This is topic Flying is overrated (AKA: Northwest Airlines YOU SUCK!) in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005166

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-13-2007, 12:09 PM:
 
Everybody thinks the movie industry needs to get their shit together, well I think the airlines have us beat.

It seems every time I fly there are problems. Today is no exception. This morning I check with Expedia who I booked today's flight through to find that my departing flight had disappeared. Turns out Northwest decided to cancel the flight and book me on a flight that departed SIX HOURS EARLIER. Well that's just dandy. Not only did I have to cancel a service call this afternoon that I was going to do on the way to the airport, but they didn't even give me the courtesy of notifying me!

So I of course call Expedia, who claim that this is something that is very rare and I need to take it up with Northwest for not notifying me. (This took half an hour of waiting on the phone.) Then when I call Northwest, I spend another 45 minutes talking to that voice recognition machine which keeps taking me into circles, hanging up on me and then delivering a message "our call volume is too high - call later" complete with a hangup. Nice guys, that's real professional.

So after racing across town to get to the airport, the Northwest check-in lady tells me "oh this happens ALL THE TIME. Expedia should have notified you." My response is "all the time? I've never heard of pushing a flight forward, only delaying it." With even more confidence she replies "oh no, ALL AIRLINES do this ALL THE TIME. It is EXTREMELY COMMON and everybody knows this."

Skipping past the false sense of security that is TSA, then I am told that the flight is delayed and they have no idea where the plane is that should've been here by now. (Translation, I will miss my connecting flight.) Add to that the most pissed off baby in history that is deafening everyone in the waiting area, and this should be a lovely flight.

Why do I have this feeling I will be sitting in between two 400+ pound people?

Flying sucks.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 07-13-2007, 12:23 PM:
 
And you expected anything else on Friday the 13th?
 

---

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 07-13-2007, 12:49 PM:
 
On a trip to Honolulu, I had my flight's booked and ready. Then, on the morning of my departure at the airport, I was told that the Commuter Company that was a subsidiary of US Air went bankrupt and all flights were cancelled. So, I bought a one-way ticket to LAX via Alaska Airlines and a return ticket on United Airlines from LAX dated two weeks later.

Once I arrived at LAX, I had gotten there in time, but, was angred by the fact that my flight was overbooked, though I had confirmed Business Class Tickets on a Continental Airlines Boeing 747-400 and was bumped to the next morning. So, after arrived at the airport the next morning, waiting for my flight, the airplane was late from the Hanger due to the Maintenance Safety Check. Of course, the Customer Service Agents with Continental Airlines had bad customer service.

But, despite this, I still love to fly 100%. I prefer it over any other kind of travel when I go on a vacation or business trip.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-13-2007, 01:25 PM:
 
Flying is only good in that it allows you to get there faster. Everything leading up to and including the flight itself sucks, and once you get there, you have a half-hour wait for a suitcase, then a trek to a rental car somewhere.....I hate it.

Once I got stuck in the evil circle of snow removal. First they had to plow the runway...then our wings had to be de-iced. By the time the de-icing was done, the runway had to be plowed again. Then the wings iced up again. We sat there on the ground waiting for them to get their shit together for at least an hour, and we missed our connection in Minneapolis and had to spend the night there.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-13-2007, 01:39 PM:
 
I enjoy the act of flying itself... that is being on the plane, taking off and flying. But everything else is about as pleasant as giving yourself liposuction with an exacto knife and a vacuum cleaner! You are definitely right that the airline industry is a complete mess. It's more of a pain in the ass nowadays than it ever was. And with the new anti-terrorism nonsense they do, it only makes things more unpleasant. And I refuse to deal with anything that has connecting flights. I haven't flown in about 4 years, and it was already starting to get really bad back then. Convenient it is not. I want to own my own private plane (and airport).

Also, I HATE those impersonal call menus, especially the ones you have to speak to. I can't remember who it was that I was calling, but the phone computer kept asking me all of these questions in order to "best route my call". I shouted "I want to speak to a real person!!" into the phone, and then the voice said something like "I will now connect you to a representative" and lo and behold, I was speaking to a real person. I had to call back for some reason, and I remember shouting the same line into the phone right when the computer answered. It responded with "I did not understand that, would you please repeat?". I shouted it again. Next thing I know I am talking to a real person. I'd rather press buttons than speak to a recording. I know Comcast does the "Our call volume is too high. Please call back later" line and then hangs up on you.

Things like this encourage terrorism!
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 07-13-2007, 01:54 PM:
 
The last time I was at DFW, there was some TSA guy harassing a girl about her half empty bottle of water. Telling her that she is a security risk. She finally gave up and said "If I drink it can I take it in that way?"

Seems like the job of the TSA is to remain one step behind the terrorists. I have only flown three times, but I have never had my carry-on bags checked while heading back to the US. The solution to the threat of someone using a plane as a weapon is quite simple. If someone tries to hijack the plane, everyone else on the plane stands up and kills said person.
 

---

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 07-13-2007, 02:06 PM:
 
I make it a point not to fly anybody other than Southwest. All the other airlines still try to have their noses stuck in the air and maintain some sense of decorum that they always end up failing to do in the end.

Southwest Airlines... a bus with wings. When you fly it, you don't expect anything. Just get on, sit down and have a half can of Ginger Ale.

I've had nothing but bad experiences with American, United and all those other members of the Star Alliance. Though I've never flown Northwest before.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-13-2007, 02:09 PM:
 
I have had no major problems flying in recent times that I can remember. We never check luggage anymore as that's too much of a hassle, we always make sure that we can fit our clothes into one carry one bag per person. We always fly Southwest too, and while you dont get assigned seating, supposedly they're better for on time departures than most other airlines. They allow you to check in 24hours early online so you can print your boarding pass and get in the early group to board the plane. Being in AZ, I've never had the experience of a snow delay like Blakesley, phew. But that itself can't seem to be blamed on the airlines.
 

---

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 07-13-2007, 02:34 PM:
 
The only airlines I've had good service with are Hawaiian Air, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, American Airlines, Alaska Airlines, Delta Airlines, America West Airlines & Northwest Airlines. Continental Airlines is the one I can't stand & will never fly again. I have yet to try those international carriers.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-13-2007, 02:37 PM:
 
I fly westjet and find them very reliable
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-13-2007, 03:20 PM:
 
Course,with the price of gas and people driving gas guzzlers, makes you wonder if flying is the cheaper way to go against the price of a plane ticket to the price of fuel for vehicles.

My father still has his airplane (1946 Aircoupe), but with "Blue 100 low lead" hitting close to 4 bucks/gallon, he just 'puddle jumps' around the area not as often as he liked to..

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-13-2007, 03:35 PM:
 
What's strange to me is, while cars and trucks keep getting nicer and nicer -- they are really entertainment centers on wheels anymore -- airlines keep getting more cramped, less convenient, more delayed, and more of a hassle to use. No wonder they are all in trouble.

The in-flight movies always look awful too, like they're getting a bad signal from cable or something.
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 07-13-2007, 03:53 PM:
 
I used to fly quite a bit for business, both international and in the US. My airline of choice was United and I had very few problems with them. My employer had a deal with another airline but would allow us to use a different carrier if the cost savings was 10% or more. I would take connecting flights on United to avoid using their chosen carrier. My trick is book early morning flights. You'll avoid most weather delays and the planes will be less crowded.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-13-2007, 04:02 PM:
 
My daughter flies the ERJ-170.

It may help you to know that the pilots are only paid when the engines are running so they, too, wish the timetable was kept.

There is now a deepening shortage of commercial pilots. This, coupled with too tight scheduling and spring/summer storms will guarantee cancellations & delays for the next several yeats.

My rule is that if I can drive in in 10 hours, I drive; then I don't require a rental car. A small plane can be an answer, but weather & car rentals hurt that option too. Louis
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-13-2007, 04:27 PM:
 
I have gotten my self out of the work related situation in that I needed to fly frequently.... I only fly on rare occasions any more or if taking a vacation someplace that I can't or don't want to drive to.

I find the secret to flying with the LEAST hassle is to find out WHO the airport you are flying from is a major hub for. In Salt Lake City for instance its Delta, Skywest, and Southwest. When I do fly neither of these major hub users has been any hassle at all. Sometimes there's the layover to get a different flight and that sort of thing but never canceled and always leaves on time. In all my flying days I've found Southwest to be the absolute best airline in existance. There is also a safety thing going on in your favor there since they only fly and maintain the one type of plane. No one knows more about 737's than Southwest... Not even Boeing!

Re: The screaming Baby thing....
I expereinced that really bad on a flight form Seattle to Chicago once.... many hours of constant noise in the seat right behind me and not a thing you can do about it .

Mark
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-13-2007, 05:17 PM:
 
"It's FUN to fly"...

It's all the BS of driving to the airport, parking or taking the shuttle service, waiting in lines, waiting for the flight to be called, waiting to get luggage, standing in line and getting the rental car, driving to the destination, then returning the rental car and then doing it all over again for the return trip home.

Most times (not overseas) it's quicker to just DRIVE!

For overseas, the best for me was KLM, Cathay Pacific, and NWA.

Been to Narita soooo many times it seemed like old home(boy) week!

I agree with others about Southwest, they're great!
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-13-2007, 06:39 PM:
 
So I sat on the Dallas tarmac for 91.5 minutes AFTER the time they said we would be off the ground because the plane had to have some tests done. I was in seat B on one of those 2 and 3 seat rows, so at least I only had a guy next to me on my left. (And of course this guy was huge and seemed afraid of the window because he was occupying half of my seat. I essentially sat there for 4 hours leaning to the right.)

Why did I say I sat on the tarmac for 91.5 minutes? Why didn't I say 91 minutes, or even just round to an hour and a half? Well, remember the baby with the devil lungs I mentioned? He sat one row behind me on the aisle seat!!! So the guy on my left is forcing me to lean outward into the aisle all the while this fucking baby is screaming maybe 2 feet away from my ear. Fortunately the baby only screamed for about 90% of the time, however BABY #2 three rows up took over for him anytime he was quiet! Now I fully understand what TSA's purpose is. It's not to prevent terrorism. It is to save babies lives, because I couldn't find anything around to perform a decapitation. I am going to bring an SPL meter with me on my next flight and document the levels. I am pretty sure that was over the legal limit of exposure for 4 hours.

My apologies to you parents out there with infants if you are taking offense to this, but this is what I call bad parenting and an overall disrespect to society and trust me when I say damn near everyone agrees with me, they are just being polite. That 1 year old will NOT remember anything about that flight and the screaming is a hint that the baby is not happy. Leave the kid with a family member or babysitter! Until the kid can speak fluent English, they have no business riding a plane. This should be a law.

By the time I got to my connecting airport, I had less than 10 minutes to run across it to catch my connecting flight. Do I even need to point out THAT plane was delayed too?

My rule of thumb has always been to drive it if I can do it in 5 hours or less, but I am considering more and more about upping that to Louis' recommendation of 10.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-13-2007, 07:16 PM:
 
Brad,

Next time you might consider the balloon and lawn chair method of tranport. It certainly WON'T get stuffy and you won't be cramped in for space... Possibly go for the chaise lounge instead in order to be able to stretch out.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-13-2007, 07:23 PM:
 
...and put a small Rotex, or a modded Subaru engine behind that balloon lifted lawnchair so you can point that thing in the right direction....and pay attention to your compass headings..

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-13-2007, 07:24 PM:
 
Northwest had a big operational meltdown last month, canceling approx 260 flights due to lack of crews to work them. The same thing will probably be happening towards the end of the next several months, due to not enough flight crews and ground staff, and the existing flight crews running out of time at the end of each month.

Apparently the company set itself a pretty aggressive and optimistic summer flight schedule combined with reduced staffing levels which rely upon employees working lots of OT to cover all scheduled operations.

The end of the year holiday season looks to be even better when the crews not only run out of monthly time, but yearly time as well. Pilots flying under Part 121 rules are limited to 100 flight hours in a given month, and 1000 flight hours in a given year.

Northwest has pretty much recalled all furloughed flight crews, at least those that wanted to come back, and is predicted to start hiring off the street shortly. They are also reportedly recruiting heavily from their own regional lines. The regionals in turn are scratching for crews too. Now's a good time to be looking for airline flying or ground staff work, even for relatively inexperienced candidates.

Yeah, today's in-flight atmosphere isn't what it used to be. Flying has become cheap enough that almost anyone can afford it. Combine that with lean fleets and staffing, and you have mostly full flights and thin profit margins. Not many people are happy with the resulting flying experience. But it's either this, or surface transport.

When I had a car or the ability to rent a car I used a 6-hour driving radius, which from here put most of SoCal within driving instead of flying range.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-13-2007, 08:18 PM:
 
Well, I won't fly SouthWest unless there is no other way...couldn't care less about any potential cost savings...I'm an assigned seat sort of guy and when I've flown Southwest...I've been burned by a connecting flight where...sorry, we are overbooked and since I didn't get there sooner (via a Southwest plane), I can't be on that flight. It wasn't that my plane was late, it was that SouthWest overbooks like no other (yes they all do it but not like SouthWest). What concerns me are assigned seats and leg room. I'm all for Coach Plus, 1st class or any other class that has reasonable leg room.

If you want legislation, it should be the seat size...both width and leg room. One need not be Super-Sized to not really fit the seats in the plane. If you are tall, that window seat WILL have you leaning away because the plane is curving in!

