Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

Neil Williams wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:55:02 +0100, "
wrote:

I always thought Lufthansa was all right.

I was referring to flyBE.

Neil

Mea culpea.

I've also been on flyBE. I don't think that I'll be doing that anytime
again soon.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:27:44 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:
"Bruce" wrote:

Probably not interested in a ragbag assortment of tired old aircraft.

... which are probably leased anyway.


Yes, but the leases don't lapse when a firm is taken over. Unless a
termination is negotiated, at a considerable cost, the leases will
simply be assigned to the new owners and continue to the end of their
terms.

So the condition of the fleet is important, and whether they are owned
or leased, they remain a liability.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:44:30 +0100, "
wrote:

I've also been on flyBE. I don't think that I'll be doing that anytime
again soon.

The ex-BA "Barbie jets" are very nice, but operationally they're
atrocious, and they aren't even all that cheap.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

In message , at 23:11:52 on Fri,
16 Oct 2009, Neil Williams remarked:
I've also been on flyBE. I don't think that I'll be doing that anytime
again soon.

The ex-BA "Barbie jets" are very nice, but operationally they're
atrocious, and they aren't even all that cheap.

I'm a bit confused here. It seems they don't run any ERJ145's any more,
and their E-195's were bought for FlyBe (not inherited from BA). Which
planes did you have in mind?
--
Roland Perry

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:11:52 on Fri,
16 Oct 2009, Neil Williams remarked:
I've also been on flyBE. I don't think that I'll be doing that anytime
again soon.

The ex-BA "Barbie jets" are very nice, but operationally they're
atrocious, and they aren't even all that cheap.

I'm a bit confused here. It seems they don't run any ERJ145's any more,
and their E-195's were bought for FlyBe (not inherited from BA). Which
planes did you have in mind?

FlyBe inherited a lot of Embraer ERJ145 jets when they took over the BA
Connect routes. However, they have now disposed of these and run the
ex-BA Connect routes with other planes. bmi seem to have bought at
least some of the ERJ145 jets.

For instance, I understand that FlyBe now operate the MAN-FRA route with
Dash-8 turboprops: formerly this route was operated by ERJ145 jets. I
don't have personal experience of this: I prefer to use the Lufthansa
alternative.
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:11:52 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:44:30 +0100, "
wrote:

I've also been on flyBE. I don't think that I'll be doing that anytime
again soon.

The ex-BA "Barbie jets" are very nice, but operationally they're
atrocious, and they aren't even all that cheap.


The BAe 146 was selling well and making money, until BAE Systems
decided they could make even more money from their Hatfield site by
selling it for property development. So they closed down the factory
with several thousand highly skilled, highly paid jobs being lost. The
smaller number of low skilled, low paid jobs that resulted from the
development of the airport site have done nothing to help Hatfield
recover from what was a devastating blow.

The updated model, the Avro RJ, was assembled at Woodford from
components made at Avro, Chadderton. It had different engines and was
much more reliable. But that finally fell victim to a BAE Systems
corporate decision to abandon civil airliner production (and car
manufacture) in favour of more profitable weapons systems.

To add insult to injury, Wikipedia reports that BAE Systems have set
up a project to convert used BAe 146 and Avro RJ airframes for
military use.

To add further insult, BAE Systems recently announced the closure of
the Woodford factory.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

"Bruce" wrote in message

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:27:44 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:
"Bruce" wrote:

Probably not interested in a ragbag assortment of tired old
aircraft.

... which are probably leased anyway.


Yes, but the leases don't lapse when a firm is taken over. Unless a
termination is negotiated, at a considerable cost, the leases will
simply be assigned to the new owners and continue to the end of their
terms.

So the condition of the fleet is important, and whether they are owned
or leased, they remain a liability.

So Lufthansa now has those leases. It's not likely that any airline
interested in operating the bmibaby routes would want to use those
particular aircraft to operate them -- they'd be much more likely to
want to use aircraft compatible with the rest of their fleets. So, the
chances are that, even if some of those routes continue to flown by
someone, it won't be those aircraft flying them, nor will the planes be
wearing bmibaby liveries.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

On Oct 16, 6:15*pm, rail wrote:
In message
* * * * * John B wrote:

On Oct 16, 11:00*am, rail wrote:
EZY have a good relationship with Balpa, whereas FR ... yes, well.

Given FR is an Irish based company, why should it have any relationship
with Balpa?

Because their permanent Stansted staff (their largest site) are employed in
the UK under English law?

