Highly annoyed!!

Fratton Fred

This is not another Ryanair rant.

I was on the 6:25 to Stansted this morning, we boarded on time , but about 10 minutes after the doors had closed, the flight was cancelled due to these bloody PLane stupid activists.:mad:

Fortunately I managed to grab the 9:05 BMI flight to Heathrow, but these jokers could cost me my job. My employer already has reservations about me flying in every Monday morning and this is not going to help.

I am considering making a claim for compensation from them, what do you reckon?

Ryanair did nothing wrong btw, what can they do?

FlutterinBantam

Two chances Fred, two chances.

Regrettably all these people will now see Airports as a legitimate way to gain publicity after the Bangkok occupation and I would expect more.

After all the taxpayer,you and I, payed for the antics of those people who damaged that plane in Shannon.
Until these people are held accountable, that's the wasy it's going to be Frederick.

Danbo!

Fratton Fred wrote: »

PLane stupid activists

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

payed for the antics of those people who damaged that plane in Shannon.

Who's protesting? Linkage anyone?

nag

It's not that hard to lookup the news :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Two chances Fred, two chances.

I know, it would be nice to put the fear of legal action on them though

I was reading most of the interviews with the protestors. as you would expect, most of them seem to be spoilt little rich kids who probably fly to their parents villa in spain 5 times year.:mad:

FlutterinBantam

Hmmm haven't seen the interview,but most of these kind people are serial unemployed,depending on state handouts, contribute fcuk all,from cradle to grave,and then cost you and me a fortune for their criminality.

No use sueing someone who has nothing, any Pikey worth his salt will tell you that.

Fratton Fred

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Hmmm haven't seen the interview,but most of these kind people are serial unemployed,depending on state handouts, contribute fcuk all,from cradle to grave,and then cost you and me a fortune for their criminality.

No use sueing someone who has nothing, any Pikey worth his salt will tell you that.

I'll just take the old Fire engine off them, that'll do me:D

KevR

Don't know what they think they're achieving by pulling a stunt like this. It hardly gains them support and it hardly helps the environment.

Anyone who was delayed or had flights cancelled today definitely won't be a supporter of their campaign now I'm sure, despite still maybe being against climate change.

Heard the protestors saying they stopped many tonnes of harmful emissions being released into the atmosphere today.
Erm, not really! What about all those planes that had to circle around Stansted or divert burning a lot of extra fuel because of their protest?

robinph

Was saying on the beeb page that there were 56 flights cancelled, all of them Ryanair.

Fratton Fred

Ryanair were very quick to cancel their flights, I guess this sort of thing is a nightmare for them, it would put a lot of their planes in the wrong place.

When we boarded, the pilot said there was a problem and that he had been instructed to wait until 8am before they expected the runway to be open, ten minutes later they said that Ryanair had decided to cancel the flight. It did seem rather quick thinking about it. when I went to find out what was going on, they said that all flights to Stansted were being cancelled until they know what was happening.

I wonder if Ryanair saw the opportunity to make a quick buck out of this?

robinph

Once there was problems at Stantead then I guess their priority was to make sure that none of their planes got stuck there which would then mess up everything. If the plane is just going to be going back and forth between Stanstead and Dublin all day though then just scrap the one flight and make sure the next is ontime, rather than have the whole day messed up.

Foggy43

It is probably down to ATC and slots. Obviously FR were going to loose their slots and new slots could not be guaranteed. The time Freds flight was at is a very busy transatlantic time of the day with east bound traffic into and over the UK. ATC had to allow these flights continue and ground what was yet to depart for STN.

Fratton Fred

Foggy43 wrote: »

It is probably down to ATC and slots. Obviously FR were going to loose their slots and new slots could not be guaranteed. The time Freds flight was at is a very busy transatlantic time of the day with east bound traffic into and over the UK. ATC had to allow these flights continue and ground what was yet to depart for STN.

Easyjet didn't cancel any flights though and they have a Belfast flight at about the same time.

