Max777's Forum Posts | Swinging Heaven

Join the most popular community of UK swingers now

Max777

Over 90 days ago

Straight Male, 71

0 miles · Tyne and Wear

Profile Follows

Meets Parties Stories

Forum

9 Apr 2013

Quote by deancannock
I would never celebrate someones death.....but coming from a mining family, living in a mining town, being part, of what once was, a mining community, with a mining tradition....I am damned sure I shall be shedding NO tears.

Ask the mothers and fathers if they are truly sad that their sons no longer have to go miles underground to earn a paltry living in a dangerous and unhealthy environment. I was brought up in Wigan and St Helen's and six of my school friends were on apprenticeships with the coal board. Whilst they were all strikers and agitated at the time, not one of them is now mourning the loss of a filthy and dangerous industry and none would have been happy for their kids to be going down the mines now.
I do not believe that anyone can be saying this kind of stuff about Mrs Thatcher could have been an adult between 1976 and 1979 when this country truly was on its knees and real poverty existed.
Surprise surprise....my name gives it away, I am from Cannock. The Cannock Chase coal seam, had 5 pits operating it. Littleton Colliery was the most productive man for man in the whole of Europe. But Mrs Thatcher, chose to close it down....not because it was not making money, not because its reserves were running out, but out of vindictivness. Littleton Came out on strike, and didn't operate during the miners strike. She simply wanted her own back. Short sighted and vindictive. It destroyed a community, and it destroyed lives. I have said it before but I shall tell you again...I actually consider Mrs Thatcher to have my families blood on her hands. My younger brother worked down Littleton, when it closed ; he was devasted. He couldn't find alternative work. He had a wife and 3 young chilren to try and feed and put clothes on their back. He felt a failure for not being able to sustain his family. He was found hanging from the rafters of the loft. Thats the legacy of Mrs Thatcher...destruction of communities and families. Thats why although not celebrating her death, I shall not be shedding any tears!!
Dean, it's understandable that you have very strong emotions on this subject. I know nothing about Littleton Colliery so have done a little research. From what I can see online, it was designated a 'core' colliery by the then Conservative Government in 1992 but then closed in December 1993. If this is correct, whatever the reason was for the colliery's closure , it couldn't have been due to Thatcher's vindictiveness as she left office in 1990.

9 Apr 2013

Quote by deancannock
MAX....I just typed in census 2011...and couldn't find where i could see all the questions again !! maybe you could forward me the link.
But you avoiding the question....Do you think at a time of some called austerity measures, at a time when the bedroom tax is being introduced ; at a time when people who have worked all their lives hard, find themselves redundant and are asked to live on £53 a week....that it is right that those earn over a million pounds a year get a 5% tax cut. Even based on your figures a minimum of a £50,000 cash back bung !!
Me.. guess what.... I think its SCANDERLOUS

GNV has kindly provided a link. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim.
Now, If you got off your bloody soap box and stopped shouting you will see I said on page 1 it was a political blunder and if you are going to shout in red bloody capitals, at least spell the bloody word right!

8 Apr 2013

Quote by deancannock
Max,
as reported on BBC news last night...there are 32,000 millionaires paying tax in this country at the last cencus. Now by your own maths....if one millionaire has a million he pays £50,000 less a year !! If has two million then its £100,00 less a year !! If has three its £150,000 less a year. Do the maths yourself do you think there are more with just 1 million...or more with over 1 million. So yes, I actually think the £100,000 less a year average is actually low estimate.
Whatever way you try and argue this, or dress it up, at a time of when Austerity measures are being put in place ; At a time when people who have worked all there life, find them selves redundant and being asked to live on a week ; At a time when those that simply have an extra bedroom are being penalised ; At a time when every university students are being told they have to now pay for their education,
Then a 5% cut in tax to the those with the most weath is simply unacceptable and in my own opinion SCANDALOUS.

Dean, don't confuse yourself with those that have assets of £1 million and those that earn £1 million. I also don't recall having to record my income on the last census?
I'm far from confused Max....again read first line...32,000 millionaires paying tax !!! there are a damn sight more than 32,000 millionaires living here for damn sure. And On last census if I re-call there was an income bracket. But max....you just useing smoke and mirrors here. I don't care the fact still applies...that to give those that have most a 5% tax reduction is SCANDALOUS ..... or do you think it is right ?
Dean, there was no income question on the 2011 census so how can the BBC make their claim?
more smoke and mirrors eh....its on ...and where can you confirm there wasn't a question....I do re-call a question about household income. there again it was time ago, I can't be sure myself. But just face the question MAX..... taking more tax from the poor, whilst taking less from the mega rich...in a time of so called austerity is SCANDERLOUS
It's easy to check the census questions online. I've done it..you can do it yourself. So where does the BBC get the figures you claim? Who is it that's really using smoke and mirrors?

