British Airways risks 351 lives to avoid European fines
Matt Jacobs
Flying faulty jumbo across Atlantic saves BA £100,000
By Ben Webster
Turning back after engine failure would have left airline liable to
pay out for delays under new rules on compensation
A BRITISH AIRWAYS jumbo jet carrying 351 passengers was forced to make
an emergency landing after an 11-hour transatlantic flight with a
failed engine.
The fault occurred on take-off from Los Angeles but the pilot declined
all opportunities to land in the US and instead continued on three
engines for 5,000 miles to Britain.
The incident happened three days after a European regulation came into
force requiring airlines to compensate passengers for long delays or
cancellations. Under the new rules, if the pilot had returned to Los
Angeles, BA would have been facing a compensation bill of more than
£100,000.
Balpa, the British Air Line Pilots’ Association, gave warning last
night that the regulation could result in pilots being pressured into
taking greater risks for commercial reasons.
</quote>
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html
LA to London on three engines? The engine failed on takeoff and they
didn't return to LAX?
1. Bad: The pilot is insane.
2. Good: Another testement as to the robustness of the Boeing 747.
BA lied.
<quote>
BA initially claimed that the engine had failed an hour into the
flight. But the airline admitted yesterday that the problem had
occurred a few seconds after take-off when the Boeing 747 was only
100ft above the ground.
</quote>
BA lied again.
<quote>
BA said financial concerns had played no part in the decision. Captain
Doug Brown, the senior manager of BA’s 747 fleet, said the only
consideration had been “what was best for passengers”.
</quote>
Gee, remind me not to fly British Airways.
--
borland.public.off-topic exists as a runoff for unwanted posts in the
technical groups. Enforcement of rules is deliberately minimal but
Borland reserves the right to cancel posts at any time, for any
reason, without notice.
Stephan
"Matt Jacobs" <no...@noyb.com> wrote in message
news:focv119s6h5g3usbh...@4ax.com...
> Gee, remind me not to fly British Airways.
<nudge nudge> hey matt, don't fly British Airways
Martin James
possible & still the thing flew, I guess that the pilot figured they'd had
all the bad luck at once & so carried on with one hand on heart & the othe
ron wallet.
It seems that passengers want cheap fares and compensation with no adverse
effects at all, ie. something from nothing.
Obviously, no pilot wants to lose his/her aircraft, but neither do they want
the 'cost us £100k' tag when it's time for promotions.
This story does not surprise me at all. Expect worse as airlines are forced
to fly aircraft half-full and keep spare planes on standby in case of tech
failures. Something will have to give. More risks will be taken with
safety as aircraft fly with dubious airworthiness. Suspicious fluctuations
in hydraulic pressure, intermittent warning lights, high engine temp etc.
will be 'missed' and left to be the next pilots' problem.
This compo regulation is one of the stupidest ever to come out of Brussels,
and they've tried very hard over the years.
If passengers want to be compensated for delays, why do they not buy
insurance?
Rgds,
Martin
Tom Reiertsen
>
> LA to London on three engines? The engine failed on takeoff and they
> didn't return to LAX?
>
> 1. Bad: The pilot is insane.
> 2. Good: Another testement as to the robustness of the Boeing 747.
>
1. The pilot should loose his license and BA should be fined at least
£1.000.000.
2. I believe the 747 can actually take off using only one engine and a
*long* runway. However, it suffers quite a bit of sideway skew (I don't
know the English word for it) as a result, making it difficult to fly.
Having flewn over 200 flights the last 10 years I think that the new
regulations are great. You'd be suprised to know how many times the
airlines I use have just cancelled a departure because the flight was
half empty and then putting me on a later flight just to save money. At
least now they'll have to feed me while I wait.
Just my 2 cents.
TOm.
Willem van Rumpt
>
> <quote>
> BA said financial concerns had played no part in the decision. Captain
> Doug Brown, the senior manager of BA’s 747 fleet, said the only
> consideration had been “what was best for passengers”.
> </quote>
>
> Gee, remind me not to fly British Airways.
>
The minute I heard about the new European regulation I knew that
passengers eventually would pay the costs...
