Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– >Hash: SHA1 >>> —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >Assuming the aircraft was B737/B757 or A320, what would happen if >>> >this woman collapsed in the aisle from cardiac arrest. For a >>> >start she would be blocking the passageway for pax trying to >>> >disembark, what more if there was and emergency evacuation. Also >>> >imagine the problems the paramedics would have, trying to lift >>> >this >>> >pax onto a stretcher in such a confined space. >>> Cut that out, fool. ANYONE can collapse on a plane and die, >>> including the pilot. >>but a pie eater is more likely to. and some heffer getting their fat >>ass wedged in a door is hardly going to be a bonus in a emergency >>evacuation. >Tell me you don’t eat pie little man. The point is that ANYONE can >die…ANYWHERE…not just fat people. > You call that a point?

Well, it is Lardy Vet we’re talking about…. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Jade >Get a life. >LV >Lady Veteran >"I rode a tank and held a general’s rank >when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank…" >- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil >Support bacteria – they’re the only culture >some people have." -Stephen Wright >He who thinks by the inch and talks by the >yard deserves to be kicked by the foot. >    - Anonymous >Ridicule of fat people is never acceptable. >Those who insist on doing this are living >examples of that old Chinese proverb: >Keep mouth closed and be thought a fool: >Open mouth and remove all doubt. >In other words, they are idiots. >—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– >Version: PGP 8.0 – not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com >iQA/AwUBP58fMsTgtWhYq7BhEQJXzgCgwQruC5FZ2bnDEzlv4X1Rw+F3X2wAnAue >C1I1z6eI7LOOb8gxDHWMEdR6 >=826b >—–END PGP SIGNATURE—– >__ >Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Accounts Starting At $6.95 – >http://www.uncensored-news.com >               <><><><><><><>   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   >               <><><><><><><><>

Response:

> —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– > Hash: SHA1 > You learn to spell

Ladies first! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->and I may consider it. >Otherwise you and ole > Hackkneed can get a room. > LV > Lady Veteran > "I rode a tank and held a general’s rank > when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank…" > – -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil > Support bacteria – they’re the only culture > some people have." -Stephen Wright > He who thinks by the inch and talks by the > yard deserves to be kicked by the foot. >     – Anonymous > Ridicule of fat people is never acceptable. > Those who insist on doing this are living > examples of that old Chinese proverb: > Keep mouth closed and be thought a fool: > Open mouth and remove all doubt. > In other words, they are idiots. > —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– > Version: PGP 8.0 – not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com > iQA/AwUBP58ezMTgtWhYq7BhEQISGACfZrW642iquPlw79bqfJ9uUaPfaJUAoMT5 > L6qqDIvqm1Csm2GJXU5Js7jY > =NYuB > —–END PGP SIGNATURE—– > _ > Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Accounts Starting At $6.95 – > http://www.uncensored-news.com >                <><><><><><><>   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   >                <><><><><><><><>

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– > >Hash: SHA1 > >>Assuming the aircraft was B737/B757 or A320, what would happen if > >>this woman collapsed in the aisle from cardiac arrest. For a start > >>she would be blocking the passageway for pax trying to disembark, > >>what more if there was and emergency evacuation. Also imagine the > >>problems the paramedics would have, trying to lift this > >>pax onto a stretcher in such a confined space. > >Cut that out, fool. ANYONE can collapse on a plane and die, including > >the pilot. > But only obese people block the aisle, endangering other passengers in > an emergency, you idiot. It’s a valid point. > don’t be an ass > one of the best examples of someone blocking an exit and killing people > involved two hyperaggressive men who wouldn’t yield to each other and > thus prevent probably about ten people from escaping before the plane > was consumed in flames — they found people stacked in the aisles dead > — someone had actually had to break up the fight and eject these two > guys through the exit — they got out but their fight cost the time > needed for others to escape > old infirm people quite effectively slow down an evacuation; people with > infants and children slow down an evacuation — obese people are just > one more hurdle — but not a unique one

hmm well studipity cant be overcome with salad.

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– > Hash: SHA1 > You learn to spell >Ladies first!

Oh, look-another morph…..some people are so very dense and cannot take a hint. Coward. LV Lady Veteran "I rode a tank and held a general’s rank when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank…" – -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil Support bacteria – they’re the only culture some people have." -Stephen Wright He who thinks by the inch and talks by the yard deserves to be kicked by the foot.     – Anonymous Ridicule of fat people is never acceptable. Those who insist on doing this are living examples of that old Chinese proverb: Keep mouth closed and be thought a fool: Open mouth and remove all doubt. In other words, they are idiots. —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: PGP 8.0 – not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBP6Bu38TgtWhYq7BhEQIZ6wCgtspwA465wwAk7fjnEbZcinmNtEIAoI3C h0t3CW4eR+qxBbz/YKiFWBlW =FCn5 —–END PGP SIGNATURE—– Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Accounts Starting At $6.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com                <><><><><><><>   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <><><><><><><><>

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– >Hash: SHA1 >> —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– >> Hash: SHA1 >> >Assuming the aircraft was B737/B757 or A320, what would happen if >> >this woman collapsed in the aisle from cardiac arrest. For a >> >start she would be blocking the passageway for pax trying to >> >disembark, what more if there was and emergency evacuation. Also >> >imagine the problems the paramedics would have, trying to lift >> >this >> >pax onto a stretcher in such a confined space. >> Cut that out, fool. ANYONE can collapse on a plane and die, >> including the pilot. >but a pie eater is more likely to. and some heffer getting their fat >ass wedged in a door is hardly going to be a bonus in a emergency >evacuation. >Tell me you don’t eat pie little man. The point is that ANYONE can >die…ANYWHERE…not just fat people.

You call that a point? Jade – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Get a life. >LV >Lady Veteran >"I rode a tank and held a general’s rank >when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank…" >- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil >Support bacteria – they’re the only culture >some people have." -Stephen Wright >He who thinks by the inch and talks by the >yard deserves to be kicked by the foot. >    - Anonymous >Ridicule of fat people is never acceptable. >Those who insist on doing this are living >examples of that old Chinese proverb: >Keep mouth closed and be thought a fool: >Open mouth and remove all doubt. >In other words, they are idiots. >—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– >Version: PGP 8.0 – not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com >iQA/AwUBP58fMsTgtWhYq7BhEQJXzgCgwQruC5FZ2bnDEzlv4X1Rw+F3X2wAnAue >C1I1z6eI7LOOb8gxDHWMEdR6 >=826b >—–END PGP SIGNATURE—– >Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Accounts Starting At $6.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com >               <><><><><><><>   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <><><><><><><><>

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– > Hash: SHA1 > >Assuming the aircraft was B737/B757 or A320, what would happen if > >this woman collapsed in the aisle from cardiac arrest. For a > >start she would be blocking the passageway for pax trying to > >disembark, what more if there was and emergency evacuation. Also > >imagine the problems the paramedics would have, trying to lift > >this > >pax onto a stretcher in such a confined space. > Cut that out, fool. ANYONE can collapse on a plane and die, > including the pilot. >but a pie eater is more likely to. and some heffer getting their fat >ass wedged in a door is hardly going to be a bonus in a emergency >evacuation.

Tell me you don’t eat pie little man. The point is that ANYONE can die…ANYWHERE…not just fat people. Get a life. LV Lady Veteran "I rode a tank and held a general’s rank when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank…" – -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil Support bacteria – they’re the only culture some people have." -Stephen Wright He who thinks by the inch and talks by the yard deserves to be kicked by the foot.     – Anonymous Ridicule of fat people is never acceptable. Those who insist on doing this are living examples of that old Chinese proverb: Keep mouth closed and be thought a fool: Open mouth and remove all doubt. In other words, they are idiots. —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: PGP 8.0 – not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBP58fMsTgtWhYq7BhEQJXzgCgwQruC5FZ2bnDEzlv4X1Rw+F3X2wAnAue C1I1z6eI7LOOb8gxDHWMEdR6 =826b —–END PGP SIGNATURE—– Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Accounts Starting At $6.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com                <><><><><><><>   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <><><><><><><><>

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– >Hash: SHA1 >>Assuming the aircraft was B737/B757 or A320, what would happen if >>this woman collapsed in the aisle from cardiac arrest. For a start >>she would be blocking the passageway for pax trying to disembark, >>what more if there was and emergency evacuation. Also imagine the >>problems the paramedics would have, trying to lift this >>pax onto a stretcher in such a confined space. >Cut that out, fool. ANYONE can collapse on a plane and die, including >the pilot. > But only obese people block the aisle, endangering other passengers in > an emergency, you idiot. It’s a valid point.

don’t be an ass one of the best examples of someone blocking an exit and killing people involved two hyperaggressive men who wouldn’t yield to each other and thus prevent probably about ten people from escaping before the plane was consumed in flames — they found people stacked in the aisles dead — someone had actually had to break up the fight and eject these two guys through the exit — they got out but their fight cost the time needed for others to escape old infirm people quite effectively slow down an evacuation; people with infants and children slow down an evacuation — obese people are just one more hurdle — but not a unique one

Response:

> > Assuming the aircraft was B737/B757 or A320, what would happen if this woman > collapsed in the aisle from cardiac arrest. For a start she would be blocking the > passageway for pax trying to disembark, what more if there was and emergency > evacuation. Also imagine the problems the paramedics would have, trying to lift > this > pax onto a stretcher in such a confined space. > Pax of this disposition need to make responsible decisions about using air travel. > What if YOUR mother had decided on an abortion?

    In those days (when my mother was pregnant), abortion was NOT a decision made by the mother to be,     but by the docotors only. > Sorry, didn’t mean to

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 You learn to spell and I may consider it. Otherwise you and ole Hackkneed can get a room. LV Lady Veteran "I rode a tank and held a general’s rank when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank…" – -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil Support bacteria – they’re the only culture some people have." -Stephen Wright He who thinks by the inch and talks by the yard deserves to be kicked by the foot.     – Anonymous Ridicule of fat people is never acceptable. Those who insist on doing this are living examples of that old Chinese proverb: Keep mouth closed and be thought a fool: Open mouth and remove all doubt. In other words, they are idiots. —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: PGP 8.0 – not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBP58ezMTgtWhYq7BhEQISGACfZrW642iquPlw79bqfJ9uUaPfaJUAoMT5 L6qqDIvqm1Csm2GJXU5Js7jY =NYuB —–END PGP SIGNATURE—– Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Accounts Starting At $6.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com                <><><><><><><>   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <><><><><><><><>

Response:

>>Cut that out, fool. ANYONE can collapse on a plane and die, >     Well, youre and even bigger fool for saying it cant happen.

Where did they say this?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– >Hash: SHA1 >Assuming the aircraft was B737/B757 or A320, what would happen if >this woman collapsed in the aisle from cardiac arrest. For a start >she would be blocking the passageway for pax trying to disembark, >what more if there was and emergency evacuation. Also imagine the >problems the paramedics would have, trying to lift this >pax onto a stretcher in such a confined space. >Cut that out, fool. ANYONE can collapse on a plane and die, including >the pilot.

But only obese people block the aisle, endangering other passengers in an emergency, you idiot. It’s a valid point. >Find someone else to ridicule.

No one was being ridiculed in his post, you illiterate, drooling moron. Jade – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->LV >Lady Veteran >"I rode a tank and held a general’s rank >when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank…" >- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil >Support bacteria – they’re the only culture >some people have." -Stephen Wright >He who thinks by the inch and talks by the >yard deserves to be kicked by the foot. >    - Anonymous >Ridicule of fat people is never acceptable. >Those who insist on doing this are living >examples of that old Chinese proverb: >Keep mouth closed and be thought a fool: >Open mouth and remove all doubt. >In other words, they are idiots. >—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– >Version: PGP 8.0 – not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com >iQA/AwUBP52tdMTgtWhYq7BhEQI0YACg6lzDvxuVN0PUjuUCyIMavnOcJHoAnjcn >ZcS898PwlSPdFIRrA/T9pBK2 >=R0Ua >—–END PGP SIGNATURE—– >Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Accounts Starting At $6.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com >               <><><><><><><>   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <><><><><><><><>

Response:

> Assuming the aircraft was B737/B757 or A320, what would happen if this woman > collapsed in the aisle from cardiac arrest. For a start she would be blocking the > passageway for pax trying to disembark, what more if there was and emergency > evacuation. Also imagine the problems the paramedics would have, trying to lift > this > pax onto a stretcher in such a confined space. > Pax of this disposition need to make responsible decisions about using air travel.

What if YOUR mother had decided on an abortion?  Sorry, didn’t mean to

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– > Hash: SHA1 >Assuming the aircraft was B737/B757 or A320, what would happen if >this woman collapsed in the aisle from cardiac arrest. For a start >she would be blocking the passageway for pax trying to disembark, >what more if there was and emergency evacuation. Also imagine the >problems the paramedics would have, trying to lift this >pax onto a stretcher in such a confined space. > Cut that out, fool. ANYONE can collapse on a plane and die, including > the pilot.

but a pie eater is more likely to. and some heffer getting their fat ass wedged in a door is hardly going to be a bonus in a emergency evacuation. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Find someone else to ridicule. > LV > Lady Veteran > "I rode a tank and held a general’s rank > when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank…" > – -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil > Support bacteria – they’re the only culture > some people have." -Stephen Wright > He who thinks by the inch and talks by the > yard deserves to be kicked by the foot. >     – Anonymous > Ridicule of fat people is never acceptable. > Those who insist on doing this are living > examples of that old Chinese proverb: > Keep mouth closed and be thought a fool: > Open mouth and remove all doubt. > In other words, they are idiots. > —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– > Version: PGP 8.0 – not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com > iQA/AwUBP52tdMTgtWhYq7BhEQI0YACg6lzDvxuVN0PUjuUCyIMavnOcJHoAnjcn > ZcS898PwlSPdFIRrA/T9pBK2 > =R0Ua > —–END PGP SIGNATURE—– > Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Accounts Starting At $6.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com >                <><><><><><><>   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <><><><><><><><>

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 >Assuming the aircraft was B737/B757 or A320, what would happen if >this woman collapsed in the aisle from cardiac arrest. For a start >she would be blocking the passageway for pax trying to disembark, >what more if there was and emergency evacuation. Also imagine the >problems the paramedics would have, trying to lift this >pax onto a stretcher in such a confined space.

