Question:

> [Good to see that corporate governance and accounting reforms are > making huge inroads in protecting shareholders from such theivery by > CEO's and executives  - NOT!  And sorry, there is no news group called > corp.executive.perks.squander.shareholder.money.travel.air news group > I could post this in, so I chose RTA instead. -Ed.]

I fly on corporate jets.  Nice to bypass riff raff like you.

Response:

Mind you, given the security considerations after 9/11, small wonder why more people on the Board of Directors of large corporations or famous celebrities are flying on business jets. It’s very likely that insurance policies on these rich and famous people might actually require them to fly on a business jet. Besides, with today’s business jets and fractional ownership of such planes the costs aren’t as high as they seem. The best part about business jets–scheduling flexibility. They can often fly into smaller airports closer to client sites, for starters. And planes like the Gulfstream V and the Bombardier Global Express can fly almost anywhere in the world on just one fuel stop. — Raymond Chuang Mountain View, CA USA

Response:

> [Good to see that corporate governance and accounting reforms are > making huge inroads in protecting shareholders from such theivery by > CEO's and executives  - NOT!  And sorry, there is no news group called > corp.executive.perks.squander.shareholder.money.travel.air news group > I could post this in, so I chose RTA instead. -Ed.]

  Those who have the means never fly on " public transportation", the airlines. Cash lets you by-pass all of the hassle. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030805/5380306s.htm > Pricey perk lets executives fly high Personal use of company jets > soars — just under the radar of watchdogs and shareholders > By Gary Strauss > USA TODAY > As a rising radio industry executive in the 1990s, Jimmy de Castro > quickly learned why private jets are such addictive toys for the > well-heeled. > ”You drive right up and get on board. You fly anywhere, whenever you > want. They’re fast and comfortable,” says de Castro, now CEO of media > consultant Nothing But Net. ”Once you have the opportunity, they > become part of your life. They make you feel like a king.” > Increasingly, companies are giving executives the royal treatment > while they’re off the job, too. Post-Sept. 11 security fears, > sweetened compensation packages, new employment contracts and golden > parachutes propelled dozens of new deals last year allowing the > corporate jet to become a bauble for CEOs, swelling the ranks of > executives given virtually unlimited personal access. > Among companies that allow executives personal use of corporate > aircraft, 140 CEOs ran up company-paid flight time worth $50,000 or > more in 2002, up more than 50% from 2001. Of those, 40 racked up > flight costs of at least $100,000, up 33% from 2001. Virtually all had > the costs picked up at company expense. Because the perks are taxable > fringe benefits, many companies covered CEOs’ flight-related taxes, > too. > The numbers are based on a USA TODAY database analysis of all > corporate annual statements in which companies reported executives’ > use of corporate aircraft. > Corporate aircraft use easily eclipses chauffeured cars and country > club memberships as the priciest CEO perk. But critics say plane use > is more appropriate for pampered athletes and entertainers, not CEOs > already receiving multimillion-dollar compensation packages. > ”I don’t see any justification,” says Charles Elson, director of the > John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of > Delaware. ”The mindset is a real problem. Once you get into the habit > of thinking of yourself as a celebrity, you lose your humility and > ability to be self-critical. If it’s that important, rent a plane on > your own dime.” > Yet undeterred by the turbulence of Wall Street’s collapse, corporate > reforms or tougher directors, personal use of company aircraft is > becoming heavier and more widespread. In a post-Sept. 11 world, scores > of companies say flying the corporate jet — for business and pleasure > — is the only way to keep their CEOs safe. Recent warnings of fresh > attacks on commercial airlines likely will bolster similar corporate > mandates. > Though many companies cite security and safety issues, jet access is > also a way to reward executives with a perk whose true cost flies > below the radar of most shareholders and corporate watchdogs. The > Securities and Exchange Commission requires little more than a > footnote of disclosure in corporate financial filings. > Headhunters are using jets as bargaining tools, too. Aircraft brokers > such as Warren Buffett-owned NetJets and Marquis Jet Partners, which > provide jet-sharing arrangements or sell blocks of air time, are also > propelling growth by making jet sharing and leasing arrangements less > costly than paying the entire cost of an aircraft. > Who’s doing what > How CEOs are taking flight: > * Arby’s fast-food operator Triarc requires CEO Nelson Peltz to use > company aircraft for personal travel and ”encourages” similar travel > by his family. After using $1.1 million worth of jet time in 2001, > Peltz was among a handful of CEOs whose personal travel costs fell in > 2002. Even so, Triarc says Peltz used nearly $595,000 in personal > flight time last year — tops among CEOs, according to USA TODAY’s > analysis. That’s on top of the $13.6 million in 2001-02 pay and > bonuses Peltz received and a $15 million bonus due in January 2004. > Triarc’s security concerns are unclear. ”We have no comment beyond > what’s in our proxy,” says Anne Tarbell, investor relations chief. > * Utility NorthWestern, based in South Dakota, will spend $450,000 > this year for newly appointed CEO Gary Drook’s 26 round-trip flights > from Sioux Falls to his home in Naples, Fla. That’s on top of a > $565,000 salary, $600,000 signing bonus and up to $423,000 in > potential incentives for Drook, a former outside director and > Ameritech executive. > Each $17,307 trip is necessary because there are no direct Sioux > Falls-Naples flights, spokesman Roger Schrum says. Drook’s > flight-related taxes also will be covered. > RBC Capital Markets analyst Maureen Howe says the flights are lavish > for a cash-strapped utility that has suspended its dividend and faces > mounting debt. > * BMC Software, noting that CEO Robert Beauchamp’s $600,000 salary was > ”below market,” now allows limited use of company aircraft. That > cost the management systems software vendor $146,686 in 2002. > Beauchamp also received a $1.1 million bonus and stock options worth > up to $23 million. He also gained $230,000 exercising options. > Beauchamp gets 12 trips annually on BMC’s leased Cessna Citation jets. > The directors ”agreed this is something they could do,” spokesman > Arch Currid says. > * Capital Pacific Holdings, a builder, has begun allowing CEO Hadi > Makarechian 50 hours of flight time a year. Capital says the perk is > worth $105,000 annually. Capital’s rationale: Makarechian receives > nothing besides salary and bonus — a combined $652,750 last year. > Capital plans to boost Makarechian’s flight time 20% to 60 hours > annually in 2004. Unused time carries over. Capital didn’t return > calls. > * EBay began allowing CEO Meg Whitman use of the company plane and > picked up additional costs for personal charter flights last year > instead of raising her $250,000 salary. Total cost: $133,062. > Directors later approved a $90,000 bonus to cover Whitman’s taxes on > the flights. > ”It’s gotten silly,” says Paul Hodgson, a pay analyst for governance > researcher The Corporate Library. ”These are people who can’t afford > to pay for their own transportation or the taxes on it? Even if it > wasn’t about the cost, common sense appears to be lost.” > Hodgson and other critics of CEO excess still marvel at Apple > Computer, which bought a Gulfstream V for returning CEO Steve Jobs as > a ‘’special executive bonus.” Apple spent $84 million for the plane > and Jobs’ related taxes in 2001 and $3.6 million in 2002. > But many companies prohibit their planes’ use for personal travel. For > others, commercial flights are just fine. > ”We’ve got no company planes,” says Tom McKillop, CEO of > pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca. ”We use normally scheduled flights. > You’ll see me at the airport like everyone else.” > Other companies, such as apparel retailer Talbots, require CEOs to > reimburse personal travel costs. And at some companies, executives who > aren’t required to reimburse the company do it because they figure > they earn enough compensation to cover the costs. > Computer Associates requires CEO Sanjay Kumar to use corporate > aircraft under a security plan adopted in 1998. Kumar doesn’t have to > pay back his use of a Gulfstream IV, but he’s done so ever since, > including nearly $70,000 in 2002. ”To me, it was the moral and right > thing to do. I never thought otherwise,” Kumar says. > Security was a concern for some companies well before Sept. 11. > Norfolk Southern’s board first approved CEO David Goode’s use of the > company plane in the early 1990s. He has since run up annual tabs as > high as $174,000. > Coca-Cola has required Douglas Daft to use corporate aircraft for all > air travel since he was elevated to CEO in February 2000. Daft’s > travel costs have steadily increased, to $152,738 last year. > But even post-Sept. 11 justification rings hollow to some. ”I can’t > think of any reason why these people would be more at risk flying on a > commercial airline,” says compensation expert Jesse Fried, a > University of California law professor. ”Security is just camouflage > for boards to slip something of value to the CEO.” > Yet even where security isn’t the rationale, some companies contend > that any personal benefit an executive might get from flying the > corporate jet is incidental. Some companies don’t even consider such > perks a personal benefit. > Insurer American International Group, for example, discloses no costs > of aircraft, chauffeured cars, club memberships or yachts provided to > CEO Maurice Greenberg and other executives. AIG’s proxy statement says > personal benefits are a business expense that ”facilitate the > performance of management responsibilities.” > Given widespread use of the corporate jet by active CEOs, it’s not > surprising that companies are sending retirees off in style. Ed > Crutchfield left First Union with a guaranteed $27 million > supplemental pension and 120 hours of annual jet access until 2011. > Clorox’s Craig Sullivan, who ran up nearly $200,000 in > ”transportation” costs last year, is scheduled to receive $150,000 > worth of aircraft over three years after his contract ends in > December. > Measuring the cost > How much companies are spending for personal flight time isn’t clear.

… read more »

Response:

[Good to see that corporate governance and accounting reforms are making huge inroads in protecting shareholders from such theivery by CEO's and executives  - NOT!  And sorry, there is no news group called corp.executive.perks.squander.shareholder.money.travel.air news group I could post this in, so I chose RTA instead. -Ed.] http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030805/5380306s.htm Pricey perk lets executives fly high Personal use of company jets soars — just under the radar of watchdogs and shareholders By Gary Strauss USA TODAY As a rising radio industry executive in the 1990s, Jimmy de Castro quickly learned why private jets are such addictive toys for the well-heeled. ”You drive right up and get on board. You fly anywhere, whenever you want. They’re fast and comfortable,” says de Castro, now CEO of media consultant Nothing But Net. ”Once you have the opportunity, they become part of your life. They make you feel like a king.” Increasingly, companies are giving executives the royal treatment while they’re off the job, too. Post-Sept. 11 security fears, sweetened compensation packages, new employment contracts and golden parachutes propelled dozens of new deals last year allowing the corporate jet to become a bauble for CEOs, swelling the ranks of executives given virtually unlimited personal access. Among companies that allow executives personal use of corporate aircraft, 140 CEOs ran up company-paid flight time worth $50,000 or more in 2002, up more than 50% from 2001. Of those, 40 racked up flight costs of at least $100,000, up 33% from 2001. Virtually all had the costs picked up at company expense. Because the perks are taxable fringe benefits, many companies covered CEOs’ flight-related taxes, too. The numbers are based on a USA TODAY database analysis of all corporate annual statements in which companies reported executives’ use of corporate aircraft. Corporate aircraft use easily eclipses chauffeured cars and country club memberships as the priciest CEO perk. But critics say plane use is more appropriate for pampered athletes and entertainers, not CEOs already receiving multimillion-dollar compensation packages. ”I don’t see any justification,” says Charles Elson, director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. ”The mindset is a real problem. Once you get into the habit of thinking of yourself as a celebrity, you lose your humility and ability to be self-critical. If it’s that important, rent a plane on your own dime.” Yet undeterred by the turbulence of Wall Street’s collapse, corporate reforms or tougher directors, personal use of company aircraft is becoming heavier and more widespread. In a post-Sept. 11 world, scores of companies say flying the corporate jet — for business and pleasure — is the only way to keep their CEOs safe. Recent warnings of fresh attacks on commercial airlines likely will bolster similar corporate mandates. Though many companies cite security and safety issues, jet access is also a way to reward executives with a perk whose true cost flies below the radar of most shareholders and corporate watchdogs. The Securities and Exchange Commission requires little more than a footnote of disclosure in corporate financial filings. Headhunters are using jets as bargaining tools, too. Aircraft brokers such as Warren Buffett-owned NetJets and Marquis Jet Partners, which provide jet-sharing arrangements or sell blocks of air time, are also propelling growth by making jet sharing and leasing arrangements less costly than paying the entire cost of an aircraft. Who’s doing what How CEOs are taking flight: * Arby’s fast-food operator Triarc requires CEO Nelson Peltz to use company aircraft for personal travel and ”encourages” similar travel by his family. After using $1.1 million worth of jet time in 2001, Peltz was among a handful of CEOs whose personal travel costs fell in 2002. Even so, Triarc says Peltz used nearly $595,000 in personal flight time last year — tops among CEOs, according to USA TODAY’s analysis. That’s on top of the $13.6 million in 2001-02 pay and bonuses Peltz received and a $15 million bonus due in January 2004. Triarc’s security concerns are unclear. ”We have no comment beyond what’s in our proxy,” says Anne Tarbell, investor relations chief. * Utility NorthWestern, based in South Dakota, will spend $450,000 this year for newly appointed CEO Gary Drook’s 26 round-trip flights from Sioux Falls to his home in Naples, Fla. That’s on top of a $565,000 salary, $600,000 signing bonus and up to $423,000 in potential incentives for Drook, a former outside director and Ameritech executive. Each $17,307 trip is necessary because there are no direct Sioux Falls-Naples flights, spokesman Roger Schrum says. Drook’s flight-related taxes also will be covered. RBC Capital Markets analyst Maureen Howe says the flights are lavish for a cash-strapped utility that has suspended its dividend and faces mounting debt. * BMC Software, noting that CEO Robert Beauchamp’s $600,000 salary was ”below market,” now allows limited use of company aircraft. That cost the management systems software vendor $146,686 in 2002. Beauchamp also received a $1.1 million bonus and stock options worth up to $23 million. He also gained $230,000 exercising options. Beauchamp gets 12 trips annually on BMC’s leased Cessna Citation jets. The directors ”agreed this is something they could do,” spokesman Arch Currid says. * Capital Pacific Holdings, a builder, has begun allowing CEO Hadi Makarechian 50 hours of flight time a year. Capital says the perk is worth $105,000 annually. Capital’s rationale: Makarechian receives nothing besides salary and bonus — a combined $652,750 last year. Capital plans to boost Makarechian’s flight time 20% to 60 hours annually in 2004. Unused time carries over. Capital didn’t return calls. * EBay began allowing CEO Meg Whitman use of the company plane and picked up additional costs for personal charter flights last year instead of raising her $250,000 salary. Total cost: $133,062. Directors later approved a $90,000 bonus to cover Whitman’s taxes on the flights. ”It’s gotten silly,” says Paul Hodgson, a pay analyst for governance researcher The Corporate Library. ”These are people who can’t afford to pay for their own transportation or the taxes on it? Even if it wasn’t about the cost, common sense appears to be lost.” Hodgson and other critics of CEO excess still marvel at Apple Computer, which bought a Gulfstream V for returning CEO Steve Jobs as a ‘’special executive bonus.” Apple spent $84 million for the plane and Jobs’ related taxes in 2001 and $3.6 million in 2002. But many companies prohibit their planes’ use for personal travel. For others, commercial flights are just fine. ”We’ve got no company planes,” says Tom McKillop, CEO of pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca. ”We use normally scheduled flights. You’ll see me at the airport like everyone else.” Other companies, such as apparel retailer Talbots, require CEOs to reimburse personal travel costs. And at some companies, executives who aren’t required to reimburse the company do it because they figure they earn enough compensation to cover the costs. Computer Associates requires CEO Sanjay Kumar to use corporate aircraft under a security plan adopted in 1998. Kumar doesn’t have to pay back his use of a Gulfstream IV, but he’s done so ever since, including nearly $70,000 in 2002. ”To me, it was the moral and right thing to do. I never thought otherwise,” Kumar says. Security was a concern for some companies well before Sept. 11. Norfolk Southern’s board first approved CEO David Goode’s use of the company plane in the early 1990s. He has since run up annual tabs as high as $174,000. Coca-Cola has required Douglas Daft to use corporate aircraft for all air travel since he was elevated to CEO in February 2000. Daft’s travel costs have steadily increased, to $152,738 last year. But even post-Sept. 11 justification rings hollow to some. ”I can’t think of any reason why these people would be more at risk flying on a commercial airline,” says compensation expert Jesse Fried, a University of California law professor. ”Security is just camouflage for boards to slip something of value to the CEO.” Yet even where security isn’t the rationale, some companies contend that any personal benefit an executive might get from flying the corporate jet is incidental. Some companies don’t even consider such perks a personal benefit. Insurer American International Group, for example, discloses no costs of aircraft, chauffeured cars, club memberships or yachts provided to CEO Maurice Greenberg and other executives. AIG’s proxy statement says personal benefits are a business expense that ”facilitate the performance of management responsibilities.” Given widespread use of the corporate jet by active CEOs, it’s not surprising that companies are sending retirees off in style. Ed Crutchfield left First Union with a guaranteed $27 million supplemental pension and 120 hours of annual jet access until 2011. Clorox’s Craig Sullivan, who ran up nearly $200,000 in ”transportation” costs last year, is scheduled to receive $150,000 worth of aircraft over three years after his contract ends in December. Measuring the cost How much companies are spending for personal flight time isn’t clear. The SEC doesn’t require companies to disclose how much personal flight time executives take, when they are flying or what types of aircraft are used. It only requires disclosure of perks worth more than 10% of salary or those costing at least $50,000. Individual items that account for 25% or more of overall perks must be footnoted, SEC spokesman John Heine says. Yet the reported costs vastly understate capital expenses, operational costs, pilots’ wages and other flight-related prices. Companies only have to report … read more »

Response:

Question:

>The problem with FedEx is that if you ship ahead of your arrival, who will pay >the duties for the importantion of the goods ? If you carry the projector with >you, when you clear customs, you don’t have to pay since this is considered >business material for your presentation. But if shipped separately, someone >will have to pay the customs.

