Railways show the way
Your report "France plans low-fare TGV attack on low-cost carriers" (Flight International, 30 November-6 December) is misleading as it does not spell out that the €19 ($25) Paris-Marseilles fare is available on many other TGV routes and is only available under specified conditions. It is not representative of fares in general.
As a result of continued increases in traffic, some TGV trains have been double-deckers and the double-deck design, which entered service in 1996, is being updated.
There is no passenger service, in an airline context, unless ticket inspection or the opportunity to walk along to the buffet is counted as service.
The €19 SNCF fare quoted compares with the SFr20 ($18) plus taxes fare I paid to EasyJet this year for a flight from for Geneva to London Luton and I am sure that was not subsidised.
Both operators are making money from cheap fares on a marginal cashflow basis, and both operations are commercially viable.
Thus the implication in the article that the €19 fare is the result of a subsidy is, I think, unsupportable. The TGVs also offer factors such as comfort and quiet, competitive whole journey times, punctuality and easy access from intermediate places, with no hanging around for check-ins. And there is no waiting for baggage.
It seems to me that the airline industry should concentrate on making air travel less stressful, less time-wasteful at terminals, with more space for working at seats and with more comfort.
Peter Taylor
Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, UK
The price of Europe's safety
We need the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). But it is scandalous not to allow it the necessary monetary resources to become fully operational (Flight International, 7-13 December). To charge fees for certification could kill small to medium enterprises in aviation, especially in general aviation.
Why not follow the US system, where the Federal Aviation Administration is supported by a "$1 per airline ticket" levy, plus a small tax on fuel. This is why the FAA does not charge for certification. Why not have a "c1 per ticket" in Europe and establish regional EASA offices? This would allow technical resources from national airworthiness authorities to be used and would suit those who are unwilling to move to the EASA's office in Cologne.
The FAA approach works, financed by the ticket fee, with its headquarters in Washington and regional offices around the nation, strategically located close to the industry.
We must fight for a better way of financing EASA.
Gerd Muehlbauer
President, MT-Propeller Entwicklung, Straubing, Germany
In a spin about spin recovery
I was fascinated by the reference to Brian Cross in your 50 Years Ago column (Flight International, 7-13 December) baling out at 20,000ft (6,100m) because of a spin which, in a Meteor, was supposedly unrecoverable.
I remember the occasion, because I was in 601 Sqn based at the same station, North Weald, at the time. Just before we got Meteors, I myself went into an unintentional spin in a Vampire, similarly unrecoverable. I too tried to bale out, but we didn't have ejector seats in the Vampire and I couldn't get my hand on the hood release mechanism because of g forces and buffeting. I was still struggling to reach the yellow and black handle when the aircraft righted itself at 12,000ft in the denser air.
Brian acted sensibly, based on what we were told, but I have to say that I later intentionally spun the Meteor 8 from 10,000ft, several times, with no problem recovering conventionally.
After the Vampire experience I decided to be my own test pilot. Nobody told us!
Tom Moulson
Newport Beach, California, USA
Cars to blame
Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is in the interest of the whole global community, but a tax on airliners is not the answer.
Endless queues of singly occupied cars contribute far more to environmental problems than aviation. Taxes would just force some marginal carriers out of business. My advice is to raise taxes on cars and encourage use of public transport.
Steven Stott
Thornton Heath, Surrey, UK
Plane spotting
If Mr Kilbride (Flight International, 5-11 October) cannot see the glaring similarity of Airbus and Boeing airliners, I suggest he replace those rose-tinted spectacles. I have knowledgeable friends living under the approach flightpath to Auckland's Jean Batten International airport and they have always have trouble telling the two types apart, even at a couple of thousand feet.
The Messerschmitt 262 did not have podded engines. Like the mass-balance design of the Boeing 707, the pod engine installations were old hat when Willy designed the 262. The Boeing B-47 bomber was the basis of the 707 design.
Maurice Hendry
Auckland, New Zealand
Source: Flight International
