Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>   Why are first class seats so much more expensive that the rest of the >>plane? >>   If they take up 50% more space, then I can see a 50% price increase. >>But really. >>   A quick check shows about $730 from my home town in the US to Dublin >>Ireland for basic fare but the lowest first class I could find was about >>$2730 almost 4 times the price and that is better than I usually have >>found. > Twice as wide, twice the pitch would mean 4 times the floor space per seat. > Plus extra service, baggage allowance, luxury longe, etc. > Plus some people just do not care much about the fare as long as they are > comfortable. > True enough.  But what gets me is the lack of anything inbetween coach > and business/first class – at least on Continental and many other airlines. > I would love a few extra inches of space in my seat, in a real bona-fide > "coach plus" class, and I’d be willing to pay a little more ($100 or > $150) for a round trip ticket for that.  But I can’t justify the excess > in price of a business or first class ticket.  So I relegate myself to > plain old coach and seldom enjoy flying.

Evergreen used to offer something like that. Don’t know if they’re even around any more.

Response:

>I had the privilege of visiting Continental Airlines with a group from >another newsgroup several weeks ago.

Was that visit with the flyertalk group?

Response:

>they run it to >Jakarta twice a day to check for minor faults (seats, in seat entertainment >systems, etc) so they can fix them before the long flight.

That’s not the primary reason for the relatively short runs. Aircraft aged based on cycles (one takeoff, landing, pressurization), and hours. Aircraft used exclusively for long haul flights typically run up their hours, but not very many cycles. Shorter runs help balance the hours and cycles thus extending the time before an expensive maintenace period, as well as provide opportunities for the pilots of those aircraft to maintain their landing proficiency.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->they run it to >Jakarta twice a day to check for minor faults (seats, in seat >entertainment >systems, etc) so they can fix them before the long flight. > That’s not the primary reason for the relatively short runs. Aircraft aged > based > on cycles (one takeoff, landing, pressurization), and hours. Aircraft used > exclusively for long haul flights typically run up their hours, but not > very > many cycles. Shorter runs help balance the hours and cycles thus extending > the > time before an expensive maintenace period, as well as provide > opportunities for > the pilots of those aircraft to maintain their landing proficiency.

Well, that is what the senior steward told me. We had quite a long chat about the plane as I was so impressed by it and he obviously liked workng on it. He called the Jakarta flight a warm-up run and said they felt is was very important to sort out minor faults before the long haul – I wish more airlines would do that. If you reason is correct why don’t SQ ever seem to run 747s on short-haul (though they sometimes have done in the past on the very busy Jakarta route)? The landing and take-off practice reason makes sense to me, though I thought all the airbuses were so similar to fly that it may not be an issue with them. Anyway I have no idea personally, you can argue your point with the steward if you meet him

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>   Why are first class seats so much more expensive that the rest of the >> plane? >>   If they take up 50% more space, then I can see a 50% price increase. >> But really. >>   A quick check shows about $730 from my home town in the US to Dublin >> Ireland for basic fare but the lowest first class I could find was about >> $2730 almost 4 times the price and that is better than I usually have >> found. > Twice as wide, twice the pitch would mean 4 times the floor space per > seat. Plus extra service, baggage allowance, luxury longe, etc. > Plus some people just do not care much about the fare as long as they are > comfortable. > True enough.  But what gets me is the lack of anything inbetween coach and > business/first class – at least on Continental and many other airlines. > I would love a few extra inches of space in my seat, in a real bona-fide > "coach plus" class, and I’d be willing to pay a little more ($100 or $150) > for a round trip ticket for that.  But I can’t justify the excess in price > of a business or first class ticket.  So I relegate myself to plain old > coach and seldom enjoy flying.

Agree. I found just that last week on a Singapore Jakarta flight – the Singapore Airlines Airbus A340-500 (I think that is the number) which is the new long range plane that goes non-stop Singapore-USA (LA?); they run it to Jakarta twice a day to check for minor faults (seats, in seat entertainment systems, etc) so they can fix them before the long flight. The economy seats (I think they are sold as premium economy on the long haul) have maybe 15cm more leg room and a few cm more width – not a huge amount but a great difference in comfort for long haul. I have no idea what the extra cost is. Sadly they do not seem interested in putting them on my usual Singapore-London route.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I had the privilege of visiting Continental Airlines with a group from > another newsgroup several weeks ago.  We met with some of the senior people > at Continental, including the President, who said that DOMESTIC First Class > service costs them fully twice as much to offer as economy class, due to the > additional space, better food, etc.  And intercontinental business and/or > first class probably costs easily twice that to provide, because of the > additional room, luxurious food, lounge access, etc. because of things like > lie-flat beds, 55" pitch, etc.

