I'm meeting some people this Saturday morning around 04:30 before we go 
on for a flight. We are all all the same ticket for our flight on 
EasyJet so I am inclined to meet landside. Will they make us all check 
in at the same time? Somehow, even if not, it seems like it would be 
easier to address problems from landside.

Anyway, does anyone have any suggestions on a good place to meet? Maybe 
the Cafe Bar?
-- 
Michael Hoffman

"Michael Hoffman" <cam.ac.uk@mh391.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g55fh8$ask$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> I'm meeting some people this Saturday morning around 04:30 before we go on 
> for a flight. We are all all the same ticket for our flight on EasyJet so 
> I am inclined to meet landside. Will they make us all check in at the same 
> time? Somehow, even if not, it seems like it would be easier to address 
> problems from landside.
>
> Anyway, does anyone have any suggestions on a good place to meet? Maybe 
> the Cafe Bar?

If easyJet run true to form it will go like this:

(1) check in doesn't open until two hours before scheduled time
(2) it takes longer than two hours to check everybody in (after which you've 
got the security queue of course)
(3) therefore you will meet in the check in queue whether you like it or 
not.

(The days of "hand luggage only, check in at gate" have gone - think 
toothpaste and nail scissors - thanks to America's War on Tourism.)

-- 
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:11:59 +0100, Tim Ward  wrote:

> "Michael Hoffman" <cam.ac.uk@mh391.invalid> wrote in message
> news:g55fh8$ask$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>> I'm meeting some people this Saturday morning around 04:30 before we go  
>> on
>> for a flight. We are all all the same ticket for our flight on EasyJet  
>> so
>> I am inclined to meet landside. Will they make us all check in at the  
>> same
>> time? Somehow, even if not, it seems like it would be easier to address
>> problems from landside.
>>
>> Anyway, does anyone have any suggestions on a good place to meet? Maybe
>> the Cafe Bar?
>
> If easyJet run true to form it will go like this:
>
> (1) check in doesn't open until two hours before scheduled time
> (2) it takes longer than two hours to check everybody in (after which  
> you've
> got the security queue of course)
> (3) therefore you will meet in the check in queue whether you like it or
> not.
>
> (The days of "hand luggage only, check in at gate" have gone - think
> toothpaste and nail scissors - thanks to America's War on Tourism.)
>


http://www.easyjet.com/B2B/EN/Airport/online_checkin.html

"Duncan Wood"  wrote in message 
news:op.ud27co0qpmo3dt@lucy...
>>
>> (The days of "hand luggage only, check in at gate" have gone - think
>> toothpaste and nail scissors - thanks to America's War on Tourism.)
>
> http://www.easyjet.com/B2B/EN/Airport/online_checkin.html

So? this is useless for anything other than a day trip because of the:

"Should you decide to check any baggage into the hold anyway, you must check 
in via the desk in the normal way."
bit (see toothpaste and nail scissors above). (To be fair, the OP didn't say 
that they *weren't* doing a day trip.)

-- 
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:54:56 +0100, Tim Ward  wrote:

> "Duncan Wood"  wrote in message
> news:op.ud27co0qpmo3dt@lucy...
>>>
>>> (The days of "hand luggage only, check in at gate" have gone - think
>>> toothpaste and nail scissors - thanks to America's War on Tourism.)
>>
>> http://www.easyjet.com/B2B/EN/Airport/online_checkin.html
>
> So? this is useless for anything other than a day trip because of the:
>
> "Should you decide to check any baggage into the hold anyway, you must  
> check
> in via the desk in the normal way."
> bit (see toothpaste and nail scissors above). (To be fair, the OP didn't  
> say
> that they *weren't* doing a day trip.)
>


Generally I can survive away from home for more than 24hrs without nail  
scissors & toothpaste is available in most of the world nowadays.

"Duncan Wood"  wrote in message 
news:op.ud28exx5pmo3dt@lucy...
>
> Generally I can survive away from home for more than 24hrs without nail 
> scissors & toothpaste is available in most of the world nowadays.

Yes, I had thought of the "buy a new set of luggage each flight" approach 
but frankly it's too much hassle.

-- 
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:16:56 +0100, Tim Ward  wrote:

> "Duncan Wood"  wrote in message
> news:op.ud28exx5pmo3dt@lucy...
>>
>> Generally I can survive away from home for more than 24hrs without nail
>> scissors & toothpaste is available in most of the world nowadays.
>
> Yes, I had thought of the "buy a new set of luggage each flight" approach
> but frankly it's too much hassle.
>

Take the luggage & just buy toothpaste in small tubes.

"Duncan Wood"  wrote in message 
news:op.ud3amhlxpmo3dt@lucy...
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:16:56 +0100, Tim Ward  wrote:
>
>> "Duncan Wood"  wrote in message
>> news:op.ud28exx5pmo3dt@lucy...
>>>
>>> Generally I can survive away from home for more than 24hrs without nail
>>> scissors & toothpaste is available in most of the world nowadays.
>>
>> Yes, I had thought of the "buy a new set of luggage each flight" approach
>> but frankly it's too much hassle.
>
> Take the luggage & just buy toothpaste in small tubes.

