|
|
#76
16.01.2009, 12:40
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:26:48 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG> wrote: >In message ><ae98bc78-1701-4433-9f6b-a36dfba22944>, >Ralph B <google81> writes: >[] > >Yes, you could have them swing-wing, too. And you could use linear >motors to help them launch. >>If they have to go to London at all, that is. I do get the impression that the whole point of the new runway is for people who are flying from somewhere to somewhere else not in the UK to be deposited at Heathrow for an hour or to to spend money at the duty free. Why the PTB think that we'll be so horrified that Paris or Amsterdam might get this custom is beyond me. |
|
|
|
#77
16.01.2009, 12:41
|
|
|
|
|
On Jan 16, 1:33 pm, Gumrat <gum> wrote:
> Jo Lonergan wrote: >> > > It's fantastic - husbad calls these "scarebuses", but not any longer :-)) > > Since it's good news, I reckon this isn't Bad Taste, though I'm sure > the gecko will let me know otherwise :-) > > [..][www_thedailymash_co_uk] IRTA "Huds on plane". Would that be Roy and his Emu? That'd be much worse than "Snakes on Plane" (Channel 4, Saturday) or "Geese in a Plane Engine" (New York, yesterday). |
|
#78
16.01.2009, 12:43
|
|
|
|
|
Jo Lonergan wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:26:48 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" > <G6JPG> wrote: >> I do get the impression that the whole point of the new runway is for people who > are flying from somewhere to somewhere else not in the UK to be deposited at > Heathrow for an hour or to to spend money at the duty free. Why the PTB think > that we'll be so horrified that Paris or Amsterdam might get this custom is > beyond me. Because the PTB want the jobs to be at Heathrow rather than CDG or Schipol even if the workers are Romanian or Bulgarian. Colin |
|
#79
16.01.2009, 12:44
|
|
|
|
|
Sebastian Lisken wrote:
> badriya <badriya> wrote: >> I thought we were middle class, college tutor and M Navy officer, but >> we were unable to afford either an Aga or a Rayburn. > > I must probably take back what I said earlier: that my initial sympathy > for the Aga showed my class background ... But I don't know. Before I > was born, my father bought a grand piano. He is a pianist and (now > retired, obviously) university music teacher. Its cost was comparable > to that of a car, and we didn't have a car until I was a few years old. > Maybe with another set of priorities, middle class families might > afford an Aga? I have no idea what they cost of course. > I think they're upwards of about £1500. But it's not just the cost - you need a fairly large kitchen to accommodate an Aga, and many modern houses simply won't have the space. They sit best in rambling, traditional farmhouse kitchens. And then there's the running costs - if you have access of lots of free firewood, that will help, but again that tends to be associated with a country land-owning lifestyle. Also, to make full use of an Aga, I imagine it would be best if someone was around in the kitchen for quite a while each day. It's not going to suit a city-based commuting couple who leave the house straight after a light breakfast and get home at 7pm to cook a quick supper, even if they are middle class. It's about a whole lifestyle, not just class or income. |
|
#80
16.01.2009, 12:46
|
|
|
|
|
After a hard day on the farm, Sebastian Lisken jumped off the tractor
to write: >Al Menzies <al> wrote: >> Why would you spend all that money on the Rolls Royce of cookers, then >> drive around in a Skoda for most of the year? > >To reduce fuel consumption? Seems a very obvious answer to me. Then don't buy the Rolls! |
|
#81
16.01.2009, 12:49
|
|
|
|
|
After a hard day on the farm, Marjorie jumped off the tractor to
write: >Sebastian Lisken wrote: > >I think they're upwards of about £1500. But it's not just the cost - you >need a fairly large kitchen to accommodate an Aga, and many modern >houses simply won't have the space. They sit best in rambling, >traditional farmhouse kitchens. > >And then there's the running costs - if you have access of lots of free >firewood, that will help, but again that tends to be associated with a >country land-owning lifestyle. No good for an Aga, I'm afraid. Rayburns will run on wood, but not Agas. >Also, to make full use of an Aga, I >imagine it would be best if someone was around in the kitchen for quite >a while each day. It's not going to suit a city-based commuting couple >who leave the house straight after a light breakfast and get home at 7pm >to cook a quick supper, even if they are middle class. It's about a >whole lifestyle, not just class or income. Indeed. |
|
#82
16.01.2009, 13:26
|
|
|
|
|
* Al Menzies wrote, On 15/01/2009 23:16:
> After a hard day on the farm, Mark Williams jumped off the tractor to > write: >> My suggestion was a serious one. You can bury bodies on land you own. > I'm surprised they haven't thought of it themselves. Wicker and > cardboard coffins should make it all the more difficult to clear when > they finally come to plough it up. > As they plan to bulldoze the cemetery at Sipson (<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7830275.stm>), to make room for the new runway, I doubt a new, humanist, burial ground would dissuade them. Quite apart from that, how willing would you be to arrange for grannie to be buried somewhere that you know is likely to be bulldozed within the immediate future. |
|
#83
16.01.2009, 13:33
|
|
|
|
|
* Sebastian Lisken wrote, On 16/01/2009 12:19:
> badriya <badriya> wrote: >> I thought we were middle class, college tutor and M Navy officer, but >> we were unable to afford either an Aga or a Rayburn. > > I must probably take back what I said earlier: that my initial sympathy > for the Aga showed my class background ... But I don't know. Before I > was born, my father bought a grand piano. He is a pianist and (now > retired, obviously) university music teacher. Its cost was comparable > to that of a car, and we didn't have a car until I was a few years old. > Maybe with another set of priorities, middle class families might > afford an Aga? I have no idea what they cost of course. Looking at <http://www.aveccookers.co.uk/pricelist.htm>, you can get a reconditioned one from around £3,500. For a new one, I think you're looking at at least double that. You will then probably have to pay quite a bit on top of that for fitting, as it needs a large space and chimney / flue. |