Bah, it's not worth worrying about...I'm off to burn a few hippies:pac:

Tenger

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Bah, it's not worth worrying about...I'm off to burn a few hippies:pac:

Thas the best thing for them.....damn tree huggers.

The airline industry is the only one that is actively trying to reduce its emissions by investing in more efficient technology..............................................as it lowers their costs.

pclancy

Have all these people never flown on a plane, needed to fly to a different country/continent or are actually saying all airtravel should be banned? What a load of crap, how the hell would the world function without air travel.

OPENROAD

Foggy43 wrote: »

It is probably down to ATC and slots. Obviously FR were going to loose their slots and new slots could not be guaranteed. The time Freds flight was at is a very busy transatlantic time of the day with east bound traffic into and over the UK. ATC had to allow these flights continue and ground what was yet to depart for STN.

Would assume FR wanted to keep planes in position, by cancelling earlier flights they can at least run to timetable from early pm.

FlutterinBantam

In uncertain situations such as weather delays/ and the likes of what happened at STN,FR will nearly always cancel early in play.
Apart from operational requirements, this then gives certainty to the customers,who can then make alternate arrangements as FF did.

If FR had dallied around "awaiting info" FF would probably have stayed with his original flt and lost the chance to change as the lack of clear info dragged on.

Sometimes it works in the passengers favour sometimes it doesn't.

ian_m

Had the aircraft pushed back yet?

Fratton Fred

ian_m wrote: »

Had the aircraft pushed back yet?

Nope, they didn't even do the safety demo. The doors were closed for all of five minutes.

Fratton Fred

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

In uncertain situations such as weather delays/ and the likes of what happened at STN,FR will nearly always cancel early in play.
Apart from operational requirements, this then gives certainty to the customers,who can then make alternate arrangements as FF did.

If FR had dallied around "awaiting info" FF would probably have stayed with his original flt and lost the chance to change as the lack of clear info dragged on.

Sometimes it works in the passengers favour sometimes it doesn't.

Yeah, that's how it panned out well for me, not sure about some of the people who had booked the speciall ofeer flights as a cheap way of seeing relatives for a few days before christmas. Communication was not good, but hey, it was a budget airline.

Davidth88

Fred , I assume you lost your money though ?

Fratton Fred

Davidth88 wrote: »

Fred , I assume you lost your money though ?

I paid £18 for return flights, the outbound one I had already made and £8 was the card charge, so i'm not going to loose any sleep over it

I had to pay €205 for a one way flight with BMI which hurt a bit. I usually get return flights with them for about £70 :rolleyes:

Oh well, we live and learn. My company is closing its moorgate office on Friday which kind of takes Stansted off my list of viable airports, I just hope the great unwashed don't target Heathrow, although I suspect they may get a more hostile reception if they try the same stunt there.:D

ian_m

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Nope, they didn't even do the safety demo. The doors were closed for all of five minutes.

When is official flight start time? When doors close or aircraft push back & start? If its doors closed then surely you could fight for your money back considering the journey had technically begain already?

FlutterinBantam

What this scenario illustrates is the new face of air travel.

Fratton Fred (FF) got his initial flight dirt cheap.

His only aim was to get to London in time for work.

The service provider cancelled straight away and FF didn't sweat the cost,just on his own initiative re routed himself at a considerable cost.
Doesn't happen too often..swings and roundabouts.

In the old style scenario,the flight would have cost a lot,the customer would feel aggrieved at the cancellation, the airline would try to accomodate everyone, and fail to meet FFs expectations, and the whole thing would end in chaos.

Nobody happy.

Terrontress

Ironically, given the soap-dodgers who were protesting, the man who owns Lush cosmetics is supporting those protesting and will pay court costs for those who have been arrested for the disturbance.

Fratton Fred

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

What this scenario illustrates is the new face of air travel.

Fratton Fred (FF) got his initial flight dirt cheap.

His only aim was to get to London in time for work.

The service provider cancelled straight away and FF didn't sweat the cost,just on his own initiative re routed himself at a considerable cost.
Doesn't happen too often..swings and roundabouts.