I'm not very at home with aerodynamics, and perhaps, as Tom mentioned,
they can fly on one engine, but to me (and I suspect most of the
passengers) the pattern of thought is very simple: They didn't put four
engines on the plane if it wasn't necessary!
--
Willem van Rumpt
Jeff
> Matt Jacobs wrote:
>
>>
>> <quote>
>> BA said financial concerns had played no part in the decision. Captain
>> Doug Brown, the senior manager of BA’s 747 fleet, said the only
>> consideration had been “what was best for passengers”.
>> </quote>
>>
>> Gee, remind me not to fly British Airways.
>>
>
> The minute I heard about the new European regulation I knew that
> passengers eventually would pay the costs...
>
> I'm not very at home with aerodynamics, and perhaps, as Tom mentioned,
> they can fly on one engine, but to me (and I suspect most of the
> passengers) the pattern of thought is very simple: They didn't put four
> engines on the plane if it wasn't necessary!
There are two other reasons to have four engines. Optimal economy and
redundancy for safety.
If the plane flies more fuel efficiently or makes the trip shorter for
more trips in a given amount of time, then the extra engines are
justified for economical reasons.
If the plane flies with fewer engines safely, then the extra engines are
a plus to safety through redundancy.
--
Jeff
"I am Jeff. I will brainwash you." --Jeff, Kungphewcius Master
Jeff
> It seems that passengers want cheap fares and compensation with no adverse
> effects at all, ie. something from nothing.
If the thought police should have the right to punish the thoughts of
anyone, it should be the thoughts of corporations.
Why shouldn't the thought police judges give ownership of the airline
over to the passengers?
Corporations are not sovereigns be divine right, but only at the
suffering of the real sovereigns, little people. The little people
deserve to be sovereings while corporations do not, because corporations
are immoral agens, and the little people are moral agents. A
corporation is incapable of having a belief in morality. Only people can.
> This compo regulation is one of the stupidest ever to come out of Brussels,
> and they've tried very hard over the years.
Brussels has made so many immoral decisions that it should also be owned
by those it has wronged.
--
Jeff
"I am Jeff. I will brainwash you." --Jeff, Kungphewcius Master
--
Jeff
> Flying faulty jumbo across Atlantic saves BA £100,000
This proves fines are the wrong way to deal with corporations.
Corporations are seats of power for the Illuminati anyway, so why not
punish the owners of the corporation by returning the power to the
little people? Give the control and ownership of the corporation to the
people who were wronged.
In this case, the 351 new owners would replace the old ones, their
shares being devided 351 ways. The court should appoint a free legal
advisor to the new owners. The same people who ran the company before
will still run it, but they'll be answering to the new owners. To
protect the new owners from sneaky lies aimed at their ignorance, the
free corporate law advisor will advise of their rights as owners and at
all board meetings for the the first three months until the new owners
have found their own corporate law advisor paid with corporate funds.
--
Jeff
"I am Jeff. I will brainwash you." --Jeff, Kungphewcius Master
--
Jeff
> So, they should add overriding regulations and fines for needlessly
> endangering passengers' lives. No, I'm not being sarcastic. Rules and
> regulations are fine as long as the priorities are set straight. That's why
> Asimov's laws are stated the way they are in that particular order. The
> solution to such problems is not to abolish the rule that can be
> circumvented but to add a rule which prevents or discourages that.
Rules are made to be broken. And the rules do not apply to everyone
equally in practice. So, the more rules you have the more they can be
used against the little people for the purposes of those who can ignore
the rules. Therefore, fewer rules is better.
Rules do not stop a bad thing being done. Good hearts do. When a bad
thing is done, but different hearts in charge. Change the stakeholders.
Let the victims replace the previous stakeholders of the enterprise that
hurt them. Then, good hearts will always be the stakeholders of
enterprises that could hurt people.
--
Jeff
"I am Jeff. I will brainwash you." --Jeff, Kungphewcius Master
--
Martin James
> So, they should add overriding regulations and fines for needlessly
> endangering passengers' lives. No, I'm not being sarcastic. Rules and
> regulations are fine as long as the priorities are set straight. That's
why
> Asimov's laws are stated the way they are in that particular order. The
> solution to such problems is not to abolish the rule that can be
> circumvented but to add a rule which prevents or discourages that.
