Short-haul Flights in the UK could be curtailed
 

August 29, 2007

Tories consider plans to force short-haul air passengers on to high-speed trains
Greg Hurst, Political Correspondent
Plans that would curb drastically the number of flights taken by British travellers are being considered by the Conservatives with new taxes on air travel and a halt to airport expansion.

Short-haul flights would receive particular attention: VAT would be levied on fuel for domestic flights for the first time and airlines would be forced to give over airport slots to long-haul trips. All flights would be subject to a separate per-flight tax based on the amount of CO2 generated, replacing the air passenger duty and shifting the burden from passengers to airlines, although this might force up ticket prices anyway. The proposals also include plans for a moratorium on airport expansion pending attempts to free capacity at existing airports by restricting short-haul flights and forcing travellers to switch to trains.

The plans have been drawn up by a policy review group looking at quality of life issues, whose report is due to be published next month before the Tory conference in Blackpool. The recommendations have been put forward by one of its working groups focusing on transport policy and it was unclear last night whether they had been accepted in full by the commission’s co-chair-men John Gummer, the former Environment Secretary, and Zac Goldsmith, the wealthy environmentalist.

The group has rejected a widely ridiculed proposal by David Cameron to restrict people to one return short-haul flight per year at a standard rate of tax and charge more for subsequent aircraft trips. This idea of a “green air miles allowance”, put forward in a consultation document, Greener Skies, published by Mr Cameron in March, was attacked by airlines and tourist bodies and caused unease among some Conservatives. It has been quietly dropped as impractical.

The group is determined to press ahead with moves to force travellers to abandon short-haul flights in favour of rail for domestic and nearby European destinations or face steep rises in taxes or fares. Its report is based on a calculation that about a fifth of flights from Heathrow are to destinations easily reached by rail, according to the Evening Standard. The most popular short-haul destinations are Paris, Amsterdam and Brussels and, within Britain, Edinburgh, Manchester, Glasgow and Newcastle.

The Government’s plans to allow a third runway at Heathrow would be unnecessary if such journeys were transferred to rail and airlines were forced to reallocate their take-off and landing slots for long-haul travel, the report concludes. Plans for a second runway at Stansted could also be shelved, it argues.

It represents a gamble that voters will put bold environmental policies before personal convenience, although heightened security measures and resulting queues at airports have already begun to alter the equation. The opening of the Channel Tunnel rail link from St Pancras will also cut journey times to Paris and Brussels by 20 minutes.

George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, has made clear that he intends to use green taxes to raise revenue for other policy pledges and tax reductions in the party’s manifesto, such as a commitment to support marriage. A Conservative spokesman said: “We will not be commenting on the report until it is published but, as with all of the policy groups, everything contained in the report will be proposals to the Shadow Cabinet and will not necessarily become party policy.”

The Liberal Democrats intensified the battle for the green vote by publishing their own environment policy, including a series of taxes on aviation to fund the party’s plans for income tax cuts for the low paid.

One of the Tories pushing this idea is Tim Yeo who is Chairman of the Commons Environment Committee.

Interestingly Yeo has just been appointed as a non-executive Director of Groupe EuroTunnel, the new French company running the underground railway. He is there as the token Brit to represent the beleagured and disenfranchised UK shareholders, who had their generous perks arbitrarily removed and their share values severely diluted in the recent restructuring.

Unfortunately Yeo has also been picked to promote I presume the 'Green' credentials of EuroTunnel. EuroStar are already using misleading advertising in the UK's national press to suggest that a journey to Paris on one of their trains would be 'carbon neutral'.

However few people know that the Channel Tunnel has two massive refrigeration plants to keep it cool. Trains passing through it act like a pistons and would heat the air to over 54c if not cooled by the huge network of pipes along its 22 mile length.

These refrigeration plants consume the same amount of energy as 260,000 domestic refrigerators. Most of that power is generated by dirty fossil fuel fired power stations in the UK and nuclear power in France. France generates over 82% of its electricity from nuclear power; it tells you on your bill what the breakdown in generation of electricity is in France.

Most power stations have to run 24/7 regardless of demand. The bottom line is that a train to Paris is NOT a very 'green' way to travel.

This is indeed true:

Timothy Stephen Kenneth Yeo:
01960271 EUROTUNNEL P L C Director 05/06/2007
06037631 EUROTUNNEL GROUP UK PLC Director 20/06/2007

Conflicts of interest at their best...

This is more of the usual p!sh from politicians. Why do they think that people take planes instead of trains? I wonder if it's because...

