Should airports and airlines ban alcohol?

Quote: "Reduce your carbon footprint
Stay At Home

Callistemon21

^Quote: "Reduce your carbon footprint^
Stay At Home

I am claustrophobic, the first time we went through the channel tunnel I was a complete wreck. I tried to read my book, wouldn’t get out of the car, DH was trying to help by taking through the engineering of the tunnel, I survived.

I still cannot relax, but it’s preferable to spending the time on the ferry vomiting and or feeling absolutely terrible.

I've only felt vaguely seasick once, that was on a cruise when forgot to put my sea bands back on after a swim.

But I won't say it might never happen 😀

Why wouldn't most just prefer the channel tunnel? Fast, easy, and as I understand - almost no emissions. We love the tunnel.

Here is why. Drive from Oxfordshire to Portsmouth, 1.5 hours. 6 hours on the ferry, relaxing, sleeping, enjoying a nice meal. Reach Ouistrehem, Drive 1.5 hours to our house.

Drive from Oxfordshire to Folkestone, 4 hours, if we are lucky. then onto Channel tunnel 35 minutes, but no time to rest, relax have a meal etc after a long journey. Calais - St Lo, 5 plus hours driving few service stations, tolls etc etc

Journey 1: 3 hours driving, 6 hours relaxing on the ferry
Journey 2: 9 hours driving at least, no rest, just 35 minutes in the channel tunnel.

And, yes, Joseanne the new ferries will certainly be safe and DH can see little reason to suppose they will not be reliable, but LNG used for ship propulsion is new, anywhere, so we will need to see how things go

Why wouldn't most just prefer the channel tunnel? Fast, easy, and as I understand - almost no emissions. We love the tunnel

Because we're not all the same.

As I understand it, Brittany Ferries is a leader in the transport of freight between the UK and France, and on to Spain. Haulage companies obviously acknowledge that these routes save them miles of driving and road costs, so it's a logical choice for many of us who don't live on the doorstep of the Tunnel.

M0nica

^Why wouldn't most just prefer the channel tunnel? Fast, easy, and as I understand - almost no emissions. We love the tunnel.^

Here is why. Drive from Oxfordshire to Portsmouth, 1.5 hours. 6 hours on the ferry, relaxing, sleeping, enjoying a nice meal. Reach Ouistrehem, Drive 1.5 hours to our house.

Drive from Oxfordshire to Folkestone, 4 hours, if we are lucky. then onto Channel tunnel 35 minutes, but no time to rest, relax have a meal etc after a long journey. Calais - St Lo, 5 plus hours driving few service stations, tolls etc etc

Journey 1: 3 hours driving, 6 hours relaxing on the ferry
Journey 2: 9 hours driving at least, no rest, just 35 minutes in the channel tunnel.

And, yes, Joseanne the new ferries will certainly be safe and DH can see little reason to suppose they will not be reliable, but LNG used for ship propulsion is new, anywhere, so we will need to see how things go

Interesting.

Similar time spent, but eating on a ferry? I'd throw up. There is a huge difference, for me. Reason to why I asked. We're all different.

Ferry travel, is for me and mine, environmentally a very bad idea, but for some so is flying and arriving fast!

Give us the fast tunnel, we'll relax letting the horses run at either end of the tunnel journey, all whilst snacking in the car! Or we'll fly.

Joseann

As I understand it, Brittany Ferries is a leader in the transport of freight between the UK and France, and on to Spain. Haulage companies obviously acknowledge that these routes save them miles of driving and road costs, so it's a logical choice for many of us who don't live on the doorstep of the Tunnel.

And far more pleasant than endless traffic and traffic jams.

More eco-friendly too - many vehicles all travelling on one ferry is better than many vehicles travelling on overcrowded roads.

We're all different

Yes, we are.

We did the chunnel journey once when Brittany Ferries was on strike, never again. With new LNG ferries coming into use, it will be more environmental, but any journey is a balance of factors. If environemental concerns were always overriding we would walk or cycle everywhere.

Callistemon21

^Why wouldn't most just prefer the channel tunnel? Fast, easy, and as I understand - almost no emissions. We love the tunnel^

Because we're not all the same.

Indeed, thus some fly! We're all different.

We fly to drink Guinness and Jameson, enjoy the green & fuchsias. Ireland is other side of country to us, the ferry isn't our choice.

