Sorry, but the program was a load of clap trap – typical BBC “reportage” in fact. I don’t believe in global warming – the planet goes through natural warming up and cooling down cycles, and we happen to be heading for one of the warming up cycles. Too bad.

Whether I fly to Vancouver and Dubai next month, Los Angeles in March, Geneva in May, and San Francisco and Dallas later in the year (plus all the other air trips I will inevitably make this year – last year I flew over 90 one-way flights, and I do not expect to fly less this year or in subsequent years) makes not a blind bit of difference anyway. Those flights will still operate whether I get on them or not, they will create the same amount of emissions which won’t have an adverse effect on the environment anyway, and even if I do travel on these flights I will not cause of additional flights to be operated that add to air traffic. So I don’t feel guity, won’t change my travel intentions, and I have no intention of buying into “carbon offsetting” either.

I’m afraid global warming is a mantra that’s being preached by the nutters of this world that’s unfortunately being picked up by the politicians. They see it not so much an environmental problem but more so as a means of raising revenue, so they jump on it. Tell me what benefit to the environment the increased departure taxes will have? Absolutely none – they’ll just go into the treasury to pay for more lunatic schemes aimed at pandering to minorities in this country. If global warming is a problem (and I again I say I don’t believe it is), government needs to stop preaching to the masses who fly and taxing us under false pretenses, and get on with building truely environmentally friendly facilities like nuclear power stations that don’t kick any s**t out into the atmosphere.

Like the David Attenborough led programme on BBC-1 just before suggested, we need to look at developing less polluting forms of fuels, so that we can continue driving cars, flying planes etc etc.

David Attenborough is one of the most two-faced individuals preaching about global warming. He has the affrontary to jolly off around the globe making his boring documentaries along with midiads of camera and sound crew, and then tells us all we should be cutting back. A** hole. If he really wants to preach on the subject, he should make a stand by refusing to make further programs that require any travel.

Andy

PS: I am proud to state that I have gotten rid of the nasty SUV/4×4 I used to drive! 😎 I have changed it for a smaller car that (a) creates more emissions than the SUV, (b) does worse mpg particularly if driven spiritedly as the type of car concerned encourages, and (c) is rated much worse in impact tests with pedestrians. But the environmental proponent on our street has complimented me on making a positive change for the good of the planet – what an IDIOT :rolleyes: 😀

Oh, and to answer the original question – “Do Frequent Flyer Programmes Generate Loyalty?”

The answer is no, they do not generate loyalty. But they do help to ensure continuity of / preserve loyalty. However, this will increasinly be more selective and some customers will find themselves disenfranchised from frequent flyer programs as airlines seek to preserve loyalty from only those customers that they really want/need to remain loyal

Andy

Interesting rdc, but I think you are wrong with what you are saying

Andy

Infact the 737-400’s were delivered in Landor blue colours before any 737-300’s were in the fleet. 737-300s coming from various sources.

Incorrect. The first 737-400 was G-DOCA registered in the UK in 1991. First 737-300 with British Airways was OY-MMP, subsequently G-CMMP, initially operated on the Danish register but registered in the UK in 1988 on lease from Maersk Air to British Airways (this one was the one I was wondering was in red-tail, but evidence suggests it was in Landor).

Andy

As someone who has been on the receiving end of what at the time I perceived were draconian cuts and erosion of terms and conditions, I can at least understand why so many of BA’s cabin crew are so emotional about this. In todays world, with ever cost of living and increasingly demanding lifestyles, it is very difficult to accept something that makes your lot in life more difficult, more costly, or leaves you with less than you had before. Taking matters into one’s own hands isn’t always easy either – individuals deciding that they’ve had enough and moving on of their own volition quite often results in jumping from the frying pan and into the fire (especially true in the airline industry, unfortunately, because there are few businesses that are not facing the same challenges)

Actually, the O’Learys of this world have set the tone. The real problem is that the average man in the street doesn’t care a jot about the terms and conditions of those who are providing a service, as long as the service costs him or her the minimum possible. Pay £20 more for a flight because the new recruit cabin crew member is paid next to nothing – most passengers would take the cheaper flight. As a result, those running the business, faced with rising costs (fuel, security, etc, etc) on one side and demand for lower prices on the other are forced to find some “give” in the system, and on this occasion it seems to fall to the cabin crew who are still working to rather outdated practices. Many industries and many businesses have been forced to take such measures, and now its BA’s cabin crew in the firing line.

I believe that most of these situations arise as a result of failure to keep communicating or an unwillingness on one side or the other (or both) to reach a mutually acceptable compromise, more than anything else. IMHO, ongoing discussion supported by both sides having an real understanding of each other’s pain points should be pursued above all else, and its only when total intransigence or a complete unwillingness of one side to recognise the issues of the other that more serious steps might need to be threatened. I can’t believe that all discussions have been had (although maybe Willie Walsh is being totally intransigent), so I would hope that both sides would sit down and talk more, rather than there be a strike. Of course, even the threat of a strike can be disruptive to future business (as BA will no doubt find from its forward bookings). But if the threat of a strike forces more discussion, that won’t be a bad thing because clearly there is at present still a mis-match between expectations of BA management and the future expectations of BA cabin crew.

Andy

Isn’t that the “Doomsday” 747 varient? So called as usualy when they’re in the air, there be trouble ahead? Last seen flying over New York on 9-11?

The E4B is an airborne comand post that is usually close-by when the US president or other very senior members of US government are out and about – when the president has visited the UK with a high-profile arrival at somewhere like LHR, the E4 has quietly snook into somewhere like Mildenhall. Not sure why this one would visit LHR though.

Andy

Comair do indeed operate 732s in Union Flag colours, but the original question was about “BA mainline”

The only type I was wondering about was the 737-300, but as far as I can tell BA’s first 733 – OY-MMP – was originally in the Landor/To-Fly-To-Serve colours

Andy

The bayshore path – a walking path along the bay front – on Old Bayshore Highway in Millbrae is the place to go (the only viable place really), although it needs a fairly long lens. Mornings allow sun-favourable pictures of departures off runways 1L/1R – which are almost always used for departures except the really heavies – and most of the day is sun-favourable for all landings and the few take offs that use 28L/28R. The 28s in particular need a long lens, and even though its all water inbetween Bayshore and the runways heat haze can be an issue – although its going to be less of an issue in March than in the summer. There are benches along the path, so you can sit and watch the airplanes, but other than in the nearby hotels there’s nowhere to get food and drink.

If you don’t have a car and want to get to Old Bayshore Highway and the bayshore path, its quite easy. From the city, take the BART (subway train – its safe!) to Millbrae, turn left out of the station, walk along the road over the 101 freeway and you’re practically there – its a five minute walk, and the bayshore path is on your right once you’re over the freeway. If you’re already at the airport, easiest way to get there is to take the shuttle to one of the hotels on the bayshore – the Marriott, Westin or Clarion hotel shuttles are probably the best, as all of these hotels are within 2 minutes or less walking of the bayshore and it’ll be obvious where to walk.

See this map to understand what I’m talking about. You want Bayshore Highway. The red circle is pretty much right on top of the BART station.

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?local=h&scale=50000&lon=-122.38758&lat=37.598469663531&icon=x

Examples from the bayshore…

Departures off 1L/1R in the morning (unfortunately a fence now goes a bit further out into the bay):
http://www.airteamimages.com/7138.html
http://www.airteamimages.com/7123.html

Landings/departures on 28L/28R:
http://www.airteamimages.com/7127.html
http://www.airteamimages.com/5076.html
http://www.airteamimages.com/4926.html

Taxi-ing to 1L/1R – this taxiway is nearer but is rarely used:
http://www.airteamimages.com/4924.html

Hope this helps,

Andy