Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

Would a FF tax stop you chasing BAEC status?

Would a FF tax stop you chasing BAEC status?

Old Sep 27, 2019, 4:27 am
  #121  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,141
Originally Posted by dajdavies
Question is whether INV should be exempt from APD - the flights generated by people avoiding APD are pretty unnecessary
When I did my ex INV the flight was going there anyway and other than me every other passenger on the almost full plane their destination appeared to be Inverness and the wider region.

I really don't believe that BA added extra flights just because of people doing ex-INVs . Because if they did they would make the turnround time longer so people could collect and check-in luggage!
UKtravelbear is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2019, 4:51 am
  #122  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,378
!

Originally Posted by hfly
Yet with all that high speed track and trains there are still 55+ flights in each direction between Beijing and Shanghai in any given day. There are 50+ high speed train pairs each day and another dozen or so regular trains. 15 years ago it was about 20 flights, there were no high speed trains and the regular train service was about the same as now, furthermore many of the flights are on wide body aircraft. Want to look at HKG-Shanghai? Also had high speed trains. 19 years ago you had about 10 flights a day, now is about 40. You want to talk post capita? HKG, which has one tenth the population of the UK (and which is in actual fact a part of china, despite the two systems) had half as many passengers as the UK (well maybe it will actually have less this year....) so if you add that in, the Chinese in fact already fly about 5 times as much as the UK. And this is a nicely important point, because if all of china are to reach anything near Hong Kong levels, then we would be talking Chinese numbers 30 or 40 times the UK and you would be happy because you could Drone on about some sort of Gini coefficient Gdp parity. 15 years ago, there were now many flights between EDI and all London airports? Slightly more today due to LCC's to remote London airports. Furthermore you may have noticed that since this thread started the Chinese just built a new airport in Beijing that is our will soon be larger than LHR by almost every measurement, for runways, no debate and that is in addition to the existing airport.

To say the Chinese are investing in green technologies does not mean what you think it means. Chinese cities especially in the winter are like Armageddon, often you cannot see more than 10 meters due to pollution, and every pollution index has been off the chart for years. So they are moving nicely into green technologies because they have to. The difference is that other than obliging people to use new technologies (I remember fondly how over a three month period they made petrol powered scooters illegal and overnight seemingly everyone bought battery powered ones) they would never dream of instituting anything that would hinder economic growth more penalize people from living "better" lives, in fact it is because their standards have constantly been raising that allows the party to survive.

While the UK stupidly dithers about a third Runway for 20+ years, no one else anywhere really bad such qualms. Even the Germans who are 20 times more ecologically "woke" than the Brits build runways with barely a murmur, same for the French and almost anyone else.

So while you cheer on your own luddites with made up names who write dubious manifestos that are promoted and embraced by the Guardian, that would "punish" your perceived "haves" and even if implemented would have absolutely little or no effect on improving the environment, every one else will eat your lunch.
You keep going on about how China travels more now than it did before, but not only is no-one disputing any of that, I completely reject that it's a valid point. No matter what made up statistic you pull out of thin air next, even you have acknowledged that the UK still flies significantly more on a per capita basis than China.

The UK dithered on a third runway for years for many reasons, climate change not being a major one. Ignoring yet another made up statistic about how much more ecological Germany is than the UK, can you provide any evidence that Germany, France and "almost anyone else" have been building runways with "barely a murmur"?

The last line is too laughable to even comment on, but I'm genuinely curious who the person with the "made up name" (aren't all names made up?) I'm cheering on is! Nor has it escaped my notice that you've had time to write out all of this yet haven't been able to respond to my step-by-step rebuttal to almost everything you've said so far!
callum9999 is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2019, 5:03 am
  #123  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: KOI
Programs: BA
Posts: 306
Originally Posted by callum9999
can you provide any evidence that Germany, France and "almost anyone else" have been building runways with "barely a murmur"?
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...port-by-2020-0
"Changi Airport will have access to third runway by the end of this decade to cope with a growing number of flights, said Minister of State for Transport, Josephine Teo."

