I read that she/they were in the emergency exit row so not wanting to be listening to the emergency preamble they needed to replace them with someone more agreeable to be there.
Printable View
I read that she/they were in the emergency exit row so not wanting to be listening to the emergency preamble they needed to replace them with someone more agreeable to be there.
Yeap the same attitude of "we're above this safety nonsense" got Bob Jones in trouble in the emergency exit row. Bottom line is if you want your eyes to glaze over and are not even remotely interested in even feigning interest in the safety video then don't put other lives at risk, so sit somewhere else. These sort of people would be more interested in grabbing their carry on Gucci luggage than helping deploy safety doors in the event of an emergency and deserve other passengers derision and contempt. Ban them for life so they have to fly JetStar's rubbish experience, sweet justice !
Apparently quite a few got their overhead luggage and went down the evacuation slide when that Russian jet caught on fire ....hope they didn’t hinder any of the 40 odd who didn’t make it.
Reminds me ....keep my shoes on (or at least be able to put them on quickly) when flying
I find it interesting that they decided to have such a fit (passengers and ANZ). If I'm not mistaken there is nothing in the safety video about what people in exit rows need to do, that is a discussion the flight stewards have with you when you are in the seat (and to be honest it's not much chop anyway, they dont exactly tell you much). If you have seen the safety video more than a dozen times already there really is no need to watch it again regardless of which row you are in. If however, the video said in the exit row you need to do this in an emergency then yes I could see why the ANZ staff would expect a high level of attention if you are in the exit row. Someone correct me if I'm wrong though. Having said all that, I generally glance at the video but certainly not absorbed in it.
Yes I have been asked if I mind assisting whenever I have sat in the emergency exit row and I would leave my carry on bag in the overhead locker.
Here's the safety video..
. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbPd2gOOYPs.its such a "tough ask" to even fake being interested isn't it. I believe Bob Jones was banned for a period of time, from vague memory 2 years.
Beagle could start a poll, I like the 777X with GE engines, but I know nothing. Whatever the decision, I reckon RR engines are screwed in favour of GE, that's the rub isn't it, whatever airframe is chosen RR is going to hurt while it's engine fiasco's are still ongoing.
[QUOTE=Baa_Baa;758777]Beagle could start a poll, I like the 777X with GE engines, but I know nothing. Whatever the decision, I reckon RR engines are screwed in favour of GE, that's the rub isn't it, whatever airframe is chosen RR is going to hurt while it's engine fiasco's are still ongoing.[/QUOTE
The bulk of any compensation available to AIR from Rolls will come from the discount purchase price on new engine orders.
Therefore GE would have had to sharpen their pencils if the want to match or better any Rolls offer.
Acknowledge what you've said above BUT I think AIR's management must surely take the proactive step to select the more reliable engines so as to reduce the risk to the company going forward. "The bitter taste of poor quality lingers long after the thrill of a bargain"
Fascinating choice. I've always thought it would be about 8, 777-9 and 8 to 10, 787-9. The 777 for capacity and 787 (2 versions - USA/Rest of world). Fairly straight swap and better for crewing. The 787 is really versatile and fits well with ANZs plans and routes.
However, the Airbus has the range to get to New York, New Delhi and Dubai (the 777 doesn't), is cheaper and has slightly greater capacity. Airbus A320 crew could slot into crew positions OK and it's a popular plane with plenty of companies able to provide support.
Hmm - so Airbus A 350 has more capacity, can fly longer distances and is cheaper.
Of course will AIR will pick Boeing in this case ... only the worst can be good enough for the national carrier :p; Wait- aren't there some Ilyushin's we should consider as well?
But its probably just about giving in to the big bully in the white house ...