- The train is more expensive.
- The train takes a lot longer (especially in Scotland)
- The train is usually late and dirty.

Also, an airline will put on a bigger plane to cope with lots of passengers, where the train company takes off carriages when it's busy!

So, can you park at a rail station for a week or so and still find your car there when you get back?

Or even get a guaranteed seat on a train?

If the UK's train system was convenient, quick and good value for money, of course more people would use it rather than suffer the queues and security restrictions at airports. But, apart from a few maionline express services, the UK's trains are slow and overcrowded - and very expensive!

Eurotunnel should look at their pricing structure. The original idea was that you could just turn up, buy a ticket and go. But that's a very expensive option - if I went to the Channel Tunnel right now to take the next available car train, it'd be £199 for the 'Flexiplus' ticket. Rather a long way from the 'Standard' ticket which allegedly costs 'from £49'. The earliest date I could find for a £49 ticket is 2200 on 24 September - and you won't find anything for less than £61 until 14 September - again, at 2200.....

Can't help thinking that, until they have a simple 'pay and go' one price ticket, Eurotunnel won't succeed.

Politicians in general are jumping on the environment bandwagon because they think that it'll be vote winners. A big mistake IMO because at the end of the day people are more likely to vote with their pockets. People are already fed up with the 'hidden' charges added when booking a flight, so they are hardly goinging to be enamoured into voting for someone who proposes to charge more.

Besides, I would prefer to get the airport two hours before my flight and hang around waiting, rather than take the train.

I saw a very good comparison of plane vs train in Cimber Air's inflight mag showing the plane (typically ATR) to be as economic as a small car.

It was a very good article and showewd clearly how inefficient the Danish train system is.

I have just had a quick look at rail fares for London to Glasgow, out at 1000 Mon 3rd sept, return 1600 7th Sept.
Saver Return £98
Standard Rtn £240
First open Rtn £347
I think that with the saver on the return journey if you missed your train a higher fare would be payable.

Can't help thinking that, until they have a simple 'pay and go' one price ticket, Eurotunnel won't succeed

Yes Beagle. I live in northern France, so know all about EuroTunnel's stupid ticket prices. The problem is that they think they are running an airline!! ET are always targeting the airlines with their advertising, yet their management hardly run the company in the same professional manner. Look at the recent debacle when a train got stuck underground and the ex Tory Transport Minister Steven Norris was in one of the carriages. Incompetence and very poor safety practices and it will get worse now that it is a French company!

Anyone who has used EuroTunnel recently returning from France, probably faced long queues at the UK immigration booths. Many passengers miss their trains because the queues frequently stretch back beyond the French 'security'(sic). There are eight lanes available, but a UK Immigration Officer at Dunkerque last week told me that ET will only pay for two to be staffed. This is the minimum number. Even the immigration officers get caught up in the mess as they travel on the Tunnel back and forth each day!

The other thing which is an absolute disgrace, is how the British government stood by and allowed the French to gain control of EuroTunnel. It started in July 2004 when at a Shareholders meeting in France, the Anglo/ French board were voted off after a few French hot heads like convicted fraudster and amateur share tipster Nicholas Miguet, promised the shareholders the earth. None of these promises were fulfilled, the shareholders were just used as pawns.

Also the French government started a US style Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Sauveguard plan via the Paris Commercial Court, just so that ET would not fall into the hands of the senior creditors like Oaktree Capital Management. With Chapter 11 in the 'States,a company has to have a hope of being able to trade its way out of debt. That was never the case with EuroTunnel, it was pure French protectionism.

It was the right of the senior tier creditors to takeover EuroTunnel, if the company could no longer service its interest payments. The senior creditors were mainly British and American financial institutions!!

EuroTunnel has been trading whilst insolvent since it started running trains.It is still bankrupt.All the other companies competiting with it on the Dover Straits, have to play against a different set of rules.

EuroTunnel is Europe's ENRON.

Where ENRON created companies to hide its U$30bn worth of losses, ET has hidden its debt in restructuring; creating different tiers of debt, mezzanine debt, loan notes and other financial instruments. It is all creative accounting. The debt is still there.

The green bandwagon just gets more and more ridiculous. How exactly are people in the Isle of Man, Channel Islands and Northern Ireland supposed to get a train to London? What a great way to ruin the economies of those communities like Inverness which are not close to a major hub and concentrate yet more of the economy in the South East where the major air hubs and easy rail links to Europe are.:ugh:

Beagle,

A cheaper way to travel on the Chunnel is to buy on line, using a convenient French address, 2 Return Tickets from France to the UK. You then bin the unused parts. Eurotunnel don't like it but can't do much about it.