Unfortuanately, pilots, maintenance & engineering staff are not robots. The
financial pressure, both real and implied, to keep aircraft flying has been
hugely increased. This is dangerous &, well, stupid.
As I said in my other post, dump the asinine & unrealistic compensation law
and *offer* passengers delay insurance, at extra cost, at the time of
booking. This gives passengers who want/need it hotels, food, passage on
other airlines, whatever, without putting unreasonable and dangerous
pressure on aircrew and ground staff. If a passenger does not want delay
insurance because their flight is not urgent & they can just go home & fly
the next day, then fine - they pay less.
All the new law does is add to overall cost of flying by increasing
inefficiency and decreasing safety by pushing the risk onto individuals who
will be sorely tempted to just ignore a high combustor termperature, say,
hoping the engine will last until some other pilot takes action on a later
flight, or the engine destroys itself, whichever comes first. Financial
risks are best spread around the markets by insurance companies & should not
be taken on by individual pilots, controllers and service engineers who may
be told that an aircraft had better be airborne within two hours else their
name will be remembered at the promotion board meeting.
Rgds,
Martin
somebody
><q>
> The incident happened three days after a European regulation came into
> force requiring airlines to compensate passengers for long delays or
> cancellations. Under the new rules, if the pilot had returned to Los
> Angeles, BA would have been facing a compensation bill of more than
> £100,000.
></q>
So, they should add overriding regulations and fines for needlessly
endangering passengers' lives. No, I'm not being sarcastic. Rules and
regulations are fine as long as the priorities are set straight. That's why
Asimov's laws are stated the way they are in that particular order. The
solution to such problems is not to abolish the rule that can be
circumvented but to add a rule which prevents or discourages that.
--
Willem van Rumpt
>
> There are two other reasons to have four engines. Optimal economy and
> redundancy for safety.
>
I figured as much (at least the redundancy part), but the redundancy is
an integral part of the engine system, and apperently needed because of
possible engine failure in one of the other three (don't know if the
redundancy is a requirement though).
I'd like to see what happens if the flightcrew were to announce before
boarding that "...only three out of four engines are working, but hey,
don't worry, we only need about 1.5 engine to make it". :)
--
Willem van Rumpt
Martin James
> an integral part of the engine system, and apperently needed because of
> possible engine failure in one of the other three (don't know if the
> redundancy is a requirement though).
>
> I'd like to see what happens if the flightcrew were to announce before
> boarding that "...only three out of four engines are working, but hey,
> don't worry, we only need about 1.5 engine to make it". :)
The flight crew might well announce, under the new regulations:
"Welcome to BA flight 542 to New York. All four engines are working fine,
at the moment, though number three has a high-ish & slowly rising
temperature but it'll probably last out the flight. The no. 2 hydraulic
system has no pressure at all but I've been assured by the maintenance staff
that it's merely a faulty guage & we're OK to fly, but they wouldn't give it
to me in writing. As long as the jetstream is the same as yesterday, we
will be fine with our minimal fuel load, faulty APU, dodgy alternator on 1
and that funny light that flahes on occasonally. The weather in New York is
fine and sunny. The weather in Newfoundland is cool & foggy. The weather
back here at Heathrow is dismal. There are a lot of mid-Atlantic storms and
the water temperature is 5 degrees".
Rgds,
Martin
Willem van Rumpt
>
> Rules are made to be broken.
<OT>
I've always found this one of the most curious statements I know, yet it
exists in every language (at least the ones I know) :)
</OT>
--
Willem van Rumpt
Jeff
>> Rules are made to be broken.
> <OT>
> I've always found this one of the most curious statements I know, yet it
> exists in every language (at least the ones I know) :)
> </OT>
That's easy to explain.
The rules *are* meant to be broken. What's the good of making rules if
no one is going to break them?
When you pick a candidate for a rule, you always try to pick one that
will likely be broken very often in deed. Then you pick a method of
improving infringement and a penalty that only the elite could repel,
resist, or afford. In this way, you give over the protected resource to
the elite.