And nail scissors and hand cream and ...

The sooner the USA give up on their War on Tourism and start a War on 
Something Else instead the better. Maybe with the new president.

Actually, given that every airport has thousands of pairs of confiscated 
nail scissors, why don't they just let *arriving* passengers help themselves 
to a pair? - save landfill tax.

-- 
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:11:59 +0100, "Tim Ward" 
wrote:

>(The days of "hand luggage only, check in at gate" have gone - think 
>toothpaste and nail scissors - thanks to America's War on Tourism.)

You can take toothpaste on a plane, though it has to be in a silly
plastic bag.  If I'm going away for a weekend, I hardly consider nail
scissors an important part of my kit.

Hand luggage only, with online check-in, is still very possible.
Indeed, it's how I fly most of the time.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:50:31 +0100, "Duncan Wood"
 wrote:

>Take the luggage & just buy toothpaste in small tubes.

A UK standard tube of toothpaste is well under 100ml.  70, I think.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
news:487667e6.52212271@news.individual.net...
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:50:31 +0100, "Duncan Wood"
>  wrote:
>
>>Take the luggage & just buy toothpaste in small tubes.
>
> A UK standard tube of toothpaste is well under 100ml.  70, I think.

The toothpaste is the easy part.  And shampoo can be re-bottled

But try getting deodorant spray in the required size (roll-on is possible).

tim

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:49:47 +0100, tim.....   
wrote:

> "Neil Williams"  wrote in message
> news:487667e6.52212271@news.individual.net...
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:50:31 +0100, "Duncan Wood"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Take the luggage & just buy toothpaste in small tubes.
>>
>> A UK standard tube of toothpaste is well under 100ml.  70, I think.
>
> The toothpaste is the easy part.  And shampoo can be re-bottled
>
> But try getting deodorant spray in the required size (roll-on is  
> possible).

Or solid, which counts as liquid.

Regards,

Helen




-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:49:47 +0100, "tim....."
 wrote:

>But try getting deodorant spray in the required size (roll-on is possible).

Roll-on is what I usually do.  Does the job, and is vastly less
inconvenient than the time taken to check in a bag.  I don't normally
use shampoo on a short trip, soap does the job, and in any case it's
free in a lot of hotels if the trip happens to involve staying in one.

(Actually, given the cost of checking in a bag on many airlines, it
would actually be cheaper to buy and chuck if you couldn't be bothered
with that)

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:18:12 +0100, Neil Williams  
 wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:49:47 +0100, "tim....."
>  wrote:
>
>> But try getting deodorant spray in the required size (roll-on is  
>> possible).
>
> Roll-on is what I usually do.  Does the job, and is vastly less
> inconvenient than the time taken to check in a bag.  I don't normally
> use shampoo on a short trip, soap does the job, and in any case it's
> free in a lot of hotels if the trip happens to involve staying in one.
>
> (Actually, given the cost of checking in a bag on many airlines, it
> would actually be cheaper to buy and chuck if you couldn't be bothered
> with that)
>
> Neil
>


That's one of those things that I always consider, fail to do before I get  
there & then check in after they've pointed out that I owe them a fortune  
charge me nothing for. I'm still trying to get my head round it.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:49:47 +0100, "tim....."
 wrote:

>
>"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
>news:487667e6.52212271@news.individual.net...
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:50:31 +0100, "Duncan Wood"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>Take the luggage & just buy toothpaste in small tubes.
>>
>> A UK standard tube of toothpaste is well under 100ml.  70, I think.
>
>The toothpaste is the easy part.  And shampoo can be re-bottled
>
>But try getting deodorant spray in the required size (roll-on is possible).

Last time I flew for a weekend break, I took a deodorant that had its
size listed only in floz... it got through, even though technically (I
found out later) it shouldn't have!

On 10 Jul, 20:49, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
wrote:
> You can take toothpaste on a plane, though it has to be in a silly
> plastic bag.

I've wondered what the rules are on the "resealable
plastic bag".  Can you take a supermarket grapes bag
or does it have to be of an approved design?

Also I was looking for a source of small squeezy bottles
for a few days' supply of e.g. shaving gel or toothpaste.
The squeezy bottles sold in travel shops are too large
(50-100ml, I'm looking for more like 10ml), and hotel
shampoo miniatures are rarely squeezy enough.

In message , at 07:30:14 on 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008, James Farrar  remarked:
>Last time I flew for a weekend break, I took a deodorant that had its
>size listed only in floz... it got through, even though technically (I
>found out later) it shouldn't have!

