Brits abroad...
Aug 2nd 2007 | 6:41 pm
#91
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Brits abroad...
Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
(*)) wrote:
>> I got stopped by a begger yesterday (in the UK).
>> He asked if I could "spare a penny". I really don't think
>> he expected that level of contribution.
>
>Give him one next time!
but you dont know where hes been!
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)
(*)) wrote:
>> I got stopped by a begger yesterday (in the UK).
>> He asked if I could "spare a penny". I really don't think
>> he expected that level of contribution.
>
>Give him one next time!
but you dont know where hes been!
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)
Aug 2nd 2007 | 7:03 pm
#92
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Brits abroad...
Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
(*)) wrote:
>> dont be stupid. "Low cost operators" undercut the established
>> airlines, thats not Binter.
>
>Low-cost operators are just that, and that's what Binter have become.
>You may not have noticed, but Ryanair et al often don't have any
>competition with "normal" operators. Not because they have undercut
>them, but because they never _flew_ those routes. Many airlines on
>short-haul routes have had no choice but to change their operating
>model, either through direct competition, or that's what the market is.
What you are saying is that all operators have reduced prices, service
etc in the face of no frills competition, as its not possible to use a
time machine and fly pre no frills, I dont see any useful point in
what you are saying?
>> They are the only operator. How else do
>> you fly to islands without direct dlights.
>
>Take a boat?
we prefer a boat, but the car hire companies usualy wont let you take
vehicle between islands, this leaves you having to get to the harbour
from the airport, guard luggage on crossing etc. not very practical
As an answer to "why choose Binter?" in the context of cheap flights
and one operator, "boat" its rather silly
>> >> what sort of a question is that?
>> >
>> >Just answer it.
>>
>> I did, youre being rather silly here.
>
>You're the one telling yourself that Monarch isn't a low-cost airline.
The fares were not significantly lower than BA IIRRC . We also had
champagne and stuff booked to be delivered in flight, booked extra
legroom seats as well, thats not my idea of no frills
As I said we were booked with BA originally......
<Iberia>
>They may as well be, on their short-haul routes.
So Iberia have to compete, your point is?
>Er, no. Check the flight schedules.
Dont be a prat. When the strike was announced we looked around for a
replacement, Monarch was the only direct flight available. Have you
tried booking to a holiday island peak season at short notice when a
strike has been announced?
Youre being really silly in this thread.
If I conceded your point they were "low cost" operators what would it
prove anyway? Basically what are you on about? I took the only
avaialble flights, the other flight you asked about was Iberia. What
are you on about?
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)
(*)) wrote:
>> dont be stupid. "Low cost operators" undercut the established
>> airlines, thats not Binter.
>
>Low-cost operators are just that, and that's what Binter have become.
>You may not have noticed, but Ryanair et al often don't have any
>competition with "normal" operators. Not because they have undercut
>them, but because they never _flew_ those routes. Many airlines on
>short-haul routes have had no choice but to change their operating
>model, either through direct competition, or that's what the market is.
What you are saying is that all operators have reduced prices, service
etc in the face of no frills competition, as its not possible to use a
time machine and fly pre no frills, I dont see any useful point in
what you are saying?
>> They are the only operator. How else do
>> you fly to islands without direct dlights.
>
>Take a boat?
we prefer a boat, but the car hire companies usualy wont let you take
vehicle between islands, this leaves you having to get to the harbour
from the airport, guard luggage on crossing etc. not very practical
As an answer to "why choose Binter?" in the context of cheap flights
and one operator, "boat" its rather silly
>> >> what sort of a question is that?
>> >
>> >Just answer it.
>>
>> I did, youre being rather silly here.
>
>You're the one telling yourself that Monarch isn't a low-cost airline.
The fares were not significantly lower than BA IIRRC . We also had
champagne and stuff booked to be delivered in flight, booked extra
legroom seats as well, thats not my idea of no frills
As I said we were booked with BA originally......
<Iberia>
>They may as well be, on their short-haul routes.
So Iberia have to compete, your point is?
>Er, no. Check the flight schedules.
Dont be a prat. When the strike was announced we looked around for a
replacement, Monarch was the only direct flight available. Have you
tried booking to a holiday island peak season at short notice when a
strike has been announced?
