Discussion:
Check temperature......but with what?
(too old to reply)
Roger
2020-05-20 07:42:18 UTC
Permalink
We have become well used to having out temperature checked by means of an infrared thermometer.

Airports are deciding whether people can enter workplaces, or even fly accross the globe, on the basis of the readings of these thermometers.

Of course most of these are based on a standard chinese model and arrive with no calibration, and with most cases insufficient documentation to allow vertified calibration.

We did a few tests and found errors of over 1.5C; which is clearly useless for checking fever.

A cycnical co-worker noted that the Chinese now control who works and who doesn't, who flies and who gets quarantined.....and you can be sure that these devices have built in face recognition connected by 5G......:D
Keema's Nan
2020-05-20 07:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
We have become well used to having out temperature checked by means of an
infrared thermometer.
Have we indeed?

Do a lot of travelling, do we?
Post by Roger
Airports are deciding whether people can enter workplaces, or even fly
accross the globe, on the basis of the readings of these thermometers.
I’m sure your bosses will charter a private jet, if you need to move
elsewhere in a hurry.
Post by Roger
Of course most of these are based on a standard chinese model and arrive with
no calibration, and with most cases insufficient documentation to allow
vertified calibration.
We
Who is we?
Post by Roger
did a few tests and found errors of over 1.5C; which is clearly useless
for checking fever.
A cycnical co-worker
You mean the one sitting next to you typing pro-British establishment
propaganda over social media networks?
Post by Roger
noted that the Chinese now control who works and who
doesn't, who flies and who gets quarantined.....and you can be sure that
these devices have built in face recognition connected by 5G......:D
Wear a burkha. That should stop them monitoring your every movement.
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-05-20 13:44:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 May 2020 08:55:09 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Roger
We have become well used to having out temperature checked by means of an
infrared thermometer.
Have we indeed?
Do a lot of travelling, do we?
Post by Roger
Airports are deciding whether people can enter workplaces, or even fly
accross the globe, on the basis of the readings of these thermometers.
I’m sure your bosses will charter a private jet, if you need to move
elsewhere in a hurry.
Post by Roger
Of course most of these are based on a standard chinese model and arrive with
no calibration, and with most cases insufficient documentation to allow
vertified calibration.
We
Who is we?
Post by Roger
did a few tests and found errors of over 1.5C; which is clearly useless
for checking fever.
A cycnical co-worker
You mean the one sitting next to you typing pro-British establishment
propaganda over social media networks?
Post by Roger
noted that the Chinese now control who works and who
doesn't, who flies and who gets quarantined.....and you can be sure that
these devices have built in face recognition connected by 5G......:D
Wear a burkha. That should stop them monitoring your every movement.
A cheap face mask does that quite adequately.
Col
2020-05-20 08:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
We have become well used to having out temperature checked by means of an infrared thermometer.
The whole temperature measuring thing is a farce anyway, at least where
I work. We have to do it twice a day, when you arrive and when you
leave. You are required to do it on your wrist and I always walk to
work, I have been starting at 6am since lockdown began and if it's been
a cold morning I can record a temp in the low 20s. It's a complete joke
and utterly useless for detecting any fever. It's simply a corporate
box-ticking exercise to demonstrate that they are 'doing something'.
Post by Roger
Airports are deciding whether people can enter workplaces, or even fly accross the globe, on the basis of the readings of these thermometers.
Of course most of these are based on a standard chinese model and arrive with no calibration, and with most cases insufficient documentation to allow vertified calibration.
We did a few tests and found errors of over 1.5C; which is clearly useless for checking fever.
A cycnical co-worker noted that the Chinese now control who works and who doesn't, who flies and who gets quarantined.....and you can be sure that these devices have built in face recognition connected by 5G......:D
We have been forced to wear masks at work.
They were manufactured in Hubei Province, China.
Oh the irony.
--
Col
Roger
2020-05-20 08:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Roger
We have become well used to having out temperature checked by means of an infrared thermometer.
The whole temperature measuring thing is a farce anyway, at least where
I work. We have to do it twice a day, when you arrive and when you
leave. You are required to do it on your wrist
Here it's supposed to be on your forehead. There's one poor foreman who's very short, so the workers take the mick by going down on their knees and pretending to whip themselves in penitence :D
A. Filip
2020-05-20 09:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
We have become well used to having out temperature checked by means of an infrared thermometer.
Airports are deciding whether people can enter workplaces, or even fly
accross the globe, on the basis of the readings of these thermometers.
Of course most of these are based on a standard chinese model and
arrive with no calibration, and with most cases insufficient
documentation to allow vertified calibration.
We did a few tests and found errors of over 1.5C; which is clearly useless for checking fever.
A cycnical co-worker noted that the Chinese now control who works and
who doesn't, who flies and who gets quarantined.....and you can be
sure that these devices have built in face recognition connected by
5G......:D
You most likely confuse "a few inches away" thermometer with infrared
camera measuring human temperature.