The restrictions were originally expressed (by the USA authorities) as 3 
fl-oz. The Europeans then translated that into Millilitres (and rounded 
it up a bit from 88). The plastic bag they go in started off life as a 
US Quart - it's a standard item sold as a freezer bag.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Al Grant"  wrote in message 
news:c675b715-1af3-487c-a925-8e8839f755d7@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 10 Jul, 20:49, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
> wrote:
>> You can take toothpaste on a plane, though it has to be in a silly
>> plastic bag.
>
> I've wondered what the rules are on the "resealable
> plastic bag".  Can you take a supermarket grapes bag
> or does it have to be of an approved design?
>
> Also I was looking for a source of small squeezy bottles
> for a few days' supply of e.g. shaving gel or toothpaste.
> The squeezy bottles sold in travel shops are too large
> (50-100ml, I'm looking for more like 10ml), and hotel
> shampoo miniatures are rarely squeezy enough.

I may be wrong (for that read "I'm probably wrong"), but I think the Body 
Shop sell all manner of bottles. Maybe there's something squeezy enough 
there?

Anthony

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:35:35 +0100, Anthony Deane  
<"ajd66[removethisbit]"@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> I may be wrong (for that read "I'm probably wrong"), but I think the Body
> Shop sell all manner of bottles. Maybe there's something squeezy enough
> there?

I can't remember seeing 10ml-ish squeezy bottles anywhere -- that size  
tends to be screwtop jars which you'd need a spatula to get stuff in and  
out of.

Muji have all kinds of containers if you're in reach of one.

Regards,

Helen

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

"Duncan Wood"  wrote in message 
news:op.ud28exx5pmo3dt@lucy...

> Generally I can survive away from home for more than 24hrs without nail 
> scissors & toothpaste is available in most of the world nowadays.

Indeed. Buy solid deodorant, tooth powder and solid shaving soap. I have 
never
used one of the silly pastic liquid bags. If I really need to cut my nails 
abroad,
nail clippers cost less than a pound most places...

Chris

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:38:18 +0100, Chris Shore  
 wrote:

> "Duncan Wood"  wrote in message
> news:op.ud28exx5pmo3dt@lucy...
>
>> Generally I can survive away from home for more than 24hrs without nail
>> scissors & toothpaste is available in most of the world nowadays.
>
> Indeed. Buy solid deodorant, tooth powder and solid shaving soap.

I got the "you are a terrorist" treatment with solid deodorant at Newquay  
in April. They were also sniffy about used bars of soap and solid shampoo,  
and a hoggs pudding (though they might have thought that that was a  
biological warfare risk).

Regards,

Helen

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

HE Elsom wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:38:18 +0100, Chris Shore
>  wrote:
> 
>> "Duncan Wood"  wrote in message
>> news:op.ud28exx5pmo3dt@lucy...
>>
>>> Generally I can survive away from home for more than 24hrs without nail
>>> scissors & toothpaste is available in most of the world nowadays.
>>
>> Indeed. Buy solid deodorant, tooth powder and solid shaving soap.
> 
> I got the "you are a terrorist" treatment with solid deodorant at
> Newquay in April. They were also sniffy about used bars of soap and
> solid shampoo, and a hoggs pudding (though they might have thought that
> that was a biological warfare risk).

By that standard they clearly expect everyone to be somewhat sniffy!

Please may I have some of what these people are on?

-- 

Brian

In message <op.ud4pn4kxym9tsu@your-01352a0c79.belkin>, at 14:13:06 on 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008, HE Elsom  remarked:
>>Buy solid deodorant, tooth powder and solid shaving soap.
>
>I got the "you are a terrorist" treatment with solid deodorant at 
>Newquay  in April. They were also sniffy about used bars of soap and 
>solid shampoo,  and a hoggs pudding (though they might have thought 
>that that was a  biological warfare risk).

Solid deodorant is OK according to BAA's list; but other places may have 
different interpretations.

http://www.baa.com/assets/B2CPortal/Static%20Files/Can_and_CantDec06.pdf

As we are talking about Luton, they have (had?) a big collection of 
things (pinned on a noticeboard) that were banned (ie were liquids or 
deemed to be pseudo-liquids). The one that surprised me was lip balm.

This was at a time before they introduced the plastic bags and you 
couldn't take any of the things that are currently restricted to 100ml.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:RzOF5ARE42dIFAjs@perry.co.uk...
> In message <op.ud4pn4kxym9tsu@your-01352a0c79.belkin>, at 14:13:06 on Fri, 
> 11 Jul 2008, HE Elsom  remarked:
>>>Buy solid deodorant, tooth powder and solid shaving soap.
>>
>>I got the "you are a terrorist" treatment with solid deodorant at Newquay 
>>in April. They were also sniffy about used bars of soap and solid shampoo, 
>>and a hoggs pudding (though they might have thought that that was a 
>>biological warfare risk).
>
> Solid deodorant is OK according to BAA's list; but other places may have 
> different interpretations.
>
> http://www.baa.com/assets/B2CPortal/Static%20Files/Can_and_CantDec06.pdf

I've flown with it into/out of US, China, Hong Kong, India, France, Vietnam, 
Japan,
Germany, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore and Brazil so far and not had any 
problems. If none
of those places query it, I'd be really surprised if I get pulled up 
anywhere...