Youre being really silly in this thread.
If I conceded your point they were "low cost" operators what would it
prove anyway? Basically what are you on about? I took the only
avaialble flights, the other flight you asked about was Iberia. What
are you on about?
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)
Aug 2nd 2007 | 8:03 pm
#93
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Brits abroad...
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:00:59 GMT, "William Black" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:13:40 -0700, Iceman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 2, 10:57 am, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:03:49 GMT, "a.spencer3" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> >news:[email protected].. .
>>>> >> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:40:17 GMT, "a.spencer3"
>>>> >> <[email protected]>
>>>> >wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> >Means some local consulates have some extra work to do which, from
>>>> >> >what
>>>> >I've
>>>> >> >seen, makes a change.
>>>>
>>>> >> The Amsterdam Consulate have more than enough work and do a good job.
>>>> >> Don't confuse consulates with embassies.
>>>> >> --
>>>>
>>>> >I'm not.
>>>> >Just depends on location.
>>>>
>>>> Which locations did you have in mind?
>>>
>>>
>>>Embassies are in national capitals, while consulates are in cities
>>>other than national capitals. It has nothing to do with the size or
>>>importance of the city - the US has embassies in Canberra, Ottawa, and
>>>Brasilia and consulates in Sydney, Toronto, and Rio de Janeiro.
>>
>> Which has nothing to do with the question I asked.
>>
>> In NL the British Consulate is for normal people, it looks after
>> passports,
>> registering births marriages and deaths and repatriating drunks and drug
>> addicts
>> both living and dead, etc.
>
>The reality is that most full consulates are money making rackets busy
>selling exorbitantly priced visas to tourists.
The reality about the Amsterdam British Consulate is what I posted.
--
Martin
wrote:
>
>"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:13:40 -0700, Iceman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 2, 10:57 am, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:03:49 GMT, "a.spencer3" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> >news:[email protected].. .
>>>> >> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:40:17 GMT, "a.spencer3"
>>>> >> <[email protected]>
>>>> >wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> >Means some local consulates have some extra work to do which, from
>>>> >> >what
>>>> >I've
>>>> >> >seen, makes a change.
>>>>
>>>> >> The Amsterdam Consulate have more than enough work and do a good job.
>>>> >> Don't confuse consulates with embassies.
>>>> >> --
>>>>
>>>> >I'm not.
>>>> >Just depends on location.
>>>>
>>>> Which locations did you have in mind?
>>>
>>>
>>>Embassies are in national capitals, while consulates are in cities
>>>other than national capitals. It has nothing to do with the size or
>>>importance of the city - the US has embassies in Canberra, Ottawa, and
>>>Brasilia and consulates in Sydney, Toronto, and Rio de Janeiro.
>>
>> Which has nothing to do with the question I asked.
>>
>> In NL the British Consulate is for normal people, it looks after
>> passports,
>> registering births marriages and deaths and repatriating drunks and drug
>> addicts
>> both living and dead, etc.
>
>The reality is that most full consulates are money making rackets busy
>selling exorbitantly priced visas to tourists.
The reality about the Amsterdam British Consulate is what I posted.
--
Martin
Aug 2nd 2007 | 8:03 pm
#94
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Brits abroad...
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:04:11 GMT, "William Black" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>
>> Consuls in remoter quiet parts of the world often do the job free and have
>> another full time occupation.
>
>My experience of honorary consuls, especially Dutch ones, is that they're
>charming and efficient and really nice people to deal with, mainly because
>they're not diplomats...
My experience with British consulate staff in Amsterdam is the same probably for
the same reasons.
--
Martin
wrote:
>
>"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>
>> Consuls in remoter quiet parts of the world often do the job free and have
>> another full time occupation.
>
>My experience of honorary consuls, especially Dutch ones, is that they're
>charming and efficient and really nice people to deal with, mainly because
>they're not diplomats...
My experience with British consulate staff in Amsterdam is the same probably for
the same reasons.
--
Martin
Aug 2nd 2007 | 8:36 pm
#95
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Brits abroad...
The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
> Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
> (*)) wrote:
>
> >> dont be stupid. "Low cost operators" undercut the established
> >> airlines, thats not Binter.
