Liverpool

I spent the morning there (not for work, for the first time in a few
years!) while I got a new passport, so had a chance to walk around. From
work trips to the city and over to the Wirral in the last year or so, I
could tell a lot of construction was going on. The waterfront looks like
a construction zone at the moment (building a huge shopping centre, new
bus station, museum, taller office buildings, flats etc.)

Had a coffee in one of the cafes in the Albert Dock. It never amazes me
when I'm there what a fantastic building it is, and how well its
renovation (now a couple of decades old) came off. I went to the Tate
art museum there, which had a fascinating exhibition of art (1960s
onwards mostly) by Liverpool (or Liverpool connected) artists. Two of
the floors are currently closed why they set up a new exhibition. I then
visited the brand new International Slavery Museum, which is in the same
building as the Merseyside Maritime Museum. At first, I thought it
seemed a little twee (why, in museums I visit, is there always a video
installation of Benjamin Zephaniah waxing lyrical about something he
doesn't know anything more than anyone else about!?) but the more I
explored, I thought it engrossing. First impressions is that this has
been done very well, and uniquely shows it from the Liverpool
perspective, which was (surprisingly to some, perhaps) a crucial ciity
in the slave trade. I aim to go again soon. Quick drink at The
Pumphouse- while sitting outside I savoured again the view of the city's
Three Graces, still magnificent despite all the cranes and construction
noise around! Then, off to pick up my new (chipped and, so I'm-told,
antenaed!) passport...

All these museums (not surprisingly) are free, and the city has a lot
else to offer. The city is something of a rough diamond in my opinion
(it's not all pretty) but well worth a visit for a few days by any
visitor to or from the UK.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

On Sep 6, 10:58 am, (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
(*)) wrote:
I spent the morning there (not for work, for the first time in a few
years!) while I got a new passport, so had a chance to walk around. From
work trips to the city and over to the Wirral in the last year or so, I
could tell a lot of construction was going on. The waterfront looks like
a construction zone at the moment (building a huge shopping centre, new
bus station, museum, taller office buildings, flats etc.)

Had a coffee in one of the cafes in the Albert Dock. It never amazes me
when I'm there what a fantastic building it is, and how well its
renovation (now a couple of decades old) came off. I went to the Tate
art museum there, which had a fascinating exhibition of art (1960s
onwards mostly) by Liverpool (or Liverpool connected) artists. Two of
the floors are currently closed why they set up a new exhibition. I then
visited the brand new International Slavery Museum, which is in the same
building as the Merseyside Maritime Museum. At first, I thought it
seemed a little twee (why, in museums I visit, is there always a video
installation of Benjamin Zephaniah waxing lyrical about something he
doesn't know anything more than anyone else about!?) but the more I
explored, I thought it engrossing. First impressions is that this has
been done very well, and uniquely shows it from the Liverpool
perspective, which was (surprisingly to some, perhaps) a crucial ciity
in the slave trade. I aim to go again soon. Quick drink at The
Pumphouse- while sitting outside I savoured again the view of the city's
Three Graces, still magnificent despite all the cranes and construction
noise around! Then, off to pick up my new (chipped and, so I'm-told,
antenaed!) passport...

All these museums (not surprisingly) are free, and the city has a lot
else to offer. The city is something of a rough diamond in my opinion
(it's not all pretty) but well worth a visit for a few days by any
visitor to or from the UK.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgatehttp://www.davidhorne.net- real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

Was in Liverpool in May for a fun night of drinking. Very friendly
town at night. The construction for the European "City of Culture" for
2008 reminds me a little of Berlin in the mid-90's. Liked the slavery
exhibit at the Merseyside, lots of slavery rememberance going on in
the UK. Manchester, too. The statue of the Mormon family outside was
curious, though. Between the actual Cavern Club and the replica Cavern
Club at the Albert Dock Beatles show, one wonders how many of the
exact same bar a city can have.


http://www.bargaintraveleurope.com/0..._Liverpool.htm
http://www.bargaintraveleurope.com/0...iverpool. htm

michaelj wrote:

Between the actual Cavern Club and the replica Cavern
Club

The actual Cavern Club (i.e. the one the Beatles performed in) is no
more- it was demolished to make way for the underground rail line in the
early 70s.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

Martin wrote:

On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 09:46:51 +0100, (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

michaelj wrote:

Between the actual Cavern Club and the replica Cavern
Club

The actual Cavern Club (i.e. the one the Beatles performed in) is no
more- it was demolished to make way for the underground rail line in the
early 70s.

