dark light

Skymonster

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 436 through 450 (of 1,877 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Ryanair To Close Check In Desks #572453
    Skymonster
    Participant

    Largely irrelevent to me as I refuse to fly with Ryanair EVER, but I increasingly dispair of Ryanair and where it is attempting to take the industry. Online checkin – sure, for the most part excellent idea, and I do it regularly with the Star Alliance airlines I use, AS LONG AS I have access to the internet. Not always possible of course… And whilst it might be easy leaving home or on a one-day there-and-back, not always so easy if you’re staying somewhere a couple of days or more.

    In reality, all they are doing is tranferring costs from themselves to their customers – OK sometimes I have internet access (maybe in a hotel – I usually have a laptop) but often have to pay for it, and even if I have internet access I don’t always have a printer to print the boarding card. Compulsion means having to find internet access whilst you’re away and having to take the time to do so, and quite probably having to pay for it, and maybe having to pay the costs of getting to somewhere with internet access.

    So, another erosion of service levels and increase in inconvenience for [at least some, probably many] passengers. And you can bet it isn’t going to bring their fares down – its going to allow them to attempt to increase their profits. Sooner of later the Irish harp-playing devil in Dublin is going to come a cropper – the day can’t come soon enough as far as I’m concerned and the good news is that this may in a small way hasten it. I feel for the people who will lose their jobs over this initiative, and I feel for the people who will lose their jobs when the Ryanair model really starts to break down sometime in the future… But if you dance with the devil…

    Andy

    in reply to: 777-200LRF delivered! #572504
    Skymonster
    Participant

    F-GUOC overflew the UK (Glasgow, Manchester, west of London) on delivery this morning from Everett to Paris at around 43000′

    Andy

    in reply to: Airline Images Subforum #573658
    Skymonster
    Participant

    By way of an update….

    The old “Airlines Images” subform has now been re-named as “Civil Aircraft Images”.

    Feel free to post any and all images of civil aircraft in there, including General Aviation.

    GA

    It just keeps on getting worse!!! 😡 Not only has the photo forum moved, but now its going to be contaminated with spam cans too!!! 😮

    Andy 😉

    PS: Oh, just remembered, I fly general aviation aircraft (promised not to call them s*** c**s anymore) so they’re Ok then! 😀

    in reply to: Plane Stupid at Southampton today. #573892
    Skymonster
    Participant

    Plain stupid says it all – plain stupid by name, plain stupid by nature

    A

    in reply to: Airline Images Subforum #573894
    Skymonster
    Participant

    I wonder why we are able to enter to win a signed “Flying Legends 2009” calendar (surely not an commercial aviation related issue??) from the commercial aviation forum, and yet we’re not allowed to post airliner photos in that self same forum? :dev2:

    Andy

    in reply to: Kemble Viewing Help #574129
    Skymonster
    Participant

    Is typing “Kemble spotting” into Google that difficult a concept??? :rolleyes:

    http://www.fairfordbase.org.uk/kemble/spotting.htm

    http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/spotting/kemble.html

    Both of the above are fair representations of the truth.

    Andy

    in reply to: Airline Images Subforum #574132
    Skymonster
    Participant

    Does it really take that much effort to click on another forum instead of this one? :confused:

    Its just one more thing to click… Until now, the title of the last updated thread on the airliner photo forum was visible from the “Commercial Aviation” page – if that photo thread was of interest to me, I’d go to the photo forum and then maybe view more of the photo threads… Now, to be even aware there’s something interesting I have to go looking. It may not seem like much, but I suspect that moving it is going to reduce the traffic to it.

    Andy

    in reply to: Airline Images Subforum #574337
    Skymonster
    Participant

    Shame… I go to the photographic forum far less often, so now I’m likely to look at the airline images far less often too.

    Andy

    in reply to: Flying with the wrong hand #576005
    Skymonster
    Participant

    And this is what wrecks PC flight sims for me… I am a [private] pilot, and as mentioned above I am used to left hand on column right hand on throttle. And yet almost all PC joysticks are for the right hand – totally wrong for anyone in the “captian”‘s seat. Why do the PC stick makers mould them for right hand control?

    Andy

    in reply to: RYANAIR Beats Recession as Traffic Grows 13% #576724
    Skymonster
    Participant

    ‘Ryanair, Europe’s largest low fare airlines today, (2 Feb) announced a Q3 loss of €102m, (compared to a profit of €35m in last year’s Q.3). Average fares fell by 9% to €34, while fuel costs rose by 71% to €328m. Revenues rose by 6% to €604.5m, as traffic grew 13% to 14m, as more consumers switch to Ryanair’s low fares from high fare competitors.’

