In uk.transport, Peter Masson wrote:
>
>"Mike Barnes"  wrote
>>
>> Not that one, but you're in the right country. It's three stops from
>> platform 0 to the roadless station, if that helps.
>>
>Charlie suggested Stockport to Middlewood (post at 3 on 06/06/2008)

That is the right answer but it's not in any other of the 236 postings
to this thread that have turned up here. I thought it strange that no-
one had got it, and if other people could see that posting but I
couldn't, that explains things.

> - but I
>make that four stops (or three intermediate stops).

Quite right, sorry, Davenport slipped my mind somehow.

-- 
Mike Barnes

Motorists who dominate and infest this transport newsgroup are strong
in defence of polluting air travel and harmful airport expansion and
yet it seems, compared with which, they are the losers.

"The Government has been urged to abolish a £10bn-a-year "hidden
subsidy" to the airline industry to bring it into line with hard-
pressed motorists struggling with higher petrol prices.

Although the aviation industry claims it is being badly hit by the
soaring price of oil, it still enjoys a double boost denied to drivers
because it does not pay fuel duty or VAT on the fuel for its planes.
New figures suggest this subsidy is worth £9.92bn at current levels of
fuel tax..."

More:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-airlines-16310bn-government-fuel-subsidy-842770.html

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:20c4aa2d-1dda-4781-a57a-5725a6ea2546@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Motorists who dominate and infest this transport newsgroup

Off to a good start with a pejorative phrase, much repeated, and 
meaningless.

> are strong
> in defence of polluting air travel

No evidence. Air travel is a very small proportion of CO2, as has been 
pointed ot many times. It's just an easy whipping horse, so oiks like you 
can look like you care.

> "The Government has been urged to abolish a £10bn-a-year "hidden
> subsidy" to the airline industry to bring it into line with hard-
> pressed motorists struggling with higher petrol prices.

Oh, and BTW, old news. Nothing new here. Why do you bother?

Doug wrote:
> Motorists who dominate and infest this transport newsgroup are strong
> in defence of polluting air travel and harmful airport expansion and
> yet it seems, compared with which, they are the losers.
>
What a wonderful contribution. Thank you for that Doug.

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> Although the aviation industry claims it is being badly hit by the
> soaring price of oil, it still enjoys a double boost denied to drivers
> because it does not pay fuel duty or VAT on the fuel for its planes. New
> figures suggest this subsidy is worth £9.92bn at current levels of fuel
> tax..."

An utterly pointless number, of course, because it wouldn't generate 10bn 
in revenue - if fuel duty and VAT were levied in full on aviation fuel, 
you'd quickly find that airlines just wouldn't buy their fuel here. They 
wouldn't _not fly_, of course, they'd just arrange their flights so the 
planes were filled in another country before flying here.

Doug wrote:
> Motorists who dominate and infest this transport newsgroup are strong
> in defence of polluting air travel and harmful airport expansion and
> yet it seems, compared with which, they are the losers.
> 
> "The Government has been urged to abolish a £10bn-a-year "hidden
> subsidy" to the airline industry to bring it into line with hard-
> pressed motorists struggling with higher petrol prices.
> 
> Although the aviation industry claims it is being badly hit by the
> soaring price of oil, it still enjoys a double boost denied to drivers
> because it does not pay fuel duty or VAT on the fuel for its planes.
> New figures suggest this subsidy is worth £9.92bn at current levels of
> fuel tax..."
> 
> More:
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-airlines-16310bn-government-fuel-subsidy-842770.html

What "subsidy" are you talking about?

On that basis, the bit of your earned income that Crash Gordon and 
Sedated Darling deign to leave you with after taxation is also a "subsidy".

I'm assuming you have an earned income and pay tax. I understand that 
this may not be a safe assumption.

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 07:35:25 +0100 someone who may be "Graculus"
 wrote this:-

>No evidence. Air travel is a very small proportion of CO2, as has been 
>pointed ot many times. It's just an easy whipping horse, so oiks like you 
>can look like you care.

