Question:

> The marketplace should decide which airlines keep flying.

That depends on where you live.  If you live in one of the 50 (an arbitrary number) largest cities, you will always have an airline or three doing business in your city.  But if you live in some tiny city and the local airline goes out of business, you now must drive to the nearest city with air service (with Bush trying to eliminate Amtrak, that will no longer be an option soon).  In the old days, those small cities were subsidized by flyers traveling to larger cities. Deregulation has a price.  I live in a hub city, so I don’t really care, but I would have a different attitude if I lived in a small city. Casey

Response:

> EDITORIAL > U.S. Airlines Under a Tax Cloud > February 10, 2005

Even the nation’s > healthiest airlines are ill equipped to deal with another tax increase.

I suspect they’d deal with one just as they have with those before, passing the increased tax through. Increased taxes/fees/etc. have hardly been the source of the airlines’ fiscal pain. > Market forces are likely to shutter some of the weakest airlines, and > that’s > all to the good because more-efficient carriers will take their place.

The potential problems from "shuttering" are somewhat different than than you might imagine, the potential for reduction/curtailment/ababdonment of service into a number of small and medium markets, all with vocal Congress(wo)men.  WN loves to move into substantial but poorly developed/ill-served markets, while having no interest in small cities, other than those located close enough to draw pax from a "big" airport. USeless Air "pays" contract commuter carriers or subsidizes its own to deliver potential mainline traffic from many small/medium markets incapable of generating "big plane" traffic.  Shutter USeless, and could you expect CO to leap to serve all of those markets?  What would likely happen is bloodthirst combat between survivors to cherry pick the best of the un- & under-served destinations, a mutually destructive competitive course. > …….The > government shouldn’t disrupt that process with more bailouts, but it also > shouldn’t push airlines prematurely over the brink by increasing taxes > they > can’t afford to pay.

Taxes are far less of a problem than marketing ploys, image promotion and corporate inability to understand and predict competitor actions and their effect on internal finance. > The marketplace should decide which airlines keep flying.

But if General Motors only built cars in lavender and puce, just as the legacies seem unable to move beyond imaginary and unrealistic service models, the "marketplace" would become less the judge than had been prejudgement based the ineptitude of GM’s management.  Like many other corporations, half a century ago, the legacy airlines structured themselves upon unsupportable compensation and current/potential benefit packages, along with routes and services based on prestige rather than real fiscal projections.  Who knows how many (certainly a few, since the feed trough is pretty big and experience may prevent some continued repititon of past errors) will survive and prosper? Then there’s the entire issue of the down side of laudable anti-trust regulation which forces airlines into the most expensive transportation alternatives.  My own market would be best served by a couple of flights a day in 100 pax a/c then with a surface shuttle – operated or contracted for by a major airline, its fares "sold" as part of a conventional airticket – every couple of hours from 6AM until 10PM.  From rwo and one half to three and one half hours away from two major "hubs" by ground transport, but with an actual two hoour time frame by air travel, counting boarding, deboarding and required terminal transfers, both AA and CO could easily and successfully market such a service if they "ran" it and could sell combined travel, now illegal under federal law as I understand it. TMO

Response:

EDITORIAL U.S. Airlines Under a Tax Cloud February 10, 2005 A $1.5-billion airline tax hike in President Bush’s proposed budget is supposed to fund tougher security measures to protect passengers, flight crews and those on the ground from terrorists. But it could be a knockout punch for some airlines already reeling from high fuel costs and cutthroat fare wars that make it difficult to raise ticket prices. The federal government was obligated to dramatically strengthen national security in the wake of 9/11, and airlines should pay a fair share. But air carriers were already hit disproportionately hard by the Sept. 11 attacks, and they’re in no position now to foot an even larger bill. Domestic airlines lost more than $9 billion last year and have lost a cumulative $30 billion since the terrorist attacks. Immediately after 9/11, Washington offered cash infusions, federally backed loan guarantees and insurance assistance to keep the troubled industry flying. Despite that federal largess, two of the industry’s largest competitors are in bankruptcy court and a third is teetering on the edge. The same fare wars that delight passengers keep the industry from boosting ticket prices to cover rising costs. Airlines have laid off 125,000 employees. If they can’t increase revenue, they’ll be forced to cut costs by laying off more employees and dropping more destinations. Even the nation’s healthiest airlines are ill equipped to deal with another tax increase. Market forces are likely to shutter some of the weakest airlines, and that’s all to the good because more-efficient carriers will take their place. The government shouldn’t disrupt that process with more bailouts, but it also shouldn’t push airlines prematurely over the brink by increasing taxes they can’t afford to pay. The marketplace should decide which airlines keep flying. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-airtax10feb10,0,3287174.story

Response:

Question:

The current inspection is not to prevent any wrong doings, but instead are done to harass and terrorize people. The ones who done ‘terror’ acts and the ones who done ‘counter-terror’ acts are collaborating with each other and shared the same master. The primary goal is nothing more than to make people fight each other and feel uncomfortable. If you felt upset, ‘they’ won.

Response:

I’d definitely Profile. No, I’m not a racist. I’m an international airline Captain. I want the most security possible for my flights. It works for law enforcement. It works for El-Al. Despite it’s proven effectiveness, we don’t profile in the U.S. because of fear of offending and political correctness. Do you know that all the 9-11 terrorists passed all of the things we currently screen for? Norman Minetta, who thankfully is now leaving as Secretary of Transportation, was interned during WWII because he was a Japanese American. He’s the reason that we’ve been so wimpy about really effectively screening through profiling. My 72-year old mother gets scrutinized while Middle Eastern, young, Muslim males don’t get additional screening. We certainly wouldn’t want to offend them would we. If you look back at almost every recent terrorist incident against the U.S.- it was done by male, Middle-Eastern, single muslims, age 20s to 30s.. That’s not profiling, it’s a desctiption of the perpitrators. The police would call it an APB. Let’s stop being so sensitive and get serious about security. That way  it should become easier for the majority of the traveling public and the TSA would be free to be more effectve. — PilotPaul PilotPaul’s Profile: http://travelforums.org/forums/member.php?userid=293 View this thread: http://travelforums.org/forums/showthread.php?t=18162 This post was submitted via http://www.TravelForums.org

Response:

 >>I certainly would officially authorize profiling  >>  >>  >  >  >>I suppose it is done informally/illegally now, and I can live with such (if it  >>is indeed), but I am not gonna let public relations sensitivities  >>determine/over-ride airplane security   <<snip>>  >>  >>  >  >  >Unless you believe there are similarities in past terrorists attacks, there  >is no good reason to profile passengers.  > On CNN, terrorism expert Peter Bergen (in frustration to Richard Perle reciting the Saddam-9/11 chant) added the coda to his response, "There are more Americans in Al Qaeda than Iraqis!" http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/09/terror.tape/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/09/terrorism.student/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/01/soldier.arrested/index.html (And this is all besides the usual suspects like John Walker-Lindh, Jose Padilla and Astrid Aziguirre …) And right, even members of the US military.  Imagine this nightmare scenario, while your Irish grandmother is getting the thrice-over at O’Hare, two American Qaeds – US born, citizens, and officers … are doing a preflight check … in the cockpit of a B-1 bomber … gld

Response:

> I certainly would officially authorize profiling > I suppose it is done informally/illegally now, and I can live with such (if it > is indeed), but I am not gonna let public relations sensitivities > determine/over-ride airplane security   <<snip>>

Unless you believe there are similarities in past terrorists attacks, there is no good reason to profile passengers. September 11, 2001 – Terrorists hijack four U.S. commercial airliners taking off from various locations in the United States in a coordinated suicide attack. In separate attacks, two of the airliners crash into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, which catch fire and eventually collapse. A third airliner crashes into the Pentagon in Washington, DC, causing extensive damage. The fourth airliner, also believed to be heading towards Washington, DC, crashes outside Shanksville, PA., killing all 45 people on board.  The perpetrators: Mideastern Islamic males between 20-40 years of age. Oct. 12, 2000 – A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.  The perpetrators: Mideastern Islamic males between 20-40 years of age. Aug. 7, 1998 – Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured. The perpetrators: Mideastern Islamic males between 20-40 years of age. June 21, 1998 – Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.  The perpetrators: Mideastern Islamic males between 20-40 years of age. June 25, 1996 – A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.  The perpetrators: Mideastern Islamic males between 20-40 years of age. Nov. 13, 1995 – A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.  The perpetrators: Mideastern Islamic males between 20-40 years of age. February 1993 – A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York’s World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042. The perpetrators: Mideastern Islamic males between 20-40 years of age. Dec. 21, 1988 – A bomb destroys Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people aboard the Boeing 747 are killed including 189 Americans, as are 11 people on the ground.  The perpetrators: Mideastern Islamic males between 20-40 years of age. April 1986 – An explosion damages a TWA flight as it prepares to land in Athens, Greece. Four people are killed when they are sucked out of the aircraft.  The perpetrators: Mideastern Islamic males between 20-40 years of age. April 5, 1986 – A bomb destroys the LaBelle discotheque in West Berlin. The disco was known to be frequented by U.S. servicemen. The attack kills one American and one German woman and wounds 150, including 44 Americans.  The perpetrators: Mideastern Islamic males between 20-40 years of age. December 1985 – Simultaneous suicide attacks are carried out against U.S. and Israeli check-in desks at Rome and Vienna international airports. 20 people are killed in the two attacks, including four terrorists. The perpetrators: Mideastern Islamic males between 20-40 years of age. November 1985 – Hijackers aboard an Egyptair flight kill one American. Egyptian commandos later storm the aircraft on the isle of Malta, and 60 people are killed.  The perpetrators: Mideastern Islamic males between 20-40 years of age. October 1985 – Palestinian terrorists hijack the cruise liner Achille Lauro (in response to the Israeli attack on PLO headquarters in Tunisia) Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly, wheelchair-bound American, is killed and thrown overboard.  The perpetrators: Mideastern Islamic males between 20-40 years of age. August 1985 – A car bomb at a U.S. military base in Frankfurt, Germany kills two and injures 20. A U.S. soldier murdered for his identity papers is found a day after the explosion.  The perpetrators: Mideastern Islamic males between 20-40 years of age. June 1985 – A TWA airliner is hijacked over the Mediterranean, the start of a two-week hostage ordeal. The last 39 passengers are eventually released in Damascus after being held in various locations in Beirut.  The perpetrators: Mideastern Islamic males between 20-40 years of age. October 1983 – A suicide car bomb attack against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut kills 241 servicemen. A simultaneous attack on a French base kills 58 paratroopers.  The perpetrators: Mideastern Islamic males between 20-40 years of age. April 1983 – A suicide car bombing against the U.S. embassy in Beirut kills 63, including 17 Americans.  The perpetrators: Mideastern Islamic males between 20-40 years of age.

Response:

>If you istruct profiling of "arabs", then you can be sure that terrorists will >make damned sure that they do not look like arabs and go though undetected.

No one is saying that others get a pass. You ignore the numbers game. The vast majority of those willing to kill themselves for a cause come from a rather well defined socioeconomic group. That being uneducated, unemployed and indoctrinated from an early age and have grown up in a certain geographic area. You certainly did not see Arafat, Bin Laden or any other radical leadership volunteering to take their life. While you may find the ocasional non-arab willing to do that, the odds change considerably.

Response:

this is a problem that plainly calls for some ingenious & rational alternatives (a la the pychological stress evaluator) if the screening process (the patting-down of ten to fifteen percent, apparently especially those  in "loose" clothing) continues, then people will be tending to avoid air travel because of the embarrassing-humiliating hassle i’d not want my my wife & daughters going thru this, while it’s their choice of course copyrighted fort lauderdale sun-sentinel 2004 http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-spat23nov23,0,2105… rint.story?coll=sfla-news-broward Passengers complain about pat-down searches at airports  By Ken Kaye Staff Writer November 23, 2004 Shocked by what she perceived as far too intimate a security check, Melanie Higley burst into tears. First, the wand was placed too aggressively between her legs, then the airport screener at Dallas-Fort Worth International groped her, she said. Hysterical, she protested that she was being abused. The screener’s response: She was just doing her job. Higley was then ordered to take off her tennis shoes, which she did — and threw them at the screener. "I was sweating, I was crying, I was a mess," said Higley, of Jupiter, who was heading to Palm Beach International with her family that September day. "I’ve never been touched like that before by another woman." Scores of women, and some men, say they have suffered similar humiliation during a pat-down, standard procedure since Sept. 22 in secondary screenings at airport checkpoints. Many protest that it is an unnecessary invasion of privacy, the security process going too far. "People should be outraged, fuming, doing something to change this," said Rhonda Gaynier, a New York attorney who said she was given a "breast exam" while flying out of Tampa in October. "It’s like we have no rights anymore." The Transportation Security Administration said the procedure is crucial to security. Less than a month earlier, two Russian airliners exploded, and authorities think two women hid explosives under their clothing. The TSA requires female screeners pat down women; male screeners check men. The back of the hand must be used on breasts, genitals and buttocks and passengers can request it be done out of public view. About 10 to 15 percent of passengers are selected for secondary screenings, chosen for a number of reasons. The airlines are required to randomly select a certain number of passengers for closer inspection. The carrier will stamp the code "SSSS" on the ticket of a passenger selected for this process. Passengers … for continuation, please go to <www.sun-sentinel.com>

Response:

vel-ly in-ter-esting & explanatory http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/breaking_news/10271027.htm

Response:

> If terrorists can’t take their bomb through security, they will just arrange > for the plane to be loaded with bathroom supplies that contain soap shaped C4 > bars, and during flight, they’ll get their supplies from the lavatories.

lavatory soap on planes has been liquid ever since my first flight on a boeing stratocruiser over 50 years ago.

Response:

MRI:  Another Screening Tool? please see the last paragraph of this Reuters copyrighted article By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent WASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) – Brain scans show that the brains of people who are lying look very different from those of people who are telling the truth, U.S. researchers said on Monday. The study, using functional magnetic resonance imaging or fMRI, not only sheds light on what goes on when people lie but may also provide new technology for lie-detecting, the researchers said. "There may be unique areas in the brain involved in deception that can be measured with fMRI," said Dr. Scott Faro, director of the Functional Brain Imaging Center at Temple University School of Medicine in Philadelphia. "There may be unique areas in the brain involved in truth-telling," Faro added at a news conference. Faro and colleagues tested 10 volunteers. Six of them were asked to shoot a toy gun and then lie and say they didn’t do it. Three others who watched told the truth about what happened. One volunteer dropped out of the study. While giving their "testimony," the volunteers were hooked up both to a conventional polygraph and also had their brain activity imaged using fMRI, which used a strong magnet to provide a real-time picture of brain activity. There were clear differences between the liars and the truth-tellers, Faro’s team told a meeting in Chicago of the Radiological Society of North America. "We found a total of seven areas of activation in the deception (group)," he said. "We found four areas of activity in the truth-telling arm." Overall, it seemed to take more brain effort to tell the lie than to tell the truth, Faro found. Lying caused activity in the frontal part of the brain — the medial inferior and pre-central areas, as well as the hippocampus and middle temporal regions and the limbic areas. Some of these are involved in emotional responses, Faro said. During a truthful response, the fMRI showed activation of parts of the brain’s frontal lobe, temporal lobe and cingulate gyrus. Faro said the study was small and limited. Volunteers were not asked to try especially hard to deceive the equipment, he said — noting that it has been documented that some people can fool a polygraph using various techniques. Using fMRI as a lie detector is expensive, but it may be worthwhile in some cases — such as trying to question a terrorism suspect, or in a high-profile corporate crime case, Faro said. AlertNet news is provided by   Printable view  |  Email this article  |  Send comments ——

Question:

I have Generac 4000xl that has developed an idle problem. It runs fine, but at no load idle it constantly surges and will not idle at all if automatic idle switch is cut on.  Has run great up till now and has had light use. Anyone had this problem before?

Response:

Dear Everybody,     Here below is the announcement of the next session of our popular Solar-Cultural Course.  The Grupo Fenix has just finished the successful summer session, earlier than usual.  For 2005, we are moving the summer session back to August but the next session starts at the beginning of January.  The arrival date is set as Sunday, the 2nd, but the actual course starts on Monday, the 3rd. This time, I will be again teaching part of the course and we will be spending a week out in the countryside installing a community PV system, building solar cookers and finding out how people live in remote 3rd World villages.      Please pass this announcement on to anybody you think might be interested, since this is the major way we advertise this course.  If any of you wish to receive an MS Word version of this announcement, just send an e-mail and I will be happy to send one on to you.  Feel free to put this announcement up on bulletin boards or anywhere you feel appropriate to get the word out. Both the Grupo Fenix www.grupofenix.org and Skyheat Associates are public non-profit organizations and are currently doing all this work with no grant money, so we need your help getting the word out.     Thank you,        Rich Richard Komp PhD. President Skyheat Associates 17 Rockwell Rd SE Jonesport ME 04649 www.grupofenix.org EXPERIENCE SOLAR CULTURE IN NICARAGUA An opportunity to offer your hands, heart, and a unique gift: Solar Energy to a rural community in Nicaragua! The Grupo Fenix invites interested parties to participate directly in its development and vision. We offer a 12-day workshop/tour in which participants learn about solar energy systems, study applications specific to Central America, visit renewable energy installations, and install a PV lighting system in a rural village.  The program includes recreational and cultural activities. The next 12-day workshop will run from the 2nd of January through the 13th, 2005. The cost of the entire trip, excluding air fare and airport expenses, is $850 per person, which includes a $200 subsidy towards solar equipment for the villages and $100 to development funds in the barrios and villages where Fenix is working. The course is taught in English and Spanish with simultaneous translation into English. (Spanish ability greatly enhances your experience of Nicaragua, and the Summer course will be taught mostly by Nicaraguans and include more Spanish.) The course design for 2005 includes new hands-on experiences and highlights the socio economic impact Grupo Fenix has had in the process of implementing renewable energy for sustainable development. New students welcome, and previous students are encouraged to return. A PROBLEM: More than 60% of Nicaragua’s rural population have no electricity, and the cost of electricity is high for poor Nicaraguans. Rural poor rely on wood to fuel in-home stoves for cooking, and more than half the energy used in the country is firewood for cooking. The resultant deforestation has dried up up local rivers, with serious erosion, loss of top soil, and mud slides that have killed thousands. Campesinos must walk progressively farther to encounter firewood or purchase the wood at rising cost. Health concerns from cooking with firewood include respiratory diseases, which now leads contaminated water as a major cause of illness and death. These problems particularly affect women and children, who are most likely to spend significant time in smoke- filled kitchens. A SOLUTION: Grupo Fenix was started in 1996 by a group of enthusiastic engineering students at the National Engineering University (UNI).  They chose the name "Grupo Fenix" receiving inspiration from the mythical bird of Egyptian sun worship, the Phoenix, which is forever renewed and expresses the hope of these young Nicaraguans that their poor, strife-torn country would rise from the ashes of war and build an enlightened society. Since 1996, Grupo Fenix has developed into an association of organizations with academic, non profit and business affiliations which  have been promoting, researching and implementing the use of renewable energy in Nicaragua, especially in rural areas. Grupo Fenix counts among its accomplishments: * Establishment of two solar cooker workshops, one in the Capital city Managua and one in the countryside. * Design of over 16 new types of solar cookers. * Construction and repair of over  80 solar cookers. * Construction of  several styles of solar water heaters. * Construction of  three solar dryers. * Construction of  prototypes for solar instrument sterilizer and solar bee’s wax melter. * Establishment of two workshops for local manufacture of photovoltaic (PV) panels, the first a small business in Managua and the second run by land mine survivors in a remote village. * The construction of more than 300 PV panels. * The construction of several hundred ballasts for 12 volt fluorescent lighting. * The development of inexpensive LED reading lights for students in remote villages. * Installation of hundreds of PV systems in towns without previous access to electricity. * Installation of a  microhydro system, several others in design stage. * Construction of 5 Biogas systems. * Providing over a thousand  hours of training in the use and construction of renewable energy technologies to all levels of participants, from campesinos to scientists.   * Organization and hosting for eight years of  Nicaragua’s only annual Renewable Energy Fair. * Presentation of monthly popular education conferences on renewable energy themes, almost without interruption since 1996. Highlights of Course: * Visit  the Grupo Fenix Renewable Energy educational and production centers in the city of Managua, learn about the variety of activities involved in making renewable energy a part of life in Nicaragua. * Spend  a week in remote rural communities where Grupo Fenix has installed renewable energy systems, gaining intimate knowledge about the community, and experience the impact of solar energy on their lives. * Learn about the history and philosophy of using solar energy, principles of design for solar cookers, water and air heaters, and food driers, and the latest advances in the field of photovoltaics.   * Hands on experience installing a PV solar electric system in a remote village. * Hands on experience building and testing permanent solar box cookers. * Solar cooked meals. * Celebrate the sun with locally written songs, poems, dancing and cultural exchange. (You are invited to share songs, dance, juggling in the culture nights.   * In depth discussions with villagers and local non-profits on problems, successes and future possibilities of renewable energy as a part of local sustainable development. ADDITIONAL OPTIONS:  The Solar Culture Course is offered twice yearly, after  January the following session of the course will be from the 31st of July thru the 11th of August, 2005.  Intensive  one week Courses in Solar Spanish in the village of Unile, $150.00 (See www.grupofenix.org ) Option of individual non-structured stay in the village for holidays, at $15.00 a day or a total of $105.00 per week.  Proceeds go to the development of the Village Solar Training Centers. Weekend Tour after the Solar-Cultural Course to a site selected by your group: options include twin volcanic island of Ometepe and Microhydro site, Colonial Granada, , the deep volcanic lake of Laguna de Apoya, fishing village and estuaries, or other options depending on course participants. (Additional costs involved).   THE INSTRUCTORS:        Richard Komp, Ph.D., the course advisor and instructor for the January sessions, is the author of PRACTICAL PHOTOVOLTAICS and has been working on solar cells since 1960. He has taught numerous courses and workshops on solar energy all over the world; is currently the president of the Maine Solar Energy association and has a small photovoltaic company, Sun Watt Corporation. Richard also teaches graduate courses on Solar Energy at the UNI.      Susan Kinne, initiator of the solar cultural/course, has been on staff at the UNI for the past  15 years, and is currently director of the Fenix Program for Alternative Energy.       Nicaraguan Grupo FENIX staff consists of pre-grad and young engineers and technicians who have made renewable energy their life mission. The rural staff now includes land mine survivors who were trained as solar technicians during the 1999- 2001 project directed to FENIX thru Falls Brook Centre of Canada. PAYMENT: A $50 deposit or full payment by December 15th 2004 will save you a place in the course, which will be limited to a total of 15 participants. Checks should be made out to SKYHEAT ASSOCIATES and sent to: Richard Komp, Skyheat Associates, 17 Rockwell Rd. SE, Jonesport ME 04649. If you only pay the deposit by check, the remaining amount is to be paid the first day of the course in cash (U.S. dollars). AIR TRAVEL:  We can recommend a "Green" travel agency, EARTH ROUTES, Each airline ticket plants three trees through the non-profit Seed Tree. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Richard Komp (primary contact) e-mail:

Response:

The top of the carb has an idle screw on it if it is screwed in too tight raising the speed of the low end it will cause the unit to surge going off the idle control. also the carb may not be adjusted right if it has 2 screws for mixture adjustment one is the low speed idle adjustment with your hand and the unit running bring the throttle back to the idle setting and adjust the idle screw richer or leaner as required the basic setting is 1 1/4 turns out from close.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I have Generac 4000xl that has developed an idle problem. It runs fine, but > at no load idle it constantly surges and will not idle at all if automatic > idle switch is cut on.  Has run great up till now and has had light use. > Anyone had this problem before?

