cloud_9I for one am not definately not in favour of the South-West proposal as it will encrouch very closely to my property that I bought last year (see attached image!).
I’m not so bothered about the nosie and pollution issue as unlike alot of protestors I accept that living near an airport will mean additional noise and increased pollution.
Plus, have you seen the fact that no matter which one is eventually decided upon (if indeed they are!) all three of the proposals will result in the need for major works to be carried out on the M25 and M4-spur that goes directly into LHR…it will be absolute chaos on the roads for many years!
I’ve always said and will continue to vouch my support for the re-location of a hub airport in the South-East…I’m more than happy to move to where the work would take me, and if it meant re-locating to a new part of London or the South-East then so be it.
The option of the airport on the Isle of Grain in Kent is the best option…it would only take 24mins by high-speed rail into London Bridge, which is closer to the centre of London than London Paddington where the current Heathrow Express takes people to.
Heathrow can/should be closed down once the new airport has been completed and is operational, and it can be turned into one of those new “eco-city” type places which offers opportunities to provide much needed housing and increased job opportunites (more than what LHR currently provides!).
Whilst I know the primary argument against a new hub airport is the huge costs and the amount of time it would take to construct, but quite simply expanding Heathrow is a short-term solution to what is a large and long-term problem. I truly believe that a new more modern facility is required to take this country and aviation capcity forward into the future generations.
cloud_9They used to be banned…back in June 2007 they were banned by the EU from flying into any European country. It was hoped that the ban would be lifted somewhere in October 2007, however by November, the EU refused to lift its ban stating that although reforms had been undertaken they did not satisfy the EU’s aviation safety standards. The ban was finally lifted in July 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda_Indonesia#2000.E2.80.932009:_Plummeting_reputation_and_EU_ban
Since then, the airline has been busy implementing its “Quantum Leap” plan…they have listed themselves on the Indonesian stock exchange to help improve their financial position, they’ve committed to overhauling their fleet and recently taken delivery of Boeing 777-300ER aircraft, which is due to be used on flights to/from London-Gatwick. In 2010, Garuda Indonesia signed an agreement to join the SkyTeam alliance, however it will officially enter in early 2014.
http://www.garudaindonesia.co.uk/london-flight-schedules-announced
I assume that the Liverpool decals that have been applied to the aircraft are simply for the charter flights to get the team to/from Indonesia and will be removed once they have returned…unlike the Man Utd and Man City logojets which are part of a wider and long-term sponsorship deal with the airlines that carry their names/logos.
cloud_9Cloud9, Cloud 9, calling Cloud 9 photo op. is waiting!
Sorry, I’ve only just caught up with this thread.
As much as I’d love to be able to take photos of aircraft in hangers/engineering areas whilst at work I’m far too busy looking after another airlines B787 on a daily basis; plus I don’t have an airside driving licence so am unable to get around unless accompanied by someone who does and like I just said, we’re all too busy.:apologetic:
I do just want to go back to something that was said previously though…
How many Joe Public are interested in the type of plane they are going to fly on when they book? Not many I would suggest. They may have a question when checking in, but by then it is too late to change their mind.
Agreed, most wouldn’t even know they type of plane they last flew on.
If your talking about your average once-a-year family package holiday customer, then sure they will not be that bothered about the aircraft that they fly on, as long as it leaves on time, they get seated together with their family members then they couldn’t really give two-hoots.
That said, I can assure you that people still do care very much about what type of aircraft they fly on.
In recent weeks, the airline that I represent has had quite a number of issues with their B787 aircraft that they operate. Granted these issues have not been as serious as a fire, however they are issues that have led to several lengthy delays and subsequent cancellations. Whilst going through the process of having to re-book customers for the following day and providing accomodation in hotels overnight I am often asked for alternative flight options because the customer no longer wants to travel on the particular aircraft type, and it is purely because in their mind the aircraft is unsafe or they perceieve there to be an increased risk in travelling on it.
I personally think that it could be more so as a result of the media/press reports. Nowadays the slightest problem seems to get reported due to it being the same aircraft type that has recently been reported about, so it gives the sense that the aircraft is even more dangerous/unsafe/risky as it is/was initially thought.
cloud_9Indeed it makes perfect sense why these aircraft are flying over the UK at this time, as its approx another 90-mins onwards to Germany, which will make the time 07:00am. Not forgetting that Germany is +1hr ahead of the UK, so in effect this makes it 08:00am when people arrive, and they will more than likely be heading straight into the city for a days business.
