Liverpool Lou

Nothing more amiss than the wrong choice of word in a translation.

A likely story..... A predictable comment.

Actuall it is NOT permitted, believe me. No, I do not believe you. The fact is that those activities in those circumstances are not considered illegal and anyone who chooses to believe your version of it would be delusional. If you are to declare that what you claim is correct, you need to be able to back it up with something empirical nd you cannot do that.

Only to you. What? Far from it only being him.

How do you know that it has no effect? Because it cannot have any effect. How can your ignoring him possibly affect him?

Chaos? In what way?

His post above yours indicated that he doesn't appreciate sarcastic comments.

I don't have to prove you wrong, that's not how it works. The onus of proof is on you as you're the one who made the unsubstantiated accusation. "Thailand has a huge history of such behavior". There you go again. If there's such a "huge history of such behaviour", back it up with something empirical.

Most of her leg is out of sight, trapped in the mechanism.

Something wrong with you, her leg is trapped inside the mechanism, out of sight.

Is it? Do you have anything to back up that claim?

Another thing that you should be aware of is if that happens you just use the Grab app to report the driver who will be reprimanded and disadvantaged on the app. Grab advises you of the outcome of the complaint.

P'Tong,,,Manhattan Barber shop. I second that.

Is the AOT not responsible for the machinery it operates within in its airports, ergo - the airport itself ? I'd imagine it is but that doesn't mean that every incident that occurs there is the fault of the AOT. Maybe you've received an advance copy of the results of the investigation into what happened but I haven't seen it reported, ergo, the AOT is not yet to blame.

None of his examples were caused by the airport.

Nothing that need concern you.

.

.

From the OP.. "The danger and ranking of airports are determined based on multiple factors, including altitude, wind patterns, runway length, location, as well as social, political, and volatile events".

Has the Op actually clarified what it has accounted for in its contribution to being a dangerous airport ??? It seems an air-craft incident unrelated to the airport itself may also count... From the OP.. "The danger and ranking of airports are determined based on multiple factors, including altitude, wind patterns, runway length, location, as well as social, political, and volatile events". "It seems an air-craft incident unrelated to the airport itself may also count..." No, that does not seem to be the case, there is no suggestion of that at all.

Oh.

how astute of you to notice. It's a pity that you weren't astute enough to not include the word "here" in your comment.

That hasn't yet been proven to be the fault of the airport, has it?

The survey acknowledges that and explains why the old HK airport is included which rather reduces your comment's credibility!

Not one of those aircraft incidents was caused by the airport being dangerous which is what the OP is about.