    More Info: http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/news.php?yr=09&month=feb&story=fin-en-020209

    The above does demonstrate a flaw in Ryanair’s model…

    The loss is to some extent irrelevent – the figures clearly demonstrate that whilst they are taking in more revenue, the revenue is not increasing as fast as is their traffic (6% increase in revenue versus 13% increase in traffic). With Ryanair being very committed to increasing capacity, there is only so far the business can go with increasing traffic but revenue not increasing as quickly. Furthermore, the higher fares charged by Ryanair (mentioned above) are needed to subsidise the rediculous low fares, and those high fares will come under more pressure as the economy tightens further – not only will there be less business travel, but also people travelling on business will increasingly question paying Ryanair a high fare when other carriers offer a better product for a similar amount of money. {The legacy carriers are vulnerable due to the decline in true business class traffic but less so as their higher economy tarrifs do not subsidise the cheap seats to the exent they do on Ryanair, whilst Ryanair is rather vulnerable on the high-yield fares it charges at short notice} Finally, Ryanair is more dependent on the discretionary spend – cheap weekends away – which will be eroded both by the downturn in the economy and the substantially weakened pound/euro exchange rate.

    Whilst (sadly) I don’t see Ryanair going away, I think that they will face more pressure to increase the lowest fares to compensate for a reduction in top end revenue – of course they won’t actually do that, and instead they will just reduce the number of seats available at those cheap fares so as to appear not to have had to change things – and also because of their commitments to capacity increases necessitated by their ongoing aircraft acquisition program. Of course, Ryanair have another “cheat” with the latter by sometimes cancelling flights that don’t make sense for them economically, whilst the legacy carriers tend to tough it out more when demand is low (another reason IMHO to stick with legacies).

    Andy

    in reply to: BA plans cargo flights from Manston #576926
    Skymonster
    Participant

    It is British Airways World Cargo, operated by Global Supply Systems, possibly moving from Stansted. Only possibly because it requires an increase in Manston’s opening hours which has to be approved by the local council – and the NIMBYs are apparently already mobilising.

    A

    in reply to: Question about ESTA/US Immigration #579228
    Skymonster
    Participant

    In an ideal world, the address you provide (both on the ESTA, and on the green I94W form you fill in on the flight), should be the address you are staying at on the FIRST night in the USA. If they want to be bloody minded about it and asked to see your booking confirmations, then you could have a bit of an issue. However, practical experience suggests that it’s unlikely to be a problem. Just make sure that the address you used for the ESTA and the address you write on the I94W form are the same – if necessary, update the ESTA.

    Andy

    in reply to: Reverse Thrusting (On Apron) to manouvre #579649
    Skymonster
    Participant

    Yes, more prevalent these days with turboprops than with jets as the risk of FOD ingestion is less.

    A

    in reply to: Another Loss in USA #579651
    Skymonster
    Participant

    I met Paulo and had several good chats with him about aviation, photography and airliners.net at the Reno Air Races in 2007. He came across as a genuinely nice guy with a passion for aviation, flying and photography including video. Its very sad news, and as I’m a GA pilot with a share in an aeroplane it reminds me of our own mortality.

    Andy

    in reply to: Reverse Thrusting (On Apron) to manouvre #579716
    Skymonster
    Participant

    Not totally knocked on the head, but generally not used much anymore due:

    1. Manoeuvre requires quite high power to start movement, and there is a risk of ingestion of debris and other foreign objects due to exhuast being directed forwards and then re-introduced to the engine

    2. There is a serious prospect of the aeroplane sitting back on its tail if it has to be stopped suddenly whilst moving in reverse under power. Procedure always used to be that both flight deck crew’s feet had be be planted firmly on the floor (not on the brakes) and checked, and aircraft had to be stopped by cancelling reverse thrust and if necessary selecting idle forward thrust, and never stopped by braking. As using forward thrust to stop rearwards movement is not instantaneous, this means stopping rapidly in an emergency is not easy

    3. Flight deck rearwards visibility severely compromised (impossible), so still needs the ground crew to supervise the powerback and this the only real saving being the tug and tow bar – which was one reason it was occasionally used (when an aircraft was parked nose-in at an airport where there was no tow bar)

    Andy

Viewing 15 posts - 436 through 450 (of 1,877 total)