Manxman:- I thought IOM and Channel Isles were independant and would not be subject to any UK governmemnt fee?:confused:

I agree with Saintsman - politicians are playing with fire. There is a rapidly growing sense of opinion that the whole "Green" issue is simply a ploy by Governments around the world to get more money from us. And why target an industry that produces a minimul CO2 output? They should be taxing all products made of wood from the rain forests. Deforestation is the single biggest cause of increasing CO2.

David Cameron is a dead duck. His performance since becoming leader has been pathetic - totally losing the plot.

I have been a lifelong Tory voter - but I will not vote Tory if these proposals are part of their manifesto.

A4 :mad:

Manxman 11
Like this

Quote:

---

I read in the newspaper at the weekend that a businessman has had the idea to build a railway bridge across from Northern Ireland to SW Scotland, eventually to have a fast speed train from Dublin to Paris and beyond.

Great idea ……… then somebody asked did he know there was a difference in the railway gauge between the Irish and British / Continental railway networks, which presumably as a railway enthusiast you would know about (slightly over 5’ I think it said it was in Ireland). Presumably horses are more sturdily built in Ireland than Britain?

No he did not know about the different railway gauges … Possibly everybody could change trains at Stranrar? Not sure how high speed that will take. (I would think Dublin to Paris by air takes likely takes between 1 and 2 hours?)

---

just build another from The IOM to west Cumbria (30 odd miles).
Ooops your railway is 3 ft guage if I recall

A4 - couldn't agree more.

However Its not "governments around the world". we are buried in this anti-aviation greenspin, so its hard to realise, but this is ONLY HAPPENING IN THE UK. everywhere else in the world aviation sits on the environmental agenda in the place you would expect an industry providing less than 2% of the worlds emissions to be.
The plans are unworkable, and probably illegal, and are just politicians "lets give them what they want to get elected" fluff. However I think they have missed the mark. Lots of people say they care about the environement in surveys and study groups, but really don't give a toss, and certainly not if it impinges on their daily life.

If Yeo, Cameron or anyone else could explain how I take a High Speed train from Norwich to Manchester instead of Flybe Q 400, for a similar transit time of 50 minutes and a similar price of £50 - I'm listening.

I have taken many flights between Heathrow and Manchester, I would have taken the train if it was cheaper and more reliable. The last 2 times I have been up to Manchester I have driven as sometimes door to door it is quicker than the plane.

If they limited domestic flights then most people would probably drive instead of taking the train which would defeat what the politicans wanted.

If someone provided a train service that got to Manchester in under 90 mins and to scotland very quickly and also had a branch to Heathrow for those that would otherwise have connected to long haul flights on domestic flights then I could see it working.

But I don;t trust politicians to get themselves in gear to do anything. Seeing as the London Crossrail scheme was first talked about in the mid 90's and it is still not off the ground then there is no hope for anything to be done!

PiB: (Chunnel's) senior creditors were mainly British and American financial institutions!!
Oh, are you sure? I had hoped one conspiracy theory was true: the only bond between Maggie T and Mitterand as they buried our happy mutual disdain was that the hyped revenue forecasts of the Chunnel Business Plan served to raise long-term finance from the 50 year mortgages of Japan. This hole in the sea was exported as reparations for the ignominy of Cochin China and Singapore/HKG/Burma.

A4,
I agree with you 100%. I despair about the Tories. How can Cameron possibly be electable if he says you can only go on one holiday air trip a year or that he is going to drastically increase the Tax (/duty) on beer? He strikes me as being an upper class twit with no comprehension of the realities of life.
All these UK politicians are trying to get on the Green Bandwagon. Do they not read opinion polls that indicate that a majority in the UK are not convinced of the Green argument about CO2 and Climate Change. (I personally agree with the argument that Climate Change is an on going thing. Within the last 2000 years we have had Northern England suitable for the Romans to grow wine and in Dickens time the Thames routinely froze over. A so called mini Ice Age. And that does dot include the last real Ice Age 10,000 yeras ago and the Earth subsequent warming.)
One Green was questioned recently about the UK's efforts to curb CO2 emmissions compared with the increased emmissions in India and China. All he could say in reply was that we should set a good example!!!!
And as for CO2 offsets. Have you seen the Charities (?!) these go to? I will adamately refuse to pay for such an offset.
Rant over!!!!

Since there's a lot of opinion on this thread, but not a lot of real data from real passengers, I thought I might try to redress the balance.

I've been travelling Edinburgh - London on a weekly basis for business for the last two years. I used to fly every week but a few months ago I abandoned the plane for the train. Why ?

Cost

This year I've taken:

• 34 single First class rail journeys (typically leaving Edinburgh 0600 Monday, London 1500 Friday)
• Total cost £3937.65
• Average single fare: £115.81

During the same period I've taken:

• 14 single Economy flights (at similar times to the trains)
• Total cost £1524.58
• Average fare: £108.89
• These flights have either been via EZY at LGW or BA at LCY

Typically I book around 2 weeks in advance regardless of how I travel.

So in terms of cost, there is little to choose. And in fact if I were to travel standard class, rail would be significantly cheaper.

Time

In terms of time, my door to door journey from leaving the house to the London office takes 5 hours exactly (train) and 3 hours 45 (plane via LCY) and 4 hours via LGW.

So on a good day travelling by air gains me an extra hour. However the good days travelling by air are increasingly few and far between, and the scope for things to go wrong (ATC delays, weather, tech aircraft, lost bags, late bags, security queues) is ever-increasing, whereas in 34 rail journeys, I've had delays of longer than 10 minutes only twice.

Quality

When I catch the train, I can walk to the station, or take a short taxi ride, whereas getting to the airport is a 20 minute taxi or bus ride. Similarly in London, getting to the office is a short tube ride (train) or a longer tube or train/tube ride (plane)

I can carry as much luggage as I can carry onto the train, and pack whatever I like into it. Travelling by plane, I'm restricted in what I can carry in my hand luggage, and have to stand in a queue, have my bag searched, maybe take off my shoes, and maybe have a body search as well. And with EZY I have to pay to check luggage into the hold.

On the train I have more legroom, can move about freely at any time, can use my laptop at any time, have internet access, and can use my mobile if necessary. In first class I get limitless free tea or coffee, juice, biscuits, fruit at my seat or I can pay for something more substantial. Or I can go along to the restaurant car and have a hot meal. On the plane, I may get a hot meal (BA) included in the price, but the choice is limited to having it or not, and on EZY I will have to pay for anything to eat or drink.

When I arrive on the train, I grab my luggage from the rack and leave the train immediately. When leaving the plane I have to wait for my bag to be unloaded which in the case of LGW can take up to 30 minutes.

When I leave the train I'm already in the city centre, whereas from the plane I have another 30 minute journey there.

You'll notice I didn't mention Heathrow once. Travelling domestic from there is a complete lottery and I abandoned it long ago.

=====

So why did I abandon the plane for the train ?

• In practice, it's no more expensive. In fact, travelling Standard class, it's cheaper.
• In practice, taking into account the more frequent delays at airports, the door-to-door time is similar
• In terms of the quality of experience, train travel is now FAR better.
• (another factor for me is that BA Cityflyer are significantly more expensive than BA Connect were. Unless you work for RBS, I guess)

Now if I was travelling cross-country, or from Aberdeen, or to somewhere close to Heathrow or Gatwick, or not able to buy tickets in advance, the equation might be different.

But I think the Tories are right to highlight that many more domestic journeys could be taken by rail. And in fact business passengers are already voting with their feet, without any need for government intervention. Nothing to do with the environmental arguments.

13Alpha

Manchester (and I guess Leeds too) to central London is cheaper faster and much more comfortable by train. The journey has fewer hassles, ticketing/security/baggage collection et al. For me the only (marginal) benefit is when travelling to LGW to make a connection. A balance is required, for me, at the moment, the train is much more pleasant.

I agree with much of what you say 13Alpha and have recently returned to rail travel due to the security farce at UK airports. The only thing I would mention is that I often find first class rail travel to be more expensive than a domestic flight and if you are in the zoo that is standard class then the train can be a living hell far worse than Heathrow on a bad day, especially if you are not boarding at the originating station!

I think what is becoming clear from this thread is that people are picking the mode of transport that is most convienient time and cost wise for them.

I live in West London so for heading up to the outskirts of manchester it is cheaper / quicker for me to take the car or the plane. But if I lived in central London and I needed to get to central manchester then the train would be better.

The politicians need to realise that people will tend to use what is more conveient for them so forcing those that live outside London to come into London to get to another UK city to then travel out again isn't going to work. All modes of transport need investment and then they might cut down on CO2 with people going direct to where they want to instead of going via city centres!!

Sounds like a vote looser to me...
 

So, if you take Joe Public who wants to travel from say from Glasgow to Nice they'll be expected to take the train to Euston or Kings Cross. Then they'll take a tube to Paddington. Then they'll cough up to travel to LHR. Only now will they make real progress towards their final destination. It's a shame the trains are full, overpriced and that it's a real shag moving around the station concourses in London avoiding the pimps and addicts, because I reckon that poeple will choose to avoid LHR and go via CDG, FRA, AMS etc. Anywhere but LHR?

PM

It seems to me that this is ANOTHER London centric policy dreamt up by people who do not live more than twenty minutes by tube from a mainline station. Try doing it by train from BFS . Buffoons:ugh:

Trains are fine,- where they exist and provide frequent, fast services, but for many UK domestic journeys they do not. The recently publishd government paper on the 30 year vision for railways in England (Scotland was different,- but they get the money) was another regurgitation of previously announced or long delayed schemes with of course no vision at all. It is in no way linked to environmental issues because the government would have to pay , for example, for new electricification, notably of the Paddington and St Pancras main lines. There is to be no further electrifcation in the forseable future, even of short distances to link up existing lines, and there is to be no attempt made to cope with growth levels already being achieved. In other words the railways are in for make do and mend and an increasing inability to match capacity with demand. They will simply price demand back onto the roads . Joined up thinking? The argument over adding 2 coaches to each of Virgins west coast mainline Pendolinos has been going on for 2 years, during which the easy production facility has closed. The cross country Voyagers are also a coach or two short already and there is no proposal to strengthen them other than by refurbishing a few 20 + year old High Speed trains to add to them. Trains are gaining weight and losing efficiency per passenger to incorporate additional safety measures and disabled facilities and a good number of modern coaches are rotting in military depots as nobody will pay to put them on the tracks. What a difference to the aviation industry which responds to demand by adding more flights or larger aircraft and uses more environmentally friendly turboprops where justified.
David Cameron and pals appear to know nothing of the realities of travel within the UK ( or anywhere for that matter), and nor for that matter do Gordon Brown and company. Ming Campbell and folowers would have us all back in donkey carts travelling no further than village or city boundaries. Transport and the realities of environmental improvement are zones of enormous ignorance to all political parties. Where is the noise about cleaning up power generation, funding scientific research and the rest? What investment is going into improved ATC flows to reduce stacking and ground queuing? Does any politician even understand the importance of these or do the votes lie in being able to say " We are being more punitive than the other lot". How much of the "green passenger taxes are going to scientific research into fuel efficiency, new sources etc? You know the answer.
Aviation must start to fight its corner and tell the world the realities.

I once decided to be a bit greener and use the train for the majority of my journey to work. Out of 15 work days travelled it didn't turn up at all on three occasions, was a bit late twice and very late on another three, making me late for work on eight out of 15 days.

Needless to say, the Celica got taken to work from then on in. I always aimed for the first available train so I couldn't have left earlier to give myself sufficient time.
Until the trains are as quick and convienient as road and air travel, I will continue to use both and strongly resist politico's attempts to get me out of my car whilst they swam around in huge publicly paid for limos. AND, as long as Cameron and the like live and work in central London and other large cities with good public transport systems they will NEVER know how bad it is for the rest of us. The only time they venture out into the real world they are driven in said Limo!!

Got a much greener car meself now though!!

Doc C

http://www.transport-watch.co.uk/tra...athematics.htm

one highlight:

A quick google suggests about 80 passenger-miles to the imperial gallon across air travel as a whole.

Anyone care to do a back of a fag packet calculation for a modern turboprop?

pb

13 alpha, that is a VERY selective comparison.
most of these moronic politicians have never been outside of islington, so don't know what the rest of the world is like.
I would love to get the train, except I don't live in london. Granted I only live about 40 miles away, but that may as well be a different country.
If I want to get the train anywhere, first i need to get to london, by car that is a non starter in the week. By train I have to endure horrific delays, dire serivce, standing room only and a cost per mile that makes flying first class look cheap. Weekends, I have no trains. most weekends I would be forced onto a bus because of engineering works somewhere or another.
There should be (and already is) a choice between flying, train and driving, but it should be a choice. Not something forced upon us by a bunch of idots from whitehall. you want to get the train? fine, do it, i'm not stopping you. why stop the rest of us from flying.
And why don't we make this a real free choice. At the moment the airlines charge a genuine market rate in a free market. The trains are subsidsed to the gills by the government. Lets get rid of that subsidy and see what the real costs are.
Oh no, we can't do that, in typical socialist style rather than encourage the trains to compete, we're going to cripple the airlines instead. Talk about bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

lplsprog - technically no in the IOM we are not subject to UK APD but our govt follows suit and raises it whenever the UK do. We are also subject to VAT so it would make our eyewateringly expensive air travel ( I fly IOM to LCY tomorrow - £360!!) even worse.

west lakes - during this years centenary TT the govt ran commuter trains - yes those 3ft gauge steam engines and the Victorian electric trams - the total number of car users who used the tram service was 1!!

As has been said people outside of large cities travel by what is most convenient - car most of the time or air for longer journeys - Brighton to Inverness by train anyone?

The SAS emissions calculator gives some interesting figures/comparisons. For example, on a sample route (I looked at CPH-EBJ, 258km), the A319 performed better than the Dash 8-Q400, 44kg of CO2 per passenger (at 75% load factor) compared to 49kg. Divide both figures by 3.15 to get kg of fuel, don't ask me how to calculate litres from kg.

As a rule of thumb though I would reckon that an efficient aircraft with a typical load factor on an inter-city journey of 'x' hours would have a fuel efficiency per pax-km equivalent to an efficient car (say a 2000cc diesel) with two occupants on an inter-city journey of 'x' hours.

Handsolo said:
Yes agreed. At peak times cheap fares are hard to come by on the trains.

Piltdown Man said:
Or maybe, just maybe, it would result in more direct European scheduled and charter flights from regional airports ?

Doctor Cruces said:

True, and I travel on commuter/cross-country trains sometimes as well, and they suck. But the point of the article was about getting people who're travelling between Glasgow/Edinburgh/Manchester/Newcastle and London out of planes to reduce the need for expansion at the London airports, and what I was suggesting was that for those destinations taking the train already actually compares quite well.

Alex said:

Yes, but it's the only comparison I've got any experience of, and it's directly relevant to the article. I don't live in Reading and work in Peterborough, and making that type of journey by train is probably a complete nightmare - but that's not what the Tories were talking about.

For once I think I agree with a Conservative policy. I must be getting old.:hmm:

13Alpha

From "People Like Us"

Interviewer: One thing I've been confused about, Where does a long haul flight start and a short haul flight end?

Pilot: Amsterdam

Only in the UK :ugh:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/6968868.stm

One other aspect that perhaps should be looked at - safety. I cannot remember the last serious accident to occur in the UK regarding "major" domestic aviation (long may it continue). However, I can recall several serious, fatal train crashes, with the result of the line being taken out of service for weeks. If the number of trains running is going to have to be significantly increased (which by definition it will be) then it's statistically likely there will be more accidents and if the carridges are full to bursting...... carnage.

So whilst the lines are down will there be a temporary lifiting of the "domestic flight ban".....lets see how "green" they are then. :hmm:

I still cannot believe that the Tories see this as a vote winner. Has Cameron become so blinkered and suckered into the green movement that he lost the plot. Hug a Hoody, a "responsibility charter" - Christ the man's a total ar$e - a complete and utter liability to the Tories. Four in a row for the Tories!!!

A4 :mad:

PS Cameron did get the train to the Pole and to Rwanada didn't he? :hmm: :ugh:

Last serious ones involving pax were the BMI 737 near the M1 and East Midlands and the British Aitours 737 at Manchester.

If you feel strongly about this you can email David Cameron at:-

[email protected]

I have already forwarded him the link to this thread - we need to tell the politicians the truth!

Shameron & Yeo
 

I've never heard such a bunch of real "bovine scatology" from these two prats before:}. Shameron is a total "knob end" with no grasp on real life, let alone real people:ugh:. Yeo (from the Yeo Valley 'tis pronounced "yo" that's where the yogurt comes from) is again a total unmitigated pillock, about as useful, as is his boss, as a pair of scissors to a haemorrhoid sufferer:}:}:}:}:}. I can't say any more, just let me try and find some real thinking, real living, knowledgeable politicos who know how people feel and think. I've stopped my party subs due to Shameron, gonna piss off to Southern France and let this lot go GFY:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Rant over, got me bag, got me bottle, got me nappy allo beach!

One thing that they fail to consider is that if they curtail domestic flights in the UK instead of say SIN-LHR-MAN people will fly SIN-AMS/FRA/CDG-MAN and connect through there instead.

I am sure a lot of people do this already!!


They need to look at the bigger picture and realise that this could cost the UK aviation industry a lot of money in lost revenue.