where is it unreasonable to fly to?
- Thread starter bluestreak
- Start date
Tom A
Goat among sheep
I have flown twice, first was a university field trip to Almeria, Spain, where the transport was organised by the uni.
Secondly was last month, when I went to Berlin. I would have preferred to have done the "environmentally responsible" thing and got a train or coach, but since the coach takes something like 28-30 hours (including Lancaster to London) and costs about the same, if not more, than it did to fly from Liverpool, I thought sod that, and since just getting from London to Brussels by Eurostar costs a whopping £59, and god knows how much the fare on to Berlin would be, plus getting to London from Lancaster is £43 (with railcard), I decided to get the EasyJet over instead, which worked out the cheapest option, which is a bit shit, but it's not like I fly every week, I feel that twice a year is OK, that's much less than many "business" travellers, and I would never fly to anywhere in the UK (barring possibly the Scottish Isles that are hard to reach by any other way), or to Paris and Brussels if I ever end up there.
Also I was only going to be in Berlin for 4 days so I wanted to make the most of and not be spending too much time travelling to and from there.
Secondly was last month, when I went to Berlin. I would have preferred to have done the "environmentally responsible" thing and got a train or coach, but since the coach takes something like 28-30 hours (including Lancaster to London) and costs about the same, if not more, than it did to fly from Liverpool, I thought sod that, and since just getting from London to Brussels by Eurostar costs a whopping £59, and god knows how much the fare on to Berlin would be, plus getting to London from Lancaster is £43 (with railcard), I decided to get the EasyJet over instead, which worked out the cheapest option, which is a bit shit, but it's not like I fly every week, I feel that twice a year is OK, that's much less than many "business" travellers, and I would never fly to anywhere in the UK (barring possibly the Scottish Isles that are hard to reach by any other way), or to Paris and Brussels if I ever end up there.
Also I was only going to be in Berlin for 4 days so I wanted to make the most of and not be spending too much time travelling to and from there.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Example (from that website):CyberRose said:
I'm off to Krakow, Poland hopefully for a long weekend beginning of October
If I go by rail, according to that website (and extra time/cost getting from Leeds to London) it will take approx 26 hours and cost £147 (return).
Or, I could fly from Stansted for £70 return taking up approx 6 hrs
You do the math!
i've only taken two internal flight trips in the last decade or so, against dozens of long haul rail journeys. both times the difference between train and flight was more than £170. I took the flight.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
CyberRose said:
sadly it's a pretty compelling argument.
if i'm being honest i simply wouldn't go, i'd spend my long weekend in the uk checking out another corner of our fair country i haven't seen yet. if i had a few weeks i'd include krakow in a whistlestop trour of eastern europe.
but that's my bag.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Cool! I've only ever been to Wroclaw (sp!) before but loved it and heard Krakow is the same but on a larger scale. I've been learning Polish for a year now so need to get practicing...actually, suppose I could spend my holiday in the UK and still practice Polish!Belushi said:
Miss-Shelf
I'll meet you further on up the road
chico enrico said:
did you mean to post this in the favourite sex acts thread in knobbing and sobbing?
editor
hiraethified
The point is not to force people to take the train or to make them feel guilty for taking their holidays but to make them at least consider other options, and perhaps be mindful of the environmental consequences of saving a few hours or taking lots of short haul weekend breaks.CyberRose said:
Miss-Shelf
I'll meet you further on up the road
someone tell me how to post proof of hot weather on a lovely beach 10 days ago in the uk
ta
ta
CyberRose said:Cool! I've only ever been to Wroclaw (sp!) before but loved it and heard Krakow is the same but on a larger scale. I've been learning Polish for a year now so need to get practicing...actually, suppose I could spend my holiday in the UK and still practice Polish!
Its just a beautiful city, lots to see esp if you like history and architecture.
