wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 19:14:21 -0000 (UTC)
Billy No Mates wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 12:50:21 -0000 (UTC)
Billy No Mates wrote:
wrote:
Have you forgotten already?

So it would seem. Do enlighten me.



It was almost two years ago, so no doubt your memory has faded:

Thats nice. I'll ask again - when did I say I didn't visit pubs? In fact its
pretty clear in that post that I do and FWIW I generally have a coffee.

Just in case your senile old brain doesn't realise, its not 1970 anymore,
pubs
serve non alcoholic drinks and many also serve food. So toddle off and find
the post where I said I never enter pubs or be a big boy and admit you've had

yet another of your many senior moments.

Read that thread again: you obviously seldom visit a pub.

I was in one the w/e before last having lunch and I have better things to do
that re-read a thread from 2 years ago in order to prove that you're even more
of a plank than I already thought.

You mean, because it proved you were lying?

I can imagine your knitting circle gathering in the pub for their coffee
mornings, followed by lunch. Yeah, right.

In message , at 20:27:43 on Mon, 9 Mar
2020, MissRiaElaine remarked:

The expression "online friend" has become a bit devalued over the
years, but I try to stick to only people I have earlier met in person.
....
I don't mean so-called "friends" on FarceBuke or Twitface, the people I
consider friends are those with whom I share a common interest and can
speak to on the phone.

As I said earlier, my 'social media friends' are almost all people who I
have met (and that will have been because we have - or had at the time -
a common interest). Almost none would I ever speak to on the phone,
because it's so much easier to contact them online.

This week, chatting to someone in Australia, who should have been in
Mexico, and thus won't be passing through London again for a month
or too.

And I have no wish to know if you are currently wearing trousers or not..!!!

That's for me to know and you [not] to find out
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 11:25:07 -0000 (UTC)
Billy No Mates wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 19:14:21 -0000 (UTC)
Billy No Mates wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 12:50:21 -0000 (UTC)
Billy No Mates wrote:
wrote:
Have you forgotten already?

So it would seem. Do enlighten me.



It was almost two years ago, so no doubt your memory has faded:

Thats nice. I'll ask again - when did I say I didn't visit pubs? In fact
its
pretty clear in that post that I do and FWIW I generally have a coffee.

Just in case your senile old brain doesn't realise, its not 1970 anymore,
pubs
serve non alcoholic drinks and many also serve food. So toddle off and find

the post where I said I never enter pubs or be a big boy and admit you've
had

yet another of your many senior moments.

Read that thread again: you obviously seldom visit a pub.

I was in one the w/e before last having lunch and I have better things to do

that re-read a thread from 2 years ago in order to prove that you're even
more
of a plank than I already thought.

You mean, because it proved you were lying?

If thats the case you'll be able to post something to that effect otherwise
go do one.

I can imagine your knitting circle gathering in the pub for their coffee
mornings, followed by lunch. Yeah, right.

Don't project your own weekends into my life.

On 10/03/2020 11:47, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:27:43 on Mon, 9 Mar
2020, MissRiaElaine remarked:

Â*The expression "online friend" has become a bit devalued over the
years,Â* but I try to stick to only people I have earlier met in person.
...
I don't mean so-called "friends" on FarceBuke or Twitface, the people
I consider friends are those with whom I share a common interest and
can speak to on the phone.

As I said earlier, my 'social media friends' are almost all people who I
have met (and that will have been because we have - or had at the time -
a common interest). Almost none would I ever speak to on the phone,
because it's so much easier to contact them online.

This week, chatting to someone in Australia, who should have been in
Mexico, and thus won't be passing through London again for a month
or too.

And I have no wish to know if you are currently wearing trousers or
not..!!!

That's for me to know and you [not] to find out

I don't *want* to find out, thanks all the same..!!

I am not a great "typer" and this is an awkward way of communicating for
me. I am a talker and could spend hours on the phone (and frequently do..!)

--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

On 10/03/2020 19:00, MissRiaElaine wrote:
snip
I am not a great "typer" and this is an awkward way of communicating for
me. I am a talker and could spend hours on the phone (and frequently do..!)


As am I, we frequently have to set a timer so that we don't go over the
60 minutes, then hang up and redial. It has be known for us to it three
timea in one conversation.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents

if it happens

and the planet.

how?

Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.

There will be fewer of them

but, certainly in the case of South America, that's not going to happen

I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the
long
haul part are Spanish Speaking.

Which routes have you flown?

I flew to Bolivia and Panama

not destinations noted for direct flights from London (if there was I would
have used them), and yet there were few non Spanish on the flight

Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights,

agreed

ones which are currently popular destination for Brits to go to (business or
pleasure)

that's the point

the ones that Brits mostly want to go to already have direct flights

opening up slots to enable direct flights to extra destinations will not
result in these extra destinations being South America destinations
currently not served, as they aren't popular enough

so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .

they do it because the only alternative is having to pass through US
immigration (or sometimes KLM via AMS)

tim

On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 14:42:57 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents

if it happens

and the planet.

how?

Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.

