Yeah, these are the very words coming out of the organization that telling GA air traffic to f**k off and fly elsewhere (instead of integrating them) actually improves safety.
Then they get upset when GA accidentally enters their "sacred" airspace who are not on frequency. They blame GA for disrupting all their air traffic.
Flip the problem on its head and the message still hasn't got through to deaf ears: there is no frequency to call and no transit possible!!!
He does make a point though albeit in a very bad way.
Back on topic, I was interested in this exchange on page one with an Aer Lingus skipper saying Point Merge costing them €1 million extra in fuel.
Nimmer said that's because of their fuel policy not Point Merge and then another Shamrock pilot said they have to fuel like that so it is down to Point Merge. Forgive me for summarising but it'd be interested to get this back on track.
So is Point Merge really costing them an extra €1 million a year or are Aer Lingus happy to waste all that fuel rather than amend their fuel policy?
To me, LAMP and other recent trials are characterised by the projects team telling the coal face workers "this is what the airlines want" but when we speak to the pilots it doesn't seem to ring true.
I do wonder whether the project team are so eager to please the customer that they don't explain the downside and the fact there will always be a trade off therefore the customer is in the end left disappointed rather than 'educated' at the beginning of the process. Are expectations being managed?
Which leads me to repeat the question from MCDU2....
"..what's the end game? If it ain't broke why try and fix something when a radar vector will suffice."