Response:

Question:

>> The UK’s standard of living is a dismal 12th place, falling well behind > that of Australia, the US and other countries.

Behind 11 countries in total. Everyone knows the USA has the best standard of living in the world. — Tim C.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Smith schrieb: >> At least Margaret Thatcher was able to kick – start the UK into the >> modern >> world…if not for her the UK would be a *really* dire place…it’s a >> relatively prosperous and robust place compared to the tired likes of >> France, Germany, and other avatars of "Olde Europe"…. > I have to agree there… look at the unemployment rates in countries > like Germany. > Don’t compare apples with peares. > Germany has to integrate the former soviet GDR with 89 billions Euro > every year (more than 800millions up to now). A region with massive > structural and economic problems.

On top of that, Germany has to pay 5 billion Euros a year net into the EU. No wonder it is struggling with massive problems. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> What would the UK do? It would collapse. > So, with reference to that and to living standard I’d prefer Germany.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > There are many other European hubs that are accesible from the US. Frankfurt > strikes me as a great one, Paris would be another. > Try one of those next time. > Perhaps I’ve led a sheltered life. But I have travelled all over the US, > and some parts of Europe. In all these travels I’d never happened through > London Heathrow . . . until recently. (Arriving on AA from Chicago at > Terminal 4, I had to connect with a BA flight at Terminal 1.) And I have > never been in any airport so badly maintained, run, designed, > constructed, . . . [this list is infinite]. > It gave me a new respect for anyone who might have the misfortune to have > to regularly frequent this hellish place.

SNIP In case anyone missed the irony of the comment on the top, both Frankfurt and Paris (CDG) are APPALLING places to transit.  They would make the OP long for the relative convenience of LHR.  (I speak from experience of all three, but as an EU citizen.)

Response:

> There are many other European hubs that are accesible from the US. Frankfurt > strikes me as a great one, Paris would be another.

As a frequent user of LHR, FRA, CDG, AMS, CPH and to a lesser extent VIE I would say that of the European major airports: AMS is best, followed by CPH and VIE, FRA is average, LHR is second worst and CDG is worst. Sjoerd

Response:

> >> The UK’s standard of living is a dismal 12th place, falling well behind >> that of Australia, the US and other countries. > Behind 11 countries in total. Everyone knows the USA has the best standard > of living in the world.

Sorry, try again!  The US is in 8th place. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1155013.htm K.

Response:

Martin schrieb: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Smith schrieb: >>>At least Margaret Thatcher was able to kick – start the UK into the >>>modern >>>world…if not for her the UK would be a *really* dire place…it’s > a >>>relatively prosperous and robust place compared to the tired likes > of >>>France, Germany, and other avatars of "Olde Europe"…. >>I have to agree there… look at the unemployment rates in countries >>like Germany. >Don’t compare apples with peares. >Germany has to integrate the former soviet GDR with 89 billions Euro >every year (more than 800millions up to now). A region with massive >structural and economic problems. >What would the UK do? It would collapse. >So, with reference to that and to living standard I’d prefer Germany. > Hang on, don’t we pay towards the regeneration of the former GDR via our > EU contribution, and won’t it be an EU problem into the future rather > than Germany’s alone? > (I don’t know, just asking…) > Martin.

Germany is the paymaster of the union. The most benefit of the EU payments have Greece, France and Spain. The Unification is financed by the Germans themselves. They pay more to the EU, than they get back and have to transfer 90 billions Euro every year without the EU and after the EU extension the european payments for the east german states will probably be stopped.

Response:

> At least Margaret Thatcher was able to kick – start the UK into the modern > world…if not for her the UK would be a *really* dire place…it’s a > relatively prosperous and robust place compared to the tired likes of > France, Germany, and other avatars of "Olde Europe"….

I have to agree there… look at the unemployment rates in countries like Germany.

Response:

Smith schrieb: > At least Margaret Thatcher was able to kick – start the UK into the > modern > world…if not for her the UK would be a *really* dire place…it’s a > relatively prosperous and robust place compared to the tired likes of > France, Germany, and other avatars of "Olde Europe"…. > I have to agree there… look at the unemployment rates in countries > like Germany.

Don’t compare apples with peares. Germany has to integrate the former soviet GDR with 89 billions Euro every year (more than 800millions up to now). A region with massive structural and economic problems. What would the UK do? It would collapse. So, with reference to that and to living standard I’d prefer Germany.

Response:

So what’s so different about the UK? This is happening all over the world, the "blurring of the borders" will ensure the "1st & 2nd world" concept won’t exist for much longer. Pity they didn’t realise this in the early 40s, they wouldn’t have bothered putting up a fight… What’ya think is happening in the US, esp. California? But back on topic, yes LHR is a serious mess, but at least when you have a [real] tight connection (as I did once with BA) they drive you from one side of the airport to the other. (took 5 minutes) – Very civilised!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> That’s because the UK is a third world country: > – High taxes, yet services going down the toilet. > – A crippling cost of living. > – A failing education system, with students being cattle-herded into > universities with plummeting academic standards. > – A tidal wave of immigrants are descending on the country – many of > whom are extremists and hate western values. > The UK’s standard of living is a dismal 12th place, falling well behind > that of Australia, the US and other countries.

Response:

> That’s because the UK is a third world country: > – High taxes, yet services going down the toilet. > – A crippling cost of living. > – A failing education system, with students being cattle-herded into > universities with plummeting academic standards. > – A tidal wave of immigrants are descending on the country – many of > whom are extremists and hate western values. > The UK’s standard of living is a dismal 12th place, falling well behind > that of Australia, the US and other countries.

It’s still the best place in Europe (okay, I know the UK is not "Europe"…), which does not say a whole lot for Europe…. At least Margaret Thatcher was able to kick – start the UK into the modern world…if not for her the UK would be a *really* dire place…it’s a relatively prosperous and robust place compared to the tired likes of France, Germany, and other avatars of "Olde Europe"…. — Best Greg

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (cut) >At LHR I go throught the EU line and normally this is straight through of a >few minutes wait (usually T3 or T4); meanwhile the other lines for Americans >and other suspicious people often looks like an hour’s wait – a disgrace. > I’ve never taken anywhere near an hour to get through the non-EU > lines at Heathrow. Sometimes the lines seem very long, and are, > but they each feed severl check stations and go smoothly for the > most part

Thanks, I am glad to hear that. I often see lines of a few hundred people and just assumed they take ages to clear.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Smith schrieb: >> At least Margaret Thatcher was able to kick – start the UK into the >> modern >> world…if not for her the UK would be a *really* dire place…it’s a >> relatively prosperous and robust place compared to the tired likes of >> France, Germany, and other avatars of "Olde Europe"…. > I have to agree there… look at the unemployment rates in countries > like Germany. > Don’t compare apples with peares. > Germany has to integrate the former soviet GDR with 89 billions Euro > every year (more than 800millions up to now). A region with massive > structural and economic problems. > What would the UK do? It would collapse. > So, with reference to that and to living standard I’d prefer Germany.

Hang on, don’t we pay towards the regeneration of the former GDR via our EU contribution, and won’t it be an EU problem into the future rather than Germany’s alone? (I don’t know, just asking…) Martin.

Response:

There are many other European hubs that are accesible from the US. Frankfurt strikes me as a great one, Paris would be another. Try one of those next time.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Perhaps I’ve led a sheltered life. But I have travelled all over the US, > and some parts of Europe. In all these travels I’d never happened through > London Heathrow . . . until recently. (Arriving on AA from Chicago at > Terminal 4, I had to connect with a BA flight at Terminal 1.) And I have > never been in any airport so badly maintained, run, designed, > constructed, . . . [this list is infinite]. > It gave me a new respect for anyone who might have the misfortune to have > to regularly frequent this hellish place. I’ve never been to Entebbe or > Sheremetyevo either, but I can imagine they must be first-rate compared > to LHR. My change involved quite a bit of walking. By "quite a bit" I > mean approaching Appalachian Trail levels. All of this is thinking you > are going to be asked to clear customs at any moment so you have them in > hand. Of course no-one has explained you will not do this until getting > to Terminal One. A very curious thing. Just when the worst of the hike > appears to be over you descend an escalator to *catch a bus*. Of course, > first you have to wait until about 6 buses load ahead of you, the line > shuffles forward in a terribly cramped un-air-conditioned piece of **** > space (are we on Candid Camera?). Eventually you get on. After a scenic > tour of the bowels of Heathrow (which appears to be ENTIRELY either in > the process of demolition / construction) you arrive at Terminal 1 / 2. > The joy is just beginning. You discover you must once again clear > security (in spite of having flown from the US and been happily underway > on your trip on the air side for 12 hours). This naturally takes 45 > minutes. No-one explains what you will need to present to the security > check (boarding card) so all manner of documents and passports are being > gotten in readiness for no good reason. > Then it’s back on the Trail for another mammoth walk via (finally!) an > immigration check, again totally unsigned so as to make sense. A lot of > Americans don’t understand "eu" (lower case) and get in the wrong line! > Then it’s back on the Trail (take gorp!) for 15 minutes to a BA holding > pen, and then eventually when your flight is called, another 10 minutes > to the gate. > I was offerred a 1 hour connection at LHR. I thought it might be "a bit > tight" and declined, but what it would have been was a futile > impossibility. It took me 1:25 minutes to get off the AA ORD flight to > the holding pen, and I was  a SWEATY BLOB for my troubles. And yes the > lack of any sort of decent a/c is another hideous aspect of this place. > It’s as though way back some time someone sat down in Westminster to > design the most stupid & irritating airport that money could buy. I will > NEVER be back unless absolutely impossible to avoid. Even the restrooms > are designed so as to be big enough for a man, *or* his hand luggage, but > not both, and certainly not more than one person to pass within their > confines. > This was an absolutely amazing revelation to me and my hat’s off to any > of you who frequent this place on a regular basis. > On the return trip via LGW a totally different and relatively positive > experience. > It gives me new regard for even pretty poor US airports liek DFW. > Comparitively speaking they are havens of sanity and logic.

Response:

>Yes it is a horror, the least favourite of my regular airports. I am British >so use it a lot, be grateful you don’t have to. >In some minor defence, remember you probably enter US airports as a citizen >not an "alien". If you had to go through the aliens’ line you may be less >impressed. One of my worst airport experiences was arriving at Miami >mid-summer and waiting in a packed corridor for over an hour while the >aircon was off/broken; no apologies issued, temperature over 100F, humidity >turned right up. This was before 9/11 but I don’t suppose we aliens are >treated any better now. No wonder the more intelligent aliens travel on >their own space craft and by-pass the airports >At LHR I go throught the EU line and normally this is straight through of a >few minutes wait (usually T3 or T4); meanwhile the other lines for Americans >and other suspicious people often looks like an hour’s wait – a disgrace.

I’ve never taken anywhere near an hour to get through the non-EU lines at Heathrow. Sometimes the lines seem very long, and are, but they each feed severl check stations and go smoothly for the most part     *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *     * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Response:

I would never normally defend LHR, it is a disgusting place by European standrards, but some points in your post need dealing with. >Perhaps I’ve led a sheltered life. But I have travelled all over the US, >and some parts of Europe. In all these travels I’d never happened through >London Heathrow . . . until recently. (Arriving on AA from Chicago at >Terminal 4, I had to connect with a BA flight at Terminal 1.)

AA arrive at T3 not T4. >And I have >never been in any airport so badly maintained, run, designed, >constructed, . . . [this list is infinite]. >It gave me a new respect for anyone who might have the misfortune to have >to regularly frequent this hellish place. I’ve never been to Entebbe or >Sheremetyevo either, but I can imagine they must be first-rate compared >to LHR. My change involved quite a bit of walking. By "quite a bit" I >mean approaching Appalachian Trail levels. All of this is thinking you >are going to be asked to clear customs at any moment so you have them in >hand.

Yes, perhaps you have led a sheltered life. International arrivals usually clear immigration before customs, that is what you should have been expecting first. Btw, what is this ‘them’ that you had in hand? >Of course no-one has explained you will not do this until getting >to Terminal One. A very curious thing.

Is it really so surprising that an airport with the international traffic that LHR has, and with the amount of international transit traffic that LHR has, would position the immigration and customs controls for transit passengers at the point of entry to the domestic section of the airport, rather than earlier in the transit process? >Just when the worst of the hike >appears to be over you descend an escalator to *catch a bus*. Of course, >first you have to wait until about 6 buses load ahead of you, the line >shuffles forward in a terribly cramped un-air-conditioned piece of **** >space (are we on Candid Camera?). Eventually you get on. After a scenic >tour of the bowels of Heathrow (which appears to be ENTIRELY either in >the process of demolition / construction) you arrive at Terminal 1 / 2. >The joy is just beginning. You discover you must once again clear >security (in spite of having flown from the US and been happily underway >on your trip on the air side for 12 hours).

Quite obviously the UK has it’s own standards for airline security, and doesn’t rely on the standards of other countries. The UK is not the only country to do this, the US, for example, does the same. With the UK having one of the best airline security systems in the world, with far more experience than, say, the US, this is highly desirable. After all there are well documented cases of LHR security finding things that inferior US security checks allowed through. >This naturally takes 45 >minutes. No-one explains what you will need to present to the security >check (boarding card) so all manner of documents and passports are being >gotten in readiness for no good reason.

Any air traveller with the slightest experience knows that you keep your identification, ticket/e-ticket receipt/booking confirmation, and boarding pass to hand throughout your progress through an airport. >Then it’s back on the Trail for another mammoth walk via (finally!) an >immigration check, again totally unsigned so as to make sense. A lot of >Americans don’t understand "eu" (lower case) and get in the wrong line!

LOL! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Then it’s back on the Trail (take gorp!) for 15 minutes to a BA holding >pen, and then eventually when your flight is called, another 10 minutes >to the gate. >I was offerred a 1 hour connection at LHR. I thought it might be "a bit >tight" and declined, but what it would have been was a futile >impossibility. It took me 1:25 minutes to get off the AA ORD flight to >the holding pen, and I was  a SWEATY BLOB for my troubles. And yes the >lack of any sort of decent a/c is another hideous aspect of this place. >It’s as though way back some time someone sat down in Westminster to >design the most stupid & irritating airport that money could buy. I will >NEVER be back unless absolutely impossible to avoid. Even the restrooms >are designed so as to be big enough for a man, *or* his hand luggage, but >not both, and certainly not more than one person to pass within their >confines. >This was an absolutely amazing revelation to me and my hat’s off to any >of you who frequent this place on a regular basis. >On the return trip via LGW a totally different and relatively positive >experience. >It gives me new regard for even pretty poor US airports liek DFW. >Comparitively speaking they are havens of sanity and logic.          

Obviously you have never had the misfortune to transit LAX from an international flight as a non-US passport holder. Your experience sounds quite pleasant in comparison. –==++AJC++==–

Response:

>You discover you must once again clear >security (in spite of having flown from the US and been happily underway >on your trip on the air side for 12 hours)

This is because US airport security is crap. 1) To my knowledge there have been at least 4 passengers who have arrived at LHR from Heathrow this year carrying a firearm in their carry on baggage which has been detected when they transferred flights at LHR. For 2 more LHR was their final destination and they surrendered their firearm at  a police station when they discovered they had it. 2) Staff from my unit where at a major US airport earlier this year and within hours found a major flaw in the airport security. They were told the system was consistent with that used at other US airports, (so they all have the flaw) and nothing has been done about it. So we prefer to re screen everyone to our own standards, same as the US re-screen passengers arriving from the UK and transferring flights at a US airport. It is called built in redundancy and is there to detect and correct mistakes. –   Lansbury www.uk-air.net FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

Response:

> Perhaps I’ve led a sheltered life. But I have travelled all over the US, > and some parts of Europe. In all these travels I’d never happened through > London Heathrow . . . until recently. (Arriving on AA from Chicago at > Terminal 4,

AA use Terminal 3 – I hope the rest of your story is more accurate. But LHR is a pain, you should arriving by car during the rush hour

Response:

Yes it is a horror, the least favourite of my regular airports. I am British so use it a lot, be grateful you don’t have to. In some minor defence, remember you probably enter US airports as a citizen not an "alien". If you had to go through the aliens’ line you may be less impressed. One of my worst airport experiences was arriving at Miami mid-summer and waiting in a packed corridor for over an hour while the aircon was off/broken; no apologies issued, temperature over 100F, humidity turned right up. This was before 9/11 but I don’t suppose we aliens are treated any better now. No wonder the more intelligent aliens travel on their own space craft and by-pass the airports At LHR I go throught the EU line and normally this is straight through of a few minutes wait (usually T3 or T4); meanwhile the other lines for Americans and other suspicious people often looks like an hour’s wait – a disgrace.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Perhaps I’ve led a sheltered life. But I have travelled all over the US, > and some parts of Europe. In all these travels I’d never happened through > London Heathrow . . . until recently. (Arriving on AA from Chicago at > Terminal 4, I had to connect with a BA flight at Terminal 1.) And I have > never been in any airport so badly maintained, run, designed, > constructed, . . . [this list is infinite]. > It gave me a new respect for anyone who might have the misfortune to have > to regularly frequent this hellish place. I’ve never been to Entebbe or > Sheremetyevo either, but I can imagine they must be first-rate compared > to LHR. My change involved quite a bit of walking. By "quite a bit" I > mean approaching Appalachian Trail levels. All of this is thinking you > are going to be asked to clear customs at any moment so you have them in > hand. Of course no-one has explained you will not do this until getting > to Terminal One. A very curious thing. Just when the worst of the hike > appears to be over you descend an escalator to *catch a bus*. Of course, > first you have to wait until about 6 buses load ahead of you, the line > shuffles forward in a terribly cramped un-air-conditioned piece of **** > space (are we on Candid Camera?). Eventually you get on. After a scenic > tour of the bowels of Heathrow (which appears to be ENTIRELY either in > the process of demolition / construction) you arrive at Terminal 1 / 2. > The joy is just beginning. You discover you must once again clear > security (in spite of having flown from the US and been happily underway > on your trip on the air side for 12 hours). This naturally takes 45 > minutes. No-one explains what you will need to present to the security > check (boarding card) so all manner of documents and passports are being > gotten in readiness for no good reason. > Then it’s back on the Trail for another mammoth walk via (finally!) an > immigration check, again totally unsigned so as to make sense. A lot of > Americans don’t understand "eu" (lower case) and get in the wrong line! > Then it’s back on the Trail (take gorp!) for 15 minutes to a BA holding > pen, and then eventually when your flight is called, another 10 minutes > to the gate. > I was offerred a 1 hour connection at LHR. I thought it might be "a bit > tight" and declined, but what it would have been was a futile > impossibility. It took me 1:25 minutes to get off the AA ORD flight to > the holding pen, and I was  a SWEATY BLOB for my troubles. And yes the > lack of any sort of decent a/c is another hideous aspect of this place. > It’s as though way back some time someone sat down in Westminster to > design the most stupid & irritating airport that money could buy. I will > NEVER be back unless absolutely impossible to avoid. Even the restrooms > are designed so as to be big enough for a man, *or* his hand luggage, but > not both, and certainly not more than one person to pass within their > confines. > This was an absolutely amazing revelation to me and my hat’s off to any > of you who frequent this place on a regular basis. > On the return trip via LGW a totally different and relatively positive > experience. > It gives me new regard for even pretty poor US airports liek DFW. > Comparitively speaking they are havens of sanity and logic.