Chris

HE Elsom wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:38:18 +0100, Chris Shore 
>  wrote:
> 
>> "Duncan Wood"  wrote in message
>> news:op.ud28exx5pmo3dt@lucy...
>>
>>> Generally I can survive away from home for more than 24hrs without nail
>>> scissors & toothpaste is available in most of the world nowadays.
>>
>> Indeed. Buy solid deodorant, tooth powder and solid shaving soap.
> 
> I got the "you are a terrorist" treatment with solid deodorant at 
> Newquay in April. They were also sniffy about used bars of soap and 
> solid shampoo, and a hoggs pudding (though they might have thought that 
> that was a biological warfare risk).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Helen
> 

Using an aeroplane to get to Newquay and back makes you little better 
than one in my eyes. What about taking a train?

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:53:49 +0100, magwitch <a@c.d> wrote:

> Using an aeroplane to get to Newquay and back makes you little better  
> than one in my eyes. What about taking a train?

I have no money, the flight was free and it was important for me to see  
someone there. I hope that meets your moral standards.

Regards,

Helen


-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:01:45 +0100, HE Elsom wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:53:49 +0100, magwitch <a@c.d> wrote:
> 
>> Using an aeroplane to get to Newquay and back makes you little better  
>> than one in my eyes. What about taking a train?
> 
> I have no money, the flight was free and it was important for me to see  
> someone there. I hope that meets your moral standards.

No.  

Now go and eat a bucket of organic free-range wholewheat tofu as penance.

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

HE Elsom wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:53:49 +0100, magwitch <a@c.d> wrote:
> 
>> Using an aeroplane to get to Newquay and back makes you little better 
>> than one in my eyes. What about taking a train?
> 
> I have no money, the flight was free and it was important for me to see 
> someone there. I hope that meets your moral standards.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Helen
> 
> 
Nothing to do with morality... what's this free airline called then?

I know RyanAir were doing flights to Italy for £4 last summer, but 
your's sounds a better deal.

PS. I've experienced having no money as well, we used to hitch.

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
news:48766797.52133006@news.individual.net...

> Hand luggage only, with online check-in, is still very possible.
> Indeed, it's how I fly most of the time.

Mrs. F. and I are flying in October for 10 days in <offtopic> San Francisco 
and Vegas </offtopic>. I'm having trouble convincing her we can do it with 
hand baggage!

Ian

Ian F. wrote:
> Mrs. F. and I are flying in October for 10 days in <offtopic> San
> Francisco and Vegas </offtopic>. I'm having trouble convincing her
> we can do it with hand baggage!

http://www.onebag.com/

Tim Ward wrote:
> The sooner the USA give up on their War on Tourism and start a War on 
> Something Else instead the better. Maybe with the new president.

I think the War On The New President has started already...

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
   with 'green-lines'.

HE Elsom wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:35:35 +0100, Anthony Deane 
> <"ajd66[removethisbit]"@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> I may be wrong (for that read "I'm probably wrong"), but I think the Body
>> Shop sell all manner of bottles. Maybe there's something squeezy enough
>> there?
> 
> I can't remember seeing 10ml-ish squeezy bottles anywhere -- that size 
> tends to be screwtop jars which you'd need a spatula to get stuff in and 
> out of.

Cam.miscers could try Tesco's Fulbourn store, the rack to the left of 
the pharmacy.  They've got lots of things like small screw-top bottles 
for cosmetics, and miniatures of toothpaste, shampoo, deodorant, etc., 
just exactly for flight purposes.  Folks from u.t.l might like to try 
their local Tesco's, if it's big enough.

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
   with 'green-lines'.

HE Elsom wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:53:49 +0100, magwitch <a@c.d> wrote:
> 
>> Using an aeroplane to get to Newquay and back makes you little better 
>> than one in my eyes. What about taking a train?
> 
> I have no money, the flight was free and it was important for me to see 
> someone there. I hope that meets your moral standards.

Look at it another way: the extra fuel burnt from the additional weight 
of you and your baggage, since the plane was going to fly that route 
anyway, was miniscule.  You could probably offset it by growing a couple 
of rows of carrots.

Not a point of view that's popular amongst eco-warriors, because it 
reduces them to "*grumble* Shouldn't have a plane on that route anyway 
*grumble, mumble*".

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
   with 'green-lines'.

On 14 Jul, 10:50, Jon Green  wrote:
> >> Using an aeroplane to get to Newquay and back makes you little better
> >> than one in my eyes. What about taking a train?
>
> > I have no money, the flight was free and it was important for me to see
> > someone there. I hope that meets your moral standards.
>
> Look at it another way: the extra fuel burnt from the additional weight
> of you and your baggage, since the plane was going to fly that route
> anyway, was miniscule.  You could probably offset it by growing a couple
> of rows of carrots.
>
> Not a point of view that's popular amongst eco-warriors, because it
> reduces them to "*grumble* Shouldn't have a plane on that route anyway
> *grumble, mumble*".