Not in the UK. If you declare that the items will remain in the UK for less than 90 days you can get a customs waiver. The shipping company can help to arrange this. — Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response:

>It shouldn’t matter one way or the other what it was, it shouldn’t have been >removed from the bags.  At the same time though, she should never have been >flying with those as checked bags, they should have been in a flight case >and sent FedEx with the proper insurance.

The other option is to purchase a few extra seats and have the kit stowed in the extra seats. I’ve only done this on flights to places like Lagos. — Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response:

>> both a search of every checked bag AND allow pax to lock said bags > after the search. >uhhh, no.  allowing the pax to lock the bag after the search >negates the search.  once it’s searched, the pax should never >touch the bag.  you obviously know nothing about security.

You wouldn’t want the passenger to touch the bag after it had been opened and searched. But opening the bag _in the presence_ of the passenger allows you to detain and interview the passenger if it turns out that there’s an unwanted item in the bag. It also deters the less suicidally inclined passenger from adding some anti-handling to that unwanted item. — Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response:

> And you shouldn’t have to lock your car or watch your kids, but you do, it’s > a fact of life.  Luggage theft happens, and in this case, the person is out > $8,000 because they didn’t insure it.  Plain and simple, they took a > business risk and they lost.

It isn’t a question of insurance. It is a question of reliability. If you are going to make a presentation in front of 300 delegates in a convention, and your projector is stolen, you’re in trouble. If you ship it FedEx and it is misdelivered, you’re in trouble. If you show up at airport with your own luggage, and hand it to the check-in agent, the expectation SHOULD be that the luggage will maek it to your plane without anyone stealing from it. The expectation is that you will be able to board the aircraft and deplane at your destination wthou crashing, and without some police grabbing you and forcing you to board a plane to some 3rd country where you are improsones without a trial etc. The problem with FedEx is that if you ship ahead of your arrival, who will pay the duties for the importantion of the goods ? If you carry the projector with you, when you clear customs, you don’t have to pay since this is considered business material for your presentation. But if shipped separately, someone will have to pay the customs. And if you ship UPS, it gets worse because the destination address (hotel etc) will get a nice bill from some highway robbery customs borkerage first a few weeks after the package was received. Avoid UPS at all costs for intl shipping.

Response:

> both a search of every checked bag AND allow pax to lock said bags > after the search.

uhhh, no.  allowing the pax to lock the bag after the search negates the search.  once it’s searched, the pax should never touch the bag.  you obviously know nothing about security.

Response:

> What’s the difference between a bag carrying your clothes > for the next 3 days or a locked case containing $8k worth > of equipment?  You’re putting someone on a plane going to > visit a client or make a presentation.  The person, their > clothes, and the equipment all have to get there, probably > THAT MORNING.  

lack of failure to plan on your part does not constitute a failure on the part of the airlines. i have shipped a lot of stuff by freight to arrive on or before my arrival, and it has arrived on or before me all but once out of several hundred times, waiting at the air freight "will call" dock.

Response:

> uhhh, no.  allowing the pax to lock the bag after the search > negates the search.  once it’s searched, the pax should never > touch the bag.  you obviously know nothing about security.

If the TSA employee closes the luggage, then I think it would be reasonable to allow the pax to lock it UNDER SUPERVISION. In the end, perhaps a truly radical change would be needed. Get rid of check luggage facilities. Get all PAX to go trhough security with both hand and checked luggage (with any hand inspections done there) and then you "check" your luggage at the gate. This would be a MAJOR philosophical and architectural change to airports.

Response:

> uhhh, no.  allowing the pax to lock the bag after the search > negates the search.  once it’s searched, the pax should never > touch the bag.  you obviously know nothing about security.

If, as is done elsewhere, suspect luggage is brought to the gate of the flight and passenger paged there, then at the time of hand inspection, the passenger would be considered sterile and you could allow him to handle his luggage. The problem is when you check luggage landside, the passenger is not yet sterile and thus he could still ijcet the nuclear bomb or rubber chicken into his checked luggage.

Response:

> You have a habit of summarilly dismissing complaints. > If you don’t already work for TSA then you would be a good candidate.

Au contraire. I don,t dismiss the complaint. I am merely stating that comemrcial aviation MUST be able to transport your checked luggage safely and once shouldn’t have to give up on airlines handling checked luggage safely and pay the extra (and extra hassles) of dealing with a courrier company. The solution i have suggested is that any manual inspection of luggage be done with the passenger present. That is how it is done elsewhere in te world and there is really no reason why the USA couldn’t inspire itself from more experienced airport security in europe and asia. Then again, the current thinking in the USA is that nobody in the world has the experience to deal with something that the USA has just discovered: terrorism. Had the USA swallowed its pride and consulted with various intl airport and governments, they would have benifited from decades of real airport security experience which could have intelligently been implemented in the USA. But NIH is very strong in the USA, unfortunatly.

Response:

>They really must fix the problem of theft of luggage. Whether you have an >$8000 projector or a $5 rubber chicken should not make a difference.

Your >luggage should make it through intact. Your right, it should, tell the people that have more than 20 seconds of contact with your bag then. (airlines, baggage handlers)

Response:

> It’s not clear if the item in question is a full-fledged projector > (containing it’s own light source) or an LCD screen meant to be placed > on top of a conventional overhead projector.

either way, it should have been carry-on luggage.

Response:

> That is also insane.  You’re asking such travellers to find the PDQ > frieght office of their carrier, fill out shipping forms, and then > check in their regular checked bags?  

you’ve obviously new flown with a TV production crew… > And by the way, the airlines will ABSOLUTELY not garantee that the item will > arrive on your flight on the other end.  With fewer planes flying closer to > capacity, the odds of your freight being on the same plane is worse now than > a few years ago.

actually, the odds are often better, when the only plane going there that time of day is the one you’re on. in addition, checked baggage is only insured up to a very low value.  expensive equipment is usually shipped freight so that it can be insured.  i’ve travelled with a wide variety of electronics and tools, from sound systems to video production systems, and always shipped them air freight.  it *does* require taking the time to do it right, but it’s not that unusual.

Response:

I also have a habit of not checking $8,000 worth of electronics and wondering what I’m going to do when they go missing when I need them for a meeting the next day.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->And you shouldn’t have to lock your car or watch your kids, but you do, it’s >a fact of life.  Luggage theft happens, and in this case, the person is out >$8,000 because they didn’t insure it.  Plain and simple, they took a >business risk and they lost. >Luggage doesn’t make it through intact, everybody, except you two brain >childs seems to realize that. Theft from luggage, locked or not, has been >around for decades.  Ship $8,000 of electronics in your checked bags, it’s >gonna disappear. >Every sane person knows that. >> They really must fix the problem of theft of luggage. Whether you have an >> $8000 projector or a $5 rubber chicken should not make a difference. Your >> luggage should make it through intact. > You have a habit of summarilly dismissing complaints. > If you don’t already work for TSA then you would be a good candidate.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->And you shouldn’t have to lock your car or watch your kids, but you do, it’s >a fact of life.  Luggage theft happens, and in this case, the person is out >$8,000 because they didn’t insure it.  Plain and simple, they took a >business risk and they lost. >Luggage doesn’t make it through intact, everybody, except you two brain >childs seems to realize that. Theft from luggage, locked or not, has been >around for decades.  Ship $8,000 of electronics in your checked bags, it’s >gonna disappear. >Every sane person knows that. > They really must fix the problem of theft of luggage. Whether you have an > $8000 projector or a $5 rubber chicken should not make a difference. Your > luggage should make it through intact.

You have a habit of summarilly dismissing complaints. If you don’t already work for TSA then you would be a good candidate.

Response:

> I’m saying flying with over $8,000 worth of electronics in your > checked bags is insane, as this person clearly found out. > would never have let our people do it, as it wouldn’t have been > covered for it’s loss or damage.  Use all the four letter words

What’s the difference between a bag carrying your clothes for the next 3 days or a locked case containing $8k worth of equipment?  You’re putting someone on a plane going to visit a client or make a presentation.  The person, their clothes, and the equipment all have to get there, probably THAT MORNING.   Most compaines have an insurance floater for stuff that goes missing or dammages on trips, conventions, etc.  It’s actually hard to remove something like that from typical insurance packages. > Ship it as freight or FedEx and insure it and this would > not be an issue at all, it would either have gotten there > or it would have been covered by insurance.

HA!  You think that filing an insurance claim is "no issue at all"?  You try it for $8k worth of stuff, and see how much grief you go through to get satisfaction.  And then have a look at your next insurance premium. Fedex charges 50 cents per $100 claimed.  That’s $40 for our hypothetical $8k asset.  Then factor in about $25 for over-night delivery (garanteed before 8 or 9 am) to the destination (convention center?  Hotel?  Acme?) and then fart around for a couple of hours figuring out who signed for it and what loading doc or mail room it got delivered to. > Nobody in their right mind can defend shipping that > value of merchandise, when it’s necessary to do the > job at the other end, as checked bags without any > additional insurance.

I’ve travelled several HUNDRED times over the past 5 to 10 years with a piece of equipment that has a retail value of $15k.  It’s always travelled with me as a piece of checked baggage.  Worst that’s ever happened is that it’s missed my flight but arrived on the next one.   If it’s small enough to take on as carry-on, and it can be turned on and functional enough to show the dunder heads pax screeners that it’s not a bomb, then sure, take it as carry on.  Otherwise putting in a case specifically designed for it and locking it is (was) no problem as far checked bags go. There is a whole industry that deals with travel canisters and cases for equipment and air travel.

Response:

And you shouldn’t have to lock your car or watch your kids, but you do, it’s a fact of life.  Luggage theft happens, and in this case, the person is out $8,000 because they didn’t insure it.  Plain and simple, they took a business risk and they lost. Luggage doesn’t make it through intact, everybody, except you two brain childs seems to realize that. Theft from luggage, locked or not, has been around for decades.  Ship $8,000 of electronics in your checked bags, it’s gonna disappear. Every sane person knows that.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> They really must fix the problem of theft of luggage. Whether you have an > $8000 projector or a $5 rubber chicken should not make a difference. Your > luggage should make it through intact.

Response:

> It shouldn’t matter one way or the other what it was, it shouldn’t have been > removed from the bags.

Yes, I agree with that.  Prior to 1/1/03, this would not have been an issue as the pax would have been able to lock said bag. > At the same time though, she should never have been > flying with those as checked bags,

The way checked bags are handled now, yes, she should have put the items in a carry-on. > they should have been in a flight case > and sent FedEx with the proper insurance.

I disagree with that. I have had to travel extensively with the equivalent of a desk- top computer in a checked equipment case.  It would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to send such an item to my destination and have it’s arrival coincide with my arrival. The very people that the air carriers would want to travel more- business, tech service people, sales, etc, have an inordinate interest in bag handling because those people are most likely to have to travel with unusual and expensive items.  Heck, I don’t know if it’s as prevalent as a few years ago, but I remember a lot of truck drivers that were making 1-way trips were flying, and their checked bags included tool boxes. The airlines should be more vocal and advocate for more secure handling of checked bags on behalf of their rapidly disappearing business-class demographic.

Response:

Ok, then if it wasn’t going Fedex it should have gone as freight on the same plane she was flying on.  We use to do that all the time, the equipment was in a flight case as freight, insured, and always arrived with the traveler (sometimes even before they did). Sending $8,000 worth of electronics through your checked luggage has never been a good idea, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the TSA or terrorists.  It was a bad idea on September 10th of 1991, and it’s a bad idea now. Locking the bag isn’t the issue at all, many people had things removed from locked bags in the past. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It shouldn’t matter one way or the other what it was, it shouldn’t have been > removed from the bags. > Yes, I agree with that.  Prior to 1/1/03, this would not have been an > issue as the pax would have been able to lock said bag. > At the same time though, she should never have been > flying with those as checked bags, > The way checked bags are handled now, yes, she should > have put the items in a carry-on. > they should have been in a flight case > and sent FedEx with the proper insurance. > I disagree with that. > I have had to travel extensively with the equivalent of a desk- > top computer in a checked equipment case.  It would have been > extremely difficult, if not impossible, to send such an item > to my destination and have it’s arrival coincide with my arrival. > The very people that the air carriers would want to travel more- > business, tech service people, sales, etc, have an inordinate > interest in bag handling because those people are most likely > to have to travel with unusual and expensive items.  Heck, > I don’t know if it’s as prevalent as a few years ago, but > I remember a lot of truck drivers that were making 1-way > trips were flying, and their checked bags included tool boxes. > The airlines should be more vocal and advocate for more > secure handling of checked bags on behalf of their rapidly > disappearing business-class demographic.

Response:

> Ok, then if it wasn’t going Fedex it should have gone as freight on the same > plane she was flying on.  We use to do that all the time, the equipment was > in a flight case as freight, insured, and always arrived with the traveler > (sometimes even before they did).

That is also insane.  You’re asking such travellers to find the PDQ frieght office of their carrier, fill out shipping forms, and then check in their regular checked bags?   And by the way, the airlines will ABSOLUTELY not garantee that the item will arrive on your flight on the other end.  With fewer planes flying closer to capacity, the odds of your freight being on the same plane is worse now than a few years ago. > Sending $8,000 worth of electronics through your checked luggage has never > been a good idea

Bull shit.  I’m not talking about stuff packed in cardboard boxes or in zippered bags.  Locked, hardshell cases are immune to casual theft – unless someone steals the whole case (which can happen with same likely- hood as PDQ frieght). > and that has absolutely nothing to do with the TSA or > terrorists.  It was a bad idea on September 10th of 1991, and it’s a bad > idea now.

Pu-lease stop advocating for the TSA.  They could have implimented a search-in-pax-view at all airports if they wanted.  It probably would have cost more, but it is the only logical way to accomplish both a search of every checked bag AND allow pax to lock said bags after the search. The larger issue is whether this screening is even needed.  I continue to believe the "medicine" is worse than the disease – given the complete absense of any attempt to put a bomb in a checked bag on a flight to, within, or from the US.  Even during the extreme vulnerability period from 09/11/01 to 01/01/03, there were no such attempts, even with the well publicized deadline of bag screening of 01/01/03. > Locking the bag isn’t the issue at all, many people had things removed from > locked bags in the past.

There was never a systematic opening of bags like is now occuring. Where items fall out or get shuffled into someone else’s bag, and where bags are not completely closed. This level of "man-handling" so many bags (upwards of 1/3 of all bags) has simply never happened before.  Again, stop defending TSA’s policies and proceedures.  They are wrong and un-necessary and cause more people more grief and there is no demonstrable benefit.