Response:

> All Westminster has managed to do, through various governments, is to > debate, delay and repeatedly duck the blindingly obvious need for a new > airport. And yes, the Brits have never heard of air-conditioning. Stiff > upper lip old chap.

Why don’t people in cold countries just use reverse cycle air-conditioning for their heating and cooling needs? It is a very efficient heater and of course cools in summer. Something like 5 times cheaper to run than any other heating method apparently.

Response:

That’s because the UK is a third world country: – High taxes, yet services going down the toilet. – A crippling cost of living. – A failing education system, with students being cattle-herded into universities with plummeting academic standards. – A tidal wave of immigrants are descending on the country – many of whom are extremists and hate western values. The UK’s standard of living is a dismal 12th place, falling well behind that of Australia, the US and other countries.

Response:

>Why don’t people in cold countries just use reverse cycle >air-conditioning for their heating and cooling needs? It is a very >efficient heater and of course cools in summer.

It’s called a heat pump, and it’s quite popular in places where it doesn’t get very cold in the winter.  The biggest problem with a heat pump is that when it gets cold outside (10F I think) there isn’t enough heat outside to pump to the inside, so they have to fall back to electric heaters which blow any prior cost savings.

Response:

>It’s as though way back some time someone sat down in Westminster to >design the most stupid & irritating airport that money could buy.

LOL. Way back, the design was a small 2-terminal airport (the now T1 and T2). Naturally that proved to be insufficient and the result is what you have now – a hodge-podge of additional buildings, concourses and roadways all compressed into a tiny island between the runways. All Westminster has managed to do, through various governments, is to debate, delay and repeatedly duck the blindingly obvious need for a new airport. And yes, the Brits have never heard of air-conditioning. Stiff upper lip old chap.

Response:

> Perhaps I’ve led a sheltered life. But I have travelled all over the US, > and some parts of Europe. In all these travels I’d never happened through > London Heathrow . . . until recently. (Arriving on AA from Chicago at > Terminal 4, I had to connect with a BA flight at Terminal 1.) And I have > never been in any airport so badly maintained, run, designed, > constructed, . . . [this list is infinite].

yes it absolutely stinks . lack of investment going back many years .there are half finished bits of construction all over the place . it reminds one of an African market place . terminal 5 is under construction .

Response:

Thanks for your post. More people should share their experiences after the trip.  Usually they just ask questions before the trip. I will keep your advice in mind.  V.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Perhaps I’ve led a sheltered life. But I have travelled all over the US, > and some parts of Europe. In all these travels I’d never happened through > London Heathrow . . . until recently. (Arriving on AA from Chicago at > Terminal 4, I had to connect with a BA flight at Terminal 1.) And I have > never been in any airport so badly maintained, run, designed, > constructed, . . . [this list is infinite]. > It gave me a new respect for anyone who might have the misfortune to have > to regularly frequent this hellish place. I’ve never been to Entebbe or > Sheremetyevo either, but I can imagine they must be first-rate compared > to LHR. My change involved quite a bit of walking. By "quite a bit" I > mean approaching Appalachian Trail levels. All of this is thinking you > are going to be asked to clear customs at any moment so you have them in > hand. Of course no-one has explained you will not do this until getting > to Terminal One. A very curious thing. Just when the worst of the hike > appears to be over you descend an escalator to *catch a bus*. Of course, > first you have to wait until about 6 buses load ahead of you, the line > shuffles forward in a terribly cramped un-air-conditioned piece of **** > space (are we on Candid Camera?). Eventually you get on. After a scenic > tour of the bowels of Heathrow (which appears to be ENTIRELY either in > the process of demolition / construction) you arrive at Terminal 1 / 2. > The joy is just beginning. You discover you must once again clear > security (in spite of having flown from the US and been happily underway > on your trip on the air side for 12 hours). This naturally takes 45 > minutes. No-one explains what you will need to present to the security > check (boarding card) so all manner of documents and passports are being > gotten in readiness for no good reason. > Then it’s back on the Trail for another mammoth walk via (finally!) an > immigration check, again totally unsigned so as to make sense. A lot of > Americans don’t understand "eu" (lower case) and get in the wrong line! > Then it’s back on the Trail (take gorp!) for 15 minutes to a BA holding > pen, and then eventually when your flight is called, another 10 minutes > to the gate. > I was offerred a 1 hour connection at LHR. I thought it might be "a bit > tight" and declined, but what it would have been was a futile > impossibility. It took me 1:25 minutes to get off the AA ORD flight to > the holding pen, and I was  a SWEATY BLOB for my troubles. And yes the > lack of any sort of decent a/c is another hideous aspect of this place. > It’s as though way back some time someone sat down in Westminster to > design the most stupid & irritating airport that money could buy. I will > NEVER be back unless absolutely impossible to avoid. Even the restrooms > are designed so as to be big enough for a man, *or* his hand luggage, but > not both, and certainly not more than one person to pass within their > confines. > This was an absolutely amazing revelation to me and my hat’s off to any > of you who frequent this place on a regular basis. > On the return trip via LGW a totally different and relatively positive > experience. > It gives me new regard for even pretty poor US airports liek DFW. > Comparitively speaking they are havens of sanity and logic.

Response:

Perhaps I’ve led a sheltered life. But I have travelled all over the US, and some parts of Europe. In all these travels I’d never happened through London Heathrow . . . until recently. (Arriving on AA from Chicago at Terminal 4, I had to connect with a BA flight at Terminal 1.) And I have never been in any airport so badly maintained, run, designed, constructed, . . . [this list is infinite]. It gave me a new respect for anyone who might have the misfortune to have to regularly frequent this hellish place. I’ve never been to Entebbe or Sheremetyevo either, but I can imagine they must be first-rate compared to LHR. My change involved quite a bit of walking. By "quite a bit" I mean approaching Appalachian Trail levels. All of this is thinking you are going to be asked to clear customs at any moment so you have them in hand. Of course no-one has explained you will not do this until getting to Terminal One. A very curious thing. Just when the worst of the hike appears to be over you descend an escalator to *catch a bus*. Of course, first you have to wait until about 6 buses load ahead of you, the line shuffles forward in a terribly cramped un-air-conditioned piece of **** space (are we on Candid Camera?). Eventually you get on. After a scenic tour of the bowels of Heathrow (which appears to be ENTIRELY either in the process of demolition / construction) you arrive at Terminal 1 / 2. The joy is just beginning. You discover you must once again clear security (in spite of having flown from the US and been happily underway on your trip on the air side for 12 hours). This naturally takes 45 minutes. No-one explains what you will need to present to the security check (boarding card) so all manner of documents and passports are being gotten in readiness for no good reason. Then it’s back on the Trail for another mammoth walk via (finally!) an immigration check, again totally unsigned so as to make sense. A lot of Americans don’t understand "eu" (lower case) and get in the wrong line! Then it’s back on the Trail (take gorp!) for 15 minutes to a BA holding pen, and then eventually when your flight is called, another 10 minutes to the gate. I was offerred a 1 hour connection at LHR. I thought it might be "a bit tight" and declined, but what it would have been was a futile impossibility. It took me 1:25 minutes to get off the AA ORD flight to the holding pen, and I was  a SWEATY BLOB for my troubles. And yes the lack of any sort of decent a/c is another hideous aspect of this place. It’s as though way back some time someone sat down in Westminster to design the most stupid & irritating airport that money could buy. I will NEVER be back unless absolutely impossible to avoid. Even the restrooms are designed so as to be big enough for a man, *or* his hand luggage, but not both, and certainly not more than one person to pass within their confines. This was an absolutely amazing revelation to me and my hat’s off to any of you who frequent this place on a regular basis. On the return trip via LGW a totally different and relatively positive experience. It gives me new regard for even pretty poor US airports liek DFW. Comparitively speaking they are havens of sanity and logic.          

Response:

Question:

> The Bill Mattocks muttered…. > I’ve recently reached the place where it was time to make a change. > The continued stresses of air travel in a post-9/11 world, continued > and advancing intrusions into my (our) personal privacy, and the > general business climate (more travel, spend less money doing it, etc) > have combined to make me finally decide that its time to hang up my > rubber chicken and move on.

Dear Bill: Thank you for the smiles your humorous anecdotes put on so many of our faces. You have used your gift well.  Au revoir!! Satya

Response:

you’re kidding, right? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Folks: > For some years, I’ve enjoyed being an occasional participant on > rec.travel.air, and posting trip reports and stories that I hope you > found amusing or entertaining – it sure helped me deal with the stress > of being a road warrior, on the road non-stop to the tune of 100,000+ > miles per year. > I’ve posted somewhat less in the last year or so, as I’ve spent even > less time at home or being able to relax with my laptop while on the > road, and of course as many have noticed, the tenor of r.t.a. has > changed – there are more trolls, more anger, less humor.  Many of the > other ‘regulars’ have gone away due to this.  I didn’t stop reading > r.t.a., but I held off jumping into debates that I normally would have > greatly enjoyed skirmishing in. > I’ve recently reached the place where it was time to make a change. > The continued stresses of air travel in a post-9/11 world, continued > and advancing intrusions into my (our) personal privacy, and the > general business climate (more travel, spend less money doing it, etc) > have combined to make me finally decide that its time to hang up my > rubber chicken and move on. > I’ve resigned my position with the firm I worked for, and am no longer > seeking employment as a traveling consultant/road warrior.  I’m > looking for the daily nine-to-five gig instead, something that leaves > me home in the evenings and on weekends. > I have no doubt that I’ll miss the travel, as I’ll miss posting on > r.t.a.  But the one thing that is constant is change.  Who knows what > life holds?  Perhaps in time I’ll find myself on the road again.  But > for now, that part of my life is over, and so to, my semi-regular > posts on r.t.a. > I wish you all safe travels, good restaurants, working rental cars, no > missed connections, non-metallic shoes, and TSA agents on Prozac. > Lots of it. > Thanks for putting up with my rants, nonsense, diatribes, and > ill-humour over the past six or seven years! > Best Regards, > Bill Mattocks

Response:

> > I’ve resigned my position with the firm I worked for, and am no longer > seeking employment as a traveling consultant/road warrior. > I have no doubt that I’ll miss the travel, as I’ll miss posting on > r.t.a.  But the one thing that is constant is change. > Oh… :-/ > I haven’t been around that long, but I enjoyed your posts and printed them > in the past for other to read because I found them to be funny. And I also > would like to have your old job Good luck & have fun! > Greetz, > *no travelling here*

For those who might be interested, my old job is open and available. In addition, my former employer is planning to expand and add at least two more consultants who do what I formerly did.  I remain on good terms with my former employers, so if anyone is interested, e-mail me privately and I’ll be happy to forward your resume to the appropriate people. The job is Configuration Management Consultant for a major international CM software company.  As you all well know, it’s 100% travel (or mighty close to it).  Pay is excellent (yes, excellent by any standards), but you’re on the road a great deal of the time. Travel is mostly North America, some overseas from time to time.  You need a passport and a background in software configuration management or a background in software engineering and an understanding of CM principles and use of a major CM tool.  The job entails doing implementations, rollouts, implementation planning, customization (javascript, perl, shell), and teaching training classes to groups of 10 or so.  And you have to provide your own rubber chicken. Best Regards, Bill Mattocks

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> For some years, I’ve enjoyed being an occasional participant on > rec.travel.air, and posting trip reports and stories that I hope you > found amusing or entertaining – it sure helped me deal with the stress > of being a road warrior, on the road non-stop to the tune of 100,000+ > miles per year. > I’ve posted somewhat less in the last year or so, as I’ve spent even > less time at home or being able to relax with my laptop while on the > road, and of course as many have noticed, the tenor of r.t.a. has > changed – there are more trolls, more anger, less humor.  Many of the > other ‘regulars’ have gone away due to this.  I didn’t stop reading > r.t.a., but I held off jumping into debates that I normally would have > greatly enjoyed skirmishing in. > I’ve recently reached the place where it was time to make a change. > The continued stresses of air travel in a post-9/11 world, continued > and advancing intrusions into my (our) personal privacy, and the > general business climate (more travel, spend less money doing it, etc) > have combined to make me finally decide that its time to hang up my > rubber chicken and move on. > I’ve resigned my position with the firm I worked for, and am no longer > seeking employment as a traveling consultant/road warrior.  I’m > looking for the daily nine-to-five gig instead, something that leaves > me home in the evenings and on weekends. > I have no doubt that I’ll miss the travel, as I’ll miss posting on > r.t.a.  But the one thing that is constant is change.  Who knows what > life holds?  Perhaps in time I’ll find myself on the road again.  But > for now, that part of my life is over, and so to, my semi-regular > posts on r.t.a. > I wish you all safe travels, good restaurants, working rental cars, no > missed connections, non-metallic shoes, and TSA agents on Prozac. > Lots of it. > Thanks for putting up with my rants, nonsense, diatribes, and > ill-humour over the past six or seven years!

That’s a shame, I have allways looked forward to seeing your trip reports.

Response:

> > I’ve resigned my position with the firm I worked for, and am no longer > > seeking employment as a traveling consultant/road warrior.  I’m > > looking for the daily nine-to-five gig instead, something that leaves > > me home in the evenings and on weekends.

Bill, Sorry to see you go. Your rants, trip reports, etc. are one of the reasons I have stayed here for so long as the newsgroup has become almost worthless. I spend mote time kill filing things tan I do reading. I just may follow you. Good luck, and don’t ever lose your sense of humor. Bob

Response:

>Thanks for putting up with my rants, nonsense, diatribes, and >ill-humour over the past six or seven years!

I’ve always enjoyed reading your trip reports. Best wishes for the future! — Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response:

The Bill Mattocks muttered…. > I’ve recently reached the place where it was time to make a change. > The continued stresses of air travel in a post-9/11 world, continued > and advancing intrusions into my (our) personal privacy, and the > general business climate (more travel, spend less money doing it, etc) > have combined to make me finally decide that its time to hang up my > rubber chicken and move on.

Go not gently into the night. I’ll miss your wit, and the comprehension that you used your keyboard asa escape hatch, a way of venting frustation at the foibles and dumbass factors increasingly inherent in air travel.  I always marveled that one with as many built in idiosyncrasies and neuroses and physical manifestations thereof as you could even manage to travel as you did.  Few might appreciate that for you what may have seemed easy and uneventful was harder for you. I’m not surprised at your decision (although to do it without having founda new position seems in some respects uncharacteristic for one as well organized a traveler as you often seemed to be). After keying that sentence, an entirely different reaction struck me….that your travels may have been so directed, organized, ticketed, planned and developed by others, that it wasn’t you who were so well organized, but the system in which you functioned, and that you often were relegated to the condition of "Traveling Drone", a Chaplinesque figure caight up in the cogs and machinery of a system, only able to rebel with the occasional outburst.  In a sense, that explains your reaction to WN….the only blow you could strike, the only battle you could win, some say in the choice of airlines. I don’t know if my daughter, a mid level corporate exec/road warrior’s approach is better, but it qualifies as more effective.  She has almost single handedly revamped and forced the restaffing of her company’s travel department and policies on the grounds that sensitivities to time and costs had so outweighed sensitivities to the perspective and "needs" of traveling execs and staff, that the job performance of the travelers was diminished far more than any savings could match.  I at first laughed when she claimed that the worst examples of sexism were not in the airlines or hotels she used, but among the women in her company’s travel office, most of whom had never traveled further than a hundred miles, had no f’ing concept of how hotels compared, possessed no sense of distance or spatial relations, and were greater "male chauvinist pigs" than any of the male execs. Good luck looking.  There’s more out there than you may think, but a creative sense of relocating may be needed…. TMO

Response:

> I wish you all safe travels, good restaurants, working rental cars, no > missed connections, non-metallic shoes, and TSA agents on Prozac. > Lots of it. > Thanks for putting up with my rants, nonsense, diatribes, and > ill-humour over the past six or seven years! > Best Regards, > Bill Mattocks

It’s a shame you are leaving, I used to love all of your trip reports.. although there were times that I could have dealt without knowing about that skin condition of yours.. they were great nonetheless. But you really should check out Flyertalk as well. Even now that you’ve hung up the chicken, there are lots of people at Flyertalk who could gain from your knowledge, and the forums are moderated very well in most cases… clearly much different than what this place became…

Response:

> > I’ve resigned my position with the firm I worked for, and am no longer > seeking employment as a traveling consultant/road warrior.  I’m > looking for the daily nine-to-five gig instead, something that leaves > me home in the evenings and on weekends. > Good luck on your endeavours, your posts over the years had been very > appreciated. And we were so looking forward to your being "fined" by the TSA > because of your rubber chicken and attitude and seing how it would all turn > out > As for the 9-to-5 job, good luck finding one. I take it you will relocate, or > will you decide to take roots in your current city ?

I believe that my wife and I will be relocating shortly, to a secure undisclosed location.  I realize that it’s madness to leave a good-paying job in this economic climate without already having another, but I remain hopeful. Best Regards, Bill Mattocks

Response:

> I’ve resigned my position with the firm I worked for, and am no longer > seeking employment as a traveling consultant/road warrior. > I have no doubt that I’ll miss the travel, as I’ll miss posting on > r.t.a.  But the one thing that is constant is change.

Oh… :-/ I haven’t been around that long, but I enjoyed your posts and printed them in the past for other to read because I found them to be funny. And I also would like to have your old job Good luck & have fun! Greetz, *no travelling here*

Response:

> Folks: > For some years, I’ve enjoyed being an occasional participant on > rec.travel.air, and posting trip reports and stories that I hope you > found amusing or entertaining – it sure helped me deal with the stress > of being a road warrior, on the road non-stop to the tune of 100,000+ > miles per year. > (snip) > You will be missed. > When your book of travel essays is published, please announce it here!

Can I add my best wishes to The Bill Mattocks and I do hope that he continues to post here from time to time. JohnT

Response:

>I wish you all safe travels, good restaurants, working rental cars, no >missed connections, non-metallic shoes, and TSA agents on Prozac. >Lots of it. >Thanks for putting up with my rants, nonsense, diatribes, and >ill-humour over the past six or seven years! >Best Regards, >Bill Mattocks

Bill – I’m truly sorry to see you go. I agree that both air travel and RTA aren’t what they used to be. But I’ll hang in here a little longer, albeit a much less colorful place. The best of luck to you and Bony.  Come back and visit a spell, OK? Regards, Arnold. (E-mail address altered, to prevent spamming.  Remove all asterisks and the *hates*spam* to get true address.)

Response:

>Thanks for putting up with my rants, nonsense, diatribes, and >ill-humour over the past six or seven years! >Best Regards, >Bill Mattocks

Good luck, Bill.  You are big, fat, loud, rude, obnoxious, and it’s a miracle you didn’t get arrested at the airport more often, but your posts had substance. Something that is sorely lacking in this group now that it’s been overrun by deranged trolls and netkooks like Mezei and Voight. Mezei is once again rogue cancelling everyone’s messages, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if he’s already cancelled yours.  Luckily, most ISP don’t honor cancels anymore thanks to deranged psychos like him. Don’t forget to publish The JF Mezei FAQ and Michael Voight mrtravelkook’s info in your book!

Response:

>>Thanks for putting up with my rants, nonsense, diatribes, and >ill-humour over the past six or seven years! >Best Regards, >Bill Mattocks >Good luck, Bill.  You are big, fat, loud, rude, obnoxious, and it’s a miracle >you didn’t get arrested at the airport more often, but your posts had substance. >Something that is sorely lacking in this group now that it’s been overrun by >deranged trolls and netkooks like Mezei and Voight.