Cut that out, fool. ANYONE can collapse on a plane and die, including the pilot. Find someone else to ridicule. LV Lady Veteran "I rode a tank and held a general’s rank when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank…" – -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil Support bacteria – they’re the only culture some people have." -Stephen Wright He who thinks by the inch and talks by the yard deserves to be kicked by the foot.     – Anonymous Ridicule of fat people is never acceptable. Those who insist on doing this are living examples of that old Chinese proverb: Keep mouth closed and be thought a fool: Open mouth and remove all doubt. In other words, they are idiots. —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: PGP 8.0 – not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBP52tdMTgtWhYq7BhEQI0YACg6lzDvxuVN0PUjuUCyIMavnOcJHoAnjcn ZcS898PwlSPdFIRrA/T9pBK2 =R0Ua —–END PGP SIGNATURE—– Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Accounts Starting At $6.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com                <><><><><><><>   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <><><><><><><><>

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– > Hash: SHA1 >Assuming the aircraft was B737/B757 or A320, what would happen if >this woman collapsed in the aisle from cardiac arrest. For a start >she would be blocking the passageway for pax trying to disembark, >what more if there was and emergency evacuation. Also imagine the >problems the paramedics would have, trying to lift this >pax onto a stretcher in such a confined space. > Cut that out, fool. ANYONE can collapse on a plane and die,

    Well, youre and even bigger fool for saying it cant happen.     About six months ago and Air NZ flt from Auckland to Perth made and emergency landing in Adelaide to     off load a heart attack victim. Its not the first time this has happened either     So get your facts right you stupid embicile.  Also if you read my words carefully they were NOT intended to ridicule. > including the pilot.

    Death does not discriminate, it can happen to almost anybody. > Find someone else to ridicule.

    You can be the first. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> LV > Lady Veteran > "I rode a tank and held a general’s rank > when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank…" > – -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil > Support bacteria – they’re the only culture > some people have." -Stephen Wright > He who thinks by the inch and talks by the > yard deserves to be kicked by the foot. >     – Anonymous > Ridicule of fat people is never acceptable. > Those who insist on doing this are living > examples of that old Chinese proverb: > Keep mouth closed and be thought a fool: > Open mouth and remove all doubt. > In other words, they are idiots. > —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– > Version: PGP 8.0 – not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com > iQA/AwUBP52tdMTgtWhYq7BhEQI0YACg6lzDvxuVN0PUjuUCyIMavnOcJHoAnjcn > ZcS898PwlSPdFIRrA/T9pBK2 > =R0Ua > —–END PGP SIGNATURE—– > Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Accounts Starting At $6.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com >                <><><><><><><>   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <><><><><><><><>

Response:

Assuming the aircraft was B737/B757 or A320, what would happen if this woman collapsed in the aisle from cardiac arrest. For a start she would be blocking the passageway for pax trying to disembark, what more if there was and emergency evacuation. Also imagine the problems the paramedics would have, trying to lift this pax onto a stretcher in such a confined space. Pax of this disposition need to make responsible decisions about using air travel. If so, then the onus is on them to inform the carrier at time of booking so this pax can be seated in the ideal position without hampering the movements of other pax, especially when there might be and emergency evacuation. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >    CAIRO, Oct 24 (AFP) – An EgyptAir pilot refused to take off Friday because > he said one of the plane’s passengers was too fat, an airport source said. >    The pilot feared the flight to Dubai would trigger medical problems in the > female passenger, whose identity and weight were not disclosed. >    The woman’s daughter, who was with her on the plane, demanded a doctor be > called in, the source said, adding that an airport physician confirmed the > woman was in good health and could fly without risk. >    The pilot continued to protest, to the rage of many passengers, five of > whom canceled their flights. >    He was eventually obliged to take off after a three hour delay, the hapless > woman still on board.

Response:

Question:

> I usually take Xanax, it calms u down, if there is strong turbulence i take > another one.

Just tell me you’re not the pilot. Best Regards, Bill Mattocks

Response:

> If you are not serious, well LOL > If you are serious, Fuck of you Religous Cunt’ this is not > rec.travel.magiccarpet.godpropelled

It is also not alt.christian.die.die.die, so pogue mahone. >I usually have a few treble whiskeys for a long flight, not so much out of >fear, but boredom…

I agree, you’re boring. >I like to pass out as soon as I get my seat..

I’m sure that decision is welcomed by your seatmates, given the mouth on you.  You’re probably somewhat more pleasant when sleeping. Best Regards, Bill Mattocks

Response:

OK, so I’m on a plane and that means that at least one person is unsaved. What does your theology say about a mixed planeload? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

I usually take Xanax, it calms u down, if there is strong turbulence i take another one.

Response:

my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> well,to begin with > I know the Lord Jesus Christ as my Saviour > So to me Absent from the body means present with the Lord. > The day that I die is in the hands of God,Not a pilot,not a terrorist,not an > airplane mechanic. > If The Lord wants me to continue living so I can serve him,then No amount of > turbulance can rattle me. > That assurance is very soothing.

Response:

>>well,to begin with >I know the Lord Jesus Christ as my Saviour >So to me Absent from the body means present with the Lord. >The day that I die is in the hands of God,Not a pilot,not a terrorist,not an >airplane mechanic. >If The Lord wants me to continue living so I can serve him,then No amount of >turbulance can rattle me. >That assurance is very soothing. >So, if a plane crashes, your savior managed to get 300 people who >deserved to die right then all together at once?

I’m trying to figure out where you’re going with this, but…..? OTOH, who said that all 300 would die?  The poster was talking about himself.

Response:

>> Tim, if you do a google search on "fear of flying," you’ll find lots of > suggestions.  However, the most obvious one is this:  if you used to be okay > with flying, and aren’t any longer, then something has happened to you. > It’s probably worthwhile talking to someone to find out what. >Interesting thought. I have the same problem as the OP. I used to >enjoy flying, and flew quite frequently in my twenties but now >approaching forty I am terrified of it. For some reason it seems to >have gotten quite a bit worse since I was involved in a serious car >accident last year… perhaps my mind is telling me not to tempt fate >any more than I absolutely have to.

It must be middle age mortality logic. For me, I’m really paranoid when I travel with my wife and kids, otherwise I enjoy the ride. May I suggest Zanax before takeoff to lessen the anxiety. It really does work.

Response:

> well,to begin with > I know the Lord Jesus Christ as my Saviour > So to me Absent from the body means present with the Lord. > The day that I die is in the hands of God,Not a pilot,not a terrorist,not an > airplane mechanic. > If The Lord wants me to continue living so I can serve him,then No amount of > turbulance can rattle me.

If you are not serious, well LOL If you are serious, Fuck of you Religous Cunt’ this is not rec.travel.magiccarpet.godpropelled

Response:

Response:

I am serious my friend. and this post was not about religion the thread asked how do you feel about flying So I answered it. deal,so does everyone else.The thread starter was looking for *WHY* so I answered him

Response:

Response:

> well,to begin with > I know the Lord Jesus Christ as my Saviour > So to me Absent from the body means present with the Lord. > The day that I die is in the hands of God,Not a pilot,not a terrorist,not an > airplane mechanic. > If The Lord wants me to continue living so I can serve him,then No amount of > turbulance can rattle me. > That assurance is very soothing.

So I presume you are opposed to, say, police and laws. miguel — Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Response:

well,to begin with I know the Lord Jesus Christ as my Saviour So to me Absent from the body means present with the Lord. The day that I die is in the hands of God,Not a pilot,not a terrorist,not an airplane mechanic. If The Lord wants me to continue living so I can serve him,then No amount of turbulance can rattle me. That assurance is very soothing.

Response:

>well,to begin with >I know the Lord Jesus Christ as my Saviour >So to me Absent from the body means present with the Lord. >The day that I die is in the hands of God,Not a pilot,not a terrorist,not an >airplane mechanic. >If The Lord wants me to continue living so I can serve him,then No amount of >turbulance can rattle me. >That assurance is very soothing.

So, if a plane crashes, your savior managed to get 300 people who deserved to die right then all together at once?

Response:

No problem although I do miss the spinning things on the engines. Eric

Response:

> So wondering what your thoughts and preparations are before you fly.

I dislike flying–moving at 600 mph at a height of six miles is not a natural act for any Earth creature.  But I dislike even more the prospect of driving or taking the bus and taking a week to get somewhere when I can do it in a matter of hours in an aircraft.  So up I go… Look at it this way: aircraft are flying, taking off, and landing around the world, all day and every day 24-7-365.  That’s hundreds of thousands of passengers traveling without incident.  So it’s okay to be scared, just try not to let it keep you from getting to where you need or want to go.

Response:

> Tim, if you do a google search on "fear of flying," you’ll find lots of > suggestions.  However, the most obvious one is this:  if you used to be okay > with flying, and aren’t any longer, then something has happened to you. > It’s probably worthwhile talking to someone to find out what.

Interesting thought. I have the same problem as the OP. I used to enjoy flying, and flew quite frequently in my twenties but now approaching forty I am terrified of it. For some reason it seems to have gotten quite a bit worse since I was involved in a serious car accident last year… perhaps my mind is telling me not to tempt fate any more than I absolutely have to.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> As a fearful flyer I’m trying to come to terms with my fear. I’m wondering > what you do, from those who are not fearful about flights. Brief History: I > used to fly 3 to 4 days a week for business in my twenties, never had any > fear whatsoever, actually enjoyed flying. Now having turned 41 have flown > maybe 10 times in the last 15 years and the fear is powerful. > Here’s my typical pattern: > 1) Book trip months/ possibly up to a year in advance. Intermittently check > websites, etc. > 2) About 2 months before flight, start looking at websites, and > specifications on the type of equipment. > 3) Start checking to see how full the flight is (a full plane creates more > fear for me than an empty plane) > 4) About 1 month prior to flight. Start watching long term forecasts, clear > air turbulence forecasts, and browsing disaster databases for the model > aircraft I will be on to see the history of the airline/aircraft. > 5) About 1 week before. Start with mini panic attacks, anxiety, headaches. > 6) About 3 days before, loss of sleep, sweating palms, general anxiety. > 7) Day before flight. No sleep, anxiety again. > Day of scheduled flight, miserable, nervous, can’t think or focus on > anything else. > 9) On the plane.. Seatbelt tight, no talking, stare out window, listen for > any sounds, wait for turbulence so I can employ the death grip on the > armrest. > 10) Upon landing. Total relief, start to remember what the flight was for in > the first place. But the pattern starts again for the return flight but not > as bad as the departing flight since I can replay the departing flight in my > head if it wasn’t a bad flight.. > Most of my air travel is for vacation purposes, I’ll be taking 6 flights > within the next 4 months and even though I realize that air travel is safe, > for me it is still a fearful event. > All my fear is general and I can pretty much take any scenario and run with > it to make it an anxiety provoking thought. > So wondering what your thoughts and preparations are before you fly.

I usually have a few treble whiskeys for a long flight, not so much out of fear, but boredom… I like to pass out as soon as I get my seat..

Response:

What?  You don’t worry whether they are serving the eggs upside down or downside up?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->As a fearful flyer I’m trying to come to terms with my fear. I’m wondering >what you do, from those who are not fearful about flights. Brief History: I >used to fly 3 to 4 days a week for business in my twenties, never had any >fear whatsoever, actually enjoyed flying. Now having turned 41 have flown >maybe 10 times in the last 15 years and the fear is powerful. > Well, I can’t speak for your experience, but I travel a lot. In fact I > think I’ve done 3 trips around the world in the past 4 or 5 years. I > used to LOVE flying- especially the looking out the window whenever > the window Nazi’s would not complain too much about the shade being > up. Geography was my major, so seeing everything in ‘bas relief’ was > always fascinating. But as time wore on, things got more and more > boring. Then I started paying attention to the web sites with the > statistics for air travel. For instance 3 years ago I did 9 domestic > flights in China. Then did a bunch of domestic flights in South > America and then did ditto in Russia. > From these experiences I became a bit concerned, and now I spend most > of my time on long flights wondering what would happen if ‘the worst’ > happend? I mean how would I react? How would the other passengers > react? What if it was a bomb?? What would it be like? would it cause > total loss of control? what would it be like to hit the water (land) > at 500 mph head on? Whould you know it? whould you, in that split > second before oblivion, have any idea what was happening? Would your > mind be able to process data that fast? What would your last thoughts > be? What if a cargo door blew off? whould it cause severe > decompression? What if a main door blew off? Or some idiot opened it > by accident? would everyone get sucked out? If so, and one of them ws > you, what would it feel like to fall 10,000 metres and then smash into > little bits on the ocean(ground)? Would you be conscious all the way > down? would you scream all the way down? How long would it take? Would > your life flash in front of your eyes?? If you didn’t like it, would > you have time to edit it?? > These things are all worth thinking about, and in fact will make you a > better traveller. > Cheers, > C.

Response:

> 9) On the plane.. Seatbelt tight, no talking, stare out window, listen for > any sounds, wait for turbulence so I can employ the death grip on the > armrest.

