GULF STATES TURN OFF THE TAP

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Basically, my dearest friend Petrol Pete, your plane could not take off due to ground operational reasons, not because the aircraft could not physically get airborne due to heat.

That's all I am saying, and I am convinced Petrol Pete is the only person who can share that experience in Bahrain with us all as he has done a few posts ago. he did not go into too much details about why, but everyone else decided to chime in and make assumptions that the aircraft could not take off due to "outside" heat.

That is incorrect and has not happened on my watch.

Now, how about we stop **** measuring for a moment and talk about cheap gas prices and how you really feel about the arabs?

I'm not clear what you think we're arguing about. We're on the same page, buddy. And if you reread the thread, the general consensus is that, for the general technical reasons I, and subsequently you, have stated, the problem was highly unlikely to have been the ambient temperature. Nobody is disputing your statement that Bahrain ATC had no hand in the delay. So we're all on the same page...

If we knew what the aircraft type was, and when the incident was, and what the ambient temperature was, and how heavily loaded the aircraft was, and we had access to the appropriate operating data table, we might be able to conclude definitively that if that aircraft was fully serviceable ambient temperature could not have been the cause of the delay. We don't, and we haven't, so we can't.

Discussions on this forum have a tendency to veer off down side alleys; this is a good example. It's been that way since I joined ten years ago, and I suspect it will always be that way. :D
 
Last edited:
BRN has given me a good explanation of why we were asked to get off the plane at Bahrain and that it was probably nothing to do with the temperature on the day , it's just the explanation given to us passengers at the time .

As I have stated , despite me having flown all over the world many, many times since then (Bahrain) I have yet to have heard the 'too hot' excuse as a reason for a 'no go' .

I am trying for the life of me to remember the airline operating the plane (defunct now I think) but it was London (Gatwick ?) - Bahrain - Dabolim.
 
Basically, my dearest friend Petrol Pete, your plane could not take off due to ground operational reasons, not because the aircraft could not physically get airborne due to heat.

That's all I am saying, and I am convinced Petrol Pete is the only person who can share that experience in Bahrain with us all as he has done a few posts ago. he did not go into too much details about why, but everyone else decided to chime in and make assumptions that the aircraft could not take off due to "outside" heat.

That is incorrect and has not happened on my watch.

Now, how about we stop **** measuring for a moment and talk about cheap gas prices and how you really feel about the arabs?
I doubt you posted that with humour in mind but it proper made me laugh. 😁👏👍
 
BRN has given me a good explanation of why we were asked to get off the plane at Bahrain and that it was probably nothing to do with the temperature on the day , it's just the explanation given to us passengers at the time .

As I have stated , despite me having flown all over the world many, many times since then (Bahrain) I have yet to have heard the 'too hot' excuse as a reason for a 'no go' .

I am trying for the life of me to remember the airline operating the plane (defunct now I think) but it was London (Gatwick ?) - Bahrain - Dabolim.
That’s the route I used to go on to Goa.
 
Oil prices surge after surprise move to cut output

As the world turns away from fossil fuels to mitigate climate change this was bound to effect the revenue streams of oil producing countries, particularly those primarily reliant on those specific modes of foreign income generation. In a pre-global warming world the tactic to maintain/increase oil revenues would have been to increase production=more oil=more money --- in a post global warming world the new modus operandi appears to be-- restrict production=less oil=more money. Many of these fossil fuel producing countries have massive wealth inequalities---makes sense if they are prepared to shaft their own people- they wont hesitate to shaft us! Doesn't bode well for the future :(
Just as well England has clean hands when it comes to controlling supplies from it's territories 😉
 
BRN has given me a good explanation of why we were asked to get off the plane at Bahrain and that it was probably nothing to do with the temperature on the day , it's just the explanation given to us passengers at the time .

As I have stated , despite me having flown all over the world many, many times since then (Bahrain) I have yet to have heard the 'too hot' excuse as a reason for a 'no go' .

I am trying for the life of me to remember the airline operating the plane (defunct now I think) but it was London (Gatwick ?) - Bahrain - Dabolim.
Thinking back to my plane spotting days 🥸 I have a recollection that Gulf Air used to fly Tristars from Gatwick to Bahrain....but I could be wrong.
 
And Gatwick to Valetta, early 80s 🙂

I flew there with Air Malta in the early nineties, in a 737 from memory.
 
Was it British Caledonian?

I don't recall British Caledonian having Tristars.

BA used them. They did use the branding of 'Caledonoian' for some Gatwick routes;
 
Thinking back to my plane spotting days 🥸 I have a recollection that Gulf Air used to fly Tristars from Gatwick to Bahrain....but I could be wrong.
You are correct. Leased L-1011
However, LHR was the destination.
 
Last edited:
I don't recall British Caledonian having Tristars.

BA used them. They did use the branding of 'Caledonoian' for some Gatwick routes;
Yep, in the later years when they were branded CalAir, they did have DC-10s though.
I remember us flying one LGW to Rhodes. Judging from the pitch and lack of legroom, they must have crammed about 600 seats into the old bus.
 
Looks like those fond memories may indeed become very distant memories, along with many other things we currently enjoy:


Here's the chart taken direct from the Govt website:


roadmap-01-1024x703.jpg
 
Seems a bit unimaginative. At least for shipping (which gets banned), that could move back to sail. That’s got to be zero emission! It’s also well understood. They could also have solar power/batteries for manoeuvring motors.
The world might be slower, but maybe that’s no bad thing.
 
Looks like those fond memories may indeed become very distant memories, along with many other things we currently enjoy:


Here's the chart taken direct from the Govt website:


roadmap-01-1024x703.jpg
Don’t think it’s a government website you are linking to, just a research project website. It doesn’t say the sources of the image, so I think it’s from the project and just there to prompt debate!
 
Not a chance that net zero will happen on a world scale by 2050, though the UK government will cause chaos in the attempt. Even if the UK achieves it on paper it will have precious little impact on the problem world wide compared to China and Africa. To be fair China are at least trying and have a goal of 80% non fossil fuels by 2060 which is more realistic.

Global emissions are expected to peak by 2025 and reaching that deadline is the immediate concern. Once global emissions have stopped growing and are on the way down, I think the populations of individual countries will have more belief in their local targets if they can see the impact they have on the global target.

If I seem sceptical, it's because I have no faith in extreme activists of any persuasion whether they are woke, gender ID or climate change. The public can recognise when someone is taking a more balanced view and will then believe in the cause and do their bit, me included.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
It's funny how prudent housekeeping - aka 'living within one's means' - is so hotly advocated but spurned when it comes to energy. Thus far we've been living off an inheritance and now we have to consume only what we can produce (earn) (from renewable sources) there's an outcry.
 
It's funny how prudent housekeeping - aka 'living within one's means' - is so hotly advocated but spurned when it comes to energy. Thus far we've been living off an inheritance and now we have to consume only what we can produce (earn) (from renewable sources) there's an outcry.

True, but keep in mind that biofuel is renewable and it is still harmful to the environment. The issue is with burning carbon in general, not just with fossil fuels.
 
. The issue is with burning carbon in general
No it isn't. :wallbash:
The issue is with too much carbon fuel being burnt.
If the planet had a sustainable human population level, then everyone could enjoy fulfilled and unencumbered lives without us contuining to inflict this extinction event on our planet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m80

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom