Looks like there will be no more PIA 747’s nor A310’s landing in Europe effective immeadiately.
Dig out your old photos because they are now a collectors item 😀
Madness. :diablo:
By: GAZGLA - 13th March 2007 at 18:41
Bull.
No, it really was noise.
Back then the environmentalists had a lot of power (and they still do) and even helped kill the US SST…concerns about contrails (the late 60s version of the current global warming hysteria…they were afraid that contrails would make global cooling) and sonic booms IN ADDITION to take off and landing noise. Remember, they flew into NYC and Wash DC…two particularly noise sensitive areas.
About your conspiracy theory…
Why would an airport give up landing fees because the plane wasn’t made in the US? Seattle is no where near New York or DC. They don’t give a rats a** about some assembly line worker in Renton.I think your kind of argument would make more sense in Europe where Unions/Industry/government are more closely tied.
And the reason why US airlines didn’t operate Concorde was economics…Airlines don’t care who make the bloody machines as long as they do it at a profit. Commercial airlines (as opposed to European government-owned ones) are neither sentimental or nationalistic. Witness Airbus sales in the US and Boeing sales in the EU.
They look at the bottom line.
Environmentalists killed the Boeing SST? No, it was a poor design aswell. The hinges on the wings (swing wing design) were a huge weight and they couldn’t resolve the problem.
As for concorde, well, it had received over 70 orders around that time, including from US airlines I think. But the 144 crash and an oil crisis lead to cancellations. The Boeing SST also had plenty of orders, so your economics point isn’t valid as airlines clearly had some confidence in the aircraft.
Anyway, my original comment was tongue in cheek, hence the “:P”. So don’t get your knickers in a twist 🙂
And back to PIA…..
Does anyone know if the leased A310’s will be coming to GLA?
Gaz
By: Lawndart - 13th March 2007 at 18:10
Why has part of PIA’s fleet been banned from European airspace? Environmental/noise concerns? Or something else?
By: J Boyle - 13th March 2007 at 17:43
I was referring to the fact that the US origianally didn’t allow Concorde into their airspace due to noise concerns. Basically they were jealous of European technology and were being petty. Thankfully the situation was resolved.
Gaz
Bull.
No, it really was noise.
Back then the environmentalists had a lot of power (and they still do) and even helped kill the US SST…concerns about contrails (the late 60s version of the current global warming hysteria…they were afraid that contrails would make global cooling) and sonic booms IN ADDITION to take off and landing noise. Remember, they flew into NYC and Wash DC…two particularly noise sensitive areas.
About your conspiracy theory…
Why would an airport give up landing fees because the plane wasn’t made in the US? Seattle is no where near New York or DC. They don’t give a rats a** about some assembly line worker in Renton.
I think your kind of argument would make more sense in Europe where Unions/Industry/government are more closely tied.
And the reason why US airlines didn’t operate Concorde was economics…Airlines don’t care who make the bloody machines as long as they do it at a profit. Commercial airlines (as opposed to European government-owned ones) are neither sentimental or nationalistic. Witness Airbus sales in the US and Boeing sales in the EU.
They look at the bottom line.
By: Cking - 13th March 2007 at 17:16
The latest is. PIA’s into man now back up to 19 a week!
Oh yes hot news about Concorde!!!!!! IT’S STILL GROUNDED!!!!!!!
Rgds Cking
By: GAZGLA - 13th March 2007 at 14:13
Blame BA and AF;)
other wise I think there would be one flying out there and here maybe with VS
James
I was referring to the fact that the US origianally didn’t allow Concorde into their airspace due to noise concerns. Basically they were jealous of European technology and were being petty. Thankfully the situation was resolved.
