Too bad for Easyjet and Ryanair
Pete
checked baggage on their planes. Now all of their planes leaving the
UK will have nothing but checked baggage. Too bad, so sad.
Pete
Padraig Breathnach
I gather, from a radio interview with one of their managers, that
Ryanair will continue to charge for checked baggage. So they win.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
Runge
"Padraig Breathnach" <padr...@MUNGEDiol.ie> a écrit dans le message de
news: 889pd2l2tjq68hc5l...@4ax.com...
nobody
> I gather, from a radio interview with one of their managers, that
> Ryanair will continue to charge for checked baggage. So they win.
Since their flights are generaly short, it is less of a problem to not
have any hand luggage. (although this will likely be relaxed shortly to
allow hand luggage but not liquids, and later on hopefully return to normal).
For hoodlums using Ryannair to go to see footbal games, they don't need
any checked luggage. They can just buy their beer at destination. But
for tourists using Ryannair to travel for the weekend, stuff such as
cameras etc are not somethingt you prefer to put in checked luggage.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the channel train
services. (Eurotunnel recently entered bankrupcy protection). I think
that the uglieness in air travel will push more people to drive across
the pond or just take the train.
Lennart Petersen
"nobody" <nob...@nobody.org> skrev i meddelandet
news:44DCE85B...@nobody.org...
> It will be interesting to see what happens to the channel train
> services. (Eurotunnel recently entered bankrupcy protection). I think
> that the uglieness in air travel will push more people to drive across
> the pond or just take the train.
Eurostar isn't bankrupt and is doing a good profit already.
nobody
I said EUROTUNNEL was bankrupt. Eurostar is making a profit because it
is just a customer of EUROTUNNEL and doesn't have to pay back the huge
debts incurred when the tunnel was built.
Rog'
>> I think that the uglieness in air travel will push more
>> people to drive across the pond or just take the train.
To those of us in the States, "the pond" refers to the
Atlantic. Sadly, we do not have much choice. =R=
Lennart Petersen
So what ?? Eurostar is making profit and will continue in business. No
problem for the travellers.
The future for the tunnel company itself isn't of particular interest for
anyone except the shareholders and the banks providing loan.
The tunnel itself will of course remain as it is.
Lennart Petersen
"Rog'" <rcblin...@bellsouth.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:Yy6Dg.7535$ID1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Until the rail connection under Berings strait is ready :-)
Arwel Parry
writes
>It will be interesting to see what happens to the channel train
>services. (Eurotunnel recently entered bankrupcy protection). I think
>that the uglieness in air travel will push more people to drive across
>the pond or just take the train.
Note that *Eurotunnel* is the tunnel operator and if they go broke it
just means that the British and French governments get the tunnel back
earlier than 2042 and a lot of banks have a bit of a problem. The
passenger train operator is *Eurostar*.
Yesterday a plane passenger was transferring to Eurostar every 10
seconds, according to one of the newspaper sites I read today.
--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/
Trish
"Padraig Breathnach" <padr...@MUNGEDiol.ie> wrote in message
news:889pd2l2tjq68hc5l...@4ax.com...
> "Pete" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Easyjet and Ryanair were recently attempting to entirely eliminate free
>>checked baggage on their planes. Now all of their planes leaving the
>>UK will have nothing but checked baggage. Too bad, so sad.
>>
> I gather, from a radio interview with one of their managers, that
> Ryanair will continue to charge for checked baggage. So they win.
>
Word is that Lying Air were charging STG5 for a bottle of water on their
flights yesterday - when people were forced to leave all bottles behind.
--
Trish
Dublin
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Pete wrote:
And that means it must by definition be "free"? Just
because it's compulsor to check it means that they cannot
charge for checking it? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Lennart Petersen
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evg...@earthlink.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:ebiua...@news2.newsguy.com...
You're perfectly right.
Ryanair doesn't provide anything for free so this is another opportunity for
them to make money.
>
Jim Ley
When has Eurostar posted a profit of any sort, let alone a good one?
Jim.
Jim Ley
The train I saw arriving into waterloo the same time as me yesterday
afternoon was near empty, I looked specifically.
Jim.
James Robinson
> Yesterday a plane passenger was transferring to Eurostar every 10
> seconds, according to one of the newspaper sites I read today.