Airport can get a few "higher class" infrared thermometer and conduct
temperature measure e.g. during security checks, can't they? It won't
_stop_ Covid-19. It will be one more step to _reduce_ infection rate.
Anyway it is "not a bad idea" even after Covid-19 pandemic. It should
help to reduce yearly influenza infections and may at least slow next
SARS/MERS/Covid-19 with policy "measure temperature always, (slightly)
lower no-pass temperature during epidemic".

Have you considered "bio-terrorists" using Covid-19?
Asymptomatic carriers are not too hard to find even if Covid-19
"lacks in deadliness".
--
A. Filip
| If you are what you eat, I guess that makes me a cheese danish.
| (Anonymous)
Roger
2020-05-20 10:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by A. Filip
Post by Roger
Airports are deciding whether people can enter workplaces, or even fly
accross the globe, on the basis of the readings of these thermometers.
Of course most of these are based on a standard chinese model and
arrive with no calibration, and with most cases insufficient
documentation to allow vertified calibration.
We did a few tests and found errors of over 1.5C; which is clearly useless for checking fever.
A cycnical co-worker noted that the Chinese now control who works and
who doesn't, who flies and who gets quarantined.....and you can be
sure that these devices have built in face recognition connected by
5G......:D
You most likely confuse "a few inches away" thermometer with infrared
camera measuring human temperature.
Airport can get a few "higher class" infrared thermometer and conduct
temperature measure e.g. during security checks, can't they? It won't
_stop_ Covid-19. It will be one more step to _reduce_ infection rate.
Anyway it is "not a bad idea" even after Covid-19 pandemic. It should
help to reduce yearly influenza infections and may at least slow next
SARS/MERS/Covid-19 with policy "measure temperature always, (slightly)
lower no-pass temperature during epidemic".
Have you considered "bio-terrorists" using Covid-19?
Asymptomatic carriers are not too hard to find even if Covid-19
"lacks in deadliness".
--
A. Filip
| If you are what you eat, I guess that makes me a cheese danish.
| (Anonymous)
The 'cynical comment' of my co-worker was in jest; hence the smiley.

In effect I would hope airport authorities are tackling the problem with better instrumentation than that which is being using in e.g. workplaces and elsewhere.
A. Filip
2020-05-20 10:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by A. Filip
Post by Roger
Airports are deciding whether people can enter workplaces, or even fly
accross the globe, on the basis of the readings of these thermometers.
Of course most of these are based on a standard chinese model and
arrive with no calibration, and with most cases insufficient
documentation to allow vertified calibration.
We did a few tests and found errors of over 1.5C; which is clearly useless for checking fever.
A cycnical co-worker noted that the Chinese now control who works and
who doesn't, who flies and who gets quarantined.....and you can be
sure that these devices have built in face recognition connected by
5G......:D
You most likely confuse "a few inches away" thermometer with infrared
camera measuring human temperature.
Airport can get a few "higher class" infrared thermometer and conduct
temperature measure e.g. during security checks, can't they? It won't
_stop_ Covid-19. It will be one more step to _reduce_ infection rate.
Anyway it is "not a bad idea" even after Covid-19 pandemic. It should
help to reduce yearly influenza infections and may at least slow next
SARS/MERS/Covid-19 with policy "measure temperature always, (slightly)
lower no-pass temperature during epidemic".
Have you considered "bio-terrorists" using Covid-19?
Asymptomatic carriers are not too hard to find even if Covid-19
"lacks in deadliness".
The 'cynical comment' of my co-worker was in jest; hence the smiley.
In effect I would hope airport authorities are tackling the problem
with better instrumentation than that which is being using in
e.g. workplaces and elsewhere.
In practice: infrared cameras should search for people with high+
temperature for checks with more precise methods for the "legal" record.
It should be a sensible procedure as long as there is no real need for
something more drastic.

BTW AFAIK there are two strains of Covid-19. Reducing the worse one may
be a good idea.

https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/infections-and-poisoning/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-covid-19-general-advice
Post by Roger
*Symptoms of coronavirus*
+ continuous cough
+ fever/high temperature (37.8C or greater)
[…]
--
A. Filip
| There are no great men, only great challenges that ordinary men are
| forced by circumstances to meet. (Admiral William Halsey)
Roger
2020-05-20 11:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by A. Filip
In practice: infrared cameras should search for people with high+
temperature for checks with more precise methods for the "legal" record.
It should be a sensible procedure as long as there is no real need for
something more drastic.
BTW AFAIK there are two strains of Covid-19. Reducing the worse one may
be a good idea.
https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/infections-and-poisoning/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-covid-19-general-advice
Post by Roger
*Symptoms of coronavirus*
+ continuous cough
+ fever/high temperature (37.8C or greater)
[…]
--
A. Filip
| There are no great men, only great challenges that ordinary men are
| forced by circumstances to meet. (Admiral William Halsey)
Somewhere along the line there has to be a balance between safety and practicality.

