Calling all white HTNs and low-end Chadlites in England: are you happy to accept your fate or not?

[Wallenberg]

Cope, cherry selected rare flights. Multiple airliners.net forum posts show you thst modern airplanes rarely negotiate these distances without refueling, particularly from countries like Finland where fuel is so expensive.


Keep working hard for me, bot.

So you don't find a single example of Finnair flights from Helsinki to Bangkok where the plane needed a fuel stop. Despite Finnair flying every day to Thailand and you claiming that fuel stops are extremely rare. Flight histories prove that all of these flights are nonstop.

At this point you know that you are wrong. Your ignorance is showing. You don't even bother to defend your claims anymore.

"Fuel stops are very common and Finnair does them all the time but with all these flight histories I don't find a single example of fuel stops!"

 

[Deleted member 19610]

wrong


Daily reminder what the driver of these relationships is:

Nope. WMAF ie rated more attractive than WMWF.





White women are consistently rated less attractive and desirable than Asian women.

Unfortunately, I don't think you have the IQ level in order to render this conversation worthwhile.

 

[Detona]

 

[Detona]

So you don't find a single example of Finnair flights from Helsinki to Bangkok where the plane needed a fuel stop.

Nope, found multiple.

Despite Finnair flying every day to Thailand and you claiming that fuel stops are extremely rare. Flight histories prove that all of these flights are nonstop.l

Most of the daily flights involve stops.

At this point you know that you are wrong. Your ignorance is showing. You don't even bother to defend your claims anymore.

Have defended my claims every time.

"Fuel stops are very common and Finnair does them all the time but with all these flight histories I don't find a single example of fuel stops!"

"What we do not want to see, we do not see."

 

[Detona]

Unfortunately, I don't think you have the IQ level in order to render this conversation worthwhile.

"Compared with intraracial daters, interracial daters reported that their partners saw them more positively on attractiveness, cerebral, and relational attributes (Study 1), rated their partners more positively on attractiveness and cerebral attributes (Study 2), and were rated by independent coders as more physically attractive (Study 3). Implications are discussed."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274233268_The_sweetness_of_forbidden_fruit_Interracial_daters_are_more_attractive_than_intraracial_daters

 

[Wallenberg]

Nope, found multiple.



Most of the daily flights involve stops.



Have defended my claims every time.



"What we do not want to see, we do not see."

Go ahead and show these fuel stops that Finnair allegedly does. I already linked flight histories to you. You don't find a single one. Altitude graphs show that those flights are direct, nonstop flights. This isn't a surprise, we live in 2022 after all.

Connecting flight =/= fuel stop. You will learn this if your caretaker takes you on a trip.

 

[Detona]

Go ahead and show these fuel stops that Finnair allegedly does. I already linked flight histories to you. You don't find a single one. Altitude graphs show that those flights are direct, nonstop flights. This isn't a surprise, we live in 2022 after all.

Already did, bot refuses to acknowledge evidence.

Connecting flight =/= fuel stop. You will learn this if your caretaker takes you on a trip.

Absolutely wrong a connecting flight is almost always followed by both a refueling and a change of pilots.

 

[Wallenberg]

Already did, bot refuses to acknowledge evidence.



Absolutely wrong a connecting flight is almost always followed by both a refueling and a change of pilots.

People use connecting flights because they are cheaper. As I have already shown, Finnair flies directly from Helsinki to Bangkok. Nonstop. No fuel stops. Connecting flights aren't "fuel stops". I'm sure you will realize this if you think hard enough.

Maybe your caretaker will explain this to you when you get on a plane for the first time. When you travel to Thailand to fuck ladyboys you have to have a connection since there aren't direct flights from LA to Bangkok. But it doesn't mean that there aren't direct flights at all.

 

[Detona]

People use connecting flights because they are cheaper. As I have already shown, Finnair flies directly from Helsinki to Bangkok. Nonstop. No fuel stops. Connecting flights aren't "fuel stops". I'm sure you will realize this if you think hard enough.

And airlines use them to refuel their planes. Realize this and your IQ may increase to 40.

Maybe your caretaker will explain this to you when you get on a plane for the first time. When you travel to Thailand to fuck ladyboys you have to have a connection since there aren't direct flights from LA to Bangkok. But it doesn't mean that there aren't direct flights at all.

Sucks to be a bot.
Daily reminder Finnish males are less than 1% of the expat population in Thailand.

 

[AlexBrown84]

It cost me $200 8 years ago. I bet it's $350 by now.

I got mine renewed express back in December and I think it was $150 or $250. Can’t remember

 

[AlexBrown84]

Well, that's horribly expensive.

I think it’s good to keep it high price. I don’t like seeing other Americans when I’m travelling. Luckily they stick to shit countries like these

 

[Wallenberg]

@Detona It's ok. You can't even afford a passport so traveling is out of reach for you. That's why you thought only the rich could afford to travel to Thailand. So obviously you don't know anything about how far modern planes can fly without refueling, and you don't know anything about geography. But that's not the case for everyone - plenty of middle-income and even NEETs travel to Thailand. Welfare is a cool thing. Especially Thai hookers are quite cheap.

