Unless your presence airside was a necessary part of carrying out your duties you know fine well you did. I don't intend to keep engaging you on this as you seem to be glorying in the attention.

You think rules are for everyone but yourself and you challenge the ones you don't like. I do that too, however I don't always blame the other guy once it has been explained to me by numerous informed people why the way things are the way they are. I get it wrong on occasion, yet I have never missed a flight in over a decade of flying. Buy a watch and stop railing at the world, you'l live longer.

MS - Play the ball, not the man...

As others have said, you really are coming across as a BA hater, and from your posts, the starting point seems to be when you were not allowed to take a flight because you arrived "late" - as per the terms quite clearly laid out in the BA website, in bold font no less.

You may think that I am "slow" - you are entitled to your opinion - but all I was trying to do was to try and highlight the stupidness of your arguments.

Should have known better - no matter how many posts disagree with your viewpoint, backed with facts, and posted by those with more knowledge of real time operational performance than you, you will never be swayed from your original opinion.

So, I for one will now stop trying, and bow to your far, far superior intelect and reasoning.

GSLF & S1E,

Thanks. I would remind you that I did accept that I was late and I was not permitted to travel. I will not make that mistake again and have taken steps to reduce the risk to me by reducing my travel with BA to (almost) zero. I am entitled to do this and, as I have already pointed out, in fairness to BA, they did sort things out.

If I think rules are silly then I am surely entitled to that opinion. Some rules can be bent without hurt or harm and some cannnot. This thread was not meant to be a further rant about conformance nor a rail against BA but you and S1E seem hell bent on turning it into one.

As I can choose to avoid the rules BA impose on pax at T5 you can choose to ignore this and earlier comments - why don't you?

The original point of the thread , I think was to question whether BA in giving reasons for reducing the EDI -LCY service were using the damaged aircraft as an excuse when it would appear that economic drivers were far more likley to be the reason for the reduction in service. Please feel free to debate that.

And Finally, Skipness - perhaps you might consider, in light of your earlier vitriolic, racist and ascerbic comments about your fellow countrymen - who is the one that needs to calm down.