In the old style scenario,the flight would have cost a lot,the customer would feel aggrieved at the cancellation, the airline would try to accomodate everyone, and fail to meet FFs expectations, and the whole thing would end in chaos.

Nobody happy.

I guess it depends on how you view air travel. On a monday morning it is part of my commute, just like catching a train. If a train is cancelled, you grab a cab which costs ten times as much, but hey ho, such is life.

Because I am on a day rate it meant a lot to me, if i was a salaried employee then I probably would have taken the day off, but losing a days pay would mean a lot more than the €200 the additional flight cost.

its the people who were going for a few days I feel for. The ones that the flight meant a lot to, visiting relative, Christmas shopping in London etc. it has ruined something they were looking forward to whereas my loss is purely monetary.

derry

They say they are only against short haul aircraft.Now that is itself bonkers .lot of short haul planes are often acting to bring the passengers to hub airports for the big plane to make the mmore fuel saving flight from one big plane.Lots of flights for passengers are for things like Dublin to Manchester ,or Shannon to Leeds,or Ostend Belguim to Cardiff Wales.These are small regional airports that supply short flights where alternitives like trains and ships or Euro tunnel would take way too long.Really I think these guy just dont want to live with planes on the planet>not being able to say stop to long distance planes which they probably hate also they picked on short haul.Thats because they work on the fact that fuel efficiency will be lesser with short haul.However the difference of say a 737 doing with 80% load factor a 40 to 50 MPG per passenger seat isn't that bad compared to a Airbus A380 90MPG per passenger seat .Yes the &37 might not give such good fuel returns for cork Dublin but then one person in a car going from Cork to Dublin wont be that much better . Often the flight Cork Dublin is only to connect to longer flights.Depriving passengers the right to make flights is unfair . They could be impacting older people who have more limited ability to travel on other modes of transport .
I am sure these guys use things like cars to get from A toB .They also use heat in their houses .They too I figure produce lots of CO2 going to these protests
Blaming Aircraft for CO2 is like the kettle calling the pot Black
I even sent them them an email a few years back showing that the fuels figures were not so bad as they would make out but they ignored it no reply
Seems to me their minds are made up and they wish to be totaly unreasonable

Not sure but I suspect that they are not happy that that others may need to fly places and only want to upset that type of transport for no good idle reason



Derry

Húrin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Regrettably all these people will now see Airports as a legitimate way to gain publicity after the Bangkok occupation and I would expect more.

After all the taxpayer,you and I, payed for the antics of those people who damaged that plane in Shannon.
Until these people are held accountable, that's the wasy it's going to be Frederick.

Well, the Bangkok occupation was about their govt not climate change.

The Shannon thing was about the Iraq War.

Different issues. The only connection is airports.

pclancy wrote: »

Have all these people never flown on a plane, needed to fly to a different country/continent or are actually saying all airtravel should be banned? What a load of crap, how the hell would the world function without air travel.

They're not saying all airtravel should be banned. They're simply trying to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the British government who are trying to expand airports while claiming to bring down carbon dioxide emissions. Judging by the media coverage, they were successful.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Hmmm haven't seen the interview,but most of these kind people are serial unemployed,depending on state handouts, contribute fcuk all,from cradle to grave,and then cost you and me a fortune for their criminality.

Hmm, really?

definitely the dregs, yup

Húrin

Terrontress wrote: »

Ironically, given the soap-dodgers who were protesting, the man who owns Lush cosmetics is supporting those protesting and will pay court costs for those who have been arrested for the disturbance.

Hooray for the ignorance parade. If they think that a stable climate is important for the economy, they must be wacko unwashed hippies!

FlutterinBantam

Húrin wrote: »

Well, the Bangkok occupation was about their govt not climate change.

The Shannon thing was about the Iraq War.

Different issues. The only connection is airports.


They're not saying all airtravel should be banned. They're simply trying to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the British government who are trying to expand airports while claiming to bring down carbon dioxide emissions. Judging by the media coverage, they were successful.