Response:

I’m not advocating for the TSA. Indeed, this has nothing at all to do with the TSA.   I’m saying flying with over $8,000 worth of electronics in your checked bags is insane, as this person clearly found out.  We would never have let our people do it, as it wouldn’t have been covered for it’s loss or damage.  Use all the four letter words you want, it’s stupid to put that much stuff as luggage without claiming and insuring for it. Ship it as freight or FedEx and insure it and this would not be an issue at all, it would either have gotten there or it would have been covered by insurance. Nobody in their right mind can defend shipping that value of merchandise, when it’s necessary to do the job at the other end, as checked bags without any additional insurance. And by the way, locked hardshell cases are not immune to casual theft, the locks and latches can easily be popped and the contents removed. What part of insure it is giving you difficulty? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Ok, then if it wasn’t going Fedex it should have gone as freight on the same > plane she was flying on.  We use to do that all the time, the equipment was > in a flight case as freight, insured, and always arrived with the traveler > (sometimes even before they did). > That is also insane.  You’re asking such travellers to find the PDQ > frieght office of their carrier, fill out shipping forms, and then > check in their regular checked bags? > And by the way, the airlines will ABSOLUTELY not garantee that the item will > arrive on your flight on the other end.  With fewer planes flying closer to > capacity, the odds of your freight being on the same plane is worse now than > a few years ago. > Sending $8,000 worth of electronics through your checked luggage has never > been a good idea > Bull shit.  I’m not talking about stuff packed in cardboard boxes or in > zippered bags.  Locked, hardshell cases are immune to casual theft – > unless someone steals the whole case (which can happen with same likely- > hood as PDQ frieght). > and that has absolutely nothing to do with the TSA or > terrorists.  It was a bad idea on September 10th of 1991, and it’s a bad > idea now. > Pu-lease stop advocating for the TSA.  They could have implimented > a search-in-pax-view at all airports if they wanted.  It probably > would have cost more, but it is the only logical way to accomplish > both a search of every checked bag AND allow pax to lock said bags > after the search. > The larger issue is whether this screening is even needed.  I continue > to believe the "medicine" is worse than the disease – given the complete > absense of any attempt to put a bomb in a checked bag on a flight to, > within, or from the US.  Even during the extreme vulnerability period > from 09/11/01 to 01/01/03, there were no such attempts, even with > the well publicized deadline of bag screening of 01/01/03. > Locking the bag isn’t the issue at all, many people had things removed from > locked bags in the past. > There was never a systematic opening of bags like is now occuring. > Where items fall out or get shuffled into someone else’s bag, and > where bags are not completely closed. > This level of "man-handling" so many bags (upwards of 1/3 of all > bags) has simply never happened before.  Again, stop defending > TSA’s policies and proceedures.  They are wrong and un-necessary > and cause more people more grief and there is no demonstrable > benefit.

Response:

> Ok, then if it wasn’t going Fedex it should have gone as freight on the same > plane she was flying on.

Have you checked the costs of shipping air freight on the same flighst as you ? Now, if airlines gave some sort of heavy discount of the air cargo rates for passengers (and FF points while you’re at it) perhaps it would make sense. But when you consider the hassles of air cargo (different building, often inaccessible from the airport complex normal roadways), the fact that after you arrive, you must find the air cargo building of the destination airport and go claim your cargo, and in the case of international travel, you must either arrange for customs broker or broker the customs yourself (go to cargo buildin to get some paper, then go to customs building to clear cyustoms and get another piece of paper, then go back to cargo building to claim your cargo. Sorry, but from a convenience point of view, current air cargo infrastructure is really incompatible with passenger air trafel infrastructure. They really must fix the problem of theft of luggage. Whether you have an $8000 projector or a $5 rubber chicken should not make a difference. Your luggage should make it through intact.

Response:

> It shouldn’t matter one way or the other what it was, it shouldn’t have been > removed from the bags.  At the same time though, she should never have been > flying with those as checked bags, they should have been in a flight case > and sent FedEx with the proper insurance.

What’s the point of building aircraft with a cargo belly if you can’t trust airlines to carry cargo safely ? If the luggage arrived to destination "TSA Sealed" and then there were missing items once the luggage was unsealed, then the responsability clearly falls on the TSA since the tampering would have occured prior to luggage being sealed. What’s the point of using airlines if, upon arrival, you muct queue up to an official "witness" booth where you will show your unopened luggage to an official who will witness whethger it is TSA sealed or not, and the proceed to unseal it to find out what the TSA has stolen from your luggage ? If you have not official witness and notice the loss of equipment/items from you luggage much later, then the TSA willa rgue that you could just be faking it to get some money out of them. In the end, the TSA will have to structure itself such that ANY luggage being opened must be opened in the presence of the passenger. There really is no other way around it.

Response:

> When Diane Dinkmeyer, a regional sales manager for a cosmetics company, flew > from Seattle to Spokane on United Airlines on March 12, she left her four > suitcases for curbside check-in at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. > Inside her bags were a video projector, cosmetics and expensive items she uses > in her presentations to customers.

Items like stand-alone LCD screens and LCD over-head projectors are not commonly seen in checked luggage.  My own experience is that items like that, when scanned at pax screening stations, attract more attention from the x-ray operators.  I can imagine they will also attract more attention from the baggage scanning people. It’s not clear if the item in question is a full-fledged projector (containing it’s own light source) or an LCD screen meant to be placed on top of a conventional overhead projector.

Response:

It shouldn’t matter one way or the other what it was, it shouldn’t have been removed from the bags.  At the same time though, she should never have been flying with those as checked bags, they should have been in a flight case and sent FedEx with the proper insurance. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> When Diane Dinkmeyer, a regional sales manager for a cosmetics company, flew > from Seattle to Spokane on United Airlines on March 12, she left her four > suitcases for curbside check-in at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. > Inside her bags were a video projector, cosmetics and expensive items she uses > in her presentations to customers. > Items like stand-alone LCD screens and LCD over-head projectors are > not commonly seen in checked luggage.  My own experience is that > items like that, when scanned at pax screening stations, attract > more attention from the x-ray operators.  I can imagine they will > also attract more attention from the baggage scanning people. > It’s not clear if the item in question is a full-fledged projector > (containing it’s own light source) or an LCD screen meant to be placed > on top of a conventional overhead projector.

Response:

And they wonder why people aren’t flying! This from the Seattle Times: Who pays now when bags rifled at airport? By Susan Gilmore Seattle Times staff reporter When Diane Dinkmeyer, a regional sales manager for a cosmetics company, flew from Seattle to Spokane on United Airlines on March 12, she left her four suitcases for curbside check-in at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Inside her bags were a video projector, cosmetics and expensive items she uses in her presentations to customers. But when she got to Spokane, three of her four suitcases

Question:

What is left in terms of overwater options from UK to France ? Is there still hovercraft service to Calais ? Are there any deals possible going east via eurostar to Paris and returning via hovercraft or boat ? Or is the only way purchasing two one way tickets ?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->What is left in terms of overwater options from UK to France ? >Is there still hovercraft service to Calais ? >Are there any deals possible going east via eurostar to Paris and returning >via hovercraft or boat ? Or is the only way purchasing two one way tickets ? > Do Canadian ISPs only offer one newsgroup?  It sure seems so.  Whatever, this is > not the appropriate forum to ask this question. > Take it to rec.travel.europe.  Go away, at any rate.

Its a hovercraft question, they fly, on air.. so, r.t.a,

Response:

> What is left in terms of overwater options from UK to France ?

There are about 9 sea routes: Dover – Calais Dover – Dunkerque Folkestone – Boulogne Poole – Cherbourg New Haven – Dieppe Portsmouth – Le Havre Portsmouth – Cherbourg Portsmouth – St. Malo Portsmouth – Caen There may be others. Try this page for company links: http://www.grijns.net/seatravel/ferries.html > Is there still hovercraft service to Calais ?

Is this to make the question legal in an air travel group? The hovercraft were retired at the end of 2000.  They were replaced by high speed ferries. > Are there any deals possible going east via eurostar to Paris and returning > via hovercraft or boat ? Or is the only way purchasing two one way tickets ?

You are asking if the competitors would sell reduced fare round trip tickets on each other’s services?  Not likely.

Response:

> >What is left in terms of overwater options from UK to France ? >Is there still hovercraft service to Calais ? >Are there any deals possible going east via eurostar to Paris and returning >via hovercraft or boat ? Or is the only way purchasing two one way tickets ? > Do Canadian ISPs only offer one newsgroup?  It sure seems so.  Whatever, this is > not the appropriate forum to ask this question. > Take it to rec.travel.europe.  Go away, at any rate.

Don’t hovercraft fly? And.. the poster was  a group regular.

Response:

> Is this to make the question legal in an air travel group? The > hovercraft were retired at the end of 2000.  They were replaced by high > speed ferries.

I had heard something about it but wasn’t sure (hence my question).  My nephew and his father will be disapointed. And thanks for the url of the list of ferries. Very useful.

Response:

> What is left in terms of overwater options from UK to France ?

http://www.ferrybooker.com/port_guide/ > Is there still hovercraft service to Calais ?

No, though there are still fast catamarans on the route, operated by the company that used to operate the hovercraft. > Are there any deals possible going east via eurostar to Paris and returning > via hovercraft or boat ? Or is the only way purchasing two one way tickets ?

I think the only way to do that would be to purchase two one-way tickets. Stephen — "First of all, you’re going to need a live chicken and a working knowledge of Latin…"

Response:

>> Take it to rec.travel.europe.  Go away, at any rate. >Its a hovercraft question, they fly, on air.. so, r.t.a,

The SRN6’s operated by SeaContainers (Hoverspeed) had British Aviation registries, and strobe lights!

Response:

> The SRN6’s operated by SeaContainers (Hoverspeed) had British Aviation > registries, and strobe lights!

Service ceiling, 6 inches? Matthew

Response:

>What is left in terms of overwater options from UK to France ?

As opposed to underwater? No swimming, Eurostar, Eurotunnel then! That leaves regular ferry or high-speed catamaran, and plane. >Is there still hovercraft service to Calais ?

Nope. I believe the hovercraft service might still operate from Portsmouth or Southampton to the Isle of Wight though, if you really want to go on one of those ghastly inventions. –==++AJC++==–

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>What is left in terms of overwater options from UK to France ? >As opposed to underwater? No swimming, Eurostar, Eurotunnel then! >That leaves regular ferry or high-speed catamaran, and plane. >>Is there still hovercraft service to Calais ? >Nope. I believe the hovercraft service might still operate from >Portsmouth or Southampton to the Isle of Wight though, if you really >want to go on one of those ghastly inventions. >Ghastly? Ghastly? They are great inventions. The cross channel >hovercraft was my favourite method of crossing the channel. There is >still a passenger only service from Southsea to Ryde on the Isle of >Wight.   Cowes to Southampton is just a high speed catamaran, they got >rid of their hydrofoils n hovercrafts >Dave

I was a regular passenger on the ghastly hovercraft but only because the experience was over more quickly than a ride on the ghastly ferry! Feeling sea-sick, air-sick and car-sick all at the same time just didn’t appeal to me. Now the channel tunnel, that really is a great invention –==++AJC++==–

Response:

JF Mezei  wrote >What is left in terms of overwater options from UK to France ? >Is there still hovercraft service to Calais ? >Are there any deals possible going east via eurostar to Paris and returning >via hovercraft or boat ? Or is the only way purchasing two one way tickets ?

Traditionally the surface travel options between England and France have all been encapsulated every month in the Thomas Cook European Timetable It used to be reasonably cheap to buy a single copy but this has got dearer of late. The latest one I have is October 2000 and so well out of date. Source for North America is www.forsyth.com, but I see they now charge two cents off USD 33 per copy for despatch within the US. Presumably sending to Canada costs a little more. It used to be that every travel agent (in the UK at least) was a subscriber, so it might have been possible to get last months copy from them when it had been replaced. This was not so bad as the times only changed significantly twice per year – in May and late September so that a superceded edition within the season would still be substantially accurate. It is a very useful publication if you can get hold of a copy. I used it to travel through a significant proportion of Eastern Europe in the sixties and seventies. If a train was late we could see when the next connection was due, and last minute changes of plan could be made in mid-transit knowing that the information in the timetable was accurate. Best of luck!

Response:

Question:

>I’m trying to arrange flights for a family of 4 from London to Hawaii >return. >I last did this trip in ‘95 and there were lots of deals to be had via >teletext and the bucket shops.

Forget teletext, waste of time. Try travelocity.com, ebookers.co.uk, expedia.co.uk, or ring trailfinders. you can also try farebase.net as a price guide. Pete

Response:

> I’m trying to arrange flights for a family of 4 from London to Hawaii > return. >  Are there any real bargains out there, and how do I find them? > Any advice appreciated.

The last couple of times I have flown long-haul, the best deals that I could find were from www.cooptravelcare.co.uk Their on-line search engine gives absurdly high fares, but use the feature on their web-site to get them to telephone you, and their agents (actual humans) are pretty good.  Incidentally, if you approach them by this route you get a five per cent internet discount (goodness knows why) as compared to the price you pay if you telephone them yourself (and pay for the call!). Good luck.

Response:

I’m trying to arrange flights for a family of 4 from London to Hawaii return. I last did this trip in ‘95 and there were lots of deals to be had via teletext and the bucket shops. This time I’ve been trying the Internet but they all come up with the same price. Are there any real bargains out there, and how do I find them? Any advice appreciated. Thanks David

Response:

it seems that travelocity.co.uk is showing the better fares depending utterly upon the dates you want to travel you can keep an eye on special offers at http://airtravelcenter.com/ctr.htm and do some further shopping from http://airtravelcenter.com/flyeurope.html — Air Travel Center on the web airtravelcenter.com email over the air airtravelcenter.ch voice wire 1-717-732-7222 1-800-931-7222 data wire 1-717-728-1269 snail mail 1 East Manor Avenue (rear bldg) Enola, Pa. US 17025-2822

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m trying to arrange flights for a family of 4 from London to Hawaii > return. > I last did this trip in ‘95 and there were lots of deals to be had via > teletext and the bucket shops. > This time I’ve been trying the Internet but they all come up with the > same price. > Are there any real bargains out there, and how do I find them? > Any advice appreciated. > Thanks > David

Response:

Question:

Under normal operations.  All the personnel aboard US Navy ships of the line (By that I mean titled United States Ship or U.S.S.) are military. Tech reps are sometimes brought on board if their expertise is needed, but this is not  normal situation. Some unarmed support ships owned  the Navy have civilian crews with a small military attachment.  (They are titled United States Naval Ship or U.S.N.S.) Coast Guard ships are titled United States Coast Guard Cutter or U.S.C.G.C. I apologize for being way off topic. The Gyppo Man

Response:

> Under normal operations.  All the personnel aboard US Navy ships of the > line (By that I mean titled United States Ship or U.S.S.) are military. > Tech reps are sometimes brought on board if their expertise is needed, > but this is not  normal situation.

   I’d be curious your definition of "normal".  "Ideal", maybe, but you’d be hard pressed to find an aircraft carrier or several other ships which have gone to sea in the last 10 years that didn’t have civilian contractor personell on board.  During Bush War I, there were alot of civilian personel all over the place, including ships.  It is common to call into service equipment that is still officially under "developement" when hostilities begin.  About the only folks in a position to service such equipment are the manufacturers own techs.

Response:

I beg to differ. I was in the Navy for 10 years.  Only one time did we deploy with a contractor on board.  That one time was for an experimental system under development. The Gyppo Man

Response:

> Sounds like a press release to me.

    Nah, well, the first part did.  But the second part was more in line with normal WSJ reporting.  It mentions that they are bleeding cash right now.  They are not in a position either to reduce schedules like the majors do.  They have accessed all of their credit and are negotiating delays in deliveries with Boeing.  It also mentions that there were problems keeping the employees happy prior to 9/11.  Although there has been some relief in the short term there, the old issues could return. They had to add 5 minutes or so to many of their schedules to avoid poor on time performance.  They could have to increase this again for security delays.  Basically, as they get bigger, and look to do more long hauls, they end up looking alot like their competitors and will have many of the same challenges the other long haul, large capacity, airlines have.       They’ve been successful because they didn’t directly compete with the other airlines.  As long as they can keep that up to whatever degree they can, they might continue to be abnormally successful.  It remains to be seen if they can actually accomplish that.  The peanuts and cattle atmosphere is a good bit of marketing, but their success has alot more to do with actual operations. As they get bigger, and fly more long haul, those operations will look alot like their competitors.  And their costs will be similar too.

Response:

This is for the security of this country.  I don’t have a problem with corporations for many things, but the directors are most concerned with providing a return to investors (that is the job of the board of directors).  We have seen in the past, that they will cut corners in order to improve the return.  A Federal Service for airport security is needed!  Only then will every airport have the same standards and qualified personnel.   Should the functions of the Department of Defence but contracted out to "XYZ Corporation"? Private corporations may be able t do it cheaper, but they don’t necessarily do it better! The Gyppo Man

Response:

> Should the functions of the Department of Defence but contracted out to > "XYZ Corporation"? > Private corporations may be able t do it cheaper, but they don’t > necessarily do it better!

Last I knew some DoD technical maintenance work was contracted out to companies that supply "Tech Reps".  Does anyone know what fraction of the people aboard an aircraft carrier are civilian Tech Reps?

Response:

> Sounds like a press release to me.

that’s what the other airlines are hoping

Response:

I find it interesting that the market values Southwest as a bit over half of the total value of all US airlines. They are worth almost 4 times the worth of American or Delta and ten times the worth of Continental. Frank Matthews – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Sounds like a press release to me. > that’s what the other airlines are hoping

Response:

Sounds like a press release to me. MV – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Southwest Again Tries to Spread Its Wings > And Move In on Crippled Rivals’ Airspace > The Wall Street Journal > DALLAS — The tireless maverick of the airline industry is poised to pounce > again. > Southwest Airlines , which has consistently pursued strategies shunned by > competitors in its 30-year history, is once more heading away from the pack. > Its actions during the coming weeks could reshape competition in the skies > for years. > The terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 shut down all airlines for two days. To > stay afloat amid slack demand when they reopened, Southwest’s cash-strapped > rivals grounded planes and slashed their flight schedules and work forces. > Southwest is keeping all its workers and flying a full schedule. On Sunday, > it even went ahead with the previously scheduled opening of a new > destination, adding Norfolk, Va., to its routes. Low-fare, low-cost > Southwest is the nation’s most profitable airline and the only major carrier > analysts expect to be profitable this year. It has lots of cash, little debt > and a simple strategy. As rivals shrink, Southwest is looking to grab market > share — and maybe even acquire idled airplanes — betting it can win over > customers just as it has done at key moments for the industry during the > past 10 years.