The intelligent don't just look at things now/in the past, they also
look at the rate of change of things, in order to see how they are
likely to be in the future. That allows changes to be made to
minimise overshoot.

It is the difference between a simple thermostat, a thermostat with
an accelerator heater and a modern controller with PID control.
There is less overshoot with the accelerator heater and even less
with the PID controller.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6955009.stm> has some
more information for the doubters.

"While other sectors, such as electricity generation, are
stabilising or reducing their emissions, the transport sector's
greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase.

"Emissions from the international air transport sector within the EU
are increasing faster than any other mode, says the European
Commission.

"Although aviation currently only accounts for about 3% of the EU's
total greenhouse gas emissions, the sector has seen an 87% increase
in CO2 since 1990.

"This rise has been blamed on the emergence of cheap air travel.

"In the UK, flights are responsible for an estimated 7% of the
nation's carbon emissions. But this is projected to increase to as
much as 25% over the coming decades.

"Research also shows that emissions from aircraft have a greater
impact than those originating from sources on the ground.

"Studies carried out by the International Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) suggested that, at high altitudes, the aerosols in the
exhaust of jet engines had a range of additional impacts.

"The IPCC reported that as well as the associated CO2 emissions,
condensation trails (contrails) and aerosols from aircrafts'
exhausts had the potential to alter cloud properties and deplete
ozone in the stratosphere.

"As a result, aircraft emissions are said to have between two to
four times the global warming potential as ground-level CO2."




-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Doug wrote:

> Motorists

On Jun 9, 6:10 am, Doug  wrote:
> Motorists who dominate and infest this transport newsgroup are strong
> in defence of polluting air travel and harmful airport expansion and
> yet it seems, compared with which, they are the losers.
>
> "The Government has been urged to abolish a £10bn-a-year "hidden
> subsidy" to the airline industry to bring it into line with hard-
> pressed motorists struggling with higher petrol prices.
>
> Although the aviation industry claims it is being badly hit by the
> soaring price of oil, it still enjoys a double boost denied to drivers
> because it does not pay fuel duty or VAT on the fuel for its planes.
> New figures suggest this subsidy is worth £9.92bn at current levels of
> fuel tax..."
>
> More:
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-airlines-16310...
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
> Travel broadens the damage.

Thank you for your input to this newsgroup Doug

Fancis

"Phil Bradshaw" <philbradshaw@deltasierralima.pipex.charlieoscarmike> wrote 
in message news:Q8OdnT2zTuG9QdHVRVnyiQA@pipex.net...
> Doug wrote:
>
>> Motorists

Even though he was talking about air travel. You'd think he had some sort of 
obsession, wouldn't you?

In article <20c4aa2d-1dda-4781-a57a-5725a6ea2546
@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> Although the aviation industry claims it is being badly hit by the
> soaring price of oil, it still enjoys a double boost denied to drivers
> because it does not pay fuel duty or VAT on the fuel for its planes.
> New figures suggest this subsidy is worth £9.92bn at current levels of
> fuel tax..."

Because if they existed, the planes would just fill up outside of the 
UK and HM Treasury would lose any revenue it would've got. Considering 
virtually all planes are on international flights, it's a trivial thing 
to do.



-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Jun 9, 10:45�am, Conor  wrote:
> In article <20c4aa2d-1dda-4781-a57a-5725a6ea2546
> @x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>
> > Although the aviation industry claims it is being badly hit by the
> > soaring price of oil, it still enjoys a double boost denied to drivers
> > because it does not pay fuel duty or VAT on the fuel for its planes.
> > New figures suggest this subsidy is worth �9.92bn at current levels of
> > fuel tax..."
>
> Because if they existed, the planes would just fill up outside of the
> UK and HM Treasury would lose any revenue it would've got. Considering
> virtually all planes are on international flights, it's a trivial thing
> to do.

They could make a start on domestic flights.  Even european flights
top up as required.  Full tanks for several journeys means less
payload on the first trip.