Too bad you can’t enjoy anymore the wonder of flying. But _that_ is just funny "to employ the death grip on the armrest". I wish I had to fly :-/ Greetz, *no money*

Response:

Tim:  Obviously you have a real problem.  You need professional help, not some home grown methods.  Personally I have never loved flying, but I have never feared it.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> As a fearful flyer I’m trying to come to terms with my fear. I’m wondering > what you do, from those who are not fearful about flights. Brief History: I > used to fly 3 to 4 days a week for business in my twenties, never had any > fear whatsoever, actually enjoyed flying. Now having turned 41 have flown > maybe 10 times in the last 15 years and the fear is powerful. > Here’s my typical pattern: > 1) Book trip months/ possibly up to a year in advance. Intermittently check > websites, etc. > 2) About 2 months before flight, start looking at websites, and > specifications on the type of equipment. > 3) Start checking to see how full the flight is (a full plane creates more > fear for me than an empty plane) > 4) About 1 month prior to flight. Start watching long term forecasts, clear > air turbulence forecasts, and browsing disaster databases for the model > aircraft I will be on to see the history of the airline/aircraft. > 5) About 1 week before. Start with mini panic attacks, anxiety, headaches. > 6) About 3 days before, loss of sleep, sweating palms, general anxiety. > 7) Day before flight. No sleep, anxiety again. > Day of scheduled flight, miserable, nervous, can’t think or focus on > anything else. > 9) On the plane.. Seatbelt tight, no talking, stare out window, listen for > any sounds, wait for turbulence so I can employ the death grip on the > armrest. > 10) Upon landing. Total relief, start to remember what the flight was for in > the first place. But the pattern starts again for the return flight but not > as bad as the departing flight since I can replay the departing flight in my > head if it wasn’t a bad flight.. > Most of my air travel is for vacation purposes, I’ll be taking 6 flights > within the next 4 months and even though I realize that air travel is safe, > for me it is still a fearful event. > All my fear is general and I can pretty much take any scenario and run with > it to make it an anxiety provoking thought. > So wondering what your thoughts and preparations are before you fly. > Thanks, > Tim

Response:

> I spend most of my time on long flights wondering what would happen if > ‘the worst’ happend? I mean how would I react? How would the other > passengers react? What if it was a bomb?? What would it be like? would it > cause total loss of control? what would it be like to hit the water (land) > at 500 mph head on? Whould you know it? whould you, in that split second > before oblivion, have any idea what was happening? Would your mind be able > to process data that fast? What would your last thoughts be? What if a > cargo door blew off? whould it cause severe decompression? What if a main > door blew off? Or some idiot opened it by accident? would everyone get > sucked out? If so, and one of them ws you, what would it feel like to fall > 10,000 metres and then smash into little bits on the ocean(ground)? Would > you be conscious all the way down? would you scream all the way down? How > long would it take? Would your life flash in front of your eyes?? If you > didn’t like it, would you have time to edit it??

I bet he’s comforted now… miguel — Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Response:

>As a fearful flyer I’m trying to come to terms with my fear. I’m wondering >what you do, from those who are not fearful about flights. Brief History: I >used to fly 3 to 4 days a week for business in my twenties, never had any >fear whatsoever, actually enjoyed flying. Now having turned 41 have flown >maybe 10 times in the last 15 years and the fear is powerful.

Well, I can’t speak for your experience, but I travel a lot. In fact I think I’ve done 3 trips around the world in the past 4 or 5 years. I used to LOVE flying- especially the looking out the window whenever the window Nazi’s would not complain too much about the shade being up. Geography was my major, so seeing everything in ‘bas relief’ was always fascinating. But as time wore on, things got more and more boring. Then I started paying attention to the web sites with the statistics for air travel. For instance 3 years ago I did 9 domestic flights in China. Then did a bunch of domestic flights in South America and then did ditto in Russia. From these experiences I became a bit concerned, and now I spend most of my time on long flights wondering what would happen if ‘the worst’ happend? I mean how would I react? How would the other passengers react? What if it was a bomb?? What would it be like? would it cause total loss of control? what would it be like to hit the water (land) at 500 mph head on? Whould you know it? whould you, in that split second before oblivion, have any idea what was happening? Would your mind be able to process data that fast? What would your last thoughts be? What if a cargo door blew off? whould it cause severe decompression? What if a main door blew off? Or some idiot opened it by accident? would everyone get sucked out? If so, and one of them ws you, what would it feel like to fall 10,000 metres and then smash into little bits on the ocean(ground)? Would you be conscious all the way down? would you scream all the way down? How long would it take? Would your life flash in front of your eyes?? If you didn’t like it, would you have time to edit it?? These things are all worth thinking about, and in fact will make you a better traveller. Cheers, C.

Response:

As a fearful flyer I’m trying to come to terms with my fear. I’m wondering what you do, from those who are not fearful about flights. Brief History: I used to fly 3 to 4 days a week for business in my twenties, never had any fear whatsoever, actually enjoyed flying. Now having turned 41 have flown maybe 10 times in the last 15 years and the fear is powerful. Here’s my typical pattern: 1) Book trip months/ possibly up to a year in advance. Intermittently check websites, etc. 2) About 2 months before flight, start looking at websites, and specifications on the type of equipment. 3) Start checking to see how full the flight is (a full plane creates more fear for me than an empty plane) 4) About 1 month prior to flight. Start watching long term forecasts, clear air turbulence forecasts, and browsing disaster databases for the model aircraft I will be on to see the history of the airline/aircraft. 5) About 1 week before. Start with mini panic attacks, anxiety, headaches. 6) About 3 days before, loss of sleep, sweating palms, general anxiety. 7) Day before flight. No sleep, anxiety again. Day of scheduled flight, miserable, nervous, can’t think or focus on anything else. 9) On the plane.. Seatbelt tight, no talking, stare out window, listen for any sounds, wait for turbulence so I can employ the death grip on the armrest. 10) Upon landing. Total relief, start to remember what the flight was for in the first place. But the pattern starts again for the return flight but not as bad as the departing flight since I can replay the departing flight in my head if it wasn’t a bad flight.. Most of my air travel is for vacation purposes, I’ll be taking 6 flights within the next 4 months and even though I realize that air travel is safe, for me it is still a fearful event. All my fear is general and I can pretty much take any scenario and run with it to make it an anxiety provoking thought. So wondering what your thoughts and preparations are before you fly. Thanks, Tim

Response:

Tim, if you do a google search on "fear of flying," you’ll find lots of suggestions.  However, the most obvious one is this:  if you used to be okay with flying, and aren’t any longer, then something has happened to you. It’s probably worthwhile talking to someone to find out what. For what it’s worth, I used to be very fearful of flying, and went through a similar, though not as severe, pattern as you’ve described in your post. I’ve gotten over it through repeated exposure to flying (I have to fly between 70 and 100 thousand miles a year), have a set routine when I fly (which can accurately be called a ritual), and self-medicating when and as necessary.  Now I look forward to most flights, can sleep through them, etc. Even turbulence doesn’t bother me much.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> As a fearful flyer I’m trying to come to terms with my fear. I’m wondering > what you do, from those who are not fearful about flights. Brief History: I > used to fly 3 to 4 days a week for business in my twenties, never had any > fear whatsoever, actually enjoyed flying. Now having turned 41 have flown > maybe 10 times in the last 15 years and the fear is powerful. > Here’s my typical pattern: > 1) Book trip months/ possibly up to a year in advance. Intermittently check > websites, etc. > 2) About 2 months before flight, start looking at websites, and > specifications on the type of equipment. > 3) Start checking to see how full the flight is (a full plane creates more > fear for me than an empty plane) > 4) About 1 month prior to flight. Start watching long term forecasts, clear > air turbulence forecasts, and browsing disaster databases for the model > aircraft I will be on to see the history of the airline/aircraft. > 5) About 1 week before. Start with mini panic attacks, anxiety, headaches. > 6) About 3 days before, loss of sleep, sweating palms, general anxiety. > 7) Day before flight. No sleep, anxiety again. > Day of scheduled flight, miserable, nervous, can’t think or focus on > anything else. > 9) On the plane.. Seatbelt tight, no talking, stare out window, listen for > any sounds, wait for turbulence so I can employ the death grip on the > armrest. > 10) Upon landing. Total relief, start to remember what the flight was for in > the first place. But the pattern starts again for the return flight but not > as bad as the departing flight since I can replay the departing flight in my > head if it wasn’t a bad flight.. > Most of my air travel is for vacation purposes, I’ll be taking 6 flights > within the next 4 months and even though I realize that air travel is safe, > for me it is still a fearful event. > All my fear is general and I can pretty much take any scenario and run with > it to make it an anxiety provoking thought. > So wondering what your thoughts and preparations are before you fly. > Thanks, > Tim

Response:

Question:

> BTW, the announcement at the beginning of the flight concerning not > leaving your class of service even tho the curtains are left > open……does anyone know if this really applies to people from 1st > and business walking to a lower class, or is it just meant to keep > people from moving forward? And in planes where the cockpit is > upstairs, is the rule less stringently enforced? We just returned from > an SFO-Shanghai trip in which a 1st class passenger spent most of the > flight chattering to the hired hands in the economy mid-cabin galley, > the staff nodding their heads patiently and smiling at him a lot while > economy pax tried to maneuver around him.

Absolutely. There’s no restriction for front cabin passengers to come back. And why should there be?

Response:

If you expect the window to be functinal as a window, the upper section is not good as the windows there are sloped up and you can’t see much from them, assuming you want to look at the ground that is.. But it’s so quiet and dark and relaxing up there. I’d go for upstairs every time. It’s just a more laid-back place. my 2cents. C. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->What is the preferred seat in business (on a long flight): upper deck >window (not an exit row; isles not available) OR main cabin isle in a >center section? Any wisdom would be great.

Response:

> At least downstairs middle section you are realistically (if not > technically) free to roam the back half of the plane

Can’t you walk down the stairs and around? > BTW, the announcement at the beginning of the flight concerning not > leaving your class of service even tho the curtains are left > open……does anyone know if this really applies to people from 1st > and business walking to a lower class,

It is to prevent the lower classes from going up in class, not the other way around.

Response:

> > BTW, the announcement at the beginning of the flight concerning not > leaving your class of service even tho the curtains are left > open……does anyone know if this really applies to people from 1st > and business walking to a lower class, or is it just meant to keep > people from moving forward? And in planes where the cockpit is > upstairs, is the rule less stringently enforced? We just returned from > an SFO-Shanghai trip in which a 1st class passenger spent most of the > flight chattering to the hired hands in the economy mid-cabin galley, > the staff nodding their heads patiently and smiling at him a lot while > economy pax tried to maneuver around him. > Absolutely. There’s no restriction for front cabin passengers to come > back. And why should there be?

I wouldn’t head to the back of the cabin for fear of catching dseases of poor people

Response:

If you are a sleeper go for the upstairs window seat but I’ve always felt too constrained up there on a long flight. It is always dark & quiet (was going to say like a morgue but we don’t make jokes like that about air travel anymore) so you would feel you were putting others out by exiting your seat periodically — which you should do on a long-haul flight. At least downstairs middle section you are realistically (if not technically) free to roam the back half of the plane and, as others have pointed out, you stand the best chance of having an empty seat next to you. This latter is much more likely if you are a member of the airline’s loyalty program & have high mileage. BTW, the announcement at the beginning of the flight concerning not leaving your class of service even tho the curtains are left open……does anyone know if this really applies to people from 1st and business walking to a lower class, or is it just meant to keep people from moving forward? And in planes where the cockpit is upstairs, is the rule less stringently enforced? We just returned from an SFO-Shanghai trip in which a 1st class passenger spent most of the flight chattering to the hired hands in the economy mid-cabin galley, the staff nodding their heads patiently and smiling at him a lot while economy pax tried to maneuver around him. As always after a long flight, Cranky

Response:

>Unlike coach, BC usually has enough room to easily get out.

Man, you must be younger than me…I get the deadly knee lock after a few hours an wind up stumbling while trying to climb over my neighbor.

Response:

>> What is the preferred seat in business (on a long flight): upper deck > window (not an exit row; isles not available) OR main cabin isle in a > center section? Any wisdom would be great. > One thing that Upper Deck Window has that others don’t is the luggage > compartment between the seat and the aircraft which extends down the > length of the upper deck.

Yup, I love this particular feature. You can place your books and other parphenalia in there and not have to get up to lleave your seat to access the overhead locker. A lazy man’s paradise — Peter <X-Files Fan> Please Note: Emailed replies cc’d / bcc’d , containing HTML or attachments auto-binned as spam

Response:

I almost always go for the aisle seat, and reserve as far in advance as I can to get it. However, the upper deck is special, and in this case I would probably give the window seat a chance.  Who knows? You might get lucky and have some newbie want to change with you….or your seatmate might miss the flight…

Response:

Whilst undoubtedly under the effects of alcohol, >What is the preferred seat in business (on a long flight): upper deck >window (not an exit row; isles not available) OR main cabin isle in a >center section? Any wisdom would be great.

On QF, I always go for main deck aisle, in particular, a ‘D’ seat. Reason being is that the E seat is the last to go, so there is an extremely good chance it will be empty. I can then put some of my stuff on it during the flight, and also swing their PTV out for me to use (for the Airshow, that is) whilst still using my own screen for movies, games, whatever. Dave Don’t Drink Drive…. It’s A Laundry Detergent

Response:

> What is the preferred seat in business (on a long flight): upper deck > window (not an exit row; isles not available) OR main cabin isle in a > center section? Any wisdom would be great.

The upper deck is generally quieter, since there are less passengers there. It seems that the airlines in general do not seat as many children on the upper deck, at least that has been my experience.  I always ask for upper deck.

Response:

assuming you don’t have a lot of junk to lug upstairs…going UP is relatively EASY, going down with full arms…(upstairs on BA 747-400 was particularly nice)

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> What is the preferred seat in business (on a long flight): upper deck > window (not an exit row; isles not available) OR main cabin isle in a > center section? Any wisdom would be great.

Response:

What is the preferred seat in business (on a long flight): upper deck window (not an exit row; isles not available) OR main cabin isle in a center section? Any wisdom would be great.

Response:

> What is the preferred seat in business (on a long flight): upper deck > window (not an exit row; isles not available) OR main cabin isle in a > center section? Any wisdom would be great.

One thing that Upper Deck Window has that others don’t is the luggage compartment between the seat and the aircraft which extends down the length of the upper deck. Assuming you are in a non sleeper business seat this may allow you (depending upon your height) to stretch your legs on that compartment. Aisle seats in Upper or main cabin do not have this nor does windo in main cabin.

Response:

US carriers it makes no difference as the service is rubbish wherever you sit but at least upper deck gives the feeling of having more space

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> What is the preferred seat in business (on a long flight): upper deck > window (not an exit row; isles not available) OR main cabin isle in a > center section? Any wisdom would be great.

Response:

>What is the preferred seat in business (on a long flight): upper deck >window (not an exit row; isles not available) OR main cabin isle in a >center section? Any wisdom would be great.

All a matter of taste but I would always take an aisle seat anywhere over a non-aisle.  I like to walk around some during long flights.  A center section aisle on a 2-3-2 configuration is the most likely to have an empty seat next to you.

Response:

:>>What is the preferred seat in business (on a long flight): upper deck :>>window (not an exit row; isles not available) OR main cabin isle in a :>>center section? Any wisdom would be great. I usually do window in BC, aisle in coach. :>All a matter of taste but I would always take an aisle seat anywhere :>over a non-aisle.  I like to walk around some during long flights. Unlike coach, BC usually has enough room to easily get out. :> A center section aisle on a 2-3-2 configuration is the most likely to :>have an empty seat next to you. — http://www.dissensoftware.com

Response:

Question:

When a flight is overbooked, how do airlines determine who gets involuntarily bumped?  I.e. which factors matter? Frequent flyer status? Date of ticket purchase? Time of check-in? Whether ticket was purchased from airline or through travel agent? Type of ticket (full fare versus discount)? Other factors? — Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Response:

:>When a flight is overbooked, how do airlines determine who gets :>involuntarily bumped?  I.e. which factors matter? :>Frequent flyer status? :>Date of ticket purchase? :>Time of check-in? :>Whether ticket was purchased from airline or through travel agent? :>Type of ticket (full fare versus discount)? :>Other factors? In most cases they will attempt voluntary bumps. And that ends the story. After that they would most likely use ticket prices, as the penalty is a multiple of the ticket price. They would be most unlikely to bump FF’s. — http://www.dissensoftware.com

Response:

Some airlines upgrade their frequent flyers to the next class, according to their elite status in the program, to carry as many passengers as possible on the flight. Every airline is different when it comes to the way they deal with overbooking pax. Regards, Bart Travel photography is not just about documenting what you see while travelling. Pictures can capture the sense of adventure while in your own city or another country. Visit Travel-mania and share your travel and "Room With a View" photos at http://www.travel-mania.net/gallery – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >:>When a flight is overbooked, how do airlines determine who gets >:>involuntarily bumped?  I.e. which factors matter? >:>Frequent flyer status? >:>Date of ticket purchase? >:>Time of check-in? >:>Whether ticket was purchased from airline or through travel agent? >:>Type of ticket (full fare versus discount)? >:>Other factors? >In most cases they will attempt voluntary bumps. And that ends the story. >After that they would most likely use ticket prices, as the penalty is a >multiple of the ticket price. They would be most unlikely to bump FF’s.

Response:

> Some airlines upgrade their frequent flyers to the next class, > according to their elite status in the program, to carry as many > passengers as possible on the flight.

I’ve had that happen a few times on BA, where cattle class was overbooked, but there were vacancies in business class – not recently, though.

Response:

> In most cases they will attempt voluntary bumps. And that ends the story. > After that they would most likely use ticket prices, as the penalty is a > multiple of the ticket price. They would be most unlikely to bump FF’s.

That depends on where you are.  The penalty for any flight within the EU is flat, unrelated to the ticket price.  They’ll use their discretion – a person travelling alone is more likely to get bumped than say half a family of four.  Those who checked in early may be less likely to get bumped.  I’d love to see some guidelines from a carrier…

Response:

> When a flight is overbooked, how do airlines determine who gets > involuntarily bumped?  I.e. which factors matter?

This might depend on the airline. Whenever I have flown on an overbooked flight, one of the airline agents asks for volunteers. I don’t ever recall there being a problem finding enough volunteers because the airlines do offer a good incentive; free air travel.

Response:

> > When a flight is overbooked, how do airlines determine who gets > involuntarily bumped?  I.e. which factors matter? > This might depend on the airline. Whenever I have flown on an overbooked > flight, one of the airline agents asks for volunteers. I don’t ever > recall there being a problem finding enough volunteers because the > airlines do offer a good incentive; free air travel.

And if their first offer does not work they will increase it in the hopes of getting a volunteer or two. M. Graham

Response:

Question:

> You are an American Citizen so you should reflect on the fact that they are > YOUR big bucks they have paid out. Government Departments and Agencies (no > matter what Country) never spend money of which they are the beneficial > owners.

and they should stop spending MY money on idiotic and unconstitutional bogus "security" measures that don’t protect anyone or anything.  this "security" regime is just another right wingnut way to provide excuses for violating the constitution and our freedom.

Response:

> 3rd AUG 21:05 hrs IST > Washington: In the first settlement of its kind, an Indian origin doctor has > won $50,000 in damages and a written apology from a wing of the formidable US > Homeland Security department over his lawsuit alleging that armed air marshals > detained him solely because of his dark skin.

SNIP > The agency also agreed to pay Rajcoomar $50,000 in damages and have TSA’s > administrator, retired Coast Guard Adm. James Loy, issue a written apology to > Rajcoomar and his wife. > Finally!!! Great for Rajcoomar!!  Because of his courage to pursue > this and now that the TSA has had to shovel out some big bucks for > their actions, maybe the rest of us can take a sigh of relief. > Hopefully, they will rethink a lot of their ridiculous polocies and > air travel can become enjoyable again. > Geejoy

You are an American Citizen so you should reflect on the fact that they are YOUR big bucks they have paid out. Government Departments and Agencies (no matter what Country) never spend money of which they are the beneficial owners. JohnT

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> 3rd AUG 21:05 hrs IST > Washington: In the first settlement of its kind, an Indian origin doctor has > won $50,000 in damages and a written apology from a wing of the formidable US > Homeland Security department over his lawsuit alleging that armed air marshals > detained him solely because of his dark skin. > The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), a wing of the Homeland > Security Department, has agreed to change its procedures and pay $50,000 as > part of a settlement of a lawsuit by Dr. Bob Rajcoomar, a retired lieutenant > colonel in the Army Reserves. Rajcoomar, a naturalised American who was born in > Guyana, filed a civil rights lawsuit against the government in April after he > was detained by air marshals in a flight from Atlanta to Philadelphia on August > 31 last year. > He was handcuffed and hauled to a police cell at Philadelphia airport for four > hours and his luggage searched without his knowledge, while his wife was not > informed about his whereabouts. He was eventually released and no charges were > filed. He said one of the agents explained by saying, "We didn’t like the way > you looked.” > U.S. District Judge John P. Fullam said he was satisfied that the TSA is > complying with the terms of a settlement agreement that called for the agency > to change its "policies and training procedures regarding the allegations in > the complaint.” > The agency also agreed to pay Rajcoomar $50,000 in damages and have TSA’s > administrator, retired Coast Guard Adm. James Loy, issue a written apology to > Rajcoomar and his wife. > Finally!!! Great for Rajcoomar!!  Because of his courage to pursue > this and now that the TSA has had to shovel out some big bucks for > their actions, maybe the rest of us can take a sigh of relief. > Hopefully, they will rethink a lot of their ridiculous polocies and > air travel can become enjoyable again. > Geejoy

posted by John T: >You are an American Citizen so you should reflect on > the fact that they are YOUR big bucks they have paid > out. Government Departments and Agencies (no matter > what Country) never spend money of which they are the > beneficial owners. >JohnT

Well at least this time I KNOW what the big bucks are being spent for and why.  We still can’t get reasonable answers from Bush as to what is really happening to the BILLIONS being spent since the Iraq War. Rajcoomar can enjoy the money with my blessings for having the courage to stand up against the TSA actions.  Considering what the government is spending on other sources, this $50,000 is a pitance. Geejoy

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > 3rd AUG 21:05 hrs IST > Washington: In the first settlement of its kind, an Indian origin doctor has > won $50,000 in damages and a written apology from a wing of the formidable US > Homeland Security department over his lawsuit alleging that armed air marshals > detained him solely because of his dark skin. > The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), a wing of the Homeland > Security Department, has agreed to change its procedures and pay $50,000 as > part of a settlement of a lawsuit by Dr. Bob Rajcoomar, a retired lieutenant > colonel in the Army Reserves. Rajcoomar, a naturalised American who was born in > Guyana, filed a civil rights lawsuit against the government in April after he > was detained by air marshals in a flight from Atlanta to Philadelphia on August > 31 last year. > He was handcuffed and hauled to a police cell at Philadelphia airport for four > hours and his luggage searched without his knowledge, while his wife was not > informed about his whereabouts. He was eventually released and no charges were > filed. He said one of the agents explained by saying, "We didn’t like the way > you looked.” > U.S. District Judge John P. Fullam said he was satisfied that the TSA is > complying with the terms of a settlement agreement that called for the agency > to change its "policies and training procedures regarding the allegations in > the complaint.” > The agency also agreed to pay Rajcoomar $50,000 in damages and have TSA’s > administrator, retired Coast Guard Adm. James Loy, issue a written apology to > Rajcoomar and his wife.

Finally!!! Great for Rajcoomar!!  Because of his courage to pursue this and now that the TSA has had to shovel out some big bucks for their actions, maybe the rest of us can take a sigh of relief. Hopefully, they will rethink a lot of their ridiculous polocies and air travel can become enjoyable again. Geejoy

Response:

3rd AUG 21:05 hrs IST Washington: In the first settlement of its kind, an Indian origin doctor has won $50,000 in damages and a written apology from a wing of the formidable US Homeland Security department over his lawsuit alleging that armed air marshals detained him solely because of his dark skin. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), a wing of the Homeland Security Department, has agreed to change its procedures and pay $50,000 as part of a settlement of a lawsuit by Dr. Bob Rajcoomar, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserves. Rajcoomar, a naturalised American who was born in Guyana, filed a civil rights lawsuit against the government in April after he was detained by air marshals in a flight from Atlanta to Philadelphia on August 31 last year. He was handcuffed and hauled to a police cell at Philadelphia airport for four hours and his luggage searched without his knowledge, while his wife was not informed about his whereabouts. He was eventually released and no charges were filed. He said one of the agents explained by saying, "We didn’t like the way you looked.” U.S. District Judge John P. Fullam said he was satisfied that the TSA is complying with the terms of a settlement agreement that called for the agency to change its "policies and training procedures regarding the allegations in the complaint.” The agency also agreed to pay Rajcoomar $50,000 in damages and have TSA’s administrator, retired Coast Guard Adm. James Loy, issue a written apology to Rajcoomar and his wife.

Response:

Question:

> Sorry George they insisted that I take off my sandals.  At least I > insisted in standing in one of their silly plastic tubs instead of the > never cleaned floor.  I’m thinking of trying switching to a pair of aqua > sox next time.

I bought a pair of sports socks to wear over my street socks when I go through airport security.  I keep them inside-out in my backpack. Prior to going through security (or even approaching the line), I stop and take off my shoes, replacing them with the ‘oversocks’.  I tied my shoelaces together, take off my belt, and thread my belt through the shoes like the way schoolkids used to carry books. Of course, I divest myself of all metal except my wedding ring and my glasses.  I open up my backpack to allow quick access to my laptop. Then and only then do I approach the security line.  I dump my stuff in the tubs, go through the metal detector, then collect my gear on the other side.  If I’m not getting the TSA anal probe that day, I then exit security and put my stuff back on. Works for me… Best Regards, Bill Mattocks

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->You are correct.  The prize is our civil liberties – the terrorists >are winning.   > Looks like the terrorists have won already: > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=418979 > Yaser Esam Hamdi was arrested during the war in Afghanistan, reportedly > after surrendering to the Northern Alliance. He was detained in > Guantanamo Bay until he was found to be a US citizen. He was transferred > to a secret location in the US in April 2002. He is being held without > access to a lawyer or his family. > In January 2003, a US court upheld the government’s right to designate a > citizen as an "enemy combatant" and hold him or her indefinitely, > without charge and the ability to see a lawyer. Part of the basis for > the court’s decision was an affidavit by a military bureaucrat > indicating Hamdi was a good intelligence resource for the government > whose value would be lessened if he were given access to lawyers. The > ruling dooms Hamdi to legal limbo unless the Supreme Court reverses it. > Other detainees have had access to lawyers denied, but the Hamdi case > makes the practice legal.