As to the screaming babies...our kid has traveled quite well up until recently (he is about 1.5 years). He was an exceptional traveler for the first year. I have had the discussions with my wife about future travels though...he was a bit loud on the last one. I too think that if you know your kid is going to scream his/her head off on the plane, then it is very inconsiderate to force that on EVERYONE (and I'm normally into inconsiderate!). This was the first time our little one was loud (about a month ago).

As to driving vs flying for work related...it really all depends. We have shipping containers for our tools. Thus one may FedEx or UPS the tools to the site ahead of time in a safe and reasonable manner. From a cost standpoint...it all depends on what it costs to ship tools (both ways), gas vs airplane and cost for travel (technican time) of flying versus driving. Technican travel time on the road can add up pretty darn fast too. 10-hours on the road travel can often double the cost vs flying.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-13-2007, 09:07 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

My rule of thumb has always been to drive it if I can do it in 5 hours or less, but I am considering more and more about upping that to Louis' recommendation of 10.

---

My personal rule is "one day." If I can drive without having to stop for a motel overnight, I'll drive unless I'm really pressed for time.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-13-2007, 09:33 PM:
 
Mike, I sorta agree with that "rule". But then again I've driven from my home here in Hollywood to the Grand-Poopie-BAH's place in Rockwall straight through... about 25 hours!

Done that a few times...Does that count?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-13-2007, 10:00 PM:
 
I guess I'm not vain enough to care if I have a seat with a number or not nor what it costs. I've flown 1st class to last class and standby. I've even given up my seat twice so someone else on standby could get home. All the times I've flown Southwest... probably at least 50 times I've never had to transfer to another Southwest plane to make it to a destination... Perhaps a advantage to living by one of their main hubs. The most hassle I had was on a Southwest flight from Chicago to New Orleans that went through 5 other airports on the way... Kansas City, Tulsa, Houston, and several others I can't remember before it got to New Orleans.... The hassle was that every time the plane set down it irritated my broken tailbone . A doctor who got on in Tulsa and sat across from me could tell from the look on my face that I was VERY uncomfortable... He prescribed a blow up cushion for me . One Southwest flight out of SLC had to have a new starter installed on one of the engines before it could leave.... probably before they could start the engine in fact. I had a ring side seat to watch while the guy spent 15 min. changing it out and then we were out of there and still on time to Vegas!

Best flight I ever had was Miami International to Chicago's Midway on Value Jet. If you've ever come into Midway you know how tricky it is... like you're going to set down on someones rooftop and the very short runway that is just long enough for full size jets to stop. Several have gone through the fence over the years. Before approach started the flight attendant announced over the intercom that this was the best pilot period and you wouldn't be able to tell when the plane touched the runway... well she was right... all you heard was the tire noise and then slowing down... Pretty amazing for that approach in a clunky old 727. That was a long time ago!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-14-2007, 02:39 AM:
 
I have used United almost exclusively for all of my flights in the past when I traveled two or three times a year. After I had ceased traveling except when necessary, I have used Hawaiian Airlines. Our local carrier is rated #1 when it comes to on time arrival and departures as well as excellent baggage handling. Our other local carrier, Aloha also has excellent service record with the public both locally and national. In all of the years I have flown with United Airlines, I have been very pleased with their service and never had any problems with them. I am looking forward to flying their "Friendly Sky" and excellent service all the way to London in January.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 07-14-2007, 03:02 AM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

I want to own my own private plane (and airport).

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

I shouted "I want to speak to a real person!!" into the phone, and then the voice said something like "I will now connect you to a representative" and lo and behold, I was speaking to a real person.

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

...and put a small Rotex, or a modded Subaru engine behind that balloon lifted lawnchair

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

One Southwest flight out of SLC had to have a new starter installed on one of the engines before it could leave.... probably before they could start the engine in fact. I had a ring side seat to watch while the guy spent 15 min.

---

Canada 3000 (now long gone) used to change out engines with passengers sitting on the plane, I you not.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-14-2007, 03:14 AM:
 

quote: Daryl C. W. O'Shea

---

Make sure you pave it, otherwise cutting all that grass becomes a huge pain in the ass.

---

If you have a grass strip as friends of mine do then you also need to roll it once every couple of weeks to keep the lumps out... cause the ground is constantly changing. Indeed, a friend bought 1/2 of an old steam roller at a junk yard and they roll the runway with it. Then they roll the roller to their friends runway and do the same thing. Its towable with a heavy duty pick up, ya just don't want to have to suddenly stop with the thing hooked up behind you .

quote: Daryl C. W. O'Shea

---

Canada 3000 (now long gone) used to change out engines with passengers sitting on the plane, I you not.

---

I wonder if they were also still on time to their desination.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 07-14-2007, 03:21 AM:
 
My runway stays nice and dry due to a whole lot of clay about 4 inches under the top soil and the clay keeps the ground from shifting, so the 250 lb roller on the Mot mower keeps it smooth. You can do 100 mph on tiny amphibs wheel without noticing so much as a tiny bump.

I do have a 3' dia x 10' water filled drum, though, to tow around for when some jackass decides to land on wheels before the snow has completely melted in the spring and makes a mess of things.

On a related note, automating my farm tractor (differential GPS and optical target recognition) is on my list of things to do.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

I wonder if they were also still on time to their desination.

---

quote: John Walsh

---

I was on a flight to Florida (about 1.5 hours long) with a baby crying the whole time. This kid was screaming so loud and intensely, people were wondering if there was something wrong with it. The very next day, I bought a Bose noise-cancelling headphone.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

One Southwest flight out of SLC had to have a new starter installed on one of the engines before it could leave.... probably before they could start the engine in fact.

---

quote: Scott D. Neff

---

I make it a point not to fly anybody other than Southwest. All the other airlines still try to have their noses stuck in the air and maintain some sense of decorum that they always end up failing to do in the end.

---

I agree completely. I fly a lot for work. Last year I took over 70 flights.

I have sworn off using Continental even though Cleveland is a major hub for them. I bought some tickets for my boss and I then had to cancel them on the website. I clicked the cancel button but according to the customer service rep I didn't click the small, hidden button lower on the page that gives you a refund. We even bought fully refundable tickets! To make an extremely long story short, we were not issued a refund but had credit with the airline. The problem was to use the credit we had to take a $100 hit because it was considered a change of flight plans rather than just a credit since the credit was from a cancalled reservation. The gravy on top is that we actually had to pay the $100, it wasn't taken from the credit we already had. In other words, our $200 credit cost an additional $100 out of pocket to use! After many long conversations with Continental it became abundantly clear that they do things like this because they can. They basically told us this. Talk about noses in the air and taking advantage of people!

I use Southwest exclusively now. I earned four free tickets last year from them. You get a free ticket for every 16 one-way tickets you buy. They also give you four free beers or three free cocktails when you earn a free ticket. You can change your plans anytime without incurring an extra expense and as many times as you want(great for sales people whose plans change a lot). You always get a customer service rep when you call and not a machine. The seats are bigger with more leg room(great for guys like me). The open seating sucks sometimes though. If you get to the airport early and want to catch an earlier flight you are screwed because everyone else checked in online and got A or B seating the day before. Even if you got to the airport three or four hours before the flight. C seating is a guaranteed middle seat because everyone else has already gotten on and taken the ailses and window seats. The only other problem with them is their flights that leave late in the day are almost always late. A coworker of mine caught a flight to LA this past week from Pittsburgh. His flight was due to leave at 5:30PM but was delayed. He finally made it to LA by 3AM pacific time! I told him he should know better.

Southwest takes short hops which are good if you don't want to go far (like me most of the time) but when I used to go to Texas it could take all day because it was two to three flights to get to Houston.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-14-2007, 01:20 PM:
 
The baby issue is a difficult one. A pilot friend once explained that changes in cabin pressure affect the underdeveloped eardrums of a really small child (0-3) far more than someone older, and in some cases can be very painful indeed. Screaming reduces the pressure in the ear, and actually reduces the pain - which is why they do it, and for longer than they usually would on the ground. He believes that children under 3 simply shouldn't be allowed to fly, but that's easy to say in somewhere like England where there is a reasonable ground-based alternative to practically every domestic and European route.

I have a politically incorrect answer to this, which is to designate certain flights on long-haul routes and which have multiple flights a day as 'quiet flights'. That would mean no under-18s allowed on board, no hissing ipods: basically, the only activities allowed are eating, quiet work activities (e.g. reading or using a silent laptop) and sleeping. That wouldn't be needed for short haul flights (I can put up with a howling baby for one hour, but not ten) and wouldn't be practical for the one flight a day from a hub to a small town destination. But there must be hundreds of transatlantic, or US east-west coast flights each day. Designating just one or two of them as quiet flights wouldn't seriously inconvenience parents or headphone users, and I'm sure would be welcomed by a lot of travellers.
 

---

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 07-14-2007, 01:49 PM:
 
Anyone who fly's should own and know how to properly use a supply of these: Foam Ear Plugs
They work pretty well against screaming babies among other things.
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 07-14-2007, 02:56 PM:
 
I haven't flown in years. In fact, I really enjoy driving and discovering all the cool places along the way.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-14-2007, 03:08 PM:
 

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

He believes that children under 3 simply shouldn't be allowed to fly, but that's easy to say in somewhere like England where there is a reasonable ground-based alternative to practically every domestic and European route.

---

quote: Josh

---

You can change your plans anytime without incurring an extra expense and as many times as you want(great for sales people whose plans change a lot).

---

quote: Mike Heenan

---

Last time I tried to go on an earlier flight (that had seats available) they wanted to charge me $25.

---

I always buy fully refundable tickets. The price isn't that much more and is well worth it if you know you will have to change flights.

My sister-in-law and her family flew up here from North Carolina a few weeks ago. They told me they flew that new airline (Skybus I think) and it only cost them like $200-$300 round trip for a family of four. I guess their thing is they charge for extras like carry-on bags, checked bags and drinks and stuff like that. If I didn't get free tickets on Southwest this is the way I would go.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-14-2007, 11:33 PM:
 
Oh ok I see.... we usually go with the cheapie internet fares $49 each way to CA so that's probably why they had that fee.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-14-2007, 11:39 PM:
 
For Leo, I don't think you'll need to worry much about Northwest, at least on their international routes. Those routes are the money makers, and they'll give them priority staffing wise. But once you get into the domestic system, at least at the end of the month/year...
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-15-2007, 01:13 AM:
 
Flying is only fun if you're the one doing it.

Of course... a Cherokee doesn't go as fast as a jet, but for short hops you can't beat it... and I do get a huge kick out of looking at the traffic jams on I-5.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-15-2007, 06:09 AM:
 

quote: Allison Parsons

---

Long story short, I'm not flying Airfrance ever again.

---

quote: Paul Mayer

---

I don't think you'll need to worry much about Northwest, at least on their international routes. Those routes are the money makers, and they'll give them priority staffing wise. But once you get into the domestic system, at least at the end of the month/year...

---

The tight-fisted so-and-sos make you pay $5 for a beer!
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-15-2007, 07:04 PM:
 
Heh heh, that's what my airline does. We charge for everything on the flight including checked bags, assigned seats, and any food or drink other than the aircraft's tap water. Maybe we should do what that infamous Brand-X airline TV spot says we do and charge for window shades and lavatories (50 cents to get in - a buck to get out ).

But we are an LCC (Low Cost Carrier) and we don't pretend to be anything else. The problem happens when a carrier with a reputation for first class service cuts corners on that service to save costs, but continues to charge premium fares. Customers will put up with LCC-level customer service if they know in advance that's what they'll be getting, especially at a low fare.

Our fares are cheap. Our vacation packages are cheap. Think bus company that happens to fly. We cater purely to leisure travelers instead of more demanding business travelers. Our market niche is providing non-stop big jet service (130- and 150-seat MD-80 series) from smaller cities into destination resorts (Las Vegas, Orlando (Sanford), St. Petersburg, and soon Fort Lauderdale). We avoid big cities and potential fare wars with the carriers that serve them. For the price our customers do get to ride on planes full of boisterous vacationers, but the 5-across leather seats are nice - slightly wider and pitched to allow more legroom. We're almost always full but not cramped.

We've taken a cue from companies like Southwest and Air Tran and have managed our customers' expectations. Other than a seat to their destination they don't expect much, consequently we don't give 'em much. But our customers do seem to love us - certainly the cities we serve do. We are often courted and/or offered incentives to serve a city simply because we're willing to try it (most other carriers won't even look at these cities). We're growing (29 planes and 60 cities - more of each by year's end) and making money. That's not something that can be said about many other carriers these days.

Yeah flying is overrated. But it doesn't have to be. Carriers should stop promising things they can't consistently deliver. It's the unexpected things that piss customers off. And maybe, just maybe, customers flying on a deep discount fare need to reign in their expectations a bit. My favorite Matt Groening line from his "Life in Hell" series:

quote:

---

If you keep your expectations tiny, you'll get through life without being so whiny.

---

 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-15-2007, 07:09 PM:
 
Paul: I salute you and your airline. Do well what you do and don't promise the rest!

Cinemas have tried valet parking, etc. They also don't do niche service very well. Best not to promise that which will prove impossible to consistently supply. Louis
 

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 07-15-2007, 10:45 PM:
 
Paul:

Any idea on whether or not your company may have thought about, or been contacted by MYR for a regional destination?
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-16-2007, 01:30 AM:
 
Don't know where we're looking since I'm not in marketing. Closest we go to you right now is Greenville Spartanburg Int'l in Greer, or Kinston or Greensboro, NC. We do have some new cities coming up later this year, but they haven't been announced yet.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-16-2007, 01:48 AM:
 
Well today's Northwest experience was lovely as expected.