I thought the idea of not requesting quarantine between France/Eire actually made a lot of sense, allthough I would have extended it to all neighboring countries; plus a rule you can do one country a day getting a stamp in each country.

It's the kind of rule that's easy to make fun off and pick holes in, but a very practical way of easily limiting travel until such time as things are known to be under control.

But in the long term maybe some other plan is needed to discourage people from engaging in intercontinental travel on a daily basis. Taxing air fuel at the same rate as car fuel might work :D
Keema's Nan
2020-05-20 11:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by A. Filip
In practice: infrared cameras should search for people with high+
temperature for checks with more precise methods for the "legal" record.
It should be a sensible procedure as long as there is no real need for
something more drastic.
BTW AFAIK there are two strains of Covid-19.
Maybe one is the Canadian version (stolen by the Chinese) and the other is
the US version (financed by Bill Gates?).

Perhaps the idea was to make it impossible for anyone other than the
inventors to find a vaccine, because the two strains would confuse scientists
who were not in the Gates/Bilderberg/Cercle orbit?

That way, it makes it much easier for Western owned bigpharma to rake in the
$$$trillions of profits across the globe.
Post by Roger
Post by A. Filip
Reducing the worse one may
be a good idea.
https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/infections-and-poisoning
/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-covid-19-general-advice
Post by Roger
*Symptoms of coronavirus*
+ continuous cough
+ fever/high temperature (37.8C or greater)
[…]
--
A. Filip
Post by Roger
There are no great men, only great challenges that ordinary men are
forced by circumstances to meet. (Admiral William Halsey)
Somewhere along the line there has to be a balance between safety and practicality.
I thought the idea of not requesting quarantine between France/Eire actually
made a lot of sense, allthough I would have extended it to all neighboring
countries; plus a rule you can do one country a day getting a stamp in each
country.
It's the kind of rule that's easy to make fun off and pick holes in, but a
very practical way of easily limiting travel until such time as things are
known to be under control.
But in the long term maybe some other plan is needed to discourage people
from engaging in intercontinental travel on a daily basis. Taxing air fuel at
the same rate as car fuel might work :D
JNugent
2020-05-22 13:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by A. Filip
In practice: infrared cameras should search for people with high+
temperature for checks with more precise methods for the "legal" record.
It should be a sensible procedure as long as there is no real need for
something more drastic.
BTW AFAIK there are two strains of Covid-19. Reducing the worse one may
be a good idea.
https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/infections-and-poisoning/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-covid-19-general-advice
Post by Roger
*Symptoms of coronavirus*
+ continuous cough
+ fever/high temperature (37.8C or greater)
[…]
--
A. Filip
| There are no great men, only great challenges that ordinary men are
| forced by circumstances to meet. (Admiral William Halsey)
Somewhere along the line there has to be a balance between safety and practicality.
I thought the idea of not requesting quarantine between France/Eire actually made a lot of sense, allthough I would have extended it to all neighboring countries; plus a rule you can do one country a day getting a stamp in each country.
It's the kind of rule that's easy to make fun off and pick holes in, but a very practical way of easily limiting travel until such time as things are known to be under control.
But in the long term maybe some other plan is needed to discourage people from engaging in intercontinental travel on a daily basis. Taxing air fuel at the same rate as car fuel might work :D
Are you aware that international treaty prevents the taxation of
aviation fuel?

All that would happen is that aircraft would be refuelled in countries
obeying the treaty, distorting travel patterns, available distances and
routes. If the UK taxed fuel like it does petrol and diesel, no aircraft
owner would be able to refuel here.
Keema's Nan
2020-05-22 13:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Post by A. Filip
In practice: infrared cameras should search for people with high+
temperature for checks with more precise methods for the "legal" record.
It should be a sensible procedure as long as there is no real need for
something more drastic.
BTW AFAIK there are two strains of Covid-19. Reducing the worse one may
be a good idea.
https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/infections-and-poisonin
g/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-covid-19-general-advice
Post by Roger
*Symptoms of coronavirus*
+ continuous cough
+ fever/high temperature (37.8C or greater)
[…]
--
A. Filip
Post by Roger
There are no great men, only great challenges that ordinary men are
forced by circumstances to meet. (Admiral William Halsey)
Somewhere along the line there has to be a balance between safety and practicality.
I thought the idea of not requesting quarantine between France/Eire
actually made a lot of sense, allthough I would have extended it to all
neighboring countries; plus a rule you can do one country a day getting a
stamp in each country.
It's the kind of rule that's easy to make fun off and pick holes in, but a
very practical way of easily limiting travel until such time as things are
known to be under control.
But in the long term maybe some other plan is needed to discourage people
from engaging in intercontinental travel on a daily basis. Taxing air fuel
at the same rate as car fuel might work :D
Are you aware that international treaty prevents the taxation of
aviation fuel?
All that would happen is that aircraft would be refuelled in countries
obeying the treaty, distorting travel patterns, available distances and
routes. If the UK taxed fuel like it does petrol and diesel, no aircraft
owner would be able to refuel here.
Good.