Hmm, really?

definitely the dregs, yup

heh he heh heh, you think that makes them contributors.!!!!!

Serial wasters who will probably never contribute anything to recognised society.

Húrin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

heh he heh heh, you think that makes them contributors.!!!!!

Serial wasters who will probably never contribute anything to recognised society.

I'd love to hear about your enormous contributions since you love to preach at us.

FlutterinBantam

I prefer to call it 'contributing' myself.

I can see you and I are at different ends of the food chain, so to speak.

Chronic academics and talented people occasionally channel their energy into non productive and populist causes.

The fact that they have high qualifications and learned academic recognition fails to obviate the fact that at the end of the fooking day, they are wasters and non contributors to the commercial viability of the state and in truth are nothing but a burden.

Bear with me on this, but I would opine that a general trawl of the membership of that blocade of Stanstead, will in years to come, throw up bastions of the establishment and high earners in the accepted professions and communications industry, which is all the more reason to despise them.

Don't fook up my travel arrangements just to lay the foundations for a future profile and expect to get away with it!!!!

Doesn't fool the Flutt;)

Húrin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I prefer to call it 'contributing' myself.

I can see you and I are at different ends of the food chain, so to speak.

I can see you know nothing about me.

Chronic academics and talented people occasionally channel their energy into non productive and populist causes.

The fact that they have high qualifications and learned academic recognition fails to obviate the fact that at the end of the fooking day, they are wasters and non contributors to the commercial viability of the state and in truth are nothing but a burden.

You don't think that university graduates benefit all of society? I'm not just talking about obvious ones like engineers and doctors, but also the English graduates, priests and producers of culture. It wouldn't be much of a civilisation without them.

A 'commercially viable' counter-example from my first source:

Sophie Stephens, 25, holds down a nine-to-five office job in Leeds. She uses holidays and sabbaticals for her other work, protesting against the UK's carbon emissions and helping develop Climate Camp - the annual event for environmental activists which is in its third year.

Bear with me on this, but I would opine that a general trawl of the membership of that blocade of Stanstead, will in years to come, throw up bastions of the establishment and high earners in the accepted professions and communications industry, which is all the more reason to despise them.

In other words, contributors to the commercial viability of the state? I thought you would be happy to see them "change their ways"? Though as you say this is just your opinion. So it's OK to be completely nonsensical and contradictory in it.

Don't fook up my travel arrangements just to lay the foundations for a future profile and expect to get away with it!!!!

Ah, I see. They're doing it for their own egos. I'm glad you have evidence that I don't so you can tell me this. If they're doing it because they actually care about the issue they claim to, where does that leave your argument?

FlutterinBantam

What I am saying is that these people, while railing against the 'state' to the point of extremism on certain issues, are not slow to use the comforts of the state benefit system,and in years to come when they have gone through their destructive years, are not slow to stick their snouts deep in the corporate trough and drink deeply and enjoy the largesse from the very establishment they now purport to despise.


In other words I take them with a large pinch of salt pal.

Fratton Fred

Hurin,

Most people opposed to the expansion of Stansted are middle class people (call them A, B Cs if you like) who care as much about global warming as everyone else does. it is a concern, but their two weeks in Torremolinos is far more important. what they don;t like is the prospect of more planes ruining their nice middle class lifestyle, just the same as those who are opposing the expansion of Dublin airport.

The guys that broke in are rent a mob, spoilt rich kids who like to rebel, when it suits them. Be it Huntingdon life sciences, airport runways or new roads through a valley. They did this stunt for publicity and it affected a lot of people and cost many a lot of money.

Air travel is here to stay, it is a fact of life. I agree that more research should be put into responsile travel, but if that were to happen and a plane was created that could travel to the US whlst emitting less CO2 than a cow's fart, then these people would still complain, because it is what they do.

I agree if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem, but this is not a solution, it is no more than throwing toys out of a pram.

and why would an eco warrior wish to frequent an aviation forum?

Húrin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Hurin,

Most people opposed to the expansion of Stansted are middle class people (call them A, B Cs if you like) who care as much about global warming as everyone else does. it is a concern, but their two weeks in Torremolinos is far more important. what they don;t like is the prospect of more planes ruining their nice middle class lifestyle, just the same as those who are opposing the expansion of Dublin airport.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

What I am saying is that these people, while railing against the 'state' to the point of extremism on certain issues, are not slow to use the comforts of the state benefit system,and in years to come when they have gone through their destructive years, are not slow to stick their snouts deep in the corporate trough and drink deeply and enjoy the largesse from the very establishment they now purport to despise.


In other words I take them with a large pinch of salt pal.

There was no point in even writing these if all you lads can do is attack their characters rather than refute their points. Your problem is, you know they are right. If you know they are not, then you can refute them.

Most people opposing the protestors are middle-class too so if you are trying to make a class war out of this, that is very pathetic. The people who use flights most are not "the workers" or "the proletariat" - it's the people who have a home in France or Croatia.

a plane was created that could travel to the US whlst emitting less CO2 than a cow's fart, then these people would still complain, because it is what they do.

Evidence?

Húrin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I agree if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem, but this is not a solution, it is no more than throwing toys out of a pram.

and why would an eco warrior wish to frequent an aviation forum?

So now I'm an eco-warrior?

Where are your solutions?

pclancy

This debate seems to be straying further away from aviation and its enviromental impact on the planet, lets try keep on topic guys.

derry

Simple fact of life planes use lots of fuel.If the passengers pay the costs and the planes make a profit they will continue to increase in numbers .If they make a loss they will reduce


Ryan air succeeds in short haul to make a profit .Big outfits like BA figure all flight of less than 500 miles make them a loss so they need long haul to pay for the short haul.

If we except that the average amount of fuel a passenger uses will be more than 30MPG per passenger seat for short haul and as high as 90 MPG per passenger seat we can see the profit is in long haul.However niche operators using modern planes with better MPG per passenger seat such as Ryan air or air Arran can return figure exceding 50MPG per passenger seat on short haul.Turbo props like what Air Arran uses turbo props and can be double the MPG per passenger seat than a 737 jet but they fly a lot slower.


We can say a 737 going from Cork to Dublin is not likey to return 50MPG per passenger seat but is unlikely to be less than 25MPG per passenger seat.
This is due to the fact a lot of fuel is used for first 15 minutes of flight to get high where air is thin and fuel economy is best and isn't fully recouped in the glide down phase of the flight.
The longer the flight is the better is the MPG per passenger seat .


So if we take a 737 which goes from London to Ireland every day we can probably assume it get to and from London 8 times in a day.if the plane a 180 PAX carriies average 80% load we are looking at some ((180 *8*2/100)*80= 2300 people a day at an average of 50MPG per passenger seat.There might exist a half hour slot that can be fitted in such as Dublin Cork which might be 25MPG per passenger seat ..That one less fuel effient flight might bring the average down a tad to 48MPG per passenger seat .But these issues blong to the airline to figure out
if its profitable then good luck to them if not they stop it

Derry

Húrin

pclancy wrote: »

This debate seems to be straying further away from aviation and its enviromental impact on the planet, lets try keep on topic guys.

Attacking people's identity is the only thing these clowns can do, since they can't refute their arguments.

derry wrote: »

Simple fact of life planes use lots of fuel.If the passengers pay the costs and the planes make a profit they will continue to increase in numbers .If they make a loss they will reduce

*interesting stuff here*

Indeed. I think that most people in this thread are lying. Most of them are pretending that the activists are trying to get rid of aircraft, and probably cars, trains and everything else that's not a horse or a bike.

This is simply bullshit. But as I said, if you can't attack their arguments, massage your ego by attacking their characters.

Planes are here to stay. Nobody is disputing that fact.

Owen

Last warning on this thread guys, keep it on topic, and away from personal insults. Next offence will merit a lovely week off in the sun*

*By sun, boards.ie means 'in limbo, banned from the A&A forum'