OTOH her fare could have made the difference for the airline between
continuing the route and cancelling it as unprofitable.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Jon Green wrote:
> HE Elsom wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:53:49 +0100, magwitch <a@c.d> wrote:
>>
>>> Using an aeroplane to get to Newquay and back makes you little better 
>>> than one in my eyes. What about taking a train?
>>
>> I have no money, the flight was free and it was important for me to 
>> see someone there. I hope that meets your moral standards.
> 
> Look at it another way: the extra fuel burnt from the additional weight 
> of you and your baggage, since the plane was going to fly that route 
> anyway, was miniscule.  You could probably offset it by growing a couple 
> of rows of carrots.

Ever tried growing a couple of rows of carrots Jon?
> 
> Not a point of view that's popular amongst eco-warriors, because it 
> reduces them to "*grumble* Shouldn't have a plane on that route anyway 
> *grumble, mumble*".
> 
> Jon


All I can say is that during the '50s '60s and '70s people managed to 
get to Devon or Cornwall for lovely holidays and the 4–6 hour car or 
train journey was all part of the fun.

Just as the 5-day trip my college friend and I took down to Portugal to 
stay with some family friends there. 30 years later, I remember 
travelling through France and Spain in our clapped-out Hillman Frog-eye 
Sprite far better than the ensuing 4 week holiday in Portugal itself.

In message , at 12:31:18 on 
Mon, 14 Jul 2008, magwitch <a@c.d> remarked:
>All I can say is that during the '50s '60s and '70s people managed to 
>get to Devon or Cornwall for lovely holidays and the 4–6 hour car or 
>train journey was all part of the fun.

I remember going down there by car pre-motorways, via the infamous 
Honiton Bypass etc, and it wasn't much fun. Nor was it 4-6 hours!!
-- 
Roland Perry

John B wrote:
> On 14 Jul, 10:50, Jon Green  wrote:
>> Not a point of view that's popular amongst eco-warriors, because it
>> reduces them to "*grumble* Shouldn't have a plane on that route anyway
>> *grumble, mumble*".
> 
> OTOH her fare could have made the difference for the airline between
> continuing the route and cancelling it as unprofitable.

Yeah, and mistimed butterfly-wing flappage over Brazil has caused plane 
crashes.

The Newquay route is a nice little earner for Ryanair.  They've expanded 
their service there since inception, due to popularity.

If you want to understand why, try lugging a 8'6" mini-mal glass fibre 
board, in its carry-bag (plus a bag full of neoprene and clothes) around 
a few trains, and through the London Underground system betweentimes. 
If you find a way of getting the board undamaged down the escalators 
without causing distress and injury to fellow travellers, do let me 
know.  Or, for a real laugh, take them on the bus instead.

The East Runton (Norfolk) surf's OK on the occasional days when there's 
decent long-travel waves down the North Sea and no wind behind to 
flatten them, but if you want to surf where it's warm (I surf Runton in 
a 5mm suit even in summer!) and you can usually find surfable conditions 
_somewhere_, then the West Country's beaches are the usual choice, and 
the only practical ways to get there are car or plane.

Given the joys of the A30 and A39, I'd say that the plane is probably 
the more green option, bizarrely enough.

Not that Helen's was a surfing trip AFAICT, but all the same...

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
   with 'green-lines'.

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message , at 12:31:18 on 
> Mon, 14 Jul 2008, magwitch <a@c.d> remarked:
>> All I can say is that during the '50s '60s and '70s people managed to 
>> get to Devon or Cornwall for lovely holidays and the 4–6 hour car or 
>> train journey was all part of the fun.
> 
> I remember going down there by car pre-motorways, via the infamous 
> Honiton Bypass etc, and it wasn't much fun. Nor was it 4-6 hours!!

Well as the irishman said that would depend where you started your 
journey (or something).

We used to go via Winchester, past Stonehenge on the A303 in the car, 
the train was wonderful, especially when you got to Dawlish and went 
beside the beach, very exciting to see the sea right next to you.

On the way back we used to stop at the East Meon pub for fish and chips. 
  Nowadays, I suppose children would implode with boredom of the arduous 
journey and it would permanently scar their psychology or something.

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message , at 12:31:18 on 
> Mon, 14 Jul 2008, magwitch <a@c.d> remarked:
>> All I can say is that during the '50s '60s and '70s people managed to >> get to Devon or Cornwall for lovely holidays and the 4–6 hour car or 
>> train journey was all part of the fun.
> 
> I remember going down there by car pre-motorways, via the infamous 
> Honiton Bypass etc, and it wasn't much fun. Nor was it 4-6 hours!!

It's not six hours to Cornwall even now!  (At least, not if you keep to 
the speed limits and don't try to do it in one shift.)  You'd be lucky 
to make it to the Devon border from Cambridge in four hours - Multimap 
reckons 4'24" even on modern roads, and that doesn't reckon in rest stops.