Some media sites claimed Eurostar was taking extra reservations at the rate
of 10 a minute, or one every six seconds. They anticipated taking 6,000
extra passengers on Friday, on top of their normal load of about 28,000
passengers. In total, they have taken 35,000 extra reservations so far.
http://www.eurostar.com/UK/uk/leisure/customer_care/questions_answers.jsp
Eurostar points out in their news releases that they still allow passengers
to carry laptops and cell phones, and use them throughout the trip, plus
they are allowed to carry their baggage on board, and are not forced to
check it.
James Robinson
> Arwel Parry <ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Yesterday a plane passenger was transferring to Eurostar every 10
>> seconds, according to one of the newspaper sites I read today.
>
> The train I saw arriving into waterloo the same time as me yesterday
> afternoon was near empty, I looked specifically.
They claim to have sold out on Friday, and are almost full Saturday.
In looking at their reservation site, there appears to be space on every
train on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.
nobody
> Note that *Eurotunnel* is the tunnel operator and if they go broke it
> just means that the British and French governments get the tunnel back
> earlier than 2042 and a lot of banks have a bit of a problem. The
> passenger train operator is *Eurostar*.
However, the LeShuttle service for cars and trucks is operated by
Eurotunnel. Yes, it is under the US equivalent of bankrupcy protection
so it operates normally, but there havbe been cuts in previous months
/years due to cost cutting measures.
The big question is whether Eurotunnel will raise its rates or whether
the paper pushing will affect only the debt management aspects. (or
both). If rates are raised, it may make the train less competitive.
nobody
> In looking at their reservation site, there appears to be space on every
> train on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.
Are their trains of flexible consists (eg: can they add cars to the
trains) ? If so, it could be the result of them adding capacity. (or
runnning additional trains).
Mike
"Lennart Petersen" <lennart....@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:UG6Dg.12632$E02....@newsb.telia.net...
staffed etc.
James Robinson
> If eurotunnel folds there will be no more tunnel. It has to be
> maintained, staffed etc.
No, they earn enough to pay the operating cost, plus they have been paying
the interest on the debt. The problem has been that they have not been
paying back the capital. A major payment is now coming due.
The result of the bankrupcy will be that the original owners (shareholders)
will lose their investment, and the ownership of the tunnel will shift to
the banks. After that, it will be business as usual.
James Robinson
The trains are fixed consists. They can double them up, if they need to.
mrtravel
I miss Hoverspeed.
James Robinson
> The big question is whether Eurotunnel will raise its rates or whether
> the paper pushing will affect only the debt management aspects. (or
> both). If rates are raised, it may make the train less competitive.
The rates have been fixed up to now. The problem is that the agreement to
fix the rates expires, and it is likely that Eurostar will get lower rates
as part of the negotiations.
nobody
> If eurotunnel folds there will be no more tunnel. It has to be maintained,
> staffed etc.
Eurotunnel could be profitable if it weren't saddled with its debts from
the contruction.
Creditors have the choice of forcing liquidation, or accepting serious
debt renegotiation. In both cases, they end up with partial or total
equity into the company and the best way for them to get their money
back is to continue to operate the tunnel as a viable company and slowly
sell their shares to convert equity into cash.
This isn't like an airline where the aircraft are leased and can be
moved around to other airlines. This is a fixed asset, just like an
office building. As long as there atre customers wanting to run traisn
throug the tunnel, it is worth continued operation.
Phil Richards
> The train I saw arriving into waterloo the same time as me yesterday
> afternoon was near empty, I looked specifically.
It could have been a empty train coming in from the carriage sidings.
--
Phil Richards
London, UK
Home Page: http://www.philrichards1.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Ken
wrote:
So you'd have 2/3rds of a mile of train and no platform anywhere that
can handle it.
James Robinson
I believe the platforms are long enough to handle double-length trains, as
that was the original intention. It is a regular operation on the French
side, for sure.
Jim Ley
<philri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Jim Ley wrote:
>
>> The train I saw arriving into waterloo the same time as me yesterday
>> afternoon was near empty, I looked specifically.
>
>It could have been a empty train coming in from the carriage sidings.
_near_ empty, there were still passengers on it... maybe 1 in 5
window,s so unless everyone had barrelled over to the left hand side
of the train for some strange reason, I'm pretty sure it was far from
full.
Jim.
tim
"nobody" <nob...@nobody.org> wrote in message
news:44DD370E...@nobody.org...