--
Jeff
"I am Jeff. I will brainwash you." --Jeff, Kungphewcius Master
--
somebody
> > So, they should add overriding regulations and fines for needlessly
> > endangering passengers' lives. No, I'm not being sarcastic. Rules and
> > regulations are fine as long as the priorities are set straight. That's
> why
> > Asimov's laws are stated the way they are in that particular order. The
> > solution to such problems is not to abolish the rule that can be
> > circumvented but to add a rule which prevents or discourages that.
> Unfortuanately, pilots, maintenance & engineering staff are not robots.
In limited contexts, they are. If delaying costs $100 a head and flying on 3
engines costs $1000 a head, it's a no brainer.
Willem van Rumpt
>
> The flight crew might well announce, under the new regulations:
>
> "Welcome to BA flight 542 to New York. All four engines are working fine,
> at the moment, though number three has a high-ish & slowly rising
> temperature but it'll probably last out the flight. The no. 2 hydraulic
> system has no pressure at all but I've been assured by the maintenance staff
> that it's merely a faulty guage & we're OK to fly, but they wouldn't give it
> to me in writing. As long as the jetstream is the same as yesterday, we
> will be fine with our minimal fuel load, faulty APU, dodgy alternator on 1
> and that funny light that flahes on occasonally. The weather in New York is
> fine and sunny. The weather in Newfoundland is cool & foggy. The weather
> back here at Heathrow is dismal. There are a lot of mid-Atlantic storms and
> the water temperature is 5 degrees".
>
> Rgds,
> Martin
>
Now that's the kind of information I want!
My only request is that they leave out the technical BS, and just tell
me if I'm going to need my raincoat or not :)
--
Willem van Rumpt
--
Marius Horak
I blame Boeing for that
They made this thing able to fly even with two engines.
MH
Willem van Rumpt
>
> The rules *are* meant to be broken.
No. Although we all know they are going to be broken, the principal
property of a rule is that it is a boundary that you should ("should" is
very essential here ;) ) not cross.
What's the good of making rules if
> no one is going to break them?
>
Supposedly bliss, happiness, prosperity and more of that gibberish
I was merely pointing out that it's one of those phrases that,
logically, make no sense at all :)
--
Willem van Rumpt
--
Jeff
> My only request is that they leave out the technical BS, and just tell
> me if I'm going to need my raincoat or not :)
No. The skyhosteses don't perform that service yet. And when they do,
they'll provide the raincoat.
--
Jeff
"I am Jeff. I will brainwash you." --Jeff, Kungphewcius Master
--
Jeff
>> The rules *are* meant to be broken.
> No. Although we all know they are going to be broken, the principal
> property of a rule is that it is a boundary that you should ("should" is
> very essential here ;) ) not cross.
That's true in a few cases: you are not meant to break them, because you
couldn't afford the price, but the elite are meant to break them and
they *can* afford it.
In most cases, however, *you* are meant to break them, because the elite
use you to break the rules for them. For example, pushing their drugs on
the populace for them. You take the risk. They don't. Anytime the local
police or the FBI gets too close to a sanctioned king pin, they are told
to back off. If the unsanctioned, rogue police chief gets the king pin
to court anyway, the Freemason judge will see that the king pin is a
Freemason and his Freemason lawyer will get him a Freemason jury. In
other words, he'll get off Scott free. Therefore, you see, such rules
only apply to you.
> What's the good of making rules if
>
>> no one is going to break them?
>>
>
> Supposedly bliss, happiness, prosperity and more of that gibberish
That's what they *want* you to think. Good boy. You are a dupe for the
elite. To your compliance, they simply nod and say, "See, that's why we
have to control their lives. They are all stupid."
> I was merely pointing out that it's one of those phrases that,
> logically, make no sense at all :)
Giving all our power to the elites through the forest of rules that they
get to make and that only apply to us also makes no sense at all. :-)
--
Jeff
"I am Jeff. I will brainwash you." --Jeff, Kungphewcius Master
--
Tom Reiertsen
> 2. I believe the 747 can actually take off using only one engine and a
> *long* runway.