<snip>

Response:

Southwest Again Tries to Spread Its Wings And Move In on Crippled Rivals’ Airspace The Wall Street Journal DALLAS — The tireless maverick of the airline industry is poised to pounce again. Southwest Airlines , which has consistently pursued strategies shunned by competitors in its 30-year history, is once more heading away from the pack. Its actions during the coming weeks could reshape competition in the skies for years. The terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 shut down all airlines for two days. To stay afloat amid slack demand when they reopened, Southwest’s cash-strapped rivals grounded planes and slashed their flight schedules and work forces. Southwest is keeping all its workers and flying a full schedule. On Sunday, it even went ahead with the previously scheduled opening of a new destination, adding Norfolk, Va., to its routes. Low-fare, low-cost Southwest is the nation’s most profitable airline and the only major carrier analysts expect to be profitable this year. It has lots of cash, little debt and a simple strategy. As rivals shrink, Southwest is looking to grab market share — and maybe even acquire idled airplanes — betting it can win over customers just as it has done at key moments for the industry during the past 10 years. "They’re doing what they do best, which is to shine in the hours of trouble," says Mo Garfinkle, president of GCW Consulting, an aviation consulting firm in Washington. "This, to me, is not a gamble. This is a very shrewd strategic move." Even if they are concerned about Southwest’s moves, other airlines have said repeatedly during the past few weeks that their focus is on keeping their companies afloat. "The losses we face are truly staggering. They exceed anything we ever imagined at American," said Donald J. Carty, chairman and chief executive of AMR Corp., American Airlines’ parent. "Right now, it is survival, not profitability, that is our core challenge." For consumers, Southwest’s strategy could have far-reaching impact, affecting fares and service from short hops to transcontinental routes. It’s a strategy likely to appear throughout the struggling economy as strong opportunists move onto the turf of weakened rivals. Southwest is the nation’s seventh-largest airline based on annual revenue passenger miles, or traffic, which is measured as a paying passenger flown one mile. Last year, its share of traffic among the nine major U.S. airlines was 6.6%, while it generated 90% of the country’s low-fare competition, according to the Department of Transportation. It could emerge from the industry’s troubles bigger and stronger. It probably will expand into more long-haul markets, even bringing lower business fares to transcontinental service. And after several years of focusing all its growth on the East Coast, Southwest may bulk up on the West Coast as UAL Corp.’s United Airlines shrinks there. The airline is placing a big bet that the climate for air travel will rebound in the coming months, even as its rivals plan for a long downturn. Although it has a huge war chest of cash on hand, Southwest is bleeding cash to keep flying while others cut back. The Dallas-based airline started flying in June 1971, focusing on short hauls within Texas. It began interstate flights in 1979 and now serves 58 cities in 30 states, often targeting alternative, less-congested airports. Southwest’s profit formula relies on keeping costs low — it skimps on meals, for instance — and squeezing the maximum profit out of its aircraft use. It does this mainly by unloading and loading planes in just 20 minutes and focusing on short-haul flights. Both tactics help Southwest get more planes, and passengers, off the ground each day. In 1990, Southwest rapidly expanded in California when US Airways Group Inc., which had bought Pacific Southwest Airlines, pulled back. In November of that year, Southwest quickly grabbed precious territory in Chicago after Midway Airlines folded. When sagging demand and rising fuel prices forced big airlines to retrench after the Persian Gulf War, Southwest expanded rapidly to fill the void, bulking up in Nashville and San Jose, Calif., after American Airlines closed hubs there, for example. Southwest launched its East Coast campaign in Baltimore in September 1993 when it thought, mistakenly, that US Air was going to close its hub there. Today, as financially strapped competitors eliminate their least-profitable routes, they are already reducing flights in places where they compete most heavily with Southwest. UAL said it will pull the plug on its Shuttle by United on the West Coast. The service overlaps with Southwest in markets such as Las Vegas, Los Angeles and Oakland. US Air is eliminating its MetroJet subsidiary on the East Coast, which overlaps with Southwest’s service in cities such as Providence, R.I., and Baltimore, one of Southwest’s fastest-growing cities. US Air is also eliminating 51 of its 75 mainline jet routes from Baltimore, including all nonstop flights to Florida. Delta Air Lines is cutting Delta Express in half. The service overlaps with Southwest in markets such as Orlando and Tampa, Fla., and Hartford, Conn. Altogether, those three operations overlap on about 10% of Southwest’s routes. Southwest itself has put a temporary freeze on growth for the rest of this year and is negotiating with Boeing Co. to defer delivery of 11 new 737 jets scheduled to come off the assembly line by Dec. 31. Southwest has tried to cut costs to ensure that losses in the current climate don’t get out of hand, following the example of other airlines by cutting travel-agency commissions to 5% from 8%, for example. At the same time, as other airlines ground Boeing 737 airplanes, Southwest says it will study whether to grab some of those jets and, perhaps as early as January, resume expansion in its fleet of 358 737s in service. The carrier is now looking at whether to shift flights to add capacity in certain markets, depending on moves competitors make, says Chief Financial Officer Gary Kelly. "The fact of the matter is we can be patient and we should be patient," Mr. Kelly says. "We’re in the mode where we are thinking very tactically." Southwest has already reduced flights in certain markets to provide for additional service in others, moves it made to satisfy scheduling changes planned before Sept. 11, such as the opening of Norfolk. The airline had expected some of the added flights to be serviced with the Boeing jets it still hasn’t taken delivery of. Despite Southwest’s financial muscle, its ambitions involve substantial risks. In 2000, the airline posted its 28th consecutive year of profitability and its ninth consecutive year of increased profits. Net income rose 31.8% from a year earlier to $625.2 million and revenue rose 19.2% to $5.65 billion. It had $1.5 billion in cash on hand early last week, and the lowest debt level by far in the industry. But to back its bet on a rebound in air travel, Southwest tapped its full $475 million line of credit the day after the attacks. At that time, the company was losing $3 million to $4 million a day. Mr. Kelly says the losses have narrowed since then, but he won’t specify by how much. Southwest is still primarily a short-hop airline. About 85% of its flights are less than two hours, or 750 miles, for example. If security precautions slow travelers down in terminals, driving might prove to be faster than flying for many customers. Southwest has long said its biggest competition was the automobile. And its gambit comes at a time when the airline was already grappling with a lot of changes. In June, the carrier’s chairman and chief executive, Herbert D. Kelleher, stepped down as CEO to assume a more limited role, putting Jim Parker, previously the company lawyer, in the breach as the new CEO. Mr. Parker took over an airline that was running into many of the same problems afflicting other big carriers: delays and operational snafus, labor strife, escalating costs, higher fares and questions about management. Some veteran workers had been grumbling about staffing shortages, increased workloads and a breakdown in the company’s close-knit, familial culture, which Southwest admitted it was finding harder and harder to maintain as its work force grew. Some employees who in the past agreed to lower wages to help the cause of the underdog had begun to demand "big-airline" pay. Pilots had been gearing up for a showdown. Ramp workers went through federal mediation earlier in the year. All that has changed since Sept. 11. Workers are pitching in as before with voluntary payroll give-backs and cost-saving ideas. Some are donating a portion of their profit-sharing. Others are signing over federal tax refund checks to the airline. Management has built up goodwill with unions by avoiding layoffs. Staff shortages that looked like problems in August now seem prudent in the current climate. Moves to revamp operations, adding five minutes here and there to the schedule in order to improve on-time performance, now are paying rich dividends as the airline deals with time-consuming security procedures required at airports. "What may have seemed like really big issues a month ago maybe aren’t quite the big issues now," says Gary Shults, president of the transport workers union local 555, which represents about 5,300 ramp workers and other employees. Mr. Shults, a 21-year veteran at Southwest, also notes what many airline analysts have recalled: "When it gets bad everywhere else, it’s good here." In the early 1990s, when jet-fuel prices soared and the economy sank into recession, penny-pinching travelers turned to low-fare Southwest, and growth at the carrier continued. Much of the growth resulted from new opportunities, even in turbulent times. When Midway Airlines announced at midnight on Nov. 13, 1990, that it was out of cash and closing its doors, a Southwest team of lawyers, led by Mr. Parker, was already in place in … read more »

Response:

Question:

Thank you all.

Response:

> Aeroplan cards, but didn’t Royal have something to do with the eventual fall > of CP?

Yep, they were part of the decision to give Kevin Benson a mandate to throw in the towel and seek a merger with AC back in december of 1998.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I know our Canadian posters have mention deals through their banks > connected to AC and then-CP before, so I wanted to see what I can > expect. > When Royal Bank wanted to merge with Bank of Montreal, it was because > BMO has > Harris bank in the USA and Royal has nothing. When the merger was > blocked by > the government, it was to be expected that Royal would be shopping for > a US bank. > Expect your bank to remain your bank. Banking rules make it very > difficult for > a bank to operate as a single entity globally. > Royal Bank used to have affinity with Canadian Airlines with its > credit card. > But it has lost all of that is has no credible FF plan with its > products in > Canada.  But your Bank will most probably retain whatever > relationships and > programmes/products it has in the USA. > The area likely to change is the commercial banking side.

Trivia: The Royal Bank held the line of credit for Odyssey International when they went under. Whether they played hardball when it came to extending the line of credit is anyones guess. Scotty

Response:

> so I wanted to see what I can > expect.

Expect the same as you’d get at any other bank in your region.  Haven’t you noticed how similar services and prices are from one bank to another?  They’re just like American airlines in that respect: differences exist, but they even out over the long run.  All crap is brown. There.  Now we’re back on topic. BTW, anybody ever try Kuwait Air?  Their business class is like everybody else’s first class.

Response:

In Canada, I use Royal as my primary bank (the US is handled by the dreadful PNC), and while I’m not thrilled with it, I have no major complaints, either.  I pay a decent amount for my crappy chequing account (3.95CDN/mo), and with it I get a large ATM network, and moderate lines when I pay my tuition bill every month (I can’t do it at the ATM, since I have to transfer money from my USD to CDN account, and then pay from there… CDN is just petty cash, the ‘big money’ stays in greenbacks).  My branch is pretty nice.. they did some documentation work free of charge when I told them it was for immigration.  As far as air travel is concerned, CIBC runs the Aeroplan cards, but didn’t Royal have something to do with the eventual fall of CP? Matthew – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Our local newspaper on Saturday reported that my bank (Centura) is being > bought by the Royal Bank of Canada. RBC wishes to branch into the U.S. > market. > I know our Canadian posters have mention deals through their banks > connected to AC and then-CP before, so I wanted to see what I can > expect.

Response:

> I know our Canadian posters have mention deals through their banks > connected to AC and then-CP before, so I wanted to see what I can > expect.

When Royal Bank wanted to merge with Bank of Montreal, it was because BMO has Harris bank in the USA and Royal has nothing. When the merger was blocked by the government, it was to be expected that Royal would be shopping for a US bank. Expect your bank to remain your bank. Banking rules make it very difficult for a bank to operate as a single entity globally. Royal Bank used to have affinity with Canadian Airlines with its credit card. But it has lost all of that is has no credible FF plan with its products in Canada.  But your Bank will most probably retain whatever relationships and programmes/products it has in the USA. The area likely to change is the commercial banking side.

Response:

Our local newspaper on Saturday reported that my bank (Centura) is being bought by the Royal Bank of Canada. RBC wishes to branch into the U.S. market. I know our Canadian posters have mention deals through their banks connected to AC and then-CP before, so I wanted to see what I can expect.

Response:

Question:

Hi, I am glad your recent posts have taken on a less abusive and abrasive tone. I am sure we all appreciate this. What did you do to Greg, he seems to have disappeared. Did you intimidate/emasculate him into obscurity? Well, have a nice day and be sure to practice safe flying. Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

>Hi, I am glad your recent posts have taken on a less abusive and abrasive >tone. I am sure we all appreciate this. What did you do to Greg, he seems to >have disappeared. Did you intimidate/emasculate him into obscurity? Well, >have a nice day and be sure to practice safe flying.

I am sure someone had a word with Sheryl about the tons of abuse she regularly heaped on unsuspecting posters.  Either someone from her work (a boss perhaps?) or one of the extremely few "friends" she has online (asshole-lickers like Bill Candee). Sheryl is under the impression that the more she abuses other people, the more "effective" she is as a person, as a communicator, as an employee, as an airline or airfare "expert" etc. This is the syndrome of The Bitch that we are all so familiar with. These are usually highly masculinized women, with very aggressive and macho traits and personalities, often butcher and manlier than even regular men.  At work they constantly abuse the other employees, often seeing them as "wimps" because they are not as aggressive and competitive as they are.  They  tend to perceive themselves as "go getters", and they see nothing wrong with abusing others.  To them, all the other employees are incompetent and "losers". Usually everybody hates them, except the boss, who sees in them someone who can run the office while he’s out, and thus can afford to take more time off and not worry about it because the office is in good hands with The Bitch.  She is ruthless and she takes "no crap" from others.  She will whip them into shape.  She is The Terminator. The problem outside of work with these bitches is evident with Sheryl. Because of their rough and ruthless characteristics, they have no friends, no mate, and their families have usually deserted them. Since they have no husband (they emasculate every man they come in contact with) and no children, they come home to an empty house, so they sit in front of the computer, go to their chosen newsgroups or chatroom, and proceed to abuse the participants there the same way they do their co-workers back at the office. The problem with that is that The Bitch here is outside her territory. In the office, the other employees have to put up with them or possibly loser their jobs.  But here nobody has to, and that’s why you see the kind of backlash we saw in the recent past against Sheryl. The Bitch might be attractice to one person only, her boss, who tolerates her only because she does most of his work for him, but the rest of the world clearly sees The Bitch for what she is:  a sad, lonely, pathetic figure who has no communication and interpersonal skills, no connection with human beings, no love life, no sex life, no mate, no children, no family, and is totally powerless outside the office.  One who must abuse others in order to hide her deep-rooted personal insecurities and the enormous short-comings in her personal life. This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unlogged.  The address shown in the From header, if any, is unverified and maybe wrong.        - Widow Anonymous Remailer –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Hi, I am glad your recent posts have taken on a less abusive and abrasive >tone. I am sure we all appreciate this. What did you do to Greg, he seems to >have disappeared. Did you intimidate/emasculate him into obscurity? Well, >have a nice day and be sure to practice safe flying. > I am sure someone had a word with Sheryl about the tons of abuse she > regularly heaped on unsuspecting posters.  Either someone from her > work (a boss perhaps?) or one of the extremely few "friends" she has > online (asshole-lickers like Bill Candee). > Sheryl is under the impression that the more she abuses other people, > the more "effective" she is as a person, as a communicator, as an > employee, as an airline or airfare "expert" etc. > This is the syndrome of The Bitch that we are all so familiar with. > These are usually highly masculinized women, with very aggressive and > macho traits and personalities, often butcher and manlier than even > regular men.  At work they constantly abuse the other employees, often > seeing them as "wimps" because they are not as aggressive and > competitive as they are.  They  tend to perceive themselves as "go > getters", and they see nothing wrong with abusing others.  To them, > all the other employees are incompetent and "losers". > Usually everybody hates them, except the boss, who sees in them > someone who can run the office while he’s out, and thus can afford to > take more time off and not worry about it because the office is in > good hands with The Bitch.  She is ruthless and she takes "no crap" > from others.  She will whip them into shape.  She is The Terminator. > The problem outside of work with these bitches is evident with Sheryl. > Because of their rough and ruthless characteristics, they have no > friends, no mate, and their families have usually deserted them. > Since they have no husband (they emasculate every man they come in > contact with) and no children, they come home to an empty house, so > they sit in front of the computer, go to their chosen newsgroups or > chatroom, and proceed to abuse the participants there the same way > they do their co-workers back at the office. > The problem with that is that The Bitch here is outside her territory. > In the office, the other employees have to put up with them or > possibly loser their jobs.  But here nobody has to, and that’s why you > see the kind of backlash we saw in the recent past against Sheryl. > The Bitch might be attractice to one person only, her boss, who > tolerates her only because she does most of his work for him, but the > rest of the world clearly sees The Bitch for what she is:  a sad, > lonely, pathetic figure who has no communication and interpersonal > skills, no connection with human beings, no love life, no sex life, no > mate, no children, no family, and is totally powerless outside the > office.  One who must abuse others in order to hide her deep-rooted > personal insecurities and the enormous short-comings in her personal > life.