This is subject to market forces.
The problem that ET have is that they cannot charge E*
any more than the do now because E* will just walk
away. When Ryan and EZY will sell you a flight for
20 quid, few people will pay 100s to go by train.
E* once had a model where they tried to charge old-
world airline style return fares of 3-400 pounds, they
can't do this in the new world, prices have to match
the airlines and with all the costs of actually running
the trains to cover there isn't much left of the pie for
the Tunnel.
ET have a choice, charge E* very litte and have some
income or try and charge E* a lot and have zero income.
tim
tim
Except that no airline provides anything for free, the cost
of 'extras' is just bundled into the fare. "Are you sure that
you don't want to take a bicycle on this flight, Sir?",
"Well, that's too bad. The cost of doing so is included so
by choosing not to take one you are subsidsing the people
who do.", "Have a nice flight Sir"
Much though I dislike the attitude of Molly Malone
and his company's low regards for his legal obligations
towards consumers, from a commercial pov I have no
problem with the mechanism that his company uses to
charge its customers for his product.
tim
Mike O'Sullivan
Wonder how long it will be before the Islamists transfer their
attentions to Eurostar!
Lennart Petersen
"Mike O'Sullivan" <mi...@nowhere.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:4k5vn3F...@individual.net...
There have already been a plot against TGV with an explosion onboard.
The train survived without anyone injured. another accident was when a TGV
derailed at full speed but again no-one was injured.
Eurostar is almost the same construction as TGV but have a check in system
with security search so I believe there's a reasonable security although no
transport system can claim 100% safety.
Ken
wrote:
>> can handle it.
>
>I believe the platforms are long enough to handle double-length trains, as
>that was the original intention. It is a regular operation on the French
>side, for sure.
No - or not at Waterloo, anyway. I think you'll find the TGV sets that
run in multiple are shorter than the Eurostar.
rr19...@hotmail.com
A Eurostar train is fixed formation , two power cars, one at each end
and 18 coaches, 2+18 can operate as half sets and a eurostar can rescue
another train, platforms are designed for the full set . or at least
hats what my eurostar seeting plan says. Lots of TVG formations have
less carrages and work in mulitple as required .
rr19...@hotmail.com
Pete wrote:
> Easyjet and Ryanair were recently attempting to entirely eliminate free
> checked baggage on their planes. Now all of their planes leaving the
> UK will have nothing but checked baggage. Too bad, so sad.
>
>
I agree the Ryanair online check in and cabin baggage only is 'was
majic , no waiting in check in queues , no waiting at baggage reclaim ,
no chance of loss, saved loads of time ecach end of the flight, sad to
see it go.
Lennart Petersen
<rr19...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:1155402068.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
But those new rules seem to be for travelling FROM U.K only.
Ryanairs other flights continues with the ordinary rules as usually
including as I can see flights TO U.K
Here in Stockholm the new rules from today applies for travelling to U.S and
Heatrow transit hall only. Normal rules for hand luggage applies for
other destinations including UK and London (!!)
The new rules are somewhat more leaxed compared with the British
restrictions as you're allowed to carry some items like a laptop and camera
but they must be without cases and must be carried with other belonhins in a
transparent plastic bag provided from the airline.
I would guess those new rules survives a few days or weeks until the
security knows they can cope with the demand for a higher security.
Let's say it's to be necessary to,on request ,demonstrate that your camera
works as it's supposed to do.
>
James Robinson
> James Robinson <was...@212.com> wrote:
>>
>> I believe the platforms are long enough to handle double-length
>> trains, as that was the original intention. It is a regular operation
>> on the French side, for sure.
>
> No - or not at Waterloo, anyway. I think you'll find the TGV sets that
> run in multiple are shorter than the Eurostar.
Yes, now that I've searched around, it appears that they were worried about
the number of operating channels in the tunnel, so purposely made the
trains longer than TGVs. They are 1/4 mile long per set, and carry up to
800 passengers.
It's the TGVs, which are shorter, that run as double sets.
Neil Williams
> If eurotunnel folds there will be no more tunnel. It has to be maintained,
> staffed etc.
Doubt it. It's too much of a strategic asset. The UK and French
governments would step in, take it over, take on the debt and most
likely franchise its operation. There would be as much disruption as
there will be if UK train operator GNER goes bust as some think they
might - i.e. none whatsoever.