Hi. This was actually incorrect. It can fly, but poorly, on one engine.
It can also take off using only two engines. Sorry for the messup.
Tom
Martin Harvey (Demon Account)
<mjames...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Since it appears that the engine failed at just about the most critical time
>possible
More or less. V1 is the most critical moment, and typically occurs
when you're just over half way down the runway.
Actually there are two different V1 speeds for any particular takeoff,
but I'm not going to go into that.
>& still the thing flew, I guess that the pilot figured they'd had
>all the bad luck at once & so carried on with one hand on heart & the othe
>ron wallet.
I'm surprised he carried on: modern airliners are very "clean"
aerodynamically, and when you start flying in an asymmetrical
configuration, you do burn quite a lot more fuel. Oh yeah, IIRC they
can canculate the fules requirements pretty exactly nowadays, so the
"spare" fuel isn't that much 5%, 10%?
>This story does not surprise me at all.
Still think the pilot was a pillock.
MH.
Martin Harvey (Demon Account)
<jefferio.r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>If the plane flies with fewer engines safely, then the extra engines are
> a plus to safety through redundancy.
With one curious exception. For small aircraft (ie less than say 20
passengers) single engined aircraft are substantially safer than
twins.
Why?
- Twins will have roughtly double the rate of engine failures.
Sure, you say, but if only one engine fails, surely the pilot can just
land it?
Well it aint that simple. Unfortunately:
- Twin props with a failed engine handle awfully. Lots of nasty trim
and gryoscopic issues, and if the failure is uncontained (not at all
unknown), removing propellor, cowling etc, the asymmetic trim may
render the aircraft unflyable.
- Give it a:
* not-so-experienced private pilot (i.e. not like a 747 driver who's
been flying for 30 years)
* bad weather
* a failed engine
* a plane that wants to corkscrew out of the sky
* and a decent dose of stress
And the statistics show that despite having a working engine, he's
moderately likely to crash it for one reason or another anyway.
The psychology is very interesting ... apparently twin pilots tend to
press on even when they should make a forced landing.
Pilots of singles know they're going down, the aircraft is normally
well trimmed and flyable, and they simply have a rather heavyweight
glider to put down in the nearest field. No tricky decisions or errors
to make for the pilot, just: "Send the mayday, find the biggest patch
of ground you can, and put it down gently)
And lest you doubt that these things are possible, take a look at
this:
http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=5853
These things are not uncommon...
MH.
Jeff
>>If the plane flies with fewer engines safely, then the extra engines are
>> a plus to safety through redundancy.
> With one curious exception. For small aircraft (ie less than say 20
> passengers) single engined aircraft are substantially safer than
> twins.
I've thought of all that on my own, actually.
--
Jeff
"I am Jeff. I will brainwash you." --Jeff, Kungphewcius Master
--
Tom Reiertsen
> <quote>
> Flying faulty jumbo across Atlantic saves BA £100,000
>
Apparently this is fully legal, according to some rules and
calculations. See this post I found in an airline pilot discussion
group with regards to a question if a 747 could fly safely with only
three engines operating (this is a pilot posting):
"For aircraft with three or more engines: If an engine is lost after
departure the Captain and the Dispatcher may elect to continue the
flight to it's destination provided it still has the required amount of
fuel onboard after re- calculations. Also as long as it doesn't result
in the loss of any required equipment such as electrical,
pressurization etc. Guidance on this is found in a specific aircraft's
MEL.
Example- Aircraft has just departed JFK for MIA. Due to an oil pressure
problem, an engine is shut down about 70 mi out over the water. JFK is
currently 1/2 mi in blowing snow, braking action fair all runways. MIA
reporting scattered clouds with unlimited vis, dry runways. MIA is also
a maintenance base as well as a small hub for this airline. More than
likely this aircraft will continue to it's destination, and can do so
safely.
This does not apply to twin engine a/c however. Another issue twinjets
have is the problem of driftdown, or altitude loss, following an engine
failure. Loss of one on a twinjet represents a 50% loss of power vs.
