Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...



It is irrelevant info. Greenland is NOT a part of Denmark, no more than
Gibraltar or the Falklands being a part of the UK. You obviously can't
understand this.



You are as usual incorrect. Greenlands current political situation
is that its a semi-atonomous region under the Danish Crown

Its electors vote in Danish Parliamentary elections and the
currency in use is the Danish Krone. Denmark retains control
of foreign affairs and defense. It is in fact in the same position as
Scotland and Wales , having a devolved assembly with limited
powers

from
http://www.um.dk/english/faktaark/fa24/fa24_eng.asp

Government type: Home rule in national union
with Denmark

In accordance with home rule, Greenland retains extensive
powers of self-government while remaining under the Danish Crown.
The Folketing (the Danish parliament) has transferred almost
all legislation to the Landsting (the Greenlandic parliament)
but the Folketing and the Danish administration retain control
over some areas of government. Greenland's voters elect two
representatives to the Folketing.

Language: Greenlandic and Danish
Currency: Danish krone (DKK)

That can be said for far away British possessions too. Geographically it is
not Denmark nor on the same Continent either.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...



That it was not

Deliveries began in 1965 , the Boeing 727 entered service in 1964
and the Tupolev TU-124 entered service between Moscow and
Ulyanovsk in December 1962

The 727 was a larger plane.



The 727-100 could carry 131 pax, the contemporary
BAC-111-400 carried 89

Substantially bigger.

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

We know. It was the second short haul jet, the first being the French
Caravelle.

Deliveries began in 1965 , the Boeing 727 entered service in 1964
and the Tupolev TU-124 entered service between Moscow and
Ulyanovsk in December 1962

And - though for various reasons it didn't enter service - the Avro
Canada C-102 was flying at the end of the 1940s. That probably
as the best claim to being the first regional-distance jet. Next
one - the Tu-104, maybe?


The Tu-104 was in service before the Comet 4 and 707
for sure. I once flew to Moscow in one during the
mid 70's , strange aircraft with that glazed nose one
almost expected to see a bombardier sitting there.

Keith

"Spiv" wrote in message
...



You are naive. In any cases cheap capital costs are what sells to cash
strapped companies, hoping to hide the higher running costs.


Hardly, all the companies I know are keenly interested
in lifecycle costs and will eat higher CAPEX if the OPEX
savings are high enough especially since CAPEX can
often be recovered in grants.

The problem with the VC-10 as BOAC noted was that
its operating expenses were HIGHER than the 707
so they ended up ditching the VC-10's in favor of
Boeing aircraft

Note that the US airlines were hardly cash strapped in the
60's since they were in a boom market and buying new
aircraft at a rate never seen since.

Keith

"Spiv" wrote in message
...



That can be said for far away British possessions too.

No sir, the British possessions are not constutionally part of the
United Kingdom, Greenland is for the moment at least
part of the Kingdom of Denmark

Geographically it is
not Denmark nor on the same Continent either.



Denmark is the geopolitical term for that collection of islands
and section of the European continent that make up the
kingdom of Denmark, one of those Islands is Greenland

In Geographical terms there are a bunch of islands in the
Baltic, Kattegat and the Jutland peninsula. The Northern tip
of said peninsula and some of the islands are Danish.
The southern end of the Peninsula is German as are
some of the islands.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

That can be said for far away British possessions too.

No sir, the British possessions are not constutionally part of the
United Kingdom, Greenland is for the moment at least
part of the Kingdom of Denmark

As is Gibraltar I believe, to eliminate the word colony. Nevertheless,
neither Gib is part of the UK nor is Greenland a part of Denmark.
Dependencies, crown dominions, colonies, overseas territories, or whatever,
they are not a part of the their mother countries, although owned by them.
They are separate entities.

What you are saying make The Le reunion islands in the southern Indian Ocean
a part of France, the same geographical territory.

Geographically it is
not Denmark nor on the same Continent either.



Denmark is the geopolitical term for that collection of islands
and section of the European continent that make up the
kingdom of Denmark, one of those Islands is Greenland

In Geographical terms there are a bunch of islands in the
Baltic, Kattegat and the Jutland peninsula. The Northern tip
of said peninsula and some of the islands are Danish.
The southern end of the Peninsula is German as are
some of the islands.