That’s exactly right, based on the square-footage per passenger seat, in Coach, vs First, vs Business First on CO airlines. > I think that the intercontinental Business Class and First Class product is > totally different from economy, and is probably priced reasonably close to > its cost to the airlines.  And some people are going to be willing to pay > the additional for a superior intercontinental product.

I don’t think the International Business Class seats are priced close to its cost — else CO would be LOSING money to those passengers who use FFMs to upgrade OR get free Business First tickets with miles, which have the nominal cash-equivalent of $20 per 1000 FFM. > I don’t know about > other large countries where the airlines offer a Business Class or First > Class service domestically (Australia and Canada come to mind), but in the > U.S., Continental says only 1% of its passengers actually PAY for domestic > first class service.

That surprised even me.  I had thought that PERSONAL purchases of domestic First may be quite low, but those Firsts paid by clients or Business Corporations would be considerably higher than 1%. > The rest are upgrades.

I resemble that remark. For FIVE years, everyone of my CO domestic First flights were FREE (complimentary) upgrades from my coach tickets because of my Platinum Status, in that new FF structure since 1999. It wasn’t until last year when CO changed its upgrade rules that I missed my first complimentary upgrade, on the popular connection of LAX to EWR. CO is changing its pecking-order upgrade rule AGAIN, effective now I presume, as announced in the April issue of the InSight newsletter – for OnePass Elite members. To save its own neck (up to ears in debt and quarterly losses, as all major domestic airlines are experiencing), CO has been screwing its passengers in UPGRADE requirements as well as screwing some of its new-found partners.   For a roundtrip coach ticket from ATL/HKG, the old upgrade to Business First was 50K FFM, the nominal equivalent of $1,000 over the cheapest coach fare. When I did the same trip last November, it was $600 additional fare over my cheapie coach fare, PLUS the upgrade FFMs. Here was an concrete example of how CO screw BOTH its customer AND its partner, on an actual flight THIS MONTH. For an ATL to San Juan PR flight via EWR, on the "cruiseship dates" I needed, was 70K FFM for a free COACH, double the normal 35K, and higher than the normal First Class FFM-tickets.   And I had to stay overnight in San Juan on my return because the tickets on the flights suitable for cruise passengers were all sold out! I had ALMOST decided to pay that $1,400-equivalent coach plus a one-night stay in San Juan for about $200, since my unused CO FFMs had already exceed 7 figures, a helpful Platinum Elite agent found me a DIRECT flight from ATL, on Delta (CO’s screwed partner <G>) in FIRST CLASS, for less than my CO Coach ticket!  It cost me only 60K CO’s FFM to get the Delta First Class roundtrip ticket. There are other similar instances where I noticed CO agents were quite eager to put me on a PARTNER’s First Class flights (even for the same FFMs) when I was using my miles for free flights. It made sense.  CO is not getting any revenue from my use of the CO Frequent Flyer Miles.  So, it "pays" CO to put such passengers on it’s Partner-airlines’ seats to save the CO seats for "revenue passengers"!  I often wondered why CO, a much healthier airline bankrupcy-wise, took on Delta as partner when Delta was on the brink of bankrupcy — and still is.  NOW I see why — to unload CO’s liability in FFMs.   I still have over a million unsed CO FFMs, but I am not worried about not using them before CO files Chapter 11, if it goes that route in the near future, because the way CO is raising its FFM requirements for its own flights, I would have no trouble using a million FFMs for just a few international Business First flights. — Bob.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->   Why are first class seats so much more expensive that the rest of the >plane? >   If they take up 50% more space, then I can see a 50% price increase. >But really. >   A quick check shows about $730 from my home town in the US to Dublin >Ireland for basic fare but the lowest first class I could find was about >$2730 almost 4 times the price and that is better than I usually have >found. > Twice as wide, twice the pitch would mean 4 times the floor space per seat. > Plus extra service, baggage allowance, luxury longe, etc. > Plus some people just do not care much about the fare as long as they are > comfortable.