There will be fewer of them

but, certainly in the case of South America, that's not going to happen

I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the
long
haul part are Spanish Speaking.

Which routes have you flown?

I flew to Bolivia and Panama

not destinations noted for direct flights from London (if there was I would
have used them), and yet there were few non Spanish on the flight

Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights,

agreed

ones which are currently popular destination for Brits to go to (business or
pleasure)

that's the point

the ones that Brits mostly want to go to already have direct flights

opening up slots to enable direct flights to extra destinations will not
result in these extra destinations being South America destinations
currently not served, as they aren't popular enough

so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .

they do it because the only alternative is having to pass through US
immigration (or sometimes KLM via AMS)

tim


The economics of aircraft like the 787 are changing route structures.
I very much doubt BA would have opened routes like London/Santiago or
London/Lima without it even allowing for the increase in people going
to such destinations.

It's my belief we will see more and more "long, thin, routes" in years
to come and that, in the case of South America, the need to travel via
Madrid or Amsterdam will slowly fade. In any case, my own preference
in recent years has been to use a non stop flight from London to one
of the few places in South America (e.g. Sao Paulo) and then get my
connection rather than going via Madrid although I accept that for
destinations in countries in the northwest corner of the continent
(e.g. Ecuador) that might not be ideal.

"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 14:42:57 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those
benefit
both UK residents

if it happens

and the planet.

how?

Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.

There will be fewer of them

but, certainly in the case of South America, that's not going to happen

I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the
long
haul part are Spanish Speaking.

Which routes have you flown?

I flew to Bolivia and Panama

not destinations noted for direct flights from London (if there was I
would
have used them), and yet there were few non Spanish on the flight

Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights,

agreed

ones which are currently popular destination for Brits to go to (business
or
pleasure)

that's the point

the ones that Brits mostly want to go to already have direct flights

opening up slots to enable direct flights to extra destinations will not
result in these extra destinations being South America destinations
currently not served, as they aren't popular enough

so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .

they do it because the only alternative is having to pass through US
immigration (or sometimes KLM via AMS)

tim


The economics of aircraft like the 787 are changing route structures.
I very much doubt BA would have opened routes like London/Santiago or
London/Lima without it even allowing for the increase in people going
to such destinations.

It's my belief we will see more and more "long, thin, routes" in years
to come and that, in the case of South America, the need to travel via
Madrid or Amsterdam will slowly fade.

I hope to live long enough to find out

unfortunately, I don't think I will

In any case, my own preference
in recent years has been to use a non stop flight from London to one
of the few places in South America (e.g. Sao Paulo) and then get my
connection rather than going via Madrid although I accept that for
destinations in countries in the northwest corner of the continent
(e.g. Ecuador) that might not be ideal.

the North of the continent is served directly by Avianca to Bogotá

you can decide for yourself whether that's ideal

On Mon, 06 Apr 2020 21:06:43 +0100
Graham Harrison wrote:
It's my belief we will see more and more "long, thin, routes" in years
to come and that, in the case of South America, the need to travel via
Madrid or Amsterdam will slowly fade. In any case, my own preference
in recent years has been to use a non stop flight from London to one
of the few places in South America (e.g. Sao Paulo) and then get my
connection rather than going via Madrid although I accept that for
destinations in countries in the northwest corner of the continent
(e.g. Ecuador) that might not be ideal.

First world problems eh?

tim... wrote:


"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 14:42:57 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those
benefit
both UK residents

if it happens

and the planet.

how?

Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.

There will be fewer of them

but, certainly in the case of South America, that's not going to happen

I've flown the LON-MAD-S America route and 90% of the passengers on the
long
haul part are Spanish Speaking.

Which routes have you flown?

I flew to Bolivia and Panama

not destinations noted for direct flights from London (if there was I
would
have used them), and yet there were few non Spanish on the flight

Several major South American cities do have
direct London flights,

agreed

ones which are currently popular destination for Brits to go to (business
or
pleasure)

that's the point

the ones that Brits mostly want to go to already have direct flights

opening up slots to enable direct flights to extra destinations will not
result in these extra destinations being South America destinations
currently not served, as they aren't popular enough

so not many Brits would take the MAD indirect route
unless it was a lot cheaper .

they do it because the only alternative is having to pass through US
immigration (or sometimes KLM via AMS)

tim


The economics of aircraft like the 787 are changing route structures.
I very much doubt BA would have opened routes like London/Santiago or
London/Lima without it even allowing for the increase in people going
to such destinations.

It's my belief we will see more and more "long, thin, routes" in years
to come and that, in the case of South America, the need to travel via
Madrid or Amsterdam will slowly fade.

I hope to live long enough to find out

unfortunately, I don't think I will

In any case, my own preference
in recent years has been to use a non stop flight from London to one
of the few places in South America (e.g. Sao Paulo) and then get my
connection rather than going via Madrid although I accept that for
destinations in countries in the northwest corner of the continent
(e.g. Ecuador) that might not be ideal.

the North of the continent is served directly by Avianca to Bogotá

When I flew to Bogotá, it was va Amsterdam.


you can decide for yourself whether that's ideal


It wasn't ideal.