Flight #1 turns out to be a pissy little plane with 12 rows. There is a man keeping his cool pretty well, but obviously furious because he is not being permitted to carry his dialysis machine on board the cabin due to the storage compartments being about as big as my car's glove box. He is citing it's cost and reminding the Northwest personnel how fragile it is. He is treated with nothing but rudeness from Northwest. Everyone on the plane is obviously behind him on this and people are offering solutions like having it sit in the back of the aisle, or behind a seat, or letting the man hold it in his lap and so forth. The Northwest staff just snaps back at them with "there is simply no place on board to fit it!"

Finally he is ASSURED by the supervisor and the pilot, and then the two people actually picking up the bags that they will put labels on his bag denoting "extremely fragile".

So the plane is loaded and they announce we are ready to take off. I look to my left and see that the seat is empty. I call the flight attendant and say "maam this seat is empty, there is more than enough room to place that gentleman's dialysis machine on the floor of this empty seat, or even to strap it into the seat itself. I don't mind even switching seats so he can sit next to it." She replies "my supervisor has said no to that being on board and it violates FAA regulations".

I don't know what FAA regulations have to say about that, but the case could have CLEARLY sat on the damn floor in that empty seat and been perfectly safe to the passengers! Also, his bag was returned to him without any sort of label. Did I mention the flight was late? Why is it that these airlines can run their planes late every day and yet if a movie starts 5 minutes late we are supposed to refund the patrons's money? I'm not talking about bad weather, broken planes and such here either. I am talking about someone at the corporate level who cannot make a proper flight schedule for a day because of too tight of turnarounds at each stop.

Flight #2
So I have to run across the Detroit airport because Northwest doesn't know how to keep a schedule to make the second flight. Had I known what was to await me, I would have just gone up to a TSA agent and started threatening them in the hopes they would have shot me dead on the spot.

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

At least some, or more likely most women suffer some form of mental retardation when they become new mothers. Normal people find a baby's angry hate-filled screams about as pleasant as getting shot in the spine with a Taser X26. Some mothers find the screams enjoyable, like some hit song they downloaded from iTunes. They also seem to think everyone everyone else finds the noise to be just as pleasant, "wow my baby's lungs are well developed. Isn't he the greatest? Aren't I a great mother?" Arrgh.

---

Fucking godamn bloody cheese eatin' Jesus!!! I thought the flight 2 days ago couldn't have been any worse. This was EXACTLY what I was sitting behind on the second flight! Today's flight had a baby to my left, screaming of course, THREE babies just behind me, all taking turns screaming together as if they were trying to form a choir, a couple several rows ahead of me making their own "music", and then this, this...THING that sat right in the seat in front of me!

This fucking kid was screaming, and I do mean SCREAMING the entire time at a very high pitched and quite literally PAINFUL volume. I honestly had no idea that a kid could scream THAT LOUD! It was like putting two airhorns up to my ears and holding the buttons down. We endured this for 18 hours sitting on the tarmac before they finally decided to takeoff 45 minutes late.

Then the nonsense continued throughout the ENTIRE flight. Not once did that godamn thing shut it's mouth or calm down even in the slightest bit. Meanwhile the mother is just egging him on by bringing various things to his attention that makes him scream even louder while she keeps turning to everyone telling them how "adorable" her little demon creation is. (She is doing a far better job of proving she is the worst parent in the world with her "oh he just loooooooves to fly, yes he does" bullshit.)

Everyone on that plane within earshot (translation: every passenger) is obviously ready to make "rotisserie baby" for dinner, except for 2 mothers, one sitting beside her and the other sitting in front of her who think the baby is adorabe. Obviously these two women have had children of their own and were such bad parents that they too have lost those frequencies of their own hearing from their kids screaming.

And as to be expected, the totally useless Northwest flight attendants don't make the slightest gesture toward this mother and the airhorn in her lap.

Northwest Airlines YOU SUCK!
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-16-2007, 03:41 AM:
 
Oh dear. I guess you'll have to try a trip to Europe to experience the nicer side of Northwest! If the other passenger had told NW about his dialysis machine when booking and they still didn't let him on with it, I'm not surprised he wasn't pleased.

quote: Paul Mayer

---

But we are an LCC (Low Cost Carrier) and we don't pretend to be anything else. The problem happens when a carrier with a reputation for first class service cuts corners on that service to save costs, but continues to charge premium fares. Customers will put up with LCC-level customer service if they know in advance that's what they'll be getting, especially at a low fare.

---

Agreed completely. There are several LCCs operating in Britain and Europe, and with the fares they charge no-one could reasonably have a problem paying £2-3 for a drink. Furthermore the flights are usually short enough that this simply isn't an issue, either. I've flown Southwest in the US once (from San Jose to Burbank) and was shocked at how good their service was compared to our LCCs - leather seats, lots of legroom (I'm 6'3" and didn't feel cramped at all) and they even give you a free coffee. In fact it was more comfortable than most of the economy class cabins in long haul I've been on.

But when you've paid £800 for the ticket and one of the internal flights is really long (for example, Minneapolis to Anchorage is nearly seven hours), being made to pay for everything on board seems a bit cheeky.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-16-2007, 05:03 AM:
 
Gosh Brad, you're such a whiner...
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-16-2007, 08:54 AM:
 
Yea, and why do you keep going BACK to the point of origin of all your troubles with flying?

Mark
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-16-2007, 09:10 AM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

And as to be expected, the totally useless Northwest flight attendants don't make the slightest gesture toward this mother and the airhorn in her lap.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

They also have no business in a movie theater either.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Just like a sign designer has no buisness here.....

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Yea, and why do you keep going BACK to the point of origin of all your troubles with flying?

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

So what is a plane crew supposed to do about a screamin' baby? It's not like there is anywhere else in the plane to banish 'em to.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I think the point is people have no business taking little infant children on a plane flight.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

For christs sake! Lets blame the baby and the parents, thats stupid. People HAVE to travel sometimes. Some may be on their way to a funeral of a loved one or a relatives or friends wedding. Thats a place a baby is very welcomed by all its relatives... Driving a couple thousand miles with a baby is far more difficult for the baby than the baby flying for a couple of hours with a little reverse blockage.

---

Let the relatives travel TO the baby! If there is a funeral, the dead person isn't going to be there to enjoy the child anyway.

This is BAD PARENTING any way you slice it, with a total disregard to others, as well as the baby itself. Babies scream when they are unhappy or in pain. Even forgetting what they are doing to other passengers, why would any good parent do that to their child?
 

---

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 07-16-2007, 12:43 PM:
 
(inhales)
Guys, if I'm allowed to post here, so is Bobby.
(exhales, runs from room, wondering if I'll encounter these 2 fighting in yet another post...)
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-16-2007, 01:35 PM:
 
I guess I should clarify that I hate screamin' babies on flights as much as the next person, but I can sympathize with the flight crew. Quite often there's no way to quiet a baby when it's crying unless you can stand up and bounce it around and sing to it. I've seen it in the theatre a million times: Baby cries, mom stands in the back and bounces kid around, kid quiets down....mom sits back down, kid cries again (repeat ad nauseum). But it's not exactly practical (or safe) in a plane.

I can just see the headline:
MOM STUMBLES, FALLS WHILE QUIETING BABY ON PLANE; BLAMES FLIGHT ATTENDANT FOR ASKING HER TO SHUT KID UP; AIRLINE SUED FOR $150 MILLION
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-16-2007, 02:08 PM:
 
I say toss the baby out of the window. We keep coming up with more and more efficient ways to do things which mean less and less jobs are needed. So the baby is not important to the world in any way and will not be missed.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-16-2007, 02:37 PM:
 

quote: James Westbrook

---

wondering if I'll encounter these 2 fighting in yet another post...

---

Fighting... what fighting? This is a friendly chat .

quote: Brad Miller

---

Because I booked the tickets all together and it's too late to change, Mark. Or is that answer too obvious enough?

---

No, its not obvious. I have no way of knowing how many tickets you booked in advance with the same entity. But you can get a refund if you bought the correct type of ticket. Costs a little more but sometimes worth it.

I think as adults we should be more tolerant of infants and old folks... like it or not. After all... supposedly we are adults not children. Remember that we were once infants and annoyed others, and we are all going to be old folks too... well...ok, a few here may not make it to 80.

Mark
 

---

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 07-16-2007, 02:47 PM:
 
ohhh good. no fighting.
Cabin presure in airliner was probably hurting the little one's ears, I reckon.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-16-2007, 03:15 PM:
 
I guess I come down somewhere between Brad's position and Mark's on this. I imagine that in a country the size of the US, families with very young kids are sometimes going to be in a position whereby there is no practical alternative to flying. Over here a 200-mile trip is about the longest drive most people have to make on a regular basis. I find that a stressful nightmare in most circumstances. But if you live in, say, Southern California and have close relatives in Maine, I can't think of any other sane way you're going to get there other than flying. The alternative is a week's drive each way, with all the fuel and motel costs that lets you in for. And of course it's that sort of flight (i.e. a lot longer than just one or two hours) on which being cooped up with a screaming toddler is hell on earth (or rather, hell at FL35): hence my suggestion for 'quiet flights' on long-distance routes, on which children simply weren't allowed.

There are other things the airline could do, though: for example, seat all travelers with young children together in the back two or three rows and a thick curtain separating them from the rest of the plane. It wouldn't shut the noise out completely, but it would help a bit.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-16-2007, 04:02 PM:
 
I fall 100% on Brad's and Bobby's side. The kid cannot help it, but the dumbass POS mother can.

She should be thrown off the plane (and shot at dawn).

It's discusting that EVERYONE ELSE on the plane HAS to put up with her screaming brat...

(Mark, I'm begining to think getting married has "tamed" you down...what's the other word for that... I can't think of it right now...something or another whipped)
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 07-16-2007, 04:58 PM:
 
Congrats on the 6000th post!
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-16-2007, 05:03 PM:
 
Thanks Jeremy! But who's counting...besides you? I didn't even realize it! HA!
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-16-2007, 05:56 PM:
 

quote: Phil

---

But who's counting?

---

 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-16-2007, 06:12 PM:
 
Joe...
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-16-2007, 06:36 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

I guess I should clarify that I hate screamin' babies on flights as much as the next person, but I can sympathize with the flight crew. Quite often there's no way to quiet a baby when it's crying unless you can stand up and bounce it around and sing to it. I've seen it in the theatre a million times: Baby cries, mom stands in the back and bounces kid around, kid quiets down....mom sits back down, kid cries again (repeat ad nauseum). But it's not exactly practical (or safe) in a plane.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Remember that we were once infants and annoyed others

---

quote: Phil Hill

---

The kid cannot help it, but the dumbass POS mother can.

---

Honest and straight to the point!
 

---

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 07-16-2007, 08:08 PM:
 
My last trip back from China, I was on a United flight back to the States. They pushed us back from the gate and announced to us they had a warning light that was staying lit and they were trying to figure out the cause. Should be fixed momentarily! 3 hours later they cancelled the flight. That was the longest they could wait because anything longer, the flight crew would go over their time limit for the shift. Right before they cancelled it, the pilot says "We're gonna give it one last ditch effort here and cycle the power to see if the light goes out"!

We had to stand in line for our hotel and flight voucher. Then had to stand in line waiting for a bus. No one knew where to go. Another 4 hours later, I was in my hotel room. We had to wait in line to get our room keys. Imagine a few hundred people dumped into a hotel lobby at once. They told us the buses would be back at 10:30 the next afternoon to take us back. The next morning I called the front desk and they re-affirmed the time, but they told me to just stay in my room and they would call me. I think to myself"BULLSHIT, I'm in China, I'm going out and checking things out!" I had 2 1/2 hours to get into some sort of trouble! About 5 minutes later the front desk calls and says the buses were here and we needed to check out. That little Chinese man learned some new words that day. I didn't even have time to shower. I called my cousins room, woke him up and told him the news. So here we are, two dirty and propaply smelly americans walking into a lobby full of people trying to check out. We had to give them our flight vouchers to check in. So by the time I get to the desk, they have a bill for me for the 2 beers i took from the mini bar. I refused to pay it, but he kept insisting. I kept getting loder and louder with him. When it got to the point were I said very loudly that it wasn't my fault I had to stay here United is paying for my room, they can pay for 2 fucking beers!!!, was the point the manager rushed over and they talked very quickly that they were sorry and there was no charge.

So then we're at the airport like three hours early! They had taken the part that they needed off a plane at Narita to fix ours. About an hour or so before the flight, They announce our flight is delayed. Talk about a mad rush to the counter! I've never heard so much yelling and screaming at once.

When the flight crew arrived, they quickly ducked behind the doors to the boarding hall. When told of the situation the crew came out and the pilot calmly explained the situation. A little later I was talking to a stewardess and she told me they can't be delayed more than 3 hours again becuse they were considered on the clock even though they were just waiting. So as that time is nearing, I was talking to the Stewardess and she said there was a flight coming in and that we would take their plane and the people on that flight would take ours when it was fixed. By the time they prepped the plane and everyone boarded, we only had a few minutes to spare. We had to be pushed back from the gate before that 3 hour mark.

The flight was uneventful as I had depleted all the beer out of the vending machines and took advantage of their free drink policy on the flight! I didn't hear any babies, but I'm suprised no one complained about me snoring!

