Snipes writes, in posting no. 1 as recently amended,
*Edit: To keep Mr Kenny happy, I have removed the actual reproduction of the article and will just leave the link to it instead. I find it hard to understand why posting it here upset him so much ...
In fact, I have no objection to the article appearing as such. But it is a courtesy, as well as a legal and PPRUNE forum requirement, to ask permission of property owners to reproduce their articles. I pointed out that this was not done.
I think that it is reasonable to expect contributors, especially if they wish to hide behind a shield of anonymity, to abide by the rules of the forum on this and on matters such as courtesy. In that respect I also differentiate between criticism (which is reasonable) and common abuse (some of which has displayed a level of emotionalalism that strikes me as odd if those penning it as really the airline professionals that they purport to be).
One achieves more by dialogue than by condemnation, in my experience, and I am always open to hear criticism of what I write. Airline professionals should also be open to seeing how passengers view the world, and to hearing what journalists perceive to be relevant issues: in this case the absence of centralised and coherent public data that permits one to assess the frequency and reasons for ATC directed goarounds at various airports.