Thanks to whoever did that.:(

Working in T3, I can only recommend the food at Chez Gerard as being the edible option for a meal. TGI Friday is also bearable. The other ‘sit down and eat’ places (Cafe Italia, The Bridge) are very poor. Microwaved, reheated and processed, perhaps in that order!

I haven’t tried the new place ‘Rhubarb’, but the menu seems incredibly expensive for what it is.

I believe there’s only one turn off at Oshkosh that is A380 compliant, and it’s about half way down the runway, so I think a ‘firm’ landing was intentional.

Just checked…yes, it’s taxiway P2, only 5500ft down the runway.

It’s mainly due to the extremely large tail fin, even when compared to the 747.

At LHR, the CAT III holds are 137m from the runway centreline, and this provides sufficient protection for the localiser signals. This is the Localiser Sensitive Area.

An A380 has a more marked effect on the localiser. It is fine if it is facing towards the runway while holding at the CAT III, i.e. as if to cross the runway. However, if it is in the same physical position (just clear of the CAT III hold), but facing away from the runway (so the tail fin is nearer the runway), the fluctuations are outside CAT III tolerances. Hence, in some areas, the A380 has to be 192m from the runway centreline.

There is also a similar effect on the localiser if an A380 rolls to the end of a runway, depending on how close the localiser is to the end of the runway. In some ways this can be worse, depending on the length of the runway, because this might well take the fluctuations outside of CAT I tolerances.

NG,

You might want to be discreet with the information you gather, I know of people who have been sacked for allowing others access to CFMU portals etc.

I think the only sense in which BA is a ‘flag carrier’ is that its logo is a stylised Union Flag. Yes, it’s a good marketing term, of course. Just as ‘World’s Favourite’ was a good marketing term.

The term ‘flag carrier’ is obsolete anyway. It meant something twenty or thirty years ago when more airlines were state-owned. It might mean something today for US airlines when considered in the context of the ‘Fly America Act’.

The only obligations BA have are to its shareholders. There are certainly no obligations to Great Britain as far as I know.

If RYR or EZY did the same, cutting their London-Scotland frequencies in the same manner, would there be as much moaning?