Of course we missed our connection in the states, meaning waiting in long lines after getting our luggage and waiting in lines at Customs. Then more lines for vouchers and buses.

Then we had to drive 3 hours from Atlanta to Nashville, then the next morning another 3 back to Evansville. Long fucking trip back!!!
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-17-2007, 02:19 AM:
 
Sounds like a trip back from Ohio I had a couple of years back (except not quite THAT bad). I will never forget the plane being seriously delayed, no air conditioning working and then when we got to DFW airport, we sat on the tarmac for 3 hours and 45 minutes because there wasn't a gate available for us to park in.

The screaming baby thing wasn't a problem on that flight. It seemed pale in comparison to yesterday.

Of course I fly back out again this morning. It's with American this time though, so we'll see how that goes.
 

---

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 07-17-2007, 03:03 AM:
 
My biggest (and the worlds stupidest) pet peeve is when the plane lands, you hear 100+ cell phones turn on all at once by their impatient owners and all the beeps and annoying ring tones that go with it. Can't you just wait 5 more min to yap on your damn phone when you get inside the building? Yes, a small annoyance that doesn't last long but it still gripes me. 1000's of feet up in the air and the only place on earth I don't have to deal with those things.

But... I would take that any day than a yelling baby. geesh.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-17-2007, 04:04 AM:
 
I can understand that pet peeve. I've never really understood the whole cell phone craze. Yes, I have one and I use it when it is convenient for me to do so or when someone calls me. But I don't idolize the thing. I don't have to have it with me every second. I also wonder who these cell phone worshippers are talking to. Seriously, who is on the other end of that phone conversation? You cannot convince me that someone exists who would actually want to speak to these people. I see people sending a lot of text messages back and forth as well. I never understand why they don't just call each other. The phones rule the lives of these "people". They need to be shot in the face with a nail gun.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-17-2007, 09:31 AM:
 
Most people I see chatting on their cell phones as soon as the plane lands do it to alert the person picking them up to the fact that they have landed and to make sure they are there and verify where they will meet. The others are checking their voice mail messages and reponding to any emergency that happened while they were in the air. (Remember many people are "on call".)

Also bear in mind it is much easier to use that 5 minute window to make that phone call than it is to leave the plane and try to juggle the phone in one hand while carrying the luggage with the other hand, all the while trying to pay attention to the signs to figure out where to go. That 5 minute window is the perfect opportunity to use a phone.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-17-2007, 11:16 AM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

Of course I fly back out again this morning. It's with American this time though, so we'll see how that goes

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

Most people I see chatting on their cell phones as soon as the plane lands do it to alert the person picking them up to the fact that they have landed and to make sure they are there and verify where they will meet. The others are checking their voice mail messages and reponding to any emergency that happened while they were in the air. (Remember many people are "on call".)

Also bear in mind it is much easier to use that 5 minute window to make that phone call than it is to leave the plane and try to juggle the phone in one hand while carrying the luggage with the other hand, all the while trying to pay attention to the signs to figure out where to go. That 5 minute window is the perfect opportunity to use a phone.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

If your company's machine breaks down, why do they call sales? You need smarter customers and better machines.

---

If only it were that easy. Sales people are the customer's main contact. We are a small company with only one repair guy that is fairly new since he replaced me when I went into sales. I know far more than he does about servicing the equipment and most people expect you to come to them to fix the problem.

Another problem is that most people using our equipment are not educated and rarely even have a high school diploma or even speak english. Add to that, the equipment is used for welding which is one of the worst environments you can put any piece of equipment into. No amount of engineering is going to protect a machine from a 40 foot fall from the side of a ship hull to the ground, from a 15 ton steel plate falling on it from an overhead crane or from the bombardment of high frequency waves, welding spatter, grinding sparks and metal dust in the circuitry. Some of the guys using this stuff are just plain dumb. I was at a steel company two weeks ago in Chicago and the overhead crane operator almost hit me in the head with a 1 ton magnet. I saw it out of the corner of my eye and ducked just in time. Even with a hard hat on I would have been killed or seriously injured at the rate of speed he was moving that thing. The moron never even sounded a horn (like he is required to do by OSHA) or never tried to avoid me. Then he had the balls to get pissed at me for being in his way even though he was at fault.

Regardless, the fact is that our society has gotten used to a certain level of service and timeliness. If you don't provide the service someone else will. This means maximizing your time and being one step ahead of the competition even if that means turning your cell phone on right after a flight.

I don't particularly like how fast paced the world has become but if you want to survive, you have to adapt. The cell phone junkies used to annoy me too. At least I have to be on it. When I get to my hotel at night the last thing I want to do is talk to my wife on the phone. Of course this makes her mad because she doesn't understand that I spend most of my day on the damn thing.

[ 07-26-2007, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Joshua Waaland ]
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-18-2007, 05:05 PM:
 
Agreed with Allison and Joe on mobile phones. I just got to Amsterdam yesterday (no babies on the plane - yay!), and in this crazy city they've got people riding bicycles in the city traffic with one hand riding the bike and the other clamping a mobile phone to their ear! I can't wait to see someone doing this and getting mown down by a tram or riding straight into a canal when they're concentrating too much on the phone call.

I had a similar experience to Allison's last October, but with an brilliant twist in the tail. When we landed at Anchorage, the flight attendant made the customary 'you can use your cellphones now' announcement as we were taxiing in. About 250 hands dived into pockets and bags for phones ... and then most of them discovered that their contracts didn't allow roaming in Alaska and Hawaii, and that they couldn't make any calls! Much swearing then went on as it dawned on everyone that they'd have to queue up at a phone booth in the terminal...
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-18-2007, 06:03 PM:
 
Hmmmm. May be going to Fairbanks for a couple of days next month. I'll have to go read through all that Cingular (The New AT&T) roaming charges fine print I signed off on...
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-18-2007, 08:49 PM:
 
You should see the looks we get when we have brought Gary (our little one) into 1st-class. Back then, he really was a good airplane traveler. We always got compliments after the flight and people asking us if we drugged him...nope...just good timing with his nap/bed times and ensuring that he had something to eat during take offs and landings to clear his ears.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-20-2007, 03:20 PM:
 
Paul: During my week in Anchorage, a lot of people were bitching like mad that their contracts didn't allow roaming outside the Lower 48, and that they'd either have to use phone booths or buy a 'pay as you go' SIM card for their stay. The conference screenings were brilliant: because very few visitors' phones worked, they were completely uninterrupted by ringing mobiles. Presumably the roaming facility is there if you book it in advance (it is for me in mainland Europe), but if you just turn up assuming the phone will work, that's when the fun starts...
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-20-2007, 05:26 PM:
 
Looks like I'm covered in Fairbanks (Cingular Nation 450 plan using a Moto KRZR quad-band GSM phone). So won't need a local SIM card this time, though I am looking at such things when I start traveling to the EU next year. Now debating as to whether I take the damnable thing with me at all this trip!

I'm not in management yet so I have no mandate to be available on my days off - just 24/7 availability on my duty days. Cell phones - the electronic ball & chain.

Sorta back on topic, we don't have a station agreement with NWA so they won't be a candidate for this trip.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-21-2007, 01:09 PM:
 
I understand that Europe uses a completely different transmission system (GSM900) from the US (DCS1900): so if your phone isn't GSM compatible, you'll need a whole new phone rather than just a SIM card.

Not a major tragedy, though - in Britain, basic but perfectly usable mobiles can be had from the equivalent of around $50. Given that all charges to a UK mobile are paid by whoever originates the call (no charges are incurred by the phone receiving the call), if the main reason you want one is for other people to be able to contact you then that's all you'll end up needing to pay.

Edit - just re-read Paul's post in which he says that his phone is GSM; sorry. Just got home from Amsterdam, and no, I haven't been spending too much time in their so-called 'coffee shops'!
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-21-2007, 05:44 PM:
 
Yeah, the KRZR is quad-band GSM (850/900/1800/1900) so it works almost anywhere there's digital phone service. No analog capability so it won't work in Alaska except around Anchorage and Fairbanks. And the one country it won't work in at all is Japan. The Japanese in their infinite wisdom chose GSM frequencies that no one else uses. Dammit! Chikuso! Baka yaro! Aho!

Planning on going to Japan between semesters this winter and will be leaving the KRZR at home. Not sure I want to be that connected while I'm there anyway, but there's rentals like G-Call and Voicestick for that. More fun would be to just drop in to a maid or manga cafe to check messages.

10 hours on the plane each way with no phones. Priceless.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-22-2007, 10:06 AM:
 
Note: Att/Cingular phones do not automatically work in Europe; you must sign up before you leave the US. Not cheap either; but they work much better in Europe than in the USA. Must be a different "mode." Wish they worked this well in the USA.

I personally checked this in Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Germany. Louis
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-22-2007, 10:56 AM:
 
From what I understand of quad band phones such as the Rzr, if you take it to Europe it'll work, but you'll need a Sim card from a local company over there. I would assume that your US provider would charge high rates, but I've read that there are low cost providers over there that are reasonably cheap.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-22-2007, 11:02 AM:
 
I lost my phone a couple of weeks ago and got a Rzr to replace it and hate it. Piece of crap!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-22-2007, 11:56 AM:
 
Yeah I've had problems with mine as well but it's ok for the most part.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-22-2007, 12:14 PM:
 
I admit that outside its ok but inside its really dismal. We'll see how it goes next week on it's first road trip.... Persoanally, I'd rather have my Motorola Brick Phone back working again!

I forgot to mention that the Rzr replaced my Pantech Micro Phone... The Pantech was alot better phone with alot longer battery life and just as good of range... just so dang small it was easy to loose... and it finally did get really lost about the 12th time I misplaced it... probably hauled by now into the desert nest of some animal or other.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-22-2007, 01:48 PM:
 
This all squares with my experience of taking my phone (an iMate which can run on both the GSM and US systems) to the US. My service provider (Virgin) does allow US roaming, but you have to book it in advance and it costs a hell of a lot. It's far cheaper to just buy a PAYG SIM card on arrival and use that, the only problem being that anyone who calls your UK mobile number won't be able to reach you. As I really don't use a mobile phone much in my everyday life at home, this isn't a problem for me: but I guess that if you need people to be able to reach you on your usual mobile number when you're out of the country, the trick is to look for a contract that doesn't sting you too much for international roaming.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-23-2007, 07:13 AM:
 
En route to a London meeting this morning, something happened which I was sure would have to sooner or later.

Flight attendant - looking flustered, trying to do three things at once - picks up microphone ... 'A very good morning, ladies and gentlemen, this is flight VLM459 to London City Airport. Welcome on board this Fucker 50 ... [face goes bright red] ... Oh God, I said it!' That got her a big round of applause from the regular business traveler types and no-one seemed to mind, but the poor girl was so embarrassed that she stumbled her lines several times during the safety lecture.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-23-2007, 12:18 PM:
 
YES!!! There is a God! Louis
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-23-2007, 03:59 PM:
 
A Fokker anything is a favorite to call as "traffic" with ATC. Typical radio exchange:

ATC: "Allegiant 582, traffic 12 o'clock three miles westbound descending through 5000, an American Fokker, report him in sight."

We: "Allegiant 582's got that Fokker in sight."

ATC: "Allegiant 582, maintain visual separation and follow that Fokker."
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-24-2007, 12:33 PM:
 
That conversation would be a bit confusing in the airspace around Amsterdam Airport, where there must be hundreds of the little blue Fokkers...
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 07-30-2007, 07:20 PM:
 
NBC ran a story that an end of the month shortage of pilots is causing Northwest to cancel a large number of flights. This last Sunday Northwest canceled 76 flights.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-31-2007, 04:46 AM:
 
The British Airways baggage handlers are spreading their usual summer tidings of comfort and joy, too. 20,000 cases were delayed at Thiefrow last week, apparently, many of which were eventually reunited with their owners minus valuable contents.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-31-2007, 07:51 AM:
 
Leo: if that problem is well known, then it is a management problem. There is no substitute for management oversight; workers respond to leadership & punishment. Louis
 

---

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 07-31-2007, 09:43 AM:
 
Everyone I knew had problems with the V3 (RAZR) except for me. That was until last week, when a number of keys simply stopped working. This is probably due to the high condensation from joining me while I take baths, soaking up ambient moisture.

So I dusted off my old pal 3310 a few weeks back never looked back. Legacy equipment rules!
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-31-2007, 09:44 AM:
 
This has been going on for many years. The basic problems are that (i) the capacity at Heathrow is highly overstretched (i.e. the cram so many landings and take-offs into the day that the slightest problem causes major disruption), (ii) there is no effective opposition to Heathrow for business travel within Europe and for any travel from London on many long haul routes, and (iii) the ground staff at Heathrow are underpaid, demotivated and very effectively unionised. Added to that BA has put all its eggs in the Heathrow basket by investing in Terminal 5: they've stopped long-haul flights from Manchester and scaled them back from Gatwick. So virutally any trip on BA involves either starting from or connecting through Heathrow. It's their bottleneck, basically.

The baggage handlers know that an all out strike for any significant length of time at Heathrow could bankrupt BA. In August 2005 a wildcat strike by BA ground staff (details here) in support of another group of striking Heathrow workers allegedly cost the airline $100 million, and that was only for a few days. When the new security rules came in last summer, there were also hundreds of canceled BA flights, and once again our TV screens were full of hopping mad passengers vowing never to fly BA ever again. The car park outside Terminal Four looked like a refugee camp in Gaza.