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
   with 'green-lines'.

Jon Green wrote:
> John B wrote:
>> On 14 Jul, 10:50, Jon Green  wrote:
>>> Not a point of view that's popular amongst eco-warriors, because it
>>> reduces them to "*grumble* Shouldn't have a plane on that route anyway
>>> *grumble, mumble*".
>>
>> OTOH her fare could have made the difference for the airline between
>> continuing the route and cancelling it as unprofitable.
> 
> Yeah, and mistimed butterfly-wing flappage over Brazil has caused plane 
> crashes.
> 
> The Newquay route is a nice little earner for Ryanair.  They've expanded 
> their service there since inception, due to popularity.
> 
> If you want to understand why, try lugging a 8'6" mini-mal glass fibre 
> board, in its carry-bag (plus a bag full of neoprene and clothes) around 
> a few trains, and through the London Underground system betweentimes. If 
> you find a way of getting the board undamaged down the escalators 
> without causing distress and injury to fellow travellers, do let me 
> know.  Or, for a real laugh, take them on the bus instead.

Actually my last time in Newquay was circa 1977 and I took a 3x4' 
Marshall amp and guitar case down there (play 3 chords and form a band) 
as well as our luggage on the train. I can't remember it being a major 
problem. In fact we chummed up with Bruce Foxton and his g/f from the 
Jam on the train en-route.
> 
> The East Runton (Norfolk) surf's OK on the occasional days when there's 
> decent long-travel waves down the North Sea and no wind behind to 
> flatten them, but if you want to surf where it's warm (I surf Runton in 
> a 5mm suit even in summer!) and you can usually find surfable conditions 
> _somewhere_, then the West Country's beaches are the usual choice, and 
> the only practical ways to get there are car or plane.
> 
> Given the joys of the A30 and A39, I'd say that the plane is probably 
> the more green option, bizarrely enough.

You'd be wrong. Travelling in a group in a traditional surfers' combi 
surf boards strapped to the roof is the style, whatever Jemima and her 
friends bound for Rock for the hols might tell you.
> 
> Not that Helen's was a surfing trip AFAICT, but all the same...
> 
> Jon

Jon Green wrote:
> Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message , at 12:31:18 on 
>> Mon, 14 Jul 2008, magwitch <a@c.d> remarked:
>>> All I can say is that during the '50s '60s and '70s people managed to 
>>> get to Devon or Cornwall for lovely holidays and the 4–6 hour car 
>>> or train journey was all part of the fun.
>>
>> I remember going down there by car pre-motorways, via the infamous 
>> Honiton Bypass etc, and it wasn't much fun. Nor was it 4-6 hours!!
> 
> It's not six hours to Cornwall even now!  (At least, not if you keep to 
> the speed limits and don't try to do it in one shift.)  You'd be lucky 
> to make it to the Devon border from Cambridge in four hours - Multimap 
> reckons 4'24" even on modern roads, and that doesn't reckon in rest stops.
> 
> Jon

We used to live 20 miles north of Winchester... I mean (gosh) if you 
were travelling to Cornwall from the outer Hebrides it might even take 
you 3 or 4 days.

In message , at 13:00:43 on 
Mon, 14 Jul 2008, magwitch <a@c.d> remarked:

>>> All I can say is that during the '50s '60s and '70s people managed 
>>>to  get to Devon or Cornwall for lovely holidays and the 4–6 
>>>hour car or  train journey was all part of the fun.
>>  I remember going down there by car pre-motorways, via the infamous 
>>Honiton Bypass etc, and it wasn't much fun. Nor was it 4-6 hours!!
>
>Well as the irishman said that would depend where you started your 
>journey (or something).

You are starting near Newmarket I think, and I was starting near 
Chelmsford. So not much difference really.

It's around 300 miles and in those days you could average 30mph if you 
were lucky. So set off at crack of dawn and get there by supper time 
(allowing for breaks).

>Nowadays, I suppose children would implode with boredom of the arduous 
>journey and it would permanently scar their psychology or something.

It takes about half of the time as back then, and they have all sorts of 
gadgets to amuse themselves. So "not really".
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message , at 13:00:43 on 
> Mon, 14 Jul 2008, magwitch <a@c.d> remarked:
> 
>>>> All I can say is that during the '50s '60s and '70s people managed 
>>>> to  get to Devon or Cornwall for lovely holidays and the 4–6 
>>>> hour car or  train journey was all part of the fun.
>>>  I remember going down there by car pre-motorways, via the infamous 
>>> Honiton Bypass etc, and it wasn't much fun. Nor was it 4-6 hours!!
>>
>> Well as the irishman said that would depend where you started your 
>> journey (or something).
> 
> You are starting near Newmarket I think, and I was starting near 
> Chelmsford. So not much difference really.
> 
> It's around 300 miles and in those days you could average 30mph if you 
> were lucky. So set off at crack of dawn and get there by supper time 
> (allowing for breaks).
> 
>> Nowadays, I suppose children would implode with boredom of the arduous 
>> journey and it would permanently scar their psychology or something.
> 
> It takes about half of the time as back then, and they have all sorts of 
> gadgets to amuse themselves. So "not really".

