Is it possible to design two booms into a single tanker and would it be an advantage?

I guess it’s not impossible, but there is a long list of very good reasons why you wouldn’t.

If, for example, the booms were one on each wing, you would have some structural issues, as well as a potential control issue. Boom operators could concievably sit in the aircraft fuselage and and control using a camera, but it’s just an unnecessary complication.

Also, the real advantage of the boom, (that it can transfer fuel more quickly than probe and drogue), would be lost. The tanker would only be able to fit one large aircraft underneath it to refuel at a time, and only large aircraft can recieve fuel at the boom’s higer capacities.

Fighters and other smaller aircraft can only recieve fuel at a much slower rate, so there is no point using a boom for them over probe and drogue.

Argentina never talked to haranguing vessels in international waters, that’s a lie. The only measure is that every ship that stops in an Argentine port or in transit through Argentine waters must ask for permission if they want to go to the islands.

This is where there is a problem though: Argentina claims waters completely surrounding the Falklands and South Georgia:

I believe that Britain does not recognise these claims, so Argentinian interference in British shipping would be seen as unfounded.

Don’t discredit the story because you don’t like the source….any more than conservatives shouldn’t discredit a story for the same reason.

I’m not discrediting the story, but I’ll go on record as saying I can’t stand their journalism.

Still, my point remains – why aren’t the nations whose best interest it is in to discredit AGM doing so?

I’m assuming that the governments of China, India, Brazil and other developing economies whose growth is dependent on fossil fuels, who are being pressured to reduce their consuption of these fuels to reduce their CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, are in on a great global warming scam then?

Given that they have a vested interest in disproving the arguement that anthroprogenic global warming is happening, so that they can continue the speed of economic growth they have been experiencing, why are they going along blindly with it all?

I’m all for finding the truth of the matter, I’m just sick of the patronising attitude taken by so many people about it all.

And as a side note, it’s interesting that many of these sources come from fox news, given that it is so openly biased that it’s virtually the mouthpeice for the republican party.

Yes it would. The uniform rules and the safety rules are quite clear from BA. The judge is 100% correct.
And the other Religious regalia has to be neat and tidy. Thankfully BA seems to mainly employ men as the dinner ladies. I really would object to being served by a Muslim woman with her face covered.
Singapore AL pride themselves on employing lookers. Is that sexist? I think not! It’s one of the things that keep them at the top of the favourite AL to fly with. Even a women appreciates another beautiful woman. So long as they know how to throw me down a shute, then go for lookers and dispell all this additions to a uniform, religious or political or fashion.

I think you misunderstood me; I was saying that this would not have been considered such an important/noteworthy case if this had been about political beliefs because they aren’t pandered to in the way that religion is.

Something I was thinking about; lets assume that 7-10 years from now the PAK-FA comes into service with the Indian AF – how would this alter the balance of power in the region?

What would Pakistan’s options be by way of response?
F35? As yet unknown Chinese aircraft? Their own PAK-FA (seems most unlikely given Indian involvement)?

Interested to know what you think. Obviously this is all contingent on the currently speculative capabilities of the aircraft, but with the PAK-FA, SU-30MKI and the other aircraft India are adding to their inventory, Pakistan is being increasingly overshadowed…

What gets me about this story is that even though the rule was there to be applied to everyone, the lady in question still claims that she was being discriminated against because she wasn’t allowed to wear the cross.

Surely it’s the opposite? She is being treated like everyone else is, so what she is really asking for is special treatment for her religious beliefs.

Somehow I don’t think the case would have gone as far as this if, for example, she had worn a political party pin badge stating her political beliefs….