I am a Singaporean and I can tell you that there was no "murmur" from Singaporeans about this. Nor had I seen any "murmur" from the world at large about it. Or are you going to dismiss this case as irrelevant too?
alvinlwh is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2019, 5:06 am
  #124  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: KOI
Programs: BA
Posts: 306
Originally Posted by hfly
And this is a nicely important point, because if all of china are to reach anything near Hong Kong levels, then we would be talking Chinese numbers 30 or 40 times the UK and you would be happy because you could Drone on about some sort of Gini coefficient Gdp parity.

To say the Chinese are investing in green technologies does not mean what you think it means....they would never dream of instituting anything that would hinder economic growth more penalize people from living "better" lives, in fact it is because their standards have constantly been raising that allows the party to survive.

So while you cheer on your own luddites with made up names who write dubious manifestos that are promoted and embraced by the Guardian, that would "punish" your perceived "haves" and even if implemented would have absolutely little or no effect on improving the environment, every one else will eat your lunch.
You are absolutely right.

Not "if" but "when", just take a look at the number of 737 Max orders placed by China and the impact the flying ban has on Boeing.

The CCCP will never do anything to undermine the goal of the Chinese people, which is to lift themselves out and up of whatever social class they are in now. Social class in China is measured by wealth (money) and material (latest branded goods). The CCCP will make whatever soundbites that sounds good for the Western world, but in reality, a typical Chinese person's thinking process will be:

Is it going to do:
1. me any good?
2. my family any good?
3. my country any good?
4, the world any good?

So in your electric example, it was the leaders in government will be thinking "What good will it do me?" and the answer is "It makes me look good to the country that I am doing something to improve their quality of life and therefore lifting my standing in the eyes of the country.". The world does not even come close to consideration.

To sidetrack a bit, but to reinforce the above point, it is better to kill someone than to injure someone with a vehicle in China, as if the person is only injured, the driver will be responsible for all future medical care costs. Therefore, it is actually not uncommon for drivers to back up over a victim to make sure they are dead. That way, the driver will only be responsible for the funeral cost plus any once off payment of "blood" money.

Finally, any claims or promise made by the Chinese Government is practically enforceable at the personal level. China is a country that runs on corruption and nepotism. Got a deep enough pocket and/or the right connections? You can get away with anything. Anyone with a knowledge of how things really works in China will know this.
alvinlwh is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2019, 5:19 am
  #125  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,378
Originally Posted by alvinlwh
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...port-by-2020-0
"Changi Airport will have access to third runway by the end of this decade to cope with a growing number of flights, said Minister of State for Transport, Josephine Teo."

I am a Singaporean and I can tell you that there was no "murmur" from Singaporeans about this. Nor had I seen any "murmur" from the world at large about it. Or are you going to dismiss this case as irrelevant too?
Well you can't tell me that because, as I've already stated, your anecdotes are pointless and don't mean anything. Not to mention, Singapore is a somewhat oppressive state so I wouldn't expect much open dissent anyway (not that I'm aware of any major reasons why people would be opposed to it?). Maybe you can't grasp that serious discussion needs facts to get anywhere and not "accept what I tell you" precisely because you grew up in such a country?

But no, Singapore building a third runway with ease doesn't really satisfy my desire to see evidence that "almost any country" does it with ease - you've given one example out of 200. I would encourage you to respond to your many other arguments that I've (in my opinion, obviously) disproven instead of trying to prove this one though because yes - it's irrelevant to this discussion! Climate change was not the reason LHR took so long to get a third runway - no-one even knew about it back then...
callum9999 is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2019, 6:12 am
  #126  
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 18,556
Originally Posted by callum9999
Climate change was not the reason LHR took so long to get a third runway - no-one even knew about it back then...
?????

What a bizarre statement. Climate change has been known about / talked about for years before R3 way even considered.
alvinlwh, jcm9000 and firstlight like this.
DYKWIA is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2019, 6:24 am
  #127  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by HIDDY
Answer to the question....I'm more of a frequent fryer than a flyer so it doesn't concern me.