Gaz
By: Manston Airport - 13th March 2007 at 13:45
Like Concorde? 😛
Gaz
p.s. Yes they eventually did let it fly in the States before someone who didn’t know points it out…
Blame BA and AF;)
other wise I think there would be one flying out there and here maybe with VS
James
By: GAZGLA - 13th March 2007 at 13:03
I like Canada and the States when it comes to aircraft they just let anything fly,Not like other here:mad:
James
Like Concorde? 😛
Gaz
p.s. Yes they eventually did let it fly in the States before someone who didn’t know points it out…
By: Manston Airport - 13th March 2007 at 12:49
So Europe won’t allow the 747’s in but The States will? That’s quite comical in its own little way!
Paul
I like Canada and the States when it comes to aircraft they just let anything fly,Not like other here:mad:
James
By: CousinMadness - 13th March 2007 at 10:55
So Europe won’t allow the 747’s in but The States will? That’s quite comical in its own little way!
Paul
They are not banned in Canada here either. I’ll keep an eye out the sun-roof when I am near the flightpath of YYZ.
Cousin. 😀
By: PMN - 13th March 2007 at 10:21
MAN reduces from 27 x weekly flights to 12 x weekly flights. Some USA flights will now operate via IST, on the B747
So Europe won’t allow the 747’s in but The States will? That’s quite comical in its own little way!
Paul
By: GKirk - 13th March 2007 at 08:18
MAN reduces from 27 x weekly flights to 12 x weekly flights. Some USA flights will now operate via IST, on the B747
By: lukeylad - 12th March 2007 at 14:10
What aircraft will be replacing them at MAN? Any schedule reductions like at BHX?
Its all 777 through MAN now mate.
By: Manston Airport - 12th March 2007 at 13:13
Just abit :diablo:, not especially enthralling for me as I’ve seen that exact aircraft in it’s former guise when used by Mahan Air on their BHX services :rolleyes:.
In the end though the BHX service is back to normal, and that’s the important bit right 😀 :dev2:.
Beats seeing the 777 though;) :diablo:
James
By: A330-300 - 12th March 2007 at 13:08
What aircraft will be replacing them at MAN? Any schedule reductions like at BHX?
By: Future Pilot - 12th March 2007 at 12:22
No doubt we will, a bit boring on the livery front though isn’t it ?
Just abit :diablo:, not especially enthralling for me as I’ve seen that exact aircraft in it’s former guise when used by Mahan Air on their BHX services :rolleyes:.
In the end though the BHX service is back to normal, and that’s the important bit right 😀 :dev2:.
By: Ren Frew - 12th March 2007 at 12:18
BHX had been reduced to a 3x weekly B777 service with PIA but now they’re leased a A310 of Saga Airlines of Turkey (TC-SGC) to use on the BHX service and as a result it’s back up to 5x weekly.
GLA locals may well be seeing this on their services…
No doubt we will, a bit boring on the livery front though isn’t it ?
By: Future Pilot - 12th March 2007 at 12:12
BHX had been reduced to a 3x weekly B777 service with PIA but now they’re leased a A310 of Saga Airlines of Turkey (TC-SGC) to use on the BHX service and as a result it’s back up to 5x weekly.
GLA locals may well be seeing this on their services…
By: Ren Frew - 12th March 2007 at 11:48
Hello Ren Frew.
Yes I heard it was in last Wednesday. With a bit of luck it will still be coming over at the end of May when I will be home for 10 days. I have never photographed a 777 at Glasgow.
Cheerio.
Cousin. :diablo:
You can choose between PIA and Emirates just now…:D
By: CousinMadness - 12th March 2007 at 11:39
Hello Ren Frew.
Yes I heard it was in last Wednesday. With a bit of luck it will still be coming over at the end of May when I will be home for 10 days. I have never photographed a 777 at Glasgow.
Cheerio.
Cousin. :diablo:
By: Ren Frew - 12th March 2007 at 11:31
They’ll be back in a couple of months after heavy maintenance Cousin… Check out the pics of the 777 that replaces the A310 on the Glasgow route, some of us snapped last week in the images forum.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=68347
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=68038
Sign In
March 12, 2007 at 11:24 am