Neil
Neil Williams
> Eurostar points out in their news releases that they still allow passengers
> to carry laptops and cell phones, and use them throughout the trip, plus
> they are allowed to carry their baggage on board, and are not forced to
> check it.
Read "are not able to check it". Eurostar, just like every other
British train operating company, has neither the staff nor the space to
handle checked luggage. Were it forced to do so, the disruptive effect
would be far greater than that on the airlines from the current
debacle.
That said, that won't happen, as you can't do as much damage with a
train as you can with a plane.
Neil
Neil Williams
> Wonder how long it will be before the Islamists transfer their
> attentions to Eurostar!
Unlikely. The thing about planes is that they are a good terror tool
(people are scared of flying, not so much of trains which are perceived
as a very safe means of transport), and that if you put a bomb on a
plane you'll likely kill everyone, rather than the low tens like you
would on a train.
Given that Eurostar has rudimentary security already, if there's to be
an attack on a train it'll be on a busy tube train (like the London
bombings) or on the mainline where there is no additional security
whatsoever (nor is it really feasible to provide any) like it was in
Spain.
Neil
Jim Ley
wrote:
If you blow up a train in the middle of the channel tunnel with 800
passengers on, you kill 800 passengers, if you blow up a plane
anywhere you kill 450 passengers and you might get lucky killing a few
on the ground - so the risk from bombs are certainly not higher with a
plane.
The risk of hijack is perhaps different (although what a eurostar
would do plowing through waterloo at rush hour is perhaps interesting)
but the concern here is bombs, not weapons to enable a hijack.
Jim.
Jim Ley
wrote:
>Mike wrote:
>
>> If eurotunnel folds there will be no more tunnel. It has to be maintained,
>> staffed etc.
>
>Doubt it. It's too much of a strategic asset. The UK and French
>governments would step in, take it over, take on the debt and most
>likely franchise its operation.
The UK government have promised to not bail out eurotunnel, that's why
it's a private company, with the private company taking the risk.
The EU state subsidy laws would also likely uphold the inevitable
challenge from the airlines if it tried to subsidise it.
A much more likely scenario is the banks simply convert their debts to
share capital taking a big loss, this would've happened years ago if
there weren't lots of stupid french small shareholders preventing the
logical re-organisation.
Jim.
Neil Williams
> The UK government have promised to not bail out eurotunnel, that's why
> it's a private company, with the private company taking the risk.
They won't bail it out, but they might take it over if the banks don't.
Whatever happens, the tunnel will not cease operations.
Neil
Neil Williams
> If you blow up a train in the middle of the channel tunnel with 800
> passengers on, you kill 800 passengers
No, you don't - that's the difference between a train and a plane. If
you had one bomb, you'd probably kill about half a coach worth of
people. You'd need one hell of a lot of bombs to kill all 800 -
probably something like two per coach. Look at the Tube bombings -
those in other carriages away from the bombs were merely inconvenienced
and upset, not killed or even seriously injured.
It would take a bloody big bomb (probably a nuke) to flood the tunnel,
if that's what you're thinking of. If terrorists have a bomb like that
there'd be a far better place to use it, such as a city centre or a
busy airport departure lounge or railway station concourse.
Remember that the Tunnel has already experienced a serious fire, which
killed nobody and just caused slight disruption for a while as part of
the tunnel needed to be repaired.
> The risk of hijack is perhaps different (although what a eurostar
> would do plowing through waterloo at rush hour is perhaps interesting)
> but the concern here is bombs, not weapons to enable a hijack.
A train, especially one like Eurostar, can be controlled from outside
in many ways. Even if the terrorists were clever enough to disable
ATP/TPWS, as soon as authorities were aware of a problem they'd just
kill the traction current. That scenario is therefore so unlikely it's
hardly even worth specifically planning for it.
Neil
Jim Ley
wrote:
>Jim Ley wrote:
>
>> The UK government have promised to not bail out eurotunnel, that's why
>> it's a private company, with the private company taking the risk.
>
>They won't bail it out, but they might take it over if the banks don't.
they certainly won't assume any debt - as that's a bail out - so in
that respect there's no chance of them having it, 'cos the banks won't
take a 100% loss on it.
Jim.