As for the Norwegian girl. Good for her but I get the feeling she's being pushed by those of an age who should know better.
Who’s the Norwegian girl? The teenage GT on a climate change-related crusade is Swedish, and Sweden surrendered its claim to Norway — and many other things Norwegian, including what turned out to be Norwegian oil rights — over 100 years ago.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2019, 6:34 am
  #128  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: JER
Programs: BA Gold/OWE, several MUCCI, and assorted Pensions!
Posts: 32,124
I think HIDDY acknowledged his error some time ago.

And now, back to the bickering ... although I’m out of popcorn at the moment.
HIDDY, kanderson1965 and TedToToe like this.
T8191 is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2019, 6:54 am
  #129  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,167
Originally Posted by T8191
I think HIDDY acknowledged his error some time ago.
.
Yes my mistake...I once met a Greta in Norway during one of my bike tours hence my lapse in concentration.

Compared to here the UK has come a long way in dealing with environmental issues so has little to be embarrassed about. I remember going to school back in the 50's/60's in Glasgow when you could hardly see your feet through the yellow smog most winter mornings. My mother had to wrap a woolly scarf around my mouth and nose to stop me from breathing in too many toxins....probably helped shut me up as well.
T8191 likes this.
HIDDY is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2019, 7:16 am
  #130  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: KOI
Programs: BA
Posts: 306
Originally Posted by callum9999
Well you can't tell me that because, as I've already stated, your anecdotes are pointless and don't mean anything. Not to mention, Singapore is a somewhat oppressive state so I wouldn't expect much open dissent anyway (not that I'm aware of any major reasons why people would be opposed to it?). Maybe you can't grasp that serious discussion needs facts to get anywhere and not "accept what I tell you" precisely because you grew up in such a country?

But no, Singapore building a third runway with ease doesn't really satisfy my desire to see evidence that "almost any country" does it with ease - you've given one example out of 200. I would encourage you to respond to your many other arguments that I've (in my opinion, obviously) disproven instead of trying to prove this one though because yes - it's irrelevant to this discussion! Climate change was not the reason LHR took so long to get a third runway - no-one even knew about it back then...
Actually it was precisely the fact that I grew up in "such a country" that makes me question what comes out of the major news cooperation. It is refreshing to have open access to alternative news that challenge what is the official line. Now, being a Singaporean, I can also say that on the ground, there are no objections from the people, even in coffeeshop talk, against this third runway, likely you will dismiss it as "irrelevant" with your supremacy stance again anyway.

So what is your definition of "almost any country"? Showed you one and you again dismiss it as irrelevant. How many do you need? Don't have a number in mind so that you can move goal posts as you see fit?

Finally, wow! Climate change was unknown back then?

The increase of 25% CO2 expected by the end of the century therefore corresponds to an increase of 0.6°C in the world temperature – an amount somewhat greater than the climatic variation of recent centuries. – John Sawyer, 1972

December 2003 The transport secretary, Alistair Darling, publishes white paper plans for a third runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow, to be completed within 12 years, but says there may be challenges over noise and air pollution.

So not sure how far "back then" do you want to go, maybe 1066?

Originally Posted by callum9999
I don't think I'm too qualified to state what should happen in those remote islands as my gut reaction is "don't live there if you can't pay to regularly fly to the mainland", which I don't think is a particularly fair thing to say.
You had proven that you do not even know much about the UK, much less other countries, and your gut reaction speaks pretty much of you as a person.
SW7London likes this.
alvinlwh is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2019, 7:47 am
  #131  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: JER
Programs: BA Gold/OWE, several MUCCI, and assorted Pensions!
Posts: 32,124
Aside from the pollution/CO2 dimension, I do see a substantial difference between a 3rd runway at SIN and LHR. Unless the geography has changed dramatically since I lived/worked there, Changi is on the eastern end of Singapore Island, with the runways orientated north/south (02/20 in my days there), putting approaches either over the sea or underpopulated areas of Malaysia. LHR is just west of Greater London, with approaches to 27 over densely populated areas.

