LCY-KEF stopping at PIK to refuel today
Nov 2, 2018, 2:46 am
#16
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: London, UK
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 1,020
To be fair I was just quite literally describing what I quoted and used “nonsense” as its literal meaning. It wasn’t anything personal, I said nothing about you or your opinions and just stated your comment was factually incorrect and providing evidence and corrected information affterwards. I don’t see anything wrong with doing that.
Nov 2, 2018, 2:56 am
#17
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,246
There are some who perceive they have near perfect knowledge on some subjects and have to use uncivilised language. I will avoid threads with certain characters. Thankfully there are some excellent contributors for balance.
Are we off-topic?
Nov 2, 2018, 3:05 am
#18
Join Date: Nov 2017
Programs: BA, Hilton
Posts: 2,092
However, as Globaliser and george77300 have both pointed out, and which I trust is more apparent when my original comment is read in full, replies to you were about what you said and not about you. As such, they are not personal, nor do I see them as uncivilized. Imagine if you will, the following (purely hypothetical) conversation:
BertieBadger: "I'd not be surprised to find that BA never accept another RR engined plane after the Trent 1000 fiasco"
george77300: "That's total nonsense, they have both B787-10 and and A350-1000 on order with RR engines"
And for me, that's a perfectly reasonable response. It's not personal in any way - it doesn't attack me as an individual but is focused on what I wrote, and indeed since what I wrote, in fact, "total nonsense" why should someone else not point that out? If I still thought my comment was correct, I would advance my evidence and reasoning why.
Nov 2, 2018, 3:25 am
#19
Join Date: Nov 2017
Programs: BA, Hilton
Posts: 2,092
Should we strive to return to a more focused discussion of the topic then, setting aside any perceptions of other posters. As I have said before, I have an interest in some of the technical aspects of aviation, and making unplanned * fuel stops on a regular scheduled route was not something I can remember encountering before.
So if we return to your original comment which was:
Can you explain why this would not surprise you? What routes are you thinking of that would make PIK or BGR a practical option for when (unexpected) refueling might be needed and which exceed the range of the B787-10? george77300 has stated it as 6400nm and that seems in close accordance with the value Boeing themselves state of 6430nm (Info from here: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/787/)
Thanks in advance
Bertie
*I know the Babybus stops at SNN westbound, but that is obviously planned and I believe related to the LCY runway length preventing it getting airborne with a full fuel load?
So if we return to your original comment which was:
Wouldn’t surprise me if a fully loaded B787-10 refuels at PIK or BGR on TATL routes due to headwinds.
Thanks in advance
Bertie
*I know the Babybus stops at SNN westbound, but that is obviously planned and I believe related to the LCY runway length preventing it getting airborne with a full fuel load?
Nov 2, 2018, 3:47 am
#20
Community Director
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Norwich, UK
Programs: A3*G, BA Gold, BD Gold (in memoriam), IHG Diamond Ambassador
Posts: 8,481
Thread temporarily closed for mod review. Thanks for your patience.
/mod
EDIT: Thank you for your patience and understanding. Thread re-opened for discussion.
/mod
EDIT: Thank you for your patience and understanding. Thread re-opened for discussion.
Last edited by NWIFlyer; Nov 2, 2018 at 7:36 am