Too bad for Easyjet and Ryanair

(Jim Ley) wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 06:54:22 -0500, James Robinson
wrote:

(Jim Ley) wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:21:54 -0500, James Robinson
wrote:
You think that just because a bomb goes off, it will restrict the
potential numbers to 11?

It's been the case so far... and they type of failure could indeed be
related to the nature of the thing that brought down the flight -
breaking up in the sky is likely going to cause less casualties than
staying intact and ploughing into a building for example.

Nonsense. If 200 tons of airplane break up in the air, it still has to
come to earth somewhere. If what's left hits a populated area, like an
apartment building, as the El Al aircraft did, then there will be many
casualties. It's all a matter of chance.

No, 200 tons all hitting the same building will destroy the building,
risking everyone insides life, 200 1 ton blocks won't destroy any
individual building, so as long as you're not killed in the impact,
you've a good chance of surviving.

They don't disintegrate that much. TWA 800, Panam 103 both had large
sections drop to earth. The crater created by the main part of 103 was
somthing like 20 feet deep.

Calif Bill wrote:

It is economic warfare. And stopping airplane travel, will stop the
economy faster than blowing up a train.

The railway network in the UK is extremely extensive and is an
important and economically essential part of the country's transport
system. Well over a billion journeys are made by rail in the UK per
year - far more than by air. In London the National Rail and
Underground networks are *the* key transport systems and are non
opptional - they are absolutely essential. Where you to shut them down
the other transport systems would not come close to coping and the
economy would come grinding to a rapid halt.

Certainly stopping all air tavel within, to and from the UK would have
a quick and disasterous effect on the economy but I do not believe the
effect would be as fast and comprehensive as shutting down our rail
networks.

Philip.

On 13 Aug 2006 01:55:52 -0700, "Neil Williams"
mangled uncounted electrons thus:

Calif Bill wrote:

It is economic warfare. And stopping airplane travel, will stop the
economy faster than blowing up a train.

A very US perspective - stopping the UK national rail network for any
period of time, especially in London and the South East, would do
*serious* damage to the UK economy. Other European countries are
likely similar.

That said, the London bombs didn't really achieve any changes to the
Tube or rail network, because such changes aren't really practical
because of the number of passengers.

snip

The UK authorities are of course experimenting at the moment with
airport-style metal detectors at a few of the larger railway
termini. If the program is a success (however they will define
that I don't know) they plan to roll out the program across large
parts of the UK rail network...

Martin D. Pay
I believe they've accepted that it can't be done on the tube
without crippling the network, due to access problems...

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:43:09 +0100, Martin D. Pay
wrote:

The UK authorities are of course experimenting at the moment with
airport-style metal detectors at a few of the larger railway
termini. If the program is a success (however they will define
that I don't know) they plan to roll out the program across large
parts of the UK rail network...

It has to be rolled out through all, or it's pointless, you'd check to
see if the station you were going to board on had them before boarding
surely?

Jim.

In message , Martin D. Pay
writes
The UK authorities are of course experimenting at the moment with
airport-style metal detectors at a few of the larger railway termini.
If the program is a success (however they will define that I don't
know) they plan to roll out the program across large parts of the UK
rail network...

That's just the authorities trying to be seen to be doing something. It
might catch kids carrying knives on their night out, but it won't do
anything to stop terrorism unless they can cover every entrance to every
one of the 3000+ railway stations 24/7 -- and a lot fewer than 50% of
the stations even have a staffed ticket office for even part of the day,
so I can't see that ever happening. Even if they could cover all the
stations, there's 11,000 route-miles of track which can be accessed at
any level crossing, crossing someone's field, or through a sympathiser's
back garden - why should terrorists find it any more difficult to get on
the tracks than kids and vandals do?

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/

Jim Ley wrote:
happened years ago if the shareholders had more sense and understood
the nature of the risk rather than it being some sort of patriotic
thing - they are now waiting and hoping for a government bail out


If you had invested your entire retirement fund into Eurotunnel,
wouldn't you actively try to fnd any solution that didn't involve you
losing your complete investment ?

It is perfectly normal for innvestors working as hard as possible to
find a solution which doesn't involve their shares becoming worthless.
And it is laudable that they rose up when they saw an apparanetly
incompetant management team and demanded they be replaced. Active
shareholders are good because they keep management accountable for their decisions.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:03:43 -0400, nobody wrote:

It is perfectly normal for innvestors working as hard as possible to
find a solution which doesn't involve their shares becoming worthless.

but they're not, they're rejecting lots of plans that involve them not
becoming worthless - there have been loads of proposals to convert a
decent amount of the debt into shares, the small french holders who
own it have repeatedly voted against what would be sensible policies
just to see even more money ****ed away.

They are holding out for a complete bail out from the french
government, the bankruptcy protection should absolutely be withdrawn
and the incompetent company and shareholders left with nothing. This
extremely expensive government subsidised train (by way of the channel
tunnel rail link) is not something that deserves to die as soon as
possible.

Jim.

Jim Ley wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 14:48:01 -0700, "Neil Williams"
wrote:

Why is there "long access before any medical attention"? A train
running through the other tunnel to the site of a problem could get
there within a few minutes at speed.

And where would the medical staff come from?

The Channel tunnel has it's own emergency service, with special
vehicles that can run through the service tunnels at considerable
speeds. During the Chunnel fire in 1996 the response teams reached the
scene in about 30 minutes.

James Robinson wrote:

I'm not sure what record you are referring to, as the El Al 747 cargo
flight that crashed in Amsterdam killed 47 on the ground. That's one I
could think of off the top of my head, there might be another with even
more fatalities.

Yep. 9/11. Almost 3000 fatalities on the ground...

On 13 Aug 2006 14:57:20 -0700, "K" wrote:


Jim Ley wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 14:48:01 -0700, "Neil Williams"
wrote:

Why is there "long access before any medical attention"? A train
running through the other tunnel to the site of a problem could get
there within a few minutes at speed.

And where would the medical staff come from?

The Channel tunnel has it's own emergency service, with special
vehicles that can run through the service tunnels at considerable
speeds. During the Chunnel fire in 1996 the response teams reached the
scene in about 30 minutes.

The UK ambulance service is supposed to get to "95% of neither life
threatening or serious calls responded to within 19 minutes" and 75%
of life threatening ones in 8 minutes, I hardly think 30 minutes is
something to claim as a great success...

Jim.