SkymonsterAt the end of the day HE charged his passengers X amount, the passenger paid X amount, it is a very simple contract, and all airlines forcing people to pay more will i’m sure be wide open to being sued.
Nope. T&Cs allow airlines to pass on increased costs, especially government imposed taxes, to passengers. At least Ryanair is telling its passengers and asking for the extra fiver. Jet2 was singled out this morning on the news as it isn’t even asking its passengers who booked before the rise to pay the extra tax – its just automatically making an extra charge against their passenger’s credit or debit cards and only contacting those where the transaction bounces. And it was said that yes, even that is legal.
So far, BA is the only airline that’s said it definitely will not collect the extra tax. Virgin have said they’ll collect it at checkin (and that could be up to an extra £40 per person), and BMI have said they’re going to collect it but haven’t decided how yet. Apparently the only other exception is tour operator passengers travelling on inclusive tours, where the operator is usually required to absorb an increase of up to 2% which means that most charter passengers won’t be affected. So leave it out as far as Ryanair is concerned on this one – how can they be expected to absorb an extra fiver in tax on a £0.01 or £0.99 fare?
Andy
SkymonsterAnd I totally disagree with Michael O’Leary on this one, that if you don’t pay, there will be no flight! What a complete idiot he is here!
Nope, for once I agree with O’Leary. Whether we agree with the increase in taxes or not (I don’t) is irrelevent. There will be countless scroungers trying to dodge paying the extra charge. If you don’t want to pay, or can’t pay – spot on Mr O’Leary for saying you don’t get to fly. This isn’t a surcharge introduced by airlines of their own volition, its a tax that legally has to be paid by airlines to the govermnent. O’Leary doesn’t have a choice – if he carries the passenger he has to pass on the extra tax, and there’s no reason why any one of his passengers should dodge it.
Andy
SkymonsterSWA do have a row of seats that face backwards, but they are only in their Classic 737’s i believe. In a Magazine on SWA, it said that they don’t have them on the 73G for comfort reasons 🙁
bmi-star is indeed correct, except that the “club” seating is not even installed on all of their classics now – just some of them.
Andy
Skymonster“> NCL-DXB with EX its official!!”
Or maybe even with EK!!! :rolleyes:
I guess EK will now have brown-ale on their in-flight bars! :diablo:
Andy
SkymonsterAre we talking about a 35mm neg/slide scanner, or a flat-bed style print scanner (or indeed the latter with a neg/tranny adapter)?
Either way, ramp the scanner up to the maximum input resolution possible (there will be a setting for this in the software), do a pre-scan and then crop the image accordingly, then do a final scan. You will end up with a huge image which, if you want to upload to forums like this, you will need to downsize using Photoshop or whatever just like you do with digital output. My recommendation is always scan at maximum resolution and do not reduce the input (scan) resolution to get close to the image size you want as max resolution followed by a downsizing in PS will always yield better quality results.
Andy
SkymonsterUsually its down to the systems warning the crew that there’s something not quite right with how the aircraft is configured (gear, flaps, etc.) for the takeoff. It might happen [say] when the flaps are set inappropriately for take off, or the trim is out of the takeoff range, or the brakes are on, or the spoilers are extended, etc, etc… Basically, its a warning pointing out that the aeroplane might not take off [as expected or at all] in the current configuration. Obviously, in such circumstances, its a good idea for all concern if the crew stop the takeoff and look into the issue.
SkymonsterIts wet today, and with braking action being suggested to be close to zero on the centre section of runway, I think its a sensible thing for easyJet to do and BA and XL’s actions back that up. Its only an issue when its wet, particularly coupled with crosswinds, so there’s no reason easyJet can’t operate through BRS during the remainder of the work period as long as the conditions are better than today. Far from easyJet dumping themselves in it, I’d have though it would be other airlines continuing to operate and putting themselves at risk that could be embarrasing. I hope that the responsible authority (i.e. the CAA) will take a look at this and, if necessary, give BRS a good kick up the ass and back the airlines, or tell both parties its OK.
Andy
SkymonsterSo what of the rule that when onboard an aircraft, you are subject to the laws of the country in which that aircraft is registered? FR’s aircraft are registered in Ireland, therefore when on board you are subject to Irish law, including working laws.
You’re spewing the irrelevent same clap-trap as O’Leary. Firstly, crew work does not start or finish on board an aeroplane. Next, if local labour laws are more restrictive – say in terms of total working time, or time between breaks, or days off – than the flight time limitation (FTL) scheme under which the aeroplane is operated, there is nothing in that FTL scheme that says that it over-rides labour laws. Nor indeed do things like minimum wages, sickness pay, vacation, pensions, maternity leave, etc., have anything to do with the any country’s flight time limitation scheme (work rules) associated with actually operating an aeroplane.
Andy
SkymonsterI can just see it now… [for example] McDonalds in the UK suddely becomes “McDonalds Europe” based in Latvia, and all the burger flippers in the UK are told they’re going to be paid not the UK minimum wage, but the 43p an hour (or whatever it is) minimum wage in Latvia. There’s also nolonger a requirement to give their staff four weeks holiday a year, etc., etc. Fair? No – I didn’t think so.
I’m no socialist (far from it in fact), but Ryanair are trying to do the same sort of thing. Mr O’Leary needs to conform to the laws of the countries (plural) in which his business is operating, not just to the laws that suit him. Sadly, this isn’t going to become a big issue as the travelling public rarely care about the implications (be they social, economic or environmental), as long as they continue to get their flights for £0.01 or EUR0.01 or less.
Andy
SkymonsterI couldn’t disagree with you more.
Ryanair employs these staff in France, to work from France, and it should comply with French employment law (just as my employer is American, but I work in the UK and they are therefore required to give me UK pay, terms and conditions). The alternative is that everything sinks to the lowest level – businesses would eventually find the country with the least restrictive labour laws, with the lowest payscales, and with the lowest obligations for things like sickness, holidays, pensions etc and then just employ all their staff from that country.
If Ryanair wants its French staff work to Irish rules with Irish conditions, then they need to relocate the staff to Ireland and have them operate out of Ireland but through France on a regular basis, with all of the typical airline implications that involes in terms of hotel night stops, days and hours away from their [Isish] base duty time limitations, days off back at base, etc. Of course, Ryanair want to avoid some of the expenses of doing that, so they permanently base the staff in France – that means that they need to comply with French employment law. I bet those staff pay taxes in France according to French rates, because the tax rules will dictate that anyone in the country for more than a certain number of days each year has to pay French taxes, and the other rules regarding pay, sickness, vacation, pension etc are no different.
What Ryanair is doing is just another stunt, designed not in the interests of the staff but of finding the lowest and cheapest way of doing business whilst ignorring the law. Ryanair are looking for a way to make things cheaper for them, but more expensive or difficult or restrictive for the staff involved, that’s all. France didn’t invent the rules just to shaft Ryanair – the laws are applicable to staff permantently based in France with any airline.
Andy
SkymonsterGiven the events of last week, I’m not sure spotting at MAD is a good idea right now – the Spanish were at one time rather anti- and its only been the last couple of years or so no one has gotten any hassle.
Anyhow, to answer the question as best I can… BA use T4S which is the mid-field dock associated with the new terminal. All the non-shengen flights using T4 seem to go to the mid-field dock. As befits any new terminal arrivals are segregated from departures. It may (repeat may) be possible, if you already have a boarding card for your return leg, to just go immediately through transfers in the mid-field dock and up into the departure level – this level yields good views of several of the runways. If that doesn’t work, you will have no choice but to get onto the underground train and go to the main T4 terminal, where you will have to clear immigration. Landside, the new T4 did not seem to yield any good views of the entire airfield, and therefore once landside I suspect a trip to the infamous cafe in T2 (or to the mound in Barajas if you have time and want better photos) may be in order – again, lingering outside T4 near the parking deck (which won’t yield many good views anyway) may be inadvisable after last week’s events. The distance between the new T4 and the older terminals T1-T3 is NOT walkable – presumably there are transfer busses but I know nothing of their pick up and drop off locations or frequency.
When you can check in for your return flight, I recommend proceeding airside and again taking the train to the mid-field dock T4S (bear in mind that the recommended time from passport control to some of the mid-field gates is 22 minutes anyway!). Again, from the mid-field dock, a lot of the movements will be visible albeit through glass.
Andy
SkymonsterPlease send it back to EMA again – although next time, please defer the arrival so that it arrives and departs in daylight hours, on a sunny day! Actually, I have pictures of it, but I’d always like more! Hopefully, now its flying again, you get so much work for it you need to acquire another one!
Andy
PS: On a related note, I happened to see a message that indicated that a Russian Air Force AN-22 flew to Algeria and back over the holiday period. Much along the lines where we at EMA recently got the Libyan AN-124 visiting in place of the usual VDA/ADB/POT examples, I wouldn’t complain if someone chartered a Russian Air Force AN-22 for an operation through EMA!
SkymonsterIt was nice to see PMN and LBARULES today. I left them in a pub
PMN and LBARULES have just gone up in my estimation! 😎 But Grey, if you didn’t stay with them, then IMHO you’re going downhill – you’ve obviously got your priorities all wrong! :rolleyes: As for the pics – very nice!
Andy
SkymonsterAndy, nothing wrong with being a ‘Boozer’ or a ‘Shagger’
Indeed, but I didn’t say “boozers or shaggers” – I said “boozers AND shaggers”! Its when you’re trying to do both together, particularly in excess, that the situation can get more challenging! :diablo:
Andy
SkymonsterThere is one rule though (besides not getting blood on the walls)… No finger injuries allowed
So is it one rule, or two? :confused: Same problem again, it seems! :diablo: :p
Andy
Sign In
