|
Post by michael on Mar 5, 2020 10:07:42 GMT
So Flybe has finally landed forever. All morning I've heard politicians of all colours saying how much we need our regional airports for connectivity but shouldn't they instead be congratulating themselves for taxing passengers out the sky?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Mar 5, 2020 10:36:55 GMT
Another way of looking at it is as another of the many examples of why you can never trust Boris Johnson.
He promised to save FlyBe only to subsequently find out it wasn't as easy as it looked. And then, as usual, he's nowhere to be seen.
Tough this governing malarky. So much less fun than imagined.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 5, 2020 10:58:59 GMT
Flybe collapsing is entirely down to a hostile taxation policy. I'm surprised you haven't blamed it on Brexit!
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 5, 2020 10:59:34 GMT
Speaking as a cynical northerner I wonder if it would've been easier to save Flybe if all its flights headed toLondon?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Mar 5, 2020 11:03:58 GMT
Flybe collapsing is entirely down to a hostile taxation policy. I'm surprised you haven't blamed it on Brexit! I never said it wasn't. I merely pointed out that Boris and his government made a lot of noise about saving it and then didn't. Coronavirus merely delivered the coup de grace. I read this morning that Boris may use coronavirus as an excuse to suspend the sitting of Parliament for 5 months. If the rot starts here, don't say you weren't warned.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Mar 5, 2020 11:04:24 GMT
I imagine the Swedish Doom Goblin and her minions will be raising a glass in celebration tonight.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Mar 5, 2020 11:07:35 GMT
I read this morning that Boris may use coronavirus as an excuse to suspend the sitting of Parliament for 5 months. If the rot starts here, don't say you weren't warned. I heard this and I was most alarmed. Dominic Cummins will be plotting all manner of policy implementation without debate. Stand by to be arrested on the spot if you look a bit swarthy.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Mar 5, 2020 11:09:03 GMT
I imagine the Swedish Doom Goblin and her minions will be raising a glass in celebration tonight. I always preferred Anni-Frid too.
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Mar 5, 2020 21:50:47 GMT
I imagine the Swedish Doom Goblin and her minions will be raising a glass in celebration tonight. That has so given me a chance to post this. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by PG on Mar 6, 2020 12:25:00 GMT
Quick Dick McDick - brilliant video!!
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Mar 7, 2020 20:38:10 GMT
My uncle and cousin went to Amsterdam from Southampton on thursday and landed back just before the plane they were on got impounded. They're massive aviation geeks so they were rather upset about how it all happened.
I'm in two minds about the loss of Flybe. Clearly you can't keep propping up a failing business but you can't help but feel that the cost of keeping them going would be a lot less than we're about to spend clearing ancient woodland to make way for a high speed rail line.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Mar 7, 2020 22:03:35 GMT
In theory the government should be glad that FlyBe have gone - less pollution, less greenhouse gases, frees up slots at Heathrow etc etc...
however, it is bad news for many people in places ill-served by public transport. When I read things like the cost of a train journey for some of the domestic routes could be £400 to £500 but the FlyBe fare was under £50 and the journey time was well under an hour instead of 5 or 6 hours by train, it did make me wonder if perhaps the air fares being charged were simply not viable. I know that there would have been a difficult balancing act between making it affordable and unaffordable for a majority of potential customers, but......
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Mar 7, 2020 22:37:21 GMT
The issue of travel times and rail fairs is one that made some of Flybe’s routes seem really important, especially the daily service from Newquay to Heathrow or Exeter to Leeds Bradford but perhaps in a world where environmental issues are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore, perhaps not flying such internal routes is no bad thing. I’ve tried looking at reducing how much I fly but currently the most common trip I make from Gatwick to Glasgow just can’t be done by rail unless you plan to stay over whereas by flying I can go there and back in a day and the fair is half that of a train ticket. As much as I’d like to use the train, my company won’t absorb the additional cost.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Mar 9, 2020 14:24:16 GMT
Train fares in this country are exorbitant.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 9, 2020 15:04:07 GMT
They are but that's because moving people by train is inefficient.
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Mar 9, 2020 15:08:33 GMT
Train fares in this country are exorbitant. +1 I’ve got a site just outside Edinburgh and it’s cheaper to park and fly than travel by train, plus it is a 5.5 hour journey, an hour on a train is more than enough for me. It’s a 6 hour journey in the car which would be better but I’d rather not add the 750 miles for each trip plus it’s £165 of fuel and total cost by air is £100-120.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Mar 9, 2020 16:28:23 GMT
They are but that's because moving people by train is inefficient. At the risk of starting another argument, I don't see why it needs to be. To give just two examples: (a) in Italy, nobody in their right mind flies or drives between Rome and Milan (300 miles apart). It's not appreciably shorter than the distance from London to Edinburgh (330 miles), yet you can get a regular fast train that gets you there in just 3 hrs for around £60. You can't get there faster than that by commercial flight given the rigmarole of getting to and from out-of-town airports and through airport security, and that's also at worst half the time it would take you to drive there. (b) in France, via the TGV you can cover the 400+ miles from Paris to Marseille in 3 hrs 15 mins for similar money. Again no way a commercial flight would get you there quicker (or more restfully) and driving would take anywhere between 7-8hrs. It's a question, as always, of horses for courses. I expect that in rural areas, trains are never going to be a great solution. But high-speed rail links between city centres are clearly a quick and efficient means of transport compared to aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 9, 2020 16:32:31 GMT
The reason they're cheap is because they're subsidised by the state to a greater extent than in the UK. That doesn't make it efficient, it just hides the expense. On a local basis it does make sense to have mass transit systems but stretching that infrastructure across large distances is hugely expensive.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Mar 9, 2020 16:44:17 GMT
Does that matter? What's wrong with the state subsidising national infrastructure? No one argues that our taxes shouldn't pay to maintain the road network, so why should it not subsidize the rail network?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 9, 2020 16:52:33 GMT
It matters in so much as costs are costs. In terms of efficiency the facts are it costs more to run a railway for people and somebody has to pay. In terms of use it's something like 2% of the population regularly use a train and generally speaking they're in the affluent South East. I'm not sure why someone on minimum wage in the North should be expected to subsidise a top rate worker in the South East. I think the costs should be met mainly by those who use the services.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Mar 9, 2020 16:52:39 GMT
I would happily take the train to London but I can get three of us to the city centre (and home again) for the price of a one way First Class ticket on the train, for one. Something needs to be done about the pricing otherwise everyone will continue to take a flight. The environmentalists would rather the cost of airfares were increased but that would just mean we wouldn't travel. No way am I paying £1,500 for 3 of us to get to London and back for a weekend.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Mar 9, 2020 16:55:35 GMT
It's not true that all train fares in this country are exorbitant or more expensive than Europe. It's a trope that is often trotted out but doesn't stand up to examination. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49346642I can go from Newcastle to Edinburgh First Class for £25.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Mar 9, 2020 16:56:23 GMT
It matters in so much as costs are costs. In terms of efficiency the facts are it costs more to run a railway for people and somebody has to pay. In terms of use it's something like 2% of the population regularly use a train and generally speaking they're in the affluent South East. I'm not sure why someone on minimum wage in the North should be expected to subsidise a top rate worker in the South East. I think the costs should be met mainly by those who use the services. But is that because the rail system in the UK is badly connected and expensive, rather than because people don't like rail travel? And to your latter point: www.theweek.co.uk/checked-out/84933/does-london-really-subsidise-the-uk
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 9, 2020 17:04:17 GMT
I didn't comment on whether people like rail travel, the fact is it doesn't meet their needs and that might be based on cost, availability or any number of factors. It is what it is. In terms of your link I'm not sure what that brings to the debate? I'm sure it's not an argument for taxing the North to pay for the South?
|
|
|
Post by PG on Mar 9, 2020 20:12:58 GMT
The question I'm waiting for somebody to ask is, if it makes sense to subsidise rail travel between cities - to a great extent in some countries, maybe less so in the UK but it is still subsidised - then surely it makes just as much economic sense to subsidise intra-UK flights to out of the way places?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Mar 9, 2020 20:21:49 GMT
The question I'm waiting for somebody to ask is, if it makes sense to subsidise rail travel between cities - to a great extent in some countries, maybe less so in the UK but it is still subsidised - then surely it makes just as much economic sense to subsidise intra-UK flights to out of the way places? Which is a perfectly fair question that you'll have to put to Mr Johnson and friends.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Mar 9, 2020 20:23:57 GMT
In terms of your link I'm not sure what that brings to the debate? I'm sure it's not an argument for taxing the North to pay for the South? Of course not. But neither do I think it is appropriate to talk about Northern taxpayers funding the rail travel of Southern taxpayers given the overall direction of funding travel. That was the point.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Mar 9, 2020 20:36:37 GMT
In terms of your link I'm not sure what that brings to the debate? I'm sure it's not an argument for taxing the North to pay for the South? Of course not. But neither do I think it is appropriate to talk about Northern taxpayers funding the rail travel of Southern taxpayers given the overall direction of funding travel. That was the point. Do you think the South East produces a surplus because it gets the lion’s share of the funding or would it produce a surplus anyway without the funding?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 9, 2020 20:48:02 GMT
In terms of your link I'm not sure what that brings to the debate? I'm sure it's not an argument for taxing the North to pay for the South? Of course not. But neither do I think it is appropriate to talk about Northern taxpayers funding the rail travel of Southern taxpayers given the overall direction of funding travel. That was the point. Subsidising rail would be exactly that, though. London is obviously a golden goose but it's something of a glutton. It could easily be argued that London's success has been at the expense of the rest of the country as it drains resources of it. For example, a city the size of Doncaster will loose five thousand people a year to university the majority of whom won't return. For many they'll move south as London is where so many jobs are concentrated. This has the effect of a brain drain across the country and opportunities are undoubtedly fewer outside the South East.
A move to increase opportunities across the country is needed, you could call it levelling up, in order that the UK doesn't become London with a country attached. This will involve building significant infrastructure across the country, moving parts of government and creating wealth generating opportunities such as free-ports. For connectivity it would make sense to boost regional airports but we are voluntarily strangling the economy with green taxes so this is a non-starter.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Mar 9, 2020 22:49:38 GMT
Of course not. But neither do I think it is appropriate to talk about Northern taxpayers funding the rail travel of Southern taxpayers given the overall direction of funding travel. That was the point. Do you think the South East produces a surplus because it gets the lion’s share of the funding or would it produce a surplus anyway without the funding? I do not know the answer although the I would suspect the latter nowadays. It wasn't funding that drove the expansion of the City financial sector that gave rise to a salary boom and property boom and the resulting rich tax-pickings for HMRC. For all that non-Londoners whinge about being hard done by, I find they conveniently forget that they don't have to pay a king's ransom to live in a tiny little cramped house that is considered central despite taking over half an hour to commute to and from, never mind that it costs a small fortune to get around, or to eat out anywhere half-decent, or to go to the theatre. And then because Londoners need high salaries to be able to afford to live there, in real terms we pay a proportionately higher rate of tax than someone earning a lower salary but with lower living costs.
|
|