But does that include pilots?

Yes, and cabin crew.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

In message , at 09:09:34 on
Sat, 17 Oct 2009, Jeremy Double remarked:
FlyBe inherited a lot of Embraer ERJ145 jets when they took over the BA
Connect routes. However, they have now disposed of these and run the
ex-BA Connect routes with other planes. bmi seem to have bought at
least some of the ERJ145 jets.

Branded BMI-regional I think. Now running on EMA-BRU, which was formerly
a 737 iirc.
--
Roland Perry

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

Neil Williams wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:44:30 +0100, "
wrote:

I've also been on flyBE. I don't think that I'll be doing that anytime
again soon.

The ex-BA "Barbie jets" are very nice, but operationally they're
atrocious, and they aren't even all that cheap.

Neil

Exactly.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:13:36 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:27:44 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:
"Bruce" wrote:

Probably not interested in a ragbag assortment of tired old
aircraft.

... which are probably leased anyway.


Yes, but the leases don't lapse when a firm is taken over. Unless a
termination is negotiated, at a considerable cost, the leases will
simply be assigned to the new owners and continue to the end of their
terms.

So the condition of the fleet is important, and whether they are owned
or leased, they remain a liability.

So Lufthansa now has those leases. It's not likely that any airline
interested in operating the bmibaby routes would want to use those
particular aircraft to operate them -- they'd be much more likely to
want to use aircraft compatible with the rest of their fleets. So, the
chances are that, even if some of those routes continue to flown by
someone, it won't be those aircraft flying them, nor will the planes be
wearing bmibaby liveries.


Conversely, if Lufthansa succeeds in selling bmibaby, it will be a
high priority for Lufthansa to transfer those leases to the buyer as
part of the deal. The new owner of bmibaby, a low cost airline, is
perhaps rather more likely than Lufthansa to have any use for a
clapped out fleet, hopefully with much lower leasing costs than buying
new.

If the leases are not transferred on sale, Lufthansa will rightly
expect a higher price for bmibaby to compensate for the retained
liability of all those leases.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

In message
John B wrote:

On Oct 16, 6:15*pm, rail wrote:
In message
* * * * * John B wrote:

On Oct 16, 11:00*am, rail wrote:
EZY have a good relationship with Balpa, whereas FR ... yes, well.

Given FR is an Irish based company, why should it have any
relationship with Balpa?

Because their permanent Stansted staff (their largest site) are
employed in the UK under English law?

But does that include pilots?

Yes, and cabin crew.


I wasn't convinced given the large proportion of flight (as opposed to cabin)
crew that were from Eastern Europe. I could easily believe that O'Leary was
saving money by using pilots 'based' in eg Poland, being paid Polish salaries
rather than British rates.

That would certainly be a cause of friction with Balpa.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

"Bruce" wrote in message


If the leases are not transferred on sale, Lufthansa will rightly
expect a higher price for bmibaby to compensate for the retained
liability of all those leases.

But why would anyone pay any significant amount for bmibaby? Its brand
is worthless and it has no significant assets (such as the valuable
Heathrow slots and more modern aircraft owned by bmi mainline). Any
airline wanting to expand on to its routes is free to do so, and could
probably do it more efficiently than by buying a failing small airline.

It's far more likely that Lufthansa either has to pay someone to take it
away, or just shuts it down. And at least Lufthansa does still operate
similar, but larger, 737-300 and 737-500 fleets. In fact, Lufthansa's
737-300s are on average significantly older than bmi's, so it could
probably use the bmibaby fleet to *upgrade* its own fleet (the oldest
Lufthansa 737 is five years older than the oldest bmibaby one). My
experience of Lufthansa's planes is that they can be very tatty indeed,
so the bmibaby ones may actually be in better condition, too.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

"rail" wrote in message

In message


John B wrote:

On Oct 16, 6:15 pm, rail wrote:
In message

John B wrote:

On Oct 16, 11:00 am, rail wrote:
EZY have a good relationship with Balpa, whereas FR ... yes,
well.

Given FR is an Irish based company, why should it have any
relationship with Balpa?

Because their permanent Stansted staff (their largest site) are
employed in the UK under English law?

But does that include pilots?

Yes, and cabin crew.


I wasn't convinced given the large proportion of flight (as opposed
to cabin) crew that were from Eastern Europe. I could easily believe
that O'Leary was saving money by using pilots 'based' in eg Poland,
being paid Polish salaries rather than British rates.