Neil Williams
> they certainly won't assume any debt - as that's a bail out - so in
> that respect there's no chance of them having it, 'cos the banks won't
> take a 100% loss on it.
They might have to. Think Railtrack.
Neil
Jim Ley
wrote:
>Jim Ley wrote:
>
>> If you blow up a train in the middle of the channel tunnel with 800
>> passengers on, you kill 800 passengers
>
>No, you don't - that's the difference between a train and a plane. If
>you had one bomb, you'd probably kill about half a coach worth of
>people.
Erm,
>You'd need one hell of a lot of bombs to kill all 800 -
>probably something like two per coach.
Well 11 improvised devices killed 192 and injured 2050 in 2004, if
we're talking real explosives (which is what the planes are being
protected from, not the sort of improvised crap used on the tube
bombings) then you can certainly damage a lot more - equally doing it
in the middle of the channel tunnel, where theres long access before
any medical attention. Compare
>It would take a bloody big bomb (probably a nuke) to flood the tunnel,
>if that's what you're thinking of.
Of course not... just trashing one train, that's why it was 800... it
would need just a few bombs, we've already seen train attacks killing
192 and injuring 2050, against a deadliest bombing incident of a plane
of 329. So I really can't see that the danger of a bomb to a plane is
an order of magnitude different to a train.
Jim.
Neil Williams
> Well 11 improvised devices killed 192 and injured 2050 in 2004, if
> we're talking real explosives (which is what the planes are being
> protected from, not the sort of improvised crap used on the tube
> bombings) then you can certainly damage a lot more - equally doing it
> in the middle of the channel tunnel, where theres long access before
> any medical attention. Compare
If you're referring to the Madrid bombings, those were packed commuter
trains. Eurostar doesn't sell more tickets than it has seats. It also
has security in the form of X-ray machines which commuter trains don't.
Why is there "long access before any medical attention"? A train
running through the other tunnel to the site of a problem could get
there within a few minutes at speed. Were both tubes attacked, the
service tunnel provides road vehicle access pretty quickly. The tunnel
has its own emergency service, as I recall.
You'd need a lot of bombs. It's more accessible for rescue operations
than many other railways in the UK, and probably more accessible than
*any* other rail tunnel. It has security, which commuter rail
operations do not. It is not, IMO, a feasible or sensible target.
> Of course not... just trashing one train, that's why it was 800...
You would not kill everyone on a train unless you had at least one bomb
in every carriage. That isn't feasible, nor would it be worth it when
it only takes one (1) bomb to down a full 747 and kill the lot.
> it
> would need just a few bombs, we've already seen train attacks killing
> 192 and injuring 2050, against a deadliest bombing incident of a plane
> of 329. So I really can't see that the danger of a bomb to a plane is
> an order of magnitude different to a train.
A plane can be blown up over a large city. If it were, you might have
the same number of ground casualties as on board. Also, the fear
effect is greater for air, IMO. People, generally speaking, are not
scared of train travel.
Neil
Jim Ley
wrote:
>Why is there "long access before any medical attention"? A train
>running through the other tunnel to the site of a problem could get
>there within a few minutes at speed.
And where would the medical staff come from?
>> it
>> would need just a few bombs, we've already seen train attacks killing
>> 192 and injuring 2050, against a deadliest bombing incident of a plane
>> of 329. So I really can't see that the danger of a bomb to a plane is
>> an order of magnitude different to a train.
>
>A plane can be blown up over a large city. If it were, you might have
>the same number of ground casualties as on board.
There has never been such an incident the record number killed on the
ground is 11 - so I don't think it's particularly likely, that's less
than the number killed by a train bombing who weren't on the train.
> Also, the fear
>effect is greater for air, IMO.
So because you're talking up the fear we should panic and have grossly
disproportionately expensive rules on using planes? Why is that
logical?
Jim.
Neil Williams
> And where would the medical staff come from?
The nearest ambulance station(s), just like they would if anything else
was blown up.
> There has never been such an incident the record number killed on the
> ground is 11 - so I don't think it's particularly likely, that's less
> than the number killed by a train bombing who weren't on the train.
There has never been an incident of 800 people being killed by bombing
one long distance train, either, that I recall. There has, to my
knowledge, never been an incident of any kind involving a train that
killed 800 people in the UK, terrorist or otherwise. There probably
haven't been many such incidents anywhere.