10 years too late? :-)

Now, now. Just think of all the tat we wouldn't have without it. Like
the yellow submarine outside Speke Airport.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

Martin wrote:

[]
Easyjet says that the ecology tax to be applied to people using Schiphol
from 1-1-2008 is an attempt to stop them competing with KLM. Transit
passengers won't have to pay a tax. KLM makes the majority of it's money
out of transit passengers flying planes that are old and polluting. Most
of Easyjet's planes will be low emission new Airbus 319s by next year.
Easyjet will reduce the number of flights it makes to Schiphol and deploy
them on other routes. I do hope Easyjet complain to the EU if they don't
get what they want.

I agree completely that any charge (if there is going to be one) should
be applied equally to people transiting at AMS as well as making it
their destination. However, I'm less clear on how it affects competition
with KLM- surely KLM will passengers will have to pay the tax if they're
not transiting?

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

Martin wrote:

On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:23:37 +0100, (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

Martin wrote:

[]
Easyjet says that the ecology tax to be applied to people using Schiphol
from 1-1-2008 is an attempt to stop them competing with KLM. Transit
passengers won't have to pay a tax. KLM makes the majority of it's money
out of transit passengers flying planes that are old and polluting. Most
of Easyjet's planes will be low emission new Airbus 319s by next year.
Easyjet will reduce the number of flights it makes to Schiphol and deploy
them on other routes. I do hope Easyjet complain to the EU if they don't
get what they want.

I agree completely that any charge (if there is going to be one) should
be applied equally to people transiting at AMS as well as making it
their destination.

I don't agree with the tax at all, it will have no effect on pollution and hit
the poorest users most. It has already been described by a Dutch politician as
just another tax.

However, I'm less clear on how it affects competition
with KLM- surely KLM will passengers will have to pay the tax if they're
not transiting?

They make most of their money from passengers in transit. Most are flying the
European leg free just like you do.

I'm not saying I agree with it either, but I still don't see why Easyjet
claim this will stop them competing with KLM, as KLM passengers only for
AMS would also be affected.

As for 'poorest users'- well yes, probably, but the average airline user
even on budget flights is hardly poor. (There's been research done on
this- e.g. "55% of budget airline passengers have a household income of
more than £35,500, with two-thirds of that number coming from households
that earn more than £46,000.- CAA)

The UK government has already applied an equally useless 'environmental'
tax, and it hasn't affected passenger numbers.

Easyjet might be having other problems, actually, as their load factor
has gone down already apparently, so I can well understand them being
sensitive to an extra problem at one of their busiest airports.
Ryanair's on the other hand, has gone up. Just from my own unscientific
perspective, I can see why. Every Ryanair flight I've ever taken has
been close to full. The majority of Easyjet flights I've taken have been
around 2/3 full- some quite a bit less.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 13:03:15 +0100, (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

Martin wrote:

On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:23:37 +0100, (David Horne,
_the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

Martin wrote:

[]
Easyjet says that the ecology tax to be applied to people using
Schiphol
from 1-1-2008 is an attempt to stop them competing with KLM. Transit
passengers won't have to pay a tax. KLM makes the majority of it's
money
out of transit passengers flying planes that are old and polluting.
Most
of Easyjet's planes will be low emission new Airbus 319s by next
year.
Easyjet will reduce the number of flights it makes to Schiphol and
deploy
them on other routes. I do hope Easyjet complain to the EU if they
don't
get what they want.

I agree completely that any charge (if there is going to be one) should
be applied equally to people transiting at AMS as well as making it
their destination.

I don't agree with the tax at all, it will have no effect on pollution
and hit
the poorest users most. It has already been described by a Dutch
politician as
just another tax.

However, I'm less clear on how it affects competition
with KLM- surely KLM will passengers will have to pay the tax if
they're
not transiting?

