dieseltaylor Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 If Carling did complaint letters ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/4344890/Virgin-the-worlds-best-passenger-complaint-letter.html the start I love the Virgin brand, I really do which is why I continue to use it despite a series of unfortunate incidents over the last few years. This latest incident takes the biscuit. Ironically, by the end of the flight I would have gladly paid over a thousand rupees for a single biscuit following the culinary journey of hell I was subjected to at thehands of your corporation. Look at this Richard. Just look at it: [see image 1, above]. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 And the reply from Virgin is pretty poor considering the premium they seem to place on customer feedback. Basically "Too bad." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 I'd seen this before and had to chuckle. Wait until our esteemed passenger has to put some Rupees or other coinage into the little slot next to the toilet door, the next time he flies Virgin. Virgin passengers have to feel a bit like their namesakes - somewhat wary of getting screwed. But this is the path that all airlines seem to be committed to following, in order to make profits in this economy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 In spite of being a lifelong aviation enthusiast, I have wonder if jet travel, at least on the scale that it achieved, was always doomed to become an uneconomical way of moving people around. Of course, if they ever work out the technology of solar powered high speed flight, that might not be so. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 Air travel (by jet or whatever replaces them) will, I think, tend towards larger and larger aircraft carrying more and more passengers in their blended wing bodies. Think cattle car at 50,000 feet. There will be a strong economic call for relatively inexpensive air travel for the masses for the forseeable future, IMO but it will lead to less comfortable situations for the passengers, since less per-person space is the only possible tradeoff when you start packing the bodies in. And lets not even talk about what the experience at the terminal will be like, both at departure and arrival. As for the in-flight perks - perhaps they will just hit them all with sleeping gas after takeoff and put them out of their suffering. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 I originally read that years ago, before the crash. I think it's inevitable that eventually we'll build nuclear* reactors on a large scale taking the place of fossil fuels both for electricity generation and land transport. Then either produce some kind of synthetic jet fuel or just use the now over-capacity of oil for them. *Fission or fusion, it doesn't really matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 Ryan Air will show the way again..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 Ryan Air will show the way again..... Great publicity they get. Seriously though, what's wrong with hammocks? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 Seriously though, what's wrong with hammocks? Probably the safety reg that stipulates passengers be seatbelted during takeoffs, landings, and in turbulence. Other than that, though, I'd be in favour of being able to lie down. On the other hand, some retarded 22-yo with an MBA would inevitably come up with the masterplan of using 'short pitch hammocks' in order to fit more in, so you'd end up lying like a staple, which would be ok for the first 5 minutees but excruciating after about 60. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 Passenger seats (or accomodations....) are required to withstand a 16g deceleration - if yuo can design a hammock that'll do that go for it! Seiously tho - survival chances are much better if passengers face backwards so that any deceleration load can be spread across their entire back rather than jsut across a seat belt....but airlines refuse to do so because such seats taking greater loads require stronger frames to support them (not much use having a strong seat if it rips out of the floor!), which increases weight & lowers the payload they can carry - ie fewer passengers. Having some seats facing forwards & some back apparently allows more to be squeezed in..... the "standing seats" don't look like they're such good publicity for Ryan - there's already a facebook page slagging it off! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 ... survival chances are much better if passengers face backwards so that any deceleration load can be spread across their entire back rather than just across a seat belt ... but airlines refuse to do so because such seats taking greater loads require stronger frames to support them' date=' which increases weight & lowers the payload they can carry - ie fewer passengers.[/quote'] Ah. I've always heard that the airlines resisted because they claimed passengers wouldn't go for it, which was never very convincing. The weight/payload tradeoff is much more credible. Except, surely (don't call me Shirley!) the total load is the same regardless of facing, so I don't quite see why a rear facing seat would have to be more robust/heavier. Hmm. I suppose that in a forward-facing seat, pivoting around the seatbelt would transfer some portion of the passenger's weight through their legs and feet directly down onto the floor - probably quite a large portion when in the brace position - and only the seatbelt securing points would have to be especially strong. In a rear facing seat all of the passenger's weight/momentum would have to be supported by the chair alone, and the whole upright piece would have to be reasonably strong. Also, in forward-facing the chair would have to be strong in tension, while in rear-facing it'd have to be stronmg in compression, if that makes any difference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 I’ll try and explain how this felt. Imagine being a twelve year old boy Richard. Now imagine it’s Christmas morning and you’re sat their with your final present to open. It’s a big one, and you know what it is. It’s that Goodmans stereo you picked out the catalogue and wrote to Santa about. Only you open the present and it’s not in there. It’s your hamster Richard. It’s your hamster in the box and it’s not breathing. That’s how I felt when I peeled back the foil and saw this: [see image 3, above}] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Ryan Air will show the way again..... That should spell the death of flying by choice. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 That should spell the death of flying by choice. Yep. Although, to give them some credit, they have managed to make cattle-class look positively luxurious, which is no mean feat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Therreason for more weight with rearward facing seats is that the passengers can stand a higher loading, so regulatory authorities (and the public) are almost guaranteed to insist that the seats be capable of withstaning that higher loading - hence stronger seats, stronger mounts, and stronger structure supporting it all - and stronger = heavier. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 You mean, instead of 16g the reg is likely to go up to ... 20g, or sumfink? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 I believe 46.2g deceleration is the record to date - resulting in unconsciousness & temporary blindness 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 No, not the record, the regulation. You seem to be saying that if airlines choose to spin their seats around, then CAA/FAA/xAA will respond by raising the minimum g rating of passenger chairs. Also, I thought unconsciousness and temporary blindness as a result of high-gs was a well known phenomenon that went back at least as far as the 1930s. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Dunno what regulation might go to - but fighter seats are currently 32g and forward facing so there is plenty of potential. Yes blackout are well known - but the point is that that is all that was suffered at 46g - ie that massive deceleration didn't actually kill the guy, so again there is plenty of potential. there's another interesting little discussion here - by the Aussie defence forces. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 I believe 46.2g deceleration is the record to date - resulting in unconsciousness & temporary blindness Ah yes. Colonel Stapp. He was rather famous for a while during the '50s. I recall him even appearing on some panel game show at the time. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 I'd imagine it quite easy to design a hammock that could withstand 50g. I doubt the mounting points wouldn’t even have to be as strong as for chairs because the weight of a canvas and nylon hammock would be substantially less than a plastic and metal chair. Plus the fact you're stacking them closer means you're getting more passengers paying for fuel. Be a lot more comfy for everyone as well. They'd swing in response to acceleration too, so you'd be safer in a crash. You could even get one end to let go on command so people would land on their feet in an emergency. From all the videos I've seen look like a darkened obstacle course when a plane starts filling with smoke (Mrs Means is a trolley dolly so I've watched a few). If the chairs were out the way it'd be so much better. The only bad thing is some granny trying to get out of a top one to go the bathroom would fall and break her hip. But it's be more than made up for by the mile high opportunities 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Great. So the seats might withstand 50g deceleration. Shame about the crumpled mass of aluminium, carbon fibre and blazing jet fuel you're surrounded by on the side of that mountain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Why are you worried about the plane? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 6, 2010 Share Posted July 6, 2010 Why are you worried about the plane? Machines are do much cleaner than people. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted July 6, 2010 Share Posted July 6, 2010 And yet not as much fun for a night out.......be it on the turps, a game or, I guess, a shag. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.