So the baggage handlers know that they've got BA by the short and danglies, and that any serious attempt by the management to sort the problems at Heathrow out would result in a bitter industrial dispute which could sink the company. Hence the reason suitcases typically take about two hours to get from the plane to the baggage belt, they frequently don't get there at all and when they do, expect to find stuff missing from them.

It's a mystery to me why British Airways are still in business. I had my 'never again' moment in 2003, and I don't personally know anyone who would willingly fly with them, except in a dire emergency.
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 07-31-2007, 10:13 AM:
 
I don't suppose filing a police report would do any good in that situation? I would try anyway.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-31-2007, 01:22 PM:
 
The pilot shortage at Northwest is taking place mostly amongst the narrow-body pilot group, those who fly single-aisle aircraft like the B-757 and the A-320. The twin-aisle wide-body schedules so far have remained unaffected.

Northwest just came out of a bankruptcy in which the employees took huge pay and benefit cuts, and had their pensions terminated. Rather than staff up for the summer, the company expected they could get by on staffing with voluntary or scheduled overtime. Looks like the pilots aren't buying into this. Neither are a lot of the mechanics and ground staff.

The pilots are refusing to fly beyond their current contract cap of 80 flight hours per month. The current summer flying schedule is based on the present pool flying an average of 90 hours per month. The FAA maximum is 100 hours per month. Once the fall schedules kick in the monthly numbers should fall back to around 80 hours again.

We may see more of this at the worst possible time - the heavy end-of-year holiday season. Not only will the monthly hour limit apply, but the yearly 1000 hour limit kicks in too. Many within the present pilot pool will time out due to the yearly limit by then.

One good thing is Northwest is hiring pilots again for the first time in several years. The last of the furlough recalls are complete (many have moved on and turned down the recall) and recurrent training classes have been filled. From here on out new pilots will be going through initial training and joining the line. If they get enough people on-line the predicted end-of-year schedule meltdown may not happen.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-31-2007, 02:32 PM:
 
Paul: Wouldn't they have to have full classes RIGHT NOW to make any appreciable difference? (And this does not include those who quit/retire in the meantime.) New people take time to get up-to-speed. Louis
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-31-2007, 04:08 PM:
 
IIRC six weeks is about what it takes - two weeks classroom (actually self-study CBT (Computer-Based Training) these days), two or three weeks in the simulator, preflight walk-around training on the real aircraft, simulator checkride, then a week or so of IOE (Initial Operating Experience) flying real revenue trips with a training captain. After that you're flying the line, bidding whatever your seniority can hold, usually junior domicile reserve lines at first.

Of course this time line assumes highly qualified candidates. A 300-hour newbie probably wouldn't be able to keep up. The typical new-hire at a company like Northwest will already have several thousand hours of experience flying schedules with two-man crews in multi-engine turboprop or turbojet equipment. The training is quite intense - the competition and selection process even more so.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-31-2007, 04:23 PM:
 
Re Leo's comments:

I can't comment on BA, as I've never flown with them; the nearest I've come was to fly to the Channel Islands with BEA before they merged with BOAC to form British Airways. That was in the mid '60s, on Vickers Viscounts! I can comment on airports however.

Somebody once said that hell must be very like Tottenham Court Road Underground station; I think it must be even more like Heathrow Airport. I hated it the first time I flew from there, to Russia in 1974, and of the several trips I made to the US between April 2002 and May 2006, one outward and two return trips had to be via Heathrow. It's actually bad enough to make Gatwick seem civilised by comparison, and that's saying something. The queues seem to go on forever, transport to the airport is terrible, and for the last few days the London papers have had stories about how bad the three main London airports are. One of the reports complained that Heathrow smells of raw sewage; I don't know about that, but part of the area where the new terminal 5 is being built used to be an old sewage works, so maybe that explains it.

For those who don't know them, London has five main commercial airports:

Heathrow is the largest, it has four terminals, with terminal 5 under construction. There are two main runways, and it is on the extreme Western outskirts of London.

It is served by the London Underground, but this is slow and congested, with poor ventilation, and trains built to fit down a 12 foot diameter tunnel are not ideal for large amounts of luggage. There are dedicated main line trains from London Paddington station, but these are very expensive, and Paddington is not very convenient for most people. Only in the last 30 years or so has the Underground reached Heathrow, and the main-line railway probably less than ten. Before that there were various buses to different destinations in London, but these seemed to change fairly frequently, and were slow. Taxis tend to get held up on the congested roads. What bright spark designed a major international airport, without providing adequate land transport to it?

It used to be the world's busiest airport; I'm not sure if it still is.

Gatwick has two terminals and one main runway. It is just about due South of London, halfway to the South Coast, so about 25 miles from Central London. There are dedicated trains from London Victoria, and several other rail lines serve it. Come up the escalator of lift from the station platforms and you're inside the terminal building. It's not wonderful, but anything's better than Heathrow. Actually, it's quite a bit better than Heathrow.

Stanstead is probably about the same distance from Central London as Gatwick, but to the North East. I don't know much about it; it used to be a very small airport, but underwent a major expansion some years ago, as part of which it gained a railway station. It's served by dedicated trains from London Liverpool Street station, and by infrequent trains to the North. I've only ever been there once, and that was not to catch a plane anywhere. It struck me then that it was much quieter than most airports, but that's probably changed now. Stanstead serves a fairly limited range of destinations, and it's not terribly convenient to get to from many parts of London (this seems to be a common theme among london's airports, except Gatwick).

All three of these airports are owned and operated by BAA, and all have been strongly critised in the reports of the last few days.

Luton is the sort of mirror of Gatwick; it's about as far to the North as Gatwick is to the South. It's mainly used by charter flights to holiday destinations. It's quite close to, but not on, a railway line. Dedicated buses used to run from Luton Station, but a few years ago a new station, Luton Airport Parkway, opened. This is slightly nrearer, but still requires a bus ride to the airport. Luton itself by the way is about as unpleasant a town as you could wish to visit.

London City is actually in London, in the old Royal Docks area, to the East of the old city. It's very small, and is served only by small aircraft. It is mainly used by business travelers, flying to other EU destinations. It used to be 'served', at a distance of several hundred metres, by a very strange station called Silvertown, how many stations are only about two metres wide, and less than that in places, on an equally strange railway, but that closed last year when a new branch of the Docklands Light Railway was opened, with a station just outside the airport terminal.

So that's about it. Which would I recommend? None if I could help it, but Gatwick's probably about the least bad for an international flight. Try to avoid having to catch a connecting flight from a different airport, because that's where the fun really starts. There are direct trains between Gatwick and Luton, but the journey takes over an hour. Both of these could have been linked to Stanstead if two very short sections of railway line hadn't been closed a few decades ago. One could still be re-built, but the other couldn't. There are coaches between Gatwick and Heathrow, but they often get held up in heavy traffic. If you want to travel between just about any other combination of airports you're on your own, it's either combinations of trains, buses and Underground lines, great when you've got loads of luggage and you don't know London well, or a very expensive taxi. If you're coming to London, I'm sorry; you deserve better.

In many ways Heathrow can be compared to JFK, and Gatwick to Newark International. We don't really have anything like LGA.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-31-2007, 04:41 PM:
 

quote: Dustin Mitchell

---

I don't suppose filing a police report would do any good in that situation? I would try anyway.

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

What bright spark designed a major international airport, without providing adequate land transport to it?

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

Stanstead is probably about the same distance from Central London as Gatwick, but to the North East. I don't know much about it; it used to be a very small airport, but underwent a major expansion some years ago, as part of which it gained a railway station.

---

Stansted and Luton are both airport which are mainly used by the budget airlines (or Low Cost Carriers, in US parlance) - Ryanair at Stansted and Easyjet at Luton. There are one or two exceptions (for example Atlantic Airways of the Faroe Islands uses Stansted for its scheduled flights to the Faroes and the Shetlands),but the major international legacy carriers all go to Heathrow and/or Gatwick.

London City is increasingly being used for domestic flights as well. The largest plane I've ever seen there is a BAe 146, though mostly it's Fokker 50s or ATRs. Again, public transport is the problem. None of London's airports offer ground transportation into the city which is both reasonably priced and takes less than 90 minutes.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-31-2007, 05:38 PM:
 
[QUOTE]My guess would be that at the time Heathrow was established as a major civil airport, passenger flights were simply so expensive that anyone who could afford one could also afford a taxi to the airport without a second thought, and that the volume of passengers was so small as to not pose a problem for traffic or car park capacity. In other words, there was no need for any public ground transportation to the airport. Again, if I'm remembering right, Croydon Airport was nowhere near any station, either. [QUOTE]

Gatwick was provided with a station in the '30s, to serve this rather nice original terminal:-

web page

so the idea of people needing transport to airports goes back at least that far, though I doubt that anybody could have predicted then how great the growth would be. The station at Gatwick Airport lasted until the mid '50s when the present station was built further north, on the site of the old racecourse station, to serve the new terminal. Strangely, although the original station was built to serve the airport, it was at first named 'Tinsley Green'. The station for Croydon Airport was Waddon; it had signs saying 'Alight here for Croydon Aerodrome', or something similar, but was some distance, about half a mile I think, from the airport itself.

It depends on where you want to go in London of course; Gatwick to Victoris by train is 30 minutes, with a train every 15 minutes By Gatwick Express, and that is a dedicated train, so no stopping on the way, and plenty of room for luggage, but it's not exactly cheap. There are also trains to Watford Junction and Bedford via various places that you may want to get to, but you really need a reasonable knowledge of London, and of course, these other trains are dot designed to carry large amounts of Luggage.

Stanstead from where I live would be a real pain. Coulsdon South by train to Victoria, Victoria Line to Tottenham Hale (for those of you not from these parts that's an obscure station in North London) and then Stanstead Express train to the airport is about the best I could come up with. Lugging the luggage down onto the Underground, and trying to get in onto a crowded Victoria Line train does not greatly appeal. I'm reasonably able-bodied, travel light, speak good English and know London well, that wouldn't apply to many people wanting to travel to/from an airport.

Someone who speaks little English, but who will soon be traveling through the UK recently asked me how to get from Heathrow to Luton. I thought about it.

Heathrow Airport underground to Green Park, change (via a long walk) to Victoria line to King's Cross, walk (with luggage) to King's Cross Thameslink, train to Luton Airport Parkway, dedicated bus to Luton Airport? maybe not.

Heathrow Airport coach to Watford Junction, train (on obscure railway line) to St. Albans Abbey, walk (with luggage) across St. Albans to the City station, train to Luton Airport Parkway station, Bus to Luton Airport? Maybe not.

Heathrow Airport, train to London Paddington, Underground Circle Line to Victoria (that's pretty much going in the opposite direction to that which she needs to go), come up from the Underground at Victoria, walk up the road to the Greenline coach stops, coach to Luton Airport? Maybe not.

Any of these would be pretty daunting even for me if I had luggage, never mind somebody who's never set foot in England before, doesn't speak the language well, is very small, and not good at carrying luggage up long flights of steps. The best I could suggest was a taxi, but goodness knows how much that would cost.

Having five different airports, and a ridiculous array of London railway stations, nobody knows quite how many, it depends on which ones you include, doesn't help either, of course.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-31-2007, 07:30 PM:
 
Hmmm. We have non-stop service to Gatwick from here via Virgin Atlantic. It's fun to watch their big 747-400, loaded to the gills with fuel for the long trip, haul itself out of here during our nice hot evenings. Good thing we have a 15,000' long runway.

Nice to know I'd be landing at what sounds like the best choice of airport in the London metro area. But what would I do at Gatwick? Probably catch Virgin Atlantic's non-stop to Tokyo.

Do want to visit London some day though. Airline employee station agreements make that much more doable. Maybe next year...
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-31-2007, 08:11 PM:
 
Before I ask this, I know that it is a silly and stupid question and slightly off topic. But can a passenger jet like a 747 or whatnot do a barrel roll? If they can, they should do them more often. I'd pay more money to be on a flight that featured a few rolls.
 

---

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 07-31-2007, 08:48 PM:
 
Joe to Answer that question is an easy thing. A friend of mine that had a cousin that was a pilot for American out of DFW did it in the simulator. He was always told that if it can be done in a simulator, then it can be done in the real airplane. Thier Model of choice to do that stunt in was a 737. Now I have never seen or talked to anyone that has done it in a commercial airliner, but I have seen video footage of the Airbus loosing control and that plane doing things such as rolling and flat spinning before the pilots were able to gain the control back.

Well After I posted this I googled Barrel Roll and low and behold there is a video of the 707 being demoed in the early days and the Pilot did it on film. Video posted here 707 Barrel Roll
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-01-2007, 01:48 AM:
 
I've seen footage of a Concorde looping the loop, but I suppose that wasn't exactly a conventional airliner.

quote: Paul Mayer

---

It's fun to watch their big 747-400, loaded to the gills with fuel for the long trip, haul itself out of here during our nice hot evenings. Good thing we have a 15,000' long runway.

---

quote: Paul Mayer

---

But what would I do at Gatwick?

---

If I were you I'd head for the south coast! If you don't mind driving on the 'wrong' side of the road and aren't going to want to try and park it in the city centre of London, hiring a car for a few days will probably be no more expensive than using public transport, and will give you a lot more flexibility.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-01-2007, 02:55 PM:
 
OK; I've just had my 'Northwest, you suck!' moment, trying to book a flight from Teesside to Rochester, NY, for a conference at the end of September.