Now Now Now Skippy Don’t be rude to Bill.  He wuz alway nice to you. Remember last week when he took you Bowling with him, but you pooped yer pants, and he had to bring you home?  He didn’t laugh at you like we did.  He even bought you a new pair of starwars underpants.  Now say your sorry to Bill, and make yer fodder happy. Ned Liptschitts (Skippys dad)

Response:

>>>>I’ve recently reached the place where it was time to make a change…

A sad day. Have you checked out FlyerTalk?

Response:

Although we have never crossed swords , I have enjoyed each and every one of your trip reports.  I do nothing but lurk now, tenor of this NG is not worth participating in anymore.  Sorry to see you go.  I hung ‘em up in June and don’t miss it a bit. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Folks: > For some years, I’ve enjoyed being an occasional participant on > rec.travel.air, and posting trip reports and stories that I hope you > found amusing or entertaining – it sure helped me deal with the stress > of being a road warrior, on the road non-stop to the tune of 100,000+ > miles per year. > I’ve posted somewhat less in the last year or so, as I’ve spent even > less time at home or being able to relax with my laptop while on the > road, and of course as many have noticed, the tenor of r.t.a. has > changed – there are more trolls, more anger, less humor.  Many of the > other ‘regulars’ have gone away due to this.  I didn’t stop reading > r.t.a., but I held off jumping into debates that I normally would have > greatly enjoyed skirmishing in. > I’ve recently reached the place where it was time to make a change. > The continued stresses of air travel in a post-9/11 world, continued > and advancing intrusions into my (our) personal privacy, and the > general business climate (more travel, spend less money doing it, etc) > have combined to make me finally decide that its time to hang up my > rubber chicken and move on. > I’ve resigned my position with the firm I worked for, and am no longer > seeking employment as a traveling consultant/road warrior.  I’m > looking for the daily nine-to-five gig instead, something that leaves > me home in the evenings and on weekends. > I have no doubt that I’ll miss the travel, as I’ll miss posting on > r.t.a.  But the one thing that is constant is change.  Who knows what > life holds?  Perhaps in time I’ll find myself on the road again.  But > for now, that part of my life is over, and so to, my semi-regular > posts on r.t.a. > I wish you all safe travels, good restaurants, working rental cars, no > missed connections, non-metallic shoes, and TSA agents on Prozac. > Lots of it. > Thanks for putting up with my rants, nonsense, diatribes, and > ill-humour over the past six or seven years! > Best Regards, > Bill Mattocks

Response:

> I’ve resigned my position with the firm I worked for, and am no longer > seeking employment as a traveling consultant/road warrior.  I’m > looking for the daily nine-to-five gig instead, something that leaves > me home in the evenings and on weekends.

Good luck on your endeavours, your posts over the years had been very appreciated. And we were so looking forward to your being "fined" by the TSA because of your rubber chicken and attitude and seing how it would all turn out As for the 9-to-5 job, good luck finding one. I take it you will relocate, or will you decide to take roots in your current city ?

Response:

> Folks: > For some years, I’ve enjoyed being an occasional participant on > rec.travel.air, and posting trip reports and stories that I hope you > found amusing or entertaining – it sure helped me deal with the stress > of being a road warrior, on the road non-stop to the tune of 100,000+ > miles per year.

(snip) You will be missed. When your book of travel essays is published, please announce it here!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’ve resigned my position with the firm I worked for, and am no longer > seeking employment as a traveling consultant/road warrior.  I’m > looking for the daily nine-to-five gig instead, something that leaves > me home in the evenings and on weekends. > Hey, can I get your (old) job? Just kidding. I hope you don’t fade > away altogether from this group, though I know it’s sometimes hard to > find intelligent life in here. Your posts were always the ones to read. > But good luck to you anywyay, we’ll be missing you. > — > Mikko Peltoniemi > Film & Video Editor, Avid Technician at large. > http://editor.is.dreaming.org

Hey Bill check in now and then and keep that laptop going…we will miss you here and keep smiling when you read our dumb questions about life in Asia.

Response:

> I’ve resigned my position with the firm I worked for, and am no longer > seeking employment as a traveling consultant/road warrior.  I’m > looking for the daily nine-to-five gig instead, something that leaves > me home in the evenings and on weekends.

Hey, can I get your (old) job? Just kidding. I hope you don’t fade away altogether from this group, though I know it’s sometimes hard to find intelligent life in here. Your posts were always the ones to read. But good luck to you anywyay, we’ll be missing you. — Mikko Peltoniemi Film & Video Editor, Avid Technician at large. http://editor.is.dreaming.org

Response:

> I’ve resigned my position with the firm I worked for, and am no longer > seeking employment as a traveling consultant/road warrior.  I’m > looking for the daily nine-to-five gig instead, something that leaves > me home in the evenings and on weekends. > I have no doubt that I’ll miss the travel,

You’d better believe it – you cant get rid of the travel bug that easilly – I’ll give you 6 months at the most – then you’ll be yearning for it again. Good Luck.

Response:

Bill, you will certainly be missed. If you have more time in your hands now, maybe you can consider putting together a book with your most memorable posts here! So long,      Ramon – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Hey, Bill, I hope you’ll check in from time to time.  We’ll miss you! >Folks: >For some years, I’ve enjoyed being an occasional participant on >rec.travel.air, and posting trip reports and stories that I hope you >found amusing or entertaining – it sure helped me deal with the stress >of being a road warrior, on the road non-stop to the tune of 100,000+ >miles per year. >I’ve posted somewhat less in the last year or so, as I’ve spent even >less time at home or being able to relax with my laptop while on the >road, and of course as many have noticed, the tenor of r.t.a. has >changed – there are more trolls, more anger, less humor.  Many of the >other ‘regulars’ have gone away due to this.  I didn’t stop reading >r.t.a., but I held off jumping into debates that I normally would have >greatly enjoyed skirmishing in. >I’ve recently reached the place where it was time to make a change. >The continued stresses of air travel in a post-9/11 world, continued >and advancing intrusions into my (our) personal privacy, and the >general business climate (more travel, spend less money doing it, etc) >have combined to make me finally decide that its time to hang up my >rubber chicken and move on. >I’ve resigned my position with the firm I worked for, and am no longer >seeking employment as a traveling consultant/road warrior.  I’m >looking for the daily nine-to-five gig instead, something that leaves >me home in the evenings and on weekends. >I have no doubt that I’ll miss the travel, as I’ll miss posting on >r.t.a.  But the one thing that is constant is change.  Who knows what >life holds?  Perhaps in time I’ll find myself on the road again.  But >for now, that part of my life is over, and so to, my semi-regular >posts on r.t.a. >I wish you all safe travels, good restaurants, working rental cars, no >missed connections, non-metallic shoes, and TSA agents on Prozac. >Lots of it. >Thanks for putting up with my rants, nonsense, diatribes, and >ill-humour over the past six or seven years! >Best Regards, >Bill Mattocks

Response:

Hey, Bill, I hope you’ll check in from time to time.  We’ll miss you! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Folks: > For some years, I’ve enjoyed being an occasional participant on > rec.travel.air, and posting trip reports and stories that I hope you > found amusing or entertaining – it sure helped me deal with the stress > of being a road warrior, on the road non-stop to the tune of 100,000+ > miles per year. > I’ve posted somewhat less in the last year or so, as I’ve spent even > less time at home or being able to relax with my laptop while on the > road, and of course as many have noticed, the tenor of r.t.a. has > changed – there are more trolls, more anger, less humor.  Many of the > other ‘regulars’ have gone away due to this.  I didn’t stop reading > r.t.a., but I held off jumping into debates that I normally would have > greatly enjoyed skirmishing in. > I’ve recently reached the place where it was time to make a change. > The continued stresses of air travel in a post-9/11 world, continued > and advancing intrusions into my (our) personal privacy, and the > general business climate (more travel, spend less money doing it, etc) > have combined to make me finally decide that its time to hang up my > rubber chicken and move on. > I’ve resigned my position with the firm I worked for, and am no longer > seeking employment as a traveling consultant/road warrior.  I’m > looking for the daily nine-to-five gig instead, something that leaves > me home in the evenings and on weekends. > I have no doubt that I’ll miss the travel, as I’ll miss posting on > r.t.a.  But the one thing that is constant is change.  Who knows what > life holds?  Perhaps in time I’ll find myself on the road again.  But > for now, that part of my life is over, and so to, my semi-regular > posts on r.t.a. > I wish you all safe travels, good restaurants, working rental cars, no > missed connections, non-metallic shoes, and TSA agents on Prozac. > Lots of it. > Thanks for putting up with my rants, nonsense, diatribes, and > ill-humour over the past six or seven years! > Best Regards, > Bill Mattocks

Response:

Folks: For some years, I’ve enjoyed being an occasional participant on rec.travel.air, and posting trip reports and stories that I hope you found amusing or entertaining – it sure helped me deal with the stress of being a road warrior, on the road non-stop to the tune of 100,000+ miles per year. I’ve posted somewhat less in the last year or so, as I’ve spent even less time at home or being able to relax with my laptop while on the road, and of course as many have noticed, the tenor of r.t.a. has changed – there are more trolls, more anger, less humor.  Many of the other ‘regulars’ have gone away due to this.  I didn’t stop reading r.t.a., but I held off jumping into debates that I normally would have greatly enjoyed skirmishing in. I’ve recently reached the place where it was time to make a change. The continued stresses of air travel in a post-9/11 world, continued and advancing intrusions into my (our) personal privacy, and the general business climate (more travel, spend less money doing it, etc) have combined to make me finally decide that its time to hang up my rubber chicken and move on. I’ve resigned my position with the firm I worked for, and am no longer seeking employment as a traveling consultant/road warrior.  I’m looking for the daily nine-to-five gig instead, something that leaves me home in the evenings and on weekends. I have no doubt that I’ll miss the travel, as I’ll miss posting on r.t.a.  But the one thing that is constant is change.  Who knows what life holds?  Perhaps in time I’ll find myself on the road again.  But for now, that part of my life is over, and so to, my semi-regular posts on r.t.a. I wish you all safe travels, good restaurants, working rental cars, no missed connections, non-metallic shoes, and TSA agents on Prozac. Lots of it. Thanks for putting up with my rants, nonsense, diatribes, and ill-humour over the past six or seven years! Best Regards, Bill Mattocks

Response:

Question:

>    During that last 40 years there have been over 7,000 airline > passenger deaths in crashes occuring within the continental United > States. >    During the last 40 years that I have been driving a car- there have > been NO DEATHS OR INJURIES in those cars I have been driving. >     Fact: IT IS MUCH SAFER TO RIDE IN MY CAR THAN ON A JUMBO JET!

Boy, you certainly make no effort to disguise the fact that you’re a major idiot. —

Response:

Still waiting for any comment:  "It is safer to take the train than flying"  If you want to tell us that it is unfair to compare death statistics from flying vs. train travel because so many more people make use of air travel than train travel- then the same also has to hold true comparing safety of flying vs. auto. So many more people drive than fly at any one time. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->    During that last 40 years there have been over 7,000 airline > passenger deaths in crashes occuring within the continental United > States. >    During the last 40 years that I have been driving a car- there have > been NO DEATHS OR INJURIES in those cars I have been driving. >     Fact: IT IS MUCH SAFER TO RIDE IN MY CAR THAN ON A JUMBO JET! > Boy, you certainly make no effort to disguise the fact that you’re a major > idiot.

Response:

> During that last 40 years there have been over 7,000 airline passenger > deaths in crashes occuring within the continental United States. > During the last 40 years that I have been driving a car- there have been > NO DEATHS OR INJURIES in those cars I have been driving. > Fact: IT IS MUCH SAFER TO RIDE IN MY CAR THAN ON A JUMBO JET!

This would be true if – and only if – you had carried as many passengers as many miles as all the airplanes to fly in the past 40 years. Otherwise, it means nothing. miguel — Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/

Response:

This topic has brought out many well-thought reactions — even most of the emotional ones have merit. But really, if airlines start weighing us into the cabin, and I’m talking about our carry-on luggage and coats in addition to the good old avoir-du-poids, lots of us are going to be sad on long-haul flights. Think about how much our little electronic devices weigh these days — digital camera, PDA, laptop, battery for laptop, cellphones, etc etc etc. You know — those things you don’t want to risk putting in your checked bags. Then add in the litre of water many people bring on board ’cause in economy you can’t always get enough to keep yourself hydrated. Add in the toiletries & change of underwear we’re all told to carry in the cabin "just in case" the luggage doesn’t arrive at the other end. And the flashlight in case the overhead light doesn’t work (again). And the DVD and audio player in case the on-flight entertainment is not available (again). Then there’s my personal predilection for taking at least 15 pounds’ worth of newspapers and magazines onboard to pass the boring hours between checkin and arrival at destination city….. Wait a minute! Lots of the above stuff is carried on board because of things the airline should be taking care of, but isn’t. Many airlines already restrict the weight as well as dimensions of carry-on luggage. I know Virgin Atlantic do this, even in their super-economy cabin, and I know United currently do not. I suspect it’s only a matter of time until all airlines do this. So, it seems to me that weighing the passengers themselves is only half the issue. But then, if I had to choose my companions for an emergency exit from the aircraft, I might favor the ones who went to the gym regularly. I’ll get my (heavy) coat now. Travel safely, Cranky

Response:

Interestingly enough the safety board is only interested in the average weight of passengers with clothes and carry on luggage.  It would be as well served by large platform scales which weigh groups of 5 or more. They really have no interest in individual weights. The rest of the ranting just represents individual interests.  FFM – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > This topic has brought out many well-thought reactions — even most of > the emotional ones have merit. But really, if airlines start weighing us > into the cabin, and I’m talking about our carry-on luggage and coats > in addition to the good old avoir-du-poids, lots of us are going to be > sad on long-haul flights. Think about how much our little electronic > devices weigh these days — digital camera, PDA, laptop, battery for > laptop, cellphones, etc etc etc. You know — those things you don’t > want to risk putting in your checked bags. Then add in the litre of > water many people bring on board ’cause in economy you can’t always > get enough to keep yourself hydrated. Add in the toiletries & change > of underwear we’re all told to carry in the cabin "just in case" the > luggage doesn’t arrive at the other end. And the flashlight in case > the overhead light doesn’t work (again). And the DVD and audio player > in case the on-flight entertainment is not available (again). Then > there’s my personal predilection for taking at least 15 pounds’ worth > of newspapers and magazines onboard to pass the boring hours between > checkin and arrival at destination city….. > Wait a minute! Lots of the above stuff is carried on board because of > things the airline should be taking care of, but isn’t. > Many airlines already restrict the weight as well as dimensions of > carry-on luggage. I know Virgin Atlantic do this, even in their > super-economy cabin, and I know United currently do not. I suspect > it’s only a matter of time until all airlines do this. So, it seems to > me that weighing the passengers themselves is only half the issue. > But then, if I had to choose my companions for an emergency exit from > the aircraft, I might favor the ones who went to the gym regularly. > I’ll get my (heavy) coat now. > Travel safely, > Cranky

Response:

>>During that last 40 years there have been over 7,000 airline passenger >deaths in crashes occuring within the continental United States. >During the last 40 years that I have been driving a car- there have been >NO DEATHS OR INJURIES in those cars I have been driving. >Fact: IT IS MUCH SAFER TO RIDE IN MY CAR THAN ON A JUMBO JET! > This would be true if – and only if – you had carried as many passengers as > many miles as all the airplanes to fly in the past 40 years. > Otherwise, it means nothing. > miguel

There have been no deaths in flights which I have taked.  Oh!  Maybe folks have noticed and that’s why they are usually full.  FFM

Response:

Here’s a fact for Mr. Smith to ponder:    During that last 40 years there have been over 7,000 airline passenger deaths in crashes occuring within the continental United States.    During the last 40 years that I have been driving a car- there have been NO DEATHS OR INJURIES in those cars I have been driving.     Fact: IT IS MUCH SAFER TO RIDE IN MY CAR THAN ON A JUMBO JET!     Please explain to us how the death statistic of an idiot drunk driver in Arkansas who runs into a tree and kills himself is relevant to me driving my car from New York to L.A.      Also- Check out the statistics on this: It is SAFER to take the train than to fly on a jumbo jet!      Let’s hear from all the airplane pilots and so-called safety statistician experts frequenting this board -on this one! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> AIRLINES’ BIG LIE:   Flying is SAFER than driving! (The airlines > deliver more safe passenger miles that autos do!) >   It isn’t passenger miles that is relevant when comparing car and > plane safety. It’s the number of DEATHS which occur by the mode of > transportation divided by the (NUMBER OF VEHICLES) IN THAT MODE TIMES > THE (TIME) THOSE VEHICLES ARE IN OPERATION (the time those vehicles > are subject to a crash). > Putting it in caps doesn’t make it right.  Transportation is not > entertainment.  it is not the number of minutes you get to enjoy it, > it’s the distance you travel to get from point A to point B. > Is that a difficult concept for you? > Just to show it isn’t passengers X miles: > Suppose you have two airplanes: one plane from AIRLINE A and one plane > from AIRLINE B. Both planes make one flight from New York to L.A. > (3300 miles). On AIRLINE A you have 100 passengers. On AIRLINE B you > have only ONE passenger. At the end of the flight, both planes crash. > AIRLINE A had 100 passenger deaths for the 3300 miles flown(330,000 > passenger/miles flown safely an instant before the crash) AIRLINE B > had ONE passenger death for the 3300 miles(only 3300 passenger/miles > flown safely an instant before the crash). Would you then say that > AIRLINE A had a hundred-fold better safety record than AIRLINE B? Of > couse not! > Ah, no.  The relative risk per passenger mile is the same – one death > every 3300 passenger miles flown. >   WE HAVE JUST ELIMINATED THE STANDARD WIVE’S TALE OF  PASSENGER/MILES > AS RELEVANT TO COMPARING THE RELATIVE SAFETY OF ANY TWO AIRLINES. > No, you may feel it is a wive’s tail and may think you’ve proved > something – but you haven’t.  Sorry. > IT > IS ALSO IRRELEVANT IN COMPARING ANY TWO MODES OF TRANSPORT. THE NUMBER > OF PASSENGERS THAT HAPPEN TO BE RIDING ON ANY VEHICLE, AIR, LAND OR > SEA, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INHERENT SAFETY DESIGN OF THAT > PARTICULAR MODE OF TRANSPORT. > We aren’t talking about the safety of the mode of transport – we are > talking about the human safety of traveling IN that mode of transport > FROM point A to point B.  As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter > how safe the transport is, just how safe I am in it and my chance of > making it to point B safely. >  The safety of any mode of transport depends on the NUMBER OF VEHICLES > in that mode TIMES THE NUMBER OF HOURS THOSE VEHICLES ARE SUBJECT TO > CRASH (hours of operation) > The safety of individual travel depends on the MILES traveled.  Time > is irrelevant since the objective is to get from point A to point B, > not to spend 10 hours in a car or on a plane. > Risk per mile traveled or risk per hour traveled – Which one helps a > person decide if they should fly or drive – if they are interested in > surviving the 200 mile trip to Vegas? >  HERE ARE THE FIGURES FOR COMPARING RELATIVE SAFETY OF CARS VS > COMMERCIAL JETS; >   FOR ONE YEAR: > (for a mode of transportation)It’s number of deaths per year DIVIDED > BY the number of vehicles in that mode TIMES the avdg number of hours > per year each vehicle is in service: >  AUTO; > 54,000 deaths per year (avdg figure for past 10 years)DIVIDED BY > 80,000,000 cars in service  TIMES (3 hrs per day avdg per car TIMES > 365=1095)OR 80 MILLION times 1095= OVER 80 BILLION car hours. > 54,000 Divided by 80 BILLION= (A PEWNEY, ONLY) 1 DEATH PER 1,481,000 > CAR Hours > Average speed is 30 miles per hour – 1 death per 44 million miles > traveled. > AIRLINES: > 200 deaths per year (avdg figure for past 10 years) DIVIDED BY 3000 > commercial jets in service TIMES (8 hrs avdg flight time per day TIMES > 365= 2920) or 3000 times  8 times 365= 8,760,000 jet hours > 200 DEATHS divided by 8,760,000= (A WHOPPING) ONE DEATH for only > 43,800 airplane hours! > Average speed is 500 miles per hour – 1 death for every 21.9 million > miles traveled. > Though your example still puts car safety ahead of airline safety, > it’s a function of the numeric assumptions.  The ratio is 2 to one > using the miles as a denominator, not 34 to one as in your example. > If you want to spin the statistic even more, use the risk per trip > example. > The typical airline trip is 1000 miles, the typical car trip is 10 > miles. > One death per 4.4 million trips in the car, one death per 22 thousand > trips on a plane.  Makes cars 200 times as safe. > Yes, you too can lie with statistics.  At the end of the day, all that > matters to a traveler is whether or not they arrived at their > destination safely, and that is only measured in miles. > So, when you have a choice between driving from LA to New York or > flying, which one is safer?  The only relevant metric is miles. > Figure it out and you’ll see the car is much safer! > Hardly. > js

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> snip > >>You may want to look deep inside yourself and be sure that you > >>are losing weight for yourself and not to placate idiots like > >>the one to which you responded. Putting your life at risk to > >>placate idiots is not a wise decision. > > See that, Singh? Bobbi sees losing weight as the health risk, > > not being excessively obese. > > Can you see how disturbing these fat acceptors are now? > > Jade > You also are quite disturbing.  You should consider your > competence in  providing medical advice.  For one consideration > whatever the weight  going up and down constantly is more > dangerous in many instances than  maintaining a high weight. >   Both outcomes are disasterously bad for health and well being. > Fat >is the problem. Get in shape or else face an early, lonely death. >   And after that, the LORDS OF KARMA will demand an answer to a > very >tough question: "Hey, We gave you a life full of opportunity and >glorious possibilities. You could have been a beautiful creature >running wild and free in a world made for your pleasure and >fulfillment. But you sat around eating handfulls of sugar and fried >fat until your body became a bloated horror. It could not run and >play. No one wanted to fuck it. You wasted what you were given. SO >WHY SHOULD YOU GET ANOTHER CHANCE? >   And so will they chant together in righteous wrath: "Go now into >the piss-hole of perpetual stench and misery. Breath deep the rotten >air of your own self-made grave!"

Watch it Ralfie, you could be held accountable to that same Karmic debt. YOu could have used your gifts to help people and yet you are here spouting verbal diarrhea. You are off charter and full of it. People fat or thin deserve respect until they show why they don’t deserve it. You are a case in point and as the poster said: > Your attitude is shit. > FFM

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 People who hide behind anonymous remailers and ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no motive but malice. —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: PGP 8.0 – not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBQEk5WOkoPZAZfLgsEQKuNACg2vV5HOyYcg4+nDG9ykNTev0uZTQAoKGF +vjRyE0R5pJk/O0uV6yvEu4M =khgk —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

Safety board wants airline passengers weighed WASHINGTON (AP) –Air travel would be safer if airlines weighed their passengers from time to time to make sure they know how much weight their planes are carrying, the National Transportation Safety Board says. Following its investigation into a commuter plane crash last year in North Carolina, the NTSB said on Thursday that airlines should at least periodically make passengers step on a scale. The safety board also recommended the Federal Aviation Administration require improvements to training, oversight and procedures for maintenance personnel. The crash of US Airways Express Flight 5481 at Charlotte-Douglas Airport killed 21 people, the deadliest U.S. aviation accident in nearly 2 1/2 years. The Beech 1900, operated by Air Midwest, was virtually uncontrollable because of two fatal mistakes, the safety board concluded. First, the airline’s guidelines for estimating the weight of passengers and baggage were inaccurate. The pilots, therefore, didn’t realize the plane’s rear section was too heavy. Second, mechanics had improperly rigged cables connected to the elevator, the tail flap that controls the up-and-down direction of the aircraft’s nose. The errors meant the elevator’s downward motion was restricted to half its normal range, according to the NTSB. Without a fully maneuverable elevator, the pilots couldn’t force the nose of the plane down to compensate for its heavy tail, investigators said. As a result, the plane pitched sharply upward just seconds after takeoff for Greer, South Carolina, then fell from the sky. Soon afterward, the FAA ordered airlines to weigh some of their passengers to determine the accuracy of current guidelines — for example, adults in winter were calculated to weigh 185 pounds on average. The survey showed what many suspected: Passengers and their bags had gotten heavier. The FAA issued temporary guidelines adding up to 10 pounds to its estimate for passengers and 5 pounds to checked luggage. Weight and balance issues The NTSB said those guidelines don’t go far enough. The board recommended the FAA require airlines operating planes with 10 or more seats to weigh passengers periodically to determine when they might be heavier — for example, in December when they wear heavy coats and carry presents. The FAA is working on that. Since June, a committee has been examining the average weights of passengers and baggage and how they vary according to season or geography. Debby McElroy, Regional Airline Association president, said her group is working with the FAA on the weight and balance issues identified by the NTSB. "We agree that further study is necessary, to ensure that air carrier weight and balance programs provide the highest level of safety," McElroy said. The committee is expected to make recommendations next month. NTSB investigators also found flaws in the way mechanics were trained and supervised, how their work was checked and how Air Midwest controlled the quality of its maintenance. Those problems led to the improperly rigged elevator cables on the Charlotte flight. As part of a series of recommendations on maintenance, the NTSB said the FAA should require that work on key flight control systems, including elevator cables, be checked upon completion. FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency already is working on the issues raised by the investigation. Two Democratic members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, James Oberstar of Wisconsin and Peter DeFazio of Oregon, asked the Transportation Department’s inspector general to report on whether outsourced maintenance work affects airline safety. Air Midwest contracted maintenance to Raytheon Aerospace (now known as Vertex Aerospace), which hired mechanics from Structural Modification and Repair Technicians Inc. – – – – – – If you consider the content of this post to be particularly offensive, disgusting or plain illegal, it is probably ‘designer abuse’, a message designed specifically to hurt the remailer’s reputation/existence.   http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6THHPRAL38002.4374074074%40anony… Some people hate this remailer so badly that, for example, they did not hesitate to celebrate the death of 148 French tourists in a plane crash. Those people seceded from the human race, so don’t hesitate to report them directly to the police.   http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Ymx1ZWpheQ%3D%3D.19d787f018eb301…   http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.58.0401181826110.3146… More about the subject will be available http://frogadmin.yi.org/HOS/

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 You know it is amazing how Jean C can post with out even looking or putting her hands on a keyboard. Hey NR-how is the photography going CHUBBS? You are still an idiot. You are still a 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 People who hide behind anonymous remailers and ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no motive but malice. —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: PGP 8.0 – not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBQEALo+koPZAZfLgsEQL24wCfadOyeEtlIgCZ1S1MA7JEX+FMIvgAoKVZ OI32pSyKOsMmDDcLGN9ZZEg2 =pTfR —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– >Hash: SHA1 >You know it is amazing how Jean C can post with out even looking or >putting her hands on a keyboard. >Hey NR-how is the photography going CHUBBS? >You are still an idiot. >You are still a coward. >LV >Lady Veteran > Lady Veteran – Why did you totally ignore the subject of the news clip > and only comment on who posted it.   > Wouldn’t you consider the news article material as an important safety > matter. > Casual Observer

It’s not her gig, CO. She’s not a contributing member to this (or any) group–she’s only here to troll and draw attention to herself.

Response:

AIRLINES’ BIG LIE:   Flying is SAFER than driving! (The airlines deliver more safe passenger miles that autos do!)   It isn’t passenger miles that is relevant when comparing car and plane safety. It’s the number of DEATHS which occur by the mode of transportation divided by the (NUMBER OF VEHICLES) IN THAT MODE TIMES THE (TIME) THOSE VEHICLES ARE IN OPERATION (the time those vehicles are subject to a crash). Just to show it isn’t passengers X miles: Suppose you have two airplanes: one plane from AIRLINE A and one plane from AIRLINE B. Both planes make one flight from New York to L.A. (3300 miles). On AIRLINE A you have 100 passengers. On AIRLINE B you have only ONE passenger. At the end of the flight, both planes crash. AIRLINE A had 100 passenger deaths for the 3300 miles flown(330,000 passenger/miles flown safely an instant before the crash) AIRLINE B had ONE passenger death for the 3300 miles(only 3300 passenger/miles flown safely an instant before the crash). Would you then say that AIRLINE A had a hundred-fold better safety record than AIRLINE B? Of couse not!   WE HAVE JUST ELIMINATED THE STANDARD WIVE’S TALE OF  PASSENGER/MILES AS RELEVANT TO COMPARING THE RELATIVE SAFETY OF ANY TWO AIRLINES. IT IS ALSO IRRELEVANT IN COMPARING ANY TWO MODES OF TRANSPORT. THE NUMBER OF PASSENGERS THAT HAPPEN TO BE RIDING ON ANY VEHICLE, AIR, LAND OR SEA, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INHERENT SAFETY DESIGN OF THAT PARTICULAR MODE OF TRANSPORT.  The safety of any mode of transport depends on the NUMBER OF VEHICLES in that mode TIMES THE NUMBER OF HOURS THOSE VEHICLES ARE SUBJECT TO CRASH (hours of operation)  HERE ARE THE FIGURES FOR COMPARING RELATIVE SAFETY OF CARS VS COMMERCIAL JETS;   FOR ONE YEAR: (for a mode of transportation)It’s number of deaths per year DIVIDED BY the number of vehicles in that mode TIMES the avdg number of hours per year each vehicle is in service:  AUTO; 54,000 deaths per year (avdg figure for past 10 years)DIVIDED BY 80,000,000 cars in service  TIMES (3 hrs per day avdg per car TIMES 365=1095)OR 80 MILLION times 1095= OVER 80 BILLION car hours. 54,000 Divided by 80 BILLION= (A PEWNEY, ONLY) 1 DEATH PER 1,481,000 CAR Hours AIRLINES: 200 deaths per year (avdg figure for past 10 years) DIVIDED BY 3000 commercial jets in service TIMES (8 hrs avdg flight time per day TIMES 365= 2920) or 3000 times  8 times 365= 8,760,000 jet hours 200 DEATHS divided by 8,760,000= (A WHOPPING) ONE DEATH for only 43,800 airplane hours! Figure it out and you’ll see the car is much safer!  p.s.  to further debunk MILES and the number of PASSENGERS who happen to be in a vehicle(as factors in comparing relative safety), imagine a fleet of 10,000 space ships, each traveling the speed of light, each with ONE pilot. This represents INFINITE passenger/miles. As soon as one of these space ships crashes- it can be said that space ships are INFINITELY more dangerous that any other mode of transport- yet in reality, only ONE of the fleet of 10,000 had a crash, only ONE passenger died- which is better than can be said of 10,000 cars or other modes of transport.   Finally- to compare the number of deaths in 80 million US cars with a limited number of jumbo jets- is an unfair comparison. Take all the people out of those cars  for a year and put them in jumbo jets- the skies would be so crowded with planes, you probably would not be able to see the sun! Air safety would be a joke. If you are going to compare auto death statistics with the airlines- use EQUAL comparisons of EQUAL numbers of passengers: like the number of auto deaths in Georgia compared to US airlines. If you want to compare the relative safety of flying from New York to L.A.- compare that to the number of auto deaths on Interstate 80! That is the route you would take from New York to L.A. Don’t include all the irrelevant deaths in the US occuring on rural roads including those involving idiot and drunk drivers who run off the road into a tree! Those deaths are irrelevant to the routes YOU drive and to your safety. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Safety board wants airline passengers weighed > WASHINGTON (AP) –Air travel would be safer if airlines weighed their > passengers from time to time to make sure they know how much weight their > planes are carrying, the National Transportation Safety Board says. > Following its investigation into a commuter plane crash last year in North > Carolina, the NTSB said on Thursday that airlines should at least > periodically make passengers step on a scale. > The safety board also recommended the Federal Aviation Administration > require improvements to training, oversight and procedures for maintenance > personnel. > The crash of US Airways Express Flight 5481 at Charlotte-Douglas Airport > killed 21 people, the deadliest U.S. aviation accident in nearly 2 1/2 > years. > The Beech 1900, operated by Air Midwest, was virtually uncontrollable > because of two fatal mistakes, the safety board concluded. > First, the airline’s guidelines for estimating the weight of passengers and > baggage were inaccurate. The pilots, therefore, didn’t realize the plane’s > rear section was too heavy. > Second, mechanics had improperly rigged cables connected to the elevator, > the tail flap that controls the up-and-down direction of the aircraft’s > nose. The errors meant the elevator’s downward motion was restricted to > half its normal range, according to the NTSB. > Without a fully maneuverable elevator, the pilots couldn’t force the nose > of the plane down to compensate for its heavy tail, investigators said. > As a result, the plane pitched sharply upward just seconds after takeoff > for Greer, South Carolina, then fell from the sky. > Soon afterward, the FAA ordered airlines to weigh some of their passengers > to determine the accuracy of current guidelines — for example, adults in > winter were calculated to weigh 185 pounds on average. > The survey showed what many suspected: Passengers and their bags had gotten > heavier. The FAA issued temporary guidelines adding up to 10 pounds to its > estimate for passengers and 5 pounds to checked luggage. > Weight and balance issues > The NTSB said those guidelines don’t go far enough. The board recommended > the FAA require airlines operating planes with 10 or more seats to weigh > passengers periodically to determine when they might be heavier — for > example, in December when they wear heavy coats and carry presents. > The FAA is working on that. Since June, a committee has been examining the > average weights of passengers and baggage and how they vary according to > season or geography. > Debby McElroy, Regional Airline Association president, said her group is > working with the FAA on the weight and balance issues identified by the > NTSB. > "We agree that further study is necessary, to ensure that air carrier > weight and balance programs provide the highest level of safety," McElroy > said. > The committee is expected to make recommendations next month. > NTSB investigators also found flaws in the way mechanics were trained and > supervised, how their work was checked and how Air Midwest controlled the > quality of its maintenance. Those problems led to the improperly rigged > elevator cables on the Charlotte flight. > As part of a series of recommendations on maintenance, the NTSB said the > FAA should require that work on key flight control systems, including > elevator cables, be checked upon completion. > FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency already is working on the > issues raised by the investigation. > Two Democratic members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure > Committee, James Oberstar of Wisconsin and Peter DeFazio of Oregon, asked > the Transportation Department’s inspector general to report on whether > outsourced maintenance work affects airline safety. > Air Midwest contracted maintenance to Raytheon Aerospace (now known as > Vertex Aerospace), which hired mechanics from Structural Modification and > Repair Technicians Inc. > – > – > – > – > – > – > If you consider the content of this post to be particularly offensive, disgusting or plain illegal, > it is probably ‘designer abuse’, a message designed specifically to hurt the remailer’s reputation/existence. >   http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6THHPRAL38002.4374074074%40anony… > Some people hate this remailer so badly that, for example, they did not hesitate to celebrate the death of 148 French tourists in a plane crash. > Those people seceded from the human race, so don’t hesitate to report them directly to the police. >   http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Ymx1ZWpheQ%3D%3D.19d787f018eb301… >   http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.58.0401181826110.3146… > More about the subject will be available http://frogadmin.yi.org/HOS/

Response:

> WE HAVE JUST ELIMINATED THE STANDARD WIVE’S TALE OF  PASSENGER/MILES > AS RELEVANT TO COMPARING THE RELATIVE SAFETY OF ANY TWO AIRLINES. IT > IS ALSO IRRELEVANT IN COMPARING ANY TWO MODES OF TRANSPORT. THE NUMBER > OF PASSENGERS THAT HAPPEN TO BE RIDING ON ANY VEHICLE, AIR, LAND OR > SEA, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INHERENT SAFETY DESIGN OF THAT > PARTICULAR MODE OF TRANSPORT.

But it has everything to do with your personal likelihood of being injured. Remember that you are a person, not an airplane,. miguel — Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/

Response:

> WE HAVE JUST ELIMINATED THE STANDARD WIVE’S TALE OF  PASSENGER/MILES > AS RELEVANT TO COMPARING THE RELATIVE SAFETY OF ANY TWO AIRLINES. IT > IS ALSO IRRELEVANT IN COMPARING ANY TWO MODES OF TRANSPORT. THE NUMBER > OF PASSENGERS THAT HAPPEN TO BE RIDING ON ANY VEHICLE, AIR, LAND OR > SEA, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INHERENT SAFETY DESIGN OF THAT > PARTICULAR MODE OF TRANSPORT. > But it has everything to do with your personal likelihood of being injured. > Remember that you are a person, not an airplane,.

I think that’s his point. Although basing accidents on passenger miles does show the likelihood is greater that you would be involved in an auto accident trying to drive from New York to Florida than by flying from NY to FL. — McWebber No email replies read If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends please forget that I’m your friend.

Response:

> AIRLINES’ BIG LIE:   Flying is SAFER than driving! (The airlines > deliver more safe passenger miles that autos do!) >   It isn’t passenger miles that is relevant when comparing car and > plane safety. It’s the number of DEATHS which occur by the mode of > transportation divided by the (NUMBER OF VEHICLES) IN THAT MODE TIMES > THE (TIME) THOSE VEHICLES ARE IN OPERATION (the time those vehicles > are subject to a crash).

Putting it in caps doesn’t make it right.  Transportation is not entertainment.  it is not the number of minutes you get to enjoy it, it’s the distance you travel to get from point A to point B. Is that a difficult concept for you? > Just to show it isn’t passengers X miles: > Suppose you have two airplanes: one plane from AIRLINE A and one plane > from AIRLINE B. Both planes make one flight from New York to L.A. > (3300 miles). On AIRLINE A you have 100 passengers. On AIRLINE B you > have only ONE passenger. At the end of the flight, both planes crash. > AIRLINE A had 100 passenger deaths for the 3300 miles flown(330,000 > passenger/miles flown safely an instant before the crash) AIRLINE B > had ONE passenger death for the 3300 miles(only 3300 passenger/miles > flown safely an instant before the crash). Would you then say that > AIRLINE A had a hundred-fold better safety record than AIRLINE B? Of > couse not!

Ah, no.  The relative risk per passenger mile is the same – one death every 3300 passenger miles flown. >   WE HAVE JUST ELIMINATED THE STANDARD WIVE’S TALE OF  PASSENGER/MILES > AS RELEVANT TO COMPARING THE RELATIVE SAFETY OF ANY TWO AIRLINES.

No, you may feel it is a wive’s tail and may think you’ve proved something – but you haven’t.  Sorry. > IT > IS ALSO IRRELEVANT IN COMPARING ANY TWO MODES OF TRANSPORT. THE NUMBER > OF PASSENGERS THAT HAPPEN TO BE RIDING ON ANY VEHICLE, AIR, LAND OR > SEA, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INHERENT SAFETY DESIGN OF THAT > PARTICULAR MODE OF TRANSPORT.

We aren’t talking about the safety of the mode of transport – we are talking about the human safety of traveling IN that mode of transport FROM point A to point B.  As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter how safe the transport is, just how safe I am in it and my chance of making it to point B safely. >  The safety of any mode of transport depends on the NUMBER OF VEHICLES > in that mode TIMES THE NUMBER OF HOURS THOSE VEHICLES ARE SUBJECT TO > CRASH (hours of operation)

The safety of individual travel depends on the MILES traveled.  Time is irrelevant since the objective is to get from point A to point B, not to spend 10 hours in a car or on a plane. Risk per mile traveled or risk per hour traveled – Which one helps a person decide if they should fly or drive – if they are interested in surviving the 200 mile trip to Vegas? >  HERE ARE THE FIGURES FOR COMPARING RELATIVE SAFETY OF CARS VS > COMMERCIAL JETS; >   FOR ONE YEAR: > (for a mode of transportation)It’s number of deaths per year DIVIDED > BY the number of vehicles in that mode TIMES the avdg number of hours > per year each vehicle is in service: >  AUTO; > 54,000 deaths per year (avdg figure for past 10 years)DIVIDED BY > 80,000,000 cars in service  TIMES (3 hrs per day avdg per car TIMES > 365=1095)OR 80 MILLION times 1095= OVER 80 BILLION car hours. > 54,000 Divided by 80 BILLION= (A PEWNEY, ONLY) 1 DEATH PER 1,481,000 > CAR Hours

Average speed is 30 miles per hour – 1 death per 44 million miles traveled. > AIRLINES: > 200 deaths per year (avdg figure for past 10 years) DIVIDED BY 3000 > commercial jets in service TIMES (8 hrs avdg flight time per day TIMES > 365= 2920) or 3000 times  8 times 365= 8,760,000 jet hours > 200 DEATHS divided by 8,760,000= (A WHOPPING) ONE DEATH for only > 43,800 airplane hours!

Average speed is 500 miles per hour – 1 death for every 21.9 million miles traveled. Though your example still puts car safety ahead of airline safety, it’s a function of the numeric assumptions.  The ratio is 2 to one using the miles as a denominator, not 34 to one as in your example. If you want to spin the statistic even more, use the risk per trip example. The typical airline trip is 1000 miles, the typical car trip is 10 miles. One death per 4.4 million trips in the car, one death per 22 thousand trips on a plane.  Makes cars 200 times as safe. Yes, you too can lie with statistics.  At the end of the day, all that matters to a traveler is whether or not they arrived at their destination safely, and that is only measured in miles. So, when you have a choice between driving from LA to New York or flying, which one is safer?  The only relevant metric is miles. > Figure it out and you’ll see the car is much safer!

Hardly. js

Response:

for "small" airliners (like the Beech 1900) it actually makes sense

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> AIRLINES’ BIG LIE:   Flying is SAFER than driving! (The airlines > deliver more safe passenger miles that autos do!) >   It isn’t passenger miles that is relevant when comparing car and > plane safety. It’s the number of DEATHS which occur by the mode of > transportation divided by the (NUMBER OF VEHICLES) IN THAT MODE TIMES > THE (TIME) THOSE VEHICLES ARE IN OPERATION (the time those vehicles > are subject to a crash). > Just to show it isn’t passengers X miles: > Suppose you have two airplanes: one plane from AIRLINE A and one plane > from AIRLINE B. Both planes make one flight from New York to L.A. > (3300 miles). On AIRLINE A you have 100 passengers. On AIRLINE B you > have only ONE passenger. At the end of the flight, both planes crash. > AIRLINE A had 100 passenger deaths for the 3300 miles flown(330,000 > passenger/miles flown safely an instant before the crash) AIRLINE B > had ONE passenger death for the 3300 miles(only 3300 passenger/miles > flown safely an instant before the crash). Would you then say that > AIRLINE A had a hundred-fold better safety record than AIRLINE B? Of > couse not! >   WE HAVE JUST ELIMINATED THE STANDARD WIVE’S TALE OF  PASSENGER/MILES > AS RELEVANT TO COMPARING THE RELATIVE SAFETY OF ANY TWO AIRLINES. IT > IS ALSO IRRELEVANT IN COMPARING ANY TWO MODES OF TRANSPORT. THE NUMBER > OF PASSENGERS THAT HAPPEN TO BE RIDING ON ANY VEHICLE, AIR, LAND OR > SEA, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INHERENT SAFETY DESIGN OF THAT > PARTICULAR MODE OF TRANSPORT. >  The safety of any mode of transport depends on the NUMBER OF VEHICLES > in that mode TIMES THE NUMBER OF HOURS THOSE VEHICLES ARE SUBJECT TO > CRASH (hours of operation) >  HERE ARE THE FIGURES FOR COMPARING RELATIVE SAFETY OF CARS VS > COMMERCIAL JETS; >   FOR ONE YEAR: > (for a mode of transportation)It’s number of deaths per year DIVIDED > BY the number of vehicles in that mode TIMES the avdg number of hours > per year each vehicle is in service: >  AUTO; > 54,000 deaths per year (avdg figure for past 10 years)DIVIDED BY > 80,000,000 cars in service  TIMES (3 hrs per day avdg per car TIMES > 365=1095)OR 80 MILLION times 1095= OVER 80 BILLION car hours. > 54,000 Divided by 80 BILLION= (A PEWNEY, ONLY) 1 DEATH PER 1,481,000 > CAR Hours > AIRLINES: > 200 deaths per year (avdg figure for past 10 years) DIVIDED BY 3000 > commercial jets in service TIMES (8 hrs avdg flight time per day TIMES > 365= 2920) or 3000 times  8 times 365= 8,760,000 jet hours > 200 DEATHS divided by 8,760,000= (A WHOPPING) ONE DEATH for only > 43,800 airplane hours! > Figure it out and you’ll see the car is much safer! >  p.s.  to further debunk MILES and the number of PASSENGERS who happen > to be in a vehicle(as factors in comparing relative safety), > imagine a fleet of 10,000 space ships, each traveling the speed of > light, each with ONE pilot. This represents INFINITE passenger/miles. > As soon as one of these space ships crashes- it can be said that space > ships are INFINITELY more dangerous that any other mode of transport- > yet in reality, only ONE of the fleet of 10,000 had a crash, only ONE > passenger died- which is better than can be said of 10,000 cars or > other modes of transport. >   Finally- to compare the number of deaths in 80 million US cars with > a limited number of jumbo jets- is an unfair comparison. Take all the > people out of those cars  for a year and put them in jumbo jets- the > skies would be so crowded with planes, you probably would not be able > to see the sun! Air safety would be a joke. If you are going to > compare auto death statistics with the airlines- use EQUAL comparisons > of EQUAL numbers of passengers: like the number of auto deaths in > Georgia compared to US airlines. If you want to compare the relative > safety of flying from New York to L.A.- compare that to the number of > auto deaths on Interstate 80! That is the route you would take from > New York to L.A. Don’t include all the irrelevant deaths in the US > occuring on rural roads including those involving idiot and drunk > drivers who run off the road into a tree! Those deaths are irrelevant > to the routes YOU drive and to your safety.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Safety board wants airline passengers weighed > WASHINGTON (AP) –Air travel would be safer if airlines weighed their > passengers from time to time to make sure they know how much weight their > planes are carrying, the National Transportation Safety Board says. > Following its investigation into a commuter plane crash last year in North > Carolina, the NTSB said on Thursday that airlines should at least > periodically make passengers step on a scale. > The safety board also recommended the Federal Aviation Administration > require improvements to training, oversight and procedures for maintenance > personnel. > The crash of US Airways Express Flight 5481 at Charlotte-Douglas Airport > killed 21 people, the deadliest U.S. aviation accident in nearly 2 1/2 > years. > The Beech 1900, operated by Air Midwest, was virtually uncontrollable > because of two fatal mistakes, the safety board concluded. > First, the airline’s guidelines for estimating the weight of passengers and > baggage were inaccurate. The pilots, therefore, didn’t realize the plane’s > rear section was too heavy. > Second, mechanics had improperly rigged cables connected to the elevator, > the tail flap that controls the up-and-down direction of the aircraft’s > nose. The errors meant the elevator’s downward motion was restricted to > half its normal range, according to the NTSB. > Without a fully maneuverable elevator, the pilots couldn’t force the nose > of the plane down to compensate for its heavy tail, investigators said. > As a result, the plane pitched sharply upward just seconds after takeoff > for Greer, South Carolina, then fell from the sky. > Soon afterward, the FAA ordered airlines to weigh some of their passengers > to determine the accuracy of current guidelines — for example, adults in > winter were calculated to weigh 185 pounds on average. > The survey showed what many suspected: Passengers and their bags had gotten > heavier. The FAA issued temporary guidelines adding up to 10 pounds to its > estimate for passengers and 5 pounds to checked luggage. > Weight and balance issues > The NTSB said those guidelines don’t go far enough. The board recommended > the FAA require airlines operating planes with 10 or more seats to weigh > passengers periodically to determine when they might be heavier — for > example, in December when they wear heavy coats and carry presents. > The FAA is working on that. Since June, a committee has been examining the > average weights of passengers and baggage and how they vary according to > season or geography. > Debby McElroy, Regional Airline Association president, said her group is > working with the FAA on the weight and balance issues identified by the > NTSB. > "We agree that further study is necessary, to ensure that air carrier > weight and balance programs provide the highest level of safety," McElroy > said. > The committee is expected to make recommendations next month. > NTSB investigators also found flaws in the way mechanics were trained and > supervised, how their work was checked and how Air Midwest controlled the > quality of its maintenance. Those problems led to the improperly rigged > elevator cables on the Charlotte flight. > As part of a series of recommendations on maintenance, the NTSB said the > FAA should require that work on key flight control systems, including > elevator cables, be checked upon completion. > FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency already is working on the > issues raised by the investigation. > Two Democratic members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure > Committee, James Oberstar of Wisconsin and Peter DeFazio of Oregon, asked > the Transportation Department’s inspector general to report on whether > outsourced maintenance work affects airline safety. > Air Midwest contracted maintenance to Raytheon Aerospace (now known as > Vertex Aerospace), which hired mechanics from Structural Modification and > Repair Technicians Inc. > – > – > – > – > – > – > If you consider the content of this post to be particularly offensive,

disgusting or plain illegal, > it is probably ‘designer abuse’, a message designed specifically to hurt

the remailer’s reputation/existence. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6THHPRAL38002.4374074074%40anony… =UTF-8&output=gplain > Some people hate this remailer so badly that, for example, they did not

hesitate to celebrate the death of 148 French tourists in a plane crash. > Those people seceded from the human race, so don’t hesitate to report

them directly to the police.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Ymx1ZWpheQ%3D%3D.19d787f018eb301… aa2125547c%401073158846.cotse.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

bring his support to Blue.Jay http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.58.0401181826110.3146… tis.deor.org&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> More about the subject will be available http://frogadmin.yi.org/HOS/

Response:

Regardless of the safety issues from a market standpoint I personally think it’s a good thing to weigh passengers & luggage.  I mailed a package via airmail a few weeks and USPS charged me postage based on weight and dimension class. What’s the difference between mailing a package via air and personal flying? Not a whole lot in terms of space and fuel consumption factors. We choose to live in a free market economy and free market economics should determine operating protocols. Therefore all the airlines have to do is assign ticket prices based on weight/height ratios. Under this system a 150 lb 5foot 2 inch individual would pay

Question:

> Over the past month, I’ve spent a lot of time — at the > PhoCusWright Executive Conference in Orlando, in > interviews in Washington, DC, and by phone and e-mail — > talking with people in various government agencies (in > Congressional offices, at the European Commission, and in > the TSA and DHS) and all segments of the travel > reservations or "travel distribution" industry (travel > agencies, CRS’s , and travel software companies and > consultants) about what it will actually take in time, > money, information technology, and business process > changes to implement the DHS/TSA CAPPS-II proposal for > airline passenger surveillance and monitoring.

Thanks for staying on top of this for us. Too bad nobody else is paying much attention to these issues. miguel — See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

Response:

More trolling and domain theft from JF Mezei: Organization: nla0: X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.travel.air Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 16 NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.11.160.74

Many thanks for your update and your work on those police state project. Have you contacted the potential opponents to Mr Bush (Dean, Clark etc) to see if they have a stance on this issue ? What about the ACLU ? I find it interesting that the USA government is so hungry to get information from all flights, but hasn’t shown any great interest in simply managing all entry/exits from its country. Perhaps it thinks it is easier to coerce airlines to hand over already computerised information as opposed to collecting such information from immigration and setting up exit controls. nobody.com is a registered domain.  Report Mezei’s theft and abuse of this Domain Name: NOBODY.COM Administrative Contact, Technical Contact: 314 Queen Street South Suite 158 Bolton, Ontario L7E 4Z9 CA 905-880-0289 fax: 905-880-3061 Record expires on 24-Aug-2004. Record created on 25-Aug-1995. Also report him to: Jean-Francois Mezei 86 Harwood Gate Beaconsfield, QC H9W3A3 (514) 695-8259 A DECADE OF USENET TROLLING

Response:

Many thanks for your update and your work on those police state project. Have you contacted the potential opponents to Mr Bush (Dean, Clark etc) to see if they have a stance on this issue ? What about the ACLU ? I find it interesting that the USA government is so hungry to get information from all flights, but hasn’t shown any great interest in simply managing all entry/exits from its country. Perhaps it thinks it is easier to coerce airlines to hand over already computerised information as opposed to collecting such information from immigration and setting up exit controls.

Response:

Over the past month, I’ve spent a lot of time — at the PhoCusWright Executive Conference in Orlando, in interviews in Washington, DC, and by phone and e-mail — talking with people in various government agencies (in Congressional offices, at the European Commission, and in the TSA and DHS) and all segments of the travel reservations or "travel distribution" industry (travel agencies, CRS’s , and travel software companies and consultants) about what it will actually take in time, money, information technology, and business process changes to implement the DHS/TSA CAPPS-II proposal for airline passenger surveillance and monitoring. A consistent picture emerges from my interviews with all these sources: While CAPPS 1 (1998) and the first conceptualization of CAPPS-II (2001 – early 2002) were managed by Department of Transportation staff who had longstanding working relationships with the travel industry, CAPPS-II was taken out of their hands with the creation first of the TSA and then the DHS. Since then, CAPPS-II has become an essentially "black" (secret) program directed by people from the military and "intelligence" (surveillance) backgrounds, and with little familiarity and no ongoing dialogue with the travel reservations industry. If the DHS Chief Privacy Officer has done poorly at fulfilling her promises of consultation with stakeholders in CAPPS-II privacy issues, the TSA Office of National Risk Assessment (which has primary responsibility for the CAPPS-II project) and other operational divisions of the TSA have done dramatically worse than the Chief Privacy Officer in their failure to consult with stakeholders in CAPPS-II implementation issues. As I’ve reported earlier, I eventually did get an interview last month about CAPPS-II with the DHS Chief Privacy Officer, Ms. Nuala O’Connor Kelly. But when we met, Ms. O’Connor Kelly told me (quite properly) that she is a policy officer, not a spokesperson, and that her responsibility or ability to comment on CAPPS-II extends only to its privacy implications — not its cost or feasibility. The day before that interview, TSA spokesperson Mr. Nico Melendez had assured me that Ms. O’Connor Kelly, "has been the public spokesperson for CAPPS-II, and she will be able to answer all your questions." Mr. Melendez declined to answer any of my questions himself, and when I later contacted him to see if he could provide any information on TSA estimates of CAPPS-II costs he told me that was "an absurd question" and that I was "harassing him" even to ask. To date, the TSA has been unable or unwilling — despite my repeated requests to a revolving-door succession of staff flacks — to make anyone available to me who admits any knowledge of CAPPS-II cost or implementation issues. If the TSA had done their job, the CAPPS-II auditors from the General Accounting Office would have been merely double-checking work the TSA had already done. But in my survey of industry sources, I’ve found that the GAO seems to have consulted a far wider range of critical industry stakeholders than the TASA has ever bothered to talk to about CAPPS-II. And in my own interviews, I’ve repeatedly found that industry sources — even with some of the organizations and companies without whose active collaboration CAPPS-II can’t possibly be implemented — have been unable to comment on CAPPS-II costs or implementation becasue they don’t yet know what the TSA/DHS will require them to do. I’ve known much more from my investigatory research than anyone at the TSA or DHS has been willing to tell these key industry players. Even those who might stand to profit from CAPPS-II, particularly the CRS’s (or GDS’s, as they often prefer to call themselves), continue to claim — perhaps truthfully — that they don’t know what changes the TSA will order them to make to their data structures, interfaces, API’s, and protocols. At the PhoCusWright conference, I asked Cendant CEO Sam Katz about the impact of CAPPS-II on Cendant’s bottom line: CAPPS-II will require expensive changes to Cendant’s Galileo CRS, which costs Cendant might have to absorb. But Galileo and all the other Cendant subsidiaries will be free, under the current CAPPS-II proposal, to retain, use, and sell the additional data travellers will be required to provide. On balance, will CAPPS-II be a net cost or benefit for Cendant? "I can’t answer that," Katz replied, "Because there is no CAPPS-II business model" and the TSA still hasn’t told Cendant their requirements. When I pressed her, however, Ms. O’Connor Kelly was considerably more forthcoming about what will be required than the TSA has been. She freely conceded that — as I (and others) had pointed out in comments on the CAPPS-II Privacy Act notices — those notices could not create any new obligations on the public or private companies (other than government contractors) to provide, collect, store, or forward data or documents. A Privacy Act notice merely describes what the government will do with personal data. Ms. O’Connor Kelly also freely conceded that for CAPPS-II to be put into effect, the government will have to give 3 new sets of orders to travellers and travel companies: 1. All airline passengers will be ordered to have reservations (or, equivalently, airlines will be forbidden from transporting anyone who doesn’t have reservations). This would outlaw unreserved shuttle services, "open" tickets, and use of full-fare freely-changeable tickets on flights other than those originally reserved. And it would invalidate or retroactively impose an advance reservatiuon requirement on tickets already issued. In addition to their cost, both of these changes appear to be in violation of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. Ms. O’Connor claimed to be surprised when I raised these issues, in spite of the detailed discussion of them in my prior written comments. 2. Each reservation (even for a group) will have to contain the following 4 pieces of information about each passenger: "full name", "home address", "home telephone number", and date of birth. My interviews and sources suggest that the TSA is only just beginning to figure out how expensive this will be. (The cost would have become apparent sooner, of course, had the TSA been less secretive about its plans, or made any effort to solicit feedback from industry stakeholders.) This also raises a plethora of issues about the definitions of these terms, and the sanctions for those unwilling or unable to provide them (or providing a different name, phone number, and/or address than the TSA considers "correct" for CAPPS-II purposes). For what it’s worth, Ms. O’Connor Kelly professed similar surprise at all of these issues, which had also been raised in detail in my written comments. 3. Each airline passenger will be required to produce and display, to TSA and/or airline staff, documentary evidence of their identity. Aside from the definition of what sort of ID documents will be acceptable for air travel, this raises particularly strong Constitutional, legal, and policy issues, especially in light of the history of vehement public and Congressional antipathy to any sort of national ID card or, more precisely in this context, "domestic passport". Since these are not privacy rules, it wasn’t clear what, if any, role the Chief Privacy Officer would have in formulating or promulgating them. Ms. O’Connor Kelly said neither the content nor the form of these 3 orders had yet been finalized. In particular, she said that the DHS and TSA had not yet decided whether to impose these requirements through a regulation promulgated through a public rulemaking process (as is, I suspect, her preference), or through a secret "security directive" to the airlines (as is likely to be the inclination of Admiral Loy, the ONRA, and others in the TSA and DHS with military and intelligence backgrounds and outlooks). Even if the USA enacts privacy protections for travel data sufficient to satisfy European Union standards of adequacy , EU laws will still require consent for use of reservation data for CAPPS-II purposes, including testing. But Ms. O’Connor Kelly said that people whose data would be used in CAPPS-II tests will "almost certainly not be given any opportunity to opt out" of having their data used for those tests.  Unless the USA intends to flout EU law and risk interrruption of USA-EU flights, this means that CAPPS-II tests can’t legally begin until after travellers start being informed, before they make reservations, that their reservation data will be used for CAPPS-II tests. So if the TSA/DHS choose to impose these CAPPS-II rules through a secret security directive, the first notice of these rules that we would receive would be either that airlines start demanding dates of birth in reservations, or that airlines start giving notice in the EU that subsequent reservations will only be accepted if consent is given for their use in CAPPS-II testing. Some might wonder about the costs for the travel industry in the USA of compliance with EU privacy laws . At PhoCusWright, I asked a panel of CEO’s of the leading European Internet travel companies — eBookers.com, Lastminute.com, Opodo.com, Online Travel Corp., and the European divisions of Expedia.com and Travelocity.com — what lessons they had about privacy protection and regulatory compliance for their counterparts in the USA. Their response: A collective shrug. That’s a great deal more significant than, I suspect, most of the audience realized: respect for privacy isn’t difficult, and needn’t be costly. It’s just good business. Lack of respect for privacy, on the other hand, can be very costly, as Delta, Cendant, and jetBlue have found out. original article with links: http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/000084.html additional background: http://hasbrouck.org/articles/travelprivacy.html Edward Hasbrouck <http://hasbrouck.org> "The Practical Nomad: How to Travel … read more »

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>I’ve got a CO voucher for $500 earlier this year when I voluntarily >>gave up my seat on an over-booked flight to take a later flight.  If I >>use it to purchase ticket with CO, could I earn miles? >Call the airline to ask. > Of course not. > Ryan

What do you mean "of course not"? Have you used a CO $$$ voucher before?

Response:

> Read my response.  I didn’t say it was "bullshit" the previous poster did. > Ryan

And I believe my response was to the previous poster: *** QUOTE *** > Bullshit! I used my delta voucher with NO problems whatsoever just a few days > before the flight.

Glad to hear it…. *** END QUOTE *** Best Regards, Bill Mattocks

Response:

> I’ve got a CO voucher for $500 earlier this year when I voluntarily > gave up my seat on an over-booked flight to take a later flight.  If I > use it to purchase ticket with CO, could I earn miles?

Call the airline to ask.

Response:

> I’ve got a CO voucher for $500 earlier this year when I voluntarily > gave up my seat on an over-booked flight to take a later flight.  If I > use it to purchase ticket with CO, could I earn miles? > Call the airline to ask.

Of course not. Ryan

Response:

> I go to Europe three times a year on US Airways f.f. points. > Ryan > We’re not talking about FF points here.  I use FF points to travel > too.  I am talking about vouchers.

If you read my complete post that included the post to which I was responding, you would have seen that I was not responding to your post but to Bill Mattocks’ post that pertained to both vouchers and f.f.points. Ryan

Response:

> I go to Europe three times a year on US Airways f.f. points. > Ryan

We’re not talking about FF points here.  I use FF points to travel too.  I am talking about vouchers.

Response:

> Bullshit! I used my delta voucher with NO problems whatsoever just a few days > before the flight. > Glad to hear it.  Did you actually *read* my responses?  I agree that > some others have reported that they have been able to use their > vouchers.  Mine all expired unused, as I was never able to use them to > travel when/where I wanted, and I stopped being willing to volunteer > for them, sinc they were worthless to me.  Your experience may have > been different, but I’m not making it up – hence, it is not > "bullshit." > Best Regards, > Bill Mattocks

Read my response.  I didn’t say it was "bullshit" the previous poster did. Ryan

Response:

> That’s what you get for flying on "AeroChickenshit"/MerkinWorst all those > years.  I had the same bad experience with HP vouchers and terminated > further usage when all the "vouchers" they gave us after two straight > weekends in Hell turned out to be usable only at the dircretion of some > power higher than any I could locate on the phone.

Actually, I gave up on vouchers when I lived in Denver and was still a 100K Premier on UA.  It was their vouchers that I could never seem to use, but as I recall, I also had a CO voucher that I couldn’t use either for some reason.  I don’t recall the specifics now, but I recall trying to use it for several trips, getting disgusted, and finally giving up. > We never hear much re:your frequent flyer points, but then your travels are > so extensive (and oft painful) that any other flying might hardly be > pleasant.  Maybe your employers, short sighted and viscious bastards, keep > them and the hotel points too…

Oh, I got ‘da miles: America West: 241,882 miles American Airlines: 31,019 miles United Airlines: 1,150 miles I’ve flown around 65,000 miles on HP so far this year (79 segments). 32,000 miles on AA, only a few on UA, DL, and NW, etc.  I figure I’ll end up the year having flown around 120,000 miles, much like last year. I tend to give out FF awards tickets to my family when they need them, and one complaint I have is that although HP has a 20,000 award, I have never actually been able to get one.  Always costs 35,000 or more for a seat in economy.  The wife and I have taken a few trips on FF tickets in FC, it was 80,000 miles each time we did it.  That sucks your account dry fast. > Hotel points….all those Fairfield Inn nights can mount up, and the best > deal ever was a 2 bedroom suite (for the equivalent of 2 Marriott sleeping > room redemptions), concierge floor (well, the lounge wasn’t open much), > Renaissance San Francisco for three nights over Christams two years ago. > The hotel was nearly empty, the staff more than attentive, and SF’s a place > where many resturants, etc. observe the Holiday by being open and > uncrowded.

I’ve had problems staying in hotels over Christmas.  Yes, the place is empty.  And most of the staff is gone – restaurant closed, etc.  I found myself eating a microwave burrito from 7-11 on Christmas Day in Omaha three years ago. I collect my Marriott points with vim and vigor: Reward Points Current Balance 267,592 That’s after getting the 53-inch big screen TV, two Sony laptops, and a Casio PDA.  Don’t tell my wife – the next Marriott points purchase will be cruise for the two of us. > …..and there’s sure nothing wrong with WN’s Fly a few, get a free one" > approach, which carry few if any restrictions.

I have to book through our corporate travel agent – if I am not mistaken, such deals don’t apply.  This is my company policy, I can’t book my own travel.  Couldn’t afford it anyway, what with an 8 week lag time in getting expenses reimbursed. > Sure, vouchers/awards/bennies are over-rated, but is a cruel world, they > remain better than nothing at all (well, except for HP "upgrade certs" > which may not be….).

I’ve gotten more FC upgrades on HP than any other airline by a large margin, even an order of magnitude.  They’re great about that, no complaints there! Best Regards, Bill Mattocks

Response:

The Bill Mattocks muttered…. > Bullshit! I used my delta voucher with NO problems whatsoever just a > few days before the flight. > Glad to hear it.  Did you actually *read* my responses?  I agree that > some others have reported that they have been able to use their > vouchers.  Mine all expired unused, as I was never able to use them to > travel when/where I wanted, and I stopped being willing to volunteer > for them, sinc they were worthless to me.  Your experience may have > been different, but I’m not making it up – hence, it is not > "bullshit."

That’s what you get for flying on "AeroChickenshit"/MerkinWorst all those years.  I had the same bad experience with HP vouchers and terminated further usage when all the "vouchers" they gave us after two straight weekends in Hell turned out to be usable only at the dircretion of some power higher than any I could locate on the phone. My AA vouchers are handled just like cash, but with the inconvenience that I have to go to a AA counter to purchase the ticket (but may reserve it 24 hours earlier on the net).  At one point it came to be almost a joke at the local AEagle desk which used to accuse me of scheduling my flights at "High bump frequency" times so that I could accumulate vouchers for my wife to travel with me, so that we might receive double vouchers when volunteering.   One of the warm and fuzzy feelings in the world is having used a voucher to buy a bargain-priced pleasure trip, no rush and no priorities, then to receive a couple of more vouchers, more than the trip’s costs, and a hotel room (thankfully better than your last enforced RON) on the way home. As for award points….. even Delta, famous for the paucity of its "Plan Ahead/less points" awards turns out to be less than impossible when some care is given as to date/time/routing.  We’re off to Milan in the "sort of sterile but still more comfortable than cattle class" Business Elite next month, when scheduled in midAugust, the first two occupied seats in the front cabin. We never hear much re:your frequent flyer points, but then your travels are so extensive (and oft painful) that any other flying might hardly be pleasant.  Maybe your employers, short sighted and viscious bastards, keep them and the hotel points too… Hotel points….all those Fairfield Inn nights can mount up, and the best deal ever was a 2 bedroom suite (for the equivalent of 2 Marriott sleeping room redemptions), concierge floor (well, the lounge wasn’t open much), Renaissance San Francisco for three nights over Christams two years ago. The hotel was nearly empty, the staff more than attentive, and SF’s a place where many resturants, etc. observe the Holiday by being open and uncrowded. …..and there’s sure nothing wrong with WN’s Fly a few, get a free one" approach, which carry few if any restrictions. Sure, vouchers/awards/bennies are over-rated, but is a cruel world, they remain better than nothing at all (well, except for HP "upgrade certs" which may not be….). TMO

Response:

> Bullshit! I used my delta voucher with NO problems whatsoever just a few days > before the flight.

Glad to hear it.  Did you actually *read* my responses?  I agree that some others have reported that they have been able to use their vouchers.  Mine all expired unused, as I was never able to use them to travel when/where I wanted, and I stopped being willing to volunteer for them, sinc they were worthless to me.  Your experience may have been different, but I’m not making it up – hence, it is not "bullshit." Best Regards, Bill Mattocks

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->And sadly, you may have trouble actually *using* your voucher to buy a >ticket. >In my experience, the information that they give you when they ask you >to give up your seat for a ‘future travel award’ is incorrect – by >omission.  They tell you that the voucher is for ‘X’ dollars.  True. >They tell you it is transferable.  True.  They tell you that there are >no ‘blackout’ dates.  True. >What they do not tell you is that there may not be seats ‘available’ >for your voucher.  This is like the way frequent flier miles are >devalued.  Yes, you can get a round-trip ticket in exchange for ‘X’ >miles.  But try it!  There are no seats ‘available’ for the trip or >dates you want.  If you want to *pay* for a ticket, ah, then seats are >suddenly available.  If you want to give up double or triple the >frequent flier miles for the same trip, then suddenly seats are >available again.  It’s the same with vouchers.  You try to use them, >and there are no seats ‘available’.  Even though you can buy seats on >the same flight. >This is a common Dirty Little Secret of the airlines (and rental car >companies as well).  Yes, you have a $500 voucher.  But you can’t seem >to actually use it, so what good is it? >I get certificates from rental car companies all the time – good for >’free upgrade to a Jaguar’, etc.  I try to use them – sorry, we don’t >have any Jaguars available for that program right now.  Well, what >about that jillion Jags you have parked over there?  Surely they’re >not all rented already?  No, but they are not ‘available’.  Huh. >When I get ‘free upgrade to XXX vehicle’ certificates from rental car >companies now, I just throw them away.  And I *NEVER* give up a seat >for a ‘future travel award’ voucher that is good for nothing and >really can’t be used unless you want to book travel on a flight from >Nowhere to Nothing on the twelfth of Never at 3 a.m. >That’s my experience, yours may be different and I wish you good luck! >Best Regards, >Bill Mattocks

Bullshit! I used my delta voucher with NO problems whatsoever just a few days before the flight. www.livejournal.com/~gradvmedusa "Past this point of no return, your only choice is freeze or burn!"

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->And sadly, you may have trouble actually *using* your voucher to buy a >ticket. >In my experience, the information that they give you when they ask you >to give up your seat for a ‘future travel award’ is incorrect – by >omission.  They tell you that the voucher is for ‘X’ dollars.  True. >They tell you it is transferable.  True.  They tell you that there are >no ‘blackout’ dates.  True. >What they do not tell you is that there may not be seats ‘available’ >for your voucher.  This is like the way frequent flier miles are >devalued.  Yes, you can get a round-trip ticket in exchange for ‘X’ >miles.  But try it!  There are no seats ‘available’ for the trip or >dates you want.  If you want to *pay* for a ticket, ah, then seats are >suddenly available.  If you want to give up double or triple the >frequent flier miles for the same trip, then suddenly seats are >available again.  It’s the same with vouchers.  You try to use them, >and there are no seats ‘available’.  Even though you can buy seats on >the same flight. >This is a common Dirty Little Secret of the airlines (and rental car >companies as well).  Yes, you have a $500 voucher.  But you can’t seem >to actually use it, so what good is it? >I get certificates from rental car companies all the time – good for >’free upgrade to a Jaguar’, etc.  I try to use them – sorry, we don’t >have any Jaguars available for that program right now.  Well, what >about that jillion Jags you have parked over there?  Surely they’re >not all rented already?  No, but they are not ‘available’.  Huh. >When I get ‘free upgrade to XXX vehicle’ certificates from rental car >companies now, I just throw them away.  And I *NEVER* give up a seat >for a ‘future travel award’ voucher that is good for nothing and >really can’t be used unless you want to book travel on a flight from >Nowhere to Nothing on the twelfth of Never at 3 a.m. >That’s my experience, yours may be different and I wish you good luck! >Best Regards, >Bill Mattocks > Bullshit! I used my delta voucher with NO problems whatsoever just a few days > before the flight.

I go to Europe three times a year on US Airways f.f. points. Ryan

Response:

> I sure hope what you said isn’t true.  Guess I shall find out soon > enough.  I have another voucher from NW for $100 because of a flight > delay almost a year ago.  To think I was even debating last night > whether to use the NW voucher which expires in 12/03 or the CO voucher > which expires in 03/04 to offset the price of ticket I am going to > purchase.  It may be pointless now.

It may be that I *am* wrong, so don’t just take my word for it!  This has been my experience, but as you see, plenty of others are saying that your voucher is ‘good as cash’.  I certainly hope so, and that you can use your voucher(s)! I’d love to be wrong on this, and if so, I’m sorry for any consternation I’ve caused. Best Regards, Bill Mattocks

Response:

One difference may be the reference to WN.  Certainly their frequent flyer awards are different from the industry norm.  On those if there is a seat available at any fare you get it.  FFM – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The vouchers I have gotten from American Airlines and WN were usable >like cash >Book any ticket, pay with the voucher. Get new voucher for difference >Has this changed? > I dunno.  It’s weird, but whenever I post on this subject, there is > always someone who tells me that they never have a problem, use them > all the time, etc.  That has not been my experience on any airline – > when I try to use them, they are always ‘no seats available’ for the > voucher, but they *are* available if I want to pay for them with real > money. > Notice that the airlines are careful what they call them.  They don’t > say "these are as good as cash" when they hand them out.  They don’t > say "we honor these just as if you had purchased a ticket."  They > carefully avoid that kind of verbage.  If you ask the desk agent, they > weasel around and try very hard not to answer directly, other than > reading off the script they’re given. > Try it!  I’ve asked – "are these usable just as if they were cash?" or > "is there any way that seats would be available on a flight but I > would still be denied the use of this voucher to buy a ticket on that > flight?"  All they do it repeat their stupid script back at me. > They don’t even call them "vouchers."  They call them "future travel > awards."  Just like FF mile awards.  This may have to do with stupid > things like how they’re declared and taxed by the IRS – revenue vs > non-revenue or something, who knows?  However, even though they > proudly inform prospective suckers, er, I mean ‘displaced passengers’ > that there are "no blackout dates" for the vouchers, they are only > good for one year, and my experience has been that I could never use > them when I wanted to, or to the places I wanted to go. > I’m glad they work for you – I have no explanation for that. > Best Regards, > Bill Mattocks

Response:

> The vouchers I have gotten from American Airlines and WN were usable > like cash > Book any ticket, pay with the voucher. Get new voucher for difference > Has this changed? > I dunno.  It’s weird, but whenever I post on this subject, there is > always someone who tells me that they never have a problem, use them > all the time, etc.  That has not been my experience on any airline – > when I try to use them, they are always ‘no seats available’ for the > voucher, but they *are* available if I want to pay for them with real > money.

As others mention, there are vouchers – one free round trip in the U.S. or whereever – and then there are vouchers – a certificate valued for $XXX. I’ve received both types from the same airline.  The free round trip, often booked in the same fare bucket as award FF tickets, don’t earn miles.  The other type of voucher is the sames as $$$ and earns miles as its the same thing as cash. The only hitch is that some airlines allow you to use the $$$ vouchers ONLY for air travel.  They do not allow you to use them for, say, a day club pass, excess baggage fees, or upgrades. Rich — Visit America’s Aviation Headquarters: www.usaviation.com

Response:

> The vouchers I have gotten from American Airlines and WN were usable > like cash > Book any ticket, pay with the voucher. Get new voucher for difference > Has this changed?

I dunno.  It’s weird, but whenever I post on this subject, there is always someone who tells me that they never have a problem, use them all the time, etc.  That has not been my experience on any airline – when I try to use them, they are always ‘no seats available’ for the voucher, but they *are* available if I want to pay for them with real money. Notice that the airlines are careful what they call them.  They don’t say "these are as good as cash" when they hand them out.  They don’t say "we honor these just as if you had purchased a ticket."  They carefully avoid that kind of verbage.  If you ask the desk agent, they weasel around and try very hard not to answer directly, other than reading off the script they’re given. Try it!  I’ve asked – "are these usable just as if they were cash?" or "is there any way that seats would be available on a flight but I would still be denied the use of this voucher to buy a ticket on that flight?"  All they do it repeat their stupid script back at me. They don’t even call them "vouchers."  They call them "future travel awards."  Just like FF mile awards.  This may have to do with stupid things like how they’re declared and taxed by the IRS – revenue vs non-revenue or something, who knows?  However, even though they proudly inform prospective suckers, er, I mean ‘displaced passengers’ that there are "no blackout dates" for the vouchers, they are only good for one year, and my experience has been that I could never use them when I wanted to, or to the places I wanted to go. I’m glad they work for you – I have no explanation for that. Best Regards, Bill Mattocks

Response:

> > The vouchers I have gotten from American Airlines and WN were usable > like cash > Book any ticket, pay with the voucher. Get new voucher for difference > Has this changed? > I dunno.  It’s weird, but whenever I post on this subject, there is > always someone who tells me that they never have a problem, use them > all the time, etc.  That has not been my experience on any airline – > when I try to use them, they are always ‘no seats available’ for the > voucher, but they *are* available if I want to pay for them with real > money.

There are 2 kinds of voluntary DBC: vouchers good for $ off or r/t travel awards.  $ off is always better as you can apply it towards tickets and earn miles. It’s the r/t award that are useless.  No miles, often no upgrades, and they come out of award inventory which can be hard to get. $ off are generally good that you can apply them towards real tickets that you can earn miles on and upgrade if eligible.  AA ones are the best as they even reduce taxes.

Response:

>>I’ve got a CO voucher for $500 earlier this year when I voluntarily >gave up my seat on an over-booked flight to take a later flight.  If I >use it to purchase ticket with CO, could I earn miles? > Sorry, no.  To the best of my knowledge, you can’t get miles from your > voucher.  Only ‘paid’ tickets (as in paid with actual money) can earn > miles on most airlines. > And sadly, you may have trouble actually *using* your voucher to buy a > ticket.

The vouchers I have gotten from American Airlines and WN were usable like cash Book any ticket, pay with the voucher. Get new voucher for difference Has this changed?

Response:

> > I’ve got a CO voucher for $500 earlier this year when I voluntarily > gave up my seat on an over-booked flight to take a later flight.  If I > use it to purchase ticket with CO, could I earn miles? > Sorry, no.  To the best of my knowledge, you can’t get miles from your > voucher.  Only ‘paid’ tickets (as in paid with actual money) can earn > miles on most airlines.

Bill – you are rarely wrong (and rarely so droll) – but CO voucers are the same as cash. > And sadly, you may have trouble actually *using* your voucher to buy a > ticket.

Actually it works for any ticket.  As long as there’s a seat – you can use the voucher (they call them Customer Care Certificates.) js

Response:

>>>>> CO voucers are the same as cash.

NW would often give the option of a free-round-trip voucher, or a $300 cash voucher.   The free round-trip was the one to avoid, because it was capacity controlled, and had it’s own booking class letter that had to be available on your desired flight.   The $300 cash voucher, like the CO voucher, is the one to go for because it good for $300 credit, without limitations, toward any regular old published fare you choose to book.

Response:

usually those aren’t allowed miles.  Depends on exact wording, though.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’ve got a CO voucher for $500 earlier this year when I voluntarily > gave up my seat on an over-booked flight to take a later flight.  If I > use it to purchase ticket with CO, could I earn miles?

Response:

> Sorry, no.  To the best of my knowledge, you can’t get miles from your > voucher.  Only ‘paid’ tickets (as in paid with actual money) can earn > miles on most airlines. > And sadly, you may have trouble actually *using* your voucher to buy a > ticket.

I sure hope what you said isn’t true.  Guess I shall find out soon enough.  I have another voucher from NW for $100 because of a flight delay almost a year ago.  To think I was even debating last night whether to use the NW voucher which expires in 12/03 or the CO voucher which expires in 03/04 to offset the price of ticket I am going to purchase.  It may be pointless now.

Response:

I’ve got a CO voucher for $500 earlier this year when I voluntarily gave up my seat on an over-booked flight to take a later flight.  If I use it to purchase ticket with CO, could I earn miles?

Response:

> I’ve got a CO voucher for $500 earlier this year when I voluntarily > gave up my seat on an over-booked flight to take a later flight.  If I > use it to purchase ticket with CO, could I earn miles?

Generally, yes.  As long as the fare you buy is eligible for miles.

Response:

> I’ve got a CO voucher for $500 earlier this year when I voluntarily > gave up my seat on an over-booked flight to take a later flight.  If I > use it to purchase ticket with CO, could I earn miles?

Sorry, no.  To the best of my knowledge, you can’t get miles from your voucher.  Only ‘paid’ tickets (as in paid with actual money) can earn miles on most airlines. And sadly, you may have trouble actually *using* your voucher to buy a ticket. In my experience, the information that they give you when they ask you to give up your seat for a ‘future travel award’ is incorrect – by omission.  They tell you that the voucher is for ‘X’ dollars.  True. They tell you it is transferable.  True.  They tell you that there are no ‘blackout’ dates.  True. What they do not tell you is that there may not be seats ‘available’ for your voucher.  This is like the way frequent flier miles are devalued.  Yes, you can get a round-trip ticket in exchange for ‘X’ miles.  But try it!  There are no seats ‘available’ for the trip or dates you want.  If you want to *pay* for a ticket, ah, then seats are suddenly available.  If you want to give up double or triple the frequent flier miles for the same trip, then suddenly seats are available again.  It’s the same with vouchers.  You try to use them, and there are no seats ‘available’.  Even though you can buy seats on the same flight. This is a common Dirty Little Secret of the airlines (and rental car companies as well).  Yes, you have a $500 voucher.  But you can’t seem to actually use it, so what good is it? I get certificates from rental car companies all the time – good for ‘free upgrade to a Jaguar’, etc.  I try to use them – sorry, we don’t have any Jaguars available for that program right now.  Well, what about that jillion Jags you have parked over there?  Surely they’re not all rented already?  No, but they are not ‘available’.  Huh. When I get ‘free upgrade to XXX vehicle’ certificates from rental car companies now, I just throw them away.  And I *NEVER* give up a seat for a ‘future travel award’ voucher that is good for nothing and really can’t be used unless you want to book travel on a flight from Nowhere to Nothing on the twelfth of Never at 3 a.m. That’s my experience, yours may be different and I wish you good luck! Best Regards, Bill Mattocks

Response:

Question:

A question for all of you flyers out there with children.  We’re planning on taking a trip with our 2 year old and she’ll be on our lap- the problem is that she’ll be 26 months, so technically the airline should charge us for an extra ticket.  Will they actually check and enforce this rule?

Response:

> A question for all of you flyers out there with children.  We’re > planning on taking a trip with our 2 year old and she’ll be on our > lap- the problem is that she’ll be 26 months, so technically the > airline should charge us for an extra ticket.  Will they actually > check and enforce this rule?

What a strange question! The simple answer is "yes". Do you sit your daughter on someone’s lap when out in your car or do you try to ensure her safety by placing her in a proper child car seat? JohnT

Response:

> A question for all of you flyers out there with children.  We’re > planning on taking a trip with our 2 year old and she’ll be on our > lap- the problem is that she’ll be 26 months, so technically the > airline should charge us for an extra ticket.  Will they actually > check and enforce this rule?

   So what, exactly, are you going to do if you hit unexpected turbulence, and your daughter’s head hits the wall or the floor at high speed?  Or, even worse, hits another passenger?   I can’t, for the life of me, imagine why parents do this. Heck, if nothing else, and a few hundred bucks really isn’t more important than your child, it’s been our experience that having the kids in the car seats that they’re accustomed to makes them FAR more comfortable, and happy.

Response:

Troll.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> A question for all of you flyers out there with children.  We’re > planning on taking a trip with our 2 year old and she’ll be on our > lap- the problem is that she’ll be 26 months, so technically the > airline should charge us for an extra ticket.  Will they actually > check and enforce this rule?

Response:

>> A question for all of you flyers out there with children.  We’re > planning on taking a trip with our 2 year old and she’ll be on our > lap- the problem is that she’ll be 26 months, so technically the > airline should charge us for an extra ticket.  Will they actually > check and enforce this rule? >   So what, exactly, are you going to do if you hit unexpected >turbulence, and your daughter’s head hits the wall or >the floor at high speed?  Or, even worse, hits another >passenger?

Depends where the OP is posting from. Most European airlines provide (and insist on the use of) seat belt attachments so that your child is secured to you. Therefore there’s no danger of your child becoming a projectile. I gather from this newsgroup that some US airlines don’t follow this practice. >  I can’t, for the life of me, imagine why parents do this. >Heck, if nothing else, and a few hundred bucks >really isn’t more important than your child, it’s been our >experience that having the kids in the car seats that they’re >accustomed to makes them FAR more comfortable, and happy.

It turns out that neither of the two larger car seats we own are really suitable for air travel. One is a large and heavy frame seat, which is CAA approved and fits OK, but is so large that it doesn’t allow the passenger in front to recline. The other is non frame based, hence not CAA approved and hence quite rightly no airline will let us use it. Air travel with a Western commercial airline is so safe that the only safety issue worth worrying about IMHO is turbulence. The seat belt attachment takes care of that risk nicely. (As long as the parent uses it and keeps their own seat belt fastened!) But as I mentioned in a previous post, a 26 month old is likely too big for anyone’s comfort and IMHO needs a separate seat. — Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response:

>A question for all of you flyers out there with children.  We’re >planning on taking a trip with our 2 year old and she’ll be on our >lap- the problem is that she’ll be 26 months, so technically the >airline should charge us for an extra ticket.  Will they actually >check and enforce this rule?

For everyone’s comfort and safety, it’s best that someone as big and heavy as a two year old has their own seat. — Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response:

> A question for all of you flyers out there with children.

Warning, Moo…this is the most children-unfriendly group you could ever imagine, so asking anything to do with clidren will likely provoke angry replies. In fact, simply typing the letter c-h-i-l-d might give a heart attack to some readers here…so proceed with caution!

Response:

> A question for all of you flyers out there with children. > Warning, Moo…this is the most children-unfriendly group you could ever > imagine, so asking anything to do with clidren will likely provoke angry > replies. In fact, simply typing the letter c-h-i-l-d might give a heart > attack to some readers here…so proceed with caution!

Whatever happened to Paul Tauger?  Did he become a parent and stop posting here? JohnT

Response:

> Whatever happened to Paul Tauger?  Did he become a parent and stop > posting here?

Unless I am very much mistaken, he’s still here!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > A question for all of you flyers out there with children. > Warning, Moo…this is the most children-unfriendly group you could > ever > imagine, so asking anything to do with clidren will likely provoke > angry > replies. In fact, simply typing the letter c-h-i-l-d might give a > heart > attack to some readers here…so proceed with caution! > Whatever happened to Paul Tauger?  Did he become a parent and stop > posting here? > JohnT

I’m still here.  I just changed my screen name.  PTRAVEL= Paul Tauger. However, the OP in this thread is clearly a troll (A post about a 26-month old lap child by someone named "Moo"?), and I try to avoid responding to trolls. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

> A question for all of you flyers out there with children.  We’re > planning on taking a trip with our 2 year old and she’ll be on our > lap- the problem is that she’ll be 26 months, so technically the > airline should charge us for an extra ticket.  Will they actually > check and enforce this rule?

Yes, and if the child were under 2, you should still buy a seat.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > A question for all of you flyers out there with children. > > Warning, Moo…this is the most children-unfriendly group you could > ever > > imagine, so asking anything to do with clidren will likely provoke > angry > > replies. In fact, simply typing the letter c-h-i-l-d might give a > heart > > attack to some readers here…so proceed with caution! > Whatever happened to Paul Tauger?  Did he become a parent and stop > posting here? > JohnT > I’m still here.  I just changed my screen name.  PTRAVEL= Paul Tauger. > However, the OP in this thread is clearly a troll (A post about a 26-month > old lap child by someone named "Moo"?), and I try to avoid responding to > trolls.

Understood!  Thank you. JohnT

Response:

I got to sit next to a two year old on a persons lap on a full flight back from the Dominican republic. Worst flight of my life. got kicked, poked, sneezed on, food taken from my lunch, head butted, had to listen and deal with a two year old trying to sit still and be restrained by a seat belt for 4 hours. PLEASE get your child his/her own seat for their safety as well as the comfort of you and the passengers around you. Plus you need to give your childs dob when booking, if you lie about their birthdate you can be caught and forced to pay pull published fares instead of a discounted fare.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> A question for all of you flyers out there with children.  We’re > planning on taking a trip with our 2 year old and she’ll be on our > lap- the problem is that she’ll be 26 months, so technically the > airline should charge us for an extra ticket.  Will they actually > check and enforce this rule?

Response:

> [ 26 month old lap child ? ] >Yes, they will check.

But since there’s no ID required for children on domestic flights, and most of us don’t have any sort of ID for our kids anyway unless they have a passport, it’s your word against theirs. > Also to the point – do you *really* want a wriggly toddler on your > lap for the ENTIRE trip?  Probably not.

Well, yeah.  I got a seat for my daughter when she was a year old.  We had a car seat that worked in a plane, and she was much less fussy due to being in her familiar seat. — John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711 Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail

Response:

>>[ 26 month old lap child ? ] >Yes, they will check. > But since there’s no ID required for children on domestic flights, and > most of us don’t have any sort of ID for our kids anyway unless they > have a passport, it’s your word against theirs.

Not really. My daughter was told to bring a birth certificate when she talked to Southwest Airlines about her daughter under 2.  (Yes, I advised he against not buying a seat) Children don’t generally need ID for a domestic flight, but they have a right to require proof the child is under two if they are flying free.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>[ 26 month old lap child ? ] >>Yes, they will check. > But since there’s no ID required for children on domestic flights, and > most of us don’t have any sort of ID for our kids anyway unless they > have a passport, it’s your word against theirs. > Not really. My daughter was told to bring a birth certificate when she > talked to Southwest Airlines about her daughter under 2.  (Yes, I > advised he against not buying a seat) > Children don’t generally need ID for a domestic flight, but they have a > right to require proof the child is under two if they are flying free.

Jeez, you guys are harsh.  First of all, we always bring along a seat belt attachment for her, even though US-based airlines advise against buckling up infants for some reason unknown to us.  If you think that safety is not the top priority for us, you’re insane.  Second, this is an international flight, so the fare is like $900.  Next, we’ve flown this trip many times and we are very conscientious about our child’s behavior, and she’s extremly well behaved.  We’re also aware of seating arrangements, as we realize that people don’t want to be "bothered" with seeing children nearby, even though they might not try to interact with them at all.  Having said all that, we’re going to buy a ticket for her because we need to have a passport for her, so there’s always the chance of them checking her DOB. Now, on to the topic of people not liking children on airplanes in general.  People- open your eyes and enjoy the miracle of childhood. It’s okay to look at them, and even talk to them if you want.  You might actually smile.  I can understand if they are head-butting you and taking your food and the parents do nothing about it.  That’s our big problem with parents- that they generally don’t care what their kids do and seem annoyed by them.  I’ll never understand that behavior. By the way, that was just a simple question that started this thread- I didn’t mean to spark such hatred.  I’m a million mile flyer myself, and I’ve never encountered such belligerence from other frequent flyers.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >>[ 26 month old lap child ? ] > >>Yes, they will check. > > But since there’s no ID required for children on domestic flights, and > > most of us don’t have any sort of ID for our kids anyway unless they > > have a passport, it’s your word against theirs. > Not really. My daughter was told to bring a birth certificate when she > talked to Southwest Airlines about her daughter under 2.  (Yes, I > advised he against not buying a seat) > Children don’t generally need ID for a domestic flight, but they have a > right to require proof the child is under two if they are flying free. > Jeez, you guys are harsh.  First of all, we always bring along a seat > belt attachment for her, even though US-based airlines advise against > buckling up infants for some reason unknown to us.  If you think that > safety is not the top priority for us, you’re insane.  Second, this is > an international flight, so the fare is like $900.  Next, we’ve flown > this trip many times and we are very conscientious about our child’s > behavior, and she’s extremly well behaved.  We’re also aware of > seating arrangements, as we realize that people don’t want to be > "bothered" with seeing children nearby, even though they might not try > to interact with them at all.  Having said all that, we’re going to > buy a ticket for her because we need to have a passport for her, so > there’s always the chance of them checking her DOB. > Now, on to the topic of people not liking children on airplanes in > general.  People- open your eyes and enjoy the miracle of childhood. > It’s okay to look at them, and even talk to them if you want.  You > might actually smile.  I can understand if they are head-butting you > and taking your food and the parents do nothing about it.  That’s our > big problem with parents- that they generally don’t care what their > kids do and seem annoyed by them.  I’ll never understand that > behavior. > By the way, that was just a simple question that started this thread- > I didn’t mean to spark such hatred.  I’m a million mile flyer myself, > and I’ve never encountered such belligerence from other frequent > flyers.

one of the reasons people don’t like kids on planes is that selfish piggies try to haul gigantic toddlers along as ‘lap kids’ and inflict them on their hapless seat mates.  coach seats are tiny and a two year old is already a gross imposition though ‘legal’ — for parents to try to take even older children this way is ridiculously inconsiderate. it doesn’t matter how well behaved a child is — a lap toddler is too big for the space  – the odds that such a child will not annoy and impinge on the person in the seat ahead as well as anyone else in the row is vanishingly small Airlines should make the lap child cut off 12 mos — but until they do, parents should give some thought to the demands they make on other passengers by trying to be stingy  –

Response:

> By the way, that was just a simple question that started this thread- > I didn’t mean to spark such hatred.  I’m a million mile flyer myself, > and I’ve never encountered such belligerence from other frequent > flyers.

I warned you, didn’t I? Paolo

Response:

> Worst flight of my life. got kicked, poked, > sneezed on, food taken from my lunch, head butted, had to listen and deal > with a two year old trying to sit still and be restrained by a seat belt for > 4 hours.

Are we perhaps talking exclusively about American children here? In my experience of both parent and frequent flier I have never seen any of the horror occurrences you all describe. Then again, I have never been flying an American airline in or out of the US. Paolo

Response:

> Jeez, you guys are harsh.  First of all, we always bring along a seat > belt attachment for her, even though US-based airlines advise against > buckling up infants for some reason unknown to us.  If you think that > safety is not the top priority for us, you’re insane.  Second, this is > an international flight, so the fare is like $900.

So, we are harsh because you want not give the airline the $900 it is entitled to for transportation of a 26 month old????j   Next, we’ve flown > this trip many times and we are very conscientious about our child’s > behavior, and she’s extremly well behaved.

Aren’t they all? > By the way, that was just a simple question that started this thread- > I didn’t mean to spark such hatred.  I’m a million mile flyer myself, > and I’ve never encountered such belligerence from other frequent > flyers.

Your goal was for support the airline to carry your 26 month old for free.  You didn’t get it. Don’t go to a newsgroup anticipating unconditional support for anything you post.

Response:

> Jeez, you guys are harsh.  First of all, we always bring along a seat > belt attachment for her, even though US-based airlines advise against > buckling up infants for some reason unknown to us.  If you think that > safety is not the top priority for us, you’re insane.  Second, this is > an international flight, so the fare is like $900.

There aren’t many $900 fares, especially for a child. You’d have to be flying 15 hours or so each way, in which case I can’t imagine it would be tolerable to have a toddler on your lap anyway. 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:

Question:

some stuff about "Re: Northwest airlines service is horrible", to which I would like to add the following: >Zach, >    I read your complaint about your service on Northwest.  I applaud your >effort in sending your complaint in and expecting to get it resolved. >Unfortunately, in the airline industry, complaints are high and service >seems low at the moment.  There are a lot of reasons for this and I will try >to explain why.  I am a flight attendant (not for Northwest) and just like >you, we have all seen a major change in the operation of daily flights >throughout the country and the world.  

That was an awesome reply..  Thank you very much for taking the time to write it and give us the same story from your perspective. Much appreciated!!! Cheers, Chanchao

Response:

> 8/3/03 Flight 1140 DTW to BWI. Departs at 3:40 p.m. > Details: We taxied out to the runway on time. We sat there for a few > minutes when the captain came on the loudspeaker and told us there was > bad weather at BWI, it wasn’t accepting any more planes into its > holding pattern, and we wouldn’t hear back until 5 p.m. The captain > then turned off the engine and the heat in the cabin became > sweltering.

When sitting on a hot apron/taxiway with poor air circulation, it is very possible for carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide levels to rise to unhealthy levels in the plane.  It can take as little as half an hour for conditions to get so bad they cause headaches etc. For a time, travel authorities (at least in the UK) were monitoring air quality in cases where airplanes were boarded and then sat without engines running.  I hope they’re still monitoring this; I had an experience with a Dash-8 and a long delay once that left me with a splitting headache and slightly dizzy. Anyway, my one experience with Northwest was enough to convince me to always take any other option available.  I haven’t flown with them again, and whatever few bucks I’ve spent extra I feel I’ve spent well. — Ken Tough

Response:

> That was an awesome reply..  Thank you very much for taking the time to write > it and give us the same story from your perspective. Much appreciated!!!

Agreed. It was a voice of reason. Karen

Response:

Zach,     I read your complaint about your service on Northwest.  I applaud your effort in sending your complaint in and expecting to get it resolved. Unfortunately, in the airline industry, complaints are high and service seems low at the moment.  There are a lot of reasons for this and I will try to explain why.  I am a flight attendant (not for Northwest) and just like you, we have all seen a major change in the operation of daily flights throughout the country and the world.  I am just going to try and hit the high points here. And by the way, I am sorry that you had a bad experience even though it was on one of my competitors. Your letter did explain the details but too many details aren’t going to get your point across better.  Nothwest knows what their responsibilites are. "Sevice Commitment #’s" are not important.  They know if they screwed up or not. As far as your girlfriend not being able to go to the bathroom, she should have told the flight attendant that she had no choice.  If you have to go you have to go.  Even if it was some crotchety old bag f/a, they know when it is critical.  They are there to advise you to sit down, if you ABSOLUTELY have to use the restroom, you are technically on your own if something bad like an evacuation ( ALWAYS possible) happens while you are in there. As far as the stench, I have never flown into Lexington so I don’t know about the horse farms.  Were you seated by the lavatories?  Who knows about that one… As far as weather delays go, the Captain and the flight crew have absolutely NO control over what Air Traffic Control decides is best for your flight. MOST times, when there is a weather delay, it is not where you are or where you are going, it is in between, so take that into consideration. I have had on NUMEROUS occassions, Captains DEMAND to go back to a gate and let the passengers off.  If the tower doesn’t agree then the Captain has no choice but to sit on the tarmac and wait for clearance to go back to a gate or to take off.  They cannot do whatever they want to.  They are held captive just like the passengers are.  Most passengers don’t understand that we cannot just do whatever we want to. Unfortunately, food and beverages are considered a courtesy to go with your airline ticket.  It is not a guarantee.  When a Captain tells us that we are going to be held on the tarmac, for ANY amount of time, we are not allowed to take the beverage carts out (as per the FAA) on the ground because a beverage cart in the aisle would impede an evacuation should one become necessary.  Not to scare anyone but evacuations happen a lot more frequently than the public realizes and obviously they happen while on the tarmac only. If the f/as decide to try to attempt a beverage service on the ground it must be "hand run."  If the Captain tells us that we could be cleared "at any minute" to take off then it is in everyone’s best interest that we don’t do it because if it takes us more than a couple of minutes to put everything away and to pick up the trash (required by theFAA) then we could lose our take off slot and have to sit there even longer. Weather and ATC delays release ALL airlines of liabilty as far as delays and layovers go.  It has ALWAYS been that way.  Although, years ago when ticket prices were several hundred to several thousands of dollars for the ticket that you just got, airlines were much more willing to accomodate travellers for obvious reasons. Although it may sound strange for me (a flight attendant) to say, if I have to be somewhere for 2 or 3 days and it was a drive of 5 hours or less, I would drive it as apposed to flying it. I realize that ticket prices are absolutely rock-bottom, but at least I could leave when I wanted to, get back when I wanted to,have my car with me and have my belongings with me at all times.  It saves a lot of hassle, weather delays, mechanical delays, etc. I even travel (in coach class) standby for free and I would rather drive it if it was a short enough distance.  I am not saying that airlines are ALWAYS unreliable, there are just A LOT of things that can happen unexpectedly. Also, the weather has been unusually bad this summer throughout the entire country. It’s been really freaky for summer weather! Unfortunately, the ticket prices are SO low now that all most of us are is a "butt in a seat" so if you are expecting some kind of compensation from Northwest, I wouldn’t hold my breath.  The "level of service" is definately different at all of the major carriers but the sad but true part is that while the ticket prices are so low (for most travellers) is that the service that you would have received 10 years ago is gone.  It has boiled down to getting you from point A to point B in one piece.  Period.  We have Southwest and Jetblue to thank for that.  When people (and it’s usually people that fly once every 10 or 20 years)  pay those fares on those low-cost airlines, they have NO expectations whatsoever, it trickles down to the major airlines because we HAVE to be able to compete with them fare-wise or we’d go bankrupt which we are all VERY close to. I will tell you this, with all of us getting our wage cuts and benefit cuts (mine was 35%) we are still trying to make your flying experience as pleasant as possible.  We don’t have a lot to work with and we don’t have any control over what goes on sitting on the tarmac.  We as airlines are not trying to make your flying experience horrible.  We obviously want you to come back.  Just remember that  some days are truly horrible for flying for many reasons, some our fault and some not.  We don’t intend for your trip to be unpleasant. I think that you did the right thing contacting Nothwest with your complaint.  Whether you get a response remains to be seen.  Just remember that our industry (along with many other industries) has been "McDonaldized". I can’t think of another word for it.  It’s a "fast-food world" in the United States and it finally hit the airline industry.  You truly do get what you pay for and unfortunately the same holds true for airlines as well.  If you are willing to pay 5 times what you payed for your airfare you probably would have been taken care of already.  It’s a strange trade-off.  I don’t think it was worth it but at the same time I don’t want to spend $750.00 for a ticket that I can get now for $250.00. I think I would have driven instead, but who’s to really say. Only you know your circumstances. We (as airline proffesionals) are trying to "hang in there" and trying to adjust to this "new world" of air travel.  Don’t think that we actually enjoy telling you that we don’t know why the airplane smells like shit, or that we don’t know when we are taking off, or that no, we can’t get you a hotel room, or that we don’t know why the plane broke down, or no you can’t go to the bathroom right now…etc….  That just makes our jobs more difficult.  We want to give you everything you need and tell you everything you want to know, but it no longer is possible. I WILL MAKE THIS POINT AGAIN. WE DO NOT ENJOY TELLING YOU NO, OR WE ARE OUT OF THAT, OR THERE ARE NO MORE PILLOWS OR BLANKETS, NO WE HAVE NO FOOD, WE DON’T CARRY MAGAZINES ANYMORE, WE DON’T KNOW WHEN WE ARE TAKING OFF, ETC… I hope you get some satisfaction from Northwest.  Travelling is not supposed to be that difficult. Just remember the next time you need to go somewhere close-by, driving is always an option. Take it easy man! Good luck! p.s.  I know that I sound like an asshole by saying that driving is an option but I truly don’t mean it that way.  I’m just saying that a 4 or 5 hour drive (to me) would be preferable than taking a chance on someone else. You know what I mean? p.p.s. I don’t mean to offend anyone that works for Southwest or JetBlue, etc…  It was only a matter of time before your pricing structures and "no frills" service (although I’ve heard that JetBlue is an awesome airline to fly) trickled up to our "full service" concept.  I guess that is now the "American" way.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Just in case anyone is thinking of flying Northwest, don’t. What > follows is a complaint I sent it after it took them 2.5 days to get me > from DC to Kentucky and back. > Dear Northwest Representative: > While in one of numerous delays this weekend, I had ample time to > peruse Northwest