"Neil" wrote in message
...


Seriously, I don't think the "no overflying" rule would work. Other
countries would simply retaliate and there would be no flying except for
internal flights.

Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing though.

Or perhaps aircraft would route around uk airspace and burn more
fuel in the process. So while the uk makes a profound stance
against the destruction of hunanity it also adds to the supposed
cause.
Aircraft overflights in uk airspace are often on routes which either
follow the "greater circle" nearest to direct route or are on headings to
intercept Oceanic Track Entry Points for transatlantic traffic.
The Oceanic Tracks are dynamic routes intended to take greatest
advantage of and avoid the worst disadvantages of the Jet Streams.
To deny airtraffic access to this facillity would again result in
possibly MUCH greater fuel consumption.

Paulus

Weatherlawyer wrote:

Boltar wrote:

Or perhaps the lawyer bit just simply relates to you being full of sh*t.

If one cannot blind with science or baffle with bull**** one has the
option to resort to insults I take it?

Well I was just following your example. Or have you conveniently
forgotten
your "dimwit" post?


What was it you just said? Most of the rest escaped me.

Who'd have thought.

B2003

I would suggest a Europe (EU) wide tax on airfuel. A lot of flights
would be covered by that, particularly the cheapy no-frills.

Let's not forget every other mode of transport has to pay tax so why
should we subsidise the airline industry?

Dorian.

paulus wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message
...


Seriously, I don't think the "no overflying" rule would work. Other
countries would simply retaliate and there would be no flying except for
internal flights.

Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing though.


Or perhaps aircraft would route around uk airspace and burn more
fuel in the process. So while the uk makes a profound stance
against the destruction of hunanity it also adds to the supposed
cause.
Aircraft overflights in uk airspace are often on routes which either
follow the "greater circle" nearest to direct route or are on headings to
intercept Oceanic Track Entry Points for transatlantic traffic.
The Oceanic Tracks are dynamic routes intended to take greatest
advantage of and avoid the worst disadvantages of the Jet Streams.
To deny airtraffic access to this facillity would again result in
possibly MUCH greater fuel consumption.

Paulus

"Dorian Speakman" wrote in message
...
I would suggest a Europe (EU) wide tax on airfuel. A lot of flights would
be covered by that, particularly the cheapy no-frills.

Let's not forget every other mode of transport has to pay tax so why
should we subsidise the airline industry?


I'm not sure how the spiteful taxation of almost every activity
we partake in will save the planet. I understand even less
how not taxing a particular activity equates to subsidising that activity.

Taxing us for the sole purpose of creating bureaucratic jobs or to keep
mindless fools well serviced with Jags will have no effect on
the environment (except in a negative way).

Paulus

paulus wrote:
I'm not sure how the spiteful taxation of almost every activity
we partake in will save the planet.

The idea is that the more expensive the tickets the less people
will fly and hence the less planes will be in the air burning fuel.
Nice idea in principal but in practice I doubt a 10 quid hike on
a 30 quid ticket will do much to deter anyone. You'd have to
quandruple or more the price before that sort of thing would have
any effect IMO. There should just be blanket limits on the number
of flights allowed, end of. The health of the planet is ultimately
far more important than peoples holidays or business meetings
however painful it might be in the short term.

B2003