Gatwick Airport Closed
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Badger11  Beckenham 20 Dec 18 4.56pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
The problem with shooting down or taking down a drone is what happens if it hits someone, you may not be able to control how it comes down. Also from what I heard this morning every time they thought it was over the drone then re-appeared so until they get the little sh*ts controlling it you can't guarantee its finished. I feel sorry for anyone inconvenienced whether there taking a skiing holiday visiting a sick relative or just business. If you have an issue you wish to raise awareness of this is not the way and may even hurt your cause. My old boss was is one of the key people in stop the Gatwick Expansion campaign he is a decent guy and would be horrified if this turns out to be a stunt connected to that. Their campaign has been based on legal means such as lobbying parliament etc.
One more point |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 20 Dec 18 5.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
Different circumstances is not a reasonable excuse. If you've landed a plane at Luton, Heathrow Stanstead or Cardiff etc and passengers want to get off and complete their journeys themselves, rather than waiting an unstated length of time on the plane so they can avoid a gate fee they should have to do so. They're not the airlines captives to do with as they please. It's just as challenging, if not more so for the passengers than staff, as they've paid for the service rather than being the ones who are being paid for their time. I of course don't know what the airlines are doing with regard to passengers on diverted aircrafts. I have heard in the past of bus services being provided to take these passengers to the destination airport so this might be the case today.All depends I suppose on the circumstances surrounding the diversion and the affects thereafter. In terms of my general point, all I was trying to do was offer an explanation as to the operational matters which come to the fore in circumstances where passengers are on aircraft which are not moving. Whilst of course the focus is on Gatwick and the thousands of passengers who haven't been able to depart, the are thousands who haven't been able to travel on the return flights so all-in-all a nightmare situation for the airlines and airport authorities not only here but abroad. Edited by Willo (20 Dec 2018 5.14pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 20 Dec 18 5.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Willo
I of course don't know what the airlines are doing with regard to passengers on diverted aircrafts. I have heard in the past of bus services being provided to take these passengers to the destination airport so this might be the case today.All depends I suppose on the circumstances surrounding the diversion and the affects thereafter. In terms of my general point, all I was trying to do was offer an explanation as to the operational matters which come to the fore in circumstances where passengers are on aircraft which are not moving. In certain cases they've been leaving them on planes for 5 or 6 hours, that's why I mentioned it. I know why airlines don't want to do it and it's not operational matters in the vast majority of cases, it's because it will cost them money. Now they're not interested what additional costs their customers incur when they are at fault, they just do the bare minimum (if not offer some ridiculous compensation/alternative that encourages people to not take it up) so they shouldn't be able to hold passengers indefinitely just because they aren't at fault and it may be awkward or costly for them to fulfil their wishes.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 20 Dec 18 5.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Willo
I of course don't know what the airlines are doing with regard to passengers on diverted aircrafts. I have heard in the past of bus services being provided to take these passengers to the destination airport so this might be the case today.All depends I suppose on the circumstances surrounding the diversion and the affects thereafter. In terms of my general point, all I was trying to do was offer an explanation as to the operational matters which come to the fore in circumstances where passengers are on aircraft which are not moving. Whilst of course the focus is on Gatwick and the thousands of passengers who haven't been able to depart, the are thousands who haven't been able to travel on the return flights so all-in-all a nightmare situation for the airlines and airport authorities not only here but abroad. Edited by Willo (20 Dec 2018 5.14pm) Years ago I was working in Montrose - Aberdeen was closed because of fog and I was diverted to Edinburgh. The replacement coach drove passed the front door of where I was working, but I couldn't get off because the bus company was contracted to take the passengers to Aberdeen. I'd have been on time despite the diversion = instead 5 hours later!!!!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tawny Croydon 20 Dec 18 6.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Insane situation. I can definitely see new laws due to this. The cost and inconvenience caused here is off the scale and at xmas too. edit- It seems existing laws can get them five years for this anyway, so whoever did it has brass balls and an empty head. Edited by Tawny (20 Dec 2018 6.39pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| gambler Kent 20 Dec 18 6.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Has there been a ransom demand? Haven't read the whole thread. But surely one has been or will be received?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| YT Oxford 20 Dec 18 7.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tawny
Insane situation. I can definitely see new laws due to this. The cost and inconvenience caused here is off the scale and at xmas too. edit- It seems existing laws can get them five years for this anyway, so whoever did it has brass balls and an empty head. Edited by Tawny (20 Dec 2018 6.39pm) The law is there; maybe the punishment needs to be greater. 20 years should do it.
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tawny Croydon 20 Dec 18 7.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
The law is there; maybe the punishment needs to be greater. 20 years should do it. It certainly needs to be at a level that dissuades it. My concern now it that with this being such big news, copycat crimes will take place over the coming months.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 20 Dec 18 7.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The campaign group Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emission (CAGNE) has described today's events as "an early Christmas present for those that suffer aircraft noise". It says it doesn't condone the flying of drones near airports, but said tens of thousands of residents today "enjoyed some respite from the aircraft motorways above their homes that usually, in part, blight their lives day and night" I hope the police have paid these w***ers a visit.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 20 Dec 18 7.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
The campaign group Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emission (CAGNE) has described today's events as "an early Christmas present for those that suffer aircraft noise". It says it doesn't condone the flying of drones near airports, but said tens of thousands of residents today "enjoyed some respite from the aircraft motorways above their homes that usually, in part, blight their lives day and night" I hope the police have paid these w***ers a visit. What, the residents? I know they moved to Gatwick knowing there would be airplanes flying overhead but that’s a bit strong. Edited by Rudi Hedman (20 Dec 2018 7.46pm)
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
PalazioVecchio  south pole 20 Dec 18 7.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
drone gets sucked into engine of a 747, engine explodes or dies, plane crashes... to fly a drone into a flightpath sounds like attempted murder to me. Life sentence at belmarsh. That would give the little toerags something to think about.
Eze Peasy at Anfield.... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 20 Dec 18 7.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
What, the residents? I know they moved to Gatwick knowing there would be airplanes flying overhead but that’s a bit strong. Edited by Rudi Hedman (20 Dec 2018 7.46pm) The "campaign group", which will actually be a small amount of divs. Like all of these groups they claim to speak for thousands (tens of in this case, apparently) of people for whom they do not. The silent majority as always just get on with things. Over 100 thousand people have been affected today, directly, not to mention the knock on effect. It'll be a similar amount tomorrow and for the foreseeable. Whoever put out that statement and claims that group is an utter c***.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.