Anyone flown with VLM recently?

mitrant

I'm due to fly with VLM from Manchester to Antwerp next week and some confusion appears to have arisen.

VLM state that the flight departs from Terminal 3 whereas Manchester Airport's timetable states that the flight departs from Terminal 2 (although their "Which Terminal?" guide does state VLM is Terminal 3). I emailed the airline to clarify and they stated T3 and after calling up Manchester Airport information line was told by the person I spoke to that they "believe the website is fully up-to-date."

So, I am a little confused and while I appreciate that the distance between the terminals is not great, I was wondering if anybody else has had such experiences lately and perhaps knows who I should listen to - VLM or the Airport?

Thanks

dmg24

It will be Terminal 3.

mitrant

dmg24 wrote: »

It will be Terminal 3.

Thank you. :beer:

mitrant

Kenny_Powers wrote: »

And it will be the worlds skankiest propeller plane.

And yet the vast majority of fatal air disasters have involved jet engines. Anyway, I've flown on a Fokker 50 before and it is far more comfortable than your standard SN plane. VLM/CityJet also don't believe a bag of hamster food is an adequate in-flight snack.

mitrant

Kenny_Powers wrote: »

Wow.

Bet your fun to be around.

Perhaps you should spend more time focusing on that unruly child of yours?

mitrant

Kenny_Powers wrote: »

Go on admit it, ive amazed you enough that you felt the need to trawl through my previous posts, admit it.... You want to be me don't you

Actually, I responded on your thread the other day hence I remembered your username. It really isn't that difficult to recall names that one has encountered recently, you know?

As for your evidence, hmm, yeah evidence from one country that is fifteen years out of date. Fokker 50 has a near impeccable service record, so much so that is employed by the Dutch military (and several others for that matter)... but anyway, this is a rather pointless tinkling contest to be having.

What I would like to know, however, is exactly why it is that there seems to be such a large proportion of users (such as yourself) that feel the need to chime in with irrelevant comments on threads that don't require them? I had received an answer - was there any need for you to start slating the standard of a plane that I had flown on before? I think not.

mitrant

Kenny_Powers wrote: »

The way a forum works, generally is that someone posts something and others then respond.
My comapny occasionally sends me to the Netherlands and every time they do i am sent with KLM which always seems to end up being on a skanky little VLM prop. (Unless i go to Amsterdam which is a jet usually)

So i commented on your post, you came back with a ridiculous and ill informed statement. I corrected you. That's life Mitrant. Don't be so delicate - Unless of course you designed or made the skanky Fokker 50? In which case i could fully understand you taking my comment as a personal insult.

Ahh, but you see, I did not ask you to give me your opinions on the plane that VLM/CityJet use - perhaps an issue with your reading comprehension here? I asked a question relating to the Terminal for departure - I had received an answer... thread finished, right? Well every reasonable person would have thought that until you popped up almost six hours later cos ickle Kenny has a problem with propeller planes. Whatever problem you have, I'm not interested and nor should anyone else be - I've flown on a Fokker 50 and it is perfectly acceptable, particularly for the cost of the flight - Easyjet, Ryanair and SN could learn a thing or two about comfort and service on cheap flights.

You commented on my post with a "ridiculous and ill informed" statement and you have continued to do so by quickly banging away on Google looking for 15 year old articles quoting statistics nearly 20 years old in order to prove how wrong I am. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

The statistics are also inaccurate. They only represent a single nation, over a single period of time - they are not representative of incidents on a global scale or in a longer period of time (which is the only way to gain an idea of scale). Statistics, published just last month in a particular journal and covering a period of 25 years prove my point - and this is in spite of many national carriers of third world and developing countries employing propeller based engines. The Fokker 50 has had one major incident (crash in fog at Luxembourg airport on approach) but other than that the record is as good as clean. Now, I'm not interested in "educating" anyone, so I'll allow you to frantically type away on google to find this information - happy hunting!

Now, before you start believing that the fact you're clearly spoiling for some "web-warz!" offends me so, so dearly why don't you just consider why you appear to be taking it so personally that you're desperately hunting for articles to "educate me" - who f*****g cares, really? It surely shouldn't matter to you what choice of airline or plane I'm going with - why should it? If the damn thing fell out of the sky or exploded in mid-air it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to you who was on it - so why bother bumping threads with pointless tripe?

mitrant

Kenny_Powers wrote: »

Just as i thought.

Jealous of me.

Ahh well, at least we know why your daughter has an attitude problem.

Probably be the next Myra Hindley.

Bye bye now. :beer:

dmg24

Kenny_Powers wrote: »

Just as i thought.

Jealous of me.





*Edit*

Lucky for you i'm going out shortly. Otherwise i would have sat here and ripped you a new !!!!!! - Which im sure your boyfriend would have loved, but alas i don't have the time

This is out of line. Be careful, your old traits are coming back.