Theres only one word of Polish anyone needs - Kourva
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
When I went to Wroclaw last year (before I started learning Polish) I checked out, as I always do, how to say a few pleasantries. I also checked out a couple of swear words and kurwa is one I saw. Me and my mate went to this pub/restaurant and got a little bit pissed, so I told my unsuspecting friend that "bill" in Polish was "kurwa" so he went to the bar and told the barmaid "can I have the kurwa?"Belushi said:Theres only one word of Polish anyone needs - Kourva
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
I fully agree that people should seek other alternatives if they have the time/money to do it. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the money to be travelling that distance by train. If it were a fraction of the cost of air travel then I would definately consider it, but at the moment, sorryeditor said:
Well I normally go to European cities for my holidays rather than beach holidays etc, and 4 days is more than enough to explore a city (sometimes probably too long)
But like I said, I can't really afford much longer right now and I am absolutely fascinated by other countries and cultures and if I can only experience them for a long weekend, well that's fine by me...
Tom A
Goat among sheep
I recall that to use National Express (which there are very few of in Lancaster, so that means that I have to get a bus or train to either Preston or Manchester) and Eurolines to get to Berlin would have cost about £80-90, the same as my flight from Liverpool (although I had to pay about £10 to get a train there from Lancaster). Also if I had booked further in advance the flight would have been cheaper still.editor said:
editor
hiraethified
Last time I went to Edinburgh we got there quicker (and certainly more comfortably) than our friends who caught the plane up.xenon_2 said:
Why not consider the sleeper:
http://www.seat61.com/CaledonianSleepers.htm
Or go first class? (one way fares)
London to Edinburgh £12.50 £29.50
http://www.seat61.com/UKtravel.htm
It's a lovely journey. Not sure how it took you 8 hours, mind. It usually takes nowhere near that long.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
I'm tellin ya! Plant more trees!
These new housing plans from Brown should be modelled on Centre Parks, not only would it be a really cool place to live, esp if they had lakes, the trees would soak up the CO2!
How much CO2 could 1sq mile of trees soak up? And how much CO2 do we produce? How many sq miles of trees do we need to nutralise our CO2 emissions? Does anybody here know anything about geology and can confirm that I'm talking shit?
These new housing plans from Brown should be modelled on Centre Parks, not only would it be a really cool place to live, esp if they had lakes, the trees would soak up the CO2!
How much CO2 could 1sq mile of trees soak up? And how much CO2 do we produce? How many sq miles of trees do we need to nutralise our CO2 emissions? Does anybody here know anything about geology and can confirm that I'm talking shit?
chico enrico
No hair shows you care.
spanglechick said:
you mean dull.
Wookey
Muppet is not a slur
Aviation is the fastest growing contributor to climate change. By 2030, the UK aviation industry will break through the legally-imposed upper limits of carbon emissions on its own. That's not counting non-carbon greenhouse gases, nor the emissions from all other industrial sectors.
To put it simply, one arm of government has pledged to limit the damage we do to the environment, while another arm has committed to expanding airports and roads in way which makes such a pledge impossible to achieve.
How can they get away with this?
Partly because our government fudges the figures (they don't include international aircraft emissions in their target) and partly because they rely on the narrow-minded, the ignorant and the greedy to let them get away with it. And judging from some of the responses on this thread, there's plenty who will let them.
The single most effective thing any of us could do as individuals to lessen our contribution to climate change is to stop flying. If you do fly, every flight you take should be justified as unavoidable, 100% necessary, or an emergency.
Anything else is plain greed, selfishness and short-sightedness; and if you don't pay the price for such a self-serving attitude, then your children surely will.
Getting two weeks of sunshine on your face is not necessary, nor is it an emergency. It can be easily avoided. If you choose not to, then you choose to harm the environment - and you should be judged for it.
The government is in thrall to big business. They will not, I believe, impliment demand management in the aviation industry. This means, if you believe in keeping the earth as habitable as possible for future generations, that YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL will have to make some uncomfortable choices when it comes to flying.
Stop abrogating your responsibilities. This is down to each and every one of us. Ignorance is no longer an excuse.
