Matt-100, I think you underestimate just how desperate these people are. A sign would not affect the rationale of such a person. I am sure people who do try are aware that it is a very dangerous act, but even that may be better than what they are leaving.

I am not saying that they are a problem, but they are indicative of a problem in their country. They are not the problem on aviation, and adding more regulation to aviation is not the answer.

A sign at the perimeter on an airport is not going to stop someone who is so desperate to seek a new life somewhere better. That is not an aviation problem.

It is this paranoid thinking that has made aviation a lot more stressful – for passengers and people that have transit security multiple times a day, for – I feel – very little gain.

That last picture is quite depressing.

I always liked how bmibaby displayed the Union Jack near the front door, like the older charter airlines used to. Sigh..

…Honestly…..do they think we’re stupid? :rolleyes:

Yes! :rolleyes:

I think a lot of people are going to be going out to see the last of the VC-10s flying.

Is this the first scheduled B787 flight into LHR?

When you are used to seeing long-bodied 777-300s, the 787-8 looks stumpy. In fact, at the angle in the photo it reminds me very much of it’s predecessor, the 767-200.

Matt-100, I understand what you are getting at, but my point being that the fuel surcharge being applied, covers or nearly covers the cost of fuel being needed.

I accept that it – my previous posting – was an entirely simplistic view on the entire process of fuel planning and all the variables that go into operating a flight safely – not least, the aircraft might not have a full passenger load.

It does show how stupid the fuel surcharge is, and why it should be included within the airfare.