> >
> >Low-cost operators are just that, and that's what Binter have become.
> >You may not have noticed, but Ryanair et al often don't have any
> >competition with "normal" operators. Not because they have undercut
> >them, but because they never _flew_ those routes. Many airlines on
> >short-haul routes have had no choice but to change their operating
> >model, either through direct competition, or that's what the market is.
>
> What you are saying is that all operators have reduced prices, service
> etc in the face of no frills competition, as its not possible to use a
> time machine and fly pre no frills, I dont see any useful point in
> what you are saying?
You were claiming not to use a low-coster. Monarch is exactly that.
[]
> >You're the one telling yourself that Monarch isn't a low-cost airline.
>
> The fares were not significantly lower than BA IIRRC .
That's the same with any low-cost airline when you're booking late.
> We also had
> champagne and stuff booked to be delivered in flight, booked extra
> legroom seats as well, thats not my idea of no frills
You paid for them as extras- that's why they are no frills. You can do
the same with many of the low-costers, Thomsonfly etc.
> As I said we were booked with BA originally......
>
> <Iberia>
>
> >They may as well be, on their short-haul routes.
>
> So Iberia have to compete, your point is?
They've adopted a low-cost model.
>
> >Er, no. Check the flight schedules.
>
> Dont be a prat. When the strike was announced we looked around for a
> replacement, Monarch was the only direct flight available. Have you
> tried booking to a holiday island peak season at short notice when a
> strike has been announced?
>
> Youre being really silly in this thread.
>
> If I conceded your point they were "low cost" operators what would it
> prove anyway?
That you've taken them. You did seem a bit snooty about them (I'll stick
to not using ryan and co.) well Monarch is part of the "and co."
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007
> Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
> (*)) wrote:
>
> >> dont be stupid. "Low cost operators" undercut the established
> >> airlines, thats not Binter.
> >
> >Low-cost operators are just that, and that's what Binter have become.
> >You may not have noticed, but Ryanair et al often don't have any
> >competition with "normal" operators. Not because they have undercut
> >them, but because they never _flew_ those routes. Many airlines on
> >short-haul routes have had no choice but to change their operating
> >model, either through direct competition, or that's what the market is.
>
> What you are saying is that all operators have reduced prices, service
> etc in the face of no frills competition, as its not possible to use a
> time machine and fly pre no frills, I dont see any useful point in
> what you are saying?
You were claiming not to use a low-coster. Monarch is exactly that.
[]
> >You're the one telling yourself that Monarch isn't a low-cost airline.
>
> The fares were not significantly lower than BA IIRRC .
That's the same with any low-cost airline when you're booking late.
> We also had
> champagne and stuff booked to be delivered in flight, booked extra
> legroom seats as well, thats not my idea of no frills
You paid for them as extras- that's why they are no frills. You can do
the same with many of the low-costers, Thomsonfly etc.
> As I said we were booked with BA originally......
>
> <Iberia>
>
> >They may as well be, on their short-haul routes.
>
> So Iberia have to compete, your point is?
They've adopted a low-cost model.
>
> >Er, no. Check the flight schedules.
>
> Dont be a prat. When the strike was announced we looked around for a
> replacement, Monarch was the only direct flight available. Have you
> tried booking to a holiday island peak season at short notice when a
> strike has been announced?
>
> Youre being really silly in this thread.
>
> If I conceded your point they were "low cost" operators what would it
> prove anyway?
That you've taken them. You did seem a bit snooty about them (I'll stick
to not using ryan and co.) well Monarch is part of the "and co."
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007
Aug 2nd 2007 | 9:59 pm
#96
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Brits abroad...
The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
> Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
> (*)) wrote:
>
> >> I got stopped by a begger yesterday (in the UK).
> >> He asked if I could "spare a penny". I really don't think
> >> he expected that level of contribution.
> >
> >Give him one next time!
>
> but you dont know where hes been!
What is interesting i:
"Spain (13m British visits), where 6,078 passports were lost April
05-Mar 06. In France, the second most popular destination with 10m
visits, just 713 passports were reported lost, said the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office on Thursday."
