On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:00:14 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:41:28 on Wed, 22 Jun
2016, d remarked:
Prices are low because supply is well-balanced with demand (in favour of
the consumer).

So you're saying there are too many flights? Given a lot fly half empty you're
probably right.

Easyjet's annual load factor is 91.5%, and Ryanair 83%, both much more
than train companies.

17% empty seats doesn't sound particularly good to me. Trains are a public
service , aircraft are not.

--
Spud

On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:03:41 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:47:22 on Wed, 22 Jun
2016, d remarked:
As an aside, a third of my third year degree course was doing the entire
first year economics lectures - but not having to do all the course
work.

The other thirds were in the Maths department (mainly stats and game
theory) and the Engineering Department (what they called back then
'Operational Research' - applying algorithms to the planning of things,
and queuing theory).

I think there should be more multi-disciplinary degrees like that.

Depends if they lead to a better chance of a job at the end given the amount
students have to cough up these days.

If you don't understand economics then it leads to all sorts of poor
decisions.

I think modern students are pretty sussed on their own personal economics.
When you're going to have to pay back up to 27K for a 3 year course you're not
going to dick about with some jack of all trades degree if potential employers
want specialists.

--
Spud

In message , at 09:39:11 on Wed, 22 Jun
2016, d remarked:

If you don't understand economics then it leads to all sorts of poor
decisions.

I think modern students are pretty sussed on their own personal economics.
When you're going to have to pay back up to 27K for a 3 year course you're not
going to dick about with some jack of all trades degree if potential employers
want specialists.

Anyone going into management needs to understand large scale economics,
whatever line of business it is.

And one person's jack of all trades is another's Renaissance man.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:33:12 on Wed, 22 Jun
2016, d remarked:
Prices are low because supply is well-balanced with demand (in favour of
the consumer).

So you're saying there are too many flights? Given a lot fly half empty you're
probably right.

Easyjet's annual load factor is 91.5%, and Ryanair 83%, both much more
than train companies.

17% empty seats doesn't sound particularly good to me.

It is when you consider that there's tidal-flow and 18x7 operations to
account for.
--
Roland Perry

On 21/06/2016 19:11, Roland Perry wrote:

Jun 2016, JNugent remarked:

[to someone else, who had insisted that restricting the amiunt of air
services offered to the public would not raise prices:]

Have you ever actually looked at (and read/understood) the first
twenty pages of an Economics GCSE textbook?

As an aside, a third of my third year degree course was doing the entire
first year economics lectures - but not having to do all the course work.
The other thirds were in the Maths department (mainly stats and game
theory) and the Engineering Department (what they called back then
'Operational Research' - applying algorithms to the planning of things,
and queuing theory).
I think there should be more multi-disciplinary degrees like that.

You don't need to be an expert in the discipline to realise that
restricting supply is going to cause prices to increase.

But you do need to know a bit about it.

On 22/06/2016 09:41, d wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 21/06/2016 15:26, d wrote:

You *do* understand that not everyone shares your belief that only the
rich should be allowed to travel, don't you?

Straw man.

Nonsense.

Sorry pal, you can't say "your belief" and expect to get away with it when its
a lie.

There should simply be an upper limit on the number of flights in and out of
uk airports. Then its first come first served. And no , that wouldn't force
the prices up

Forcing up fares is EXACTLY what would happen in such a situation. We
got to affordable flights by increasing the capacity of the world's air
services. Restricting them again will return us to the bad old days.

How will restricting them to current levels suddenly make the price go up?
Will there be a mass surge of people who hearing about the restrictions
suddenly get the urge to fly?

I didn't say that prices would "suddenly" go up. The timescale obviously
depends on the tapering and depth of the restrictions you want imposed
on the less affluent.

The first world, despite its current woes, is getting richer. Even the
third world is gettig richer. People are becoming more affluent
worldwide. Even at the (current real terms) £80 return fare to Italy, my
grandparents never had sufficient disposable income to be able to
indulge themselves in such a way.

That increase in affluence manifests itself in increased demand for the
fruits of the industrial world, though this is obviously something which
rubs you up the wrong way.

Have you ever actually looked at (and read/understood) the first twenty
pages of an Economics GCSE textbook?

Spare me your pathetic attempt at sarcasm. Besides which, the future
enviromental considerations of unlimited air travel trump the economics.

So you claim.

Perhaps you can produce an example of a market in which restricted
supply in the face of constant or increased demand results in lower prices?

Sorry... that doesn't actually matter, does it?

After all, it's only "little people" you want priced out of travel.

Prices are low because supply is well-balanced with demand (in favour of
the consumer).

So you're saying there are too many flights?

No.

Given a lot fly half empty you're
probably right. Perhaps we should reduce them.

Or perhaps people like you should just keep your noses out of other
peoples' business?

it's a thought...

rich could travel to other continents, and where the experience of the
average UK Joe would be one charter flight a year from Luton to Alicante
if he's lucky. That's how it used to be.

Boo hoo, poor Joe. Perhaps he'll just have to have his beer and chips and
1am fight in Billericay instead.

Oh, quite, old chap.

And I don't think it should be just limited to aircraft. A number
of cities around the world have limited cars to odd or even numberplates each
day to reduce pollution. That should be done in london too.

Really?

Yes really.

I do not profess any right to circumscribe the rights of my fellow
citizens.

I'm sorry, you think they're not already in a hundred different ways? Are
you really that naive? Well, maybe you are and maybe you're happily driving
around with no drivers license in an uninsured and untaxed vehicle. Or maybe
you take a **** in the middle of the street because finding a toilet is a
hassle.

But clearly, we cannot all make that ever-so-slightly proud boast, can you?

Living in a soceity that its trying to make the future better means
occasionally you and "Joe" will have to make an ever so slightly small
sacrifice. If that means taking one flight less a year or not being able to
drive your car into a city every other day - and I feel your pain, I really
do - then I don't have a problem with that.

Jawohl, mein Fuhrer.

On 22/06/2016 10:03, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 08:47:22 on Wed, 22 Jun
2016, d remarked:
As an aside, a third of my third year degree course was doing the entire
first year economics lectures - but not having to do all the course
work.

The other thirds were in the Maths department (mainly stats and game
theory) and the Engineering Department (what they called back then
'Operational Research' - applying algorithms to the planning of things,
and queuing theory).

I think there should be more multi-disciplinary degrees like that.

Depends if they lead to a better chance of a job at the end given the
amount
students have to cough up these days.

If you don't understand economics then it leads to all sorts of poor
decisions.

And he has demonstrated that already.

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 05:01:30PM +0100, Basil Jet wrote:

... The Stourbridge Town branch ...

Out of interest, does anyone know how that line is worked? I tried to
have a look on google maps' overhead view, but almost all the line is in
too much shadow to make much out. Wikipedia says it has two fly-wheel
powered vehicles, but it's single track and doesn't appear to have any
passing loops. So is it operated as just "one engine in steam" like, eg,
the Talyllyn used to run, with the second vehicle being a spare for when
the first is undergoing maintenance?

--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

While researching this email, I was forced to carry out some
investigative work which unfortunately involved a bucket of
puppies and a belt sander
-- after JoeB, in the Monastery

On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:54:11 +0100
JNugent wrote:
On 22/06/2016 09:41, d wrote:
How will restricting them to current levels suddenly make the price go up?
Will there be a mass surge of people who hearing about the restrictions
suddenly get the urge to fly?

I didn't say that prices would "suddenly" go up. The timescale obviously

Oh right, glad we cleared that up. So its just supposition then.

The first world, despite its current woes, is getting richer. Even the
third world is gettig richer. People are becoming more affluent
worldwide. Even at the (current real terms) £80 return fare to Italy, my
grandparents never had sufficient disposable income to be able to
indulge themselves in such a way.

Indulge - good word. Sums it up. It would be interesting to ask someone in
the 3rd world whether they'd prefer normal weather for their crops or some
cheap flights.

Spare me your pathetic attempt at sarcasm. Besides which, the future
enviromental considerations of unlimited air travel trump the economics.

So you claim.

So many claim. If the enviroment goes tits up no amount of Adam Smiths or
Keynes or Friedmans will be riding to the rescue.

Perhaps you can produce an example of a market in which restricted
supply in the face of constant or increased demand results in lower prices?

Sorry... that doesn't actually matter, does it?

No, it doesn't.

After all, it's only "little people" you want priced out of travel.

I care about my kids future. You only apparently give a **** about yourself
and your cheap holidays. I wonder which one of us in the future would be
judged the selfish git?

Given a lot fly half empty you're
probably right. Perhaps we should reduce them.

Or perhaps people like you should just keep your noses out of other
peoples' business?

If it negatively affects me and my descendents it IS my business.

it's a thought...

Enjoy it, I doubt you have many.

Living in a soceity that its trying to make the future better means
occasionally you and "Joe" will have to make an ever so slightly small
sacrifice. If that means taking one flight less a year or not being able to
drive your car into a city every other day - and I feel your pain, I really
do - then I don't have a problem with that.

Jawohl, mein Fuhrer.

Paging Mr Godwin...

--
Spud

On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:03:21 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:39:11 on Wed, 22 Jun
2016, d remarked:

If you don't understand economics then it leads to all sorts of poor
decisions.

I think modern students are pretty sussed on their own personal economics.
When you're going to have to pay back up to 27K for a 3 year course you're not
going to dick about with some jack of all trades degree if potential employers
want specialists.

Anyone going into management needs to understand large scale economics,

That would be at board level. The average project level manager just needs to
know how to use Word and powerpoint and how to pass the buck down the heirarchy
effectively.

And one person's jack of all trades is another's Renaissance man.

Sure, if they're jack AND master of all trades. No one is going to hire a
plumber who "knows a bit" and bodges it together with blu tak.

--
Spud