Aw, don’t blame her for it, she’s just doing what society is telling her to do. Used to be a time when being a bitch was a bad thing.  Now it’s encouraged.  It’s all the feminists’ fault, of course.  Every woman’s book and magazine tells women how to a bitch (as if they needed help, ha ha), some step by step.  And they hold it up as the model to aspire to if they want success in life, in their careers, etc.  Being a bitch is now applauded, desired, aspired to, practiced to perfection.  Every woman I work with is a bitch, and proud of it, and getting bitchier with every day that goes by.  It is now the goal for most women.  Most feel they have to do it to get ahead, to compete in a man’s world.  It’s funny, I’ve never met a man who’s a bitch. And if you want to see who the bitch-goddesses they look up to for guidance and to model themselves after are, just watch The View any weekday morning on ABC and you’ll understand.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Hi, I am glad your recent posts have taken on a less abusive and abrasive > >tone. I am sure we all appreciate this. What did you do to Greg, he seems to > >have disappeared. Did you intimidate/emasculate him into obscurity? Well, > >have a nice day and be sure to practice safe flying. > I am sure someone had a word with Sheryl about the tons of abuse she > regularly heaped on unsuspecting posters.  Either someone from her > work (a boss perhaps?) or one of the extremely few "friends" she has > online (asshole-lickers like Bill Candee). > Sheryl is under the impression that the more she abuses other people, > the more "effective" she is as a person, as a communicator, as an > employee, as an airline or airfare "expert" etc. > This is the syndrome of The Bitch that we are all so familiar with. > These are usually highly masculinized women, with very aggressive and > macho traits and personalities, often butcher and manlier than even > regular men.  At work they constantly abuse the other employees, often > seeing them as "wimps" because they are not as aggressive and > competitive as they are.  They  tend to perceive themselves as "go > getters", and they see nothing wrong with abusing others.  To them, > all the other employees are incompetent and "losers". > Usually everybody hates them, except the boss, who sees in them > someone who can run the office while he’s out, and thus can afford to > take more time off and not worry about it because the office is in > good hands with The Bitch.  She is ruthless and she takes "no crap" > from others.  She will whip them into shape.  She is The Terminator. > The problem outside of work with these bitches is evident with Sheryl. > Because of their rough and ruthless characteristics, they have no > friends, no mate, and their families have usually deserted them. > Since they have no husband (they emasculate every man they come in > contact with) and no children, they come home to an empty house, so > they sit in front of the computer, go to their chosen newsgroups or > chatroom, and proceed to abuse the participants there the same way > they do their co-workers back at the office. > The problem with that is that The Bitch here is outside her territory. > In the office, the other employees have to put up with them or > possibly loser their jobs.  But here nobody has to, and that’s why you > see the kind of backlash we saw in the recent past against Sheryl. > The Bitch might be attractice to one person only, her boss, who > tolerates her only because she does most of his work for him, but the > rest of the world clearly sees The Bitch for what she is:  a sad, > lonely, pathetic figure who has no communication and interpersonal > skills, no connection with human beings, no love life, no sex life, no > mate, no children, no family, and is totally powerless outside the > office.  One who must abuse others in order to hide her deep-rooted > personal insecurities and the enormous short-comings in her personal > life. > Aw, don’t blame her for it, she’s just doing what society is telling her > to do. > Used to be a time when being a bitch was a bad thing.  Now it’s > encouraged.  It’s all the feminists’ fault, of course.  Every woman’s > book and magazine tells women how to a bitch (as if they needed help, ha > ha), some step by step.  And they hold it up as the model to aspire to > if they want success in life, in their careers, etc.  Being a bitch is > now applauded, desired, aspired to, practiced to perfection.  Every > woman I work with is a bitch, and proud of it, and getting bitchier with > every day that goes by.  It is now the goal for most women.  Most feel > they have to do it to get ahead, to compete in a man’s world.  It’s > funny, I’ve never met a man who’s a bitch. > And if you want to see who the bitch-goddesses they look up to for > guidance and to model themselves after are, just watch The View any > weekday morning on ABC and you’ll understand.

Oh christ why the hell did you have to ruin my day by mentioning those bitches? Just when I thought things couldn’t get any worse than Caryl and Marylin "Real Friends", along comes Mama Bitch and her Bitchettes on The View. Well, at least Meredith Vieira flashes us once in a while and wakes us out of our bitch-induced stupor.  Star Jones, honey, you broke the Bitch-o-Meter.  And Joy, you need to stop masturbating so much.  You’ve got sticky hair from running your fingers through it all the time.  Poor Lisa Ling, having to hang out with those old washed up cunts. Lisa, honey, be ready…just remember what they did to Debbie Matenoupolous. Could happen to you any day without warning.  Just don’t cross Bitchawa Wawa, or you’re gonna find out real fast the feeling of your skinny butt hitting the sidewalk pavement outside ABC studios.

Response:

Snarks, YOU should read this! Razz – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > >Hi, I am glad your recent posts have taken on a less abusive and > abrasive > > >tone. I am sure we all appreciate this. What did you do to Greg, he > seems to > > >have disappeared. Did you intimidate/emasculate him into obscurity? > Well, > > >have a nice day and be sure to practice safe flying. > > I am sure someone had a word with Sheryl about the tons of abuse she > > regularly heaped on unsuspecting posters.  Either someone from her > > work (a boss perhaps?) or one of the extremely few "friends" she has > > online (asshole-lickers like Bill Candee). > > Sheryl is under the impression that the more she abuses other people, > > the more "effective" she is as a person, as a communicator, as an > > employee, as an airline or airfare "expert" etc. > > This is the syndrome of The Bitch that we are all so familiar with. > > These are usually highly masculinized women, with very aggressive and > > macho traits and personalities, often butcher and manlier than even > > regular men.  At work they constantly abuse the other employees, often > > seeing them as "wimps" because they are not as aggressive and > > competitive as they are.  They  tend to perceive themselves as "go > > getters", and they see nothing wrong with abusing others.  To them, > > all the other employees are incompetent and "losers". > > Usually everybody hates them, except the boss, who sees in them > > someone who can run the office while he’s out, and thus can afford to > > take more time off and not worry about it because the office is in > > good hands with The Bitch.  She is ruthless and she takes "no crap" > > from others.  She will whip them into shape.  She is The Terminator. > > The problem outside of work with these bitches is evident with Sheryl. > > Because of their rough and ruthless characteristics, they have no > > friends, no mate, and their families have usually deserted them. > > Since they have no husband (they emasculate every man they come in > > contact with) and no children, they come home to an empty house, so > > they sit in front of the computer, go to their chosen newsgroups or > > chatroom, and proceed to abuse the participants there the same way > > they do their co-workers back at the office. > > The problem with that is that The Bitch here is outside her territory. > > In the office, the other employees have to put up with them or > > possibly loser their jobs.  But here nobody has to, and that’s why you > > see the kind of backlash we saw in the recent past against Sheryl. > > The Bitch might be attractice to one person only, her boss, who > > tolerates her only because she does most of his work for him, but the > > rest of the world clearly sees The Bitch for what she is:  a sad, > > lonely, pathetic figure who has no communication and interpersonal > > skills, no connection with human beings, no love life, no sex life, no > > mate, no children, no family, and is totally powerless outside the > > office.  One who must abuse others in order to hide her deep-rooted > > personal insecurities and the enormous short-comings in her personal > > life. > Aw, don’t blame her for it, she’s just doing what society is telling her > to do. > Used to be a time when being a bitch was a bad thing.  Now it’s > encouraged.  It’s all the feminists’ fault, of course.  Every woman’s > book and magazine tells women how to a bitch (as if they needed help, ha > ha), some step by step.  And they hold it up as the model to aspire to > if they want success in life, in their careers, etc.  Being a bitch is > now applauded, desired, aspired to, practiced to perfection.  Every > woman I work with is a bitch, and proud of it, and getting bitchier with > every day that goes by.  It is now the goal for most women.  Most feel > they have to do it to get ahead, to compete in a man’s world.  It’s > funny, I’ve never met a man who’s a bitch. > And if you want to see who the bitch-goddesses they look up to for > guidance and to model themselves after are, just watch The View any > weekday morning on ABC and you’ll understand. > Oh christ why the hell did you have to ruin my day by mentioning those > bitches? > Just when I thought things couldn’t get any worse than Caryl and Marylin > "Real Friends", along comes Mama Bitch and her Bitchettes on The View. > Well, at least Meredith Vieira flashes us once in a while and wakes us out > of our bitch-induced stupor.  Star Jones, honey, you broke the > Bitch-o-Meter.  And Joy, you need to stop masturbating so much.  You’ve got > sticky hair from running your fingers through it all the time.  Poor Lisa > Ling, having to hang out with those old washed up cunts. > Lisa, honey, be ready…just remember what they did to Debbie Matenoupolous. > Could happen to you any day without warning.  Just don’t cross Bitchawa > Wawa, or you’re gonna find out real fast the feeling of your skinny butt > hitting the sidewalk pavement outside ABC studios.

Response:

Which one of you gossip idiots is responsible for cross-posting your inane prattle to alt.obits? Christ, it’s like being back in 5th grade. If, however, any of you have died or are dying, please do let us know. We could use a little cheering up over here. Zachariah Love, Commissioner The Lee Atwater Invitational Dead Pool http://stiffs.com "If you build it, they will die."

Response:

> Which one of you gossip idiots is responsible for cross-posting your > inane prattle to alt.obits? Christ, it’s like being back in 5th grade. > If, however, any of you have died or are dying, please do let us know. > We could use a little cheering up over here. > Zachariah Love, Commissioner > The Lee Atwater Invitational Dead Pool > http://stiffs.com > "If you build it, they will die."

Your brain cells have evidently died already, my ghoulish friend. If you had taken the trouble to read the offending article, you would realise its likely origin is rec.travel.air. I responded to it because we in ASG aren’t as xenophobic and precious as your death-obsessed little group and we actually welcome cross-fertilisation. After all, that’s the Net ’s purpose, isn’t it? Razz

Response:

Speaking as an outside observer – I find it interesting that there are so many people ready to jump all over Sheryl.  Maybe I’ve missed the notes, but I have YET to see anything from Sheryl that’s as verbally abusive as the crap fired at her daily in this newsgroup.  Reminds me on that ever popular grade school practice of ganging up on one person for your own edification.  Come on!  Don’t you have anything useful to contribute to this group? What say you all grow up and be nice for a change?  As far as I know, this newsgroup deals with air travel, not verbal abuse.  I’m sure there’s a newsgroup out there somewhere that’s just for that purpose. Sheesh!

Response:

> > Which one of you gossip idiots is responsible for cross-posting your > inane prattle to alt.obits? Christ, it’s like being back in 5th grade. > If, however, any of you have died or are dying, please do let us know. > We could use a little cheering up over here. > I responded to it because we in ASG aren’t as xenophobic and precious as your > death-obsessed little group and we actually welcome cross-fertilisation. After all, > that’s the Net ’s purpose, isn’t it?

I have no idea what the original article is that elicited Zach’s comment, but your response definitely bespeaks misunderstanding.  If people wanted massive amounts of information unrelated to their interests, there is no shortage of it on the net.  People who partake of a select few newsgroups do so specifically to avoid "noise," what you call cross-fertilization. I’ve taken the liberty of deleting the following groups from the header as even though I don’t know what the original subject is, I just have a hunch that they were even less interested. misc.invest.stocks, houston.eats, I hope this provides you with a small amount of understanding. Have a nice day. Jim Geary jaygee at primenet dot com http://www.primenet.com/~jaygee/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > Which one of you gossip idiots is responsible for cross-posting your > > > inane prattle to alt.obits? Christ, it’s like being back in 5th grade. > > > If, however, any of you have died or are dying, please do let us know. > > > We could use a little cheering up over here. > > I responded to it because we in ASG aren’t as xenophobic and precious as your > > death-obsessed little group and we actually welcome cross-fertilisation. After > > all, that’s the Net ’s purpose, isn’t it? > I have no idea what the original article is that elicited Zach’s comment, > but your response definitely bespeaks misunderstanding.  If people wanted > massive amounts of information unrelated to their interests, there is no > shortage of it on the net.  People who partake of a select few newsgroups > do so specifically to avoid "noise," what you call cross-fertilization. >Point taken, Jim, but the original poster clearly posted to these groups >for some purpose. What that purpose was, I have no idea, but he >evidently thought it would be of interest and provoke a response from one >or another of those groups. I don’t believe that is ‘noise’, merely an >attempt to widen the discussion for whatever reason. I believe that is >appropriate Net behaviour.

  The "Net" is not here for "widening horizons".  That’s individual decision, I believe, and not the sole purpose of some intangible entity we call the Internet.  Anyhow, the original poster had a purpose to cross-post across Usenet, I’m sure, but the intent might not have been as innocent or valid as you say.  You have heard of people cross-posting just to irritate, or out of irresponsibility, haven’t you?  Many ISPs limit posts that have been cross-posted excessively, and there’s a reason for that. Check out some Usenet etiquette faq for more details. Posted from alt.obituaries.    Stacia  *  The Avocado Avenger  *  Life is a tale told by an idiot;      http://www.io.com/~stacia/    *      Full of sound and fury,

Response:

>I find it interesting that there are so many people ready to jump all over >Sheryl.  Maybe I’ve missed the notes, but I have YET to see anything from >Sheryl that’s as verbally abusive as the crap fired at her daily in this >newsgroup.

I agree. Most of the people complaining don’t have sh*t to say here worthwhile anyway.         -Kenny — Kenneth R. Crudup, Unix Software Consultant, Scott County Consulting Home1: 8051 Newell St. #914     Silver Spring, MD 20910-0914    (301) 562-1922 Home2: 5355 Farwell Pl. #242    Fremont, CA 94536-7222          (510) 794-8040 Work:  19410 Homestead Road     Cupertino, CA 95014             (408) 447-6654

Response:

. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Speaking as an outside observer – >I find it interesting that there are so many people ready to jump all over >Sheryl.  Maybe I’ve missed the notes, but I have YET to see anything from >Sheryl that’s as verbally abusive as the crap fired at her daily in this >newsgroup.  Reminds me on that ever popular grade school practice of ganging >up on one person for your own edification.  Come on!  Don’t you have >anything useful to contribute to this group? >What say you all grow up and be nice for a change?  As far as I know, this >newsgroup deals with air travel, not verbal abuse.  I’m sure there’s a >newsgroup out there somewhere that’s just for that purpose. Sheesh! > And speaking of bitches, you’ve now become more annoying than a > genital herpes flareup in mid-summer. > Is it necessary for you to follow up to every post that you do not > approve of with your morality lessons? > If your job at Northwest Airlines is boring and you do not have enough > work to keep you busy and you have to come on here and start lecturing > people, perhaps I should start forwarding your silly little rants to > nwa.com and have them see why you have so much free time at work to be > spamming the groups with your bitch temper tantrums. > Your bitch rants have now become as annoying as Sheryl’s. > Why don’t you practice some Kegel exercises next time you’re bored and > STAY THE HELL OFF THE NEWSGROUP IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE POSTS, BITCH!!!

