The end of budget flights?

VEGAS · Post by **VEGAS** » 07 Aug 2006, 16:36

:curse: :curse: :curse:

Hope no-one owns a jeep either! :crying: :crying:

http://www.itv.com/news/index_a063ce669 ... 3fb46.html

thehappyotter · Post by **thehappyotter** » 07 Aug 2006, 16:38

Heard it on the radio this morning, they said they wanted to stop people from traveling.

It's like taking a step back in time.

VEGAS · Post by **VEGAS** » 07 Aug 2006, 16:40

wonder if it'll mean bye bye BMI Baby/Sleasyjet/Jet2?.. :shock:

Knew all these cheap flights were too good to last. :huf:

Angus · Post by **Angus** » 07 Aug 2006, 16:43

Well hopefully this will mean that the airlines have to pay more and their ticket prices go up whilst GA won't have to pay increased costs (although no doubt the CAA will do their best to force the airlines' costs onto the rest of aviation).

AndyG · Post by **AndyG** » 07 Aug 2006, 17:02

thehappyotter wrote:Heard it on the radio this morning, they said they wanted to stop people from traveling.

It's like taking a step back in time.

Was that the full interview, or just a snippet? I quite liked the Tory guy saying "hike the airport tax, increase the Vehicle Excise to Â£1200" - strangely the government spokesman wasn't quite so keen! :think:

Anyway Tory Boy is only suggesting it so he can stop the riff raff flying!

AndyG

TobyV · Post by **TobyV** » 07 Aug 2006, 17:04

Depending on exactly how this is applied, I'd cautiously welcome this. Despite being someone who has made use of LCCs and enjoys travelling we cant keep on damaging the environment at the rate we are currently or there wont be anyone or anything left to say "I told you so" a few decades down the line.

Far too many people drive monstrous great 4X4s these days. Most have never seen a "green lane" or rough terrain in their lives being used instead to transport Mr & Mrs Slightly Above Average from Acacia Avenue to work or to pick up the kids from school, whilst causing the maximum inconvenience to other road users. People only buy them because its fashionable. Same goes for MPVs, rarely when you see them are they ever full

We've all got a bit too accustomed to cheap travel at the expense of the environment, previous generations never had these freedoms and now they will probably have to go again, at least for a time, until they can be achieved in a more sustainable way. Sorry folks.

Post by **Garry Russell** » 07 Aug 2006, 17:24

All cheap travel has meant is the ordinary folk can travel

The rich can and did no matter what.

So hit the high fuel guzzly rich mans toys and leave the ordinary folk alone with their family cars.

Why not ban Biz jets and make them travel in aircraft already flying.

Just a way of improving live at the expense of the less well off.

The monies already paid are not used on improving things.

If travelling less and on coaches is the way forwards well lets see them do it first.

Lets see Tony use a 146 or 125 instead of a 777

Lets see them car share

Lets see them make the first move instead of doing what they want and trying to restrict everyone else.

Garry

TobyV · Post by **TobyV** » 07 Aug 2006, 17:31

The trouble with that is Garry, Bizjets contribution to global depletion of oil and addition of greenhouse gases is negligible compared to say the effects of Boeings and Airbuses, which are larger and used far more intensively.

Its all about making a real difference rather than just a gesture. Its the masses that cause the damage. If there wasnt the current bizarre obsession with driving 4X4 vehicles and they accounted for a more reasonable percentage of new cars sold then they would get left alone more and mayb big saloons or older cars would be targeted more.

We could all drive Hummers and fly Concorde everywhere if there were far fewer of us making far fewer journeys. Engineers spend countless man-hours doing research development and design of engines that will perhaps improve in efficiency over previous engines by a couple of percent. It doesnt help if the resulting product then gets used twice as much as its predecessor. In the original article, it says emissions from aircraft have doubled since 1990. Back then there were many more 707s, 732s, 1-11s, Tridents etc etc with old inefficient engines and yet we still manage to double emissions 16 years on with most of the afforementioned aircraft either out of service or banned (for noise)

andy · Post by **andy** » 07 Aug 2006, 17:32

Poor Johnny 2 jags won't be happy..............

Post by **Garry Russell** » 07 Aug 2006, 17:40

I realize the bizjets aren't emitting so much but i did say travel instead on aircraft already flying.

And it's a gesture to set an example.

But what is the bizjets emissions per person and how does that compare with the airliners.....and some biz jets are airliners.

So lets see restrictions start at the top.

As to large people carriers my brother has to drive around in one because when the seat belt law was introduced that said all children had to be strapped in that meant he could get four or even five in the back..........so he HAD to buy a bigger car, or get his wife to drive so family outings need two cars.

I wonder with the internet how many of these banking and office staff need to commute.

Surely a shed closer to home or even home itself would do.

Why do you have to go to an office in London to link up with New York

Offices with hundreds of people could have just a dozen or so staff for the passing trade and the main bulk could be elsewhere.

Garry