25% on a four engine aircraft. While both would suffer some altitude
capability loss, it would be far greater for the twin. If remember
correctly some routes over the Himalayas are considered ETOPS and some
are closed altogether to twinjet operations due to driftdown.
Not sure where one can find exact numbers, possibly manufacturers
website or Aviation Week?
Hope this helps."
They have a system called ETOPS that regulates what kind of power a
plane needs to have to cope with the flightpath it has plotted.
Best Regards,
Tom
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
>Having flewn over 200 flights the last 10 years I think that the new
>regulations are great. You'd be suprised to know how many times the
>airlines I use have just cancelled a departure because the flight was
>half empty and then putting me on a later flight just to save money. At
>least now they'll have to feed me while I wait.
My understanding is that US laws on late flights specifically
exclude delays due to problems with the aircraft.
Matt Jacobs
>On 25 Feb 2005 22:18:26 -0800, "Tom Reiertsen" <t...@reiertsen.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Having flewn over 200 flights the last 10 years I think that the new
>>regulations are great. You'd be suprised to know how many times the
>>airlines I use have just cancelled a departure because the flight was
>>half empty and then putting me on a later flight just to save money. At
>>least now they'll have to feed me while I wait.
>
> My understanding is that US laws on late flights specifically
>exclude delays due to problems with the aircraft.
Maybe for a US destination. This was a flight to London.
Poet Fury
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:59:45 +0100, Jeff
> <jefferio.r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>If the plane flies with fewer engines safely, then the extra engines are
>> a plus to safety through redundancy.
>
> With one curious exception. For small aircraft (ie less than say 20
> passengers) single engined aircraft are substantially safer than
> twins.
I hate little planes.
Took off from Berlin ina C-21, looked out the window.
Fuel pouring out of the wing.
"Um...excuse me. Is it supposed to do that?"
Oops.
What do I care? I'm wasting fingers like I had them to spare,
Plugging holes in the Zuider Zee.
Martin James
> > However, it suffers quite a bit of sideway skew (I
> > don't know the English word for it)
>
> Yaw.
>
or possibly, after an 11 hr flight 'leg-ache'. Perhaps the pilot found a
flight manual of the right size to jam the pedals over.
Rgds,
Martin
Martin James
> > Unfortuanately, pilots, maintenance & engineering staff are not robots.
>
> In limited contexts, they are. If delaying costs $100 a head and flying on
3
> engines costs $1000 a head, it's a no brainer.
The point is that the pilots etc are now playing Buckaroo. Mary will be
tempted into gambling that the slowly-dying engine will not blow up until
the next flight, when Fred will have to deal with it. Pilots and
maintenance/service staff/controllers should not be given this additional
financial pressure to get aircraft up.
Rgds,
Martin
Martin James
time
> >possible
>
> More or less. V1 is the most critical moment, and typically occurs
> when you're just over half way down the runway.
>
> Actually there are two different V1 speeds for any particular takeoff,
> but I'm not going to go into that.
>
..whatever :) Between V1 and some point where the thing can fly with three
engines, a full fuel load and flaps at takeoff posn, the pilot does not
really want to lose an engine. If an engine has been 'nursed' through the
last four flights in an attempt to avoid inferred blame for a tech delay &
compo, it's surely likely to blow at exactly this time, when it's at full
power At 100 ft, I bet the gear is not even up.
Still, it would make life interesting for those sleeping in the airport
hotel as it's just cleared by a heavy struggling to gain airspeed. I guess
the pilot would tend to forget about reaching noise-abatement height
quickly.
As things were, engines fail so rarely that pilots often have no experience
of it outside a simulator/training. This is because of the inherent
reliablity of gas-turbines, planned maintenance and prompt notification of
impending problems by aircrew. I do not like the idea of one of these
factors being compromised by the morons in Brussels.
Rgds,
Martin
Jeff
>>This proves fines are the wrong way to deal with corporations.
>>Corporations are seats of power for the Illuminati anyway,
> I finally figured out your game.
I told you my game. I'm here to brainwash you.
> You work for the globalists.
Heavenists.
> Your
> function is to make any reference to globalists or Illuminati sound so
> bed bug crazy that nobody will ever take it seriously.
