PS
Apparently they are about to start flying to Gatwick from Newquay again
I'm genuinely curious why you are happy with that?
I have an interest that's all.
PS
Apparently they are about to start flying to Gatwick from Newquay again
Cool.Totally different. Lancasters had piston engines. Turboprops are gas turbines, which are more efficient than turbojets on short routes at lower altitudes.
The bottom line is we’re meant to be flying less, not more.
I'm genuinely curious why you are happy with that?
I have an interest that's all.
True, but if we have to fly, then a turboprop burns less fuel per mile, compared to a jet, and for many short haul routes would be only marginally longer duration to the trip. We should be using more turboprops and fewer jets, where practicable.The bottom line is we’re meant to be flying less, not more.
but who cares on a 1hr flight.
To be fair, one hour is neither here nor there when you’re talking about decades...Excluding the time difference though.
Excluding the time difference though.
about 50 years going from Newquay to London
Because I have friends/family at the far eastern edge of Europe who I like to see once or twice a year and can get direct flights from Gatwick.
That's why.
Heathrow is not the be all and end all of flights from here despite what the business community says,have been listening to the news on this subject regularly since it came up.Thanks. Been a lot of negativity about losing heathrow.
Trains are not a no-brainer solution though. Look at the furore over HS2. There's an argument that high speed rail is most needed in outlying areas, eg Cornwall, Scotland, West Wales, etc, but the environmental insult in providing/upgrading the infrastructure would be significant. In those terms, there might be an arguable balance to be struck, and a role for short haul air travel.