On Jul 14, 12:52 pm, Jon Green wrote:
Not a point of view that's popular amongst eco-warriors, because it
reduces them to "*grumble* Shouldn't have a plane on that route anyway
*grumble, mumble*".

OTOH her fare could have made the difference for the airline between
continuing the route and cancelling it as unprofitable.

Yeah, and mistimed butterfly-wing flappage over Brazil has caused plane
crashes.

There is clearly a financial point where an airline decides whether to
curtail, keep as-is, or expand a route. I imagine this is based on
percentage margin; logically, there must be *some* individual fare
that takes the margin over the border line.

The Newquay route is a nice little earner for Ryanair. They've expanded
their service there since inception, due to popularity.

....precisely.

If you want to understand why, try lugging a 8'6" mini-mal glass fibre
board, in its carry-bag (plus a bag full of neoprene and clothes) around
a few trains, and through the London Underground system betweentimes.
If you find a way of getting the board undamaged down the escalators
without causing distress and injury to fellow travellers, do let me
know. Or, for a real laugh, take them on the bus instead.

Hmm. I've been to a few airports; I don't recall any of them being
places I'd like to lug a surfboard around. If I had a surfboard to
transport from the southeast/midlands to Cornwall, I'd go by car
(presumably your hypothetical surfer has access to a car, since
otherwise they'd have the same trouble with escalators, trains and
buses in getting to the airport in the first place).

Given the joys of the A30 and A39, I'd say that the plane is probably
the more green option, bizarrely enough.

Very sceptical that this could be the case even allowing for the poor
fuel consumption you'd get on those roads, assuming you're not driving
solo.

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