8 Apr 2013

Quote by deancannock
Max,
as reported on BBC news last night...there are 32,000 millionaires paying tax in this country at the last cencus. Now by your own maths....if one millionaire has a million he pays £50,000 less a year !! If has two million then its £100,00 less a year !! If has three its £150,000 less a year. Do the maths yourself do you think there are more with just 1 million...or more with over 1 million. So yes, I actually think the £100,000 less a year average is actually low estimate.
Whatever way you try and argue this, or dress it up, at a time of when Austerity measures are being put in place ; At a time when people who have worked all there life, find them selves redundant and being asked to live on a week ; At a time when those that simply have an extra bedroom are being penalised ; At a time when every university students are being told they have to now pay for their education,
Then a 5% cut in tax to the those with the most weath is simply unacceptable and in my own opinion SCANDALOUS.

Dean, don't confuse yourself with those that have assets of £1 million and those that earn £1 million. I also don't recall having to record my income on the last census?
I'm far from confused Max....again read first line...32,000 millionaires paying tax !!! there are a damn sight more than 32,000 millionaires living here for damn sure. And On last census if I re-call there was an income bracket. But max....you just useing smoke and mirrors here. I don't care the fact still applies...that to give those that have most a 5% tax reduction is SCANDALOUS ..... or do you think it is right ?
Dean, there was no income question on the 2011 census so how can the BBC make their claim?

8 Apr 2013

Quote by gulsonroad30664
Can I just say, that if I ever find myself part of the majority I will have to change my mind :twisted:

so would i so that makes two of us.
So why try to convert everyone to your way of thought? dunno

dunno

7 Apr 2013

Quote by gulsonroad30664
all selected politicians in parliament of all parties dance to the same tune as they are all compromised by the same rythm. they are all on the gravy train of financial reward to do their masters bidding.
if one spoke out, as they are all aware, they would meet with an untimely accident. they are all puppets of the same regime. international finance and banking.
they have stolen your pensions, exported your jobs, imported cheap labour, taken your taxes to subsidise their gambling and are coming for your savings/deposits al la cyprus.
this period is the greatest controlled demolition of the global economy since the introduction of the promisary note and we will get what we deserve for being so stupid and spellbound.
they will fill your minds with diversions/propaganda and blame the "other" guy. it's the immigrants fault. it's the afghans fault. it's al quaeders fault. it's the benefits claimants fault. it's the iraqi's (weapons of mass destrution) fault. it's gaddaffi's fault, it's assads fault. it's the north koreans fault. it's the e.u.s fault. it's the germans fault. it's the non taxpaying greeks fault.
the elephant is hidding in full veiw.

Good to see your latest post is a carbon copy of all your previous 679. Still a one trick pony then Guls?

7 Apr 2013

Quote by deancannock
Max,
as reported on BBC news last night...there are 32,000 millionaires paying tax in this country at the last cencus. Now by your own maths....if one millionaire has a million he pays £50,000 less a year !! If has two million then its £100,00 less a year !! If has three its £150,000 less a year. Do the maths yourself do you think there are more with just 1 million...or more with over 1 million. So yes, I actually think the £100,000 less a year average is actually low estimate.
Whatever way you try and argue this, or dress it up, at a time of when Austerity measures are being put in place ; At a time when people who have worked all there life, find them selves redundant and being asked to live on a week ; At a time when those that simply have an extra bedroom are being penalised ; At a time when every university students are being told they have to now pay for their education,
Then a 5% cut in tax to the those with the most weath is simply unacceptable and in my own opinion SCANDALOUS.

Dean, don't confuse yourself with those that have assets of £1 million and those that earn £1 million. I also don't recall having to record my income on the last census?
I'm far from confused Max....again read first line...32,000 millionaires paying tax !!! there are a damn sight more than 32,000 millionaires living here for damn sure. And On last census if I re-call there was an income bracket. But max....you just useing smoke and mirrors here. I don't care the fact still applies...that to give those that have most a 5% tax reduction is SCANDALOUS ..... or do you think it is right ?
Dean, I'm not using smoke and mirrors at all, 32000 millionaires paying tax does not mean 32000 people earning a million pounds (or more) per year. I can't find any reference anywhere to there being 32000 people in the UK earning in excess of 1 million pounds per year.

7 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple

I've just read the article. It's actually a quote from Ed Balls...so it will be 100% accurate then......not!

So I would presume that if it was a quote from George Osbourne it would be 100% accurate?
Why would you presume that?
Just a hunch Max. Am I wrong?
Most probably.
Hmmmmm........So not entirely wrong then, so my original comment held some truth then. So I was correct is sort of presuming it?
To be crystal clear, I am saying you would most probably be wrong if you we're saying that a quote from Osborne was 100% accurate. Clear enough?

7 Apr 2013

Quote by deancannock
Max,
as reported on BBC news last night...there are 32,000 millionaires paying tax in this country at the last cencus. Now by your own maths....if one millionaire has a million he pays £50,000 less a year !! If has two million then its £100,00 less a year !! If has three its £150,000 less a year. Do the maths yourself do you think there are more with just 1 million...or more with over 1 million. So yes, I actually think the £100,000 less a year average is actually low estimate.
Whatever way you try and argue this, or dress it up, at a time of when Austerity measures are being put in place ; At a time when people who have worked all there life, find them selves redundant and being asked to live on a week ; At a time when those that simply have an extra bedroom are being penalised ; At a time when every university students are being told they have to now pay for their education,
Then a 5% cut in tax to the those with the most weath is simply unacceptable and in my own opinion SCANDALOUS.

Dean, don't confuse yourself with those that have assets of £1 million and those that earn £1 million. I also don't recall having to record my income on the last census?

7 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple

I've just read the article. It's actually a quote from Ed Balls...so it will be 100% accurate then......not!

So I would presume that if it was a quote from George Osbourne it would be 100% accurate?
Why would you presume that?
Just a hunch Max. Am I wrong?
Most probably.

7 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple

I've just read the article. It's actually a quote from Ed Balls...so it will be 100% accurate then......not!

So I would presume that if it was a quote from George Osbourne it would be 100% accurate?
Why would you presume that?

6 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
He isn't likely to get out in 15 years though.

Absolutely right!
It is highly unlikely he will ever again walk the streets a free man....Why are people A:WAYS so quick to complain that the sentences are too lenient?? These comments bear no relation to reality.... this guy will almost certainly die behid bars ...which i think we would all agree is no more than he deserves..."lenient sentence?" I don't think so!
Jack
:thumbup:
I wonder how many said that when he got sentanced last time, if he did 15 years surely that means he was sentanced to 30 years at the time and as is the norm got his early release from the way it all works ?
He didn't do 15 years. He was jailed for 7 years.

6 Apr 2013

Quote by HnS
Apparently the traditional British social divisions of upper, middle and working class seem out of date in the 21st Century, no longer reflecting modern occupations or lifestyles.
Therefore the BBC teamed up with sociologists from leading universities to analyse the modern British class system. They surveyed more than 161,000 people and came up with a new model made up of seven groups.
Where do you fit in

Now worried by the result :sad: , though based on the simple 5 questions it's a pigeon hole that differs to an outlook on life

Starlightcouple beat you to it....see his thread ' so which slot do you fall into?'

6 Apr 2013

Quote by deancannock
Max....and I would ask you to read what it says....an AVERAGE of £100,000 better off. yes there will be some ONLY £50k better off......but also be some £200,000 or more better off.
Whatever way you look at it....still totally scandalous !!

I've just read the article. It's actually a quote from Ed Balls...so it will be 100% accurate then......not!

6 Apr 2013

Quote by deancannock
"The top rate of income tax will drop from 50p in the pound to 45p for people with incomes of more than £150,000. As a result of the changes, working families would be up to £4,000 worse off, while millionaires got average tax cuts of £100,000. "
Max just so aware....taken from BBC news website on 5/4/13.
I say again....at a time when Austerity measures are being brought in : pensions frozen : Bedroom tax beeen introduced : People are losing their jobs left right and centre : Is it a good time to cut the tax of those earing over £150,000 ?
There again, those more cynical than me might say, only a few years to election time, and they will need some money for the election fund.....I am sure the money saved can be donated back into the Tory election fund !!!!

Dean, do the maths, 5% of £1 million is £50K and that's for people with an income of £1 million not people with assets of £1 million.

6 Apr 2013

Quote by deancannock
To be fair to Mt clegg everybody is entitled to a holiday. I have no grievience there. However the real tax change that has been kept quiet is
The top rate of income tax will drop from 50p in the pound to 45p for people with incomes of more than £150,000.
This at at a time of Austerity....this at a time persions are been frozen and so effectivly reduced....this at a time of taxes like the bedroom tax.....
Yea all done so a millionaire can be £100,000 better off a year.
Scandalous to me. In this together....don't make me laugh....more like lets take a money off the poorest so me can give it to the richest. This government is playing the Sherrif of Nottingham role , with oscar winning performances.....Lets just hope Robin Hood appears soon !!

I'm not sure where you have been If you think this has been kept quiet. Milliband Jnr, Balls and every other Labour politician have been shouting about this at every opportunity. What they fail to add is that the 50% tax rate was only introduced 4 weeks before the general election Labour knew it would lose. Labour set this as a deliberate booby trap, knowing full well that a Tory government would rescind it and sure enough, Osborne fell into the trap, which I personally believe was a political blunder. If Labour had really thought a 50% top rate would have raised significantly more tax, why did they not do it 13 years earlier?
I'm also not sure where you get the figure of £100K from?

5 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
OK Mids. You asked me a very stupid question, as to whether I can show you an example of an airplane flying with twice its payload. Now you show me an example of BA, Air France. KLM, Lufthansa, Emirates, Singapore Airlines, Qantas or any other major legacy carrier that has an aircraft fall from the sky due to it being overloaded. Oh that's right, you can't, same old same old cant provide the facts requested so come back and ask the person to provide facts, you do it in almost every thread you "contribute" to.
Trev was right about most modern airplanes having weight and balance systems. Do you honestly believe airlines leave it to rough guesswork? Honestly?. I never said that I quoted the CAA guidelines for assessing passenger weights it is you that said it was ridiculous to weigh people whilst later saying in smaller aircraft this was an important factor Star got it right when he said you make it up as you go along.
Go get yourself a job in the aviation industry, it clearly needs an expert such as you to ensure we all can fly safely in the future. BTW,, you may think I'm resorting to insults when I describe some of your postings as drivel but as far as I'm concerned, I'm merely stating fact.

You are Pathetic, never once on the forums have you admitted to being wrong or that someone with a slight or serious different opinion is right, oh to be so super intelligent and know everything, how wonderfull that must be, now being in charge of the CAA can you please tell me why you have issued rules and guidelines about the overloading of planes that carry up to 500 passengers a time ?
Thats right you cant can you, because your not the head of the CAA, you just agreed with someone that the smaller planes are at risk from passenger weight problems yet earlier you discount this as a factor, how can I have been wrong about the weight of passengers being a scientific factor when a plane takes off yet you be right about the same thing ? a plane is a plane no matter how many it carries so if a plane (remember a plane is a plane) takes off it fall into the category of being a plane that has to know what weight it carries, newer planes might well be able to calculate it's payload but not all planes are as advanced.
The CAA think this fact worthy of attention and the writing of warnings and guidelines but you don't, thank heaven you are not in charge. but don't worry I won't ask you to prove anything again because everytime I do you cannot or will not though it is your favourite pastime asking others for evidence it simply is not something you yourself are able to do.
In summary, I said aircraft taking off need to be aware of the passenger weight, you have said it was irrelevant and we never need to know but today you say sometime we do need to know especially in the case of smaller aircraft (the CAA advise on those carrying up to 500 souls).
I do know that a lot of aircraft are built recently and with modern technology but there a lot up there that are not. You cant carte blanche everything because some carry up to date technology and forget the older stuff.
You're entitled to your opinion and if you want to call me pathetic then so be it. Just to balance things out, my opinion of you is a bar room bore who loves the sound of his own voice, has an opinion on everything and knows fuck all about anything.
Look back over my posts and tell me where I have used the word irrelevant in respect to the weight an aircraft is carrying. You won't be able to. I asked you to cite me some examples of a passenger airliner falling out of the sky due to it being overweight as you stated that it was a fact that it happens. You responded with 2 examples of military aircraft then asked me a senseless question about supplying you with details of an aircraft flying with twice its payload. What relevance does that have? I was never talking about aircraft flying overladen. You were making up nonsensical scenarios of aircraft full of 300 obese people, not me. I also pointed out that that wouldn't double an aircrafts payload, obviously a fact that you failed to comprehend. All I've said in my posts is that airlines have systems in place to ensure the weight and balance of the payload is correct and within the safety guidelines, you're the one that's making accusations that airlines are flying airplanes that they have no idea of the weight they are carrying and therefore compromising safety as well as going off a completely irrelevant rant about sailors turning away from icebergs, strongmen conventions etc etc.
Now read Rogues post above for an intelligent and informed post.

5 Apr 2013

Quote by Rogue_Trader
I'm a frequent flyer, some weeks its up to 5 or 6 flights, domestic and international, and no I'm not a trolly dolly...
Some airlines stipulate that the seat you are given is the one you must remain in to ensure the plane is trimmed correctly, others don't give a toss (Ryanair)
Now its the smaller aircraft that are most at risk when the weight differential is bigger and these aircraft are the ones that have less than 20 passengers. A lot of these have taken to weighing passengers or asking for their weight on check-in to enable the pilot to know what to expect for trim. on the flight to the Scilly isles you used to be placed in the seat by the pilot so he was happy with weight distribution.

:thumbup:

5 Apr 2013

OK Mids. You asked me a very stupid question, as to whether I can show you an example of an airplane flying with twice its payload. Now you show me an example of BA, Air France. KLM, Lufthansa, Emirates, Singapore Airlines, Qantas or any other major legacy carrier that has an aircraft fall from the sky due to it being overloaded. Oh that's right, you can't,
Trev was right about most modern airplanes having weight and balance systems. Do you honestly believe airlines leave it to rough guesswork? Honestly?. Star got it right when he said you make it up as you go along.
Go get yourself a job in the aviation industry, it clearly needs an expert such as you to ensure we all can fly safely in the future. BTW,, you may think I'm resorting to insults when I describe some of your postings as drivel but as far as I'm concerned, I'm merely stating fact.

4 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
Mids, Can you supply an example of a passenger airline that has fallen from the sky due to it carrying excess weight?
Do you honestly believe that airlines do not err well on the side of safety when it comes to load factors?

Yes Max two examples albeit military aircraft one in Afghanistan that was overloaded with personnel and one in the Falklands campaign carrying 22 SAS members and twice its normal payload, I accept that this was wartime conditions and that operational necessity made those in charge authorise the flights when ordinarily they wouldn't but that emphasises my point that if payloads are ignored such things will happen, the army were aware of the overweight situation and made the choice to chance it, civilian planes take over every few seconds without the pilot really knowing exactly what weight he is carrying on board.
Now Max since you question the validity of what I said I assume perhaps wrongly but without further information do assume that you disagree with me, can you provide examples of planes being able to fly with twice their payload on board or reasoning why weight would not matter ?
Why do I have to supply examples of planes flying with twice their payload? because you ask me to provide examples even though it is fact it happensDo you really believe that an aircraft would have 300+ obese passengers on board at one time It is not my job to believe it Max nor is it yours, I did say it would be a rare thing, but the FAA and CAA who are responsible for aircraft safety procedures do have to consider it no matter how rare or bizzare the case may be. and even if this were to happen in the realms of fantasy, do you not think that the matter would be flagged up somewhere? How could the matter be flagged up somewhere if nobody knows the weight of all the passengers on the aircraft ?
Reputable airlines are a little more sophisticated than you are obviously aware. but they don't weigh passengers or ask them what their weight is do they
If you watch the very good documentary series available on aircrash investigation or seconds from disaster you will see that serious disasters are rarely caused by a single factor, generally it is a series of errors or a series of breakdowns, a plane thought to be carrying more fuel than it was, running out when the weight and distance factor loomed its ugly head, a pilot who then thinks his instruments are faulty because they show too little fuel, a form filled in incorrectly showing more fuel was loaded than actually was, the train that was two times overweight because a guard guessed the figures, with a braking car that had fautly brakes and another braking car that had faulty hoses and yet a third which was only operating at half power. A sailor who thinks turning away from an iceberg is the best action, a designer who doesnt think airtight doors should go to the top, a company that believes too many lifeboats make the ship look untidy, the Captain of the Carpathian who thinks distress flares are fireworks. An airline company that doesn't think that all the passengers on the charter heading to a Strongmans convention will be heavier than average perhaps ? The point is it could happen and anything that could happen requires safety procedures to be in place to try and prevent a disaster no matter what series of errors precede it.
Airlines have systems in place to monitor the weight and balance of their payloads! Balance of the payload is as important, if not more, than the actual payload itself. I really can't be arsed to answer the rest of your drivel.

