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

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:50:22 +0100, Jon Green wrote:

Look at it another way: the extra fuel burnt from the additional weight
of you and your baggage, since the plane was going to fly that route
anyway, was miniscule. You could probably offset it by growing a couple
of rows of carrots.

A post in sci.aeronautics.airliners from a guy with a boeing.com
email address disagrees:
http://yarchive.net/air/airliners/mpg.html

"It will vary pretty widely depending on the airplane, the engines, the
condition of the engines, the range the airplane is intending to fly, and
the weather (hotter is always worse). All that to say a precise answer is
very difficult and will wobble a great deal. A good tire kicking number
is to figure about half the weight of the passenger and bags. That is,
if a 180 lb passenger+bags is added at the last minute, you can probably
figure that on the average flight on the average airplane somewhere near
90 lb of fuel (more for longer ranges, older aircraft, etc). That is
about 15 gallons."

Of course this might just be the point of view of a Boeing toilet cleaner,
or a teenage lesbian pretending to be a middle-aged aeronautical engineer.

Not a point of view that's popular amongst eco-warriors, because it

....is wrong?

--
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

"Fevric J Glandules" wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:50:22 +0100, Jon Green wrote:

Look at it another way: the extra fuel burnt from the additional weight
of you and your baggage, since the plane was going to fly that route
anyway, was miniscule. You could probably offset it by growing a couple
of rows of carrots.

A post in sci.aeronautics.airliners from a guy with a boeing.com
email address disagrees:
http://yarchive.net/air/airliners/mpg.html

"It will vary pretty widely depending on the airplane, the engines, the
condition of the engines, the range the airplane is intending to fly, and
the weather (hotter is always worse). All that to say a precise answer is
very difficult and will wobble a great deal.

Another way you could do the sums is start with the oft-quoted "fact" that
tankering fuel costs 3% per hour.

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

In message , at 17:01:27 on
Mon, 14 Jul 2008, magwitch remarked:
* BY CAR Carbon cost: 0.08 tons of CO2, one way

* BY RAIL Carbon cost: 0.02 tons of CO2, one way

Those figures are very suspicious for a diesel-powered high speed train.
Maybe it's for a full train and one person in a car.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 17:01:27 on
Mon, 14 Jul 2008, magwitch remarked:
* BY CAR Carbon cost: 0.08 tons of CO2, one way

* BY RAIL Carbon cost: 0.02 tons of CO2, one way

Those figures are very suspicious for a diesel-powered high speed train.
Maybe it's for a full train and one person in a car.

Many trains to Cornwall are pretty near full, so that's not a ludicrous
assumption. The one-person-per car, on the other hand, is less likely, as I
suspect that there are rather more family trips to Cornwall and rather fewer
single-businessperson-on-their-own-in-the-car than is typical of other
journeys.

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:04:51 +0100, Jon Green
wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:31:18 on
Mon, 14 Jul 2008, magwitch remarked:
All I can say is that during the '50s '60s and '70s people managed to
get to Devon or Cornwall for lovely holidays and the 4–6 hour car or
train journey was all part of the fun.

I remember going down there by car pre-motorways, via the infamous
Honiton Bypass etc, and it wasn't much fun. Nor was it 4-6 hours!!

It's not six hours to Cornwall even now! (At least, not if you keep to
the speed limits and don't try to do it in one shift.) You'd be lucky
to make it to the Devon border from Cambridge in four hours - Multimap
reckons 4'24" even on modern roads, and that doesn't reckon in rest stops.

Four minutes twenty-four seconds?!?!?!

Linda ff

Linda Fox wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:04:51 +0100, Jon Green
wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:31:18 on
Mon, 14 Jul 2008, magwitch remarked:
All I can say is that during the '50s '60s and '70s people managed to
get to Devon or Cornwall for lovely holidays and the 4–6 hour car or
train journey was all part of the fun.
I remember going down there by car pre-motorways, via the infamous
Honiton Bypass etc, and it wasn't much fun. Nor was it 4-6 hours!!
It's not six hours to Cornwall even now! (At least, not if you keep to
the speed limits and don't try to do it in one shift.) You'd be lucky
to make it to the Devon border from Cambridge in four hours - Multimap
reckons 4'24" even on modern roads, and that doesn't reckon in rest stops.

Four minutes twenty-four seconds?!?!?!


Thanks to our new Eurofighter/typhoon.

Linda ff

Linda Fox wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:04:51 +0100, Jon Green
wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:31:18 on
Mon, 14 Jul 2008, magwitch remarked:
All I can say is that during the '50s '60s and '70s people managed to
get to Devon or Cornwall for lovely holidays and the 4–6 hour car or
train journey was all part of the fun.
I remember going down there by car pre-motorways, via the infamous
Honiton Bypass etc, and it wasn't much fun. Nor was it 4-6 hours!!
It's not six hours to Cornwall even now! (At least, not if you keep to
the speed limits and don't try to do it in one shift.) You'd be lucky
to make it to the Devon border from Cambridge in four hours - Multimap
reckons 4'24" even on modern roads, and that doesn't reckon in rest stops.

Four minutes twenty-four seconds?!?!?!

Sorry, had a Spinal Tap moment there...

Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.