That’ll teach the greedy bastards; and far less needless CO2 emissions.

If the lockdown has taught intelligent people one thing, it not to believe
the liars who tell everyone the world economy would fall apart without
endless air travel.
Roger
2020-05-22 14:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Post by A. Filip
In practice: infrared cameras should search for people with high+
temperature for checks with more precise methods for the "legal" record.
It should be a sensible procedure as long as there is no real need for
something more drastic.
BTW AFAIK there are two strains of Covid-19. Reducing the worse one may
be a good idea.
https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/infections-and-poisoning/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-covid-19-general-advice
Post by Roger
*Symptoms of coronavirus*
+ continuous cough
+ fever/high temperature (37.8C or greater)
[…]
--
A. Filip
| There are no great men, only great challenges that ordinary men are
| forced by circumstances to meet. (Admiral William Halsey)
Somewhere along the line there has to be a balance between safety and practicality.
I thought the idea of not requesting quarantine between France/Eire actually made a lot of sense, allthough I would have extended it to all neighboring countries; plus a rule you can do one country a day getting a stamp in each country.
It's the kind of rule that's easy to make fun off and pick holes in, but a very practical way of easily limiting travel until such time as things are known to be under control.
But in the long term maybe some other plan is needed to discourage people from engaging in intercontinental travel on a daily basis. Taxing air fuel at the same rate as car fuel might work :D
Are you aware that international treaty prevents the taxation of
aviation fuel?
I am fully aware of an international treaty that prevents countries charging tax on the fuel that is in the tank of an aircraft when it lands (as long as it doesn't remove it). That's not the same as charging tax on fuel you put into a plane.

Also, why do you assume I was proposing that the UK do this unilaterally?
JNugent
2020-05-22 15:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Post by A. Filip
In practice: infrared cameras should search for people with high+
temperature for checks with more precise methods for the "legal" record.
It should be a sensible procedure as long as there is no real need for
something more drastic.
BTW AFAIK there are two strains of Covid-19. Reducing the worse one may
be a good idea.
https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/infections-and-poisoning/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-covid-19-general-advice
Post by Roger
*Symptoms of coronavirus*
+ continuous cough
+ fever/high temperature (37.8C or greater)
[…]
--
A. Filip
| There are no great men, only great challenges that ordinary men are
| forced by circumstances to meet. (Admiral William Halsey)
Somewhere along the line there has to be a balance between safety and practicality.
I thought the idea of not requesting quarantine between France/Eire actually made a lot of sense, allthough I would have extended it to all neighboring countries; plus a rule you can do one country a day getting a stamp in each country.
It's the kind of rule that's easy to make fun off and pick holes in, but a very practical way of easily limiting travel until such time as things are known to be under control.
But in the long term maybe some other plan is needed to discourage people from engaging in intercontinental travel on a daily basis. Taxing air fuel at the same rate as car fuel might work :D
Are you aware that international treaty prevents the taxation of
aviation fuel?
I am fully aware of an international treaty that prevents countries charging tax on the fuel that is in the tank of an aircraft when it lands (as long as it doesn't remove it). That's not the same as charging tax on fuel you put into a plane.
That's very magnanimous. After all, we all get charged duty and VAT on
the fuel in our car-tanks at Calais, don't we?
Post by Roger
Also, why do you assume I was proposing that the UK do this unilaterally?
The usual rejoinder here would be something like "Good luck getting the
USA to agree to that".

But I don't wish you good luck with it.
Roger
2020-05-22 15:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
I am fully aware of an international treaty that prevents countries charging tax on the fuel that is in the tank of an aircraft when it lands (as long as it doesn't remove it). That's not the same as charging tax on fuel you put into a plane.
That's very magnanimous. After all, we all get charged duty and VAT on
the fuel in our car-tanks at Calais, don't we?
But you get charged pretty much the same tax on petrol wherever you fill it.
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Also, why do you assume I was proposing that the UK do this unilaterally?
The usual rejoinder here would be something like "Good luck getting the
USA to agree to that".
But I don't wish you good luck with it.
The US does charge tax on aircraft fuel. Typical passenger taxes are also higher than Europe.

Europe has tended to avoid air taxes because countries fear that people will fly from nearby airports in neighbouring countries, so what is needed is a pan European agreement. EU attempts failed in part because they would only be active in 27 countries; Switzerland in particular would be a great hub!