Something to do with KLM running internal EU flights at a loss, whilst
Easyjet
want to make a profit out of theirs?

Easyjet think that the extra charge will result in a loss of around 25% of
their
passengers on routes to Dutch airports. Once Easyjet have given up KLM can
charge what they want just like they do on other routes where they have no
competition.

This seems a spurious arguement to me.

Easyjet don't compete with KLM for transiting pax only for
the terminating ones and AIUI KLM don't charge subsidised
fares for terminating pax, but normal commercial fares.

FWIW the UK tax is not paid by transiting pax so there is
already a precedence within the EU for this.

Easyjet might be having other problems, actually, as their load factor
has gone down already apparently,

Perhaps because of the environmental tax? :-)

This is the line that they would like you to believe.

ISTM that average load factors with EZ and FR have gone
down because of the huge (and yes I do mean huge)
increase in the availibility of Low cost routes. You can't
expand your network exponentially and expect loadings
to remain high.

tim

Martin wrote:

On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:20:42 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:
[]
ISTM that average load factors with EZ and FR have gone
down because of the huge (and yes I do mean huge)
increase in the availibility of Low cost routes. You can't
expand your network exponentially and expect loadings
to remain high.

Loadings are still high. End of your spurious argument.

No, it's true. The load factors have in fact done down on both airlines.
Not by too much, but it has gone down. Their profits have risen
meanwhile, despite Easyjets per passenger revenue falling by around 8%,
due to a increase in expansion on new routes etc.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

Martin wrote:

On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 13:03:15 +0100, (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:
[]

As for 'poorest users'- well yes, probably, but the average airline user
even on budget flights is hardly poor. (There's been research done on
this- e.g. "55% of budget airline passengers have a household income of
more than £35,500,

and the other 45% have?

The other 45% will still include a lot of people earning about the
average wage.

Which country does your statistic apply to?

UK

Certainly not Holland.
Average household income is GBP20K.

with two-thirds of that number coming from households
that earn more than £46,000.- CAA)

2/3 of 55%?

It's still a compelling figure. IIRC, the point of this research was to
illustrate that, contrary to popular perception, low-cost airlines
weren't enabling the poorest people to travel, but rather hugely
encouraging people with above average incomes to travel a lot more.

[]
Easyjet might be having other problems, actually, as their load factor
has gone down already apparently,

Perhaps because of the environmental tax? :-)

Maybe, but the passenger numbers have gone up, on Easyjet and Ryanair
(both of whom have had a slight drop in load)- I think it's as much to
do with the increasing number of services available. This is
particularly relevant with low-cost airlines, because people will be
much more flexible wrt destination. I know I've chosen destinations
precisely because that route had the cheapest flights. I'm sure I'm not
alone.

so I can well understand them being
sensitive to an extra problem at one of their busiest airports.
Ryanair's on the other hand, has gone up. Just from my own unscientific
perspective, I can see why. Every Ryanair flight I've ever taken has
been close to full. The majority of Easyjet flights I've taken have been
around 2/3 full- some quite a bit less.

That doesn't match my kids experience, maybe it is airport and when you fly
dependent? Easyjet claimed 84.8% to September 2006.
http://www.easyjet.com/en/news/sep_0...tatistics.html

Possibly. Some of the Liverpool-Barcelona flights were rather empty- I
suspect they didn't need 2 flights a day. The one Ryanair flight I took
at the same time of year (their only one of the day) was completely
full.

The Inverness flight we took a few weeks ago was also completely full,
yet someone told me that Ryanair will likely withdraw the route as they
don't feel it's profitable enough....

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" wrote in message
...
Martin wrote:

On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:20:42 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:
[]
ISTM that average load factors with EZ and FR have gone
down because of the huge (and yes I do mean huge)
increase in the availibility of Low cost routes. You can't
expand your network exponentially and expect loadings
to remain high.

Loadings are still high. End of your spurious argument.

No, it's true. The load factors have in fact done down on both airlines.
Not by too much, but it has gone down.

And this is the point.

They've not gone down much. Very easily attributable
to an increase in competition from other LCCs

tim