 

[Xangsane]

Yeah that's basically right but I don't really care what Asian women go for. I'm not really attracted to them.

You're rating the guy HTN or MTN or the girl? Or both of them?

I wonder why noodles seem to want prettyboys and not the love island or rugby investment banker types.
What sorts of foids do you go for?
I prefer ethnic foids, but not South Asian women
Both I'd say are strong MTBs.

 

[Detona]

@Detona It's ok. You can't even afford a passport so traveling is out of reach for you.

Major cope. I actually told you I have a passport.

That's why you thought only the rich could afford to travel to Thailand.

Actually I was speaking for my own country and you interjected with an autistic tirade about your own invisible country of less than 3 million males.

So obviously you don't know anything about how far modern planes can fly without refueling, and you don't know anything about geography. But that's not the case for everyone - plenty of middle-income and even NEETs travel to Thailand. Welfare is a cool thing. Especially Thai hookers are quite cheap.

100% wrong, you demonstrated your own ignorance here which I corrected with numerous links to airliners.net.

You have, thus far, revealed:

1. You have no idea what a connecting flight is and how it works
2. No idea how planes are never fueled to full capacity even for transcontinental flights
3. No idea what happens when an airplane stops
4. No understanding of taxes and hidden fees
5. No understanding of the demographics of expats

 

[Detona]

I wonder why noodles seem to want prettyboys and not the love island or rugby investment banker types.
What sorts of foids do you go for?
I prefer ethnic foids, but not South Asian women
Both I'd say are strong MTBs.

Cope. Noodles get the jocks.

 

[AlexBrown84]

read every word of @Detona and @Wallenberg bumping this thread

 

[ScoobyCurry420]

Cope. Noodles get the jocks.

What race are you jfl ?

 

[Wallenberg]

1. You have no idea what a connecting flight is and how it works
2. No idea how planes are never fueled to full capacity even for transcontinental flights
3. No idea what happens when an airplane stops
4. No understanding of taxes and hidden fees
5. No understanding of the demographics of expats

You have already shown your ignorance. No, a connecting flight isn't the same as a fuel stop. Anyone who has traveled a bit knows this. Fuel stops are different than connecting flights. People don't say that their flight had a "fuel stop" when they change planes on connecting flights. Simply put you haven't ever traveled because if you would, you definitely would know the difference between connecting flights and fuel stops. People traveling from Los Angeles to Bangkok via Singapore don't say that they had a fuel stop in Singapore, lol. (There aren't direct flights from Los Angeles to Bangkok.) You will understand this when you talk to people who travel.

Still waiting for examples of cheap Finland - Japan - Thailand flights. You claimed that Finland - Japan - Thailand is the cheapest route to Thailand yet you didn't show a single example for it. On the other hand, I showed numerous examples of the cheapest flights from Finland to Thailand; none were via Japan. No one flies to Thailand from Finland via Japan. So why did you make such a claim that proves that you don't have any knowledge about geography? Because you realized that the Arctic route is used on flights to East Asia and not to Southeast Asia. What happened is that you hastily googled, noticed a mention of flights to Asia using the Arctic route, and you didn't realize that those flights go to East Asia instead of Southeast Asia. This also shows your lack of geography knowledge: Southeast Asia is in the south (as people with higher than 80 IQ would realize from the name) and the arctic is in the north.

And go ahead and show examples of Finnair having fuel stops on longer routes. Should be pretty easy to show a couple of examples of those since Finns travel to Thailand every single day. But no, you don't find such examples. I even made it easier for you to prove your claim since I linked to Flightradar24's flight histories which show altitude graphs (that show if the flight is nonstop or not). But still, you can't find any evidence for the fuel stop nonsense despite me making it easier for you to prove your claim. It's because flights from Helsinki to Bangkok are direct flights. Nonstop. No fuel stops.

Mathematics is quite hard for you isn't it. The flight from Helsinki to Bangkok is 7 900 km. With a range of 15 000 km the A359 (the plane that is used on that route) doesn't have to be fully fueled to fly nonstop from Helsinki to Bangkok. 7 900 km < 15 000 km. Ask your math teacher which number is bigger, 7 900 or 15 000. So yes, the plane definitely isn't fueled to full capacity. Why it would be? 7 900 is only about 50% of the 15 000. No need to fuel the plane for 100% fuel capacity. "Planes aren't fully fueled" is a moot point, because planes don't have to be fully fueled on flights that aren't anywhere close to the maximum range of the plane. Just because a plane with a range of 15 000 km isn't fully fueled doesn't mean that it can't fly nonstop 7 900 km. Simple arithmetic. "Yeah, the plane with a range of 15 000 km isn't fully fueled, so surely the plane can't fly 7 900 km!" would get you an F in elementary school math.

