RE: near mid-air collision?

Why do trainees have to “go live”?

Surely, they can sit behind a screen whilst a real controller inputs aircraft movements from a distance – sort of an ATC simulator?

RE: UN financing

I think the time is right for a major overhaul of UN funding:-

1. The UN does not produce financial statements in accordance with either US or UK GAAP, or international accounting standards for that matter.

2. Therefore there is no way to tell exactly what the assets and liabilities are, and thus no way to tell wherever the performance of the UN is good or bad.

3. It is not exactly well audited.

4. It is opaque.

5. It is not accountable for the money it spends, except in a round-about way via contributing nations.

What I am basically saying is that it must be accountable (to everyone, not just Bush) for what it does and how it does it. Until this happens, there should be no more extra cash.

RE: bye bye England

I don’t blame Seaman. I mean, he was at fault for the goal – but the other 10 men did sweet FA during the 2nd half! One of the worst efforts I have seen in a long time.

Once again, we need to question the FA about the way the game is run in terms of bringing young players through. Why do smaller countries consistently produce better players than us?

I know Brazil is a bigger country, but I was referring to the likes of Holland, even Ireland (Duff would walk into our team) and maybe Italy, Spain, Portugal.

Also, why do coaches have an abject hatered of left footers? Why are none allowed to come through?

RE: Some humor that I found 🙂

I wouldn’t be so concerned about paedophiles Kev.

It is just another carrot (or stick, not sure!) which the gutter press use to entice us to buy their papers. It’s whipped up out of all proportion (like the mob who burned down someone’s house because she was a paediatrician and they were a dumb mob).

Of course its a problem, but we need to be wary of letting the tail wag the dog here!

I have never seen any reliable research which has proven that paedohpilia is more prevalent now than it used to be. We just need to sell more papers now, thats all.

Just because people now realise that vicars, priests, mullahs, bishops, rabbis etc… haven been abusing children (shock! horror! I never guessed!) they think everyone is doing it. Well, I for one am NOT happy at being compared in any way, shape or form to a bible bashing buffoon brainwasher!!

It’s a bit like saying that you shouldn’t allow teachers to have knives and forks at the school BBQ, what with all the murders around these days!

RE: near mid-air collision?

The BBC article refers to vertical separation, whereas the ITN one is talking about laterlal, kev.

That’s my immediate reaction, anyway.

RE: If you don’t fit the seat, pay for two

I’ve got a similar anecdote.

I was travelling from Lusaka to Livingstone (to see the Victoria Falls), which is normally about an 80 minute flight by ATR-42.

Well, we decided to “slum” it and take the coach.

Ignoring the other elements of a horrible journey, the seating was poor. Most coaches use a 2-2 abreast configuration. However, this coach was a Chinese commie special. Side seats folded down to make it 2-1-2, with 1 seat every row in the aisle!

You simply could not move.

In such countries, deoderant doesn’t tend to be used a great deal. And here was me, surrounded by perhaps 80 such people on a very, very hot day.

It should come as no surprise that on the return leg I allowed the local airline to hold my credit card hostage and flew back in the delights of “economy” class!

RE: If you don’t fit the seat, pay for two

Whether or not someone is fat is no one’s concern, except their own and perhaps their family’s.

I thought that was what bulkhead seats were used for – passengers who needed more room?

Besides, I would refer you to my earlier post about seating revenue. Reducing a narrow body aircraft from 6-abreast to 5-abreast has a more than just a “small” effect on prices.

As an example: 17 rows x 6 abreast = 102 seats. At a notional price of £100 per seat, average revenue is £100 x 102 = £10,200.

If this is now changed…

17 rows x 5 abreast = 85 seats. To achieve the same revenue, price would need to be changed to (10,200 / 85) = £120.

That is an average rise of 20%. If you even think about increasing average legroom, the rise is nearer to 50%. Do you think Joe Public will, ever, pay that?

I would, and maybe you too. But the fact that virtually no airline in the world does this, must say something to you. For full service airlines, this would also diminish demand for biz class seats which are significantly more profitable anyway.

Of course, the reduction from 102 to 85 seats now means that each seat generates more revenue than before. Therefore, revenue is more sensitive to load factors. Marginal routes may become unprofitable, and certainly a “sensitivity margin” would be added to the already 20% higher prices!

Okay T5, in an ideal world, maybe!