These differences might account, in a general sense, for the respective populations’ opinions on a 3rd runway.
T8191 is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2019, 10:37 am
  #132  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: City of Kingston Upon Hull
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 4,938
Originally Posted by T8191
I think HIDDY acknowledged his error some time ago.

And now, back to the bickering ... although I’m out of popcorn at the moment.
Yes climate change angst, the truly renewable gift that just keeps on giving. I hope your popcorn machine is solar powered Uncle T
T8191 likes this.
kanderson1965 is online now  
Old Sep 27, 2019, 2:54 pm
  #133  
amt
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: HKG
Programs: BA GGL & CCR
Posts: 600
Originally Posted by navylad
Hang on, you can’t really claim a country is doing better for solar capacity or Km of train tack based on just the numbers, without putting into context of the size (both geographical or number in the population), to do so is to mislead or misconstrue.
You can based on growth rates... one country increases the rate at which it completes the implementation of these initiatives exponentially, doubling year on year for the past 5 years or so... and the other has increased theirs by 5-10% or less year on year.
amt is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2019, 3:25 pm
  #134  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,378
Originally Posted by DYKWIA
?????

What a bizarre statement. Climate change has been known about / talked about for years before R3 way even considered.
I think you know EXACTLY what I mean, but I will be clearer then...

There was no mainstream movement pressuring governments to reduce carbon emissions 20 years ago, nor was it something the general public paid much/any attention to.
callum9999 is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2019, 3:43 pm
  #135  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,378
Originally Posted by alvinlwh
Actually it was precisely the fact that I grew up in "such a country" that makes me question what comes out of the major news cooperation. It is refreshing to have open access to alternative news that challenge what is the official line. Now, being a Singaporean, I can also say that on the ground, there are no objections from the people, even in coffeeshop talk, against this third runway, likely you will dismiss it as "irrelevant" with your supremacy stance again anyway.

So what is your definition of "almost any country"? Showed you one and you again dismiss it as irrelevant. How many do you need? Don't have a number in mind so that you can move goal posts as you see fit?

Finally, wow! Climate change was unknown back then?

The increase of 25% CO2 expected by the end of the century therefore corresponds to an increase of 0.6°C in the world temperature – an amount somewhat greater than the climatic variation of recent centuries. – John Sawyer, 1972

December 2003 The transport secretary, Alistair Darling, publishes white paper plans for a third runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow, to be completed within 12 years, but says there may be challenges over noise and air pollution.

So not sure how far "back then" do you want to go, maybe 1066?



You had proven that you do not even know much about the UK, much less other countries, and your gut reaction speaks pretty much of you as a person.
I do dismiss it as irrelevant, because for the MILLIONTH TIME, anecdotes are NOT EVIDENCE. This is not only a fundamental aspect of science, it's a fundamental aspect of critical debate. And for the second time, whether Singaporeans want a third runway or not is wholly irrelevant to this discussion. I've already said that I don't see any major reasons why they'd be objecting it anyway - but if it helps you respond to the half dozen points I've actually made which you're flat out ignoring (obviously because you have no answer to them) then I will categorically state: I'm sure there is no discontent in Singapore about a third runway. I don't think you know what the word "supremacy" means as, using that logic, anyone who supports the rule of law is a supremacist.

You have used language incredibly sloppily so I admit, I did not put enough care in crafting that statement. I also need to accept that was hypocritical of me as it's anecdotal (if you believe that I am wrong and that there was a mainstream movement against man-made global warming back in 1999 then I'll happily either retract that claim or try to find evidence). See my response above to what I actually meant, and I guess I'll be more careful in my use of language (though as you're still ignoring almost every point I make, I don't see this discussion continuing much longer). Your point about the LHR white paper just proves my point though, so thank you for that. Noise pollution has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change and the air pollution the paper cites is nitrogen pollution - i.e. the main concern was on air quality causing health problems and not climate change (otherwise expanding Gatwick/Manchester/Birmingham etc. instead wouldn't make any sense).

I've barely been talking about the UK so how on Earth have I proven that I don't know much about it?
callum9999 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.