I got the travel authorisation form signed on Monday, and sent it to the travel agent. Excluding BA, KLM/NW had Teesside-Amsterdam-Detroit-Rochester at a good price and a sane timetable. On both the outward and return trips the layovers at Amsterdam and Detroit were all 2-3 hours: enough time to absorb a slight delay or a long queue at immigration, but not so long that you'd end up buying a load of shit lit novels you never finish and/or finding a bar and having one (or two, or three) too many. Perfect. The total journey time was 15-17 hours in both directions. I told them to go ahead, but when they tried to confirm the booking, NW's reservation system said 'Up yours, matey, you can't have that any more unless you pay another £200. If you want the original price you'll have to go through Memphis and Minneapolis.' That makes 4 flights in each direction, 23 hours on the way out and 26 on the way back, including a seven-hour wait for the final flight at Amsterdam on the way home (during which I won't be able to drink a thing other than coffee, thanks to having to drive home from Teesside at the end). It also means arriving at Rochester at nearly midnight on the Monday after 23 hours of travel hell, and then giving a conference presentation at 8.30am on the Tuesday.

Still, there's no other option except BA, so I guess it'll be time for me to feel some of Brad's pain...
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-01-2007, 07:39 PM:
 
Leo: try Delta from Gatwick. Transfer at Cincinnati or Atlanta for the flight to Rochester. Possibly try Detroit or Chicago, even.

You can find USA domestic schedules at FlightAware.com Louis
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-01-2007, 08:36 PM:
 
I had a pleasant flying experience this weekend.

I had a two-leg itinerary, the first of which was on a small EMB jet. Across the aisle from me was a small dog, who kept quiet and made no noise. The stewardess did need to ask the dog's human to put the dog back in the bag, however.

My next leg was on a Super 80. I sat next to two grand parents, and in the row ahead of me their children with a small child. There was no noise and I wouldn't have known there was a child there at all except for conversation about him amongst the parties.

In the waiting area for that second flight, there were about 5 seconds of child screaming noises before a parent picked up the child and left the area with him or her and all was quiet.

I do feel lucky...

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-02-2007, 02:00 AM:
 
Louis: many thanks for the tip, but Gatwick is six hours by road or five by rail from where I'm starting from, in the north of England; and there are no feeder flights from my local airport. I'd also almost certainly have to spend a night in a hotel there as well on the way out, which I couldn't do because I need to be in York all the previous day. From this part of the country you have a choice between BA and KLM/NW and that's it.

John - what did they do: put valium in the child's bottle?
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 08-12-2007, 05:17 AM:
 
I ran across this quote the other day ... made me think of this thread.

"In America there are two classes of travel - first class, and with children."
-Robert Benchley
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-16-2007, 05:30 AM:
 

 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-17-2007, 11:02 AM:
 
I wanted to do that to some retarded woman sitting in my row the other day coming back from SFO. Said mentally challenged woman being engaged in a non-stop broken-record attempt to keep some ADHD-afflicted hellspawn urchin (complete with mullet) occupied. Always wanted to see how an A-319 handles depressurization but I was being good that day. Wearing ear buds and cranking the MP3 player helped but it wasn't enough. Ah the joys of standby pass travel on fully booked summer flights.

BTW, these days if you look pissed off, don't expect to be getting past the TSA to your next flight. From Newsweek:

quote:

---

Smile ... Or Else

‘Behavior Detection Officers’ are now watching passengers’ facial expressions for signs of danger. It’s a new level of absurdity for America.

WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Patti Davis
Special to Newsweek
Updated: 9:40 a.m. PT Aug 16, 2007

Aug. 16, 2007 - It was bound to happen. Now even a frown or grimace can get you into trouble with The Man.

"Specially trained security personnel" will be watching passengers for “micro-expressions” that will reveal treacherous agendas and insidious intentions at airports around the country. These agents, who may literally hold your fate in their hands have been given a lofty, Orwellian name: "Behavior Detection Officers."

Did anyone ever doubt that George Orwell’s prophecies in “1984” would arrive? In that novel, he wrote, “You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”

In the study of “micro-expressions” — yes, it is actually a field of study and there are some who are arrogant enough to call it a science — it has been decided that when people wish to conceal emotions, the truth of their feelings is revealed in facial flashes. These experts have determined that fear and disgust are the key things to look for because they can hint of deception.

Let’s see, fear and disgust in an airport? I’m frightened and disgusted weeks before I have to show up at an airport. In fact, I’ve pretty much sworn off the whole idea of going anywhere by airplane. It’s bad enough that I might be trapped in a crowded plane with no food or water and nonworking toilets for hours; now there are security agents interpreting our facial expressions. The face police, in place at more than a dozen U.S. airports already, aren’t identified as such. But the watcher could be at curbside baggage, the ticket counter or near the metal detectors and X-ray machines. The Transportation Security Administration hopes to have as many as 500 Behavior Detection Officers on the job by the end of 2008.

But what about the woman who is getting on a plane to see a dying relative? Or the man who is traveling to another state to see a cancer specialist in a last bid for extending his life? What about the guy who just had a fight with his spouse and now worries that a plane crash would mean their last words were in anger? We’ve all had the experience of having a bad day, being in a rotten mood — especially at the airport, which has become a modern-day chamber or horrors. On those days, doesn’t it seem like everyone we meet looks sour and unpleasant? The opposite is also true. When we’re happy and joyful, we look at others and see happiness in them. Or even if we don’t, we look at them kindly and with compassion. It’s human nature to look at others through the lens of our own reality.

Here’s where it gets really absurd. Apparently, these Behavior Detection Officers work in pairs. One scenario is that an officer might move in to “help” a passenger retrieve their belongings after they’ve been screened. And then the officer will ask where the passenger is headed. If the passenger’s reaction sets off alarm bells in the officer’s well-trained mind, another officer will move in and detain them. Let’s be really clear here. If a stranger moved in on me like that, I’d tell that person to go to hell, throw in a few other expletives for good measure and probably give them the finger as I stomped off. Of course, I wouldn’t be stomping very far.

So while TSA employees are confiscating our scissors and water bottles, they’re going to secretly be staring at us, looking for some telltale sign of terrorist intent in a grimace, a sigh, a crinkled nose? Who knows what? In the end, the Behavior Detection Officers are the ones who are really acting suspicious. Which is the truth of the matter anyway.
© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

---

[ 08-17-2007, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Paul Mayer ]
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-17-2007, 04:44 PM:
 
So presumably this means that if you walk up to the security check wearing a bomb belt, a Yasser Arafat teatowel and a t-shirt which says 'Jihad to the Western Infidels!', but are polite and friendly to the TSA officer when you get there, he'll wave you on your merry way to the 72 virgins. But turn up in a western business suit and scowl at him, and it's next stop Guantanamo Bay...

If it's any consolation, they're just as useless on this side of the pond. Coming back from Amsterdam last month, I bought a bottle of Dutch gin, which I forgot to put in my hold suitcase before checking in. It was only when I got home that I realised I'd taken it on as hand luggage, in contravention of the 'no liquids' rule, and that the guy operating the x-ray machine had failed to spot it and stop me. The bottle could have been full of Wages of Fear-style nitroglycerine, and I could have easily blasted bits of Fokker 70 all over the North Sea.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-27-2007, 12:29 PM:
 
Oh boy, I am again at the airport...and again there are screaming babies just warming up for their attack. This time there is a trio of bad parents that have teamed up to make the rest of the passenger's lives miserable for the trip.

And I forgot my SPL meter. Damn!
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-27-2007, 01:53 PM:
 
Is this travel work related? Turn the government inward on itself. Remember the spl meter and . . . . . file an OSHA complaint against said babies on airline. Makes as much sense as most of the TV news. Louis
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-27-2007, 05:41 PM:
 
I've got a Radio Shack SPL meter (analog) you can borrow on the way back but since it is Radio Shack you need to whack it against a solid surface a few times to get it to work.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-27-2007, 05:43 PM:
 
A solid surface ... how about the baby's head?

Not too hard, of course - just hard enough for the baby to take a few hours to sleep it off.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-27-2007, 06:32 PM:
 
I don't know what would be so horrible about a very mild sedative called "QuietFlight" or something that a parent could add to the kid's milk bottle an hour or so before the flight, so the kid would knock out sleeping for a few hours. It could even be given out free on planes. With the number of people flying these days, I'm amazed such a product hasn't been introduced. Of course, the idiot parents would probably never buy it.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-27-2007, 06:47 PM:
 
I don't know, Mike... giving a kid a sedagive seems the wrong thing to do. Why start off the next generation with drugs? They will find plenty of time on their own later for that in Jr & HS.

I'd much rather see the airlines restrict some flights to "Adults Only"...oh and of course show X-rated films.

They could schedule "Crying Baby Flights" to the hours of 12am to 6am and leave the day-time business traveler to enjoy a peaceful and restful flight.
 

---

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 08-27-2007, 08:41 PM:
 

quote: Phil Hill

---

Why start off the next generation with drugs? They will find plenty of time on their own later for that in Jr & HS.

---

Try more like the 4th or 5th grade. At least most of the washed up dumbass has beens that I went to school with that ened up in jail started of with thier scientific expiermenting in the 4th grade.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-28-2007, 02:01 AM:
 
There is no need to even note how much the baby screamed. No what was really over the top today was the fact that because one dumbass couldn't sit in his proper seat, I got to sit next to a walrus! Ok, maybe it wasn't really a walrus. Actually I think it was Wilford Brimley. No wait, Wilford isn't that fat.

Seriously, this guy couldn't even fit in the seat. He has to put the armrest up and even then he took just shy of half of my seat. I should've taken a picture to prove it. I essentially sat sideways into the aisle the entire flight while the flight crew whacked my knees a few times with their cart.

I think not only should any baby be ejected from the plane (ok fine, "business flights"), but clearly some enterprising airline needs to have a seat by the check-in station just like how they have the little wire thing that your bag must fit in. If you can't physically fit into the seat, you have to buy a first class ticket to get a wide seat or purchase two seats. (Ideally the airlines need to stop putting such narrow seats in there in the first place, but that will never happen because they are too godamn greedy.)

Sometimes I amaze myself in my ability to bite my tongue and not raise holy hell. One of these flights I am going to snap.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-28-2007, 04:32 AM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

If you can't physically fit into the seat, you have to buy a first class ticket to get a wide seat or purchase two seats.

---

One of Europe's low-cost airlines, Ryanair, tried imposing that rule a few years ago and got taken to the European Court of Human Rights. They also tried to charge wheelchair-bound passengers an extra £10 to cover the extra costs of processing them through Stansted Airport, and got whacked with human rights legislation over that, too. In response to the morbidly obese man who was told to buy a second seat, Ryanair's no-nonsense boss, Michael O'Leary (I tried to paste a link to his Wikipedia entry, but repeatedly got 'Sorry - this forum does not allow parentheses in HTML tags) made a statement to the effect that if the guy had the self-discipline to stay out of the greasy spoon for a few days before his flight, he wouldn't have that problem.

Personally I'd approach the problem from the other end: if you end up sitting next to someone who's taking up part of your seat, call the purser and threaten to sue the airline for failing to provide what they contracted to, i.e. the exclusive use of a complete seat for the duration of the flight. The chances are they'll upgrade you rather than them.

A few years ago I was on an Air France flight next to a passenger who had put hand luggage in the space in front of my seat as well as her own. I asked her politely to remove her bag from my seatwell (being 6"2' and the flight being five hours, I needed the legroom), but she refused, pointing out that the overhead bins were all full. I called the stewardess, who at first said words to the effect of tough luck. I then took my camera out of my carry-on, took a couple of pictures of the bag jammed in front of my seat (plus its owner and the stewardess), and asked how she'd like me to take Air France to the Small Claims Court when I got home, and put the pictures on www.airlinequality.com. She disappeared in a fluster, returned shortly afterwards and upgraded me to business class.

One thing I like about American airlines is that they don't take prisoners where stupid amounts of hand luggage is concerned. Their line is that everyone gets to take one piece on, but if you've got more than that and it won't fit in a bin or in front of your seat and your seat only, then you've got to check it - no ifs or buts.
 

---

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 08-28-2007, 08:42 AM:
 
If somebody doesn't fit into a standard seat (width not seat pitch) are they medically fit to fly?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-28-2007, 10:39 AM:
 
I heard on the radio the other day that some airlines are actually now making you buy two seats if you're too big to fit into one.

Jerry Seinfeld had an intersting take on first class vs. coach. He said, "First Class is really like 'normal' for most of us. Comfortable seat, all the booze you want, plenty of choices for food. So in reality, the choice on an airplane is between 'normal' and ... well, slavery, I guess."
 

---

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 08-28-2007, 11:04 AM:
 
Brad,

Do you ever travel anywhere that Amtrak might be an alternative? They will not set any speed records getting you there but it is nice and relaxing. Just dont try to take 3 boxes of unused 70mm reels on trip with ya. That can be a pain in the ass.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-28-2007, 12:56 PM:
 
I understand the U S gov. is measuring people right now to determine size of seats etc. The FAA, in anticipation of the final result, has alreadyy added 25 pounds (I think) to the average weight of a human with baggage. I think it is now 225 lbs.

This may not only make Southwest a 4 or 5 seat wide plane, but it will reduce the number of rows in pitch as well.

I also sell theatre seats; I think we are OK with 48" wide aisles on stadium seating and 21-24" wide seats.