True enough.  But what gets me is the lack of anything inbetween coach and business/first class – at least on Continental and many other airlines. I would love a few extra inches of space in my seat, in a real bona-fide "coach plus" class, and I’d be willing to pay a little more ($100 or $150) for a round trip ticket for that.  But I can’t justify the excess in price of a business or first class ticket.  So I relegate myself to plain old coach and seldom enjoy flying.

Response:

Instead of thinking on why First class seats are VERY VERY VERY expensive (relatively), you maybe might want to think first on why the Economy class seats are so VERY VERY VERY cheap (relatively). Lets assume that the average person couldn’t afford the price of air travel and you couldn’t lowered the price down to the level that they could afford. What if that’s the truth? That the average person even today actually couldn’t afford air travel? How do you do transport all of these people who are only willing to pay so little for air travel? One way is that you made the First class passengers pay a large share of the cost for transportating the economy class passengers, they basically subsidize the Economy class passengers. This let people with less money to ride airplanes and gives the impression that air travel is affordable to the general public with medium budget. Of course, this make no sense, since on why the airline companies would want carry a lot of more people than needed, when they instead can just only cattered to people who will bring the maximum amount of profit to them? Unless of course, they are ordered to do so, being ordered to let a large part of the population be able to ride airplanes. Of course, budget airliner companies seems to take this order to the extreme. While we always being told that these companies managed to bring down the airfares down beyond the current level (which is already pretty much very cheap) is because on how they managed to ‘cut cost’. But what if that is not the case? And instead they are subsidised from a external party, with the intention to let a much larger part of the population being able to ride airplanes, and of course also to pressure the bigger airline companies, even down to the point of bankruptcy (which of course later these bigger companies and/or their assets will change ‘hands’). And of course, there’s the train companies. And also even personal transportation. As for the luxurious services and the luxurious facilities that First Class passengers get. Well… While the higher price of First class seat always said because due the higher price of the luxurious services and the luxurious facilities. When you think about it, the cost of transporting a First class passenger and an Economy class passenger might not be so different at all, even if one factored in the cost of the services and the facilities. The luxurious services and the luxurious facilities might be an attempt to disguise the higher price of a First class seat, more of a bonus for paying more rather the things that contribute to the drastic difference in price. As for the differences in classes. Well…. It probably done to let more people be able to travel with airplanes like I mentioned above. Another reason is that it might be also done with the intention to cause rifts between people, what happen if you put two different kind of people with two different kind of lifestyle together? Though of course, to let more people travel might caused some pretty major rifts by itself. The effects are congestion, doing an air travel when you shouldn’t do, and so on. It might be better to let those who usually travel in First class to be in their own airplanes, those who usually travel in Business class to be in their own airplanes, those who usually travel in Economy class to be in their own airplanes, and so on since they each have their own needs and capabilities. But if it’s done, then it’s possible that people wouldn’t be fighting each other so much, and there’s a group who wouldn’t want that to happen.

Response:

> Then you need to consider that "more space" is only a tiny part of the > difference. I fly Singapore Air regularly and get upgraded to First > Class probably 1/3 of the time. You don’t just get more space. They > come to you and hand you Givenchy pajamas to change into. While you’re > changing they lay out your seat into a full, flat, level bed.

They make you change yourself? You need to bank a few more miles, my friend. miguel — Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu Latest photos: Jordan, Turkey, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Israel

Response:

>>>>> Why are first class seats so much more expensive that the rest of the >>>> plane?

Because it is profitable for the airline(s).   If nobody ever bought those seats, they would have all coach.  Airlines are not dumb–if these seats did not bring a cash win for them, they would get rid of them, or adjust the size of the first class compartments for greatest profit. You or I may not fly upfront in First or Business, but some people can afford it, and do (like the Catholic archbishop I just read about on another discussion site)–the airlines can then use the unsold space upfront to provide perks to attract frequent fliers who will keep general revenue for the airline high.

Response:

>  it’s set like that because that’s what > people are prepared to pay to get out of cattle class!