The difference is interesting, though 6,000 out of 13 million doesn't
seem terrible to me...
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007
> Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
> (*)) wrote:
>
> >> I got stopped by a begger yesterday (in the UK).
> >> He asked if I could "spare a penny". I really don't think
> >> he expected that level of contribution.
> >
> >Give him one next time!
>
> but you dont know where hes been!
What is interesting i:
"Spain (13m British visits), where 6,078 passports were lost April
05-Mar 06. In France, the second most popular destination with 10m
visits, just 713 passports were reported lost, said the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office on Thursday."
The difference is interesting, though 6,000 out of 13 million doesn't
seem terrible to me...
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007
Aug 2nd 2007 | 10:42 pm
#97
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Brits abroad...
Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
(*)) wrote:
>"Spain (13m British visits), where 6,078 passports were lost April
>05-Mar 06. In France, the second most popular destination with 10m
>visits, just 713 passports were reported lost, said the Foreign and
>Commonwealth Office on Thursday."
>
>The difference is interesting, though 6,000 out of 13 million doesn't
>seem terrible to me...
the Spain figure includes the El Arenal brigades..........
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)
(*)) wrote:
>"Spain (13m British visits), where 6,078 passports were lost April
>05-Mar 06. In France, the second most popular destination with 10m
>visits, just 713 passports were reported lost, said the Foreign and
>Commonwealth Office on Thursday."
>
>The difference is interesting, though 6,000 out of 13 million doesn't
>seem terrible to me...
the Spain figure includes the El Arenal brigades..........
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)
Aug 2nd 2007 | 10:53 pm
#98
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Brits abroad...
Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
(*)) wrote:
>> What you are saying is that all operators have reduced prices, service
>> etc in the face of no frills competition, as its not possible to use a
>> time machine and fly pre no frills, I dont see any useful point in
>> what you are saying?
>
>You were claiming not to use a low-coster. Monarch is exactly that.
I dont use the "no frills", Ryan specifically.
>That you've taken them. You did seem a bit snooty about them (I'll stick
>to not using ryan and co.) well Monarch is part of the "and co."
Rubbish.
"Snooty" is interesting, it seems you cant distinguish wanting a
level of service from snobbery and as a consequence have gone off on
one.
One specific point I dislike about Ryan is *no booked seats*
On Monarch we booked "first class" additional legroom and
no queuing at the departure desk to get decent seats. Can you
understand that? Its why we will use them again. Because they *do*
have "frills".
In any case Monarch was the only choice so your whole argument is
pretty silly, especially over Binter and Iberia.
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)
(*)) wrote:
>> What you are saying is that all operators have reduced prices, service
>> etc in the face of no frills competition, as its not possible to use a
>> time machine and fly pre no frills, I dont see any useful point in
>> what you are saying?
>
>You were claiming not to use a low-coster. Monarch is exactly that.
I dont use the "no frills", Ryan specifically.
>That you've taken them. You did seem a bit snooty about them (I'll stick
>to not using ryan and co.) well Monarch is part of the "and co."
Rubbish.
"Snooty" is interesting, it seems you cant distinguish wanting a
level of service from snobbery and as a consequence have gone off on
one.
One specific point I dislike about Ryan is *no booked seats*
On Monarch we booked "first class" additional legroom and
no queuing at the departure desk to get decent seats. Can you
understand that? Its why we will use them again. Because they *do*
have "frills".
In any case Monarch was the only choice so your whole argument is
pretty silly, especially over Binter and Iberia.
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)
Aug 2nd 2007 | 11:00 pm
#99
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Brits abroad...
The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
> Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
> (*)) wrote:
>
> >> What you are saying is that all operators have reduced prices, service
> >> etc in the face of no frills competition, as its not possible to use a
> >> time machine and fly pre no frills, I dont see any useful point in
> >> what you are saying?
> >
> >You were claiming not to use a low-coster. Monarch is exactly that.
>
> I dont use the "no frills", Ryan specifically.
Your problem is that you completely misunderstand the term- see below.
> >That you've taken them. You did seem a bit snooty about them (I'll stick
> >to not using ryan and co.) well Monarch is part of the "and co."
>
> Rubbish.
