We have been looking for a new kettle for some months now.

After dismissing every one we see for some reason or another, we came
across the Krups FLF2 - which we think might be fine:

http://www.johnlewis.com/Electrical/...nd+Coffee/Kett
les/230196542/Product.aspx

Except we don't like black!

Further searching found:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...0004JMMQC/qid=
1123881650/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7674411-6356966?v=glance&s=kitchen&n=
507846

which appears to be the same kettle but available in white (that would be
acceptable). But, being amazon.com, this is obviously the US model FLF2-J4
- wrong voltage and a paltry 1750 watts. The wattage issues have been
discussed at considerable length here recently.

As we are off to France for a couple of days, I just thought about getting
one there. (DIY bit - I would have to change the plug!)

http://www.leguide.com/sb/leguide/re.../org/3/t/1/502
0500.htm

Again, this is a similar model (FLF244) but it seems to be in noir only.
And here at last is the question! Why is this is rated at 2200 watts? Do
French electrics not support 3 KW appliances? How do they handle high load
appliances such as heaters, cookers, etc.?


(No - thankfully we are not and were not going to be flying!)
--
Rod

On 12 Aug 2005 21:32:18 GMT, Rod wrote:



As we are off to France for a couple of days, I just thought about getting
one there. (DIY bit - I would have to change the plug!)

http://www.leguide.com/sb/leguide/re.../org/3/t/1/502
0500.htm

Again, this is a similar model (FLF244) but it seems to be in noir only.
And here at last is the question! Why is this is rated at 2200 watts?

If you look a bit further there are 2.5kW ones

Do
French electrics not support 3 KW appliances?

Circuits are 16A from what I've seen so no reason why not.

How do they handle high load
appliances such as heaters, cookers, etc.?

32A and 45A circuits.



(No - thankfully we are not and were not going to be flying!)

Lucky you. I was nearly stranded on the way back today. Lot of
nonsense - I think that they should sack the lot. Not that anybody
goes on the airlines for the catering anyway.......

--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall wrote:

Lucky you. I was nearly stranded on the way back today. Lot of
nonsense - I think that they should sack the lot.


Totally agree - I've never understood the concept of going on strike - I
can't imagine ever not turning up to work in this way, and if I ever
did, I'd expect to lose my job. I've felt this way in all my previous
jobs too, where I would have had a lot less say in the matter. The whole
concept is just alien to me.


--
Grunff

In message , Grunff
writes
Andy Hall wrote:

Lucky you. I was nearly stranded on the way back today. Lot of
nonsense - I think that they should sack the lot.


Totally agree - I've never understood the concept of going on strike -
I can't imagine ever not turning up to work in this way, and if I ever
did, I'd expect to lose my job. I've felt this way in all my previous
jobs too, where I would have had a lot less say in the matter. The
whole concept is just alien to me.

What I don't understand is how a major company like BA didn't have any
form of contingency plan, or not even seemed to have considered such an
event happening


--
geoff

raden wrote:
What I don't understand is how a major company like BA didn't have any
form of contingency plan, or not even seemed to have considered such an
event happening

Indeed, it's only the drinks and nibbles supplier that's shafted them
FFS, not Air Traffic Control. I bet the local Asian corner shop could
have rustled up a planeload of pakoras, samosas, and cans of Irn Bru.

Owain

Owain wrote:
Indeed, it's only the drinks and nibbles supplier that's shafted them
FFS, not Air Traffic Control. I bet the local Asian corner shop could
have rustled up a planeload of pakoras, samosas, and cans of Irn Bru.


Not so. The problem for BA was that the local union members went on
an unofficial strike and refused to handle baggage for BA and some other
airlines, in order to force BA etc, to pressurise the catering company
into giving in to the union demands. As Tony and friends repealed the
trade union legislation which allowed an employer to recover their
losses from a trade union whose members went on unofficial strikes, BA
were screwed. Reading between the lines, the caterer with a largely
Asian, militantly unionised and apparently inefficient workforce and
generating huge losses, decided that the company would do the best thing
for the shareholders and pull the plug. That decision, I believe was
taken in the US, as few British managers would have the guts to do it!

BA then tried to source from the local corner shop AIUI, which is one
of the reasons given for the unofficial strike. What it also shows, is
that reliance upon only one supplier is akin to suicide in a cut throat
high volume consumer business.

Regards
Capitol

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:57:00 UTC, Owain
wrote:

raden wrote:
What I don't understand is how a major company like BA didn't have any
form of contingency plan, or not even seemed to have considered such an
event happening

Indeed, it's only the drinks and nibbles supplier that's shafted them
FFS, not Air Traffic Control. I bet the local Asian corner shop could
have rustled up a planeload of pakoras, samosas, and cans of Irn Bru.

No, it's not just that. When that happened, they coped with food
vouchers and sandwiches. It was the illegal secondary action, involving
many of their OWN staff, that dropped them in it. Without check-in
staff, baggage handlers, etc. life gets more complicated.

In article ,
Grunff wrote:
Totally agree - I've never understood the concept of going on strike - I
can't imagine ever not turning up to work in this way, and if I ever
did, I'd expect to lose my job.

And this is usually what happens. Think I've been technically sacked three
times. ;-)

I've felt this way in all my previous jobs too, where I would have had
a lot less say in the matter. The whole concept is just alien to me.

Contrary to general belief, few want to strike. After all you don't get
paid when on strike, and most work because they need the money to live on.

All strikes have a reason. And it takes two groups to create this reason -
workers and management. Unfortunately, the media rarely give the full
facts of the dispute. It's only when you become personally involved in one
that you realise this for certain.

--
*I brake for no apparent reason.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 12 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote
On 12 Aug 2005 21:32:18 GMT, Rod wrote:

-snip-

(No - thankfully we are not and were not going to be flying!)

Lucky you. I was nearly stranded on the way back today. Lot of
nonsense - I think that they should sack the lot.

Ummmm...that's precisely what happened, and what's led to all the
fooferah...

(Where BA shot themselves in the foot was by out-sourcing their
catering to save a few bob: by doing that, they get caught in third-
party crossfire. They get all the grief an blame, with no control over
the solution. Chickens/home/roost/to/coming stuff.)

--
Cheers,
Harvey

Harvey Van Sickle wrote in
:

On 12 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote
On 12 Aug 2005 21:32:18 GMT, Rod wrote:

-snip-

(No - thankfully we are not and were not going to be flying!)

Lucky you. I was nearly stranded on the way back today. Lot of
nonsense - I think that they should sack the lot.

Ummmm...that's precisely what happened, and what's led to all the
fooferah...

(Where BA shot themselves in the foot was by out-sourcing their
catering to save a few bob: by doing that, they get caught in third-
party crossfire. They get all the grief an blame, with no control over
the solution. Chickens/home/roost/to/coming stuff.)

I suppose you could say that they have landed themselves in hot water. :-)

--
Rod

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:09:47 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:

On 12 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote
On 12 Aug 2005 21:32:18 GMT, Rod wrote:

-snip-

(No - thankfully we are not and were not going to be flying!)

Lucky you. I was nearly stranded on the way back today. Lot of
nonsense - I think that they should sack the lot.

Ummmm...that's precisely what happened, and what's led to all the
fooferah...

The catering company laid people off. I really don/t see what
business that is of the airline staff, baggage handlers etc.


The correct procedure would have been for the airline to have
continued to fly, giving customers a voucher or part refund on tickets
and to push the cost of doing so to the catering firm for
non-performance of supply.


(Where BA shot themselves in the foot was by out-sourcing their
catering to save a few bob: by doing that, they get caught in third-
party crossfire. They get all the grief an blame, with no control over
the solution. Chickens/home/roost/to/coming stuff.)

Outsourcing is simply a way of not having to deal with non-core
aspects of a business.

Airlines use rather a lot of kerosene as well, but typically don't do
oil exploration or run refineries.

--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On 13 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:09:47 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:

(Where BA shot themselves in the foot was by out-sourcing their
catering to save a few bob: by doing that, they get caught in
third- party crossfire. They get all the grief an blame, with no
control over the solution. Chickens/home/roost/to/coming stuff.)

Outsourcing is simply a way of not having to deal with non-core
aspects of a business.

Agreed, but an airline is a service industry, and the passenger
experience *is* an essential core aspect of that business. It differs
fundamentally from, say, building and fuelling the planes.

When you out-source some aspects of your core business in service
industry -- like passenger servicing, call centres, or reservations --
you clearly lose direct control over that part of your core business
and can only influence it indirectly.

--
Cheers,
Harvey

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:38:14 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:

On 13 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:09:47 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:

(Where BA shot themselves in the foot was by out-sourcing their
catering to save a few bob: by doing that, they get caught in
third- party crossfire. They get all the grief an blame, with no
control over the solution. Chickens/home/roost/to/coming stuff.)

Outsourcing is simply a way of not having to deal with non-core
aspects of a business.

Agreed, but an airline is a service industry, and the passenger
experience *is* an essential core aspect of that business. It differs
fundamentally from, say, building and fuelling the planes.


Well..... the passenger experience thing is what the airlines traded
on for years and moderately successfully.

Then passengers decided that they wanted to buy on price and not
service (or the airlines convinced them of it).




When you out-source some aspects of your core business in service
industry -- like passenger servicing, call centres, or reservations --
you clearly lose direct control over that part of your core business
and can only influence it indirectly.

Most airlines outsource their passenger handling and catering at many
remote locations and have done for some time.

As far as reservations are concerned, most have been progressively
screwing the travel agents over the last few years and driving
passengers towards buying restricted electronic tickets on line. This
is going in the opposite direction and not always that helpful to
travellers.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:38:13 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


The catering company laid people off. I really don/t see what
business that is of the airline staff, baggage handlers etc.

They are all related, a point that passed the dimwits at BA by by a
very wide margin.

Outsourcing is simply a way of not having to deal with non-core
aspects of a business.

Unfortunately many companies run by accountants, and BA are a classic
example, have decided customers are a non core activity.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:00:25 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:38:13 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


The catering company laid people off. I really don/t see what
business that is of the airline staff, baggage handlers etc.

They are all related, a point that passed the dimwits at BA by by a
very wide margin.

It's a customer/supplier relationship, with BA being the customer of
the catering firm - separate companies. Therefore what possible
relevance does the employment terms and conditions of the caterer's
staff have to the employees of their customer? That's a nonsense.



Outsourcing is simply a way of not having to deal with non-core
aspects of a business.

Unfortunately many companies run by accountants, and BA are a classic
example, have decided customers are a non core activity.

That's certainly true.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:38:13 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

The catering company laid people off. I really don/t see what
business that is of the airline staff, baggage handlers etc.

Firstly, the catering company didn't lay people off, they fired them.
Secondly you have to realise that the ground staff at an airport are a
bit like a village. They all know each other and are a pretty close
knit community. When a big part of your community gets fired, you get
mad.

Once upon a time, the Unions were there to make sure the *******
employers treated their workers decently. Maggie put an end to that
(and BTW an end to rather a lot of jobs at the same time) but there
are vestiges left - hence the rather impressive cessation of BA
flights.

Sometimes people have to fight back. There comes a time when some
people say "stuff that - you cannot continue to treat people like
serfs and we'll bloody well show you that you can't".

I feel sympathy for all the people who had their holidays ruined but I
daresay the sacked catering staff wish they could afford the
occasional foreign holiday and I expect the directors of BA will still
get their large bonuses and long holidays at the end of the year while
their minions continue to work for minimum wage with a smile on their
faces, glad to have a job.

In a few weeks, everyone will have forgotten about it, the catering
company will get "new" management and will be manage to sack the
workers quietly and with no fuss.



--
Warning: Do not look directly into laser with remaining eye.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 00:33:06 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:38:13 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

The catering company laid people off. I really don/t see what
business that is of the airline staff, baggage handlers etc.

Firstly, the catering company didn't lay people off, they fired them.

I used the expression "laid people off" in the generic sense, be it
termination for cause, redundancy or temporary stand down.

Whatever the reason is, it is not justification for employees of other
companies or in totally unrelated areas to withdraw their labour on
the basis of said dispute.

Secondly you have to realise that the ground staff at an airport are a
bit like a village. They all know each other and are a pretty close
knit community. When a big part of your community gets fired, you get
mad.

That's fine, but this should not be without consequences for those
withdrawing their labour on this basis and liability for any union
involvement.



Once upon a time, the Unions were there to make sure the *******
employers treated their workers decently. Maggie put an end to that
(and BTW an end to rather a lot of jobs at the same time) but there
are vestiges left - hence the rather impressive cessation of BA
flights.

Hopefully those vestiges will pass, justifiably into industrial
history as soon as possible.

The consequences of inappropriate union strength and especially of
secondary action are very obvious in terms of their eventual effect on
sectors where they were typical in the 60s and 70s.



Sometimes people have to fight back. There comes a time when some
people say "stuff that - you cannot continue to treat people like
serfs and we'll bloody well show you that you can't".

Of course. However, it is not appropriate to do so if you are not
directly involved in the dispute as an employee.



I feel sympathy for all the people who had their holidays ruined but I
daresay the sacked catering staff wish they could afford the
occasional foreign holiday and I expect the directors of BA will still
get their large bonuses and long holidays at the end of the year while
their minions continue to work for minimum wage with a smile on their
faces, glad to have a job.

The catering firm has been in a situation where it hasn't made a
profit since 2000 and its revenues have fallen 35% since 2001. Faced
with the reality of that, there is no other option than to find ways
to restructure the business and to cut costs. They had tried for
several months to reach agreements with unions and employees and
change working practices in order to match the reality that they are
working in.

Part of that reality (I believe a small part) is said to be due to the
WTC bombings. I think that a much bigger part is the change in the
market dynamic of people wanting cheap and no frills air travel. THe
inevitable consequence of that is that business of the airline
catering firms is adversely affected.

I can't find anything to suggest that the company's offer was outside
the law, but was what was required to secure the future of the
company, which is not a charitable organisation. If, at the end of
the day, some of the employees don't want to accept what's on offer,
they have the option of looking for other jobs or doing as they did
and withdrawing their labour. However, they can't expect to do so
without there being consequences of termination of employment if said
activity puts them outside their employment contract.

As to the directors of BA or even the middle managers.... they work
for a different company. However, their bonuses should be hit for
not having a contingency in place in terms of an alternative catering
supplier and alternative baggage handling.




In a few weeks, everyone will have forgotten about it, the catering
company will get "new" management and will be manage to sack the
workers quietly and with no fuss.

--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Geoffrey wrote:

Sometimes people have to fight back. There comes a time when some
people say "stuff that - you cannot continue to treat people like
serfs and we'll bloody well show you that you can't".


What utter crap. If you don't like your job, you quit. That simple. You
don't hold your employer to ransom until they give in to your demands.


--
Grunff

In article , Geoffrey
trolled:

Firstly, the catering company didn't lay people off, they fired them.

Not on a whim I'll wager.

Secondly you have to realise that the ground staff at an airport are a
bit like a village. They all know each other and are a pretty close
knit community. When a big part of your community gets fired, you get
mad.

Why? If someone gets fired, it is because they are not any use to the
business any longer. Simple fact of life. Your opinion is a bit like a
stroppy parent lamping a teacher when "little Johny" gets expelled.

Once upon a time, the unions (capitalisation corrected) were there
to make sure the *******
employers treated their workers decently.

Don't make me laugh. The unions were run by mad commies like Red Robbo who
were determined to hold the country to ransom in pursuit of their policies.
They cared for no-one but themselves and led to countless job losses due to
business failure.

Maggie put an end to (some of) that.

Praise the Lord, otherwise we would be back to the 70s, although it looks
like we still might be heading back that way thanks to Bliar and chums.

Sometimes people have to fight back. There comes a time when some
people say "stuff that - you cannot continue to treat people like
serfs and we'll bloody well show you that you can't".

The employer offers a job at a particular wage and conditions. If you don't
like it, sling your hook and look for something that suits you better.




--
AJL

In message , Andy Hall
writes


(No - thankfully we are not and were not going to be flying!)

Lucky you. I was nearly stranded on the way back today. Lot of
nonsense - I think that they should sack the lot. Not that anybody
goes on the airlines for the catering anyway.......

Or without it

--
geoff

Andy Hall wrote:
On 12 Aug 2005 21:32:18 GMT, Rod wrote:



As we are off to France for a couple of days, I just thought about getting
one there. (DIY bit - I would have to change the plug!)

http://www.leguide.com/sb/leguide/re.../org/3/t/1/502
0500.htm

Again, this is a similar model (FLF244) but it seems to be in noir only.
And here at last is the question! Why is this is rated at 2200 watts?


If you look a bit further there are 2.5kW ones


Do
French electrics not support 3 KW appliances?


Circuits are 16A from what I've seen so no reason why not.



But what are the IEC plugs in the kettles rated at (assuming a cordless
kettle)? 10A IIRC, and France runs/ran on 220V (OK it's 230 nominal
now, just like here).


--
Spamtrap in use
To email replace 127.0.0.1 with blueyonder dot co dot uk

Chris Hodges wrote in
. uk:

snipped
But what are the IEC plugs in the kettles rated at (assuming a
cordless kettle)? 10A IIRC, and France runs/ran on 220V (OK it's 230
nominal now, just like here).

Who cares about IEC plugs! The kettle does not have a kettle lead. (Sounds
daft but you know what I mean. The flex is hard-wired into the base unit of
the kettle. Unless the round 'cordless' connector also conforms to some IEC
standard?) And then that would mean that the French and German versions
differ in a pretty significant component from the UK version.

[Yippeee - the German version is available in white! So I now have to
decide if a) the price including postage is acceptable and b) the 2200 watt
model is OK. Suppose I had better check the Dutch market as well...]

However, I have now started to understand the IEC connectors a little bit.
But will a C15A fit into a C16 (or is it the other way round)?

Your point about 10A does seem to make some sort of sense. Just not sure
where the limit lies.

If French electrics are so bad, why are we seeing such active disparagement
between USAian and UK people about their respective systems? Club together
to send our beloved deputy thingummyjig to Paris post haste... Part le P
est arrivée.

I really did not expect such a huge thread about BA/Gate Gourmet. Even
though the partner of person I work with is a manager for GG!

--
Rod

On 12 Aug 2005 21:32:18 GMT, Rod wrote:


Again, this is a similar model (FLF244) but it seems to be in noir only.
And here at last is the question! Why is this is rated at 2200 watts? Do
French electrics not support 3 KW appliances? How do they handle high load
appliances such as heaters, cookers, etc.?

As far as I understand it, they are simply catering for French
electrics, which generally is lower rated than here.

If they were to sell 3kw kettles in france then a number of older
French houses would catch fire.

sponix

--s-p-o-n-i-x-- wrote:
On 12 Aug 2005 21:32:18 GMT, Rod wrote:



Again, this is a similar model (FLF244) but it seems to be in noir only.
And here at last is the question! Why is this is rated at 2200 watts? Do
French electrics not support 3 KW appliances? How do they handle high load
appliances such as heaters, cookers, etc.?


As far as I understand it, they are simply catering for French
electrics, which generally is lower rated than here.

If they were to sell 3kw kettles in france then a number of older
French houses would catch fire.

sponix

Better that than the frogs torching our sheep.

(Dons fireproof clothing)

"Mike Dodd" no-address@lo0 wrote in message
...


If they were to sell 3kw kettles in france then a number of older
French houses would catch fire.

sponix

Better that than the frogs torching our sheep.

(Dons fireproof clothing)

No need, I couldn't agree more.

Mary

If they were to sell 3kw kettles in france then a number of older
French houses would catch fire.

Not all bad, then

mike

On 12 Aug 2005 21:32:18 GMT, Rod wrote:

Do French electrics not support 3 KW appliances?

French electrics generally struggle with 50W appliances. Also the
French have an odd way of selling electricity with the rate depending
upon the maximum (not average) consumption. This is policed by a
device known as a "disrupteur" which knocks off the supply if you
exceed a certain load. To reset it requires a visit from the
electricity board or the use of a device every corner shop sells.

How do they handle high load appliances such as heaters, cookers, etc.?

Generally very badly and accompanied by burning smells, smoke and
loud fizzling sounds. Decades (centuries) of bribing various
officials and inspectors has left France with an electrical system
the Albanians would be ashamed of.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Rod" wrote in message
. 4...
Do
French electrics not support 3 KW appliances? How do they handle high load
appliances such as heaters, cookers, etc.?

LOL

I worked in France for a few months and rented the top floor of a house. The
rest of the house had the owner living in and an attached dance studio (the
owner was a dance teacher). One evening I tried putting on the kettle whilst
i was ironing. The result was that the whole house went into darkness,
including the dance studio, during a dance lesson..

Beautiful house though. When we left they decided to replace the carpets,
which were foam backed and glued down. They were most amused when I said
that most people in britain put newspapers underneath specifically to stop
the carpet sticking to the floor..

Paul

(No - thankfully we are not and were not going to be flying!)
--
Rod