"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:10:24 on Sun, 19 Jun 2016,
tim... remarked:
You can still get a stalemate where the USA says "only two of your
airlines allowed", and the worst we can reply is "and only two of
yours",

I don't see what's wrong with that

it's what we had before

Less competition,

I still believe that 4 airlines on the direct rout plus a myriad of less
direct options is enough

higher fares.

and reallocate the slots to flights to other places.

You really think the American airlines are going to say "please give us
less slots"?

"Fewer slots" perhaps, but their main imperative will be anything which
gives their airlines a bigger slice of the pie.

Unless you are trying to claim that our negotiators are so bad they will
give the American's more slots than the Brits ISTM that the best way to get
a bigger slice of the pie is for there to be lots of slots.

It has to be easier for an American airline with multiple US hubs and an
interconnecting network to fill up planes from/to many US destinations than
the Brits can simply with point to point customers.

tim

In message , at 08:58:13 on Mon, 20 Jun
2016, tim... remarked:
You can still get a stalemate where the USA says "only two of your
airlines allowed", and the worst we can reply is "and only two of


I don't see what's wrong with that

it's what we had before

Less competition,

I still believe that 4 airlines on the direct rout plus a myriad of
less direct options is enough

higher fares.

and reallocate the slots to flights to other places.

You really think the American airlines are going to say "please give
us less slots"?

"Fewer slots" perhaps, but their main imperative will be anything
which gives their airlines a bigger slice of the pie.

Unless you are trying to claim that our negotiators are so bad they
will give the American's more slots than the Brits ISTM that the best
way to get a bigger slice of the pie is for there to be lots of slots.

It has to be easier for an American airline with multiple US hubs and
an interconnecting network to fill up planes from/to many US
destinations than the Brits can simply with point to point customers.

As I disagree with everything you say, we'll have to wind this subthread
down.
--
Roland Perry

tim... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:10:24 on Sun, 19 Jun 2016,
tim... remarked:
You can still get a stalemate where the USA says "only two of your
airlines allowed", and the worst we can reply is "and only two of
yours",

I don't see what's wrong with that

it's what we had before

Less competition,

I still believe that 4 airlines on the direct rout plus a myriad of less
direct options is enough

higher fares.

and reallocate the slots to flights to other places.

You really think the American airlines are going to say "please give us
less slots"?

"Fewer slots" perhaps, but their main imperative will be anything which
gives their airlines a bigger slice of the pie.

Unless you are trying to claim that our negotiators are so bad they will
give the American's more slots than the Brits ISTM that the best way to get
a bigger slice of the pie is for there to be lots of slots.

It has to be easier for an American airline with multiple US hubs and an
interconnecting network to fill up planes from/to many US destinations than
the Brits can simply with point to point customers.

The Brits are not just offering point to point connections.

BA is in alliance with AA, so it benefits from connecting flights at AA
hubs, while VS is in alliance with (and 49% owned by) Delta, and closely
coordinates schedules. Indeed, they pass routes to each other, so Virgin
now flies to Atlanta. Virgin has dropped several of its less profitable
Asian and African routes in favour of more US routes that link with Delta's
SkyTeam hubs.

Travel on either of these airlines and see just how many code shares there
are on each flight. So an American can book an AA flight from some
midwestern US city via, say, Chicago to LHR and on to a secondary European
city, with the metal in both the second and third flights being BA, but all
three flights having AA flight numbers and earning AA miles.

On 17.06.16 8:09, 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.

tim





Aren't there plans to build a monorail between the station and the
monorail? Considering the history of monorails in regular revenue
service, however ...

wrote in message ...
On 17.06.16 8:09, 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.

tim





Aren't there plans to build a monorail between the station and the
monorail? Considering the history of monorails in regular revenue service,
however ...

I think they should just build a dedicated walkway with a travelator

tim

On 2016\06\20 21:04, tim... wrote:

I think they should just build a dedicated walkway with a travelator

Luton Airport to the station is about 1.2 miles, which is similar to the
distance from Marble Arch station to Tottenham Court Road station. i.e.
three tube stops.

In message , at 21:35:37 on Mon, 20 Jun
2016, Basil Jet remarked:
I think they should just build a dedicated walkway with a travelator

Luton Airport to the station is about 1.2 miles, which is similar to
the distance from Marble Arch station to Tottenham Court Road station.
i.e. three tube stops.

The travelator at Montparnasse is one of the longest I've seen, but
still only 180m. But the problem with Luton is it would be substantially
uphill too.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 21:35:37 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016,
Basil Jet remarked:
I think they should just build a dedicated walkway with a travelator

Luton Airport to the station is about 1.2 miles, which is similar to the
distance from Marble Arch station to Tottenham Court Road station. i.e.
three tube stops.

The travelator at Montparnasse is one of the longest I've seen, but still
only 180m. But the problem with Luton is it would be substantially uphill
too.

If you disembark at one of the remote hubs at LHR the "walk" to passport
control is the best part of a mile

I did it several times on my last overseas gig and on one occasion times the
walk to see how long it was.

There are a series of travelators to make the journey easier. I wasn't
suggesting a single mile-long travelator

tim






--
Roland Perry

On 2016\06\20 21:56, tim... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 21:35:37 on Mon, 20 Jun
2016, Basil Jet remarked:
I think they should just build a dedicated walkway with a travelator

Luton Airport to the station is about 1.2 miles, which is similar to
the distance from Marble Arch station to Tottenham Court Road
station. i.e. three tube stops.

The travelator at Montparnasse is one of the longest I've seen, but
still only 180m. But the problem with Luton is it would be
substantially uphill too.

If you disembark at one of the remote hubs at LHR the "walk" to passport
control is the best part of a mile

I did it several times on my last overseas gig and on one occasion times
the walk to see how long it was.

There are a series of travelators to make the journey easier. I wasn't
suggesting a single mile-long travelator

Even if it's in sections, you still have a mile-worth of vehicle
continuously moving slowly, even though the trains from London only
arrive at the station every fifteen minutes or so. There must be
multiple ways to provide quick journeys for heavily peaked demand more
cheaply with a (mostly) narrower footprint.

On 17/06/2016 12:32, wrote:

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

Pot. Kettle. Black. From the man who called me an idiot no more than a
couple of weeks back.