  Why is that?  Damn, a bitch should like it here with all the whiners and bitching here.   BTW, Taming the Bitch got his name when I nipple clamped him and played "beg for Master"  with him. HammNot Spam

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > >Hi, I am glad your recent posts have taken on a less abusive and > abrasive > > >tone. I am sure we all appreciate this. What did you do to Greg, he > seems to > > >have disappeared. Did you intimidate/emasculate him into obscurity? > Well, > > >have a nice day and be sure to practice safe flying. > > I am sure someone had a word with Sheryl about the tons of abuse she > > regularly heaped on unsuspecting posters.  Either someone from her > > work (a boss perhaps?) or one of the extremely few "friends" she has > > online (asshole-lickers like Bill Candee). > > Sheryl is under the impression that the more she abuses other people, > > the more "effective" she is as a person, as a communicator, as an > > employee, as an airline or airfare "expert" etc. > > This is the syndrome of The Bitch that we are all so familiar with. > > These are usually highly masculinized women, with very aggressive and > > macho traits and personalities, often butcher and manlier than even > > regular men.  At work they constantly abuse the other employees, often > > seeing them as "wimps" because they are not as aggressive and > > competitive as they are.  They  tend to perceive themselves as "go > > getters", and they see nothing wrong with abusing others.  To them, > > all the other employees are incompetent and "losers". > > Usually everybody hates them, except the boss, who sees in them > > someone who can run the office while he’s out, and thus can afford to > > take more time off and not worry about it because the office is in > > good hands with The Bitch.  She is ruthless and she takes "no crap" > > from others.  She will whip them into shape.  She is The Terminator. > > The problem outside of work with these bitches is evident with Sheryl. > > Because of their rough and ruthless characteristics, they have no > > friends, no mate, and their families have usually deserted them. > > Since they have no husband (they emasculate every man they come in > > contact with) and no children, they come home to an empty house, so > > they sit in front of the computer, go to their chosen newsgroups or > > chatroom, and proceed to abuse the participants there the same way > > they do their co-workers back at the office. > > The problem with that is that The Bitch here is outside her territory. > > In the office, the other employees have to put up with them or > > possibly loser their jobs.  But here nobody has to, and that’s why you > > see the kind of backlash we saw in the recent past against Sheryl. > > The Bitch might be attractice to one person only, her boss, who > > tolerates her only because she does most of his work for him, but the > > rest of the world clearly sees The Bitch for what she is:  a sad, > > lonely, pathetic figure who has no communication and interpersonal > > skills, no connection with human beings, no love life, no sex life, no > > mate, no children, no family, and is totally powerless outside the > > office.  One who must abuse others in order to hide her deep-rooted > > personal insecurities and the enormous short-comings in her personal > > life. > Aw, don’t blame her for it, she’s just doing what society is telling her > to do. > Used to be a time when being a bitch was a bad thing.  Now it’s > encouraged.  It’s all the feminists’ fault, of course.  Every woman’s > book and magazine tells women how to a bitch (as if they needed help, ha > ha), some step by step.  And they hold it up as the model to aspire to > if they want success in life, in their careers, etc.  Being a bitch is > now applauded, desired, aspired to, practiced to perfection.  Every > woman I work with is a bitch, and proud of it, and getting bitchier with > every day that goes by.  It is now the goal for most women.  Most feel > they have to do it to get ahead, to compete in a man’s world.  It’s > funny, I’ve never met a man who’s a bitch. > And if you want to see who the bitch-goddesses they look up to for > guidance and to model themselves after are, just watch The View any > weekday morning on ABC and you’ll understand. > Oh christ why the hell did you have to ruin my day by mentioning those > bitches? > Just when I thought things couldn’t get any worse than Caryl and Marylin > "Real Friends", along comes Mama Bitch and her Bitchettes on The View. > Well, at least Meredith Vieira flashes us once in a while and wakes us out > of our bitch-induced stupor.  Star Jones, honey, you broke the > Bitch-o-Meter.  And Joy, you need to stop masturbating so much.  You’ve got > sticky hair from running your fingers through it all the time.  Poor Lisa > Ling, having to hang out with those old washed up cunts. > Lisa, honey, be ready…just remember what they did to Debbie Matenoupolous. > Could happen to you any day without warning.  Just don’t cross Bitchawa > Wawa, or you’re gonna find out real fast the feeling of your skinny butt > hitting the sidewalk pavement outside ABC studios.

Hmmm, I can see you really like them  8-) Did you see them on Larry King tonight?  They were looking very bitchy…surprise surprise.  Your favorite, Queen Bitch Star Jones, was looking particularly bitchful. Mama Bitch Baba Wawa wasn’t there, though.  She was probably scheduling the Kennedy clan for upcoming interviews…

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > >Hi, I am glad your recent posts have taken on a less abusive and > abrasive > > > >tone. I am sure we all appreciate this. What did you do to Greg, he > seems to > > > >have disappeared. Did you intimidate/emasculate him into obscurity? > Well, > > > >have a nice day and be sure to practice safe flying. > > > I am sure someone had a word with Sheryl about the tons of abuse she > > > regularly heaped on unsuspecting posters.  Either someone from her > > > work (a boss perhaps?) or one of the extremely few "friends" she has > > > online (asshole-lickers like Bill Candee). > > > Sheryl is under the impression that the more she abuses other people, > > > the more "effective" she is as a person, as a communicator, as an > > > employee, as an airline or airfare "expert" etc. > > > This is the syndrome of The Bitch that we are all so familiar with. > > > These are usually highly masculinized women, with very aggressive and > > > macho traits and personalities, often butcher and manlier than even > > > regular men.  At work they constantly abuse the other employees, often > > > seeing them as "wimps" because they are not as aggressive and > > > competitive as they are.  They  tend to perceive themselves as "go > > > getters", and they see nothing wrong with abusing others.  To them, > > > all the other employees are incompetent and "losers". > > > Usually everybody hates them, except the boss, who sees in them > > > someone who can run the office while he’s out, and thus can afford to > > > take more time off and not worry about it because the office is in > > > good hands with The Bitch.  She is ruthless and she takes "no crap" > > > from others.  She will whip them into shape.  She is The Terminator. > > > The problem outside of work with these bitches is evident with Sheryl. > > > Because of their rough and ruthless characteristics, they have no > > > friends, no mate, and their families have usually deserted them. > > > Since they have no husband (they emasculate every man they come in > > > contact with) and no children, they come home to an empty house, so > > > they sit in front of the computer, go to their chosen newsgroups or > > > chatroom, and proceed to abuse the participants there the same way > > > they do their co-workers back at the office. > > > The problem with that is that The Bitch here is outside her territory. > > > In the office, the other employees have to put up with them or > > > possibly loser their jobs.  But here nobody has to, and that’s why you > > > see the kind of backlash we saw in the recent past against Sheryl. > > > The Bitch might be attractice to one person only, her boss, who > > > tolerates her only because she does most of his work for him, but the > > > rest of the world clearly sees The Bitch for what she is:  a sad, > > > lonely, pathetic figure who has no communication and interpersonal > > > skills, no connection with human beings, no love life, no sex life, no > > > mate, no children, no family, and is totally powerless outside the > > > office.  One who must abuse others in order to hide her deep-rooted > > > personal insecurities and the enormous short-comings in her personal > > > life. > > Aw, don’t blame her for it, she’s just doing what society is telling her > > to do. > > Used to be a time when being a bitch was a bad thing.  Now it’s > > encouraged.  It’s all the feminists’ fault, of course.  Every woman’s > > book and magazine tells women how to a bitch (as if they needed help, ha > > ha), some step by step.  And they hold it up as the model to aspire to > > if they want success in life, in their careers, etc.  Being a bitch is > > now applauded, desired, aspired to, practiced to perfection.  Every > > woman I work with is a bitch, and proud of it, and getting bitchier with > > every day that goes by.  It is now the goal for most women.  Most feel > > they have to do it to get ahead, to compete in a man’s world.  It’s > > funny, I’ve never met a man who’s a bitch. > > And if you want to see who the bitch-goddesses they look up to for > > guidance and to model themselves after are, just watch The View any > > weekday morning on ABC and you’ll understand. > Oh christ why the hell did you have to ruin my day by mentioning those > bitches? > Just when I thought things couldn’t get any worse than Caryl and Marylin > "Real Friends", along comes Mama Bitch and her Bitchettes on The View. > Well, at least Meredith Vieira flashes us once in a while and wakes us out > of our bitch-induced stupor.  Star Jones, honey, you broke the > Bitch-o-Meter.  And Joy, you need to stop masturbating so much.  You’ve got > sticky hair from running your fingers through it all the time.  Poor Lisa > Ling, having to hang out with those old washed up cunts. > Lisa, honey, be ready…just remember what they did to Debbie Matenoupolous. > Could happen to you any day without warning.  Just don’t cross Bitchawa > Wawa, or you’re gonna find out real fast the feeling of your skinny butt > hitting the sidewalk pavement outside ABC studios. > Hmmm, I can see you really like them  8-) > Did you see them on Larry King tonight?  They were looking very > bitchy…surprise surprise.  Your favorite, Queen Bitch Star Jones, was > looking particularly bitchful. > Mama Bitch Baba Wawa wasn’t there, though.  She was probably scheduling > the Kennedy clan for upcoming interviews…

P.S.  Isn’t Star Jones the one who has more wigs than Imelda had shoes or something like that? If so, she sure could have chosen something better to drop on her big fat head than that thing she put on tonight.  It looked like a cow wrapped it’s tail around her big round face. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Which one of you gossip idiots is responsible for cross-posting your > > inane prattle to alt.obits? Christ, it’s like being back in 5th grade. > > If, however, any of you have died or are dying, please do let us know. > > We could use a little cheering up over here. > I responded to it because we in ASG aren’t as xenophobic and precious as your > death-obsessed little group and we actually welcome cross-fertilisation. After > all, > that’s the Net ’s purpose, isn’t it? > I have no idea what the original article is that elicited Zach’s comment, > but your response definitely bespeaks misunderstanding.  If people wanted > massive amounts of information unrelated to their interests, there is no > shortage of it on the net.  People who partake of a select few newsgroups > do so specifically to avoid "noise," what you call cross-fertilization.

Point taken, Jim, but the original poster clearly posted to these groups for some purpose. What that purpose was, I have no idea, but he evidently thought it would be of interest and provoke a response from one or another of those groups. I don’t believe that is ‘noise’, merely an attempt to widen the discussion for whatever reason. I believe that is appropriate Net behaviour. Razz

Response:

>Speaking as an outside observer – >I find it interesting that there are so many people ready to jump all over >Sheryl.  Maybe I’ve missed the notes, but I have YET to see anything from >Sheryl that’s as verbally abusive as the crap fired at her daily in this >newsgroup.  Reminds me on that ever popular grade school practice of ganging >up on one person for your own edification.  Come on!  Don’t you have >anything useful to contribute to this group? >What say you all grow up and be nice for a change?  As far as I know, this >newsgroup deals with air travel, not verbal abuse.  I’m sure there’s a >newsgroup out there somewhere that’s just for that purpose. Sheesh!

And speaking of bitches, you’ve now become more annoying than a genital herpes flareup in mid-summer. Is it necessary for you to follow up to every post that you do not approve of with your morality lessons? If your job at Northwest Airlines is boring and you do not have enough work to keep you busy and you have to come on here and start lecturing people, perhaps I should start forwarding your silly little rants to nwa.com and have them see why you have so much free time at work to be spamming the groups with your bitch temper tantrums. Your bitch rants have now become as annoying as Sheryl’s. Why don’t you practice some Kegel exercises next time you’re bored and STAY THE HELL OFF THE NEWSGROUP IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE POSTS, BITCH!!! This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unlogged.  The address shown in the From header, if any, is unverified and maybe wrong.        - Widow Anonymous Remailer –

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> > > Which one of you gossip idiots is responsible for cross-posting your >> > > inane prattle to alt.obits? Christ, it’s like being back in 5th grade. >> > > If, however, any of you have died or are dying, please do let us know. >> > > We could use a little cheering up over here. >> > I responded to it because we in ASG aren’t as xenophobic and precious as your >> > death-obsessed little group and we actually welcome cross-fertilisation. After >> > all, that’s the Net ’s purpose, isn’t it? >> I have no idea what the original article is that elicited Zach’s comment, >> but your response definitely bespeaks misunderstanding.  If people wanted >> massive amounts of information unrelated to their interests, there is no >> shortage of it on the net.  People who partake of a select few newsgroups >> do so specifically to avoid "noise," what you call cross-fertilization. >Point taken, Jim, but the original poster clearly posted to these groups >for some purpose. What that purpose was, I have no idea, but he >evidently thought it would be of interest and provoke a response from one >or another of those groups. I don’t believe that is ‘noise’, merely an >attempt to widen the discussion for whatever reason. I believe that is >appropriate Net behaviour. >   The "Net" is not here for "widening horizons".  That’s individual > decision, I believe, and not the sole purpose of some intangible entity we > call the Internet.  Anyhow, the original poster had a purpose to > cross-post across Usenet, I’m sure, but the intent might not have been as > innocent or valid as you say.  You have heard of people cross-posting just > to irritate, or out of irresponsibility, haven’t you?  Many ISPs limit > posts that have been cross-posted excessively, and there’s a reason for > that. Check out some Usenet etiquette faq for more details.

Nowhere did I say the post was ‘innocent or valid’. I said I didn’t know the purpose. It may well have been posted ‘to irritate, or out of irresponsibility’. I don’t know what was in the poster’s mind, nor do you. However, netiquette notwithstanding, I uphold his right to broaden the discussion. Razz

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Speaking as an outside observer – > >I find it interesting that there are so many people ready to jump all >over > >Sheryl.  Maybe I’ve missed the notes, but I have YET to see anything from > >Sheryl that’s as verbally abusive as the crap fired at her daily in this > >newsgroup.  Reminds me on that ever popular grade school practice of >ganging > >up on one person for your own edification.  Come on!  Don’t you have > >anything useful to contribute to this group? > >What say you all grow up and be nice for a change?  As far as I know, >this > >newsgroup deals with air travel, not verbal abuse.  I’m sure there’s a > >newsgroup out there somewhere that’s just for that purpose. Sheesh! > And speaking of bitches, you’ve now become more annoying than a > genital herpes flareup in mid-summer. > Is it necessary for you to follow up to every post that you do not > approve of with your morality lessons? > If your job at Northwest Airlines is boring and you do not have enough > work to keep you busy and you have to come on here and start lecturing > people, perhaps I should start forwarding your silly little rants to > nwa.com and have them see why you have so much free time at work to be > spamming the groups with your bitch temper tantrums. > Your bitch rants have now become as annoying as Sheryl’s. > Why don’t you practice some Kegel exercises next time you’re bored and > STAY THE HELL OFF THE NEWSGROUP IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE POSTS, BITCH!!! >  Why is that?  Damn, a bitch should like it here with all the whiners and >bitching here. >  BTW, Taming the Bitch got his name when I nipple clamped him and played >"beg for Master"  with him. >HammNot Spam

Oh shut up bitch.  You love it when he fucks you in the ass and you know it. This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unlogged.  The address shown in the From header, if any, is unverified and maybe wrong.        - Widow Anonymous Remailer –

Response:

. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >Speaking as an outside observer – >> >I find it interesting that there are so many people ready to jump all >over >> >Sheryl.  Maybe I’ve missed the notes, but I have YET to see anything from >> >Sheryl that’s as verbally abusive as the crap fired at her daily in this >> >newsgroup.  Reminds me on that ever popular grade school practice of >ganging >> >up on one person for your own edification.  Come on!  Don’t you have >> >anything useful to contribute to this group? >> >What say you all grow up and be nice for a change?  As far as I know, >this >> >newsgroup deals with air travel, not verbal abuse.  I’m sure there’s a >> >newsgroup out there somewhere that’s just for that purpose. Sheesh! >> And speaking of bitches, you’ve now become more annoying than a >> genital herpes flareup in mid-summer. >> Is it necessary for you to follow up to every post that you do not >> approve of with your morality lessons? >> If your job at Northwest Airlines is boring and you do not have enough >> work to keep you busy and you have to come on here and start lecturing >> people, perhaps I should start forwarding your silly little rants to >> nwa.com and have them see why you have so much free time at work to be >> spamming the groups with your bitch temper tantrums. >> Your bitch rants have now become as annoying as Sheryl’s. >> Why don’t you practice some Kegel exercises next time you’re bored and >> STAY THE HELL OFF THE NEWSGROUP IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE POSTS, BITCH!!! >  Why is that?  Damn, a bitch should like it here with all the whiners and >bitching here. >  BTW, Taming the Bitch got his name when I nipple clamped him and played >"beg for Master"  with him. >HammNot Spam > Oh shut up bitch.  You love it when he fucks you in the ass and you > know it.

Hey hamm, don’t mind them two boys… they like each other….I mean REALLY like each other… G G

Response:

. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >Speaking as an outside observer – >> >I find it interesting that there are so many people ready to jump all >over >> >Sheryl.  Maybe I’ve missed the notes, but I have YET to see anything from >> >Sheryl that’s as verbally abusive as the crap fired at her daily in this >> >newsgroup.  Reminds me on that ever popular grade school practice of >ganging >> >up on one person for your own edification.  Come on!  Don’t you have >> >anything useful to contribute to this group? >> >What say you all grow up and be nice for a change?  As far as I know, >this >> >newsgroup deals with air travel, not verbal abuse.  I’m sure there’s a >> >newsgroup out there somewhere that’s just for that purpose. Sheesh! >> And speaking of bitches, you’ve now become more annoying than a >> genital herpes flareup in mid-summer. >> Is it necessary for you to follow up to every post that you do not >> approve of with your morality lessons? >> If your job at Northwest Airlines is boring and you do not have enough >> work to keep you busy and you have to come on here and start lecturing >> people, perhaps I should start forwarding your silly little rants to >> nwa.com and have them see why you have so much free time at work to be >> spamming the groups with your bitch temper tantrums. >> Your bitch rants have now become as annoying as Sheryl’s. >> Why don’t you practice some Kegel exercises next time you’re bored and >> STAY THE HELL OFF THE NEWSGROUP IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE POSTS, BITCH!!! >  Why is that?  Damn, a bitch should like it here with all the whiners and >bitching here. >  BTW, Taming the Bitch got his name when I nipple clamped him and played >"beg for Master"  with him. >HammNot Spam > Oh shut up bitch.  You love it when he fucks you in the ass and you > know it.