Don't blame me for how crazy they sound. It's their craziness.
> It may be the
> case that there exists a giant conspiracy such as you often describe,
> but anyone reading your warnings on the subject will brush them off
> because of all the other crazy things you say.
How could I say it if they didn't do it? Face it. They're crazy. Did you
want me to make up some story about how they're sober, good-thinking
chaps with modest goals?
> The question remains,
> do you know that this is your function or not?
Not.
> In other words, are a
> stooge or are you simply a tool?
"God uses the foolish to confound the wise."
Are you "wise?"
Jeff
>> In other words, are a
>>stooge or are you simply a tool?
> Are you trying to make his head explode? <g>
It's revenge after I exploded his.
Willem van Rumpt
>
> Giving all our power to the elites through the forest of rules that they
> get to make and that only apply to us also makes no sense at all. :-)
Sorry, but the rules apply to them as well.
They get specifically mentioned in the "does not apply to" parts
of the rules ;)
--
Willem van Rumpt
--
Jeff
>> Giving all our power to the elites through the forest of rules that
>> they get to make and that only apply to us also makes no sense at all.
>> :-)
> Sorry, but the rules apply to them as well.
> They get specifically mentioned in the "does not apply to" parts
> of the rules ;)
Obfuscated clauses is only one way. There are many others.
--
Jeff
"I am Jeff. I will brainwash you." --Jeff, Kungphewcius Master
--
Jeff
>>>The question remains,
>>>do you know that this is your function or not?
>>Not.
> IOW, you sincerely believe you are working *against* the globalists.
> You are a tool, ignorant of the purpose you serve. Wake up!
Your matrix-centric rational expects me to use logic, evidence, or
emotion to have my way with you. Actually, I am using means more
underhanded than that. My methods tug at the very machine of your mind
below the level of your freewill.
Dave Fowler
>
> As I said in my other post, dump the asinine & unrealistic
> compensation law and offer passengers delay insurance, at extra cost,
> at the time of booking.
Here's your ticket, and by the way we offer a crap unreliable service
so why don't you give us some more money for insurance in case we mess
up. Why don't the airlines take out some insurance themselves to cover
the costs?
--
No one changed music as much as Elvis. I ain't sayin' he was a genius
and I ain't sayin' he was the King, 'cause he wasn't. If he's the King,
how come he's buried in his own backyard like a hamster.
Rich Hall
Dave Fowler
>
> It seems that passengers want cheap fares and compensation with no
> adverse effects at all, ie. something from nothing.
>
People want flights that aren't delayed or cancelled. The price of the
ticket is irrelevant if you've been left stranded. BA isn't a low-cost
airline.
Martin James
>
> Here's your ticket, and by the way we offer a crap unreliable service
> so why don't you give us some more money for insurance in case we mess
> up. Why don't the airlines take out some insurance themselves to cover
> the costs?
Why should they? Delay is not, (or was not), directly a risk to them.
Delay may, or may not, be important to individual passengers. Why should a
passenger who does not really care if a flight is delayed pay for insurance,
or other charges, for another passenger who does care?
If a passenger wants to fly goat-class, with no delay insurance and so no
extra charges, why should he/she not have that choice?
Rgds,
Martin
Jeff
>>Your matrix-centric rational expects me to use logic, evidence, or
>>emotion to have my way with you. Actually, I am using means more
>>underhanded than that. My methods tug at the very machine of your
>>mind below the level of your freewill.
> See, this is *exactly* what I'm talking about. You say this stuff as
> though it means something. Then, when you comment about globalists and
> Illuminati, your words are easily dismissed as the ranting of a
> paranoid nut job.
I simplify the truth, because you can't handle it.
Actually, the Illuminati don't exist. It's just a name that one of their
servants had used. The globalists and the Freemasons have taken their
place as servants. I chose the the unused name of one of their past
servants to cover the whole kit and kaboodle, the hidden core and all
the servant groups.
I had already tried giving you the straight dope, but you couldn't
handle it. That's why I do what I do. I do what they do. I brainwash
you, but I use for good what they use for evil.