It might be to ensure that the cattle don’t get into first class, too. And after another long flight, I can see the thinking in that. Some of them behave disgustingly. I wonder if they let crying babies into first class? ant

Response:

—snip— > I wonder if they let crying babies into first class? >ant

They will let anyone into F who is willing to pay for it.  Note that the payment can be currency, miles, upgrade certs, or loyalty.  I frequently fly with my son so he can visit the grandparents while my wife and I take a vacation alone.  His first flight was in F when he was 8 months old.  At 3.5 years old, he has spent more time in F than in Y.  Before the "I hate kids on planes" troop chimes in, Let me add that he is a very good flyer.  He has only disturbed other passengers twice in over a dozen flights.  Once was during takeoff when he announced "wheeeeeeeeee" as we started rolling down the runway.  The other was a 30 second crying episode after waking up while we were deplaning.  One time, while deplainng, I had a snooty guy say to me that F passengers get to deplane first.  To which I replied, OK then we are deplaning at the right time.  He couldn’t believe that a 2-yr old was quiet in F for 2.5 hours in a plane.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > —snip— > I wonder if they let crying babies into first class? > ant > They will let anyone into F who is willing to pay for it.  Note that > the payment can be currency, miles, upgrade certs, or loyalty.  I > frequently fly with my son so he can visit the grandparents while my > wife and I take a vacation alone.  His first flight was in F when he > was 8 months old.  At 3.5 years old, he has spent more time in F than > in Y.  Before the "I hate kids on planes" troop chimes in, Let me add > that he is a very good flyer.  He has only disturbed other passengers > twice in over a dozen flights.  Once was during takeoff when he > announced "wheeeeeeeeee" as we started rolling down the runway.  The > other was a 30 second crying episode after waking up while we were > deplaning.  One time, while deplainng, I had a snooty guy say to me > that F passengers get to deplane first.  To which I replied, OK then > we are deplaning at the right time.  He couldn’t believe that a 2-yr > old was quiet in F for 2.5 hours in a plane.

My idea of a long flight is 10 hours plus. The last one was 14 hours, and there was 2 chainsaws going off for long periods through out the flight. Their considerate parents would often pick them up and take them for a walk around the cabin when they erupted, ensuring that even passengers seated a long way from them got their fair dose of screeching. ant

Response:

>    Why are first class seats so much more expensive that the rest of the > plane? >    If they take up 50% more space, then I can see a 50% price increase. > But really. >    A quick check shows about $730 from my home town in the US to Dublin > Ireland for basic fare but the lowest first class I could find was about > $2730 almost 4 times the price and that is better than I usually have > found.

Twice as wide, twice the pitch would mean 4 times the floor space per seat. Plus extra service, baggage allowance, luxury longe, etc. Plus some people just do not care much about the fare as long as they are comfortable.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->    Why are first class seats so much more expensive that the rest of the > plane? >    If they take up 50% more space, then I can see a 50% price increase. > But really. >    A quick check shows about $730 from my home town in the US to Dublin > Ireland for basic fare but the lowest first class I could find was about > $2730 almost 4 times the price and that is better than I usually have > found. > Twice as wide, twice the pitch would mean 4 times the floor space per > seat. Plus extra service, baggage allowance, luxury longe, etc. > Plus some people just do not care much about the fare as long as they are > comfortable.

I had the privilege of visiting Continental Airlines with a group from another newsgroup several weeks ago.  We met with some of the senior people at Continental, including the President, who said that DOMESTIC First Class service costs them fully twice as much to offer as economy class, due to the additional space, better food, etc.  And intercontinental business and/or first class probably costs easily twice that to provide, because of the additional room, luxurious food, lounge access, etc. because of things like lie-flat beds, 55" pitch, etc. I think that the intercontinental Business Class and First Class product is totally different from economy, and is probably priced reasonably close to its cost to the airlines.  And some people are going to be willing to pay the additional for a superior intercontinental product.  I don’t know about other large countries where the airlines offer a Business Class or First Class service domestically (Australia and Canada come to mind), but in the U.S., Continental says only 1% of its passengers actually PAY for domestic first class service.  The rest are upgrades. Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

>    Why are first class seats so much more expensive that the rest of the >plane? >    If they take up 50% more space, then I can see a 50% price increase. >But really. >    A quick check shows about $730 from my home town in the US to Dublin >Ireland for basic fare but the lowest first class I could find was about >$2730 almost 4 times the price and that is better than I usually have found.

Typical coach has a 31 to 33 inch seat pitch, and first is 60 to 94 inches.  On a typical 777, coach is 9 across, and First is 4 across (6 or 7 for Business Class).  So if you Have a First Class seat with 94" pitch and 4 across, your seat is actually taking up 6 times more space than the coach seat.  If you ahve a F (or Business) seat with a 60" pitch and 7 across, you are taking up slightly less than 3 times the space.  So 3×730=2190.  Plus you get lounge access, better meal, and complimentary alcoholic beverages.  Therefore, on a pure space analysis, 2730 doesn’t seem that out of line.  However, airlines do not price premium cabin seats based on how much more space they take up over coach seats.  They price them for what they think the market will pay.  Sometimes this is good for the consumer, and sometimes it is bad.  For example, an F seat on Air france JFK-CDG this summer will cost around $10k (bad for consumer).  However, a pretty good Business seat on a Continental EWR-CDG can be found for $1650 (good for consumer).  Coach on either is in the $800-$1000 range.