You keep changing your claims all the time because you have realized you are wrong. You aren't even defending your claims; you are just proving that your cortisol levels spike when your ignorance and lack of experience are obvious to everyone.

Here's a map that shows current routes to Japan and to Southeast Asia. The Arctic route goes up north, over the Arctic ocean. Flights to Southeast Asia (like Thailand and Singapore) use the southern route, as shown on the map. So the claim that the cheapest route to Thailand is via Japan is a cortisol spike induced attempt to try to defend nonsense. Traveling to Thailand via Japan using the Arctic route would be a huge detour. Flights get more expensive when flight distance increases because fuel burn increases as the flight distance increases. But like I said since you claimed that traveling Finland - Japan - Thailand is the cheapest way to get to Thailand, you should easily find evidence for the claim. You don't find any evidence for it, because it's a lie that you resorted to when you realized that the claim that Finnair uses the Arctic route on flights to Southeast Asia is nonsense. No one flies to Thailand via Japan - and if they do, it's because they want to visit Japan too; not because it's the cheapest route.

 

[Detona]

You have already shown your ignorance. No, a connecting flight isn't the same as a fuel stop. Anyone who has traveled a bit knows this. Fuel stops are different than connecting flights. People don't say that their flight had a "fuel stop" when they change planes on connecting flights. Simply put you haven't ever traveled because if you would, you definitely would know the difference between connecting flights and fuel stops. People traveling from Los Angeles to Bangkok via Singapore don't say that they had a fuel stop in Singapore, lol. (There aren't direct flights from Los Angeles to Bangkok.) You will understand this when you talk to people who travel.

Still waiting for examples of cheap Finland - Japan - Thailand flights. You claimed that Finland - Japan - Thailand is the cheapest route to Thailand yet you didn't show a single example for it. On the other hand, I showed numerous examples of the cheapest flights from Finland to Thailand; none were via Japan. No one flies to Thailand from Finland via Japan. So why did you make such a claim that proves that you don't have any knowledge about geography? Because you realized that the Arctic route is used on flights to East Asia and not to Southeast Asia. What happened is that you hastily googled, noticed a mention of flights to Asia using the Arctic route, and you didn't realize that those flights go to East Asia instead of Southeast Asia. This also shows your lack of geography knowledge: Southeast Asia is in the south (as people with higher than 80 IQ would realize from the name) and the arctic is in the north.

And go ahead and show examples of Finnair having fuel stops on longer routes. Should be pretty easy to show a couple of examples of those since Finns travel to Thailand every single day. But no, you don't find such examples. I even made it easier for you to prove your claim since I linked to Flightradar24's flight histories which show altitude graphs (that show if the flight is nonstop or not). But still, you can't find any evidence for the fuel stop nonsense despite me making it easier for you to prove your claim. It's because flights from Helsinki to Bangkok are direct flights. Nonstop. No fuel stops.

Mathematics is quite hard for you isn't it. The flight from Helsinki to Bangkok is 7 900 km. With a range of 15 000 km the A359 (the plane that is used on that route) doesn't have to be fully fueled to fly nonstop from Helsinki to Bangkok. 7 900 km < 15 000 km. Ask your math teacher which number is bigger, 7 900 or 15 000. So yes, the plane definitely isn't fueled to full capacity. Why it would be? 7 900 is only about 50% of the 15 000. No need to fuel the plane for 100% fuel capacity. "Planes aren't fully fueled" is a moot point, because planes don't have to be fully fueled on flights that aren't anywhere close to the maximum range of the plane. Just because a plane with a range of 15 000 km isn't fully fueled doesn't mean that it can't fly nonstop 7 900 km. Simple arithmetic. "Yeah, the plane with a range of 15 000 km isn't fully fueled, so surely the plane can't fly 7 900 km!" would get you an F in elementary school math.

You keep changing your claims all the time because you have realized you are wrong. You aren't even defending your claims; you are just proving that your cortisol levels spike when your ignorance and lack of experience are obvious to everyone.

Here's a map that shows current routes to Japan and to Southeast Asia. The Arctic route goes up north, over the Arctic ocean. Flights to Southeast Asia (like Thailand and Singapore) use the southern route, as shown on the map. So the claim that the cheapest route to Thailand is via Japan is a cortisol spike induced attempt to try to defend nonsense. Traveling to Thailand via Japan using the Arctic route would be a huge detour. Flights get more expensive when flight distance increases because fuel burn increases as the flight distance increases. But like I said since you claimed that traveling Finland - Japan - Thailand is the cheapest way to get to Thailand, you should easily find evidence for the claim. You don't find any evidence for it, because it's a lie that you resorted to when you realized that the claim that Finnair uses the Arctic route on flights to Southeast Asia is nonsense. No one flies to Thailand via Japan - and if they do, it's because they want to visit Japan too; not because it's the cheapest route.

View attachment 1743776