The airlines are NOT OK. Louis
 

---

Posted by Joel N. Weber II (Member # 3530) on 08-28-2007, 01:28 PM:
 
By the time you account for the extra time you have to arrive early at an airport to go through the checkin procedure, and traveling between the airport and the center of the city (the train stations are in the center of the cities, the airports aren't), Amtrak's Acela Express may not be any slower than a plane for Boston<->New York City, and something similar may be true for New York<->Washington DC.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-28-2007, 03:13 PM:
 
Southwest went through the same ordeal as Ryanair a couple of years ago regarding fatsos needing to buy two seats. Southwest has had a "person of size" policy since 1980 though they didn't start to really enforce it until 2002. Yes, they get complaints and yes they have been sued. But the complaints run 9-to-1 against the fatties, i.e. customers complaining about having to squeeze in next to one. And Southwest has prevailed in court every time thus far. So on Southwest the rule is if you can't get the armrests down around you, you must buy two seats. And they discount it (like a child's fare). A refund on the extra seat is available if the flight operates with open seats.

US Airways and Northwest both have similar policies but don't enforce them as much as Southwest does. Apparently United and Delta have no such policies, so if you're prodigiously proportioned, those are your US airlines of choice.

25% of the US population is obese and the numbers (both mass and quantity) are increasing. The FAA has indeed raised the average pax weight numbers a couple of times since I've been flying (the numbers are used to calculate weight and balance on transport category planes). And yeah, a 17" (Southwest) or 19" (average) wide seat is pretty small, even for a normal size person. Maybe we should change the pricing formula and charge pax like we do for cargo - the more weight and/or the more cubic you take up the more you pay. Hell, I still like the idea of stand-up flights (like on a bus or commuter train) for trips of an hour or less. Pack 'em in like they do in Japan and there's no need for either seats or restraints.

Last week we had the 11th annual BBW (Big Beautiful Women) network bash here at the Flamingo. And of course it drew protesters from the NAFBR (National Association For Body Responsibility) in front of the hotel wearing t-shirts that read, "Please Do Not Feed the Fat People." Only in 'Vegas.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-28-2007, 03:17 PM:
 
Deleted.
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 08-28-2007, 03:38 PM:
 

quote: Joel N. Weber II

---

...something similar may be true for New York<->Washington DC.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

...she refused, pointing out that the overhead bins were all full. I called the stewardess...

---

Simmilar experience on a flight from France to the US. My bags flew in first class while I had to endure 8 hours of close contact with the jerk.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-29-2007, 03:18 AM:
 
About the one good thing about the 'one piece of hand luggage only' rule that was imposed here after the attempted liquid bomb plot is that it's done away with that sort of crap. You don't need to worry about being at the front of the queue to board in order to be sure of a slot in the overhead bin, because the chancers who'd try to take two large suitcases and an enormous laptop-plus-overnight bag on have been stopped in their tracks.

I can understand people's anxieties about luggage getting lost in the system, but if you've got adequate travel insurance and pack sensibly, there's simply no need to take more than one item onto the plane. Mine contains a spare shirt, two sets of underwear, a fully-charged electric shaver, laptop, bits of paper with important info (travel insurance certificate, contact names and addresses, that sort of thing), any work-related stuff needed during the first couple of days at the final destination and a shit lit novel for the plane. Along with stuff you can buy anywhere and cheaply (e.g. a toothbrush) that's all you're going to need to survive being separated from your hold baggage for two days if needs be. OK, if you've got a baby or a child you're going to need a little more than that (an AK-47, maybe?), but I really can't understand the morons who feel that the world will end if they can't take three large cases on.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-18-2007, 07:55 PM:
 
Hey Grand-Poopie-BAH, I'm totally amazed you didn't bitch about your trip/flight to ShowEast in Orlando.

I guess you wore your Bose noise-cancelling headphones...even in the terminal, huh?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-18-2007, 09:56 PM:
 
Well the flight out there was almost 3 hours delayed, does that count?

Oh and the flight back was delayed by half an hour too!
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-18-2007, 11:38 PM:
 
My flight today was pretty good. No real problems anywhere except that the plane was the smallest one I've ever been in (low cost carrier). A baby started crying for about a minute and a half as we began our decent to land, but someone shut it up. I had an aisle seat. I much prefer window seats.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-19-2007, 10:03 AM:
 
We went to Orlando and back last week. 6 flights total, no problems on any. (Northwest)
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-19-2007, 10:56 AM:
 
Remember:

Fly early-in-the-day and never during the last 3 days of the month...crew problems, especially if there are many delays earlier in the month.

My tea-leaves forecast for NWA is that pilots will time out for the year during November/December. Louis
 

---

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 04-03-2012, 09:25 PM:
 

It has been 1628 days since the last post.

 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-03-2012, 09:25 PM:
 
Bringing back this ancient-but-fun-to-read thread to post this news (Airliners.net civil aviation forum thread) - (note: "Y" means economy class, "J" means business class, "F" means first class):

quote:

---

Kids Not Allowed On Malaysia A-380 Upper Deck Economy Class

Remember this thread?

Infant Not Allowed On Malaysia 747 First Class (by HeeseokKoo Jun 19 2011 in Civil Aviation)

Well, this is part 2 and much weaker version. Upper deck economy class on MH 380 won't allow kids under 12 years old, include infants. This is to protect business-purpose travelers in economy class from kids-related noise (or many things else). I bet many of you will actually like this policy.

MH will have 70 Y seats on upper deck and 350 Y seats on lower deck. MH 380 has 66J on upper deck and infants-blocked 8F on lower deck. MH will start 380 operation from this summer, one daily each to LHR and SYD.

Source (Korean only):
]http://info.topasweb.com/BBS/BBSView...bbs_kind=2&info_div=1&info_code=mh

---

quote: airlinereporter.com

---

Allegiant Air has stated that they will start charging for carry-on bags starting Wednesday, April 4th — and no, this is not an April Fools’ joke.

“Allegiant will begin charging for carry-ons for travelers booking new reservations beginning Wednesday (it will go live on our website late Tuesday night PDT),” Jessica Wheeler, Public Relations Manager for Allegiant confirmed to AirlineReporter.com.

Although the airline has not publicly announced the changes, they sent an internal memo to employes. Passengers will be allowed one free personal item (purse, briefcase, laptop), but anything larger will require the carry-on bag fee. Paying for the carry-on at the airport will run you $35, but buying online will save you some money. Allegiant has not confirmed how much the fee will cost if purchased in advance, but inside sources have explained that they expect it to be between $14.99-29.99 — which matches Allegiant’s checked bag fees. The difference in price is route specific and depends on the length of the flight flown.

This is not a huge surprise, since Allegiant has previously stated that they were considering charging for carry-ons. With the success of Spirit Airline’s carry on fees (Spirit s the only other US-based airline charging for carry-ons), this seemed to be just a matter of time.

Allegiant, based in Las Vegas, is an ultra low cost airline that offers cheap, basic fares and then charge for additional services like seat reservations, boarding order, food and drinks and now carry-ons. This type of ala-cart pricing has been quite controversial, but does allow people traveling light, to travel cheap.

The model of ala-cart pricing and providing additional travel options (hotel, rental cars, etc) has worked out well for Allegiant — they were one of the most profitable airlines in 2011.

Passengers seem to complain about this type of pricing, yet they keep buying tickets. Why wouldn’t airlines look at additional revenue sources like this when they appear to work? If you don’t agree with an airline’s policies, show them with your wallet. Let the complaining begin…

---

quote:

---

Passengers seem to complain about this type of pricing, yet they keep buying tickets.

---

This is a dumb statement. A huge share of flying is done by people who have no choice; they have to travel for work.

Maybe people have family emergencies and require a quick trip; maybe they have limited vacation time and don't want to spend 3 days driving to a destination. There are a ton of reasons why "choosing not to fly" wouldn't be practical (or possible).

That said, I agree with Allegiant's policy. They are low-balling on the ticket price, so they have to make money somewhere. People tend to drag too much crap on the plane with them and try to stuff too-big suitcases into the overhead becaue they're too cheap to check a bag. It's nuts.

The gripers are probably the same people who think theater popcorn is too expensive.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-04-2012, 04:50 PM:
 
I like airplanes and aviation. I just hate commercial air travel.

I took flying lessons when I was in high school. My science teacher was also a flight instructor. He taught me ground school. Then I rode my bicycle to the airport to fly airplanes. I never got my driver's license until I was almost 18 but I was flying planes when I was only 17.

The only reason I never followed through and got my license is because it was too expensive.

Now I live next to the airport. The main runway is right across the street. You can see planes take off and land from my dining room window. You could practically throw a rock and hit an airplane. (Although that's not a wise thing to do unless you want a couple of Virginia farm boys knocking at your front door. )

Even though I like planes so much, I would rather spend a day driving in a car than spend a few hours sitting in a commercial airliner. Aside from all the hassles and expense, I like being able to pull over at the next exit to get lunch or to stop at a rest area if you have to take a leak. You can leave when you want. You can stop if you want. There's nobody to hassle you. If you want to stop and take a picture at a scenic overlook, you just pull off the road.

Flying on a commercial jet is like being herded onto a cattle car.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-04-2012, 06:15 PM:
 
When I go back to active flying status it will not be on someone's payroll. It'll be for me, and anyone that I happen to invite aboard my aircraft. To quote Kiki (in English) from Kiki's Delivery Service : "Flying used to be fun until I started doing it for a living".
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-04-2012, 06:32 PM:
 
Flying for yourself, even if it's for cross country commuting, is similar to driving in a car. You can go where you want, when you want. But for the problem of changing your flight plan, you can stop when you want and nobody's looking over your shoulder.

If you're flying a commercial route, you have to fly on THEIR schedule, via THEIR routes and under THEIR rules.

Comparatively speaking, I bet you're better off driving a cattle train.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-06-2012, 04:18 PM:
 
I have stopped for fuel and had a pizza waiting. Either call 3 hours ahead or dig out the cell phone enroute. (small plane) Louis
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-06-2012, 08:03 PM:
 
Yeah! Try THAT if you're flying Northworst Airlines!
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-06-2012, 10:28 PM:
 
I've never tried using a cell while flying. Funny, when I was at Allegiant, every aircraft in the fleet had a cell phone on the flight deck, for use when in areas where Selcal service wasn't available. But they were all removed by the time I left there.

I have used 2m ham radios while flying small planes (hey, I was the captain, I got to decide). Never noticed any weird behaviors out of the avionics I had, but of course I wouldn't try this in real IMC where I really needed to pay attention to what I was doing AND trust the nav gear.

Nowadays, things like flight plan revising/updating (or any web browsing/searching) can be done through many of the "glass cockpit" avionics packages that are available for either big or small planes.

I'm looking forward to the day I can afford to fly for myself again. Then the only use I'll have for riding in the back of an airliner would be for my overseas flights (and for backup on the occasional domestic trip where either I or my chosen aircraft are just not up to the challenge). I just LOVE being able to drive up and park next to the sky chariot, throw the bags in, fly the trip, land and pull up to my waiting rental car, throw the bags in, and be done with it! The TSA can kiss my ever widening ass!
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-06-2012, 11:48 PM:
 
It is my understanding that interference from cell phones is a concern but it's not the primary concern.

Properly installed and operated, modern avionics should be pretty safe from interference. Not to say that it won't happen but it SHOULDN'T happen.

The way it was explained to me, the problem comes from having too many cell phones in the air with direct line of sight to many cell sites. If it is way up in the air, a cell phone could be in range of several towers at the same time. On the ground, a phone is in contact with a couple, at most. If you have a phone in contact with many towers, the system will spend a lot more time trying to determine which towers to hand off to. If you have several phones all trying to handshake with towers, it uses up a lot of processing time on the system. If you have too many, it can cause the cellular phone system to get jammed up.

I don't know the ins and outs of this argument but it sounded plausible to me. Like many stories that are passed around from one person to another, it might have some truth to it but it might also be wrong in some respects.

However, I don't count the possibility of harmful interference to avionics out, either. Maybe the risk is small but the consequences could be catastrophic. I'd rather err on the side of caution until I know for sure.

What really bothers me is how airlines propagate hearsay and half truth as if it was fact. They say things like, "F.A.A. regulations require all cell phones to be turned off." The more truthful statement would be, "To ensure safety, please turn off your cell phones."

Cell phones on airplanes can't be all bad. Like Paul says, many airliners have them installed in the cockpit. None of those planes have plummeted from the sky.

I agree. When there are hundreds of lives at risk, it should be, "Safety First" but don't bullshit the passengers. Most of them see right through that smokescreen and it only pisses them off even more than they already are.

If you ask me, the safest plane is the one where the passengers are all comfortable and happy. Allowing cell phones to be used once cruising altitude is reached might be a good trade-off. Don't you think?
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-07-2012, 07:36 AM:
 
Randy: FAA regs do not allow untested electronics to be used. It is not possible to test everything, hence the rule. So, in a way, they are actually telling you the truth.

The most "trouble" I have had in the air is noise/interference on the intercom circuit (headsets) when the cell is changing cell sites. No trouble with the panel instruments or radios/nagigation. Remember I am 2 feet away from comparatively cheap radios in my plane. I am 100 ft away from expensive radios in the jetliner. Louis
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-07-2012, 08:36 AM:
 
That might jive with what I was told about cell phones in the air.

If a cell phone is within range of one or two towers while on the ground, it would be handing off between towers only once every few minutes, at most.

If a cell phone is within range of half a dozen or more towers while it is in an airplane, it could be handing off between towers every few seconds.

Now multiply that by 100 passengers carrying a phone. That's a lot of phones searching for cell towers. That's a lot of potential for interference.