That would certainly be a cause of friction with Balpa.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:59:47 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message


If the leases are not transferred on sale, Lufthansa will rightly
expect a higher price for bmibaby to compensate for the retained
liability of all those leases.

But why would anyone pay any significant amount for bmibaby? Its brand
is worthless and it has no significant assets (such as the valuable
Heathrow slots and more modern aircraft owned by bmi mainline). Any
airline wanting to expand on to its routes is free to do so, and could
probably do it more efficiently than by buying a failing small airline.

It's far more likely that Lufthansa either has to pay someone to take it
away, or just shuts it down. And at least Lufthansa does still operate
similar, but larger, 737-300 and 737-500 fleets. In fact, Lufthansa's
737-300s are on average significantly older than bmi's, so it could
probably use the bmibaby fleet to *upgrade* its own fleet (the oldest
Lufthansa 737 is five years older than the oldest bmibaby one). My
experience of Lufthansa's planes is that they can be very tatty indeed,
so the bmibaby ones may actually be in better condition, too.


You can try to grind me down as much as you like g, but the problem
of the lease liability remains. There will almost certainly be parent
company guarantees from Lufthansa, so this liability really cannot be
ignored.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

In message , at 15:59:47 on
Sat, 17 Oct 2009, Recliner remarked:
Any airline wanting to expand on to its routes is free to do so, and
could probably do it more efficiently than by buying a failing small
airline.

Ironically, BMIbaby has just announced a significant expansion at EMA to
replace many of the routes previously flow by Easyjet (ex BA-Go) from
there, which are being chopped at the end of the year.

But if the EMA-AMS flights are eventually a casualty, it'll
inconvenience me quite a bit. They are always full, but there's not an
obvious replacement carrier unless Flybe does indeed start a hub at EMA
(they fly to AMS from several other UK regional airports).
--
Roland Perry

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

Recliner wrote:
My
experience of Lufthansa's planes is that they can be very tatty indeed,
so the bmibaby ones may actually be in better condition, too.

Not my experience (primarily Airbus A320 family planes and an occasional
Boeing 737 on MAN-FRA)...
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:21:24 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

I'm a bit confused here. It seems they don't run any ERJ145's any more,

I meant those. Didn't know they'd got rid of them, but then I
(deliberately) haven't flown with them for a while.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:30:26 on Wed, 14 Oct
2009, " remarked:
There was a service a few years ago, that was running trains out of
Waterloo to Southampton for about £1.

Still is, called Megatrain.

The problem, however, was that passengers who paid that fare were confined
to one car on the train.

Didn't last long, according to reports from travellers. Now any carriage
is acceptable.

I'm under the impression that it was not the most pleasant journey.

Why's that? Many advance purchase train tickets today are issued with
compulsory reservations. What's the unpleasantness if they turn out to be
all in one carriage?

Several foreign railways fill up the seats - carriage by carriage and lock
the unused ones out of use.

It is pot luck whether you are in a completely full carriage or an almost
empty one

tim

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
I've heard that this is already happening, unfortunately.

No, the opposite is true.


The majority of flights I make are in classless aircraft, those that are not
have either no FC section or only 12 - 16 FC seats

The traditional FC passenger is now the private jet hirer.

I don't suggest that BC and FC will disappear just that most airlines will
have to depend on the price sensitive market.
The companies I have worked for have all had policies for travelling that
mandate coach for 4Hrs and then case by case above that..
e.g. Business class if working within 8 hours of arrival.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:14:23 on Wed, 14 Oct
2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
or terminating within
the EC. (fair usage restrictions apply)

Wriggle wriggle.

Nonsense , he mentioned Korean Airlines, there is no way of deciding if he
meant North or South.

Apart from the Northern ones apparently not being allowed to fly to
Europe.

He did not mention origin or destination.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

In message , at 21:48:10 on Fri, 23
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
The companies I have worked for have all had policies for travelling
that mandate coach for 4Hrs and then case by case above that..
e.g. Business class if working within 8 hours of arrival.

A more useful rule for the latter might be: Coach, unless you have to
work within total flight length hours of arrival.

But that has the difficulty that getting home exhausted at 6pm [local]
on a Saturday after flying overnight for 14 hours, might not trigger the
rule. Do employers consider having a "Sunday off" as something the
employee is entitled to, without it being entirely consumed by
recovering from the flight?
--
Roland Perry

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

In message , at 21:52:04 on Fri, 23
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
Wriggle wriggle.

Nonsense , he mentioned Korean Airlines, there is no way of deciding
if he meant North or South.

Apart from the Northern ones apparently not being allowed to fly to
Europe.

He did not mention origin or destination.

Still wriggling, eh?
--
Roland Perry

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

Roland Perry writes:
Wriggle wriggle.

Nonsense , he mentioned Korean Airlines, there is no way of deciding
if he meant North or South.

Apart from the Northern ones apparently not being allowed to fly to
Europe.

He did not mention origin or destination.

Still wriggling, eh?

Note that Europe wasn't involved at all.

[actually it was Narita, though I suspect North Korea's not overly
welcome there either...]

-Miles

--
"1971 pickup truck; will trade for guns"

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 21:48:10 on Fri, 23
Do employers consider having a "Sunday off" as something the
employee is entitled to, without it being entirely consumed by recovering
from the flight?


An employee returned late one day from the States, expected in next day
early for a debrief meeting.
Is killed on way to work, believed to have fallen asleep at the wheel.
Company now allows taxis from home to work after long haul.
This was not altruism, the company was being sued by the widow that the
company failed in their duty of care in requiring an employee to work
excessive hours
and drive while unfit to do so.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
Still wriggling, eh?
--

No, just pointing out one must differentiate between what was said and
what you imagine he meant or implied.

The only statement was he had an opinion of an Airline that operates under
the Korean Flag.

I don't have to wriggle, I have never been to Korea, never intend to go to
Korea and have no personal interest in Korea.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

"Mr G" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:36:40 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:
. They do
have a 'premium' fare class, which probably equates to full service.


I don't like paying significant money for service I don't get. I am short
fat bald fly badly dressed and have little 'presence' the net result is that
I tend to be ignored or dealt with last
in Business Class. So I prefer to save the BC premium and spend it
enhancing the journey by paying at the time, rather than up front and hope
to get the service.

For instance most airlines have a 'by invitation' to use lounge,while if you
pay a fee for a general lounge, you will get it.

It is the same reason I don't belong to the RACE recovery service, they
openly state that as I am not a woman I will not be helped until all
unaccompanied women are recovered.
Strangely if I call a garage directly they generally just ask where I am.
The RAC do not offer a second rate service discount to men.

In the end of a day I want to go somewhere for a specific purpose. Cattle
class or FC the flight is still going to be a pain. A decent hotel on
arrival and a nights sleep is more likely to result in mission success than
class of ticket.

From your comments you appear to travel a lot but not live near a suitable
airport, that is a lifestyle decision and not really an airline issue.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

Miles Bader wrote:
Roland Perry writes:
Wriggle wriggle.
Nonsense , he mentioned Korean Airlines, there is no way of deciding
if he meant North or South.
Apart from the Northern ones apparently not being allowed to fly to
Europe.
He did not mention origin or destination.
Still wriggling, eh?

Note that Europe wasn't involved at all.

[actually it was Narita, though I suspect North Korea's not overly
welcome there either...]

-Miles

No North Koreans are currently permitted in Japan.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

In message , at 09:10:58 on Sat, 24
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
An employee returned late one day from the States, expected in next
day early for a debrief meeting.
Is killed on way to work, believed to have fallen asleep at the wheel.
Company now allows taxis from home to work after long haul.
This was not altruism, the company was being sued by the widow that
the company failed in their duty of care in requiring an employee to
work excessive hours
and drive while unfit to do so.

In which country(s) was the company, the widow and the lawsuit?
--
Roland Perry

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

In message , at 09:19:09 on Sat, 24
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
The only statement was he had an opinion of an Airline that operates
under the Korean Flag.

To Japan, it seems.

I don't have to wriggle, I have never been to Korea, never intend to go
to Korea and have no personal interest in Korea.

I'm in (South) Korea this week, as it happens. (By Air France).
--
Roland Perry

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:10:58 on Sat, 24
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
An employee returned late one day from the States, expected in next day
early for a debrief meeting.
Is killed on way to work, believed to have fallen asleep at the wheel.
Company now allows taxis from home to work after long haul.
This was not altruism, the company was being sued by the widow that the
company failed in their duty of care in requiring an employee to work
excessive hours
and drive while unfit to do so.

In which country(s) was the company, the widow and the lawsuit?

UK, it was settled out of court with the usual non-disclosure agreement.

In addition the company, which has several sites used to expect managers
to drive 4 hours to a site do a days work and then drive back as required.
They no longer allow this and pay for overnight accommodation. It had been
pointed out that they were expecting staff to drive longer hours than would
be permitted if they were driving as a job.

I do not think there has been any court cases, so no precedent, but rumor
had it that the company decided that they were of risk of
liability should an accident occur. But it was also part of the 'cut travel
costs' campaign and any travel has to be far more justified than in the
past.
8 hours driving followed by a 4 hour meeting is a very expensive meeting.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

I'm in (South) Korea this week, as it happens. (By Air France).
--


Well I am sure you will find Air France staff OK.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:46:41 -0000, "Buddenbrooks"
wrote:

In addition the company, which has several sites used to expect managers
to drive 4 hours to a site do a days work and then drive back as required.
They no longer allow this and pay for overnight accommodation. It had been
pointed out that they were expecting staff to drive longer hours than would
be permitted if they were driving as a job.


I used to work for a company that expected employees to do the same.
After the death of an employee who fell asleep at the wheel on his way
home has now changed policy to insist on (1) an overnight stay, (2) no
longer than a 13 hour shift including driving, and (3) a minimum 11
hour break before starting the next shift.

I think one or both of the latter requirements was imposed by law.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:19:09 on Sat, 24
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
The only statement was he had an opinion of an Airline that operates
under the Korean Flag.

To Japan, it seems.

I don't have to wriggle, I have never been to Korea, never intend to
go to Korea and have no personal interest in Korea.

I'm in (South) Korea this week, as it happens. (By Air France).

Are you going to visit the DMZ?

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

In message , at 08:46:41 on Sun, 25
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:

8 hours driving followed by a 4 hour meeting is a very expensive meeting.

ObRail: I'm currently suffering a lot from 1.5hr meetings (the minimum
practical, really) sandwiched between 3hrs each way getting to London
and back :(

Last Friday, for example: left home at 11am and got back at 6.30pm.
Hence my frustration when the train company can't even be bothered to
staff the buffet for my journey home.

And before you chip in saying this is a lifestyle choice - those choices
are made for us sometimes.
--
Roland Perry

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

In message , at 08:48:02 on Sun, 25
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
I'm in (South) Korea this week, as it happens. (By Air France).

Well I am sure you will find Air France staff OK.

They were very good on the planes - much better than last time I flew
with them (which was on that same Rio routing that ditched earlier this
year). CDG is something else, though. Twenty minutes taxing to a parking
space, then another half hour to find a bus and get us to the terminal
building.
--
Roland Perry

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

In message , at 12:18:59 on Sun, 25
Oct 2009, " remarked:
I'm in (South) Korea this week, as it happens. (By Air France).

Are you going to visit the DMZ?

It's fairly unlikely that I'll visit anything outside the conference
hotel, I'm afraid (although you could spend several days just exploring
that). Except for the organised social at the National Museum.

There's a punishing schedule of meetings from as early as 6am until 6pm
(plus networking at the socials). And too much to do back in Europe for
any extra days sightseeing here. We are here primarily to make the
meeting accessible to those living in Asia.
--
Roland Perry

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

And before you chip in saying this is a lifestyle choice - those choices
are made for us sometimes.
--

The lack of service is not acceptable. Having a job involving a lot of
international travel and living a long distance from Heathrow is a lifestyle
choice.
Probably a perfectly valid one.

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

In message , at 15:38:39 on Sun, 25
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
And before you chip in saying this is a lifestyle choice - those
choices are made for us sometimes.

The lack of service is not acceptable. Having a job involving a lot of
international travel and living a long distance from Heathrow is a
lifestyle choice.

I disagree on two levels.

First of all, I can do all the long-haul international travel I need to,
generally much cheaper, by starting at Birmingham and taking a hop to
AMS/CDG/DXB. It's only an hour to BHX by car, and an hour checking is
almost always OK. I'm not sure you could get onto a plane from LHR as
quickly, even living in Hounslow.

And I can satisfactorily do much of Europe (with the particular
exception of BRU, and GVA is about to become more difficult) from EMA.
I'm not sure there are many LHR-BRU flights either, and GVA is better
served from LTN.

Secondly, there is more to a lifestyle than being able to catch a plane
from Heathrow. Especially where family is involved. Which is a weakness
of "blokes on Usenet", as they tend to be self-selecting as not family
men, with more to think about than their own convenience.
--
Roland Perry

Wafted from paradise to Luton Airport
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 15:38:39 on Sun, 25
I disagree on two levels.


?? How can where you live be anything other than a lifestyle choice ?