> "Snooty" is interesting, it seems you cant distinguish wanting a
> level of service from snobbery and as a consequence have gone off on
> one.
>
> One specific point I dislike about Ryan is *no booked seats*
>
> On Monarch we booked "first class" additional legroom and
> no queuing at the departure desk to get decent seats. Can you
> understand that? Its why we will use them again. Because they *do*
> have "frills".
No- the point is that you have to _pay_ for them. There isn't a low-cost
airline which I can think of which doesn't allow paid for extras- some
offer more than others, that's all. All no-frills mean is that you have
to pay for extras, not that they're not offered. There are low-cost
airlines which actually have pre-assigned seats. (Norwegian, BMIBaby,
Thomsonfly, for example.) There are low-cost airlines which allow you
extra legroom (BMIBaby, Monarch, as you found out.) Most low-cost
no-frills airlines will sell you champagne- some will let you prebook
meals, and on and on it goes.
Clear now? You were flying on a low-cost, no-frills airline.
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007
> Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
> (*)) wrote:
>
> >> What you are saying is that all operators have reduced prices, service
> >> etc in the face of no frills competition, as its not possible to use a
> >> time machine and fly pre no frills, I dont see any useful point in
> >> what you are saying?
> >
> >You were claiming not to use a low-coster. Monarch is exactly that.
>
> I dont use the "no frills", Ryan specifically.
Your problem is that you completely misunderstand the term- see below.
> >That you've taken them. You did seem a bit snooty about them (I'll stick
> >to not using ryan and co.) well Monarch is part of the "and co."
>
> Rubbish.
> "Snooty" is interesting, it seems you cant distinguish wanting a
> level of service from snobbery and as a consequence have gone off on
> one.
>
> One specific point I dislike about Ryan is *no booked seats*
>
> On Monarch we booked "first class" additional legroom and
> no queuing at the departure desk to get decent seats. Can you
> understand that? Its why we will use them again. Because they *do*
> have "frills".
No- the point is that you have to _pay_ for them. There isn't a low-cost
airline which I can think of which doesn't allow paid for extras- some
offer more than others, that's all. All no-frills mean is that you have
to pay for extras, not that they're not offered. There are low-cost
airlines which actually have pre-assigned seats. (Norwegian, BMIBaby,
Thomsonfly, for example.) There are low-cost airlines which allow you
extra legroom (BMIBaby, Monarch, as you found out.) Most low-cost
no-frills airlines will sell you champagne- some will let you prebook
meals, and on and on it goes.
Clear now? You were flying on a low-cost, no-frills airline.
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007
Aug 2nd 2007 | 11:04 pm
#100
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Brits abroad...
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 10:59:50 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
>> (*)) wrote:
>>
>> >> I got stopped by a begger yesterday (in the UK).
>> >> He asked if I could "spare a penny". I really don't think
>> >> he expected that level of contribution.
>> >
>> >Give him one next time!
>>
>> but you dont know where hes been!
>
>What is interesting i:
>
>"Spain (13m British visits), where 6,078 passports were lost April
>05-Mar 06. In France, the second most popular destination with 10m
>visits, just 713 passports were reported lost, said the Foreign and
>Commonwealth Office on Thursday."
>
>The difference is interesting, though 6,000 out of 13 million doesn't
>seem terrible to me...
The difference isn't that surprising - when you only leave the car to
visit the wine shop at calais, there's not much opportunity to lose
your passport, compared with sitting with it in your bag on the beach
or wondering through some drunken night out.
Jim.
_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
>> (*)) wrote:
>>
>> >> I got stopped by a begger yesterday (in the UK).
>> >> He asked if I could "spare a penny". I really don't think
>> >> he expected that level of contribution.
>> >
>> >Give him one next time!
>>
>> but you dont know where hes been!
>
>What is interesting i:
>
>"Spain (13m British visits), where 6,078 passports were lost April
>05-Mar 06. In France, the second most popular destination with 10m
>visits, just 713 passports were reported lost, said the Foreign and
>Commonwealth Office on Thursday."
>
>The difference is interesting, though 6,000 out of 13 million doesn't
>seem terrible to me...
