Quotes: "You could always walk?" "No. You could go by coach or train as an alternative to walking."
The above works fine between the UK and Europe. There are plenty of ferries across the English Channel and North Sea. There is train service through the Channel Tunnel. Cars, motorcycles and coaches can travel on both the ferries and the trains. Pedestrians and cyclists can walk or ride to the Channel port/station and take the ferry or train across and then continue walking or riding. Presumably the ferry would even accept a horse and carriage.
There is now a bridge across the Bosphorus so it works between Europe and Asia. Back in the 1960s British diplomats posted to Iran or neighbouring countries would sometimes drive there from the UK, taking a ferry across the Bosphorus.
There are ferries between Europe and Africa across the Strait of Gibraltar and between Italy and Tunisia. Ewan McGregor and Charley Boorman used the latter during "Long Way Down", available on DVD. There used to be ferry services between Marseille and Algiers when Algeria was still part of France. A former colleague and his wife who lived in England in the 1960s used to drive to Morocco for their annual two weeks vacation. They would take a car ferry across the English Channel, drive down through France and Spain, take a car ferry between Algeciras and Tangier or Ceuta, and enjoy several days travelling around Morocco.
The problem comes when needing to cross oceans. Obviously walking and driving are not possible and there are no trans-oceanic train services.
Atmosphere and Xeque, presumably you both do understand that it is not practical to walk or travel by road or rail across oceans. Did you not consider those who have to travel across oceans? Since you both presumably did not make glib comments without knowing that genuine alternatives actually exist, perhaps you would be kind enough to post on here details of the practical and cost-effective (for ordinary working people, not just for millionaires!) boat services between Canada and the UK, Canada and South Africa and Canada and Australia. Those of us who have to make such journeys will appreciate your help.
Quote: "...do you really have to go and see cousin Flo and the kids in Brisbane when you can see and speak with them for free on the Internet?"
This is typical of the sort of comment from an unfortunately large and ignorant section of the population that thinks that the only people who travel are tourists and vacationers and that all travel is a discretionary pleasure! In any case why should family visits for those living abroad be discouraged? My wife and I should have the same right and convenience to visit our parents in the UK and South Africa as someone living in London has to visit his parents living in Basingstoke. We have both had to make overseas visits for serious illnesses and deaths and to consider making suitable care arrangements for elderly relatives. These were not vacations! We should be able to take the same personal possessions with us as the UK resident would take in his car from London to Basingstoke. Indeed we should be permitted to take more as we have to have enough possessions for a stay of several days to several weeks as against a few hours. Our family visits cost us considerably more in both money and time from our limited annual vacation (typically two weeks in Canada and the USA) than someone taking a one hour Saturday afternoon drive to visit his family. We should not have further restrictions and abuse heaped on top of that.
This is supposed to be an aviation forum. Think of all the aircrew who commute to work. Think of all the aircrew and support staff who work on rotation for contract operators with aircraft based in other countries. On each journey these crew need to carry the tools of their trade and supporting documents. There is no way any intelligent pilot is going to have his headsets, GPS, handheld aviation radio, cell phone, calculator, logbook, licences, etc, going as checked baggage and subject to being lost or stolen. This lot should stay with you in your carry on baggage or else refuse to travel. The employer will have to make other arrangements to get you to and from your base. Their time is valuable to them if not to airlines and governments! Check in times should be reduced to the previous limits of 30 minutes domestic and one hour international. It is up to the airlines and government agencies to have sufficient staff in place to process the pax in a reasonable time.
Pilots, when they travel to get to and from work, are not the only non-discretionary travellers. The requirement to travel internationally is faced by many others such as miners, geologists, flight attendants, aircraft maintenance engineers, diplomats, government workers, politicians, aid workers, engineers, architects, the military, the merchant navy, medical doctors and specialists, nurses, TV and press reporters, professional sports players, missionaries, multi-national company managers, travel agents, couriers, marketing reps, contractors, artists, actors, emigrants, retirees, etc, apart from tourists. We live in an ever more inter-dependant world, with ever increasing movement between countries, and with ever more persons in expatriate situations. Many people live permanently outside of their home country or travel internationally for employment and are far more likely to need emergency travel, particularly those in the Third World who might have to be medevaced to a country with decent medical facilities. All of these should be up in arms over the abuse being inflicted upon them.
We are fed up with the selfish, unthinking, "I'm alright, Jack!" attitude displayed towards non-vacation international travellers. The unthinking, uncaring and abusive people employed in air travel and associated government agencies should remember that we are paying their wages. Are there any effective passengers' rights organisations?