In message , at 17:04:41
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.

There's 4tph taking 33mins on the semi-fasts.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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.

seems to be enough in the "mobile" market

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.

but we don't have little bargaining power, that is the point

tim

tim... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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.

seems to be enough in the "mobile" market

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.

but we don't have little bargaining power, that is the point

We have much more as part of the EU than on our own.

In message , at 16:45:18 on Sat, 18 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.

seems to be enough in the "mobile" market

There's not complete agreement about that, actually. But obviously they
are very different markets.

One of the biggest problems with only having two US based airlines at
Heathrow would be a reduced number of places on their side of the water
served by direct flights.

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.

but we don't have little bargaining power, that is the point

What power do you think we have over the FAA?
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:55:42 -0500
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:
Our economy is doing well despite the EU, not because of it.

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

Vast majority? Looks 50/50 to me. And the ones that do tend to work for large
banks who have a nice cosy arrangement with Brussels.

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.

Who needs a gun boat when you have 70 billion a year imports to bargain with.

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.

Really? We can discuss deliberately blocking an ambulance on an emergency call
or slapping a 7 year old so hard she fell over if you want.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:55:42 -0500
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:
Our economy is doing well despite the EU, not because of it.

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

Vast majority? Looks 50/50 to me. And the ones that do tend to work for large
banks who have a nice cosy arrangement with Brussels.

Looks more like 10:1 to me.
https://mobile.twitter.com/EdConwayS...128001/photo/1

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

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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.

seems to be enough in the "mobile" market

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.

but we don't have little bargaining power, that is the point

We have much more as part of the EU than on our own.

Actually we don't as the aims will be whatever the EU wants, not what the UK
wants

The fact that, in this case, they may have been the same is irrelevant

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 16:45:18 on Sat, 18 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.

seems to be enough in the "mobile" market

There's not complete agreement about that, actually. But obviously they
are very different markets.

One of the biggest problems with only having two US based airlines at
Heathrow would be a reduced number of places on their side of the water
served by direct flights.

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.

but we don't have little bargaining power, that is the point

What power do you think we have over the FAA?
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 16:45:18 on Sat, 18 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.

seems to be enough in the "mobile" market

There's not complete agreement about that, actually. But obviously they
are very different markets.

One of the biggest problems with only having two US based airlines at
Heathrow would be a reduced number of places on their side of the water
served by direct flights.

Oops, ignore the other reply :-(

Well if there is no demand for those destinations why do airlines fly there
now?

I think it's a silly suggestion.





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.

but we don't have little bargaining power, that is the point

What power do you think we have over the FAA?

What does it matter who you are negotiating with if you have the cards

That's just a defeatist comment

tim

On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 21:58:15 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:55:42 -0500
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:
Our economy is doing well despite the EU, not because of it.

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

Vast majority? Looks 50/50 to me. And the ones that do tend to work for large
banks who have a nice cosy arrangement with Brussels.

Looks more like 10:1 to me.
https://mobile.twitter.com/EdConwayS...128001/photo/1

Depends if you mean short term or long term. I don't think anyone is denying
there'll be a blip down immediately afterwards. Then once the panic is over
things should pick up again once the sheep realised the sky hasn't actually
fallen after all. Whether thats a few weeks, months, years who knows.

--
Spud