Basil Jet wrote:
On 2018\04\05 09:25, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 20:37:11 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2018\04\03 12:15, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:34:52 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:42:10 on Tue, 3 Apr
2018, remarked:
I saw 2 of them today doing stirling service at Waddeson manor. No sign
of
any fires and easy to board with a pushchair and probably 60 people all
boarded within about 20 seconds. Who would want a bus like that eh?

Here's another spotted on Friday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-43601949

Ever get the feeling maintenance was a bit slack? Also I wouldn't want to
be
on an aircraft with problems at that airport if their fire trucks take so
long to turn up that the bus is virtually burnt out.

Different territory (landside vs airside); different fire trucks.

Thats no excuse. Would they have been happy to watch the terminal burn down?


What an exceptionally stupid and offensive comment. Their job is to

Offensive to whom, you? Tough, roll your neck in and deal with it.

No, thicky, offensive to the firemen. They became firemen because they
like putting fires out. They are stationed on the runway. They see a
fire on the other side of the building, but they have to sit tight and
ignore it because, as you have been told countless times, safety
critical jobs have rules that you get fired for breaking. So they will
have been anything but happy at the time, but they have to obey the
rules which are there for the bigger picture, and then you come along
and say they are happy to ignore a fire on the other side of the
terminal. I have no privileged info here but all of this is obvious to
an eight year old, obvious to everyone except you. Actually, it's so
obvious I'm not sure why I bothered explaining it.

I also suspect airport terminals are not very flammable on the outside,
since aeroplanes are basically massive Molotov cocktails being flung
around very carefully.


Yes, the Stansted terminal is a typical Norman Foster glass and steel
building.