The difference isn't that surprising - when you only leave the car to
visit the wine shop at calais, there's not much opportunity to lose
your passport, compared with sitting with it in your bag on the beach
or wondering through some drunken night out.
Jim.
Aug 2nd 2007 | 11:05 pm
#101
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Brits abroad...
Jim Ley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 10:59:50 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
> _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
[]
> >What is interesting i:
> >
> >"Spain (13m British visits), where 6,078 passports were lost April
> >05-Mar 06. In France, the second most popular destination with 10m
> >visits, just 713 passports were reported lost, said the Foreign and
> >Commonwealth Office on Thursday."
> >
> >The difference is interesting, though 6,000 out of 13 million doesn't
> >seem terrible to me...
>
> The difference isn't that surprising - when you only leave the car to
> visit the wine shop at calais, there's not much opportunity to lose
> your passport, compared with sitting with it in your bag on the beach
> or wondering through some drunken night out.
And given the drunkent nights out, 6,000 out of 13,000,000 doesn't seem
too bad!
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 10:59:50 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
> _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
[]
> >What is interesting i:
> >
> >"Spain (13m British visits), where 6,078 passports were lost April
> >05-Mar 06. In France, the second most popular destination with 10m
> >visits, just 713 passports were reported lost, said the Foreign and
> >Commonwealth Office on Thursday."
> >
> >The difference is interesting, though 6,000 out of 13 million doesn't
> >seem terrible to me...
>
> The difference isn't that surprising - when you only leave the car to
> visit the wine shop at calais, there's not much opportunity to lose
> your passport, compared with sitting with it in your bag on the beach
> or wondering through some drunken night out.
And given the drunkent nights out, 6,000 out of 13,000,000 doesn't seem
too bad!
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007
Aug 2nd 2007 | 11:09 pm
#102
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Brits abroad...
Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
(*)) wrote:
> You were flying on a low-cost, no-frills airline.
no frills to me is no booked seats, queue up, thats what I dont do,
perhaps you need a code word so you know what I mean, lets use "nayr".
Out of interest which "frills" airline would you recommend for next
time (any London airport direct to Tenerife (norte is best for onward
flight)).
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)
(*)) wrote:
> You were flying on a low-cost, no-frills airline.
no frills to me is no booked seats, queue up, thats what I dont do,
perhaps you need a code word so you know what I mean, lets use "nayr".
Out of interest which "frills" airline would you recommend for next
time (any London airport direct to Tenerife (norte is best for onward
flight)).
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)
Aug 2nd 2007 | 11:19 pm
#103
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Brits abroad...
The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
> Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
> (*)) wrote:
>
> > You were flying on a low-cost, no-frills airline.
>
> no frills to me is no booked seats, queue up, thats what I dont do,
Even Ryanair allows preboarding. (It doesn't always work if you're at an
airport which requires you taking a bus to the plane though.)
> perhaps you need a code word so you know what I mean, lets use "nayr".
_I'm_ clear on what no-frills means. It means you pay for the extras.
> Out of interest which "frills" airline would you recommend for next
> time (any London airport direct to Tenerife (norte is best for onward
> flight)).
I don't know if any do...
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007
> Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
> (*)) wrote:
>
> > You were flying on a low-cost, no-frills airline.
>
> no frills to me is no booked seats, queue up, thats what I dont do,
Even Ryanair allows preboarding. (It doesn't always work if you're at an
airport which requires you taking a bus to the plane though.)
> perhaps you need a code word so you know what I mean, lets use "nayr".
_I'm_ clear on what no-frills means. It means you pay for the extras.
> Out of interest which "frills" airline would you recommend for next
> time (any London airport direct to Tenerife (norte is best for onward
> flight)).
I don't know if any do...
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007
Aug 3rd 2007 | 12:28 am
#104
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Brits abroad...
Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
(*)) wrote:
>> no frills to me is no booked seats, queue up, thats what I dont do,
>
>Even Ryanair allows preboarding. (It doesn't always work if you're at an
>airport which requires you taking a bus to the plane though.)
Does it? I had to queue
>> perhaps you need a code word so you know what I mean, lets use "nayr".