Oh, I get it…. you’re the one who got tamed…. no wonder you two are soooo close. A Bitch never forgets His first MASTER…  G G

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->. > >> >Speaking as an outside observer – > >> >I find it interesting that there are so many people ready to jump all > >over > >> >Sheryl.  Maybe I’ve missed the notes, but I have YET to see anything >from > >> >Sheryl that’s as verbally abusive as the crap fired at her daily in >this > >> >newsgroup.  Reminds me on that ever popular grade school practice of > >ganging > >> >up on one person for your own edification.  Come on!  Don’t you have > >> >anything useful to contribute to this group? > >> >What say you all grow up and be nice for a change?  As far as I know, > >this > >> >newsgroup deals with air travel, not verbal abuse.  I’m sure there’s a > >> >newsgroup out there somewhere that’s just for that purpose. Sheesh! > >> And speaking of bitches, you’ve now become more annoying than a > >> genital herpes flareup in mid-summer. > >> Is it necessary for you to follow up to every post that you do not > >> approve of with your morality lessons? > >> If your job at Northwest Airlines is boring and you do not have enough > >> work to keep you busy and you have to come on here and start lecturing > >> people, perhaps I should start forwarding your silly little rants to > >> nwa.com and have them see why you have so much free time at work to be > >> spamming the groups with your bitch temper tantrums. > >> Your bitch rants have now become as annoying as Sheryl’s. > >> Why don’t you practice some Kegel exercises next time you’re bored and > >> STAY THE HELL OFF THE NEWSGROUP IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE POSTS, BITCH!!! > >  Why is that?  Damn, a bitch should like it here with all the whiners >and > >bitching here. > >  BTW, Taming the Bitch got his name when I nipple clamped him and played > >"beg for Master"  with him. > >HammNot Spam > Oh shut up bitch.  You love it when he fucks you in the ass and you > know it. >Oh, I get it…. you’re the one who got tamed…. no wonder you two are >soooo close. >A Bitch never forgets His first MASTER… > G G

You sound like a jealous bitch.  Your Master must be ignoring you lately. This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unlogged.  The address shown in the From header, if any, is unverified and maybe wrong.        - Widow Anonymous Remailer –

Response:

>Now, now. You can’t blame it all on one single post. Signal to noise ratio >here >has turned poor – and thats to be expected from time to time. Everyone can >bitch about "the good old days" on a variety of subjects.

SN ratio a problem? It’s just not possible to maintain high SNR all the time unless there’s a disaster of some sort. Otherwise all the topics have been discussed to death. So it should be expected that the social aspect of RTA would dominate. And I would call that RTA Award 2000 and its poster as the real noise maker. >I have to say I’ve been spending more time on the webforums…but there >tends >to be a lot of spoiled little brats out there as well (myself included, >i’m sure).

There certainly are. But just not as severe. Personal vandetta as demonstrated was totally uncalled for, and the subsequent loss of old timers from this group was an unfortunate loss. >For one things. Pilots don’t post like they do here. They post – but its >about thrilling things like pay scale and FA skirt length…oh wait the second >part is thrilling.

True. But even Mark has largely disappeared from this group. And I note that Sheryl has reappeared. Welcome back.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Now, now. You can’t blame it all on one single post. Signal to noise ratio >here >has turned poor – and thats to be expected from time to time. Everyone can >bitch about "the good old days" on a variety of subjects. > SN ratio a problem? It’s just not possible to maintain high SNR all the time > unless there’s a disaster of some sort. Otherwise all the topics have been > discussed to death. So it should be expected that the social aspect of RTA > would dominate. And I would call that RTA Award 2000 and its poster as the real > noise maker.

What RTA 2000 award post?  There were lots of them. Rich

Response:

The original poster is talking about a post by "RTA 2000". I’d post the link but its too darn long from google. I’ll go on record as saying I don’t find it offensive and think those people that are offended by it ought to lighten up. I’ve read worse about myself, in print. Thankfully I was spared the posters rapier wit. Matter of fact Rich, I think you’re even mentioned. Ah screw this… back to the real issues. I just booked a flight on panam. Will they be around when I go over memorial day? -g – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->What RTA 2000 award post?  There were lots of them. >Rich

Response:

> The original poster is talking about a post by "RTA 2000". I’d post the link > but its too darn long from google. > I’ll go on record as saying I don’t find it offensive and think those people > that are offended by it ought to lighten up. I’ve read worse about myself, in > print. Thankfully I was spared the posters rapier wit. > Matter of fact Rich, I think you’re even mentioned.

Oh yayh.  Oh well, internet is often known as a shooting ground. Rich

Response:

Glad to see you took a few minutes off.  Your wisdom has been missed. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Another one I have missed is Craig Welch.  Whatever happened to him? >He’s been working too hard. >– Craig

Response:

>Hardly a surprise given that RTA has lost the "rec" spirit over the last few >months. >Ever since that malicious "RTA 2000 Award" post at >the end of last year,                              

Which *was* malicious, but it was a *parody* — and most of the posters mentioned on that post are still around…. >there >has been a loss of many valuable long term posters >who posted under their >real-life identity.

It might not serve one well to post under one’s "real – life identity" — but that decision is up to each poster (aka "risk management"). Most of the "regulars" are still here, and there are some interesting new contributers as well. >Killfiles could have been used but many of these ex-regulars have found more >civil turfs in other groups and web forums since. Your anonymous ID obviously >have served you well. >Maybe one day they will return anonymously. And you’ll never know of their >return, ever!

Or maybe they just lurk…. Best Greg

Response:

Now, now. You can’t blame it all on one single post. Signal to noise ratio here has turned poor – and thats to be expected from time to time. Everyone can bitch about "the good old days" on a variety of subjects. I have to say I’ve been spending more time on the webforums…but there tends to be a lot of spoiled little brats out there as well (myself included, i’m sure). For one things. Pilots don’t post like they do here. They post – but its about thrilling things like pay scale and FA skirt length…oh wait the second part is thrilling. If we’ve lost TBM though, sing taps for RTA. -g – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Hardly a surprise given that RTA has lost the "rec" spirit over the last few >months. >Ever since that malicious "RTA 2000 Award" post at the end of last year, >there >has been a loss of many valuable long >term posters who posted under their >real-life identity.

Response:

Hardly a surprise given that RTA has lost the "rec" spirit over the last few months. Ever since that malicious "RTA 2000 Award" post at the end of last year, there has been a loss of many valuable long term posters who posted under their real-life identity. Killfiles could have been used but many of these ex-regulars have found more civil turfs in other groups and web forums since. Your anonymous ID obviously have served you well. Maybe one day they will return anonymously. And you’ll never know of their return, ever! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Another one I have missed is Craig Welch.  Whatever happened to him? >Where is she?  Haven’t seen a posting from her in forever—

Response:

says… > > Where is she?  Haven’t seen a posting from her in forever— >Doing lunch at Miyako Restrurant with her >accountant.                                  

LOL!  I wonder if "sheryl" and cleaver – wielding Houston sushi magnate Connie Wong ever came to some kind of truce about how many pieces a maki roll should be cut up into so "sheryl" can stuff them into her mouth? >They’re adding up her >commission checks from priceline.com!

Well, I *sincerely* hope "sheryl" didn’t pay her Miyako bills with Priceline stock IOU’s — Connie just might have decided to cut "sheryl" up into little pieces and dispose of her in the Houston Ship Channel ) Best Greg

Response:

Another one I have missed is Craig Welch.  Whatever happened to him? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Where is she?  Haven’t seen a posting from her in forever—

Response:

Someone else who is MIA: Bill Mattocks

Response:

> >Where is she?  Haven’t seen a posting from her in forever—

Maybe she actually went on a trip.

Response:

Hainan Island??? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Where is she?  Haven’t seen a posting from her in forever—

Response:

>Where is she?

Temptation Island

Response:

HARRISBURG eating Crow.

> Hainan Island??? > Where is she?  Haven’t seen a posting from her in forever—

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

> > Where is she?  Haven’t seen a posting from her in forever—

Doing lunch at Miyako Restrurant with her accountant.  They’re adding up her commission checks from priceline.com! Ken Ishiguro

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Where is she?  Haven’t seen a posting from her in forever— > Patients in loony bins *don’t* have computer access…. > Best > Greg >How did you come by yours then?

"Dear ______ Thank you for your recent letter.  Although we get many such correspondences per day here at Potter Industries, please be assured that we will file yours away to be answered at a possible future date. Sincerely The Management" Best Greg

Response:

Where is she?  Haven’t seen a posting from her in forever—

Response:

>Where is she?  Haven’t seen a posting from her in forever— > Patients in loony bins *don’t* have computer access…. > Best > Greg

How did you come by yours then?

Response:

Who the hell is this Sheryl person, anyway, and why does she garner so much attention on this newsgroup?????? Is she the moderator or something? God, this seems like she has a cult following. All these nasty posts and follow-ups, although I did read some of her posts and it looks to me (a newcomer to this newsgroup) that she purports to know a lot but actually spews misinformation now and then. I could care less one way or the other. I’d rather read about low air fares or new routes or new aircraft or meal options, than to keep reading all this crap about Sheryl. Before you buy.

Response:

> Who the hell is this Sheryl person

She replies to most every question about fares.  If someone else posts a response to a question about fares, she often comes across a little domineering if she disagrees. > , anyway, and why does she garner so much > attention on this newsgroup??????

No idea. > Is she the moderator or something? God, > this seems like she has a cult following. All these nasty posts and > follow-ups

There’s a few people that seem to despise her.  My guess is they were tormented in high school and have yet to outgrow their feelings of inadequacy.  It’s really quite pathetic. Several of these people use multiple aliases (sp?), so it appears there are more. > , although I did read some of her posts and it looks to me (a > newcomer to this newsgroup) that she purports to know a lot but actually > spews misinformation now and then. I could care less one way or the other.

Actually I rarely see her give misinformed advice.  A few months ago she seemed to point just about everyone towards priceline, but not so much anymore.  Her forum is actually quite interesting, though I read the advice and priceline failed me miserably the one time I tried it (hotel in MKE). > I’d rather read about low air fares or new routes or new aircraft or meal > options, than to keep reading all this crap about Sheryl.

Agreed.  I suspect Sheryl would agree as well.

Response:

I never bothered to click the link (if there is one?) to her site.  What’s the url address for it?  This topic has made me curious. Scott DCA-BWI

Response:

> I never bothered to click the link (if there is one?) to her site.  What’s the > url address for it?  This topic has made me curious.

I’m pretty sure it’s: http://pub4.ezboard.com/bpricelineandexpediabidding

Response:

>Who the hell is this Sheryl person, anyway

She is a strident sometimes rude commentator made to look good by the contrast with the low life bigoted critics that respond to her. edwardseco

Response:

> Who the hell is this Sheryl person, anyway, and why does she > garner so much attention on this newsgroup??????  Is she the > moderator or something?  God, this seems like she has a cult > following.

Sheryl is what one would consider a "regular" – a user who posts frequently and is known by everyone on the group.  Like many "regulars" on this group or elsewhere, she tends to have plenty of knowledge, and plenty of opinions, and few qualms about sharing either. If one is active enough in one or more groups for a long enough time, one will accumulate "fans" and "non-fans" of course.  Sheryl also runs (or ran) a web board that had something to do with people talking about Priceline, which used to result in lots of people writing her off as a Priceline fan/apologist.  I don’t think she is actually employed by them, though, and she’s taken _me_ to task once or twice for so much as mentioning Cheap Tickets in a post without including a full disclaimer stating that I’m employed by them. If you don’t want to read posts about Sheryl, it’s a really, really bad idea to start a whole new thread about her.  Just a hint. -Dan — Dan Birchall – Palolo Valley, Honolulu HI – http://dan.scream.org Post your reviews; get paid: http://epinions.scream.org/join.html Free web-based e-mail: http://www.themail.com/ref.htm?ref=1163079 My address expires – take out the hex stamp if your reply bounces

Response:

>> Who the hell is this Sheryl person, anyway > She is a strident sometimes rude commentator made to look good by the contrast > with the low life bigoted critics that respond to her. > edwardseco

You know, I’ve been on this forum for a while and still can’t figure out who the heck is Sheryl and who the heck posted "Sheryl’s Miyako Lunch". I’ve never seen her post to this group before…or have I? C

Response:

The famous "Sheryl’s Miyako Lunch" post is available from deja.com and It was quite lengthy, generated a lot of responses, and generally had nothing whatsoever to do with anything. As I recall it had some concerns over "Sheryl’s" sushi being cut and served in six pieces rather than eight. Just run a search on deja.com   You will find there are about 89,532,478 posts by "Sheryl," certainly one of the most frequent posters to this newsgroup. Much of it is quite entertaining. Best Cochondo

Response:

> Just run a search on deja.com   You will find there are about 89,532,478 > posts by "Sheryl," certainly one of the most frequent posters to this > newsgroup. Much of it is quite entertaining. > Best > Cochondo

That’s strange. How come I’ve never seen any post by Sheryl? Or is it that somehow my usenet server has blocked off certain domain names? C

Response:

> > Just run a search on deja.com   You will find there are about 89,532,478 > posts by "Sheryl," certainly one of the most frequent posters to this > newsgroup. Much of it is quite entertaining. > Best > Cochondo

Maybe this is why she was chosen to be on tv. If rta is the recruiting ground for programs and articles, and the selection criteria are colorful personalities and informed viewpoints, when will we see Bill Mattocks on national tv? Ivan Skivar

Response:

Sheryl has an adversion to SLC and people that travel there. Maryanne

Response:

                 >If rta is the recruiting ground It certainly is for the WSJ….several of us have been contacted by their reporters for comments for various stories related to air travel that they wrote. Maryanne

Response:

be = me

Response:

Yes even *I* was contacted by the WSJ to give my opnion on an rta-originated topic quite a few months ago. Now I can aspire to elevate myself to the level of mediocrity of being able to talk out of both sides of my mouth on 48 Hours. Or better yet, Jerry Springer. "I hosted a priceline.com discussion group until everyone got sick of hearing about it and abandoned be." Best, Cochondo P.S. Save it, Ellen.

Response:

Big deal that Sheryl was on 48 Hours. I am doing a research project (along with another guy) on human rights abuses in mainland China that we hope to discuss with various voting members of the IOC at their meeting in Moscow next summer. Sheryl, do something _substansial_—-"48 Hours" doesn’t count!! Maryanne

Response:

I’m sorry… what does "research on human rights in mainland China" have to do with air travel? It seems you frequently make posts which are off-topic to this very informative newsgroup. Also, your continued attempt to annoy Sheryl can only be termed churlish and gauche. BmB P.S. Incidentally… you misspelled substantial. > Big deal that Sheryl was on 48 Hours. > I am doing a research project (along with another guy) on human rights > abuses in mainland China that we hope to discuss with various voting > members of the IOC at their meeting in Moscow next summer. > Sheryl, do something _substansial_—-"48 Hours" doesn’t count!! > Maryanne

Before you buy.

Response:

                   >have to do with air travel? Chuck and I have to FLY to Moscow—-we can’t get there by rowing or driving! Maryanne

Response:

>Big deal that Sheryl was on 48 Hours. >I am doing a research project (along with another guy) on human rights >Sheryl, do something _substansial_—-"48 Hours" doesn’t count!!

There are medical professionals that can treat obsessive jealousy syndrome. There are also spell checkers. edwardseco

Response:

>>Big deal that Sheryl was on 48 Hours. >I am doing a research project (along with another guy) on human rights >Sheryl, do something _substansial_—-"48 Hours" doesn’t count!! >There are medical professionals that can treat obsessive jealousy syndrome. >There are also spell checkers. >edwardseco

LOL!

Response:

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Since CNN has essentially been off the air for quite a while, covering the > various political orgies that have been happening in the USA for what seems to > be an eternity, I came to think of the following: > When a political party decides to hold a convention somewhere, who pays for > all the air travel and hotel for each delegate ? > Would the political organisation strike a deal with one airline to get reduced > tickets for each delegate, or are delegates on their own to get the best > possible deal ? Is such a convention big enough to warrant striking deals with > multiple airlines ?

Political parties often pay for delegates; state parties will often pay for their state delegations to travel.  The official sponsoring airline – US for the RNC in PHL – and UA for the DNC in LAX – give special rates and services to the delegates.  Special checkin in lines, special phone lines. Often, the sponsoring airline will cut a nice, fat check for the honor of being the official carrier. Considering the s**tty weather in PHL a couple weeks back, and the pilot situation at UA, things cannot be 100% smooth. Rich

Response:

Since CNN has essentially been off the air for quite a while, covering the various political orgies that have been happening in the USA for what seems to be an eternity, I came to think of the following: When a political party decides to hold a convention somewhere, who pays for all the air travel and hotel for each delegate ? Would the political organisation strike a deal with one airline to get reduced tickets for each delegate, or are delegates on their own to get the best possible deal ? Is such a convention big enough to warrant striking deals with multiple airlines ? Does the political party have a designated travel agent to issue all the tickets for each delegate, or do delegates only have to state thay are going to the such and such political party convention and they get the negotiated rebates ?

Response:

Question:

I can see the point of Air France joining the revolution as it won’t be long before TGV trains will be severely denting their pockets on the busiest French domestic route. SNCF have been straightening all the bends on the line from Paris to Marseille and from the summer the TGV will be covering the 500+ mile journey in just over 3 hours. City centre to city centre, an impossible time to beat by air. Iain – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Thought some of you may enjoy this story that appeared in today’s >edition of the Wall Street Journal. >January 7, 2000 >Business Fare >In Europe, Airlines Put Connecting Fliers >On Railroads as Jet-Travel Hassles Grow >By DANIEL MICHAELS and PAULO PRADA >Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL >PARIS — On United Airlines’ service from Chicago to Le Mans, France, >passengers make a connection in Paris. Not to an Air France flight to Le >Mans — to a high-speed train that covers the 179 miles in 93 minutes. >It has come to this: Air travel in Europe is so crowded and difficult >that airlines are starting to book connecting passengers onto trains. >Europe’s quickest trains, zooming 185 miles an hour or more, are often >simply faster and more economical than planes. >"There is certainly an irony in this," says Andrew Sharp, director >general of the London-based International Air Rail Organization, an >independent group working to join trains with planes. "But you take >whatever suits best the journey you have in mind." >Letting fliers take the plane to the train makes good business sense. >Short-hop flights are notoriously unprofitable around the world. >Short-hop flights that square off against ultrafast trains tend to land >in even more red ink. >At Charles de Gaulle Airport outside Paris, the terminal for the >superfast TGV train is now part of the airport complex, making it easy >to hop from plane to train. In recent months, Germany’s Lufthansa, UAL >Corp.’s United Airlines, AMR Corp.’s American Airlines and Air France >have all made connection deals with the TGV’s operator, the Societe >Nationale des Chemins de Fer Francais. >Laurence Paget, who arrived at Charles de Gaulle after a 24-hour flight >from New Caledonia, completed the final leg of her Air France trip by >high-speed train. "It’s very convenient," she said as she headed to a >special counter for her train ticket to Lille in northern France. The >train portion of the trip even counted toward frequent-flier miles. >For Air France, the TGV offers a way to free up planes and reach smaller >French cities where the airline either doesn’t fly or can’t make money >flying. For foreign carriers, the TGV network is a way to provide >service beyond the big airports. Lufthansa and United cover most of the >world through their 13-airline Star Alliance group, but they lacked a >French partner, leaving a strategic vacuum in one of Europe’s biggest >domestic air-travel markets. >Back home in Germany, Lufthansa is linking up with Deutsche Bahn AG’s >ICE Inter-City Express. Only Frankfurt Airport has an ICE terminal now, >but more ICE stations are coming on line at airports in Berlin, Cologne, >Dusseldorf and Leipzig. Eventually, the airline hopes to replace most of >its domestic flights with high-speed rail connections. Air France says >that for rail trips of up to two hours, there’s not much time difference >between train and plane. The country’s high-tech trains are also roomier >than short-hop planes. And in contrast to plane travel, the TGV boasts a >95% on-time record. >"The TGV is nicer than a plane," says Mike Hickey, a retired businessman >from Florida honeymooning in France. "It’s a little slower but you get >to see the countryside and you can get up and walk around." He also says >the food is better when you can make your selection at a dining car. >Connecting between the plane and the train isn’t yet as seamless as >switching planes. Rail tickets, for example, list both seat and car >numbers, but airline booking systems still aren’t programmed to accept >car numbers. >Baggage-handling is a particular challenge. On planes, passengers check >in their bags, but on trains, every bag is a carry-on. >KLM Royal Dutch Airlines bumped into this problem back in 1997 when it >tried to join up with the sleek, fast Thalys train between Brussels and >Paris. "People don’t want to carry their own luggage," says KLM >spokesman Peter Wellhuner of the six-month experiment. "The reaction to >the test was it should be more interconnected." KLM and Thalys expect to >have the problem solved before Thalys initiates high-speed service on >the entire route between Paris and Amsterdam in 2005. >Swiss Federal Railways has been transferring baggage from 23 train >stations to airports in Geneva and Zurich since May. While the country >is too small to require a high-speed rail network, its punctual train >system comes closest to providing a seamless air connection. Passengers >must arrange for the service in advance, and it costs nearly $13 for >each bag to be transferred. Delegations from other European railroads >have flocked to Switzerland to study the set-up.

Response:

> In Europe, Airlines Put Connecting Fliers > On Railroads as Jet-Travel Hassles Grow

Hey–next time you fly to Rockford, Illinois, look at the fine print.  There is an airport in Rockford, but if you look carefully at your display and your ticket you might see that your ticket to RFD actually uses the BUS–it takes 90 minutes.  Bon Voyage!  DWH

Response:

>In Europe, Airlines Put Connecting Fliers >On Railroads as Jet-Travel Hassles Grow

I read about this in *Travel Weekly* a few weeks ago; they have through ticketing but not through baggage checking.  And with intermodalism being the main buzzword in transportation circles these days, this doesn’t come as a surprise. If you’re interested, there’s more information on intermodal transportation at …. http://www.du.edu/transportation

Response:

re: plane to train connections. To me, the critical test is whether a bicycle which is easily checked in a plane will be carried on the same train as I will be in. When I took the TGV in france (St-Raphael to Paris) back in ‘87, my bike arrived in Paris the next day, even though I was travelling first class on the TGV and that there was a baggage compartment behind the locomotive. The Gatwick express work very well with luggage and I was not only able to carry my bike, but was able to wheel the fully loaded bike with panniers etc into the baggage car myself and  strap it against a wall, and unload it myself.

Response:

Thought some of you may enjoy this story that appeared in today’s edition of the Wall Street Journal. January 7, 2000 Business Fare In Europe, Airlines Put Connecting Fliers On Railroads as Jet-Travel Hassles Grow By DANIEL MICHAELS and PAULO PRADA Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL PARIS — On United Airlines’ service from Chicago to Le Mans, France, passengers make a connection in Paris. Not to an Air France flight to Le Mans — to a high-speed train that covers the 179 miles in 93 minutes. It has come to this: Air travel in Europe is so crowded and difficult that airlines are starting to book connecting passengers onto trains. Europe’s quickest trains, zooming 185 miles an hour or more, are often simply faster and more economical than planes. "There is certainly an irony in this," says Andrew Sharp, director general of the London-based International Air Rail Organization, an independent group working to join trains with planes. "But you take whatever suits best the journey you have in mind." Letting fliers take the plane to the train makes good business sense. Short-hop flights are notoriously unprofitable around the world. Short-hop flights that square off against ultrafast trains tend to land in even more red ink. At Charles de Gaulle Airport outside Paris, the terminal for the superfast TGV train is now part of the airport complex, making it easy to hop from plane to train. In recent months, Germany’s Lufthansa, UAL Corp.’s United Airlines, AMR Corp.’s American Airlines and Air France have all made connection deals with the TGV’s operator, the Societe Nationale des Chemins de Fer Francais. Laurence Paget, who arrived at Charles de Gaulle after a 24-hour flight from New Caledonia, completed the final leg of her Air France trip by high-speed train. "It’s very convenient," she said as she headed to a special counter for her train ticket to Lille in northern France. The train portion of the trip even counted toward frequent-flier miles. For Air France, the TGV offers a way to free up planes and reach smaller French cities where the airline either doesn’t fly or can’t make money flying. For foreign carriers, the TGV network is a way to provide service beyond the big airports. Lufthansa and United cover most of the world through their 13-airline Star Alliance group, but they lacked a French partner, leaving a strategic vacuum in one of Europe’s biggest domestic air-travel markets. Back home in Germany, Lufthansa is linking up with Deutsche Bahn AG’s ICE Inter-City Express. Only Frankfurt Airport has an ICE terminal now, but more ICE stations are coming on line at airports in Berlin, Cologne, Dusseldorf and Leipzig. Eventually, the airline hopes to replace most of its domestic flights with high-speed rail connections. Air France says that for rail trips of up to two hours, there’s not much time difference between train and plane. The country’s high-tech trains are also roomier than short-hop planes. And in contrast to plane travel, the TGV boasts a 95% on-time record. "The TGV is nicer than a plane," says Mike Hickey, a retired businessman from Florida honeymooning in France. "It’s a little slower but you get to see the countryside and you can get up and walk around." He also says the food is better when you can make your selection at a dining car. Connecting between the plane and the train isn’t yet as seamless as switching planes. Rail tickets, for example, list both seat and car numbers, but airline booking systems still aren’t programmed to accept car numbers. Baggage-handling is a particular challenge. On planes, passengers check in their bags, but on trains, every bag is a carry-on. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines bumped into this problem back in 1997 when it tried to join up with the sleek, fast Thalys train between Brussels and Paris. "People don’t want to carry their own luggage," says KLM spokesman Peter Wellhuner of the six-month experiment. "The reaction to the test was it should be more interconnected." KLM and Thalys expect to have the problem solved before Thalys initiates high-speed service on the entire route between Paris and Amsterdam in 2005. Swiss Federal Railways has been transferring baggage from 23 train stations to airports in Geneva and Zurich since May. While the country is too small to require a high-speed rail network, its punctual train system comes closest to providing a seamless air connection. Passengers must arrange for the service in advance, and it costs nearly $13 for each bag to be transferred. Delegations from other European railroads have flocked to Switzerland to study the set-up.

Response:

Question:

Using the old PFC trick, that works too.  I spoke with the traveler and they said they wanted dates of 11/23-30. DL priced it at 223.50, if one could use an AMEX coupon it would be $196.63. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Well guess what?  It gets better.  I just found several different >routings on Northwest Airlines with just one connection for $213 >roundtrip.  BOI-BWI-BOI 11/20-11/26 or 11/27. >Here’s one: >Sat >20-Nov-99 >5h 58m >Boise (BOI) >Depart 2:10 PM to  Baltimore (BWI) Arrive 10:08 PM >Flight: 1272 / 376 >Connect in Minneapolis (MSP) >Fri >26-Nov-99 >6h 42m >Baltimore (BWI) >Depart 8:40 AM to  Boise (BOI)  Arrive 1:22 PM >Flight: 1077 / 1271 >Connect in Minneapolis (MSP)

Response:

Nice job, AB!!  In fact, I specifically queried travelocity.com for DL flights, and a screen returned saying there were no available routings, at any fare.  I just checked delta-air.com and found several itineraries at the $223.50 fare, all including double connections.  I guess the travel agency ticketing sites don’t offer routings with double connections.  Good to know!! I hope the original poster appreciates what you were able to find. That’s a spectacular deal at a time so close to Thanksgiving.  And yes, thanks to Southwest, who initiated this fare sale. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > And 11/20-11/26 is $223.50 >Go for the BOI/BWI fare for around $333, use a Delta/AMEX coupon from >their Executive Womens Program (on the website) and get $50 off per >ticket > $300. >The net fare would be ~$283 which is a deal, and then call Southwest and >thank them.

Response:

Well guess what?  It gets better.  I just found several different routings on Northwest Airlines with just one connection for $213 roundtrip.  BOI-BWI-BOI 11/20-11/26 or 11/27. Here’s one: Sat 20-Nov-99 5h 58m Boise (BOI) Depart 2:10 PM to  Baltimore (BWI) Arrive 10:08 PM Flight: 1272 / 376 Connect in Minneapolis (MSP) Fri 26-Nov-99 6h 42m Baltimore (BWI) Depart 8:40 AM to  Boise (BOI)  Arrive 1:22 PM Flight: 1077 / 1271 Connect in Minneapolis (MSP) Frankly, I’d just go ahead and buy that, but if you really want to beat the system, go ahead and try Priceline since they use both Northwest and Delta.  Based on these fares in the low $200s, if you decide to use Priceline, I would suggest a bid of around $160. Or what might even be a better alternative for you is to use Priceline and bid on BOI-IAD based on the lowest available fare we’re now getting on BOI-BWI. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Nice job, AB!!  In fact, I specifically queried travelocity.com for DL > flights, and a screen returned saying there were no available routings, > at any fare.  I just checked delta-air.com and found several itineraries > at the $223.50 fare, all including double connections.  I guess the > travel agency ticketing sites don’t offer routings with double > connections.  Good to know!! > I hope the original poster appreciates what you were able to find. > That’s a spectacular deal at a time so close to Thanksgiving.  And yes, > thanks to Southwest, who initiated this fare sale. > And 11/20-11/26 is $223.50 > >Go for the BOI/BWI fare for around $333, use a Delta/AMEX coupon from > >their Executive Womens Program (on the website) and get $50 off per > >ticket > $300. > >The net fare would be ~$283 which is a deal, and then call Southwest and > >thank them.

Response:

Go for the BOI/BWI fare for around $333, use a Delta/AMEX coupon from their Executive Womens Program (on the website) and get $50 off per ticket > $300. The net fare would be ~$283 which is a deal, and then call Southwest and thank them. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >My family would like to visit relatives over Thanksgiving.  The route >I’ve been pricing is BOI-IAD, although we would also consider BOI-ROA or >an "open jaws" trip (arriving ROA and leaving IAD or vice versa).   >Arriving at  DCA is also an option.  Leaving from Portland (don’t know >code) or arriving at BWI are extreme options, because we’d have to find >transport to and from the airport.  It would only be worth it if the >savings were significant. Our dates are very flexible, as long as we’re >there on Thanksgiving.  Ideally we’d stay a week, but that also is >flexible.  Travellers are 2 adults and 1 child, age 10. >Anyway, the lowest fare I can find for this trip is $450 each.   >Thanks, >Carla

Response:

And 11/20-11/26 is $223.50 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Go for the BOI/BWI fare for around $333, use a Delta/AMEX coupon from >their Executive Womens Program (on the website) and get $50 off per >ticket > $300. >The net fare would be ~$283 which is a deal, and then call Southwest and >thank them.

Response:

There are lots of options departing BOI to BWI on Saturday, 11/20 and returning either Friday, 11/26 or Saturday, 11/27 at $329.  Everything into either DCA, IAD and ROA is at least $150 more per person.  Check www.travelocity.com, www.itn.net, www.expedia.com. The only way you’ll even come close to $200 is through Priceline, and frankly, I doubt you could get much lower than $300.  Thanksgiving week is the busiest time of the year for air travel.  If you are TOTALLY flexible as to the time of day you travel, give Priceline a try.  You surely have enough airports to bid for.  If bidding through Priceline, though, it’ll need to be a standard roundtrip, no open jaws.  Also keep in mind that Priceline adds taxes and fees to winning bids.  If a $250 bid were accepted, you could expect to be charged about $280. Whatever you decide, if you don’t purchase very soon, the fares will just get higher. Feel free to post any Priceline-related questions on the Yahoo Club I set up to discuss bidding on Priceline. http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/pricelinedeals – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > My family would like to visit relatives over Thanksgiving.  The route > I’ve been pricing is BOI-IAD, although we would also consider BOI-ROA or > an "open jaws" trip (arriving ROA and leaving IAD or vice versa). > Arriving at  DCA is also an option.  Leaving from Portland (don’t know > code) or arriving at BWI are extreme options, because we’d have to find > transport to and from the airport.  It would only be worth it if the > savings were significant. Our dates are very flexible, as long as we’re > there on Thanksgiving.  Ideally we’d stay a week, but that also is > flexible.  Travellers are 2 adults and 1 child, age 10. > Anyway, the lowest fare I can find for this trip is $450 each.  (One > travel site on the web quoted me $220, neglecting to mention that is a > senior citizens fare — GRR.)  Can anyone give me advice or help in > finding fares much, much lower, ideally in the $200 range?  I’ve thought > of trying Priceline — is it reasonable to bid only half of the > published fare?  I’ve also read some of the pertinent posts on this > group, and seen "consolidators" mentioned — what are they and how would > I find one?  Any other ideas or help would be very much appreciated. > Thanks, > Carla

Response:

My family would like to visit relatives over Thanksgiving.  The route I’ve been pricing is BOI-IAD, although we would also consider BOI-ROA or an "open jaws" trip (arriving ROA and leaving IAD or vice versa).   Arriving at  DCA is also an option.  Leaving from Portland (don’t know code) or arriving at BWI are extreme options, because we’d have to find transport to and from the airport.  It would only be worth it if the savings were significant. Our dates are very flexible, as long as we’re there on Thanksgiving.  Ideally we’d stay a week, but that also is flexible.  Travellers are 2 adults and 1 child, age 10. Anyway, the lowest fare I can find for this trip is $450 each.  (One travel site on the web quoted me $220, neglecting to mention that is a senior citizens fare — GRR.)  Can anyone give me advice or help in finding fares much, much lower, ideally in the $200 range?  I’ve thought of trying Priceline — is it reasonable to bid only half of the published fare?  I’ve also read some of the pertinent posts on this group, and seen "consolidators" mentioned — what are they and how would I find one?  Any other ideas or help would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Carla

Response: