dark light
Airliner World
Combat Aircraft
AeroPlane
Flypast
Airforces
Aviation
Pcpilot
Air

Sky High

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,301 through 3,315 (of 7,143 total)
1 2 3 … 220 221 222 … 475 476 477
  • Author
    Posts
  • March 17, 2011 at 1:02 pm in reply to: Windfarm debate – was Duxford airshows at risk? #1877635
    Sky High
    Participant

    I can’t see that one having any legs, Linc!;) Something else will catch our attention, never fear………..:)

    March 17, 2011 at 12:45 pm in reply to: Windfarm debate – was Duxford airshows at risk? #1877639
    Sky High
    Participant

    Never fear – we’ll think of something!;)

    March 17, 2011 at 12:45 pm in reply to: General Discussion #350016
    Sky High
    Participant

    Never fear – we’ll think of something!;)

    March 17, 2011 at 12:44 pm in reply to: Concorde Project On The Thames #1087855
    Sky High
    Participant

    What does a ride on the London-Eye cost? I’ve never been on it myself but it seems an attraction absolutely designed for high throughput of visitors; you get on, you ride round, you get off and it never stops.

    The number of visitors coming through a restaurant will surely be fewer and they’ll be moving a lot slower and they’ll need to be catered for by a large staff, plus I don’t expect the Concorde grill and bar would be cheap!

    The London-Eye is unique, another London restaurant and corporate venue is not.

    You may sell a few trinkets in the gift shop but I’d guess hardly the number to satisfy investors looking for a return on their twenty million pounds. Isn’t the Vulcan basically funded by the same sort of gift-shop, at an airshow, with thousands of aviation fan present? How are they doing these days?

    If I can see the Concorde by standing on a bridge nearby why would I want to spend good money to get a (worse) close-up view from the barge or to look at the tiny, cramped (not allowed to sit down or touch anything) interior? Presumably I don’t have to pay to get to the gift-shop or do I?

    Sorry, that doesn’t sound like the same business situation as the London-Eye to me.

    Which is precisely why I suggested a reduction of 75% on the figures the Eye produces. In any case you and I may think what we like with minimal knowledge of these matters, and what we think is irrelevant. If people want to make the investment and make a killing thay will be delighted, in not they will not be happy. Either way it does not effect you or me, except that I will visit it if it happpens, and you, probably, will not.

    Eye tickets are £18 im think.

    March 17, 2011 at 12:06 pm in reply to: General Discussion #350128
    Sky High
    Participant

    Well we’ll never know, so hear endeth the lesson.;):)

    March 17, 2011 at 12:06 pm in reply to: Windfarm debate – was Duxford airshows at risk? #1877664
    Sky High
    Participant

    Well we’ll never know, so hear endeth the lesson.;):)

    March 17, 2011 at 12:03 pm in reply to: Concorde Project On The Thames #1087870
    Sky High
    Participant

    “The Concorde riverboat will incorporate a memorabilia shop, Concorde presentation area, artifacts display, Mach 2 restaurant serving Concorde cuisine, and Captains’ bar. We may well have a second Concorde riverboat for river cruises for corporate clients and special events.”

    And this in addition to entry to the Concorde itself. No charges have been mentioned but will base these on “the going rate” I would imagine.

    The Eye receives about 2.5 million visitos a year payiongh an average of £12 = £30 million p.a. At a very conservative 25% of these figures Concorde would generate over £7 million p.a. plus the other income sources as described above.

    March 17, 2011 at 11:33 am in reply to: Concorde Project On The Thames #1087876
    Sky High
    Participant

    Diod you read the Press Release, CD?

    March 17, 2011 at 11:31 am in reply to: French building flying Mosquito replica? #1087878
    Sky High
    Participant

    Sorry if my reply clearly raised some hackles – it was not meant to.:) I am sure it is a worthy project – I merely expressed my opinion of it and the French will choose whether or not to fly it across the Channel. As for the comment about the £20 million alluding to another entirely different project, there really is no connection, although members seem to persist in wanting to make one.

    March 17, 2011 at 10:50 am in reply to: French building flying Mosquito replica? #1087904
    Sky High
    Participant

    I have been thinking about this, not having seen the original thread. It has been an interesting project, no doubt, but I cannot see the merit of it. The Mossie was/is the Mossie and building a replica three quarter size doen’t really interest me. And I suppose in answer to yankeepapa – so what?;):)

    March 17, 2011 at 10:40 am in reply to: General Discussion #350145
    Sky High
    Participant

    Ideally we have to do both in tandem, but, as I have mentioned now in several posts, we have to start the construction process NOW, unless we want to turn the lights off within the decade. We do not have the luxury of waiting for these new developments to be brought to fruition.

    March 17, 2011 at 10:40 am in reply to: Windfarm debate – was Duxford airshows at risk? #1877679
    Sky High
    Participant

    Ideally we have to do both in tandem, but, as I have mentioned now in several posts, we have to start the construction process NOW, unless we want to turn the lights off within the decade. We do not have the luxury of waiting for these new developments to be brought to fruition.

    March 17, 2011 at 10:14 am in reply to: Windfarm debate – was Duxford airshows at risk? #1877720
    Sky High
    Participant

    In the long run I agree, you are right. We have been working on hydrogen cell vehicular energy for a while and there is great merit in these technologies and in what you say. The problem is time. I have no doubt that we will be producing clean energy in some, perhaps even now unkown, forms, within a generation but my concern is for the now. Hence my earlier comments.

    March 17, 2011 at 10:14 am in reply to: General Discussion #350159
    Sky High
    Participant

    In the long run I agree, you are right. We have been working on hydrogen cell vehicular energy for a while and there is great merit in these technologies and in what you say. The problem is time. I have no doubt that we will be producing clean energy in some, perhaps even now unkown, forms, within a generation but my concern is for the now. Hence my earlier comments.

    March 17, 2011 at 8:54 am in reply to: General Discussion #350165
    Sky High
    Participant

    CD – thank you for your expansive response to my post. Yes we might rue the UK’s lack of involvement in new technologies but as far as wind farms are concerned we have no choice. We have no expertise here – the Danes, Germans and others have. The government’s committments to the EU targets means that we have to buy in the technology, although it is arguable that there are simply not the resources to build what we need in the time span available. But that’s another story.

    To be honerst I do not care where the technology comes from or where it goes at the end. All I know is that under current energy decisions we will not be able to generate enough electicity for our needs by 2018. We will struggle if the nuclear plans come to fruition on time. I can still see us importing some of our energy within a decade. And that is sheer irresponsibilty brought about by dithering indecision and obeissance to the great god Brussels.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 3,301 through 3,315 (of 7,143 total)
1 2 3 … 220 221 222 … 475 476 477