>
>_I'm_ clear on what no-frills means. It means you pay for the extras.
thats your idea, its not mine. The "frill" I want is booked chosen
seats, thats why I dont fly Ryan. Different people will define it
differently. To me no frills is you cant get stuff, I dont care if you
pay in the base price or not.
>> Out of interest which "frills" airline would you recommend for next
>> time (any London airport direct to Tenerife (norte is best for onward
>> flight)).
>
>I don't know if any do...
I didnt find any when we looked. Thats why we went Monarch! :-)
Actually I thought them v good if you pay for the seat upgrade, you
dont get that on, say, BA, so we will stay with them.
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)
(*)) wrote:
>> no frills to me is no booked seats, queue up, thats what I dont do,
>
>Even Ryanair allows preboarding. (It doesn't always work if you're at an
>airport which requires you taking a bus to the plane though.)
Does it? I had to queue
>> perhaps you need a code word so you know what I mean, lets use "nayr".
>
>_I'm_ clear on what no-frills means. It means you pay for the extras.
thats your idea, its not mine. The "frill" I want is booked chosen
seats, thats why I dont fly Ryan. Different people will define it
differently. To me no frills is you cant get stuff, I dont care if you
pay in the base price or not.
>> Out of interest which "frills" airline would you recommend for next
>> time (any London airport direct to Tenerife (norte is best for onward
>> flight)).
>
>I don't know if any do...
I didnt find any when we looked. Thats why we went Monarch! :-)
Actually I thought them v good if you pay for the seat upgrade, you
dont get that on, say, BA, so we will stay with them.
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)
Aug 3rd 2007 | 12:32 am
#105
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Brits abroad...
The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
> Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
> (*)) wrote:
>
> >> no frills to me is no booked seats, queue up, thats what I dont do,
> >
> >Even Ryanair allows preboarding. (It doesn't always work if you're at an
> >airport which requires you taking a bus to the plane though.)
>
> Does it?
Yes- you _pay_ for it.
> >> perhaps you need a code word so you know what I mean, lets use "nayr".
> >
> >_I'm_ clear on what no-frills means. It means you pay for the extras.
>
> thats your idea, its not mine.
It's what it means.
> The "frill" I want is booked chosen
> seats, thats why I dont fly Ryan.
There are plenty of low-cost no-frills airlines (like Monarch) which
give you seats.
> Different people will define it
> differently. To me no frills is you cant get stuff, I dont care if you
> pay in the base price or not.
You can pre-board with Ryanair.
> >> Out of interest which "frills" airline would you recommend for next
> >> time (any London airport direct to Tenerife (norte is best for onward
> >> flight)).
> >
> >I don't know if any do...
>
> I didnt find any when we looked. Thats why we went Monarch! :-)
> Actually I thought them v good if you pay for the seat upgrade, you
> dont get that on, say, BA, so we will stay with them.
Lots of the no-frill airlines like Monarch offer such a service. I think
with BMIBaby it used to be about £15-30 per flight.
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007
> Following up to [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
> (*)) wrote:
>
> >> no frills to me is no booked seats, queue up, thats what I dont do,
> >
> >Even Ryanair allows preboarding. (It doesn't always work if you're at an
> >airport which requires you taking a bus to the plane though.)
>
> Does it?
Yes- you _pay_ for it.
> >> perhaps you need a code word so you know what I mean, lets use "nayr".
> >
> >_I'm_ clear on what no-frills means. It means you pay for the extras.
>
> thats your idea, its not mine.
It's what it means.
> The "frill" I want is booked chosen
> seats, thats why I dont fly Ryan.
There are plenty of low-cost no-frills airlines (like Monarch) which
give you seats.
> Different people will define it
> differently. To me no frills is you cant get stuff, I dont care if you
> pay in the base price or not.
You can pre-board with Ryanair.
> >> Out of interest which "frills" airline would you recommend for next
> >> time (any London airport direct to Tenerife (norte is best for onward
> >> flight)).
> >
> >I don't know if any do...
>
> I didnt find any when we looked. Thats why we went Monarch! :-)
> Actually I thought them v good if you pay for the seat upgrade, you
> dont get that on, say, BA, so we will stay with them.
Lots of the no-frill airlines like Monarch offer such a service. I think
with BMIBaby it used to be about £15-30 per flight.
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007