George

"furnessvale"  wrote in message 
news:66fc2cc1-bedb-4e69-9959-993946f831a2@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> They could make a start on domestic flights.  Even european flights
> top up as required.  Full tanks for several journeys means less
> payload on the first trip.

The would just move to a rotor, so say domestic flights Glasgow to London 
would then do London to Paris and back. Carefully planned so any loss in 
payload is less than the tax.

On 2008-06-09, Graculus  wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message 
> news:20c4aa2d-1dda-4781-a57a-5725a6ea2546@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> Motorists who dominate and infest this transport newsgroup
>
> Off to a good start with a pejorative phrase, much repeated, and 
> meaningless.
>
>> are strong
>> in defence of polluting air travel
>
> No evidence. Air travel is a very small proportion of CO2, as has been 
> pointed ot many times. It's just an easy whipping horse, so oiks like you 
> can look like you care.
>
>> "The Government has been urged to abolish a £10bn-a-year "hidden
>> subsidy" to the airline industry to bring it into line with hard-
>> pressed motorists struggling with higher petrol prices.
>
> Oh, and BTW, old news. Nothing new here. Why do you bother? 

Not forgetting that absence of taxation is not a subsidy.


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 02:50:32 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be
furnessvale  wrote this:-

>> Because if they existed, the planes would just fill up outside of the
>> UK and HM Treasury would lose any revenue it would've got. Considering
>> virtually all planes are on international flights, it's a trivial thing
>> to do.
>
>They could make a start on domestic flights.

Probably best to do it at an EU level to start with. The aeroplane
companies are fighting very hard to prevent this.



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In article <66fc2cc1-bedb-4e69-9959-993946f831a2
@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, furnessvale says...
> On Jun 9, 10:45?am, Conor  wrote:
> > In article <20c4aa2d-1dda-4781-a57a-5725a6ea2546
> > @x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> >
> > > Although the aviation industry claims it is being badly hit by the
> > > soaring price of oil, it still enjoys a double boost denied to drivers
> > > because it does not pay fuel duty or VAT on the fuel for its planes.
> > > New figures suggest this subsidy is worth ?9.92bn at current levels of
> > > fuel tax..."
> >
> > Because if they existed, the planes would just fill up outside of the
> > UK and HM Treasury would lose any revenue it would've got. Considering
> > virtually all planes are on international flights, it's a trivial thing
> > to do.
> 
> They could make a start on domestic flights.  

Wouldn't work. Plane tops up in Europe with enough fuel to do a round 
trip. Lands in London, does a London to Glasgow and then an 
international from Glasgow.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On 9 Jun, 13:57, Conor  wrote:
> In article <66fc2cc1-bedb-4e69-9959-993946f831a2
> @x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, furnessvale says...

> > On Jun 9, 10:45?am, Conor  wrote:
> > > In article <20c4aa2d-1dda-4781-a57a-5725a6ea2546

> > They could make a start on domestic flights.
>
> Wouldn't work. Plane tops up in Europe with enough fuel to do a round
> trip. Lands in London, does a London to Glasgow and then an
> international from Glasgow.

Which would use more fuel, as the plane would have to lug it about
even more, burning fuel to carry it.
You would even see planes flying to airports in France with just a few
passengers, just so that they could refuel outside of Britain.

The only real solution is to agree Europe/World wide levels on fuel
tax for both aircraft and Lorries.

In article <065b192c-3f66-4568-a862-bb13c7513cb9
@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, NotMe says...
> On 9 Jun, 13:57, Conor  wrote:
> > In article <66fc2cc1-bedb-4e69-9959-993946f831a2
> > @x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, furnessvale says...
> 
> > > On Jun 9, 10:45?am, Conor  wrote:
> > > > In article <20c4aa2d-1dda-4781-a57a-5725a6ea2546
> 
> > > They could make a start on domestic flights.
> >
> > Wouldn't work. Plane tops up in Europe with enough fuel to do a round
> > trip. Lands in London, does a London to Glasgow and then an
> > international from Glasgow.
> 
> Which would use more fuel, as the plane would have to lug it about
> even more, burning fuel to carry it.