Also, having just had a very quick glance at the stats on some of the major airports in the USA, London consistently ranks as the #1 Busiest International Route, and destinations within Germany (i.e Frankfurt, Munich, etc.) are all featured at least somewhere within the top 10, apart from LAX…where not a single German destination features even though Lufthansa flys to both FRA and MUC, but I’m not sure as to why this is?
cloud_9Offically opened today by Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, and Tim Clark, CEO of Emirates, however it opens to the public tomorrow.
Cost is just £3 for adults and £1.50 for children; this does not give access to the simulators…prices start at £45 for a 30-minute flight experience.
Here is the link to the website: http://www.aviation-experience.com/
http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/emirates-aviation-experience-opened-by-boris-jo
cloud_9Indeed, I watched Airport Live when it was on TV, and I’m just watching Flights & Fights now…both really good programs offering a fascinating insight into the industry.
cloud_9Lovely photos there Keith, thanks for sharing.
Strange to see the Let410 still in Brighton City Airways’s livery; such a shame that they had issues with French customs and ended up suspending services so soon after their launch.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-22383477
🙁
cloud_9Lovely shots there Matt.
Any ideas as to what aircraft Monarch are looking at to replace their current fleet with?
cloud_9Great news for Manston! I always knew that airport had potential.
cloud_9Nice. I thought they’d gone busto !
Indeed, the Spanish arm of Orbest has gone bust, however the Portugese arm managed to survive, hence the CS- registration.;)
cloud_9I just saw this on BBC Breakfast…it was really interesting.
Also, there is a week-long series called “Airport Live” that starts on BBC2 @ 20:00 from Monday (17th).
It will provide “the most complete exploration of Heathrow’s grounds and skies and will feature a mix of live and pre-recorded footage that will explain how an airport works. BBC Two will go behind the scenes airside; into the heart of the air traffic control tower; onto the tarmac as a plane is turned around for departure; and into the hub of engineering to watch a service on a plane.:cool:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/airport-live.html
cloud_9So in reference to my last post (#7) about BA saying they were not going to be paying compensation to those people who were effected by subsequent delays/cancellations…I don’t think leaving the engine cowl covers unlatched can be classed as an “extraordinary circumstance”, which means they should be made to pay out now!
cloud_9Nice to see the UK getting its first 787…but I still can get my head round that awful new Thomson livery!
cloud_9Looks like Mr R finally made managed to pull it off…
http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/story/2013-05-28/new-airlines-first-flight/
Many congrats to him, and I hope it all works out well.:)
cloud_9So BA have decided not to pay compensation to customers that were disrupted as a result of the emergency landing last Friday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10084417/Delay-hit-BA-passengers-denied-compensation.html
It said the closure of the airport – albeit as a result of a crisis involving one of its own aircraft – should be classed as an “extraordinary circumstance”.
Whilst I understand the safety aspect of the aircraft returning to LHR and full credit to the crew for making a safe return, however I don’t think they [BA] can be in a position to deny any responsibility for the associated delays/cancellations until such time as the full findings of the cause of the incident has been identified. If as the report above suggests it was a bird strike then I can understand that this is an an “extraordinary circumstance”, but if it turns out that it was a maintainence issue with the aircraft, then the airline should be held to account. Perhaps they should tell customers that they will wait for the findings to be released and that it may take time to process compensation claims, but to say that it was simply an “extraordinary circumstance” and to deny anyone compensation at this point is a bit naive in my opinon and will not go down well with customers in the future.
The same argument, BA said applied to services which were delayed by the incident involving a Pakistan International Airlines, which made a forced landing after being forced to divert to Stansted following a suspected terrorism alert.
This I understand a bit more to a certain extent as the airline had no prior warning or indication of the intentions, however the way around this one is to simply get the idiots who caused the aircraft to be diverted to pay out for any costs/losses that the airline incurs as a result of impacted journeys of other customers…that way it might make them (and hopefully others!) think twice before doing something like this in the future.
Sign In