If you refuse to make these choices, or believe others should make them for you, then you are as bad as the capitalists, as bad as the government, and as bad as the petrochemical industry.
You don't have a leg to stand on.
I believe there is no justification for short-haul leisure flights. They are disproportionately damaging to the environment, and possible only because of the subsidies and fuel-tax exemptions currently enjoyed by the swelling aviation industry. To take advantage of our government's short-sightedness by enjoying short-haul leisure flights makes you part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
I hope you look good with your sun tan. I hope it's worth it.
Long-haul flights should be kept to a minimum, unless it's for a family emergency. You can pledge here http://www.flightpledge.org.uk/ to make your commitment clear. You can pledge to no flights at all. Or you can pledge to one annual long-haul flight, or two annual short-haul flights - unless in a family emergency.
The aim of the pledge is to show government that there are people willing to curb their own consumption, and use alternative transport means. Judging from some of the stupid and ignorant reponses to this thread, I truly wonder if it's even worth the bother.
If work is the reason you take cheap short-haul flights, then change your job - or face the fact that you are contributing to the problem for personal gain.
I took a short-haul flight last year to see my dad in Scotland for a family emergency - it was free, because I was writing an article on the destination. It bothered me that I was taking the flight, and also that I would be advertising those flights to other people.
In a bid to salve my conscience, I asked that all alternative transport methods were included in the fact box at the end of the article, and that carbon off-setting methods be mentioned. These facts were eventually cut from the piece for space.
So I have since refused all short-haul flight commissions offered to me, and will not be writing any more articles on destinations which require short haul. This will cost me money, but I don't care, as it's the price of a clean conscience.
If my dad needs me again, at short notice, then as long as he isn't dying he can wait until the train arrives. I'm actually looking forward to my first over-night trip to the Highlands, and I imagine it will be a lot more enjoyable than tinder-dry air of an atmospherically-controlled flying box. Making that change was not hard.
No one single person is going to contribute enough gases to the environment to cause lasting damage. No single refusal of a flight is going to save the world.
That's because the damage we're doing is a collective act. Like throwing litter, it takes a series of small, incremental acts of selfishness to add up to a life-threatening amount of damage.
The question you need to ask yourself is; do you really want to contribute to that? Do you really think you're worth robbing our children for?
Instead of justifying your own habits, and basking in the warmth of guilt-free flying, you should be asking how the government will achieve it's own carbon targets when it's already committed to expansion of the aviation industry. They are taking us for fools, and we are clutching our cheap tickets to Magaluf to our breasts and letting them.
If you can imagine what 190 million passengers look like, that's how many passed through UK airports in 2002.
By 2030, that will be 500 million passengers.
By 2050, it will be a billion passengers.
By 2060, it will be a billion and a half passengers.
One of them will be you. Unless you decide differently.
And by 2060, when a billion and a half passengers are passing through the UK every year, and our economy is entirely dependant on the aviation industry, we are likely to have seen peak oil production and an end to cheap oil.
Where will that leave the economy, business, and our lives then?
Up shit creek without a propeller, that's where.
Be wise. Don't fly.
To put it simply, one arm of government has pledged to limit the damage we do to the environment, while another arm has committed to expanding airports and roads in way which makes such a pledge impossible to achieve.
How can they get away with this?
Partly because our government fudges the figures (they don't include international aircraft emissions in their target) and partly because they rely on the narrow-minded, the ignorant and the greedy to let them get away with it. And judging from some of the responses on this thread, there's plenty who will let them.
The single most effective thing any of us could do as individuals to lessen our contribution to climate change is to stop flying. If you do fly, every flight you take should be justified as unavoidable, 100% necessary, or an emergency.
Anything else is plain greed, selfishness and short-sightedness; and if you don't pay the price for such a self-serving attitude, then your children surely will.
Getting two weeks of sunshine on your face is not necessary, nor is it an emergency. It can be easily avoided. If you choose not to, then you choose to harm the environment - and you should be judged for it.
