It appears to be what the Uk airports use – better than none

Not bad, it’s just a shame dBa is the least appropriate way to measure noise as the human ear hears it! Ironically it’s the only allowed measurement for commercial aircraft noise, which makes that whole statistic kind of meaningless in a way.

I shall not claim to be an expert on ways to measure noise as the human ear hears it but dBa seems to be used by most UK airports.

ERDC Report 0901 Heathrow 2008 http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/environmentalissues/nec/secnoise08/noiseheathrow08.pdf

Boeing 747-100 and Boeing 747-200/300 shown against Noise Class 6

Boeing 747-400 (GE CF6-80F engines) , Boeing 747-400 (PW PW4000 engines), Boeing 747-400 (RR RB211 engines) and Boeing 747SP shown against Noise Class 5

I presume that puts a Boeing 747-800 in Noise Class 5 or maybe in a class of its own between 4 and 5

RyanAir and most LCCs are complete off-limits for most people I know

Jay, that’s utter nonsense. “Lack of discerning customer base”? Whenever I’ve flown with Ryanair it’s been to airports I actually want to go to and it’s generally been without hold luggage so it’s been very cheap, does that make me an ‘undiscerning customer’?

RyanAir and most LCCs are off limits for many well documented reasons for most discerning people I know and likewise for me.

I’d rather fly national and conventional carriers any day than fly LCC. Never flown an LCC and never will. I often fly with no hold luggage and find the conventional carriers extremely suitable from all aspects including charges especially if one books well ahead.

Each one to their own.:cool:

Sounds like McNamara is in training to replace Scumbag O’Riley! 😮

I wonder why there is no “administration” involved in processing their preferred card but there is for all other cards? :rolleyes::confused:

Andy

Hi Andy,

I don’t think anyone needs training to ‘ape’ MO’L. You just have to be happy to wallow in racehorse dung which is what any sensible business analysis of MO’L’s LCC reveals.:rolleyes:

As for the MO’L LCC preferred CC – well you more than even me knows why that incurs no administration charges – the small print ties you in knots.:eek:

MO’L is running the operation as if it is a stable of racehorses with jockeys willing to ride for free.

Ethics, professionalism and other genteel matters such as customer service – oops what are they ????:D

Extremely sad news – condolences to those bereaved

Extremely sad news – condolences to those bereaved

Speedy recovery to those who miraculously survived and may those departed RIP.

Animal lovers win in UK but not everywhere else

Now if airlines were moving live animals they would have to be a lot more careful, because the outcry would be huge.

Hi Scotavia

In the UK – animal lovers win and by doing so make MO’L’s LCC look like a shining example of how humanity treats fellow humans. 😮
Until ease of litigation arrives in UK, MO’L’s LCC will get away with ‘murder’.:rolleyes:

Not so sure about the ethics relating to transport of animals in all parts of Europe though.One hears of some horror stories.:(

Certainly in the USA apart from a few LCC’s like Southwest who simply transport ‘yuk’ humans anywhere that will have them for a holiday or permanent relocation (trailer park brigade) ; the air-travelling US public do not hesitate to raise legal action against an errant airline.:rolleyes:

MO’L has styled his ‘yuk’ operation on Southwest.:eek:

Pathetic and childish

In case you ever wonder why flights can get cancelled, delayed and in some cases diverted, or the toilets are “out of order” for reasons unknown, here is at least one cause:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-CfVzx3sro&NR=1

Why, just why?…:mad:.

Hi Cloud9

Pathetic and childish is in fact a ‘compliment’ to those responsible and there are far more un mentionable words that would be more appropriate under the circumstances.:(

You may possibly consider making a small amendment

It always used to be said: “another full Southwest flight, another empty trailer park”. In Ryanair’s case it’s “another full Ryanair flight, another empty council estate / student dorm” :D. And of course, another case of “pay peanuts get monkies”. Really, Ryanair does have a knack of carrying some of the world’s lowlifes!
Andy

Hi Andy

I sympathise with all you’ve said but will you possibly consider an amendment to your original post by removing the words “council estate” and leaving leaving it as “empty student dorm” ?

As it stands your post appears to be hurting some members’ feelings (not mine).;)

Here is the Airbus – WTO case summary on 14 Oct 2010

Here is the Airbus – WTO case summary on 14 Oct 2010

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds316_e.htm

Airbus appeals, Boeing appeals ………….yawn ……. appeals tending to infinity……………………..

The WTO hasn’t yet gone public with the findings against Boeing but here is a recent URL

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/wto-trade-dispute.8ex

They both make totally boring reading as the world market hasn’t got much choice apart from Boeing and Airbus.

Civil aircraft from Boeing and Airbus reach and surpass world safety certification standards so all the subsidies (whatever term used to qualify them) don’t matter – What is crucial is – are these subsidies accounted for ethically, and do customers wish to buy the aircraft ?

And more importantly in the current terrible global economic recession are essential and valuable jobs safeguarded?