Going through the council of Europe might be a better bet.
JNugent
2020-05-22 16:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
I am fully aware of an international treaty that prevents countries charging tax on the fuel that is in the tank of an aircraft when it lands (as long as it doesn't remove it). That's not the same as charging tax on fuel you put into a plane.
That's very magnanimous. After all, we all get charged duty and VAT on
the fuel in our car-tanks at Calais, don't we?
But you get charged pretty much the same tax on petrol wherever you fill it.
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Also, why do you assume I was proposing that the UK do this unilaterally?
The usual rejoinder here would be something like "Good luck getting the
USA to agree to that".
But I don't wish you good luck with it.
The US does charge tax on aircraft fuel. Typical passenger taxes are also higher than Europe.
Europe has tended to avoid air taxes because countries fear that people will fly from nearby airports in neighbouring countries, so what is needed is a pan European agreement. EU attempts failed in part because they would only be active in 27 countries; Switzerland in particular would be a great hub!
Going through the council of Europe might be a better bet.
No state will impose on aviation fuel the sort of punitive taxation we
see on motor fuel in western Europe.

That's just a wet dream for the Monbigots of this world.
Roger
2020-05-22 16:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
No state will impose on aviation fuel the sort of punitive taxation we
see on motor fuel in western Europe.
That was a provocative exaggeration, complete with smiley. But you know I did just jot down some figures and it doesn't give such ludicrous results.

€1 Litre is about €40 a leg on European flight. Sounds a lot in terms of what we are used to these days, but compare with train prices just from one side of the UK to another than it ain't much ;-)

Transatlantic would take a bigger hit. But then again, I remember getting a ticket to Toronto in the 80's for £450 (return) and everybody being amazed at how cheap is was. I guess by today's prices that would be about £800, which is about what a cheapest return might cost with fuel tax.
JNugent
2020-05-22 17:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by JNugent
No state will impose on aviation fuel the sort of punitive taxation we
see on motor fuel in western Europe.
That was a provocative exaggeration, complete with smiley. But you know I did just jot down some figures and it doesn't give such ludicrous results.
€1 Litre is about €40 a leg on European flight.
What does that mean? That an aircraft only uses 40 litres of fuel from
take-off to landing?

Or would it be €1 per leg per litre (ie €2 per passenger per litre)?
Post by Roger
Sounds a lot in terms of what we are used to these days, but compare with train prices just from one side of the UK to another than it ain't much ;-)
Railway travel is inherently more expensive than most other modes. That
isn't a reason to increase the costs of other modes.
Post by Roger
Transatlantic would take a bigger hit. But then again, I remember getting a ticket to Toronto in the 80's for £450 (return) and everybody being amazed at how cheap is was. I guess by today's prices that would be about £800, which is about what a cheapest return might cost with fuel tax.
In normal times, travelling to the eastern seaboard of North America for
£400 return isn't out of the question.

Who would benefit from doubling that price?

Why should anyone's costs be higher than they need to be?

Are our living standards too high?
Keema's Nan
2020-05-22 17:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Post by JNugent
No state will impose on aviation fuel the sort of punitive taxation we
see on motor fuel in western Europe.
That was a provocative exaggeration, complete with smiley. But you know I
did just jot down some figures and it doesn't give such ludicrous results.
€1 Litre is about €40 a leg on European flight.
What does that mean? That an aircraft only uses 40 litres of fuel from
take-off to landing?
Or would it be €1 per leg per litre (ie €2 per passenger per litre)?
Well, duh....
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Sounds a lot in terms of what we are used to these days, but compare with
train prices just from one side of the UK to another than it ain't much ;-)
Railway travel is inherently more expensive than most other modes. That
isn't a reason to increase the costs of other modes.
Why not?

Ordinary people seem to manage with Skype and the alternatives. Why can’t
arrogant tosser business people?
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Transatlantic would take a bigger hit. But then again, I remember getting a
ticket to Toronto in the 80's for £450 (return) and everybody being amazed
at how cheap is was. I guess by today's prices that would be about £800,
which is about what a cheapest return might cost with fuel tax.
In normal times, travelling to the eastern seaboard of North America for
£400 return isn't out of the question.
Who would benefit from doubling that price?
Those who have to breathe the polluted air.
Post by JNugent
Why should anyone's costs be higher than they need to be?
Environmentalism.
Post by JNugent
Are our living standards too high?
Far too high.
JNugent
2020-05-23 00:33:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Post by JNugent
No state will impose on aviation fuel the sort of punitive taxation we
see on motor fuel in western Europe.
That was a provocative exaggeration, complete with smiley. But you know I
did just jot down some figures and it doesn't give such ludicrous results.
€1 Litre is about €40 a leg on European flight.
What does that mean? That an aircraft only uses 40 litres of fuel from
take-off to landing?
Or would it be €1 per leg per litre (ie €2 per passenger per litre)?
Well, duh....
Ypou don't know either, eh?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Sounds a lot in terms of what we are used to these days, but compare with
train prices just from one side of the UK to another than it ain't much ;-)
Railway travel is inherently more expensive than most other modes. That
isn't a reason to increase the costs of other modes.
Why not?
Would you want to increase the price of bread so that it was the same
per unit as Beluga Caviar?

If you wouldn't, why not? And what's the difference? Consumers naturally
graviate towards the best value commodity. You can pay to travel by
train to Rome if you like. In normal times, when they return, I'll go by
british Airways.
Post by Keema's Nan
Ordinary people seem to manage with Skype and the alternatives. Why can’t
arrogant tosser business people?
You'd rather see a holiday destination on a computer screen than with
your own eyes? Be assured by someone at the other end that the weather
is lovely?

It takes all sorts.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Transatlantic would take a bigger hit. But then again, I remember getting a
ticket to Toronto in the 80's for £450 (return) and everybody being amazed
at how cheap is was. I guess by today's prices that would be about £800,
which is about what a cheapest return might cost with fuel tax.
In normal times, travelling to the eastern seaboard of North America for
£400 return isn't out of the question.
Who would benefit from doubling that price?
Those who have to breathe the polluted air.
What benefit would that be? Would putting up the prices clean the
atmosphere (other than by creating a situation where "ordinary people"
can't afford to travel)?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Why should anyone's costs be higher than they need to be?
Environmentalism.
Explain how charging double for a ticket reduces an aeroplane's emissions.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Are our living standards too high?
Far too high.
I see.
abelard
2020-05-23 17:18:53 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 May 2020 18:41:43 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Post by JNugent
No state will impose on aviation fuel the sort of punitive taxation we
see on motor fuel in western Europe.
That was a provocative exaggeration, complete with smiley. But you know I
did just jot down some figures and it doesn't give such ludicrous results.
€1 Litre is about €40 a leg on European flight.
What does that mean? That an aircraft only uses 40 litres of fuel from
take-off to landing?
Or would it be €1 per leg per litre (ie €2 per passenger per litre)?
Well, duh....
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Sounds a lot in terms of what we are used to these days, but compare with
train prices just from one side of the UK to another than it ain't much ;-)
Railway travel is inherently more expensive than most other modes. That
isn't a reason to increase the costs of other modes.
Why not?
Ordinary people seem to manage with Skype and the alternatives. Why can’t
arrogant tosser business people?
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Transatlantic would take a bigger hit. But then again, I remember getting a
ticket to Toronto in the 80's for £450 (return) and everybody being amazed
at how cheap is was. I guess by today's prices that would be about £800,
which is about what a cheapest return might cost with fuel tax.
In normal times, travelling to the eastern seaboard of North America for
£400 return isn't out of the question.
Who would benefit from doubling that price?
Those who have to breathe the polluted air.
Post by JNugent
Why should anyone's costs be higher than they need to be?
Environmentalism.
Post by JNugent
Are our living standards too high?
Far too high.
pollution is not a higher standard of living...pollution is a cost
that lowers the general standards of living, to allow idiots
to go to ibiza and buy chinese plastic ducks

for all the fossil media whining, this game is benefiting a lot
of people
(no, i don't believe everyone is equal)

ps i save around 20% when i fill up in spain
and
iir friends in n. italy save when the fill up in switz...
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2020-05-23 17:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Fri, 22 May 2020 18:41:43 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Post by JNugent
No state will impose on aviation fuel the sort of punitive taxation we
see on motor fuel in western Europe.
That was a provocative exaggeration, complete with smiley. But you know I
did just jot down some figures and it doesn't give such ludicrous results.
€1 Litre is about €40 a leg on European flight.
What does that mean? That an aircraft only uses 40 litres of fuel from
take-off to landing?
Or would it be €1 per leg per litre (ie €2 per passenger per litre)?
Well, duh....
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Sounds a lot in terms of what we are used to these days, but compare with
train prices just from one side of the UK to another than it ain't much ;-)
Railway travel is inherently more expensive than most other modes. That
isn't a reason to increase the costs of other modes.
Why not?
Ordinary people seem to manage with Skype and the alternatives. Why can’t
arrogant tosser business people?
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Transatlantic would take a bigger hit. But then again, I remember getting a
ticket to Toronto in the 80's for £450 (return) and everybody being amazed
at how cheap is was. I guess by today's prices that would be about £800,
which is about what a cheapest return might cost with fuel tax.
In normal times, travelling to the eastern seaboard of North America for
£400 return isn't out of the question.
Who would benefit from doubling that price?
Those who have to breathe the polluted air.
Post by JNugent
Why should anyone's costs be higher than they need to be?
Environmentalism.
Post by JNugent
Are our living standards too high?
Far too high.
pollution is not a higher standard of living...pollution is a cost
that lowers the general standards of living, to allow idiots
to go to ibiza and buy chinese plastic ducks
for all the fossil media whining, this game is benefiting a lot
of people
(no, i don't believe everyone is equal)
ps i save around 20% when i fill up in spain
I doubt it, because the cost of getting to Spain and back just to fill a car
with fuel will negate any saving and pollute the air causing a lowering of
your standard of living.
Post by abelard
and
iir friends in n. italy save when the fill up in switz...
Ditto.

Bragging about personal CO2 emissions seem to be the current craze.
abelard
2020-05-23 17:48:39 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2020 18:37:54 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Fri, 22 May 2020 18:41:43 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Post by JNugent
No state will impose on aviation fuel the sort of punitive taxation we
see on motor fuel in western Europe.
That was a provocative exaggeration, complete with smiley. But you know I
did just jot down some figures and it doesn't give such ludicrous results.
€1 Litre is about €40 a leg on European flight.
What does that mean? That an aircraft only uses 40 litres of fuel from
take-off to landing?
Or would it be €1 per leg per litre (ie €2 per passenger per litre)?
Well, duh....
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Sounds a lot in terms of what we are used to these days, but compare with
train prices just from one side of the UK to another than it ain't much ;-)
Railway travel is inherently more expensive than most other modes. That
isn't a reason to increase the costs of other modes.
Why not?
Ordinary people seem to manage with Skype and the alternatives. Why can’t
arrogant tosser business people?
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
Transatlantic would take a bigger hit. But then again, I remember getting a
ticket to Toronto in the 80's for £450 (return) and everybody being amazed
at how cheap is was. I guess by today's prices that would be about £800,
which is about what a cheapest return might cost with fuel tax.
In normal times, travelling to the eastern seaboard of North America for
£400 return isn't out of the question.
Who would benefit from doubling that price?
Those who have to breathe the polluted air.
Post by JNugent
Why should anyone's costs be higher than they need to be?
Environmentalism.
Post by JNugent
Are our living standards too high?
Far too high.
pollution is not a higher standard of living...pollution is a cost
that lowers the general standards of living, to allow idiots
to go to ibiza and buy chinese plastic ducks
for all the fossil media whining, this game is benefiting a lot
of people
(no, i don't believe everyone is equal)
ps i save around 20% when i fill up in spain
I doubt it, because the cost of getting to Spain and back just to fill a car
with fuel will negate any saving and pollute the air causing a lowering of
your standard of living.
1)it depends on how near he border you are
2)it depends on whether i want to go there anyways
3)it increases my standard of living more that it reduces
the std of living of any other one person...look up
'tragedy of the commons'
my action reduces the stds of many others...but only
by a small bit each....they don't notice that amount...
they only notice because trillions of people are reducing
their standards of living..each one by a very small bit...
it is the sum that is a problem
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
and
iir friends in n. italy save when the fill up in switz...
Ditto.
Bragging about personal CO2 emissions seem to be the current craze.
i hadn't noticed...some are buying inefficient electric cars
--
www.abelard.org
Roger
2020-05-22 21:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
€1 Litre is about €40 a leg on European flight.
What does that mean? That an aircraft only uses 40 litres of fuel from
take-off to landing?
No, about 6700 litres on average. €40 per ticket; one way. About the same as putting a suitcase in the hold.
Post by JNugent
Railway travel is inherently more expensive than most other modes. That
isn't a reason to increase the costs of other modes.
Rail travel is expensive because the government auction off the concession to the highest bigger; the winning companies are the ones capable of screwing the most money out the passengers. Some people think railways should be rated on the passenger miles they achieve, not how much money they make out of passengers.
Post by JNugent
In normal times, travelling to the eastern seaboard of North America for
£400 return isn't out of the question.
So the prices are pretty much the same as 35 years ago. That's why there are millions of people dashing around from one side of the world to another in a matter of hours. Not a good thing for many reasons; one of them being the speed with which disease can spread before anybody has time to realise.
Post by JNugent
Who would benefit from doubling that price?
Why should anyone's costs be higher than they need to be?
Are our living standards too high?
More tax in one place, less in another. Cost of living stays the same. Just means that people don't, on average, travel so far. People who have a burning desire to visit India can still do it. People wanting to spend a week on sunny beach might find the med more realistic than Bali.

Taxes are levied to change our lifestyles. More tax on beer, less on baby clothes. More tax on air travel, less on trains.
Keema's Nan
2020-05-22 21:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
€1 Litre is about €40 a leg on European flight.
What does that mean? That an aircraft only uses 40 litres of fuel from
take-off to landing?
No, about 6700 litres on average. €40 per ticket; one way. About the same
as putting a suitcase in the hold.
If the average is 6700 litres, why does a Boeing 767 have a fuel capacity of
between 60,000 and 90,000 litres?

Are you saying civil airliners can do 8 or 9 single journeys without
re-fuelling?
Post by Roger
Post by JNugent
Railway travel is inherently more expensive than most other modes. That
isn't a reason to increase the costs of other modes.
Rail travel is expensive because the government auction off the concession to
the highest bigger; the winning companies are the ones capable of screwing
the most money out the passengers. Some people think railways should be rated
on the passenger miles they achieve, not how much money they make out of
passengers.
And others have no problem with private train operating companies (TOCs), but
would prefer to see the train leasing companies owned by the government in
order that the the whole process has some benefit to the taxpayer.

<snip someone trying to pretend they know stuff>
abelard
2020-05-23 17:26:37 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 May 2020 22:24:18 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
€1 Litre is about €40 a leg on European flight.
What does that mean? That an aircraft only uses 40 litres of fuel from
take-off to landing?
No, about 6700 litres on average. €40 per ticket; one way. About the same
as putting a suitcase in the hold.
If the average is 6700 litres, why does a Boeing 767 have a fuel capacity of
between 60,000 and 90,000 litres?
Are you saying civil airliners can do 8 or 9 single journeys without
re-fuelling?
the truckers also have 'enhanced' fuel tanks
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2020-05-23 17:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Fri, 22 May 2020 22:24:18 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Roger
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
€1 Litre is about €40 a leg on European flight.
What does that mean? That an aircraft only uses 40 litres of fuel from
take-off to landing?
No, about 6700 litres on average. €40 per ticket; one way. About the same
as putting a suitcase in the hold.
If the average is 6700 litres, why does a Boeing 767 have a fuel capacity of
between 60,000 and 90,000 litres?
Are you saying civil airliners can do 8 or 9 single journeys without
re-fuelling?
the truckers also have 'enhanced' fuel tanks
Aircraft always appear to re-fuel at every airport they visit. Why bother if
you can do 8 or 9 journeys on one tank-full?
abelard
2020-05-23 17:50:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2020 18:39:46 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Fri, 22 May 2020 22:24:18 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
€1 Litre is about €40 a leg on European flight.
What does that mean? That an aircraft only uses 40 litres of fuel from
take-off to landing?
No, about 6700 litres on average. €40 per ticket; one way. About the same
as putting a suitcase in the hold.
If the average is 6700 litres, why does a Boeing 767 have a fuel capacity of
between 60,000 and 90,000 litres?
Are you saying civil airliners can do 8 or 9 single journeys without
re-fuelling?
the truckers also have 'enhanced' fuel tanks
Aircraft always appear to re-fuel at every airport they visit. Why bother if
you can do 8 or 9 journeys on one tank-full?
assuming your premise
i'll ask an expert iir remember, later in the day
--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
2020-05-23 00:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by JNugent
Post by Roger
€1 Litre is about €40 a leg on European flight.
What does that mean? That an aircraft only uses 40 litres of fuel from
take-off to landing?
No, about 6700 litres on average. €40 per ticket; one way. About the same as putting a suitcase in the hold.
Post by JNugent
Railway travel is inherently more expensive than most other modes. That
isn't a reason to increase the costs of other modes.
Rail travel is expensive because the government auction off the concession to the highest bigger;
Railway travel is expensive no matter who runs it and irrespective of
the terms of access to the infrastructure. It's simply a hideous
consumer of resources, land, capital, revenue and labour.
Post by Roger
the winning companies are the ones capable of screwing the most money out the passengers. Some people think railways should be rated on the passenger miles they achieve, not how much money they make out of passengers.
Are you sure?
Post by Roger
Post by JNugent
In normal times, travelling to the eastern seaboard of North America for
£400 return isn't out of the question.
So the prices are pretty much the same as 35 years ago. That's why there are millions of people dashing around from one side of the world to another in a matter of hours. Not a good thing for many reasons; one of them being the speed with which disease can spread before anybody has time to realise.
We have other ways of controlling that - visa and entry control for one.
Post by Roger
Post by JNugent
Who would benefit from doubling that price?
Why should anyone's costs be higher than they need to be?
Are our living standards too high?
More tax in one place, less in another. Cost of living stays the same. Just means that people don't, on average, travel so far. People who have a burning desire to visit India can still do it. People wanting to spend a week on sunny beach might find the med more realistic than Bali.
Taxes are levied to change our lifestyles. More tax on beer, less on baby clothes. More tax on air travel, less on trains.
There is no tax on trains (but plenty of them on airport use, though
some don't seem to know that*). Tax is levied upon (lots of) other
things to subsidise trains (maybe not all of them, but enough). They are
ridiculously high consumers of resources.

[* If you fly on a return ticket to LAX from LHR, at an overall cost of
(sa) £700, probably nearly half of that will be tax and "charges".]
abelard
2020-05-23 17:25:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
More tax in one place, less in another. Cost of living stays the same.
durrhh?

are you confusing some undefined individual standards with some
undefined average standards?
Post by Roger
Just means that people don't, on average, travel so far. People who have a burning desire to visit India can still do it. People wanting to spend a week on sunny beach might find the med more realistic than Bali.
Taxes are levied to change our lifestyles. More tax on beer, less on baby clothes. More tax on air travel, less on trains.
much of taxes are charged to increase the standards of living
of politicians
at the cost of mine!

'carers' are paid less so's unionised nurses and medics can be paid
more
and the lower classes can throw their parenti under the bus
--
www.abelard.org
Loading...