|
#84
16.01.2009, 13:46
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:33:30 +0100, Gumrat <gumrat> wrote:
>Jo Lonergan wrote: >It's fantastic - husbad calls these "scarebuses", but not any longer :-)) Before 9/11, obviously, I once got to fly in the cockpit Basel-London and since them I've been a bit nervous of them. I joked that I'd better not spill my rather full glass of champagne [1] into the works, and one of the pilots said cheerfully "Oh don't worry, it's not an airbus". >Since it's good news, I reckon this isn't Bad Taste, though I'm sure >the gecko will let me know otherwise :-) > >[..] [www_thedailymash_co_uk] LOL! I loved this last bit |
|
#85
16.01.2009, 14:12
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:38:43 +0100, Gumrat <gumrat> wrote:
>badriya wrote: >I didn't know middle-class necessarily equated well-enough-off to afford >an Aga? Well, if someone thinks Rayburn is working class it must be within their range. (oops). Isn't class partly income? |
|
#86
16.01.2009, 14:28
|
|
|
|
|
On 16 Jan 2009 11:31:46 GMT, rf10 (Robin Fairbairns)
wrote: > Colin Blackburn <news> writes: >>Now that I have escaped my working class shackles and am a member of the >>middle classes I do have a Rayburn. However, it came with the house. I >>don't think I could afford or choose to install one. > >my daughter and her intended (both of whom earn quite a lot more than >me -- for working a lot harder, i reckon), drooled over a house that >they might have bought because among other things it had an aga >installed. "we'd never get one otherwise, dad", she said. > >in the end they decided not to go for that one ... and then the >economy went "pop", and while their savings aren't attracting as much >interest as they once did, the prices of houses are falling faster >still. But I wonder whether prices of Agas are falling that much? Might be worth it now taking the house? |
|
#87
16.01.2009, 14:28
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:58:09 +0000, Marjorie
<dontusethisaddress> wrote: [..] |
|
#88
16.01.2009, 14:34
|
|
|
|
|
On 16 Jan 2009 12:19:59 GMT, Sebastian Lisken
<Sebastian.Lisken> wrote: >badriya <badriya> wrote: >> I thought we were middle class, college tutor and M Navy officer, but >> we were unable to afford either an Aga or a Rayburn. > >I must probably take back what I said earlier: that my initial sympathy >for the Aga showed my class background ... But I don't know. Before I >was born, my father bought a grand piano. He is a pianist and (now >retired, obviously) university music teacher. Its cost was comparable >to that of a car, and we didn't have a car until I was a few years old. >Maybe with another set of priorities, middle class families might >afford an Aga? I have no idea what they cost of course. > >Sebastian You are quite right and I did wonder whether anyone would point out that what you can afford or want to afford varies according to class, income and inclination. We sent the children to a private school because education is something they can't take away from you later in life. (insuecure? Moi?) We didn't have holidays abroad until Capt Ex had to stay out of the country for tax reasons, it was cheaper to go than stay, and we house swopped. Families I thought of as less well off had holidays abroad much more often. |
|
#89
16.01.2009, 14:37
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:33:43 +0000, Nick Odell
<gurzhfvp.jbexfubc> wrote: >On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:36:51 +0100, badriya <badriya> wrote: >>College Tutor B; Navy Captain A according to the usual social Well, what about 3rd Mate, then 2nd then Chief Officer? Over a number of years. Captain only after...about 18 years I think. Then redundant and minicabbie for a year. [..] |
|
#90
16.01.2009, 14:53
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:18:51 +0000, Colin Blackburn <news> wrote:
>Marjorie wrote: > >I don't know about ET but I don't think but I don't think it is >impossible to oppose the third runway at Heathrow or even airport >expansion in general and not fly oneself occasionally. Clearly if you >fly out to a holiday home every fortnight there is a high degree of >hypocrisy. But if, say, you restrict yourself to one return flight a >year or two where there is no reasonable alternative is that hypocritical? > What they seem to envisage is an enormous increase in traffic, which I really don't see, and certainly don't think they should encourage. Technology should make business travel less necessary (but then, remember the paperless office). The bit about making airlines use "clean" planes for the new slots is most unconvincing. Newer planes, we hope, will be cleaner anyway, and they'll just use the dirtier older ones for the existing slots. There will still be more pollution. |
|
|
|
|
| Similar Threads | |
| Heathrow third runway It seems that a lot of people are against the additional runway at Heathrow. It caused a number of former government minister to vote against the proposal. [..] |
|
| What would a third runway mean for Heathrow, and is it reallynecessary? Opposition to the turd runway seems to be growing but of course the hypermobile motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup are all in favour of it because they don't... |
|
| MPs revolt over third Heathrow runway On 3 Nov, 07:42, Doug <jag> wrote: [SNIP] How about addressing the lies you told about Critical Mass being instructed by the police to break the law, before starting... |
|
| 'No new runway at Heathrow' Success! Yes, nitpickers, I know I missed it on Wednesday. "Air pollution laws will prevent a new runway being built at Heathrow for at least another decade, according to a... |
|
| No new runway for Heathrow There has just been a report on News 24 that the White Paper to be published in mid-December will NOT recommend a third Runway for Heathrow at this time. Instead it will... |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:47. | Privacy Policy
|
OT - 3rd runway at Heathrow