But the extra it would use because of the weight wouldn't cancel out 
the savings on taxes.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Jun 9, 1:57�pm, Conor  wrote:
> In article <66fc2cc1-bedb-4e69-9959-993946f831a2
> @x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, furnessvale says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 10:45?am, Conor  wrote:
> > > In article <20c4aa2d-1dda-4781-a57a-5725a6ea2546
> > > @x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>
> > > > Although the aviation industry claims it is being badly hit by the
> > > > soaring price of oil, it still enjoys a double boost denied to drivers
> > > > because it does not pay fuel duty or VAT on the fuel for its planes.> > > > New figures suggest this subsidy is worth ?9.92bn at current levels of
> > > > fuel tax..."
>
> > > Because if they existed, the planes would just fill up outside of the
> > > UK and HM Treasury would lose any revenue it would've got. Considering> > > virtually all planes are on international flights, it's a trivial thing
> > > to do.
>
> > They could make a start on domestic flights. �
>
> Wouldn't work. Plane tops up in Europe with enough fuel to do a round
> trip. Lands in London, does a London to Glasgow and then an
> international from Glasgow.

Of course we could always apply a French solution to the problem, eg
tax what is already in the tanks, or drain it out, as they did to UK
lorries some years ago in the heady days when UK diesel was cheaper
than French.

Alternatively, we could have one man based in London to serve all
London airports.  He would have no personal transport and would have
to dip the tanks of all aircraft before they were allowed to take off
(unless they had just filled in the UK of course).  That was French
solution number two used when they wanted to limit the number of video
recorders coming from the far east.

One thing is certain, if France wanted to do it they would and stuff
EU regs.

George

NotMe wrote:
> On 9 Jun, 13:57, Conor  wrote:
>> In article <66fc2cc1-bedb-4e69-9959-993946f831a2
>> @x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, furnessvale says...
> 
>>> On Jun 9, 10:45?am, Conor  wrote:
>>>> In article <20c4aa2d-1dda-4781-a57a-5725a6ea2546
> 
>>> They could make a start on domestic flights.
>> Wouldn't work. Plane tops up in Europe with enough fuel to do a round
>> trip. Lands in London, does a London to Glasgow and then an
>> international from Glasgow.
> 
> Which would use more fuel, as the plane would have to lug it about
> even more, burning fuel to carry it.
> You would even see planes flying to airports in France with just a few
> passengers, just so that they could refuel outside of Britain.
> 
> The only real solution is to agree Europe/World wide levels on fuel
> tax for both aircraft and Lorries.

That's already been done for aircraft.

Just a small point but last time I checked aircraft didn't use roads
so why on earth should they pay road duties?

The same goes for trains and combine harvesters.

Now there is an argument (that I don't necessarily subscribe to) that
drivers pay too much duty but surely that's their problem.

In fact, I've long felt that the hauliers would do well not to draw
too much attention to the piddling amounts of duty they pay.

allan tracy wrote:
> Just a small point but last time I checked aircraft didn't use roads
> so why on earth should they pay road duties?
> 
> The same goes for trains and combine harvesters.
> 
> Now there is an argument (that I don't necessarily subscribe to) that
> drivers pay too much duty but surely that's their problem.
> 
> In fact, I've long felt that the hauliers would do well not to draw
> too much attention to the piddling amounts of duty they pay.

I don't know where you live, but I can assure you that combine 
harvesters *do* use the public roads, if only to get from field to field.

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

On Jun 10, 7:23�pm, allan tracy  wrote> Just a small point but last time I checked aircraft didn't use roads
> so why on earth should they pay road duties?
>
> The same goes for trains and combine harvesters.
>
> Now there is an argument (that I don't necessarily subscribe to) that
> drivers pay too much duty but surely that's their problem.
>
> In fact, I've long felt that the hauliers would do well not to draw
> too much attention to the piddling amounts of duty they pay.

The same argument failed to work for the thousands of boat owners who,
from November, will be paying "white" duty for their fuel but the
government will kindly allow them to still put red in the tank, paying
the excess directly to the seller.

George