The most frightening thing about it IMO,  is this also allows them to set a "precedent" for any and all future detainees. Am I wrong in my assumption of this fact?  It seems they think they can turn our legal system upside down "in the name of Freedom" and if we allow such things to happen, we all may one day be very sorry that we did not take the time to communicate our concerns to our representatives.  Is there any US criminal anyone knows of who was not allowed legal representation and his day in court?   In the rush to get the terrorists before 2004 elections, it would seem it is most important that anyone caught should be given the right to prove their innocence or they guilt can be made known through a just legal system.  I want the terrorists caught and stopped as much as any one else but not in the name of destroying our Judicial system and our own freedoms. Trice

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The "all" shoes off policy is new to me.  Does anyone know if it is > published anyplace as to the date it will start and at which airports? > I have been informed by TSA supervisors whom I have questioned that > the policy is ‘unpublished’ and is taking place at ‘nearly all’ > airports.  There is no specified date as to when they will stop doing > it. >  It certainly was not in effect last month on our trip.  In fact, I > did not notice anyone having to take off their shoes.   Too bad all > these TSA antics are more for "show" than for safety.  I just don’t > think the "real" terrorists are as stupid as our government thinks > they are. > The government does not imagine that forcing passengers to take off > their shoes will stop any terrorists.  It is just window-dressing to > calm a nervous public.  Recent (as in today and yesterday) newspaper > articles about the Congress having to *force* the TSA to begin > inspecting cargo that goes on passenger planes (up to 30% of what a > passenger plane carries has nothing to do with passengers, it is > third-party cargo shipments).  The TSA "had no plans" to begin doing > such inspections, because "the shippers are known to us." > I wonder if the idiots at the TSA ever heard of Lockerbie? > It is pathetic how many holes there are in this so called Security > crap.  Was I the only one who read yesterday’s MSNTV article > concerning the Air Marshals being allowed on the planes with guns and > many have NOT been given their check up? > Many more have been suspended from flying since their background > checks turned up ‘problems’. > If I had false teeth, they > would have dropped to the floor!  One would think the Air Marshals > would be the ones with the strictest checks since they are allowed on > the planes with the GUNS!!  This is all beginning to look like a > Groucho Marx movie and our government has too many Harpos in the cast, > IMO.  What a joke and it is on us! > You are correct.  The prize is our civil liberties – the terrorists > are winning.  President Bush said that the terrorists hate us for our > freedom.  Well, they are winning – our freedoms are being taken away > in the name of safety.  Go, lemmings, go. > Best Regards, > Bill Mattocks

Sorry Bill.  I would rather be called a "control freak" than a "lemming".  However, when I speak to some of my more apathetic "fellow Americans" who seem to be blind to what is really occuring, I truly am concerned for the future our children will endure due to our apathy in the name of "freedom".  Sorry….didn’t mean to get political…this is a travel site but then again, it is our traveling freedoms they are testing the waters with. Trice

Response:

>But where is the outrage?  Where are the civil libertarians raising >hell?  I look around and I see none.

Really? I find this quite surprising, but then again perhaps I know less about the US than I thought. From my limited reading, the US has endured all sorts of assaults on citizens’ civil liberties, from the internment of the Japanese during WW2, through McCarthy and racial segregation in the deep South. There never seemed to be any shortage of activists to protest about these little interludes, and in the end the US came out of the tunnel. It seems that the US collectively looks back at these suppressions of their liberties with some embarrassment. Have things changed? >And there may already be some Joe Smiths and John Jones guys in >custody.  We don’t know.  We’re not allowed to know.  And they’re not >allowed to have a lawyer, be informed of the charges against them (if >any), have a public trial, or be entitled to any of the rights that >*EVERY* US citizen has.

Does the US freedom of information legislation come into any of this? >If Hamdi and Padilla are terrorists who committed or conspired to >commit acts of violence against the people of the USA, I say once they >are convicted, line them up and shoot them.  No problem.  But as US >citizens, they must be treated with all the respect for their rights >that we accord every US citizen, including right to counsel, a public, >speedy, trial, and the right to face their accusers and see the >evidence against them. >If we fail to provide them with that, then all of our rights are >worthless.  They belong to all of us or none of us.

Agree completely. — Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Why shoes?   > Because a British passenger tried to detonate explosives > that were packed in his shoes. >I disagree. >Richard Reid tried to light his shoes, right?  Are we forbidden to >carry matches and lighters on planes?  No. >If Reid had been packing his explosives up his rectum, would we now be >flashing our brown eyes at TSA staff?  No. >If Reid had concealed his explosives in a vest under his shirt, would >be now be going topless through security?  No. >I could go on, but what’s the point?  Reid had explosives in his >shoes.  For a brief period after that, the TSA required all shoes to >come off.  Thereafter, they periodically required shoes to come off >when the national security threat level reached ‘high’.  This most >recent go-around, the security threat reached ‘high’, but the TSA did >not immediately react by requiring the removal of shoes.  They *did* >begin to require the removal of shoes at many (most?) airports AFTER >the threat level dropped, and have continued to require shoe removal >ever since. >Shoes have nothing to do with it.  Richard Reid has nothing to do with >it. > BTW Rockport are redesigning some of their shoes > to reduce the amount of metal, eyelets and some support. >Yes, I’ve read that.  But the TSA is requiring booties to be taken off >of babies – Rockports or no.  I don’t wear Rockports, my shoes have no >metal shanks in them.  I still have to take mine off.  What difference >will it make to anyone with Rockports, with or without metal shanks? >No, I have not yet read anything to make me believe that the TSA is >requiring passengers to remove their shoes because of what Richard >Reid did with his footwear.  This is about *testing* the US public’s >willingness to do what they are told without objection, and it is >about *psychological conditioning,* preparing us to accept >unreasonable rules by authority figures without complaint. >It is my opinion that the TSA is watching and gauging our reaction to >all of this nonsense, and preparing us for what will follow in the way >of intrusions into our privacy.  Wait for it. >Best Regards, >Bill Mattocks

NT> You may well be right in your summation, remember when screening first started after weapon related hi-jackings, rather light by today’s standards.

Response:

> If Reid had concealed his explosives in a vest under his shirt, would > be now be going topless through security?  No. > It is my opinion that the TSA is watching and gauging our reaction to > all of this nonsense, and preparing us for what will follow in the way > of intrusions into our privacy.  Wait for it.

Ah, your wish is the TSA’s command… From the always useful Interesting People mailing list (google search in Interesting People should do it). The original article: http://www.kfwb.com/news_national.asp?displayOption=&contentGUID={F1E52726-93D1-41D1-92C7-79F8B74062E4}&groupName=AP%20Top%20National%20Head lines&siteGUID={3B62BF55-4A93-48E6-A45D-6A495DC423AD} A text version of is at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200306/… The text is below: BTW, who thinks that Randal Null isn’t a good name for the [TSA's] chief technology officer. Airport Screeners May Get X-Ray Vision Government Is Considering Using X-Ray Technology At Airport Security Checkpoints EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP, N.J. 6.25.03, 5:30p – Susan Hallowell steps into a metal booth that bounces X-rays off her skin, producing a black-and-white image that reveals enough to produce a world-class blush. To the eye, she is dressed in a skirt and blazer in dark, businesslike colors. On the monitor, the director of the Transportation Security Administration’s security laboratory is naked, except for a gun and a bomb that she hid under her outfit. The government is considering using the technology at airport security checkpoints because the magnetometers now in use cannot detect plastic weapons or substances used in explosives. Hallowell is sacrificing her modesty to make a point: Air travelers are not going to like being technologically undressed by security screeners. "It does basically make you look fat and naked _ but you see all this stuff," Hallowell said Wednesday during a demonstration of the technology. The technology is called "backscatter" because it scatters X-rays. Doses of rays deflected off dense materials such as metal or plastic produce a darker image than those deflected off skin. The radiation dosage is about the same as sunshine, Hallowell said. Backscatter machines have been available on the market for years. They are priced at between $100,000 and $200,000 and used in all sorts of security situations, from screening families of convicts visiting prisons to South African diamond miners going home for the day. The agency is trying to find a way to modify the machines with an electronic fig leaf _ programming that fuzzes out sensitive body parts or distorts the body so it is unrecognizable. Another option might mean stationing the screener in a booth so only he sees the image, said Randal Null, the agency’s chief technology officer. Null hopes to conduct pilot programs with backscatter machines at several airports this year. A pilot project at Orlando International Airport in Florida using volunteers met with mixed results, he said. Some volunteers were uncomfortable with it. For others, "It was a whole lot nicer than having someone pat me down," he said. David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, thinks most people will object to the backscatter technology. "The public is willing to accept a certain amount of scrutiny at the airport, but there are clearly limits to the degree of invasion that is acceptable," Sobel said. "It’s hard to understand why something this invasive is necessary." But Rep. John Mica, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on aviation, thinks it is essential because of the strong likelihood that a terrorist will try to bomb a plane. "I predict it will happen," said Mica, R-Fla. "The chances of someone bringing an explosive on an aircraft by walking through a metal detector or in hand-carried luggage are very real." Mica pointed out that Richard Reid, convicted of trying to blow up a trans-Atlantic jetliner with explosives in his shoes, walked through metal detectors at Orly Airport in Paris several times before boarding the plane. For now, Mica is trying to persuade colleagues to require that the transportation agency focus its research on technology that identifies items on people’s bodies. Null said the agency’s major focus is already on detecting explosives and weapons at airport checkpoints. In the end, the biggest problem with the backscatter machines may be their size, he said. One version, the BodySearch system made by Billerica, Mass.-based American Science & Engineering is about 4-feet by 7-feet by 10-feet _ awfully big for an airport lobby, Null said. Another system made by Hawthorne, Calif.-based OSI Systems is more compact. — Reality is 80m polygons – Alvy Ray Smith http://homepage.iprolink.ch/~bioneel/beo/beo.html – daily stuff

Response:

> In January 2003, a US court upheld the government’s right to designate a > citizen as an "enemy combatant" and hold him or her indefinitely, > without charge and the ability to see a lawyer. Part of the basis for > the court’s decision was an affidavit by a military bureaucrat > indicating Hamdi was a good intelligence resource for the government > whose value would be lessened if he were given access to lawyers. The > ruling dooms Hamdi to legal limbo unless the Supreme Court reverses it.

Yes, I agree. But where is the outrage?  Where are the civil libertarians raising hell?  I look around and I see none. Now, it so happens that this man’s name is "Hamdi" and not "Smith." He was arrested in Afghanistan and not the USA.  And he was arrested in conjunction with the ‘war’ that is against ‘terrorism’.  We’re all in favor of stopping terrorists. We’ve also got Jose Padilla on ice as an ‘enemy combatant’, and he’s an American citizen as well.  But although he was not arrested overseas, and he’s more of a street-thug turned terrorist wannabe, his last name and his skin color ensure that we’ll ignore it while he is interned without charge, without legal representation, and totally isolated for any period of time the government sees fit to hold him. Am I saying that we fine upstanding Americans would feel differently if those in custody were white, had ‘American’ sounding names, and were not Muslims? You bet I am.  That is exactly the case. And there may already be some Joe Smiths and John Jones guys in custody.  We don’t know.  We’re not allowed to know.  And they’re not allowed to have a lawyer, be informed of the charges against them (if any), have a public trial, or be entitled to any of the rights that *EVERY* US citizen has. If Hamdi and Padilla are terrorists who committed or conspired to commit acts of violence against the people of the USA, I say once they are convicted, line them up and shoot them.  No problem.  But as US citizens, they must be treated with all the respect for their rights that we accord every US citizen, including right to counsel, a public, speedy, trial, and the right to face their accusers and see the evidence against them. If we fail to provide them with that, then all of our rights are worthless.  They belong to all of us or none of us. Best Regards, Bill Mattocks

Response:

Sorry George they insisted that I take off my sandals.  At least I insisted in standing in one of their silly plastic tubs instead of the never cleaned floor.  I’m thinking of trying switching to a pair of aqua sox next time. FFM – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Right said!  For my next flight I’ll be wearing sandalls….something I’ve > never done before for flying…and which could get interesting next winter. >Why shoes?  My opinion – it is a psychological tool used to humiliate >and embarrass US citizens, to show us the extent of their power, to >prepare us for further infringements of our liberties.  The intent is >that by that time, we will be more docile and cowed.

Response:

>>The "all" shoes off policy is new to me.  Does anyone know if it is >published anyplace as to the date it will start and at which airports? > Why would the TSA want to notify the terrorists at which airports shoe > screening is going to take place and when. Why must all tactics be > published. No wonder the terrorists think Americans are stupid. In many > cases they are.

LOL.. Like the terrorist are going to get in line and take their shoes off. It’s no big secret to find out if TSA is screening shoes.

Response:

>You are correct.  The prize is our civil liberties – the terrorists >are winning.  

Looks like the terrorists have won already: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=418979 Yaser Esam Hamdi was arrested during the war in Afghanistan, reportedly after surrendering to the Northern Alliance. He was detained in Guantanamo Bay until he was found to be a US citizen. He was transferred to a secret location in the US in April 2002. He is being held without access to a lawyer or his family. In January 2003, a US court upheld the government’s right to designate a citizen as an "enemy combatant" and hold him or her indefinitely, without charge and the ability to see a lawyer. Part of the basis for the court’s decision was an affidavit by a military bureaucrat indicating Hamdi was a good intelligence resource for the government whose value would be lessened if he were given access to lawyers. The ruling dooms Hamdi to legal limbo unless the Supreme Court reverses it. Other detainees have had access to lawyers denied, but the Hamdi case makes the practice legal. — Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response:

> >Why shoes?   > Because a British passenger tried to detonate explosives > that were packed in his shoes.

I disagree. Richard Reid tried to light his shoes, right?  Are we forbidden to carry matches and lighters on planes?  No. If Reid had been packing his explosives up his rectum, would we now be flashing our brown eyes at TSA staff?  No. If Reid had concealed his explosives in a vest under his shirt, would be now be going topless through security?  No. I could go on, but what’s the point?  Reid had explosives in his shoes.  For a brief period after that, the TSA required all shoes to come off.  Thereafter, they periodically required shoes to come off when the national security threat level reached ‘high’.  This most recent go-around, the security threat reached ‘high’, but the TSA did not immediately react by requiring the removal of shoes.  They *did* begin to require the removal of shoes at many (most?) airports AFTER the threat level dropped, and have continued to require shoe removal ever since. Shoes have nothing to do with it.  Richard Reid has nothing to do with it. > BTW Rockport are redesigning some of their shoes > to reduce the amount of metal, eyelets and some support.

Yes, I’ve read that.  But the TSA is requiring booties to be taken off of babies – Rockports or no.  I don’t wear Rockports, my shoes have no metal shanks in them.  I still have to take mine off.  What difference will it make to anyone with Rockports, with or without metal shanks? No, I have not yet read anything to make me believe that the TSA is requiring passengers to remove their shoes because of what Richard Reid did with his footwear.  This is about *testing* the US public’s willingness to do what they are told without objection, and it is about *psychological conditioning,* preparing us to accept unreasonable rules by authority figures without complaint. It is my opinion that the TSA is watching and gauging our reaction to all of this nonsense, and preparing us for what will follow in the way of intrusions into our privacy.  Wait for it. Best Regards, Bill Mattocks

Response:

> FYI, At Sky Harbor (PHX), they have everyone remove their shoes, > regardless of whether they set off the metal detector or not. > At Madison, WI (MSN), I have not been asked to remove my shoes.