Response:

>    Why are first class seats so much more expensive that the rest of the > plane? >    If they take up 50% more space, then I can see a 50% price increase. > But really. >    A quick check shows about $730 from my home town in the US to Dublin > Ireland for basic fare but the lowest first class I could find was about > $2730 almost 4 times the price and that is better than I usually have > found.

It’s not just the space for the seats, most of the price is for the *service*, i.e. more personal attention from the FA’s. It is that which costs the extra cash. But also in airlines the price has little connection to the actual cost of running the aircraft, it’s set like that because that’s what people are prepared to pay to get out of cattle class!

Response:

    Why are first class seats so much more expensive that the rest of the plane?     If they take up 50% more space, then I can see a 50% price increase. But really.     A quick check shows about $730 from my home town in the US to Dublin Ireland for basic fare but the lowest first class I could find was about $2730 almost 4 times the price and that is better than I usually have found. — Joseph Meehan Dia’s Muire duit

Response:

> Why are first class seats so much more expensive that the rest of the > plane? >     If they take up 50% more space, then I can see a 50% price increase. > But really. >     A quick check shows about $730 from my home town in the US to Dublin > Ireland for basic fare but the lowest first class I could find was about > $2730 almost 4 times the price and that is better than I usually have

found. Airlines charge much more for First Class in part because they can. They have to price compete to sell Coach seats but not First Class. Next point is that hardly anyone ever pays for First Class. It’s usually an upgrade, particularly on domestic US or intra-Europe flights. Then you need to consider that "more space" is only a tiny part of the difference. I fly Singapore Air regularly and get upgraded to First Class probably 1/3 of the time. You don’t just get more space. They come to you and hand you Givenchy pajamas to change into. While you’re changing they lay out your seat into a full, flat, level bed. They add a mattress pad, comforter, full size pillow, etc. Better food, bigger TV, first off the plane, assitance in airports if needed, separate Lots of differences.

Response:

Question:

I really do. The average cost of domestic air travel in the US has decreased by 60% in the last 21 years (in constant dollars). You can Google this if you like. Here’s a start: http://www.olin.wustl.edu/faculty/gowrisankaran/pdf_papers/airline_co… For anecdotal evidence, I have this: My first ever NY-LA flight in 1984 was $660. I remember this because, as a 20-year-old punk, I had to scrimp and save and suffer to pay for this flight. I just Yahoo’ed the same flight, scheduled for mid-June 2005. The quote is $310. Looks like the statistical analysis quoted above was pretty damn accurate. $310 for RT airfare across the continent is a joke. Carriers are dropping like flies, their employees are treated shabbily and service on domestic flights is akin to that offered on Greyhound. I would gladly pay $660 RT for NY-LA (or in my case, SEA to EWR) if it meant a full meal, better seats, courteous staff and airline patrons who didn’t behave like baboons. What I won’t do, however, is pay $1058 for first class on the same flight, when what I’ve seen from "First Class" is an incremental boost in comfort and solace. If I have to abide screaming brats and obese stinko’s, I’m not going to pay extra. Demand for air travel has skyrocketed, but the childish antics of major carriers in the fare wars has eroded the cost (and value) of domestic flights to a preposterous extreme. It’s my opinion that if carriers boosted the cost of domestic flights by 40-50% across the boards, we’d go a long way in restoring sanity to air travel. Worthless "parents" with screaming brats would think twice if they had to pay an additional $1200 to haul Snotleigh and Brattyn across country to visit grandma. The sudden influx of dollars would restore air staff’s confidence in their careers and afford all of us a more civil experience when flying. Granted, business travelers (I am one) would feel the pinch and be forced to make cautious decisions about employee travel expenses. But this may be a good thing. It may accelerate network technology and aid in limiting the number of nights that employees spend away from home and their families. Critical trips would go on, but frivolous ones would stop. So, what brought on this rant? My dislike of air travel. In the 1980’s, I found air travel to be civil. I was even able to quietly read a book. Nowadays, planes are fucking zoos and if you are unlucky to be stuck in economy class, you may as well bring ear plugs and Marilyn Manson CD’s to drown out the bedlam that occurs on most domestic flights. I’m flying to Baltimore next week. I’m absolutely dreading it. I need to go on this trip, and my company benefits from cheap (practically nothing) airfare. But I think we’d have survived if my airfare was $660 and my hotel, rather than $250/night, was $150/night. I’d gladly trade a mahogany entertainment center for 6 hours of tranquil travel. – TR – worth noting: after 6-7 business trips each year, I’ve lost all interest in domestic holiday flights. Unless the trip is overseas, I’ll just drive or stay home.

Response:

>  If I have to abide > screaming brats and obese stinko’s, I’m not going to pay extra. (snip) > Worthless "parents" with screaming brats would think twice > if they had to pay an additional $1200 to haul Snotleigh and Brattyn > across country to visit grandma. (snip) > Nowadays, planes are fucking zoos and if you are unlucky > to be stuck in economy class, you may as well bring ear plugs and > Marilyn Manson CD’s to drown out the bedlam that occurs on most > domestic flights.

(snip) I’ve noticed this in the US too. Stuff that used to be found on Greyhound, now is on aeroplanes. Absolutely appalling. ant

Response:

> It’s my opinion that if carriers boosted the cost of domestic flights > by 40-50% across the boards, we’d go a long way in restoring sanity to > air travel.

Dream on.  Any airline that tries that would be undercut by a discount carrier, and have no passengers.  Why else do you think the "full service" airlines are in trouble? You might be willing to pay more, but you would be very lonely on the near-empty flight.

Response:

> What I won’t do, however, is pay $1058 for > first class on the same flight, when what I’ve seen from "First Class" > is an incremental boost in comfort and solace. If I have to abide > screaming brats and obese stinko’s, I’m not going to pay extra.

aw, just go charter your own bleeping jet!

Response:

>You might be willing to pay more, but you would be very lonely on the >near-empty flight.

And in fact, those aircraft (with higher fares and a better travel environment) already exist. They’re called charters and fractional ownership.

Response:

Question:

>> I know in my parent’s day, when they wanted to go to Europe they would > drive to JFK and get on a 747.  In my day, I go to BOS and get on a 767 > and/or A3xx. >The A3XX isn’t flying yet >You need to consider not Boston, but rather new York and Los Angeles, and >possibly Chicago. Forgetting the fact that they are hubs (NYC to a lesser >extent), their own population and economic activity generate sufficient >traffic to fill A380 beasts, while smaller twons such as Boston will get >puddle jumpers.

He really needs to stop thinking about the US. Airbus’ latest projections for the next 20 years show growth in aviation at its highest in Europe (32%), closely followed by Asia (31%), with North America lagging at (26%). His example would be better applied to the Singaporeans who used to get on the SQ 707 to LHR. In later years they would get on the SQ 744 to LHR. Still later they would get on one of the 3 SQ 744s to LHR. Now they sometimes have trouble finding seats on one of the 3 SQ 744s to LHR. –==++AJC++==–

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Dream on. > > More like, you’ll have to show up three hours in advance to get on. Would > > be a step back in terms of comfort.  Dreadful. > Tests show that you can get a full load of pax into a A380 faster than into > a 747. Number of pax is no problem for the big airports that is able to >What tests?  The thing hasn’t been assembled for that yet.  Computer >simulated ones (which AI wants to use to simulate evacuation) doesn’t >count. > handle thousands and thousands of pax. You’ll need to be in the airport no > earlier than for the 767 (which together with the MD11 and DC10 is a > nightmare IMHO). >That’s a laugh.  Try that at many of the world’s airports right now.

Erm, no it’s not a laugh. You can land at SIN in a 744, park in a whole row of 744s that have recenlty landed, and still have to wait approximately 90 secs at immigration, and see your bag pop out on to the belt as you get to it. North Americans seem to forget that there are airports out there where herds of 744s come and go all the time, and that they and their passengers are processed quickly, and efficiently. The arrival of the 380 will see a small increase in capacity which those airports will take as a challenge to absorb without delays in processing. –==++AJC++==–

Response:

> > Dream on. > More like, you’ll have to show up three hours in advance to get on. Would > be a step back in terms of comfort.  Dreadful. > Tests show that you can get a full load of pax into a A380 faster than into > a 747. Number of pax is no problem for the big airports that is able to

What tests?  The thing hasn’t been assembled for that yet.  Computer simulated ones (which AI wants to use to simulate evacuation) doesn’t count. > handle thousands and thousands of pax. You’ll need to be in the airport no > earlier than for the 767 (which together with the MD11 and DC10 is a > nightmare IMHO).