No I was starting from 20 miles north of Winchester at the time about 
150 miles further west and another 70 miles south from Chelmsford. I 
said it used to take 4 for Devon and 6 hours for Cornwall from there and 
was accurate.

In message , at 14:38:45 on 
Mon, 14 Jul 2008, magwitch <a@c.d> remarked:
>No I was starting from 20 miles north of Winchester at the time about 
>150 miles further west and another 70 miles south from Chelmsford. I 
>said it used to take 4 for Devon and 6 hours for Cornwall from there 
>and was accurate.

But hardly on topic for a Cambridge/London audience (see NGs posted to).
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message , at 14:38:45 on 
> Mon, 14 Jul 2008, magwitch <a@c.d> remarked:
>> No I was starting from 20 miles north of Winchester at the time about 
>> 150 miles further west and another 70 miles south from Chelmsford. I 
>> said it used to take 4 for Devon and 6 hours for Cornwall from there 
>> and was accurate.
> 
> But hardly on topic for a Cambridge/London audience (see NGs posted to).


Yes it is. We'll be living under a short-haul holding stack and 
flightpath in the near future. And Londoners will be enjoying their 
third Heathrow runway. Very ON topic actually.

In message , at 15:10:20 on 
Mon, 14 Jul 2008, magwitch <a@c.d> remarked:
>>> No I was starting from 20 miles north of Winchester at the time 
>>>about  150 miles further west and another 70 miles south from 
>>>Chelmsford. I  said it used to take 4 for Devon and 6 hours for 
>>>Cornwall from there  and was accurate.
>>  But hardly on topic for a Cambridge/London audience (see NGs posted 
>>to).
>
>Yes it is. We'll be living under a short-haul holding stack and 
>flightpath in the near future. And Londoners will be enjoying their 
>third Heathrow runway. Very ON topic actually.

Saying that it was possible to drive to the West Country all those years 
ago in 4-6hrs is not topical for a Cambridge/London newsgroup.
-- 
Roland Perry

"magwitch" <a@c.d> wrote in message 
news:1216035086.9373.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>
> All I can say is that during the '50s '60s and '70s people managed to get 
> to Devon or Cornwall for lovely holidays and the 4–6 hour car or train 
> journey was all part of the fun.

Cambridge to Mullion (or Helston or the Lizard, not a lot in it) is eight 
hours these days by car (seven and a half if you try hard and are lucky with 
the traffic). Including a couple of coffee stops. Assuming you avoid doing 
anything really daft like coming back on a Sunday night, or doing the trip 
during the summer.

-- 
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message , at 15:10:20 on 
> Mon, 14 Jul 2008, magwitch <a@c.d> remarked:
>>>> No I was starting from 20 miles north of Winchester at the time 
>>>> about  150 miles further west and another 70 miles south from 
>>>> Chelmsford. I  said it used to take 4 for Devon and 6 hours for 
>>>> Cornwall from there  and was accurate.
>>>  But hardly on topic for a Cambridge/London audience (see NGs posted 
>>> to).
>>
>> Yes it is. We'll be living under a short-haul holding stack and 
>> flightpath in the near future. And Londoners will be enjoying their 
>> third Heathrow runway. Very ON topic actually.
> 
> Saying that it was possible to drive to the West Country all those years 
> ago in 4-6hrs is not topical for a Cambridge/London newsgroup.


You can't have been following the thread as I was merely trying to 
impress on some of the younger members that people could and did access 
both Devon and Cornwall perfectly easily in the days before easyjet and 
ryanair began adding another few tonnes of carbon directly to the 
atmosphere.1.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-battle-of-newquay-green-lobby-launches-war-to-curb-domestic-flights-440548.html

1.The carbon comparison

* BY CAR According to the AA Routeplanner, the 257-mile journey can be 
driven in just five hours and 22 minutes although traffic bottlenecks, 
particularly on the A303 before Honiton in Devon, can add several hours. 
Most cars could complete the journey on a single tank of petrol, costing 
about £50. Carbon cost: 0.08 tons of CO2, one way

* BY RAIL First Great Western: From July, a high-speed train will take 
just over 4 hours between Paddington and Newquay. In the meantime, 
passengers are required to board a branch line, adding more than an hour 
to the journey time. One-way advance fare from £15.50. Walk-up fare is 
£73 return. Carbon cost: 0.02 tons of CO2, one way

* BY PLANE British Airways flight departs Gatwick every day, returning 
late in the afternoon. Flight time is one hour, although passengers must 
check in two hours in advance. Tickets cost as little as £69 return 
included taxes. Unlike Ryanair which flies from Stansted to Newquay, 
food and drinks are free. Carbon cost: 0.1 tons CO2, one way

And, btw, who appointed you net nanny for today?