Keith

In article , Spiv wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

Depends on your point of view. The UK is a bit smaller than the state of
Oregon, and there are eight US states larger than Oregon. From a US
perspective, the UK is small.

You lack basic logic and reasoning. The point: The UK is not small. It is
not is the answer, not babble about US states.

From the point of view of travelling around it, the UK is very small
by US standards. In the USA, an airline that serves approximately
the area of the UK is a small local airline of no national import,
and it is expected to fly considerably different aircraft from a
national or international airline.

This applies in general when one moves out of Europe. Europe is
very densely populated, with numerous large cities within a few
hours' driving time of each other. (I live in Minneapolis, MN,
in the 15th largest metro area in the US. The closest bigger
one is Chicago, and that's eight hours' drive away.) In most of
the world, the distance between major population centers is much
higher than in Western Europe.

What works well in the UK for a transportation system doesn't
necessarily work well over the rest of the world.

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

That can be said for far away British possessions too.

No sir, the British possessions are not constutionally part of the
United Kingdom, Greenland is for the moment at least
part of the Kingdom of Denmark

As is Gibraltar I believe, to eliminate the word colony.

I was very careful not to use the word colony

Nevertheless,
neither Gib is part of the UK nor is Greenland a part of Denmark.


Here lies the difference

Gibraltar is not part of the UK, its voters do not elect members
of the British parliament and it has its own currency , sets its own
taxation and in all ways ecept foreign affairs and defence is
completely independent

The electors of Greenland DO elect members to the Danish Parliament,
they use the Danish Kroner and are subject to Danish Law.
They are in fact LESS independent than is Scotland which has
its own Parliament, issues its own banknotes and has its own body
of law.

Dependencies, crown dominions, colonies, overseas territories, or
whatever,
they are not a part of the their mother countries, although owned by them.
They are separate entities.


There are considerable differences in status between a dominion,
colony and overseas territory but Greenland is NONE of the
above, politically it is a part of Denmark


What you are saying make The Le reunion islands in the southern Indian
Ocean
a part of France, the same geographical territory.


La Reunion is an overeas department of France, most residents
vehemently oppose independence. Its official currency is the Euro.
IT IS A PART of the geopolilitcal entity we call France. Its citizens
hold French passports, they use the Euro, Jacques Chirac is their president
etc.

France is NOT repeat NOT a geographical territory. Its
a political construct who's geographical boundaries have changed at
least 3 times since 1870. French Guiana is also a department of France
like any other but geographically it happens to lie in
Central America. Its citizens hold French passports, they
use the Euro, Jacques Chirac is their president etc.

Nation states are not synonymous with the real estate they
sit on. Denmark like the United Kingdom , Germany and
Poland is a POLITICAL entity NOT a geographical one.

Keith

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...



That it was not

Deliveries began in 1965 , the Boeing 727 entered service in 1964
and the Tupolev TU-124 entered service between Moscow and
Ulyanovsk in December 1962

The 727 was a larger plane.



The 727-100 could carry 131 pax, the contemporary
BAC-111-400 carried 89

Substantially bigger.



But still a short haul airliner that entered service before the
BAC-111 contrary to your claim that the 111 was first.

Keith

"David Thornley" wrote in message
...
In article , Spiv
wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

Depends on your point of view. The UK is a bit smaller than the state
of
Oregon, and there are eight US states larger than Oregon. From a US
perspective, the UK is small.

You lack basic logic and reasoning. The point: The UK is not small. It
is
not is the answer, not babble about US states.

From the point of view of travelling around it, the UK is very small
by US standards.

But it is massive by Holland standards. Once again the UK is not small. We
have long distance truck drivers who require overnight stops running up and
down the place.

What works well in the UK for a transportation system doesn't
necessarily work well over the rest of the world.

That is why we still have the train. The Victorians left us this brilliant
legacy. You can go from the centre of London to the centre of Liverpool or
Manchester in 2.5 to 3 hours. The plane ride is approx 1/2 hours in the
air. Yet to get to the airport, get the plane, and the reverse at the other
end means you will be doing it in 4 hours centre to centre minimum. The
train is far better and far more comfortable than a plane. They have a bar
you can walk up to and lean on too.

The Eurostar, when they get the track filly high speed ready, will do centre
to centre London - Paris in about 3 hours or less. Beats the plane by a
mile.