27 replies to this topic

[Zographos]

An odd story I found in the Globe today.

[quote]LONDON

[bill007]

Oh, this is just too much.

[Spurrier]

I guess all is fair in love, war, politics and business.

I recall British Airways getting loads of publicity in Moonraker.

[TheREAL008]

Oh, I'm so hurt.

I won't miss him. There was enough product placement within the movie to last three films alone.

[Spurrier]

Oh, I'm so hurt.

I won't miss him. There was enough product placement within the movie to last three films alone.

Did Sony lead the bunch?

[LadySylvia]

What I found odd was that there was no mention of the Miami airport sequence being cut out. Usually airlines will censor any sort of footage of an airplane crashing, exploding, depressurizing, or suffering any sort of distress so as not to alarm passengers. So, apparently, Richard Branson was more alarming than flaming wreckage strewn all over a Miami tarmac.

That's free enterprise for you.

[Royal Dalton]

If only Stuart Baird had done this in the first place.

[Loomis]

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while. As though passengers are going to see the uncensored CASINO ROYALE and think: Hey, so there are airlines other than British Airways! That Branson fella looks a jolly sort, and his planes look awfully super. I'll keep an eye out for one passing by and hop on it!

I mean, the mind boggles. Next time I fly British Airways I'll make sure to wear a Virgin T-shirt.

[Zographos]

As a bit of an aside, was the torn card element of the storyline removed from the final version because it implicated an airport employee (the teller, I think) in Le Chiffre's scheme?

[Qwerty]

Seems quite unnecessary to me considering you can only see the man for two seconds. And even so...who cares? But they make the rules...

[Harmsway]

As a bit of an aside, was the torn card element of the storyline removed from the final version because it implicated an airport employee (the teller, I think) in Le Chiffre's scheme?

I think it's far more likely that it was cut because it was entirely unnecessary and complicated an already complicated situation. With it, it would have left most of the audience scratching their heads.

[deth]

I'm still mystified how DAD was shown on my flight... unedited! That's not so lovey lovey with the planes...

[Johnboy007]

Ooooooooookay...

[Byron]

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while. As though passengers are going to see the uncensored CASINO ROYALE and think: Hey, so there are airlines other than British Airways! That Branson fella looks a jolly sort, and his planes look awfully super. I'll keep an eye out for one passing by and hop on it!

I mean, the mind boggles. Next time I fly British Airways I'll make sure to wear a Virgin T-shirt.

Don't be surprised if they refuse to board you.

Just a few months ago, this guy wearing a "Bush - World's No 1 terrorist" type T shirt was stopped from boarding a plane by the airline company. No criminal record or anything.

Edited by Byron, 22 April 2007 - 02:42 AM.

[deth]

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while. As though passengers are going to see the uncensored CASINO ROYALE and think: Hey, so there are airlines other than British Airways! That Branson fella looks a jolly sort, and his planes look awfully super. I'll keep an eye out for one passing by and hop on it!

I mean, the mind boggles. Next time I fly British Airways I'll make sure to wear a Virgin T-shirt.

Don't be surprised if they refuse to board you.

Just a few months ago, this guy wearing a "Bush - World's No 1 terrorist" type T shirt was stopped from boarding a plane by the airline company. No criminal record or anything.

while I don't agree with his treatment... there's a bit of a difference between an anti-Bush shirt and a Virgin one...

[Kilroy6644]

I think it's a pretty petty thing to do, but on the other hand, is anybody really going to miss it? I didn't even know Branson had a cameo (not that I could pick him out of a police line-up anyway), or that a Virgin plane was used in the movie. The last thing I'm thinking of while watching a movie is what airlines are featured in it.

[stamper]

while I don't agree with his treatment... there's a bit of a difference between an anti-Bush shirt and a Virgin one...

That's the most hilarious statement ever posted on this board !

[marktmurphy]

I'm still mystified how DAD was shown on my flight... unedited! That's not so lovey lovey with the planes...

I remember being with a friend who chose to watch Fight Club on a plane; and in that there's a very realistic and nasty mid-air collision sequence: the only reaction he could have was to start laughing hysterically!

As for this story- I love the BA/Virgin battles: they're hilarious!

[Bond Bombshell]

This is the same airline that caused a storm by banning one of its workers for wearing a small crucifix, while allowing members of other religions to openly wear symbols of their faith. Let's just say it has a history of pettiness.

However, anyone who tries to get on a plane with the word "terrorist" displayed on a T shirt, regardless of who the word relates to, is an idiot who is looking for trouble.

[Bryce (003)]

*shakes head*

The fact that they give some "party line" statement/excuse is worse.

Also, flying back from London on a BA flight, I was watching some movie which seemed to have a several scenes on various US carriers (shots of both United and American airlines jets in flight) so they don't seem to have a problem with them, so it certainly must be personal...or personally petty.

On the subject of "inappropriate films to show in flight", here's a great one:

1978 - My parents are flying to Hawaii. The in flight movie: Airport '77

The one where the plane crashes in the ocean intact and sinks!

Needless to say, their's did not, but my Dad laughed about it for a month and Mom mentioned that the call buttons went off quite a bit with requests for cocktail service.



Having flown both airlines, I have to say that Virgin's standard economy rivals most of the other airlines business class for cost and comfort. Hey, any airline with a putting green in their airport VIP lounge gets my vote.

"Nice putt Sir. Would you care for a mimosa?"

"Don't mind if I do."