ABQ – Yes. MCI – Yes. EWR – Yes. IAD – Yes. DFW – Yes. I have not flown out of an airport in the past couple of months that has not required shoes to be removed.  I ‘tested’ this by refusing to remove my shoes to see what would happen at IAD.  Answer: Complete TSA anal probe, complete with wanding and shoes removed and run through seperately.  Apparently, there is no way to avoid this ‘voluntary’ removal of shoes. Best Regards, Bill Mattocks

Response:

> The "all" shoes off policy is new to me.  Does anyone know if it is > published anyplace as to the date it will start and at which airports?

I have been informed by TSA supervisors whom I have questioned that the policy is ‘unpublished’ and is taking place at ‘nearly all’ airports.  There is no specified date as to when they will stop doing it. >  It certainly was not in effect last month on our trip.  In fact, I > did not notice anyone having to take off their shoes.   Too bad all > these TSA antics are more for "show" than for safety.  I just don’t > think the "real" terrorists are as stupid as our government thinks > they are.

The government does not imagine that forcing passengers to take off their shoes will stop any terrorists.  It is just window-dressing to calm a nervous public.  Recent (as in today and yesterday) newspaper articles about the Congress having to *force* the TSA to begin inspecting cargo that goes on passenger planes (up to 30% of what a passenger plane carries has nothing to do with passengers, it is third-party cargo shipments).  The TSA "had no plans" to begin doing such inspections, because "the shippers are known to us." I wonder if the idiots at the TSA ever heard of Lockerbie? > It is pathetic how many holes there are in this so called Security > crap.  Was I the only one who read yesterday’s MSNTV article > concerning the Air Marshals being allowed on the planes with guns and > many have NOT been given their check up?

Many more have been suspended from flying since their background checks turned up ‘problems’. > If I had false teeth, they > would have dropped to the floor!  One would think the Air Marshals > would be the ones with the strictest checks since they are allowed on > the planes with the GUNS!!  This is all beginning to look like a > Groucho Marx movie and our government has too many Harpos in the cast, > IMO.  What a joke and it is on us!

You are correct.  The prize is our civil liberties – the terrorists are winning.  President Bush said that the terrorists hate us for our freedom.  Well, they are winning – our freedoms are being taken away in the name of safety.  Go, lemmings, go. Best Regards, Bill Mattocks

Response:

Susan Hallowell steps into a metal booth that bounces X-rays off her skin, producing a black-and-white image that reveals enough to produce a world-class blush. To the eye, she is dressed in a skirt and blazer in dark, businesslike colors. On the monitor, the director of the Transportation Security Administration’s security laboratory is naked, except for a gun and a bomb that she hid under her outfit. The government is considering using the technology at airport security checkpoints because the magnetometers now in use cannot detect plastic weapons or substances used in explosives. The technology is called "backscatter" because it scatters X-rays. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla. "The chances of someone bringing an explosive on an aircraft by walking through a metal detector or in hand-carried luggage are very real." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/tech/D7RT3TA81.html Great article. Guess it answers my previous thoughts about concealing explosives on your body and not in your shoes. I assume females will screen females and males, males. Still think it will create a lot of noise over the use of these machines. Next up should be the police driving down the road looking at you and me as we walk by – but they will be using devices to see under our clothes, bye-bye civil liberties, hello big brother.

Response:

> The "all" shoes off policy is new to me.  Does anyone know if it is > published anyplace as to the date it will start and at which airports?

On June 5, I had to remove my tennis shoes at DFW Again at SNA on June 8. I did not have to do it in SJC (ever), or in SNA on June 22. People with shoes seemed to be asked to remove at all airports I have flown to recently. DFW, SJC, SNA. I think, but am not sure, that this even happened at CUN. > It is pathetic how many holes there are in this so called Security > crap.  Was I the only one who read yesterday’s MSNTV article > concerning the Air Marshals being allowed on the planes with guns and > many have NOT been given their check up?

Do you have the link to the article. I knew that some TSA inspectors didn’t have the investigation, but I don’t recall this about AM’s. It doesn’t sound like correct info.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Just as summer air travel is picking up, the federal Transportation > Security Administration, citing new intelligence information, has > tightened procedures over shoe inspections at many of the nation’s > airports. > Security concerns over shoes began, of course, after an incident in > December 2001 when Richard C. Reid bungled an attempt to > ignite explosives in his shoe while aboard an international flight. > The T.S.A. has been tightening shoe inspections because of new > intelligence information, said Brian Turmail, an agency spokesman. He > said he could not describe the nature of any threats, but added that the > all-shoes-off policy was being applied only at certain airports. > So we are afraid of another R. Reid. OK, but what if the bad guys decide > that since secreting explosives in shoes is no longer viable and instead > they wear it under their clothes, do we all now strip down to our BVD’s > for screening or does the TSA start to employ "passenger sniffers" to > see if we are carrying explosives? It would seem easier to do, rather > than the shoe thingy, and much safer since one could not hide explosives > on their person or in their luggage. Screening shoes alone is not going > to stop a terrorist in my opinion.

FYI, At Sky Harbor (PHX), they have everyone remove their shoes, regardless of whether they set off the metal detector or not. At Madison, WI (MSN), I have not been asked to remove my shoes. James

Response:

> It is pathetic how many holes there are in this so called Security > crap.  Was I the only one who read yesterday’s MSNTV article > concerning the Air Marshals being allowed on the planes with guns and > many have NOT been given their check up?  If I had false teeth, they > would have dropped to the floor!  One would think the Air Marshals > would be the ones with the strictest checks since they are allowed on > the planes with the GUNS!!

I think in the next made-for-HBO movie (or season of ‘24′?) it will be an un-vetted, armed air marshall-cum-sleeper-terrorist who hijacks the plane and crashes it into the Sears Tower or Golden Gate Bridge. miguel — Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu Latest photos: Maldives, Dubai and Vietnam

Response:

Right said!  For my next flight I’ll be wearing sandalls….something I’ve never done before for flying…and which could get interesting next winter. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Why shoes?  My opinion – it is a psychological tool used to humiliate > and embarrass US citizens, to show us the extent of their power, to > prepare us for further infringements of our liberties.  The intent is > that by that time, we will be more docile and cowed.

Response:

> The "all" shoes off policy is new to me.  Does anyone know if it is > published anyplace as to the date it will start and at which airports?

Why would the TSA want to notify the terrorists at which airports shoe screening is going to take place and when. Why must all tactics be published. No wonder the terrorists think Americans are stupid. In many cases they are. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It certainly was not in effect last month on our trip.  In fact, I > did not notice anyone having to take off their shoes.   Too bad all > these TSA antics are more for "show" than for safety.  I just don’t > think the "real" terrorists are as stupid as our government thinks > they are. > It is pathetic how many holes there are in this so called Security > crap.  Was I the only one who read yesterday’s MSNTV article > concerning the Air Marshals being allowed on the planes with guns and > many have NOT been given their check up?  If I had false teeth, they > would have dropped to the floor!  One would think the Air Marshals > would be the ones with the strictest checks since they are allowed on > the planes with the GUNS!!  This is all beginning to look like a > Groucho Marx movie and our government has too many Harpos in the cast, > IMO.  What a joke and it is on us! > Trice

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Just as summer air travel is picking up, the federal Transportation > Security Administration, citing new intelligence information, has > tightened procedures over shoe inspections at many of the nation’s > airports. > Security concerns over shoes began, of course, after an incident in > December 2001 when Richard C. Reid bungled an attempt to > ignite explosives in his shoe while aboard an international flight. > The T.S.A. has been tightening shoe inspections because of new > intelligence information, said Brian Turmail, an agency spokesman. He > said he could not describe the nature of any threats, but added that the > all-shoes-off policy was being applied only at certain airports. > So we are afraid of another R. Reid. OK, but what if the bad guys decide > that since secreting explosives in shoes is no longer viable and instead > they wear it under their clothes, do we all now strip down to our BVD’s > for screening or does the TSA start to employ "passenger sniffers" to > see if we are carrying explosives? It would seem easier to do, rather > than the shoe thingy, and much safer since one could not hide explosives > on their person or in their luggage. Screening shoes alone is not going > to stop a terrorist in my opinion.

The "all" shoes off policy is new to me.  Does anyone know if it is published anyplace as to the date it will start and at which airports?  It certainly was not in effect last month on our trip.  In fact, I did not notice anyone having to take off their shoes.   Too bad all these TSA antics are more for "show" than for safety.  I just don’t think the "real" terrorists are as stupid as our government thinks they are. It is pathetic how many holes there are in this so called Security crap.  Was I the only one who read yesterday’s MSNTV article concerning the Air Marshals being allowed on the planes with guns and many have NOT been given their check up?  If I had false teeth, they would have dropped to the floor!  One would think the Air Marshals would be the ones with the strictest checks since they are allowed on the planes with the GUNS!!  This is all beginning to look like a Groucho Marx movie and our government has too many Harpos in the cast, IMO.  What a joke and it is on us! Trice

Response:

>Why shoes?  

Because a British passenger tried to detonate explosives that were packed in his shoes. BTW Rockport are redesigning some of their shoes to reduce the amount of metal, eyelets and some support.

Response:

Just as summer air travel is picking up, the federal Transportation Security Administration, citing new intelligence information, has tightened procedures over shoe inspections at many of the nation’s airports. Security concerns over shoes began, of course, after an incident in December 2001 when Richard C. Reid bungled an attempt to ignite explosives in his shoe while aboard an international flight. The T.S.A. has been tightening shoe inspections because of new intelligence information, said Brian Turmail, an agency spokesman. He said he could not describe the nature of any threats, but added that the all-shoes-off policy was being applied only at certain airports. So we are afraid of another R. Reid. OK, but what if the bad guys decide that since secreting explosives in shoes is no longer viable and instead they wear it under their clothes, do we all now strip down to our BVD’s for screening or does the TSA start to employ "passenger sniffers" to see if we are carrying explosives? It would seem easier to do, rather than the shoe thingy, and much safer since one could not hide explosives on their person or in their luggage. Screening shoes alone is not going to stop a terrorist in my opinion.

Response:

> Just as summer air travel is picking up, the federal Transportation > Security Administration, citing new intelligence information, has > tightened procedures over shoe inspections at many of the nation’s > airports.

Yesterday at LGA my shoes set off the metal detector and they put them through a special X-ray machine just for shoes. It was a tiny little thing with a color screen facing the passenger (i.e., me). This was a new one to me. miguel — Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu Latest photos: Maldives, Dubai and Vietnam

Response:

> Just as summer air travel is picking up, the federal Transportation > Security Administration, citing new intelligence information, has > tightened procedures over shoe inspections at many of the nation’s > airports. > Yesterday at LGA my shoes set off the metal detector and they put them > through a special X-ray machine just for shoes. It was a tiny little thing > with a color screen facing the passenger (i.e., me). This was a new one to > me.

and in Europe they still dont X-ray shoes, they just look at them while they are still on your feet.

Response:

> Screening shoes alone is not going > to stop a terrorist in my opinion.

Yes, all airports in the US (as far as I know) have been requiring pax to remove their shoes since the last time the US went to Orange Alert and then back down again to Yellow.  So this is not new thing – but the news media is just getting around to reporting it. I believe that it is still ‘voluntary’ to remove your shoes – that is, you *can* refuse.  However, when I did so as a test, I was immediately given the entire TSA anal probe, so the end result is you have to take your shoes off anyway.  Voluntary but not voluntary, at least at the airports I’ve been through recently. <PARANOID RANT> Why shoes?  My opinion – it is a psychological tool used to humiliate and embarrass US citizens, to show us the extent of their power, to prepare us for further infringements of our liberties.  The intent is that by that time, we will be more docile and cowed. In Marine Corps boot camp, the first thing that happens is you get your head shaved.  This has the same purpose as forcing all passengers to remove shoes. It is also a test – how far will Americans allows their government to bully them before they call bullshit and refuse, en masse, to comply? The answer, we’re finding, is quite far.  We’re mostly a spineless generation of helpless citizens, wholly dependent on the government teat and lost without Uncle Sugar to tell us what to do.  We believe that anything the US Government chooses to do is ‘for our own good’ and we firmly believe that people like Bill Mattocks should stop rocking the boat. I’m not joking.  This thing about shoes has NOTHING to do with shoes, it has EVERYTHING to do with power. </PARANOID RANT> Best Regards, Bill Mattocks

Response:

Question:

I don’t understand this.  Do airports currently have to pay some sort of fee to the TSA or gov’t for the service provided by the TSA?  If not, then why would the airports want to re-assume this cost? 05/30/2003 – Updated 03:24 PM ET   Airports may be able to hire private screeners WASHINGTON (AP)

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> ROFL! Under the seat!?!?  You know those machines that give out > numbered tickets at deli counters, so people know who’s next for > service? Better have one of those on board, because when the dog craps > in the bag, you’re going to have passengers lined up to kill it. You > wouldn’t want to have a riot on board because everyone wants to be the > one to break its neck. > Under the seat happens all the time and the little guys, mine at least, > don’t do squat the whole time, unlike humans dogs are housebroken. (worst > case scenario a plastic bag for the liner and voila! you are back in > business)

Let me get this straight: A dog, in a piece of luggage lined with plastic, on a long flight over the ocean, sitting in its own crap – nobody’s going to notice the smell?

Response:

> Let me get this straight: A dog, in a piece of luggage lined with plastic, > on a long flight over the ocean, sitting in its own crap – nobody’s going to > notice the smell?

