The boast that our economy produces jobs comes from
people who love low pay for others and who are entirely
unconcerned about the ramifications of a low wage economy.
Those who do not want people to be forced to accept low
pay welcome developments which promise to create well paid
jobs.

"Someone Somewhere" wrote in message
...
On 16/06/2016 13:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:21:14 on Thu, 16 Jun
2016, Someone Somewhere remarked:
assuming no assumed caveats such as which particular Queen Victoria,
and of which country, we are talking about...

cough UK.transport.LONDON cough

Yes special correspondant on Cambridge and other matters pertaining to
East Anglia?

The person in question is at least related to London by birth, even if it
is a few generations back...

Tee hee! The whooshing noise is the point of the original posting, flying
over mid-Norfolk...

I even read the mention about her father being the 1st European monarch to
introduce absolute primogeniture without it striking home!

James

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 13:35:22 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016,
tim... remarked:
If all fares originating in the UK go up, then competitively it's still
a level playing field for the airlines

Not quite. Airlines that rely heavily on UK hubs will lose out to those
that use non-UK hubs, as more passengers will choose to change in Paris
or Frankfurt instead of London.

but just what is this underlying reason that will make (BA) fares go up in
the first place

All-round worse deals for the UK as: an EU outsider flying to the EU; and
[separately, remember] with less bargaining power for destinations outside
the EU.
--


I really do think that you are inventing a problem that isn't there.

everyone wants to fly to London, in the EU or not.

No foreign country is going to put up barriers for flying to London that
aren't also there for flying to EU.

tim

In message , at 13:37:18 on Thu, 16 Jun
2016, d remarked:

Or perhaps you mean it'll lead to hundreds of thousands of new jobs?

The latter.

Right, and presumably they'll all be working for Porcine Airways.

Or whoever supplies the services to the extra flights the third runway
facilitates.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 17:59:51 on Thu, 16 Jun
2016, tim... remarked:

but just what is this underlying reason that will make (BA) fares go
up in the first place

All-round worse deals for the UK as: an EU outsider flying to the EU;
and [separately, remember] with less bargaining power for
destinations outside the EU.

I really do think that you are inventing a problem that isn't there.

everyone wants to fly to London, in the EU or not.

No foreign country is going to put up barriers for flying to London
that aren't also there for flying to EU.

They are, if it means more profits for their (US-based) airlines, while
freezing out all but a couple of European-based airlines from the
routes.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 17:59:51 on Thu, 16 Jun 2016,
tim... remarked:

but just what is this underlying reason that will make (BA) fares go up
in the first place

All-round worse deals for the UK as: an EU outsider flying to the EU;
and [separately, remember] with less bargaining power for destinations
outside the EU.

I really do think that you are inventing a problem that isn't there.

everyone wants to fly to London, in the EU or not.

No foreign country is going to put up barriers for flying to London that
aren't also there for flying to EU.

They are, if it means more profits for their (US-based) airlines, while
freezing out all but a couple of European-based airlines from the routes.

Eh

US based airlines only exist in the US, there is about 170 countries outside
the EU that will want flights to the UK

tim

In message , at 19:05:38 on Thu, 16 Jun
2016, tim... remarked:
They are, if it means more profits for their (US-based) airlines,
while freezing out all but a couple of European-based airlines from
the routes.

Eh

US based airlines only exist in the US, there is about 170 countries
outside the EU that will want flights to the UK

The single busiest route is Heathrow-New York, and then there's all the
other US hubs.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (D A Stocks)
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:26:39 +0100
Recliner wrote:
But the problem with putting an airport a long way off is that it's
also a long way from the customers, who therefore don't want to use
it. BAA invested in a splendid Norman Foster terminal, a railway
station right under the terminal and direct links to the nearby M11,
but that still wasn't enough.

Both Luton and Gatwick are miles out of London with arguably dodgy rail
and crowded motorway links, yet they're both very popular. There has to
be more to it than location and the train.

Further back in the thread you said something about Stansted and its
fast rail link to London. Actually that's 4 trains/hour to Liverpool
Street which, to most of London, is somewhere on the eastern border
of the City of London that's not much fun to get to. There is also a
connection to the Victoria Line at Tottenham Hale.

Against that the "arguably dodgy" rail link from Gatwick to London has:

10 trains/hour to Victoria
4 trains/hour to London Bridge
4 trains/hour to Blackfriars/Farringdon/King's X then Bedford

So you're seeking to compare 18 trains/hour to various parts of
central/south London vs 4 trains/hour to Liverpool St (as previously
described).

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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).
--
Roland Perry

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel