On 16/06/2016 08:03, tim... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 17:49:44 on Wed, 15 Jun 2016,

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

tim

Particularly at Atlanta, LAX, JFK, etc.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:02:16 on Tue, 21 Jun 2016,
tim... remarked:

10 people per minute.

Not a huge number, is it?

I know that they arrive at the station (and the airport) in waves, but
ISTM that wave will flatten itself out due to the normal differences that
people have in walking time (with their luggage) from the platform to the
start of the walkway.

It's far too small a number to justify a project as ambitious as you
suggest.

and building a monorail/whatever other fixed link is less ambitions?

tim

"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k...
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 06:38:39PM +0100, tim... wrote:

so what, 4 airlines flying to LHR, plus various options options via other
airports looks like enough competition to me

"Enough competition" looks like a cosy little cartel to me. Erecting
artificial barriers to new entrants into the market is just a terrible
idea.

I didn't mean it in that sense

I am saying, if would, if necessary, be enough companies to create a
competitive market.

I am not advocating limiting it to 4, I am arguing that if someone else
limits it to 4 that isn't sufficient to drive out competitive responses from
those companies.

Imagine if we were talking about breweries instead. "4 breweries selling
to pubs in London, plus some foreign imports, looks like enough
competition to me".

For keeping prices competitive, it might well be

tim

In message , at 13:26:04 on Tue, 21 Jun
2016, tim... remarked:
10 people per minute.

Not a huge number, is it?

I know that they arrive at the station (and the airport) in waves,
but ISTM that wave will flatten itself out due to the normal
differences that people have in walking time (with their luggage)
from the platform to the start of the walkway.

It's far too small a number to justify a project as ambitious as you
suggest.

and building a monorail/whatever other fixed link is less ambitions?

That's even worse. The bus is the most sensible solution.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:14:34 on Tue, 21
Jun 2016, JNugent 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

tim

Particularly at Atlanta, LAX, JFK, etc.

In the sense that it's EU's work which means we can send more than two
UK-based airlines to those airports, and the Americans can send more
than two of their airlines to the UK, then it's very much about
providing fodder to be allocated slots.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:47:59 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 06:38:39PM +0100, tim... wrote:

so what, 4 airlines flying to LHR, plus various options options via other
airports looks like enough competition to me

"Enough competition" looks like a cosy little cartel to me. Erecting
artificial barriers to new entrants into the market is just a terrible
idea.

Imagine if we were talking about breweries instead. "4 breweries selling
to pubs in London, plus some foreign imports, looks like enough
competition to me".

If building another brewery coming into the market meany flattening about 3
square miles of countryside to build it there would be an outcry.

--
Spud

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:11:32 +0100
JNugent wrote:
What - a problem that people can afford to travel for pleasure?

And without your permission?

What a problem.

Hedonism is for teenagers. Adults should feel a collective responsibility to
the enviroment if not for themselves then at least for their children and
future generations. If that means the w/e break to prague takes a backseat then
so be it.

--
Spud

On 17/06/2016 08:09, 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.

I don't know about Leeds/Bradford or Bristol, but Liverpool Airport has
excellent transport links. The A562 main road passes the main gate,
leading to the city to the west and to Widnes/Runcorn and (via the M57
extension) to Manchester, Preston, Birmingham, etc, to the east. There
are service buses to the city and a plentiful supply of taxis (it isn't
a long way to any part of Liverpool). There is also an almost-new
railway facility very close by - certainly within a taxi-ride costing a
few pounds max. Oh, and the usual mid- and long-term car-parks.

On 21/06/2016 13:47, d wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:11:32 +0100
JNugent wrote:
What - a problem that people can afford to travel for pleasure?

And without your permission?

What a problem.

Hedonism is for teenagers. Adults should feel a collective responsibility to
the enviroment if not for themselves then at least for their children and
future generations. If that means the w/e break to prague takes a backseat then
so be it.

Well, that's your view.

You *do* understand that not everyone shares your belief that only the
rich should be allowed to travel, don't you?

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:12:25 +0100
JNugent wrote:
On 21/06/2016 13:47, d wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:11:32 +0100
JNugent wrote:
What - a problem that people can afford to travel for pleasure?

And without your permission?

What a problem.

Hedonism is for teenagers. Adults should feel a collective responsibility to
the enviroment if not for themselves then at least for their children and
future generations. If that means the w/e break to prague takes a backseat
then
so be it.

Well, that's your view.

You *do* understand that not everyone shares your belief that only the
rich should be allowed to travel, don't you?

Straw man.

There should simply be an upper limit on the number of flights in and out of
uk airports. Then its first come first served. And no , that wouldn't force
the prices up because there are already capacity limits but prices are still
very low. And I don't think it should be just limited to aircraft. A number
of cities around the world have limited cars to odd or even numberplates each
day to reduce pollution. That should be done in london too.

Still, its all moot. Most of humanity - including you it would seem - is too
stupid to see the long term picture or simply doesn't care. We'll just be
anther footnote in earths long history. Perhaps something a bit smarter will
evolve in a few million years and get it right.

--
Spud