Most dogs are actually housebroken. You don’t actually know anything about dogs, I take it. Given that, why don’t you stop posting and READ. It might help with that ignorance problem

Response:

> Let me get this straight: A dog, in a piece of luggage lined with plastic, > on a long flight over the ocean, sitting in its own crap – nobody’s going to > notice the smell? > Most dogs are actually housebroken. > You don’t actually know anything about dogs, I take it. Given that, why > don’t you stop posting and READ. It might help with that ignorance problem

Tara….six hours in a dark bag, with some of the strangest sounds and sensations it’s ever experienced? Might that make some dogs behave in ways that reflect fear, no matter how well housetrained?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Let me get this straight: A dog, in a piece of luggage lined with > plastic, > > on a long flight over the ocean, sitting in its own crap – nobody’s > going to > > notice the smell? > Most dogs are actually housebroken. > You don’t actually know anything about dogs, I take it. Given that, > why don’t you stop posting and READ. It might help with that > ignorance problem > Tara….six hours in a dark bag, with some of the strangest sounds and > sensations it’s ever experienced? Might that make some dogs behave in > ways that reflect fear, no matter how well housetrained?

A. it is not luggage it is a bag big enough for the dog to dtand up in. B. it is not lined in plastic it has a liner like a rug (which could be put into a plastic bag if need be. C. My dog has done this more than once with no problems. (He normally doens’t go at home for 12 hours so an 8 hour flight is nothing.) D. Read the posts. There is no smell and there is no noise. Dogs who travel are better than most humans.

Response:

> A. it is not luggage it is a bag big enough for the dog to > dtand up in. > B. it is not lined in plastic it has a liner like a rug > (which could be put into a plastic bag if need be. > C. My dog has done this more than once with no problems. (He > normally doens’t go at home for 12 hours so an 8 hour flight > is nothing.) > D. Read the posts. There is no smell and there is no noise. > Dogs who travel are better than most humans.

Ach, woman, hae ye not taught the puir wee beastie to hold his nose and clear his Eustachian tubes? Seriously, not having been a dog, only acting like one, can your mind encompass the contention that air travel may be both physically and psychologically discomforting to dogs?  Are you certain that the trip’s for the dog’s benefit or because you are so insecure that you’re unable to punish yourself by traveling without hauling along an innocent canine to be punished along with you. I’m not sure, having only owned hounds of a variety – both collectively and individually – for most of my 63+ years, that I know when my dogs are uncomfortable.  I do know that that little critter bagged up under my seat on a recent trip and his/her owner deserved each other.  The dog yapped and stank for three hours.  She did nothing, having appartently gobbled enough psychotropics before her double gin and tonic to allow her to slip away into a self-induced comatose state, while the animal fretted in obvious anguish. Dogs flying in the cabin are like unto vile seegars and day-lily aroma tobacco stuffed pipe, no more justified as unoffensive to other passengers than were cigarets (unless the airline offers "doggy class", separate cabin for mistress/master and canine. TMO

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Ach, woman, hae ye not taught the puir wee beastie to hold his > nose and clear his Eustachian tubes? > Seriously, not having been a dog, only acting like one, can your > mind encompass the contention that air travel may be both > physically and psychologically discomforting to dogs?  Are you > certain that the trip’s for the dog’s benefit or because you are > so insecure that you’re unable to punish yourself by traveling > without hauling along an innocent canine to be punished along > with you. > I’m not sure, having only owned hounds of a variety – both > collectively and individually – for most of my 63+ years, that I > know when my dogs are uncomfortable.  I do know that that little > critter bagged up under my seat on a recent trip and his/her > owner deserved each other.  The dog yapped and stank for three > hours.  She did nothing, having appartently gobbled enough > psychotropics before her double gin and tonic to allow her to > slip away into a self-induced comatose state, while the animal > fretted in obvious anguish. > Dogs flying in the cabin are like unto vile seegars and day-lily > aroma tobacco stuffed pipe, no more justified as unoffensive to > other passengers than were cigarets (unless the airline offers > "doggy class", separate cabin for mistress/master and canine. > TMO

Oh god….are you gonna pay for this….  ROFL!  :-)

Response:

> I don’t even know if we will get on the flight.  I refuse to let > Shorty freeze and suffocate to death in the cargo area,

What crap.  Live animals are transported in heated, ventilated cargo compartments.  My cat travelled BFS-GVA recently with a change of flights and overnight stop at LHR and was absolutely fine when I retrieved him. There’s no way a dog of that size will be allowed in the passenger cabin. Troll.

Response:

> Hi.  Shorty the Dog and I are planning a big trip all around Europe > and I want some advice to help me plan it out. >contact the consulates for each country you plan to visit and get the >offical word.

If your dog is really 15 pounds he can probably fit into a sherpa bag and would be fine under the seat. (of course if that is "15" pounds as in three years ago  . . .) There is no substitute for info from the destination country consulate anything else is  speculation.

Response:

> If your dog is really 15 pounds he can probably fit into a sherpa bag > and would be fine under the seat. (of course if that is "15" pounds as > in three years ago  . . .)

ROFL! Under the seat!?!?  You know those machines that give out numbered tickets at deli counters, so people know who’s next for service? Better have one of those on board, because when the dog craps in the bag, you’re going to have passengers lined up to kill it. You wouldn’t want to have a riot on board because everyone wants to be the one to break its neck.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> If your dog is really 15 pounds he can probably fit into a sherpa bag > and would be fine under the seat. (of course if that is "15" pounds > as in three years ago  . . .) > ROFL! Under the seat!?!?  You know those machines that give out > numbered tickets at deli counters, so people know who’s next for > service? Better have one of those on board, because when the dog craps > in the bag, you’re going to have passengers lined up to kill it. You > wouldn’t want to have a riot on board because everyone wants to be the > one to break its neck.

Under the seat happens all the time and the little guys, mine at least, don’t do squat the whole time, unlike humans dogs are housebroken. (worst case scenario a plastic bag for the liner and voila! you are back in business)

Response:

you need to talk to the airlines and perhaps a travel agency…and write to the consulates of these diff. countries.  I think trouble will be in your future if you try this…what if some official refuse to follow the info you were given up front, what are you going to do then? leave the dog home, or stay at home…or travel in your own country!

| Hi.  Shorty the Dog and I are planning a big trip all around Europe | and I want some advice to help me plan it out. | | I am absolutely terrified that Shorty will be quarantined against his | will in some country or that we will be refused entrance into a | certain country. | | I don’t even know if we will get on the flight.  I refuse to let | Shorty freeze and suffocate to death in the cargo area, so I want to | take him onboard with me.  Shorty weighs about 15 pounds.  Most | airlines have a weight limit of about 8-10 pounds.  Last year, Air | France refused to let us fly to Romania because they said that Shorty | was too fat. | | Are there any airlines which would allow a 15-20 pound dog to fly to | Paris? | | Do you think that we would be able to get him on the flight if I flew | first class, because then there would be more leg room for him to fit | into? | | Once we land in Paris, we will be driving across to Bucharest and, | after we spend some time in Bucharest, we are hoping to go to Russia, | perhaps stopping in the Ukraine or Turkey or some other Eastern | European countries on the way.  I am extremely worried about crossing | borders with my dog.  I don’t want Shorty to get quarantined anywhere. | Will it be possible to drive across European borders from France to | Bucharest with a dog?  What about Eastern Europe, Russia, and perhaps | Turkey?  Does anyone know anything about this area of the world?  Will | the Russians quarantine him? | | Anyways, please write me back. Thanks for your help. | | Your pal, | Mitch

Response:

Hi.  Shorty the Dog and I are planning a big trip all around Europe and I want some advice to help me plan it out. I am absolutely terrified that Shorty will be quarantined against his will in some country or that we will be refused entrance into a certain country. I don’t even know if we will get on the flight.  I refuse to let Shorty freeze and suffocate to death in the cargo area, so I want to take him onboard with me.  Shorty weighs about 15 pounds.  Most airlines have a weight limit of about 8-10 pounds.  Last year, Air France refused to let us fly to Romania because they said that Shorty was too fat. Are there any airlines which would allow a 15-20 pound dog to fly to Paris? Do you think that we would be able to get him on the flight if I flew first class, because then there would be more leg room for him to fit into? Once we land in Paris, we will be driving across to Bucharest and, after we spend some time in Bucharest, we are hoping to go to Russia, perhaps stopping in the Ukraine or Turkey or some other Eastern European countries on the way.  I am extremely worried about crossing borders with my dog.  I don’t want Shorty to get quarantined anywhere. Will it be possible to drive across European borders from France to Bucharest with a dog?  What about Eastern Europe, Russia, and perhaps Turkey?  Does anyone know anything about this area of the world?  Will the Russians quarantine him? Anyways, please write me back. Thanks for your help. Your pal, Mitch

Response:

Question:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> <http://www.boston.com/dailynews/122/wash/Regional_airlines_concerned_ab: > .shtml> > Regional airlines concerned about change in weight guidelines > WASHINGTON (AP) Raising passenger weight estimates could prove costly > to regional airlines, say carriers rattled by a Federal Aviation > Administration re-examination of the averages used to determine safe > flying weights. > Raising the figure 180-185 pounds per adult passenger by 10 pounds > might require airlines to eliminate seats to comply. ”The cost would > be staggering,” Debby McElroy, president of the Regional Airline > Association, said Thursday. > An accident that killed 21 people last winter led the FAA to reassess > air travelers’ average weight. A US Airways Express flight that > crashed at the airport in Charlotte, N.C., was estimated to be within > 100 pounds of maximum takeoff weight. > After the crash, the FAA ordered 15 airlines to survey passenger > weights. > The survey showed that passengers and their bags generally are heavier > than the estimates now used, agency spokeswoman Laura Brown said. > Though any changes would affect all airlines, regional carriers are > most concerned. They fly a higher percentage of planes with 10 to 19 > seats than do the major airlines. > McElroy said adding 10 pounds per passenger would force her membership > to carry fewer passengers or less cargo if baggage estimates are > raised to meet weight requirements. She urged the FAA to study the > issue further. > The association estimates that regional carriers fly one in eight > domestic airline passengers. As a result of the survey, some airlines > have changed their weight estimates and now carry only 18 passengers > on a 19-seat plane. > The FAA is considering several proposals and a recommendation could > come this month. > Under current guidelines, an adult passenger flying in winter is > estimated to weigh 185 pounds, including clothing and carryons. The > same passenger is calculated at 180 pounds during summer travel. > Children age 2 to 12 are estimated to weigh 80 pounds in winter and > summer. Each checked bag is calculated to weigh an average of 25 > pounds for a domestic flight and 30 pounds for international travel. > Some believe those estimates, in place since 1995, may be too low > because Americans and their carryon bags have gotten larger. Adult men > averaged 180.7 pounds in 1994, the most recent year in which > statistics from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention are > available. > The survey found passenger weights varied by airline. David Lotterer, > the association’s vice president, said that may be explained by some > airlines weighing passengers with their carryons and some without. > It also is possible those airlines serving colder areas might have > carried passengers wearing heavier clothes than those flying in warmer > locations. > ”We need a consistent approach,” McElroy said. ”You want a system > in place where one passenger getting off one airline is the same > weight when he gets on another airline.” > Weight is important for all planes but extremely so for smaller > aircraft. Too many bags in the rear compartment or a few large people > in the back could change a small plane’s center of gravity and make it > much more difficult to fly. > Investigators are looking at weight as a possible contributing cause > of the Charlotte crash. The National Transportation Safety Board will > hold a hearing on the accident on May 20. The FAA may issue its weight > recommendations before then.

And the fat acceptors claim that a person’s weight is no one’s business but their own?!?!?  There were two issues brought out in this article that say otherwise.  The first one is that innocent people might have been killed in a plane crash due to overweight passengers.  The other issue is that many planes are going to have to fly with fewer passengers due to the growing obesity epidemic which means higher fares for everyone, including those of us who choose to remain HWP. NR I many not be able to write well because of a head injury. – –Jeanette Runyon aka Rauni Excessively fat women look ugly. It is impractical to try and have sex when she’s 100lbs overweight and the weight is all fat – but most women ain’t that big. – –Steve Chaney Clarice and Allisson were well beyond a BMI of 25 in their pictures where they were called cows. – –Steve Chaney —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: N/A iQA/AwUBPrPrETL3IlvsWvnjEQIdbwCdEkk22G0y1ZXuyzrSmAR6IyWqfVEAoKj4 IDzekjacdLmzgeygzViwDobk =I0mq —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

> And the fat acceptors claim that a person’s weight is no one’s business but > their own?!?!?  There were two issues brought out in this article that say > otherwise.  The first one is that innocent people might have been killed in > a plane crash due to overweight passengers.  The other issue is that many > planes are going to have to fly with fewer passengers due to the growing > obesity epidemic which means higher fares for everyone, including those of > us who choose to remain HWP.

Methinks they protest too much. They might have to reduce the load from 19 to 18 on a 19-seater.   But just what percentage of commuter flights operate with a 100% load?  I’m unimpressed until they produce that statistic. The argument about regional weight assumptions seems more valid, since the present reservations systems are probably not designed to flag pax coming from cold regions to warm ones – and still carrying their winter clothes. On a pilots’ discussion group I follow one of the pilots told of a marginal takeoff in a "real" airliner loaded with fat northern Britons on a golfing vacation with a full, heavy golf bag for each one.  The normal weight assumptions were very wrong.

Response:

In a book I read "The Final Call", there was mention of a civil airliner transporting US troops that came down shortly after take-off, the resulting investigation concluded that the average weight of a soldier plus their associated kit like weapons etc was much heavier than a ’standard’ passenger on an airliner and basically the aircraft was overweight. Col. — Watashi no tsuma wa nihon-jin desu! Watashi no tsuma wa kawaii desu! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> And the fat acceptors claim that a person’s weight is no one’s business > but > their own?!?!?  There were two issues brought out in this article that say > otherwise.  The first one is that innocent people might have been killed > in > a plane crash due to overweight passengers.  The other issue is that many > planes are going to have to fly with fewer passengers due to the growing > obesity epidemic which means higher fares for everyone, including those of > us who choose to remain HWP. > Methinks they protest too much. > They might have to reduce the load from 19 to 18 on a 19-seater.   But just > what percentage of commuter flights operate with a 100% load?  I’m > unimpressed until they produce that statistic. > The argument about regional weight assumptions seems more valid, since the > present reservations systems are probably not designed to flag pax coming > from cold regions to warm ones – and still carrying their winter clothes. > On a pilots’ discussion group I follow one of the pilots told of a marginal > takeoff in a "real" airliner loaded with fat northern Britons on a golfing > vacation with a full, heavy golf bag for each one.  The normal weight > assumptions were very wrong.

Response:

> In a book I read "The Final Call", there was mention of a civil airliner > transporting US troops that came down shortly after take-off, the resulting > investigation concluded that the average weight of a soldier plus their > associated kit like weapons etc was much heavier than a ’standard’ passenger > on an airliner and basically the aircraft was overweight.

Arrow Air I think.  A shady line which did a lot of lowest bidder charter.

Response:

So kids on aircraft do have their purposes – they lower the average weight per passenger considerably. If 10% of the passengers are full-fare 25-pound 2-year-olds, they have just made the flight considerably safer. Traveler

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In a book I read "The Final Call", there was mention of a civil airliner > transporting US troops that came down shortly after take-off, the resulting > investigation concluded that the average weight of a soldier plus their > associated kit like weapons etc was much heavier than a ’standard’ passenger > on an airliner and basically the aircraft was overweight. > Col.

Response:

Yes I think you are correct, I was stuck between Arrow and Evergreen. Colin.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> And the fat acceptors claim that a person’s weight is no one’s business >  but > their own?!?!?  There were two issues brought out in this article that say > otherwise.  The first one is that innocent people might have been killed >  in > a plane crash due to overweight passengers.  The other issue is that many > planes are going to have to fly with fewer passengers due to the growing > obesity epidemic which means higher fares for everyone, including those of > us who choose to remain HWP. > Methinks they protest too much. > They might have to reduce the load from 19 to 18 on a 19-seater.   But just > what percentage of commuter flights operate with a 100% load?  I’m > unimpressed until they produce that statistic.

[snip]    I suspect they are as, if not more, concerned about their cargo capacity.

Response:

>   I suspect they are as, if not more, concerned about their cargo capacity.

There may be a solution to the obesity problem real soon now. Here’s the link: http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,58705,00.html In summary: Someone’s come up with a pill that expands into a polymer ball in the stomach to produce a sensation of fullness. To keep it from being a problem if you don’t get it all the way down, and to keep it from clogging the small intestine – which could be fatal – each pill expands to only a 1" ball. The balls slowly dissolve over a course of weeks, and in case of emergency there’s another pill you can take that dissolves them almost much faster. You take a pill a day and after 7 days you reach a "steady state" with enough polymer balls to produce a sensation of fullness. The pills are already in large-animal trials and will begin human trials in September. Since it’s a device and not a medication, FDA approval may take as little as one year. This guy’s a genius in more than one way. Notice how people have to buy a pill every day for the rest of their life?  :)

Response:

Another bullshit thread about fat people. I ignore most of these silly thread, but I do have an interest in air travel.  No one will like my solution to this problem. Look – if you are too fat for the standard airline seat, you nees to buy two seats.  Sorry, that’s just the way it is.  There is the argument that size shouldn’t matter, the price of a ticket is for passage from one place to another. Perhaps that is the current model – perhaps that model should change. The fare you pay is for a piece of real estate on the plane.  If the lot is not big enough for your house, you need two lots. Getting an airplane off the ground is not a matter of self esteem, personal privacy, reasonable accomodation, or any other politcally correct concept.  It’s science.  You cannot legislate laws of gravity.  Planes can only weigh so much and safely slip the surely bonds of earth. Perhaps we should ALL be treated as what we really are when we fly. CARGO.  I’m not saying that you just strap passengers to cargo pallets and fly them around in windowless jets.  But maybe we should buy the service by the pound.  I weigh 230.  So maybe I should pay more for than my wife that weight 140.  For crying out loud, anything else shipped by air is charged by weight, why not people?

Response:

-0700: >Another bullshit thread about fat people. >I ignore most of these silly thread, but I do have an interest in air >travel.  No one will like my solution to this problem.

And then he goes on to troll… >Look – if you are too fat for the standard airline seat, you nees to >buy two seats.  Sorry, that’s just the way it is.  

What if you’re not fat, but just have wide shoulders like I do? What if you’re just a huge person, like a football player? I agree that there’s some point where people need to pay extra. But before we even consider that airplane seats need to be made wide enough that average adults can fit *comfortably* side-by-side in them. Even the $1.50 theater up the street has wider seats than I’ve ever seen in the coach section of a passenger jet. >Perhaps that is the current model – perhaps that model should change. >The fare you pay is for a piece of real estate on the plane.  If the >lot is not big enough for your house, you need two lots.

That depends on whether the airlines afford to lose about a fifth of their market… >Getting an airplane off the ground is not a matter of self esteem, >personal privacy, reasonable accomodation, or any other politcally >correct concept.  It’s science.  You cannot legislate laws of gravity. >Planes can only weigh so much and safely slip the surely bonds of >earth.

Then the airline should make sure they don’t go over that limit by leaving plenty of breathing room in their weight calculations. Don’t take it out on passengers who for whatever reason happen to be bigger/wider than the rest. >Perhaps we should ALL be treated as what we really are when we fly. >CARGO.  I’m not saying that you just strap passengers to cargo pallets >and fly them around in windowless jets.  But maybe we should buy the >service by the pound.  I weigh 230.  So maybe I should pay more for >than my wife that weight 140.  For crying out loud, anything else >shipped by air is charged by weight, why not people?

Because consumers won’t tolerate it, and the airlines are desperate for every passenger they can get right now. Even the fat ones.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->   I suspect they are as, if not more, concerned about their cargo capacity. > There may be a solution to the obesity problem real soon now. Here’s > the link: > http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,58705,00.html > In summary: Someone’s come up with a pill that expands into a polymer > ball in the stomach to produce a sensation of fullness. To keep it > from being a problem if you don’t get it all the way down, and to keep > it from clogging the small intestine – which could be fatal – each > pill expands to only a 1" ball. The balls slowly dissolve over a > course of weeks, and in case of emergency there’s another pill you can > take that dissolves them almost much faster. > You take a pill a day and after 7 days you reach a "steady state" with > enough polymer balls to produce a sensation of fullness. > The pills are already in large-animal trials and will begin human > trials in September. Since it’s a device and not a medication, FDA > approval may take as little as one year. > This guy’s a genius in more than one way. Notice how people have to > buy a pill every day for the rest of their life?  :)

The last paragraph: "Burnett said potential abuse is an issue he’ll grapple with by making his capsule a prescription-only device, as well as by providing a fast-acting antidote that can dissolve the capsules if someone takes too many." Abuse?  I would have liked to hear some details about how you might ‘abuse’ these things.  The fact that they would be prescription-only is intended, of course, as a revenue-enhancement feature. — Cheers, Bev "The object in life is not to be on the side of the  majority, but to be insane in such a useful way that  they can’t commit you."              – Mark Edwards

Response:

-0700: > There may be a solution to the obesity problem real soon now. Here’s > the link: > http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,58705,00.html >The last paragraph: >"Burnett said potential abuse is an issue he’ll grapple with by making his >capsule a prescription-only device, as well as by providing a fast-acting >antidote that can dissolve the capsules if someone takes too many." >Abuse?  I would have liked to hear some details about how you might >’abuse’ these things.  

Anorexics, maybe? Or McDonald’s could mix them in with a 1 ounce ground beef pattie and you’d feel as full as if you’d just eaten a 2-pounder! >The fact that they would be prescription-only is >intended, of course, as a revenue-enhancement feature.

It probably will add to the cost, but it may also decrease costs to the individual consumer since medical insurance covers prescription drugs.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > -0700: >> There may be a solution to the obesity problem real soon now. Here’s >> the link: >> http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,58705,00.html >The last paragraph: >"Burnett said potential abuse is an issue he’ll grapple with by making his >capsule a prescription-only device, as well as by providing a fast-acting >antidote that can dissolve the capsules if someone takes too many." >Abuse?  I would have liked to hear some details about how you might >’abuse’ these things. > Anorexics, maybe? Or McDonald’s could mix them in with a 1 ounce > ground beef pattie and you’d feel as full as if you’d just eaten a > 2-pounder!

It probably wouldn’t be too difficult to implement — you know those compressed sponges?  From a 1" ball to the size of a large vitamin tablet isn’t all that much compression.  How long will a cellulose sponge last in the presence of gastric acid? >The fact that they would be prescription-only is >intended, of course, as a revenue-enhancement feature. > It probably will add to the cost, but it may also decrease costs to > the individual consumer since medical insurance covers prescription > drugs.

Not all medical insurance covers prescription drugs. — Cheers, Bev "Parasites plus suckers do not add up to a community."                                     — Thomas Sowell

Response:

One of most "curious" aspects of the regional airlines’ dislike for increasing the estimated weight of passengers is that this implies (to me) that they are presently happy to operate their planes when overloaded.  … and they don’t want a rules change that reduces the likelyhood of overloaded departures. This doesn’t increase my confidence in the safety of the regionals.

Response:

> -0700: >Another bullshit thread about fat people. >I ignore most of these silly thread, but I do have an interest in air >travel.  No one will like my solution to this problem. > And then he goes on to troll…

Hardly trolling.  While I might have gone a little over the top.  I am serious. >Look – if you are too fat for the standard airline seat, you nees to >buy two seats.  Sorry, that’s just the way it is.   > What if you’re not fat, but just have wide shoulders like I do? What > if you’re just a huge person, like a football player?

Let me clairfy what I mean by fat…  if you are too wide.  Whether it’s because you eat too much, or because you were genetcially programmed to be four feet wide (at the ass, belly, or shoulders…doesn’t matter. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I agree that there’s some point where people need to pay extra. But > before we even consider that airplane seats need to be made wide > enough that average adults can fit *comfortably* side-by-side in them. > Even the $1.50 theater up the street has wider seats than I’ve ever > seen in the coach section of a passenger jet. >Perhaps that is the current model – perhaps that model should change. >The fare you pay is for a piece of real estate on the plane.  If the >lot is not big enough for your house, you need two lots. > That depends on whether the airlines afford to lose about a fifth of > their market… >Getting an airplane off the ground is not a matter of self esteem, >personal privacy, reasonable accomodation, or any other politcally >correct concept.  It’s science.  You cannot legislate laws of gravity. >Planes can only weigh so much and safely slip the surely bonds of >earth. > Then the airline should make sure they don’t go over that limit by > leaving plenty of breathing room in their weight calculations. Don’t > take it out on passengers who for whatever reason happen to be > bigger/wider than the rest.

Well – then you go back to the question about whether the airlines can afford to loose part of their market.  Requiring more "breathing room" in weight and balance calulations would require them to cut the number of people they can board on a plane. >Perhaps we should ALL be treated as what we really are when we fly. >CARGO.  I’m not saying that you just strap passengers to cargo pallets >and fly them around in windowless jets.  But maybe we should buy the >service by the pound.  I weigh 230.  So maybe I should pay more for >than my wife that weight 140.  For crying out loud, anything else >shipped by air is charged by weight, why not people? > Because consumers won’t tolerate it, and the airlines are desperate > for every passenger they can get right now. Even the fat ones.

Consumers won’t tolerate what?  The laws of physics?  You can’t demand that your congressman change those law. You really can’t make it fair.   Most "fat" people get themselves fat.  Please – those of you that have some genetic thing – don’t cry to me about it – you’re the exception. The fact is that most overweight people SuperSized themselves out of the standard airline seat.  I am one of those people – 230 is a long "weigh" from my ideal weight.  I am genetically capable of being under 200.  But regardless of why one may weigh 250, at some point, you can’t do what other people do.  ADA or not. You want cheap airfare?  You need to accept that airlines need to put a lot of asses in an airplane to make money when everyone wants a $49 ticket.  The truth is – the majority of adults that board a plane can fight into those seats, so for the most part, they probably have it right.

Response:

Question:

What the story doen’s make clear is that Taiwan has barely been affected by SARS.  There are only 15 cases so far, which is far less than most other Southeast Asian countries.  Yes, then man in question was Taiwanese, but he works in Beijing.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> 06 April 2003 0007 hrs (SST) 1607 hrs (GMT) > Korean Air flight attendants sequestered after SARS scare > Several Korean Air flight attendants have been sequestered in their > homes after a Taiwanese traveller on board a KAL flight was confirmed > as suffering from Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). > Health authorities said all the 15 flight attendants may have been > exposed to SARS virus while serving the passengers. > South Korea still remains free of the SARS epidemic but the discovery > has prompted authorities to tighten checks at Seoul’s Incheon > International Airport and hospitals. > Officials said more medical quarantine officials will placed staffed > at Incheon Airport to check incoming air travelers. > The epidemiologists will also check passengers showing SARS symptoms > and > send them to hospitals. > Health authorities have been checking up on 188 people who may have > been exposed to the deadly virus on the recent flight from China. > The Taiwanese man was in transit at Incheon airport for two hours > after arriving here > on KAL Flight KE 852 on March 28 from Beijing and then leaving on Thai > Airways > Flight TG 635 to Taipei.

Response:

> What the story doen’s make clear is that Taiwan has barely been affected by > SARS.  There are only 15 cases so far, which is far less than most other > Southeast Asian countries.  Yes, then man in question was Taiwanese, but he > works in Beijing.

Two points: First, that seems to point out that Beijing is one of the focal points. Second, the data from Taiwan sound somewhat suspicious.  (Incidentally, from the US too.  Given the number of cases, one would expect casualties.)

Response: