6 posts • joined Thursday 19th July 2007 13:11 GMT
My two pence worth
I am against charges to receive calls, I don't understand how you guys in the US put up with it unless as someone said it justifies telling an unwanted caller to F**k Off.
My first reaction is that if I have to pay to receive calls I would simply not have a mobile. However on reflection as long as it's low and a per minute charge not a "or part minute" or a per call charge so the cost is very nominal for a short "No, F**k Off" call then I'd be OK with it. Of course you would expect it to become cheaper for the ordinary user to call a mobile if this comes in, yeah right! bet it doesn't.
As for the Skype analogy/argument, what nonsense! As others have said I pay for an internet connection anyway and the amount of bandwidth used by a Skype call does not impact my "unlimited" allowance.
Like wise where do they get the idea that people want to have the same number for home/mobile etc.? I don't and I don't want my friends or family to either, I like to know when I'm calling a mobile and for others to know they are calling me on a mobile. Also I like people to leave voice mail at home (where it's free) and not on the mobile (where it's not). You have been able to signup for a global roaming number forwarded to wherever you are for years but do you know anybody who has?
One other thing. Will pushing off call to voice mail actually avoid the charge? Currently talking to a mobile voice mail is still charged as if talking to the subscriber I bet, so the receiving network is probably still levying the termination charge.
@No answer yet
Might not be be so bad over the north pole as the air craft would be in a low drag configuration and could stay in the air with the reduced thrust or descend very slowly in which case the fuel might have time to defrost. With plenty of altitude they could probably reach a suitable runway.
As for the coincidence of the problem occurring just as landing: During cruise and descent throttle setting is normally low so in fact the maybe blockage could have been there from much earlier in the flight and only become a problem when increased thrust was needed on approach.
I guess there will some effort to avoid this in future, fuel heating systems? Don't some aircraft dump AirCon wast heat into certain fuel tanks?
I am not an expert, I just hope the people looking into it are experts and are able to call a spade a spade and get the design of the spade improved.... hmm starting to sound like a manfrommars!
Could they have made the runway?
I've been wondering:
Did they retract the flaps to try and make it to the runway?, I doubt it.
Do they have a drill for power loss on approach or practise it (on the simulator)?
The flaps allow the plane to fly more slowly but at the cost of greater drag, hence the need for throttle to maintain speed and/or a steeper glide angle (i.e. less distance made for height lost). Had they retracted the flaps they may have been able to make it to the runway. They probably did not have time to asses the risk/benefit of doing so, or maybe they didn't have enough speed for the plane to fly with reduced flaps.
Still, they did well to crash gently enough not to kill/injure everybody.
just my 2p worth.
Not as reliable as theyed like
A couple of weeks ago I was on an SAS domestic Norway flight and lady at the check-in gave up trying to scan my fingerprint after the 3rd try. They see an image on their screen and have to decide/get told? if it's a good scan, I'm not sure what was wrong on this occasion, it's worked in the past.
It meant I had to queue at the gate whereas most others were able to stick their finger to the scanner and go straight through.
What happens if it's compulsory? surely they have to have a backup option.
GUMI (Give Us More Icons)!
I've had retaliation neg feedback from a seller accusing me of no prior communication which was untrue.
The better way to run a feedback system would be to be only signal the other party that feedback has been left but not count it or reveal what sort until they leave feedback, that would avoid the retaliation feedback situation.
Maybe also impose the need to post evidence (email copies etc) with negative feedback.
The funny thing is they seem to think they had our trust in the first place!
It disappoints me that there are enough people stupid enough to phone these competitions in the first place.
As for trust! Any body with some brains knows anything and everthing in TV land is made up, sexed up or just plains lies when the real ting is not exciting enough.