On Jul 14, 12:52 pm, Jon Green  wrote:
> >> Not a point of view that's popular amongst eco-warriors, because it
> >> reduces them to "*grumble* Shouldn't have a plane on that route anyway
> >> *grumble, mumble*".
>
> > OTOH her fare could have made the difference for the airline between
> > continuing the route and cancelling it as unprofitable.
>
> Yeah, and mistimed butterfly-wing flappage over Brazil has caused plane
> crashes.

There is clearly a financial point where an airline decides whether to
curtail, keep as-is, or expand a route. I imagine this is based on
percentage margin; logically, there must be *some* individual fare
that takes the margin over the border line.

> The Newquay route is a nice little earner for Ryanair.  They've expanded
> their service there since inception, due to popularity.

...precisely.

> If you want to understand why, try lugging a 8'6" mini-mal glass fibre
> board, in its carry-bag (plus a bag full of neoprene and clothes) around
> a few trains, and through the London Underground system betweentimes.
> If you find a way of getting the board undamaged down the escalators
> without causing distress and injury to fellow travellers, do let me
> know.  Or, for a real laugh, take them on the bus instead.

Hmm. I've been to a few airports; I don't recall any of them being
places I'd like to lug a surfboard around. If I had a surfboard to
transport from the southeast/midlands to Cornwall, I'd go by car
(presumably your hypothetical surfer has access to a car, since
otherwise they'd have the same trouble with escalators, trains and
buses in getting to the airport in the first place).

> Given the joys of the A30 and A39, I'd say that the plane is probably
> the more green option, bizarrely enough.

Very sceptical that this could be the case even allowing for the poor
fuel consumption you'd get on those roads, assuming you're not driving
solo.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:50:22 +0100, Jon Green wrote:

> Look at it another way: the extra fuel burnt from the additional weight 
> of you and your baggage, since the plane was going to fly that route 
> anyway, was miniscule.  You could probably offset it by growing a couple 
> of rows of carrots.

A post in sci.aeronautics.airliners from a guy with a boeing.com 
email address disagrees:
http://yarchive.net/air/airliners/mpg.html

"It will vary pretty widely depending on the airplane, the engines, the
 condition of the engines, the range the airplane is intending to fly, and
 the weather (hotter is always worse).  All that to say a precise answer is
 very difficult and will wobble a great deal.  A good tire kicking number
 is to figure about half the weight of the passenger and bags.  That is,
 if a 180 lb passenger+bags is added at the last minute, you can probably
 figure that on the average flight on the average airplane somewhere near
 90 lb of fuel (more for longer ranges, older aircraft, etc).  That is
 about 15 gallons."

Of course this might just be the point of view of a Boeing toilet cleaner,
or a teenage lesbian pretending to be a middle-aged aeronautical engineer.

> Not a point of view that's popular amongst eco-warriors, because it 

...is wrong?

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

"Fevric J Glandules" <fevric@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:wBLek.26612$E41.26603@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:50:22 +0100, Jon Green wrote:
>
>> Look at it another way: the extra fuel burnt from the additional weight
>> of you and your baggage, since the plane was going to fly that route
>> anyway, was miniscule.  You could probably offset it by growing a couple
>> of rows of carrots.
>
> A post in sci.aeronautics.airliners from a guy with a boeing.com
> email address disagrees:
> http://yarchive.net/air/airliners/mpg.html
>
> "It will vary pretty widely depending on the airplane, the engines, the
> condition of the engines, the range the airplane is intending to fly, and
> the weather (hotter is always worse).  All that to say a precise answer is
> very difficult and will wobble a great deal.

Another way you could do the sums is start with the oft-quoted "fact" that 
tankering fuel costs 3% per hour.

-- 
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

In message , at 17:01:27 on 
Mon, 14 Jul 2008, magwitch <a@c.d> remarked:
>* BY CAR Carbon cost: 0.08 tons of CO2, one way
>
>* BY RAIL Carbon cost: 0.02 tons of CO2, one way

Those figures are very suspicious for a diesel-powered high speed train. 
Maybe it's for a full train and one person in a car.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:8VVuA21mY5eIFAMV@perry.co.uk...
> In message , at 17:01:27 on 
> Mon, 14 Jul 2008, magwitch <a@c.d> remarked:
>>* BY CAR Carbon cost: 0.08 tons of CO2, one way
>>
>>* BY RAIL Carbon cost: 0.02 tons of CO2, one way
>
> Those figures are very suspicious for a diesel-powered high speed train. 
> Maybe it's for a full train and one person in a car.

Many trains to Cornwall are pretty near full, so that's not a ludicrous 
assumption. The one-person-per car, on the other hand, is less likely, as I 
suspect that there are rather more family trips to Cornwall and rather fewer 
single-businessperson-on-their-own-in-the-car than is typical of other 
journeys.

-- 
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor