In message , at 10:27:24 on Fri, 17 Jun
2016, tim... remarked:

I can just see that EU "interference" in the market might make flying
intra-EU fares cheaper [1] (I don't buy it, but it might),

I don't buy it either - along with most other commentators and
several of the airlines involved, I think fares will go up.

I think you misunderstand my point.

I was talking about flights between the remaining EU countries (after
we have left) being cheaper than similar types of flights from a non-EU
European country (which we will then be) to an EU one specifically
because of EU meddling. Obviously there will be price differentials
caused by the (lack of) popularity of the destination and differences
in airport fees imposed by the countries concerned.

It's more than airport fees.

but what possible effect can any EU meddling have on flights between
two non-EU countries?

They aren't going to be "meddling" as you put it, but we will be
*removing* ourselves from arrangements the EU have negotiated on our
behalf to facilitate more/cheaper UK-USA flights.

Then you should have been clearer at the start.

It still appears clear to me.

not for one minute did I think that your first point about flight
prices going up when/if we leave the EU was about the price of UK-US
flights.

That's right, but my second point was.

I naturally thought that you meant it to refer to UK - rest of EU
flights, and every one of my comments since then has been based upon
that understanding.

You are digging a big hole by failing to recognise I made two separate
points.

We will have to re-negotiate, and with much less bargaining power are
almost certain to get a worse deal.

as the single limiting resource that everybody wants are slots at LHR,
how can we possibly have such a poor hand that we get a worse deal?

Because we could well end up with the US-based airlines dominating. nd
they are profit-driven.

Of course some people think that the independence to negotiate these
sorts of things for ourself is a good thing, but it's naive to assume
that we'll end up with a more advantageous arrangement as a result.

More advantageous doesn't always mean cheaper

In this case "less advantageous" most certainly means more expensive.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 04:38:22
on Fri, 17 Jun 2016, remarked:
Of course some people think that the independence to negotiate these
sorts of things for ourself is a good thing, but it's naive to assume
that we'll end up with a more advantageous arrangement as a result.

That's the appalling chauvinism, reminiscent of the worst parts of Britain's
imperial past ("foreigners will do what we say"), that seems to keep coming
from the Leave side.

Maybe there will be more work for our shipyards building gunboats
post-Brexit?
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:27:24 on Fri, 17 Jun 2016,
tim... remarked:

I can just see that EU "interference" in the market might make flying
intra-EU fares cheaper [1] (I don't buy it, but it might),

I don't buy it either - along with most other commentators and several
of the airlines involved, I think fares will go up.

I think you misunderstand my point.

I was talking about flights between the remaining EU countries (after we
have left) being cheaper than similar types of flights from a non-EU
European country (which we will then be) to an EU one specifically because
of EU meddling. Obviously there will be price differentials caused by the
(lack of) popularity of the destination and differences in airport fees
imposed by the countries concerned.

It's more than airport fees.

In which case I am still waiting for your working.


but what possible effect can any EU meddling have on flights between two
non-EU countries?

They aren't going to be "meddling" as you put it, but we will be
*removing* ourselves from arrangements the EU have negotiated on our
behalf to facilitate more/cheaper UK-USA flights.

Then you should have been clearer at the start.

It still appears clear to me.

Then I suggest you try harder

not for one minute did I think that your first point about flight prices
going up when/if we leave the EU was about the price of UK-US flights.

That's right,

Still waiting for the working

but my second point was.

I naturally thought that you meant it to refer to UK - rest of EU flights,
and every one of my comments since then has been based upon that
understanding.

You are digging a big hole by failing to recognise I made two separate
points.

Don't be silly.

Just admit it, you didn't make it clear

We will have to re-negotiate, and with much less bargaining power are
almost certain to get a worse deal.

as the single limiting resource that everybody wants are slots at LHR, how
can we possibly have such a poor hand that we get a worse deal?

Because we could well end up with the US-based airlines dominating. nd
they are profit-driven.

BA isn't?

We managed perfectly well to negotiate slots for 2 airlines before the EU
meddling, why could we not do again?

It's our asset we are negotiating away.

Of course some people think that the independence to negotiate these
sorts of things for ourself is a good thing, but it's naive to assume
that we'll end up with a more advantageous arrangement as a result.

More advantageous doesn't always mean cheaper

In this case "less advantageous" most certainly means more expensive.

I think you are wrong. Prices are kept down by competition, that
competition isn't going to go away

tim

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 06:32:18 -0500
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:
Really? Seems like standard economics to me. What would you do, just say
"please" nicely?

Read what the Outers have been saying and consider what others will think of
it. Britain has a strong record of its influence in the EU delivering what
this country supports, especially in market liberalisation that has grown
our economies and made us all better off.

Our economy is doing well despite the EU, not because of it.

The remain side seem to be happy to be told what to do by Brussels. Bunch
of spineless supine morons.

Being told what to by Brussels is what _will_ happen if we want to trade
with the EU after Brexit. While we remain in we get to make the decisions.

Well see. We're a lot more powerful economy than norway or switzerland and
the EU - especially Germany - exports a lot to us so its not in their interests
to slap on punative tarifs.

And moderate your language, please. Intemperance like yours is what is
really damaging this country.

Given your history you're in no position to comment about that.

--
Spud

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 04:38:22 on
Fri, 17 Jun 2016, remarked:
Of course some people think that the independence to negotiate these
sorts of things for ourself is a good thing, but it's naive to assume
that we'll end up with a more advantageous arrangement as a result.

That's the appalling chauvinism, reminiscent of the worst parts of
Britain's
imperial past ("foreigners will do what we say"), that seems to keep
coming
from the Leave side.

Maybe there will be more work for our shipyards building gunboats
post-Brexit?

If we don't negotiate away our fishing rights we will almost certainly need
ships to enforce it

I cant see two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers (without any planes
on them) being overly useful in that task

tim

In message , at 16:45:19 on Fri, 17 Jun
2016, tim... remarked:

It's more than airport fees.

In which case I am still waiting for your working.

It's not my working, refer to various statements by airlines.

Just admit it, you didn't make it clear

Clear to 100% of readers, or just the 99% excluding yourself?

It doesn't help your case the number of times you post here saying "it's
not clear to me", when you are the only one saying that.

We will have to re-negotiate, and with much less bargaining power
are almost certain to get a worse deal.

as the single limiting resource that everybody wants are slots at
LHR, how can we possibly have such a poor hand that we get a worse deal?

Because we could well end up with the US-based airlines dominating.
nd they are profit-driven.

BA isn't?

We managed perfectly well to negotiate slots for 2 airlines before the
EU meddling, why could we not do again?

The "two airlines each" thing is very long standing (1977), and
something we this side of the Atlantic wanted to change.

The two airlines from our side would undoubtedly be BA and Virgin.
Market closed to any others.

It's our asset we are negotiating away.

But without agreement from both, we could lose much of the asset.

Of course some people think that the independence to negotiate
these sorts of things for ourself is a good thing, but it's naive
to assume that we'll end up with a more advantageous arrangement
as a result.

More advantageous doesn't always mean cheaper

In this case "less advantageous" most certainly means more expensive.

I think you are wrong. Prices are kept down by competition, that
competition isn't going to go away

It will be much diluted if we go back to only four transatalantic
airlines at Heathrow.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 16:45:19 on Fri, 17 Jun 2016,
tim... remarked:

It's more than airport fees.

In which case I am still waiting for your working.

It's not my working, refer to various statements by airlines.

Unless they have shown their working all they will be are press releases
with "We believe Armageddon will start if we leave"

Just admit it, you didn't make it clear

Clear to 100% of readers, or just the 99% excluding yourself?

It doesn't help your case the number of times you post here saying "it's
not clear to me", when you are the only one saying that.

I'm the only one discussing this item with you

no-one else is interested

We will have to re-negotiate, and with much less bargaining power are
almost certain to get a worse deal.

as the single limiting resource that everybody wants are slots at LHR,
how can we possibly have such a poor hand that we get a worse deal?

Because we could well end up with the US-based airlines dominating. nd
they are profit-driven.

BA isn't?

We managed perfectly well to negotiate slots for 2 airlines before the EU
meddling, why could we not do again?

The "two airlines each" thing is very long standing (1977), and something
we this side of the Atlantic wanted to change.

The two airlines from our side would undoubtedly be BA and Virgin. Market
closed to any others.

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

It's our asset we are negotiating away.

But without agreement from both, we could lose much of the asset.

Only if we are stupid negotiators

I believe that you do this sort of thing for a living. I don't understand
why you think we would give it away so easily

Of course some people think that the independence to negotiate these
sorts of things for ourself is a good thing, but it's naive to assume
that we'll end up with a more advantageous arrangement as a result.

More advantageous doesn't always mean cheaper

In this case "less advantageous" most certainly means more expensive.

I think you are wrong. Prices are kept down by competition, that
competition isn't going to go away

It will be much diluted if we go back to only four transatalantic airlines
at Heathrow.

It will be enough

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
04:38:22 on Fri, 17 Jun 2016, remarked:

[Luton Airport Parkway]

The train service is hardly that good and frequent either. Lots of slow
trains but fasts are only hourly.

The semi-fasts are only 12 minutes slower than the hourly fast, and
there's only 11 minutes each hour where if you head for the fast
train platform you'll get there quicker than heading for the
Thameslink platform.

Overall, it's simply not worth even considering the "fasts",
especially as you are much more likely to get a seat on the
semi-fasts.

That's even worse than the Stansted service.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , d () wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 06:32:18 -0500
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:
Really? Seems like standard economics to me. What would you do, just
say "please" nicely?

Read what the Outers have been saying and consider what others will think
of it. Britain has a strong record of its influence in the EU delivering
what this country supports, especially in market liberalisation that has
grown our economies and made us all better off.

Our economy is doing well despite the EU, not because of it.

Say you. How come the vast majority of economists say otherwise?

The remain side seem to be happy to be told what to do by Brussels.
Bunch of spineless supine morons.

Being told what to by Brussels is what _will_ happen if we want to trade
with the EU after Brexit. While we remain in we get to make the
decisions.

Well see. We're a lot more powerful economy than norway or switzerland and
the EU - especially Germany - exports a lot to us so its not in their
interests to slap on punative tarifs.

ROFL! Little Englander with his gunboat again.

And moderate your language, please. Intemperance like yours is what is
really damaging this country.

Given your history you're in no position to comment about that.

Shows how little you know.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 18:38:39 on Fri, 17 Jun
2016, tim... remarked:

The two airlines from our side would undoubtedly be BA and Virgin.
Market closed to any others.

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

Most people would disagree.

It's our asset we are negotiating away.

But without agreement from both, we could lose much of the asset.

Only if we are stupid negotiators

I believe that you do this sort of thing for a living. I don't
understand why you think we would give it away so easily

Because if you have little bargaining power you can't insist the other
side agrees with your point of view.
--
Roland Perry