There are plenty of airports with worse. Bristol, Leeds/Bradford,
Liverpool, Glasgow, just to name a few in the UK.

The bus (and the charge) is an annoyance, but it hardy pushes the PT
score down to 2/10.

The train service is hardly that good and frequent either. Lots of slow
trains but fasts are only hourly.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 04:38:22 -0500
wrote:
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:
Of course some people think that the independence to negotiate these
sorts of things for ourself is a good thing, but it's naive to assume
that we'll end up with a more advantageous arrangement as a result.

That's the appalling chauvinism, reminiscent of the worst parts of Britain's
imperial past ("foreigners will do what we say"), that seems to keep coming
from the Leave side.

Really? Seems like standard economics to me. What would you do, just say
"please" nicely?

The remain side seem to be happy to be told what to do by Brussels. Bunch
of spineless supine morons.

--
Spud

In article , d () wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 04:38:22 -0500
wrote:
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:
Of course some people think that the independence to negotiate these
sorts of things for ourself is a good thing, but it's naive to assume
that we'll end up with a more advantageous arrangement as a result.

That's the appalling chauvinism, reminiscent of the worst parts of
Britain's imperial past ("foreigners will do what we say"), that seems
to keep coming from the Leave side.

Really? Seems like standard economics to me. What would you do, just say
"please" nicely?

Read what the Outers have been saying and consider what others will think of
it. Britain has a strong record of its influence in the EU delivering what
this country supports, especially in market liberalisation that has grown
our economies and made us all better off.

The remain side seem to be happy to be told what to do by Brussels. Bunch
of spineless supine morons.

Being told what to by Brussels is what _will_ happen if we want to trade
with the EU after Brexit. While we remain in we get to make the decisions.

And moderate your language, please. Intemperance like yours is what is
really damaging this country.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 04:38:22
on Fri, 17 Jun 2016, remarked:

[Luton Airport Parkway]

The train service is hardly that good and frequent either. Lots of slow
trains but fasts are only hourly.

The semi-fasts are only 12 minutes slower than the hourly fast, and
there's only 11 minutes each hour where if you head for the fast train
platform you'll get there quicker than heading for the Thameslink
platform.

Overall, it's simply not worth even considering the "fasts", especially
as you are much more likely to get a seat on the semi-fasts.
--
Roland Perry