4 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
Mids, Can you supply an example of a passenger airline that has fallen from the sky due to it carrying excess weight?
Do you honestly believe that airlines do not err well on the side of safety when it comes to load factors?

Yes Max two examples albeit military aircraft one in Afghanistan that was overloaded with personnel and one in the Falklands campaign carrying 22 SAS members and twice its normal payload, I accept that this was wartime conditions and that operational necessity made those in charge authorise the flights when ordinarily they wouldn't but that emphasises my point that if payloads are ignored such things will happen, the army were aware of the overweight situation and made the choice to chance it, civilian planes take over every few seconds without the pilot really knowing exactly what weight he is carrying on board.
Now Max since you question the validity of what I said I assume perhaps wrongly but without further information do assume that you disagree with me, can you provide examples of planes being able to fly with twice their payload on board or reasoning why weight would not matter ?
Why do I have to supply examples of planes flying with twice their payload? Do you really believe that an aircraft would have 300+ obese passengers on board at one time and even if this were to happen in the realms of fantasy, do you not think that the airlines systems would recognise the problem? This scenario would not double the plane's payload either!
Reputable airlines are a little more sophisticated than you are obviously aware.

4 Apr 2013

Mids, Can you supply an example of a passenger airline that has fallen from the sky due to it carrying excess weight?
Do you honestly believe that airlines do not err well on the side of safety when it comes to load factors?

4 Apr 2013

Quote by Trevaunance
Are you suggesting that every passenger would be weighed at the airport? Given that more and more airlines are moving away from airport check ins in order to reduce costs, this would seem very unlikely .

This is exactly what happens with the samoan airline. They physically weigh the passenger on the baggage weight machine at the check in. Last time I checked Hold luggage in they weighed each bag individually, so in effect there is only one more bag being weighed per passenger and therefore not beyond the realms of possibility or ability.
Yes but it's a very small airline, flying very small planes in which weight is a major factor and therefore everyone has to be weighed as a matter of course. They were doing this before they started charging by the kilo.
You asked Star if he was suggesting people should be weighed at the airport, and I have pointed out that this is a policy with one airline. The size of the airline doesn't really matter, it's a demonstration that the idea could work. There is a video of it .
Within the same article there are more indications of how the airlines are attempting to cut the costs of fuel:
'Air Canada estimates that for each kilogram it removes from one of its Boeing 763 aircraft, it will save 3,925 kilograms of fuel every year'.
'WestJet Airlines Ltd., for example, has gone to extraordinary measures to reduce weight, from shrinking the size of its in-flight magazine and printing it on lighter paper stock to using a lightweight paint on the aircraft. Simple things like switching to lighter service carts are saving roughly 1.8 million litres in fuel a year'.
I think that there is some scope for the idea, and if the airline can save more money by using weight based fares than it would need to spend to run the system then surely it's even more likely.
There's a hell of a difference between weighing passengers on two nine seater aircraft and doing it at a busy airport full of airplanes carrying 300 + passengers. In the complete article to which you refer, the author does allude to the problems it would create at check-in, an area from which airlines are trying to remove as much cost as possible.
Also, by charging heavier passengers more, the weight of the plane is not reduced unless the aim is to deter overweight passengers from travelling altogether.
Airlines will not introduce this just in order to redistribute the existing fares over heavier/lighter passengers and I'm far from convinced that any extra income they would raise would be worth the additional costs and adverse public reaction involved in implementation.
A more practicable solution would be to have several larger seats per plane, for which a premium would be charged, in much the same way that some airlines now charge additional charges for seats with extra legroom.

4 Apr 2013

Quote by Trevaunance
Are you suggesting that every passenger would be weighed at the airport? Given that more and more airlines are moving away from airport check ins in order to reduce costs, this would seem very unlikely .

This is exactly what happens with the samoan airline. They physically weigh the passenger on the baggage weight machine at the check in. Last time I checked Hold luggage in they weighed each bag individually, so in effect there is only one more bag being weighed per passenger and therefore not beyond the realms of possibility or ability.
Yes but it's a very small airline, flying very small planes in which weight is a major factor and therefore everyone has to be weighed as a matter of course. They were doing this before they started charging by the kilo.

3 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple

I doubt it would be as easy as you think. As I stated in my previous post, airlines are moving away from airport check ins in order to reduce costs and weighing every passenger would require more staff and lengthen check in times . More staff = more costs which would negate the extra income raised from excess "baggage" charges.

People would still have to go through passport control Max, it could be done there. Whilst your baggage is being scanned through the x ray machine, you could be weighed within 5 seconds. If you have stated on your booking form that you fall into a certain weight category and have signed a declaration to support that, and at the airport passport control you are over that of which you signed for, then you could be charged accordingly.
I cannot understand why you think this would be so difficult to do. The cost of aviation fuel has gone through the roof, and I do not think it fair that I am 11 stone 12 and yet I would pay the same ticket price as someone who was double my weight. Is that fair Max?
Sorry Star but its a non starter. There are no airline systems at passport control and can you imagine the delays that would ensue? The only reason airlines would go down this route would be to raise significant extra income but they wouldn't want to heavily invest in further systems and technology. It wouldn't be worth their whole.
As for your question is it fair. Taking into account the weight of a plane, it's cargo an a full load of passengers, a few overweight passengers will make a negligible difference.

3 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
Are you saying that AH was not a Facist ? did you read the definition of Facist I put earlier from wiki ? also collaborated by many other sites.
But, let's say we accept that AH was racist towards Jews, how does that fit in with the rest of his beliefs such as his hatred of gypsies, mentaly disabled, etc, was that racism or xenophobia, was his racism due to his being a facist or was his xenophobia part of his Facist beliefs and his racism just another nasty part of his make-up.
The orignial question was about wether you HAD to be racist to be a Facist or wether being a Facist automatically meant you were racist.
J
Would AH have still been a Facist if he had not hated the Jews because if he had not hated the jews you could not accuse him of being a facist yet in all other aspects of his rule he was a facist.

Where did I say Hitler was not a fascist? How does the Nazi party's treatment of the mentally disabled make Hitler xenophobic? What is your understanding of "Aryan"?
You didn't say Hitler was not a fascist, I didn't understand quite what you were saying which is why I asked the question "are you saying that AH was not a Facist ?" you see the words "are you" with the question mark at the end of sentance mean that it is a question as opposed to a view or a statement.
My understanding of Aryan is a belief in a Causican Master Race.
The popular definition of the word xenophobic shows that AH treatment of many groups of people including the insane, homosexuals and gypsies, fall into this category, fear of those you find strange.
Where would you be without Wiki? Please enlighten me as to where is the proof that Hitler feared the groups the Nazis persecuted? Also, xenophobia is the irrational fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers, not homosexuals and the mentally ill, as you claim it to be.
I'm also very well aware of how a question is structured and certainly don't need any lessons from you.

3 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple

Are you suggesting that every passenger would be weighed at the airport? Given that more and more airlines are moving away from airport check ins in order to reduce costs, this would seem very unlikely .

Why not Max? It would be as easy as eating a bag of chips. When getting your baggage checked each passenger would have to stand on scales whilst getting their boarding passes. Only the Airline employer would be able to see the passengers weight, and whether or not it fell into the category that passenger put down on their booking form.
It would be so easy to do and relatively cheap to put into place as well. Making a passenger aware that they have to pay an excess would need to be done in a private manner, and how that would be done I am not sure. You could hardly put a passenger in an embarrassing situation there and then.
It could be very easy to do Max.
I doubt it would be as easy as you think. As I stated in my previous post, airlines are moving away from airport check ins in order to reduce costs and weighing every passenger would require more staff and lengthen check in times . More staff = more costs which would negate the extra income raised from excess "baggage" charges.

3 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
Well you saw it here first.

Quote by Max777
Air Samoa is a small airline that flies small aircraft. All passengers have to be weighed as a matter of course. It would be logistically impossible to apply this scenario to large aircraft.

Hello Max I have arrived to answer the question put to me, without any interference from my stalker. wink

wink

Yes I was aware that Samoa Air is a small airline but is it possible that bigger airlines could start to adopt the same practices?
I cannot see how it would be logistically impossible to charge passengers by their weight, in fact I think it would be very simple.
On the booking form it would clearly give a passenger category's into what weight they fall into. Is a grown man between 9 stone and 15 stone, that would be a normal weight and no excess charges would apply, if they answered that they were in the 16 stones to 22 stone bracket it would then carry a surcharge. At the end of the booking form like with most forms, sign it if you believe the information you have given is correct. If at the airport that guy was said he was 11 stone actually weighed 19 stone and had signed his declaration on his booking form, then an excess weight charge would be applied before he could fly, in the same way we accept excess baggage charges but at the start people were up in arms about it.
With the cost of fuel for Joe public forever going through the roof, and people on the street having to make decisions like eating or getting to work, aviation fuel is astronomical in it's cost and I cannot see why airlines would not use a person's weight to determine the price of their ticket. The more weight an airline carries, the more fuel it uses.
Only time will tell Max if indeed a much larger airline brings this into play.
Are you suggesting that every passenger would be weighed at the airport? Given that more and more airlines are moving away from airport check ins in order to reduce costs, this would seem very unlikely .

3 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
Are you saying that AH was not a Facist ? did you read the definition of Facist I put earlier from wiki ? also collaborated by many other sites.
But, let's say we accept that AH was racist towards Jews, how does that fit in with the rest of his beliefs such as his hatred of gypsies, mentaly disabled, etc, was that racism or xenophobia, was his racism due to his being a facist or was his xenophobia part of his Facist beliefs and his racism just another nasty part of his make-up.
The orignial question was about wether you HAD to be racist to be a Facist or wether being a Facist automatically meant you were racist.
Would AH have still been a Facist if he had not hated the Jews because if he had not hated the jews you could not accuse him of being a facist yet in all other aspects of his rule he was a facist.

Where did I say Hitler was not a fascist? How does the Nazi party's treatment of the mentally disabled make Hitler xenophobic? What is your understanding of "Aryan"?

2 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
You may be right to question whether being a Christian makes you a member of a race ditto whether being a Roman Catholic or for that matter a Muslim..... because all of these religions are proselytising religions (hope spell check will help me out!).
The Jews and certain other religions did not proselytisye (i.e. actively convert others) and so the membership of the religion is very closely tied to their race
though there are a small number of exceptions I would suggest there is no real room to argue that the Jews are not a distinct "race"
Jack

I would like to concede that point because it does make sense, but think it would be wrong to do so, Polish Jews, Romanian Jews, German Jews, French Jews, Dutch Jews, although they are all caucasions there were a small number of non-caucasion Jews murdered, the fact that their numbers are few being the main reason, the reason that I have to reject the argument is because AH would have killed every Jew if he could, had he found large numbers in Afria or in Asia he would have treated them exactly the same and for the same reason his mind wanted the other jews murdered not because of colour but because they were Jews. It may be a fine line but a line it is and what I am saying is that AH was worse than a racist he was a xenophobist.
I really don't follow your logic. Green_Fox_71 is correct in saying the Jews regard themselves as a race as opposed to a religion but you say you have to reject his argument as Hitler would have killed all Jews because they were Jews, not because of Nationality or colour. So you agree Hitler was in fact trying to exterminate an entire race but still reject Green Fox's argument.
Technicaly yes but to be Jewish you dont have to be Black, White or anything else, albeit that a minority are not caucasion some are not, he wasnt killing them because they were black or white he killed them because of the religion they followed, a personal hatred and an excuse/motivation for the people to get behind him, blame someone else for all the ills of the German nation. Racism is about being Black, White, Asian, Chinese, Japanese ...... a Christian living in Israel would not automatically have been a target again there are not many but there are some who go there to experience living in a Kabutz environment. to say he was racist and that was why he killed them detracts from what he was, which as I have said is Xenophobic, a phobia of anyone who wasn't arian.
What about gypsies, he didn't care what race the gypsies were just that they were gypsies which he regarded as people who would never contribute to the Reich. Israel did not exist back then as we all know so they were not a Race as we see races.
I think you need to go and do a little research on the Jewish people. Racism can be about the colour of skin but not necessarily so. The Jews are a race and have always been so. I also don't think there is any credence in your statement that Hitler had a phobia of anyone not Aryan.