[Loomis]

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while. As though passengers are going to see the uncensored CASINO ROYALE and think: Hey, so there are airlines other than British Airways! That Branson fella looks a jolly sort, and his planes look awfully super. I'll keep an eye out for one passing by and hop on it!

I mean, the mind boggles. Next time I fly British Airways I'll make sure to wear a Virgin T-shirt.

Don't be surprised if they refuse to board you.

On what grounds, though?

Just a few months ago, this guy wearing a "Bush - World's No 1 terrorist" type T shirt was stopped from boarding a plane by the airline company. No criminal record or anything.

Well, I'm actually with B.A. on this one (I think there are several versions of this story, and in at least one of them the airline was Qantas). As Bond Bombshell puts it, "anyone who tries to get on a plane with the word "terrorist" displayed on a T shirt, regardless of who the word relates to, is an idiot who is looking for trouble."

But that Bush T-shirt had more than enough potential for the wearer to get embroiled in an argument with someone, which in turn had the potential to lead to violence. Argue the rights and wrongs of the wearer and of people reacting to him, but it seems to me unarguable that such a T-shirt has clear potential to create "a scene" - that's just the way it is. And you just don't need that on a plane. Plenty of other T-shirts have similar potential, of course. Argue about free speech all you want, but it's just how it is. I don't think B.A. staff were bowing and scraping before Bush or making some kind of ridiculous attempt to curry favour with American passengers, or anything like that (not that you're saying they were, I realise) - I just think they were very sensibly trying to nip in the bud something that had the potential to create an ugly and even dangerous situation.

However, if they were to stop someone wearing a Virgin T-shirt.... well, where are the grounds? All they'd be doing is opening themselves up to more lousy publicity, as well as legal action.

while I don't agree with his treatment... there's a bit of a difference between an anti-Bush shirt and a Virgin one...

LOL!

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

What I found odd was that there was no mention of the Miami airport sequence being cut out. Usually airlines will censor any sort of footage of an airplane crashing, exploding, depressurizing, or suffering any sort of distress so as not to alarm passengers. So, apparently, Richard Branson was more alarming than flaming wreckage strewn all over a Miami tarmac.

True. Infact Campbell himself mentioned on the Goldeneye commentary that they had to cut or film alternate sequences of the various exploding and crashing aircraft for the airline version of that film. Perhaps because the aircraft in jeapordy dosen't get blown up in CR they felt there was no need to cut anything. However a scene where the tanker did plow through the underbelly of a jetliner was cut from the final film. Ironically the aircraft used was a retired BA 727.

[marktmurphy]

Having flown both airlines, I have to say that Virgin's standard economy rivals most of the other airlines business class for cost and comfort.

Well, I'm not sure their economy rivals others' business class for cost; it's not that expensive! But it is very nice- I prefer it to BA, myself.

Didn't Bond fly BA last time, anyway?

[Byron]

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while. As though passengers are going to see the uncensored CASINO ROYALE and think: Hey, so there are airlines other than British Airways! That Branson fella looks a jolly sort, and his planes look awfully super. I'll keep an eye out for one passing by and hop on it!

I mean, the mind boggles. Next time I fly British Airways I'll make sure to wear a Virgin T-shirt.

Don't be surprised if they refuse to board you.

On what grounds, though?

Just a few months ago, this guy wearing a "Bush - World's No 1 terrorist" type T shirt was stopped from boarding a plane by the airline company. No criminal record or anything.

Well, I'm actually with B.A. on this one (I think there are several versions of this story, and in at least one of them the airline was Qantas). As Bond Bombshell puts it, "anyone who tries to get on a plane with the word "terrorist" displayed on a T shirt, regardless of who the word relates to, is an idiot who is looking for trouble."

But that Bush T-shirt had more than enough potential for the wearer to get embroiled in an argument with someone, which in turn had the potential to lead to violence. Argue the rights and wrongs of the wearer and of people reacting to him, but it seems to me unarguable that such a T-shirt has clear potential to create "a scene" - that's just the way it is. And you just don't need that on a plane. Plenty of other T-shirts have similar potential, of course. Argue about free speech all you want, but it's just how it is. I don't think B.A. staff were bowing and scraping before Bush or making some kind of ridiculous attempt to curry favour with American passengers, or anything like that (not that you're saying they were, I realise) - I just think they were very sensibly trying to nip in the bud something that had the potential to create an ugly and even dangerous situation.

However, if they were to stop someone wearing a Virgin T-shirt.... well, where are the grounds? All they'd be doing is opening themselves up to more lousy publicity, as well as legal action.

while I don't agree with his treatment... there's a bit of a difference between an anti-Bush shirt and a Virgin one...

LOL!

If they want to stop you from boarding they can, no matter what the reason.

Thank you for your points, i don't necessarily agree but appreciate your response.

[Loomis]

If they want to stop you from boarding they can, no matter what the reason.

That had crossed my mind. I think you're right. However, they'd still be opening themselves up to wretched publicity and legal action, so it might not be worth their while to exercise their right to refuse passage for any reason.

[Bondian]

I think he should be renamed 'Branston' because he always seems in a pickle.

Since he's taken over my Internet, Phone and TV services, there's been nothing but problems. He certainly didn't get his 'BA' in customer satisfaction.

[Mister Asterix]

I mean, the mind boggles. Next time I fly British Airways I'll make sure to wear a Virgin T-shirt.

Don't be surprised if they refuse to board you.

On what grounds, though?

Virgin sacrifice.

[killkenny kid]

I mean, the mind boggles. Next time I fly British Airways I'll make sure to wear a Virgin T-shirt.

There you go, I think I will too. If I ever get to England.