Now, Now, Ladies.........a little off subject.

As was said ,was a 747-400 called "Tinkerbelle" :8

White Knight,

With all due respect and as a BACX employee, not all of us are in a position to up sticks and join Emirates, some of us have to stay behind and hope BA management are making the right decisions.

Far be it from me to sing all of the managements praises but there are some senior guys making the right decisions and I personally along with many of my colleagues are getting a little fed up with the continual sniping at BA to the extent that a completely separate topic referring to Sir Richards goods deeds in Iraq are used to once again have a dig at good old BA.

I am sure BA will play its part in flying much needed supplies to Iraq, the only difference will be that it will be done quietly without the fanfare and publicity usually associated with the UK's second largest long haul airline.

I'm sure that the BA shareholders would be a bit peed off if there was no publicity given to an aid flight of their own. Makes good business sense and someone wouldn't be doing their job properly without it.

Perhaps if BA took a different approach to their advertising they might retain their position as the UK's largest long haul airline.

On the subject of Mr Bransons ventures, i've managed to secure good odds with my local betting establishment that Mr B and
all his " hired concorde flight crews and engineers" will not get
airborne in the rocket. I remember well his, i'll buy BA at £3.20,
and what that came to.

Are you implying that Mr. Branson didn't operate the flight for purely humanitarian reasons?

Surely not?

I think it was 50% aid, 50% publicity stunt.

Especially after a flight with aid provided by the EU has been held back for a while, since the US told them that their flightplan would take them too close to some troubled area.