Like you said, however, I would expect the avionics in a jetliner to be better and hardened against noise better.

I also imagine that building a micro-site into the airplane so that all the phones in the cabin would connect to it instead of searching for sites virtually at random would solve a lot of interference problems.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-07-2012, 09:28 AM:
 

quote: Randy Stankey

---

If you ask me, the safest plane is the one where the passengers are all comfortable and happy. Allowing cell phones to be used once cruising altitude is reached might be a good trade-off. Don't you think?

---

Safety aside, this is one area where I don't care if the whole cell-phone-interference thing is a big lie. I do not want to have to sit next to people who are constantly yakking away on their phones during flights. There are already enough annoyances on an airplane as it is.

The safety angle is just fine the way it is: Phones are turned off and put away. If some dope starts trying to hijack the plane, everyone can take out their phone and call somebody.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-07-2012, 10:54 AM:
 
Not saying I want people to have cell phones on airplanes, either. Yes, it's annoying. My only point about allowing them would be to mollify the masses.

Neither do I mean to say that airlines are lying about F.A.A. regs. I'm sure they are real. My point is that I hate it when people fall back on government regulations to manipulate people into doing what they want.

I had a group of kids in the theater, last Monday, recording the movie on their iPhones. I just walked in and said, "Put that away, please," polite but firm. By the time I told the first one, the other two were already putting theirs away, too.

I could have said something like, "Federal laws prohibit unauthorized recording of copyrighted media," but who cares? I would have done nothing but piss them off. Their parents would have gotten involved and started getting in my face. I would have had a mess on my hands.

I could have gone on about how the light from the phones disturbs the people behind them. Again, kids don't care nor do they understand. A simple but firm, "Please" and "Thank you" will carry a lot more weight and have a lot better outcome.

Everybody "knows" that most regulations are bullshit. Most people don't think regulations apply to them, anyway. Quoting regs isn't going to get you anywhere.

We've said the same thing in the theater business for years: It's not WHAT you say, it's HOW you say it.

Airlines need to learn that lesson, too.
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 04-07-2012, 02:30 PM:
 
My understanding from some wireless telco execs (who have their own corporate jet where they ignore such rules) is, when flying at 35,000 feet, there's zero chance of your phone getting a signal in the first place. Cell towers don't transmit non-directionally, and line-of-sight means nothing. There's sectors pointing east, west, south, north...but not up.

Said execs also consider current regulations to be outdated and complete nonsense.
 

---

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 04-08-2012, 09:11 AM:
 
Ryanair (one of Europe's most aggressively low cost airline) had a trial of an onboard system that acted as mobile phone tower.

Calls made through this were charged at international (non EU) roaming rates which would probably discourage people from using the service too much. Getting extra money from customers is a key part of Ryanair's business model.

This system was switched off during takeoff and landing (there were indicators to inform customers).
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-09-2012, 08:00 PM:
 
One of the fun parts about online airline reservations is the completely insane routing that sometimes results. Here is one that a friend of mine found:

Boston (BOS) to Portland, ME. (PWM). This is approximately a 2 1/2 hour drive or train ride, if that. Sane people would not fly between these two cities. But if you have nearly twelve hours and $1158 (one way), you can:

Sat. Apr. 14 Boston, MA to Portland, ME

Boston (Logan Intl.) to Minneapolis (Minneapolis - St. Paul Intl.)
Delta 829
Economy / Coach Class (B), BOEING 737-800 (WINGLETS) PASSENGER
Depart 11:30am Arrive 1:44pm
Duration: 3h 14m
Layover: Minneapolis (Minneapolis - St. Paul Intl.) 1h 16m

Minneapolis (Minneapolis - St. Paul Intl.) to Atlanta (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl.)
Delta 8770
Economy / Coach Class (K), MDC MD90
Depart 3:00pm Arrive 6:32pm
Duration: 2h 32m
Layover: Atlanta (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl.) 2h 3m

Atlanta (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl.) to Portland (PWM)
Delta 704
Economy / Coach Class (K), BOEING (DOUGLAS) MD-88
Depart 8:35pm Arrive 11:15pm
Duration: 2h 40m

Total trip time: 11h 45m | 3,058 miles

Edit: my personal pet peeve at the moment is the gradual shift towards smaller aircraft. As recently as the late 1990s, a typical cross-country flight would typically be on a DC-10, L-1011, 767, or some similarly large aircraft. I even remember taking a TWA 747 from LAX to JFK in the early 1990s. Now, such flights are often on 737s or A320s (usually with one or more stops). Ugh. What's next? Cross-country travel on turboprops in two-hour segments?
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-09-2012, 08:33 PM:
 
The real trend is toward 100% sell outs. The plane is adjusted downward to force this. CASM=cost per average seat mile is driveing this. This is the reference by which profitability is measured. With downward pressure on ticket costs, casm is forcing requiring lower operating costs; hence smaller aircraft with fewer amenities. Louis
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-09-2012, 09:07 PM:
 
I guess I don't understand the economics here (other than that airlines in general are lucky to break even).

Let's say that the average 737 has 130 seats and costs $X per hour to fly. Let's further say that the average 767 has 260 seats. Shouldn't the larger aircraft cost less than $2X per hour to fly? After all, the 767 still only requires two pliots (vs. four for two 737s), one landing fee (vs. two), one airport gate (vs. two), and (I would hope) has some fuel efficiency improvements as well.

Logic would dictate, then, that flying one 767 with twice as many passengers should be cheaper than flying two 737s with the same number of passengers. So why isn't this done more often?

Similarly, if the average 747 has 390 seats, there should be even more of an advantage on the per-seat cost. I can't believe that it really would cost $3X the per-hour cost of a 737 (does it?). And it has the side benefit that many passengers feel safer and more comfortable on a large four-engine jet, vs. a twin (despite all of the technical reasons why a twin-engine aircraft is actually safer).

Obviously, I'm missing something here. Is it that having twice as many smaller planes allows for more flexibility when demand for a particular flight increases or decreases in different seasons or for other reasons?

[ 04-10-2012, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Scott Norwood ]
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-09-2012, 10:58 PM:
 
So Scott, why will Batman run on 8 screens in a 20 plex this summer?
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-10-2012, 12:10 AM:
 
Because people are stupid.

Or it's the "it makes it easier to reallocate capacity" argument. Eight 100-seat theatres, each playing a different title, are more useful in January (or any other time when a bunch of dud movies are in circulation) than one 800-seat theatre. And the eight smaller theatres don't require any more projectionists or ushers than one 800-seat house.

I suppose that one other argument for smaller aircraft (or auditoria) is that fewer people are inconvenienced in the case of a delay or cancellation. But the airlines (and theatre owners) aren't really concerned about this, are they?
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-10-2012, 01:08 AM:
 
Because they can all start at different times which is more convenient. So instead of flying just one plane that holds 9,000 people from New York to LA once a week, they can fly hundreds of little planes that only hold a measly few hundred each time more often.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-10-2012, 06:56 AM:
 
So, on August 17 (arbitrary date), I have my choice of 13 different nonstop flights from BOS to LAX. All are on either 737s, A320s, or 757s. Am I really all that much better off in this situation than I would be if I had a choice of seven flights, all on larger, more comfortable aircraft, and with somewhat lower prices?

A related issue is cruse speed; in the 1980s, this would have been a 5 1/2 hour flight on an L-1011. Now, it is a 6 1/2 hour flight. I am sure that some of this has to do with increased air traffic and such, but larger aircraft do tend to cruise at a faster speed than slower aircraft.

Same for movies; is there really any benefit to having enough prints to have start times spaced out fewer than 30 minutes apart? Hell, people will wait that long to get into a restaurant. I would expect that people who do not plan ahead for when to arrive at the theatre would be willing to wait 30-45 minutes for their movie to start. They could even go in early and "enjoy" the commercials^W pre-show entertainment in the theatre.

Are people really this pathetic and lazy? (Maybe I should not try to answer that one.)
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-10-2012, 08:03 AM:
 
All commercial aircraft cruise at best economy speed. If you can only fill a 737, then why fly a 747. With fuel up so much in price, the 50 seaters and lower are better off parked in the desert as over 2000 are. Louis
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-10-2012, 12:06 PM:
 
Today's planes do fly slower, both by choice and by design. On one of my last trips last year I briefly talked with the captain of the SWA 737-700 we were on. We got to talking about cruise speeds and I mentioned a DC-10 I was on years ago (1979 KLAX-ITO/PHTO) where cruise was 0.83 and the crew asked oceanic control for an increase to 0.85 (which they didn't get). The 737 captain chuckled mentioning that you get the overspeed warning clacker (Mmo or Maximum Operating Mach) at 0.78 on that type.

What you want Scott is to charter a Cessna Citation X - I read somewhere that they can cruise at 0.92 if you don't mind the fuel bill!
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-10-2012, 03:49 PM:
 
Paul--thanks for the tip. I'll be sure to rent one of those for my next trip.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-12-2012, 02:09 PM:
 

quote: Scott Norwood

---

One of the fun parts about online airline reservations is the completely insane routing that sometimes results.

---

My guess is that there is some sanity from the airline's perspective, but not from the customer's; the idea being to fill seats that would otherwise fly empty.

I make between 3 and 5 round trips from MME (Teesside, north-east England) to ONT (Ontario, California) each year. Typically, the routings that involve four flights in each direction are a lot cheaper than those that involve only three (the theoretical minimum, given what flights actually exist). Occasionally, Orbitz or Expedia offers me one that involves five, and that's even cheaper still! Basically, the more miles you fly, the less you pay.

On my New Year trip, ended up with the most insane to date: Teesside-Amsterdam-Minneapolis-Memphis-Seattle-Ontario. I left Teesside at 6am local time, and arrived in SoCal at 10.50pm local time, after 24 hours and 50 minutes being processed as human cargo through KLM's and Delta's route network!

That was £440, and there was nothing quicker on offer for less than £650. I suspect the reason why was that the Minneapolis to Memphis flight was virtually empty - 30 people in an A320. So my guess is that Delta's computer was probably trying to take people off more popular flights and on to that one. Add to that the fact that the more flights in your routing, the more miles and level flights you accumulate in your frequent flyer account, and it all adds up to an incentive to be in the air longer than you need to. I'd also speculate that senior business executive types whose time is worth more than their money are willing to pay top $$ for short and direct flights, hence the airlines need to incentivise people to use the longer and more convoluted routes.

As for aircraft types, personally I don't think there's much in it comfort and speed wise. My only rule of thumb is to avoid regional jets where possible, because the legroom isn't as generous and you may end up having to check your carry-on (not something I'm keen to do with a laptop in it). The legroom is also slightly more generous in Delta's A330s than 767s (plus the A330s have seat-back screens and most of the 767s don't), and so with all other things being equal I'd try to get on an A330 flight from Amsterdam across the pond.
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 04-12-2012, 08:39 PM:
 
Air France #447 was an A330 FWIW.

I'm one of those "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going"
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-12-2012, 09:31 PM:
 
A couple friends are flying back from Las Vegas tomorrow to end a 12 day vacation, much of which involved driving a rental car from Vegas to Seattle then to L.A. (visiting relatives) and back to Vegas.

Normally, flights are direct from Las Vegas to Oklahoma City. Pretty quick, easy flight. This time they've had layovers in Denver for both the outgoing and return trip. Their flight leaves 'Vegas around 5:30am. They'll be waiting in Denver for at least 4 hours. They're not scheduled to arrive in OKC until 5:30pm -just in time for all the severe weather that's being forecast for Friday the 13th. Then they have to drive from OKC to Lawton, likely hitting bad weather along I-44 on the way home. What a pain.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-13-2012, 12:00 AM:
 
I noticed that my trips last year to the flyover states were operated in part with regional CRJ "pretend-a-jets". Used to be these trips would have been non-stops on 737s or MD-80s. My trips all had layovers in SLC (for LAS to OMA) or PHX (for LAS to ABQ), with the PHX layover being four hours each way.

Oops. On my last trip back from OMA through SLC, the SLC to LAS leg was on a DAL MD-90. That was a nice trip.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-13-2012, 12:40 PM:
 
In the decade or so that I've been taking internal US flights regularly, I've noticed a trend of flights of around 300-500 miles that used to be operated with 737s, A320s or DC-9s being replaced by regional jets and, in some cases, turboprops.

From the passenger's point of view, the problem with the regional jets is very simple: luggage space. There is simply not enough room in the cabin for a full planeload of passengers to take even one carry-on each. So many have to check it at the gate and wait for it to be retrieved at the other end, which for business travelers that only bring carry-ons to save time, completely defeats the object of the exercise. For the rest of us, it increases the risk of missed connections. Personally, I'd much rather have the turboprops of the sort that Alaska/Horizon occasionally uses between Portland and Ontario than regional jets: OK, they're a little slower, but the legroom (and personal space in general) in economy class is decent and you don't get this Darwininan fight to the death for overhead bin space.

Furthermore, since the airlines started charging extra for checked baggage, I've noticed an increase in people trying to carry on the whole frickin' kitchen sink with them, interpreting the "one carry-on plus one personal item" rule as meaning "two bloody great suitcases". I've even seen some passengers walk on with three large items and the gate agents ignore them, probably because if they stopped and argued with everyone who tried to bend the rules, the resulting delay would make the plane late.

I suspect that this is costing the airlines customers. Some friends recently took the Amtrak train on a visit from Redding to LA, mainly because after all the luggage needed for Mum, Dad and two kids to be away for a week, flying would have cost them over twice as much.
 

---