Similar time spent, but eating on a ferry? I'd throw up. There is a huge difference, for me. Reason to why I asked. We're all different.
And that's exactly how this thread started. Some like to drink alcohol on a plane, some like to enjoy the food on the ferry (in the restaurant), not snacking in the car.

Joseann

^Similar time spent, but eating on a ferry? I'd throw up. There is a huge difference, for me. Reason to why I asked. We're all different.^
And that's exactly how this thread started. Some like to drink alcohol on a plane, some like to enjoy the food on the ferry (in the restaurant), not snacking in the car.

Yes. Yes that was start to this thread.

Perhaps some do drink alcohol and /or eat in planes, some may be able to stomach food on a ferry, and some snack in cars. Some avoid the food debacle altogether. We just snack with water, by choice.

Nice to hear what others, not in our family, choose regarding travel.

The tunnel is a good option if going to Paris from (say) London or on a train route.

I've used it for business trips (on foot) and the seating etc is good.
I'd use it again in this way.

Romola...some of us have to fly often re children and grandchildren living overseas...I visit mine in Australia and Dubai...

NotSpaghetti

The tunnel is a good option if going to Paris from (say) London or on a train route.

I've used it for business trips (on foot) and the seating etc is good.
I'd use it again in this way.

Tunnel every time for us, because of the dog. I would never travel by ferry with a dog that has to stay in the car in the hold.

But that is NOT the subject of this thread, is it?

No-one has mentionned the safety aspect of alcohol on planes, in an emergency. Having one drink is one thing, but I know many who drink before and continually during flight- and although not visibly or unpleasantly drunk- would not be able to think and act fast in an emergency, and get in the way of others, and put them all at risk.

For me that is the main point of maybe not stopping alcohol on planes, but certainly limiting it. As limiting is very difficult to do- then possible it would be best not to have alcohol at all on board. (and I do enjoy a glass of wine or a GnT).

farview

*Romola*...some of us have to fly often re children and grandchildren living overseas...I visit mine in Australia and Dubai...

Quite, farview

(^And I'm amazed at the number of flights GNers are apparently accustomed to make^.)
Generalisation Romola

Tunnel every time for us, because of the dog. I would never travel by ferry with a dog that has to stay in the car in the hold.
Another plus with Brittany Ferries, (no, I don't work for them!), the dog comes with us in the cabin for the whole crossing.
Thanks for the 👍 about the new ferries M0nica.
I try not to think about it, but if it came to a disaster I could always swim my way out, but obviously in a plane I can't grow wings and fly!

Yes, just depends where you are travelling to and fro. For us, it would make no sense at all, 99% of the time, to travel from Britanny. We are planning to go to Corsica next year, and the dog will travel with us in cabin.

Again, the point I made is about safety. In the case of an emergency, I would like those around me who would have to exit with me/us in an emergency, to be on the ball and not tipsy or even drunk.

Fleurpepper you can take the dog in the cabin on the crossings from Spain with BF, and Normandy, it isn't just Brittany.

Yes, of course. Talking about the route from Calais/area to Dover/Folkestone. Tunnel everytime, as no Ferry on that route allows dogs to leave car (and no visit during the journey whatsoever).

I'd like to see drunks travelling by train thrown off. I booked a seat on the train Edinburgh to Crewe one Sunday morning. Unfortunately there were a dozen or so very drunk women in the same carriage returning from a hen party. They continued drinking on the journey, were very loud and unable to get to the toilet without falling over. The train was full so nowhere else to sit and no staff member to be seen. There were some foreigners travelling who were horrified at such behaviour.

Re. alcohol in general, when we lived on the Algarve in Tavira, DH and I would regularly call into our favourite riverside cafe late on a Saturday morning. Quite often, a group of young men would be sitting at a nearby table, quietly drinking coffee, and enjoying a cake. We couldn't imagine that often happening at home. I can honestly say that the whole time we were there, we never saw any booze-related yobbery, which sadly seems so common here. It was also interesting to work in Sweden for 3 years, where binge-drinking is a national pastime, particularly at weekends. Illicit, homemade stills, are also common due to the high price of alcohol, bringing a risk of blindness or even death if the process goes wrong. What is it with this North/South divide in our attitude towards alcohol consumption? One explanation I've heard that in Southern Europe, where wine is grown, children are introduced early to a wine/water mix, so it never becomes the forbidden fruit, and is simply seen as something associated with family mealtimes. Can it really be as simple as that?

I suspect those of us in cold, grey Northern Europe are more prone to depression and binge drinking. In the UK substance misuse is higher in Scotland