If you widen to multiple trains, let's say a number of planes. How
about 9, which I understand was the plan. More than 800, isn't it?
It's a "better" use than trying to get 17 bombers with 17 bombs onto a
Eurostar train, one per carriage, which is what would probably be
necessary to kill everyone on board. Those 17 people could instead be
blowing up 17 747s, which even with a 50% success rate would kill a
hell of a lot more than 800.
> So because you're talking up the fear we should panic and have grossly
> disproportionately expensive rules on using planes? Why is that
> logical?
I said they weren't necessary on trains. I didn't comment from a
personal perspective whether they were on planes or not, but as you
want me to I will: I believe the current restrictions are an
overreaction. It's best to catch these people before they attempt to
bomb a plane, as happened in this case, as whatever the restrictions if
someone really wants to get something on board they will do it somehow.
Neil
Jim Ley
wrote:
>It's a "better" use than trying to get 17 bombers with 17 bombs onto a
>Eurostar train, one per carriage, which is what would probably be
>necessary to kill everyone on board. Those 17 people could instead be
>blowing up 17 747s, which even with a 50% success rate would kill a
>hell of a lot more than 800.
A few problems with your description, you don't need to get 17 people
onto the train, a couple will do as you can carry many bags and move
through the train, you can't do that with planes, you can only blow up
the one you're on, so if you're concerned about manpower, then a train
is a lot easier - it's also easier to get off mid-journey without the
bombs, so have the chance to bomb again later.
Jim.
Fly Guy
> > It's a "better" use than trying to get 17 bombers with 17 bombs
> > onto a Eurostar train
> > Those 17 people could instead be blowing up 17 747s ...
Who are you terrorizing?
You blow up a train or a plane. Those people were never
"terrorized". People in other planes, people at airports, people at
home watching the TV news - they're not "terrorized".
You blow up something like a plane or a train, and you haven't
terrorized anyone.
You do something to make people thing that their next drink, their
next breath of air, the next place they go will result in their death
- that's terrorism.
You blow up a plane or a train - that's simply a case of criminal
murder + suicide.
You put bomb vests on those 17 people and send them to various public
places, and they blow up, and they kill maybe 5 other people in each
place - don't look at the body count. They've instilled more fear and
terror in far more people for a far longer time period than if they
brought down 17 planes.
James Robinson
> James Robinson wrote:
>
>> Eurostar points out in their news releases that they still allow
>> passengers to carry laptops and cell phones, and use them throughout
>> the trip, plus they are allowed to carry their baggage on board, and
>> are not forced to check it.
>
> Read "are not able to check it". Eurostar, just like every other
> British train operating company, has neither the staff nor the space
> to handle checked luggage. Were it forced to do so, the disruptive
> effect would be far greater than that on the airlines from the current
> debacle.
They do handle checked luggage, just not on the same train, and at extra
cost:
Registered luggage is available at the major destinations within 24 hours.
They will also handle luggage for groups of 10 or more, carried on the same
train, and available upon arrival.
James Robinson
> "Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>A plane can be blown up over a large city. If it were, you might have
>>the same number of ground casualties as on board.
>
> There has never been such an incident the record number killed on the
> ground is 11 - so I don't think it's particularly likely, that's less
> than the number killed by a train bombing who weren't on the train.
I'm not sure what record you are referring to, as the El Al 747 cargo
flight that crashed in Amsterdam killed 47 on the ground. That's one I
could think of off the top of my head, there might be another with even
more fatalities.
Jim Ley
wrote:
>j...@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:
It wasn't a bomb though that brought the plane down though, which was
the 11 (for lockerbie)
Jim.
James Robinson
You think that just because a bomb goes off, it will restrict the potential
numbers to 11?
Calif Bill
"Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155419281.0...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
It is economic warfare. And stopping airplane travel, will stop the
economy faster than blowing up a train. Maybe we need to partition Iraq in
to two sections. One for the modern world (the part with oil) and one part
for those who want to live in the 14th century. They do not need oil for
that lifestyle. Have any modern weapon in possesion, you die.
nobody
> they certainly won't assume any debt - as that's a bail out - so in
> that respect there's no chance of them having it, 'cos the banks won't
> take a 100% loss on it.
If a government garanteed the loans, the defaulting of Eurotunnel may
force such as government to assume that debt.
But in the end, the creditors end up owning Eurotunnel, the shareholders
end up losing all value of their shares.
What are creditors to do ? Operate the tunnel which generates positive
cash flow to reduce their losses, or shut it down and never recover
their money ?
Arwel Parry
writes
>Jim Ley wrote:
>> they certainly won't assume any debt - as that's a bail out - so in
>> that respect there's no chance of them having it, 'cos the banks won't
>> take a 100% loss on it.
>
>
>If a government garanteed the loans, the defaulting of Eurotunnel may
>force such as government to assume that debt.
I don't usually have a good word to say for Margaret Thatcher, but one
thing she did do was write into the Channel Tunnel Act that absolutely
NO British government money was involved in building the tunnel, it was
entirely left to the private sector from this end.
>But in the end, the creditors end up owning Eurotunnel, the shareholders
>end up losing all value of their shares.
>
>What are creditors to do ? Operate the tunnel which generates positive
>cash flow to reduce their losses, or shut it down and never recover
>their money ?
--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/
Neil Williams
> It is economic warfare. And stopping airplane travel, will stop the
> economy faster than blowing up a train.
A very US perspective - stopping the UK national rail network for any
period of time, especially in London and the South East, would do
*serious* damage to the UK economy. Other European countries are
likely similar.
That said, the London bombs didn't really achieve any changes to the
Tube or rail network, because such changes aren't really practical
because of the number of passengers. And Eurostar itself probably *is*
an irrelevance, as it's only one service that is popular for travel to
Paris and Brussels but not to a huge extent further afield.
Neil
Jim Ley
>What are creditors to do ? Operate the tunnel which generates positive
>cash flow to reduce their losses, or shut it down and never recover
>their money ?
Oh of course the banks will continue operating it, and it would've
happened years ago if the shareholders had more sense and understood
the nature of the risk rather than it being some sort of patriotic
thing - they are now waiting and hoping for a government bail out -
who knows they may end up getting the french government to cover their
losses come next french election time.
Jim.
Jim Ley
wrote:
>You think that just because a bomb goes off, it will restrict the potential
>numbers to 11?
It's been the case so far... and they type of failure could indeed be
related to the nature of the thing that brought down the flight -
breaking up in the sky is likely going to cause less casualties than
staying intact and ploughing into a building for example.
Jim.
James Robinson
Nonsense. If 200 tons of airplane break up in the air, it still has to
come to earth somewhere. If what's left hits a populated area, like an
apartment building, as the El Al aircraft did, then there will be many
casualties. It's all a matter of chance.
Jim Ley
wrote:
No, 200 tons all hitting the same building will destroy the building,
risking everyone insides life, 200 1 ton blocks won't destroy any
individual building, so as long as you're not killed in the impact,
you've a good chance of surviving.
Jim.
James Robinson
They don't disintegrate that much. TWA 800, Panam 103 both had large
sections drop to earth. The crater created by the main part of 103 was
somthing like 20 feet deep.
philip....@gmail.com
Calif Bill wrote:
> It is economic warfare. And stopping airplane travel, will stop the
> economy faster than blowing up a train.
The railway network in the UK is extremely extensive and is an
important and economically essential part of the country's transport
system. Well over a billion journeys are made by rail in the UK per
year - far more than by air. In London the National Rail and
Underground networks are *the* key transport systems and are non
opptional - they are absolutely essential. Where you to shut them down
the other transport systems would not come close to coping and the
economy would come grinding to a rapid halt.
Certainly stopping all air tavel within, to and from the UK would have
a quick and disasterous effect on the economy but I do not believe the
effect would be as fast and comprehensive as shutting down our rail
networks.
Philip.
Martin D. Pay
<pace...@gmail.com> mangled uncounted electrons thus:
>Calif Bill wrote:
>
>> It is economic warfare. And stopping airplane travel, will stop the
>> economy faster than blowing up a train.
>
>A very US perspective - stopping the UK national rail network for any
>period of time, especially in London and the South East, would do
>*serious* damage to the UK economy. Other European countries are
>likely similar.
>
>That said, the London bombs didn't really achieve any changes to the
>Tube or rail network, because such changes aren't really practical
>because of the number of passengers.
<snip>
The UK authorities are of course experimenting at the moment with
airport-style metal detectors at a few of the larger railway
termini. If the program is a success (however they will define
that I don't know) they plan to roll out the program across large
parts of the UK rail network...
Martin D. Pay
I believe they've accepted that it can't be done on the tube
without crippling the network, due to access problems...
Jim Ley
<mar...@starship-excalibur.co.uk> wrote:
>The UK authorities are of course experimenting at the moment with
>airport-style metal detectors at a few of the larger railway
>termini. If the program is a success (however they will define
>that I don't know) they plan to roll out the program across large
>parts of the UK rail network...
It has to be rolled out through all, or it's pointless, you'd check to
see if the station you were going to board on had them before boarding
surely?
Jim.
Neil Williams
> The UK authorities are of course experimenting at the moment with
> airport-style metal detectors at a few of the larger railway
> termini. If the program is a success (however they will define
> that I don't know) they plan to roll out the program across large
> parts of the UK rail network...
The purpose of these experiments is not so much to prevent items being
taken on trains (after all, a bomb isn't metal, and knives are
permitted on trains so long as they're of a type that would be
permitted anywhere else in public), but *off* trains into city centres.
It's largely a measure against knife crime, not to stop people taking
bombs on trains, and I don't think anyone thinks it is feasible to
implement it on crowded commuter trains, for example.
Regardless of this, it would be impossible to implement it such that
it'd actually provide watertight security for trains, as there are too
many completely unstaffed stations.
Neil
Arwel Parry
<mar...@starship-excalibur.co.uk> writes
>The UK authorities are of course experimenting at the moment with
>airport-style metal detectors at a few of the larger railway termini.
>If the program is a success (however they will define that I don't
>know) they plan to roll out the program across large parts of the UK
>rail network...
That's just the authorities trying to be seen to be doing something. It
might catch kids carrying knives on their night out, but it won't do
anything to stop terrorism unless they can cover every entrance to every
one of the 3000+ railway stations 24/7 -- and a lot fewer than 50% of
the stations even have a staffed ticket office for even part of the day,
so I can't see that ever happening. Even if they could cover all the
stations, there's 11,000 route-miles of track which can be accessed at
any level crossing, crossing someone's field, or through a sympathiser's
back garden - why should terrorists find it any more difficult to get on
the tracks than kids and vandals do?
nobody
> happened years ago if the shareholders had more sense and understood
> the nature of the risk rather than it being some sort of patriotic
> thing - they are now waiting and hoping for a government bail out
If you had invested your entire retirement fund into Eurotunnel,
wouldn't you actively try to fnd any solution that didn't involve you
losing your complete investment ?
It is perfectly normal for innvestors working as hard as possible to
find a solution which doesn't involve their shares becoming worthless.
And it is laudable that they rose up when they saw an apparanetly
incompetant management team and demanded they be replaced. Active
shareholders are good because they keep management accountable for their decisions.
Jim Ley
>It is perfectly normal for innvestors working as hard as possible to
>find a solution which doesn't involve their shares becoming worthless.
but they're not, they're rejecting lots of plans that involve them not
becoming worthless - there have been loads of proposals to convert a
decent amount of the debt into shares, the small french holders who
own it have repeatedly voted against what would be sensible policies
just to see even more money pissed away.
They are holding out for a complete bail out from the french
government, the bankruptcy protection should absolutely be withdrawn
and the incompetent company and shareholders left with nothing. This
extremely expensive government subsidised train (by way of the channel
tunnel rail link) is not something that deserves to die as soon as
possible.
Jim.
K
Jim Ley wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2006 14:48:01 -0700, "Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Why is there "long access before any medical attention"? A train
> >running through the other tunnel to the site of a problem could get
> >there within a few minutes at speed.
>
> And where would the medical staff come from?
The Channel tunnel has it's own emergency service, with special
vehicles that can run through the service tunnels at considerable
speeds. During the Chunnel fire in 1996 the response teams reached the
scene in about 30 minutes.
K
James Robinson wrote:
> I'm not sure what record you are referring to, as the El Al 747 cargo
> flight that crashed in Amsterdam killed 47 on the ground. That's one I
> could think of off the top of my head, there might be another with even
> more fatalities.
Yep. 9/11. Almost 3000 fatalities on the ground...
Jim Ley
The UK ambulance service is supposed to get to "95% of neither life
threatening or serious calls responded to within 19 minutes" and 75%
of life threatening ones in 8 minutes, I hardly think 30 minutes is
something to claim as a great success...
Jim.