I brainwash you for your own good. Don't worry. I'll stop using it
before I turn into a ringwraith. As a foolish thing, I'm a hobbit.
Therefore, I have great resistence to evil. I speak in metaphor because
only a few of you can handle the naked terms. It seems Tolkien and Wells
had come to a similar conclusion with their "Lord of the Rings" and
"Animal Farm."
You've been made alergic to terms like 'Jesus,' 'spiritual,' 'ancient,'
and 'conspiracy,' but that's not my fault. I just do what is necessary
because of your limitations. The innoculations against truth you got in
public school have given you auto-immune disease. The cure can seem
tedious to those who think the damage can be undone quicker.
If you were as good a doctor as I, you'd be doing it. But you're a hands
off kind of guy. You believe in preventing any healing at all.
Andrue Cope [TeamB]
> Gee, remind me not to fly British Airways.
Tell me what airline is cutting costs right now then?
This is just a public example of the kind of dangerous practice that
goes on all the time by all the airlines.
--
Andrue Cope [TeamB]
[Bicester, Uk]
http://info.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html
Andrue Cope [TeamB]
> and that funny light that flahes on occasonally.
They have a light with 'funny' written on it? Reminds me of a film :)
Andrue Cope [TeamB]
> Gee, remind me not to fly British Airways.
Tell me what airline isn't cutting costs right now then?
This is just a public example of the kind of dangerous practice that
goes on all the time by all the airlines and it's going to get worse
not better.
Rene Tschaggelar
><quote>
>Flying faulty jumbo across Atlantic saves BA £100,000
Cutting cost appears to be everything. Our airline figured
that flying with only half throttle would save them on
mainenance cost for the engines. Thus the planes take
longer to climb. And we're now lowering the 5500 feet
plane to 4500 feet in proximity of the airport. This
involves the whole airtraffic, such as sail planes, hang
gliders, baloons. An extremely complex task involving many.
Considering the estmated lifetime of our airline of less
than half a year...
Rene
--
Ing.Büro R.Tschaggelar http://www.ibrtses.com
Your newsgroups @ http://www.talkto.net
Martin James
> They have a light with 'funny' written on it? Reminds me of a film :)
>
The Brussels Bodgers watched the 'Airplane' series of films before drafting
the laws :)
Rgds,
Martin
john blackburn
> Martin James wrote:
>
>> and that funny light that flahes on occasonally.
>
> They have a light with 'funny' written on it? Reminds me of a film :)
>
What about that cargo flight from the far east a year or two ago that was so
low on fuel over London that they couldn't run the fuel system in the
normal balanced feed configuration as one or more of the tanks had run dry
and the engines cut out just after it landed and it had to be towed off the
runway - Scary !
The airline was banned from landing in the UK after that but I don't know
whether they've been allowed back in currently.
Thomas J. Theobald
"Jeff" <jefferio.r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42222a1d$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> John Prestor wrote:
>
> >>>The question remains,
> >>>do you know that this is your function or not?
>
> >>Not.
>
> > IOW, you sincerely believe you are working *against* the globalists.
> > You are a tool, ignorant of the purpose you serve. Wake up!
>
> Your matrix-centric rational expects me to use logic, evidence, or
> emotion to have my way with you. Actually, I am using means more
> underhanded than that. My methods tug at the very machine of your mind
> below the level of your freewill.
> --
> Jeff
>
More like they tug on my lower intestine. Listening to a nut-job like
yourself just gives me the squirts.
T
Loren Pechtel
>Loren Pechtel <lorenp...@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 25 Feb 2005 22:18:26 -0800, "Tom Reiertsen" <t...@reiertsen.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Having flewn over 200 flights the last 10 years I think that the new
>>>regulations are great. You'd be suprised to know how many times the
>>>airlines I use have just cancelled a departure because the flight was
>>>half empty and then putting me on a later flight just to save money. At
>>>least now they'll have to feed me while I wait.
>>
>> My understanding is that US laws on late flights specifically
>>exclude delays due to problems with the aircraft.
>
>Maybe for a US destination. This was a flight to London.
And it wasn't the US imposing the penalties.
I'm saying we do it right, they do it wrong.