The government is in thrall to big business. They will not, I believe, impliment demand management in the aviation industry. This means, if you believe in keeping the earth as habitable as possible for future generations, that YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL will have to make some uncomfortable choices when it comes to flying.
Stop abrogating your responsibilities. This is down to each and every one of us. Ignorance is no longer an excuse.
If you refuse to make these choices, or believe others should make them for you, then you are as bad as the capitalists, as bad as the government, and as bad as the petrochemical industry.
You don't have a leg to stand on.
I believe there is no justification for short-haul leisure flights. They are disproportionately damaging to the environment, and possible only because of the subsidies and fuel-tax exemptions currently enjoyed by the swelling aviation industry. To take advantage of our government's short-sightedness by enjoying short-haul leisure flights makes you part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
I hope you look good with your sun tan. I hope it's worth it.
Long-haul flights should be kept to a minimum, unless it's for a family emergency. You can pledge here http://www.flightpledge.org.uk/ to make your commitment clear. You can pledge to no flights at all. Or you can pledge to one annual long-haul flight, or two annual short-haul flights - unless in a family emergency.
The aim of the pledge is to show government that there are people willing to curb their own consumption, and use alternative transport means. Judging from some of the stupid and ignorant reponses to this thread, I truly wonder if it's even worth the bother.
If work is the reason you take cheap short-haul flights, then change your job - or face the fact that you are contributing to the problem for personal gain.
I took a short-haul flight last year to see my dad in Scotland for a family emergency - it was free, because I was writing an article on the destination. It bothered me that I was taking the flight, and also that I would be advertising those flights to other people.
In a bid to salve my conscience, I asked that all alternative transport methods were included in the fact box at the end of the article, and that carbon off-setting methods be mentioned. These facts were eventually cut from the piece for space.
So I have since refused all short-haul flight commissions offered to me, and will not be writing any more articles on destinations which require short haul. This will cost me money, but I don't care, as it's the price of a clean conscience.
If my dad needs me again, at short notice, then as long as he isn't dying he can wait until the train arrives. I'm actually looking forward to my first over-night trip to the Highlands, and I imagine it will be a lot more enjoyable than tinder-dry air of an atmospherically-controlled flying box. Making that change was not hard.
No one single person is going to contribute enough gases to the environment to cause lasting damage. No single refusal of a flight is going to save the world.
That's because the damage we're doing is a collective act. Like throwing litter, it takes a series of small, incremental acts of selfishness to add up to a life-threatening amount of damage.
The question you need to ask yourself is; do you really want to contribute to that? Do you really think you're worth robbing our children for?
Instead of justifying your own habits, and basking in the warmth of guilt-free flying, you should be asking how the government will achieve it's own carbon targets when it's already committed to expansion of the aviation industry. They are taking us for fools, and we are clutching our cheap tickets to Magaluf to our breasts and letting them.
If you can imagine what 190 million passengers look like, that's how many passed through UK airports in 2002.
By 2030, that will be 500 million passengers.
By 2050, it will be a billion passengers.
By 2060, it will be a billion and a half passengers.
One of them will be you. Unless you decide differently.
And by 2060, when a billion and a half passengers are passing through the UK every year, and our economy is entirely dependant on the aviation industry, we are likely to have seen peak oil production and an end to cheap oil.
Where will that leave the economy, business, and our lives then?
Up shit creek without a propeller, that's where.
Be wise. Don't fly.
editor said:
I'll look into those. Just a case of coordinating with my mate's who's house I'll be staying at.
Door to door it was around 8 hours each way on average. Bristol to Edinbrough. Although TBF the journey back was messed up due to engineering works. Was quite unpleasant. A crowded train, broken air conditioning in the rather hotter June of last year.
editor
hiraethified
The bloke on seat 61 makes it sound like a delightful journey. Me and Eme are thinking of using it soon for a Scottish holiday.Wookey said:
A light breakfast is included in the fare, served in your compartment. Soap and towels and a complimentary toiletries pack are provided.
Book sleepers online from as little at £19 one way at www.firstscotrail.com.
Similar threads
