AirNZ Plane Incidents

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › AirNZ Plane Incidents

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28

#485406 24-Jun-2011 12:15

I think networkn has some sort of private gripe with Qantas that he is not telling us about as he sure seems pretty messed up about them and the possibility of disaster. Maybe he had a panic attack on a Qantas aircraft while it was still at the gate and they had to remove him for the sake of the safety of the other passengers

? Or maybe in the air and they had to 'cuff him

?

But it could be that he has his airlines mixed up

as he seems to be determined to post continually "Qantas Incidents" in a thread titled "Air NZ Incidents".

networkn

Networkn
32863 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#485408 24-Jun-2011 12:17

John: I think you need to read the OP and see what you have to say about what is actually being discussed here. The whole thread is off topic, but if you have such an issue, feel free to unsubscribe from the thread.

corksta

2405 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 382

Trusted

Subscriber

#485418 24-Jun-2011 12:25

FFS networkn anyone who has ever looked at this thread knows you will never fly Qantas. Why keep rehashing the same crap?

My wife flys with Air NZ, many of her friends do as well, I couldn't tell you the number of times that a burning smell has been detected in the plane before, it's not that uncommon.

Why can't you see that the media has jumped on the Qantas-bashing bandwagon and is trying to make it look like they are plagued with incidents, when the reality is they happen to all airlines at various times? At the moment, if it doesn't happen to Qantas it's not newsworthy, if it does happen to Qantas we get the "it's the latest in a string of incidents" sensationalism from the media.

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 138

#485423 24-Jun-2011 12:28

networkn: You mean Qantas has inferior navigation systems making it less safe for them. It's the reason they often can't land in Qtown or Wellington

Speculative misinterpretation.

Their current systems may not be compatible with some of the services available at Wellington and Queenstown, but it doesn't stop them finding the airports and landing there most of the time. And neither does it make their aircraft less safe.

networkn

Networkn
32863 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#485429 24-Jun-2011 12:36

It must make them less safe (relatively) if they have inferior or less navigation equipment on the plane.

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1364

Subscriber

#485438 24-Jun-2011 12:53

Aren't you all glad that the merger of Qantas and Air NZ didn't go ahead?? If it had there would be no one flying in NZ or across the ditch at the moment..

Regards,

Old3eyes

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32863 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#485442 24-Jun-2011 12:56

Yes I am very happy about that.

PenultimateHop

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

Trusted

#485444 24-Jun-2011 12:58

networkn: It must make them less safe (relatively) if they have inferior or less navigation equipment on the plane.

Not really. It's more analogous to a 2WD vehicle and a 4WD vehicle. The 4WD vehicle can drive on roadways or paths that the 2WD vehicle can't. It does not make the 2WD less safe, just that it is not equipped to drive (land) on certain roadways (airports) when the conditions require 4WD (aircraft with RNP).

networkn

Networkn
32863 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#485446 24-Jun-2011 13:00

pen: ok, well I'll accept that point. It does means that it's less safe to fly those airlines to those destinations however.

PenultimateHop

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

Trusted

#485447 24-Jun-2011 13:07

networkn: pen: ok, well I'll accept that point. It does means that it's less safe to fly those airlines to those destinations however.

It doesn't make them any less safe. It just means when the airport conditions are outside the parameters their aircraft are equipped to land in, they don't land. That does not make them less safe (you could argue it makes them more safe, since they're not landing in questionable weather at all...)

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28

#485758 25-Jun-2011 14:24

networkn: It does means that it's less safe to fly those airlines to those destinations however.

As someone who has had more than a little experience with aeronautical nav systems in a number of countries, including managing the design of approach and departure procedures, I can tell you that your claim is, as is becoming typical with your claims, entirely incorrect.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

corksta

2405 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 382

Trusted

Subscriber

#485761 25-Jun-2011 14:31

Time to let this thread die networkn, you're getting more and more out of your depth with your baseless claims.

networkn

Networkn
32863 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#485859 25-Jun-2011 19:03

corksta: It's your opinion that they are baseless, I feel they have plenty of base, and if you don't like the thread, no-one is forcing you to read it.

corksta

2405 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 382

Trusted

Subscriber

#485877 25-Jun-2011 19:51

So I guess John2010 doesn't know what he's talking about either hmmm?

I'm reading it for its entertainment value and wondering what claim you'll come out with next!

networkn

Networkn
32863 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#485912 25-Jun-2011 22:37

corksta: So I guess John2010 doesn't know what he's talking about either hmmm?

I'm reading it for its entertainment value and wondering what claim you'll come out with next!

In other words, trolling.

I am not disputing John's expertise, though I find his manner condescending and bordering on rude, which seems completely unnecessary. I have capitulated a few of the points made by other people.

As I have REPEATEDLY said, my research and the information I have leads me to my OPINION that it's safer right now to fly AirNZ than Qantas. I didn't ask to be convinced any differently and I certainly am not trying to stop anyone else from flying on any airline they wish. I certainly don't understand the aggressive and unpleasant tone taken by some of the people who oppose my opinion especially since, this thread started on a completely different topic. Also for the record, I hadn't posted anything for quite a while and it was another who started the debate by pointing out an AirNZ incident.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7