That’s a laugh.  Try that at many of the world’s airports right now.

Response:

> Dream on. > More like, you’ll have to show up three hours in advance to get on. Would > be a step back in terms of comfort.  Dreadful.

Tests show that you can get a full load of pax into a A380 faster than into a 747. Number of pax is no problem for the big airports that is able to handle thousands and thousands of pax. You’ll need to be in the airport no earlier than for the 767 (which together with the MD11 and DC10 is a nightmare IMHO). Nik

Response:

> Point you miss is that if people fly out of Boston or DC or Philadelphia, > then they don’t fly out of New York.   And same about LA.   And flights > out of Shanghai do cut into volume at HKG.  Etc.

 You seem to suggest a more or less static world. HKG and Shanghai both have HUGE increases of pax each year! > Which is the way things are going, dinosaurs such as CDG or LHR > nonetheless.   And BTW, a similar scenario is likely there too.  And if > the French or Brit governments resist, you’ll see folks connecting to Nice > or Toulouse or Bordeaux through FRA or LHR.  To Glasgow through AMS.  Etc.

Do you have any stats. to show that the congestion in LHR is easing? Are slots now gone down in price (on the black market)? > Not really, except for a couple of dinosaurs.  These are typically very > unpleasant places to live.

You must be Canadian! They are – and there are quite a few – rather densely populated areas arround the world. So there must be at least a few people who disagree with you. > Even the 747 was always too big for any Canadian airline.  And AC has > replaced their domestic 767s by 321s.  And it’s getting a bunch of Embraer > to operate on routes that used to get 319/320 service.  Ever wondered why? > Look at LH on FCO-FRA.  Used to be 320s or 737s.  Now CRJs.

Right Canada is a very atypical country indeed. Nik

Response:

> Well, if you read the link, there’s actual data supporting the trend > towards smaller planes over the Atlantic and the Pacific. > I know in my parent’s day, when they wanted to go to Europe they would > drive to JFK and get on a 747.  In my day, I go to BOS and get on a 767 > and/or A3xx.  And if I had a choice, I’d really rather go to an even > smaller airport such as PVD or MHT.  And I am by no means a premium > traveler.  I just prefer less crowded airports and smaller planes, to try > to minimize the cattle effect.

I understand the numbers in the article and they seems interesting. However, the intercontinental market has been dominated by the old guard of airlines from the time when flying was a luxury for the few rich to super rich. Their philosophy was to offer premium service to premium prices. These operators are now in the doldrums. Looking at the A380 order list and you will see that the airlines here includes some of the most successful intercontinental. Including Virgin which seems to want to use the plane trans Atlantic. What this boils down to is simply that I believe the jury is still very much out when it comes to the future pattern of air travel. Nik.

Response:

>> I know in my parent’s day, when they wanted to go to Europe they would > drive to JFK and get on a 747.  In my day, I go to BOS and get on a 767 > and/or A3xx. > The A3XX isn’t flying yet > You need to consider not Boston, but rather new York and Los Angeles, and > possibly Chicago. Forgetting the fact that they are hubs (NYC to a lesser > extent), their own population and economic activity generate sufficient > traffic to fill A380 beasts, while smaller twons such as Boston will get > puddle jumpers.

Point you miss is that if people fly out of Boston or DC or Philadelphia, then they don’t fly out of New York.   And same about LA.   And flights out of Shanghai do cut into volume at HKG.  Etc. Which is the way things are going, dinosaurs such as CDG or LHR nonetheless.   And BTW, a similar scenario is likely there too.  And if the French or Brit governments resist, you’ll see folks connecting to Nice or Toulouse or Bordeaux through FRA or LHR.  To Glasgow through AMS.  Etc. > Now, forget trans-atlantic for a minute, and think about the rest of the > world. Many countries have fairly focused centres of business with high > population density and relatively small geographical areas. That is > where the generator of passengers is. That is where head offices of > large corpoprations is etc.

Not really, except for a couple of dinosaurs.  These are typically very unpleasant places to live. > Canada is a good example of this. When the PQ came in in 1976 and scared > all the large corporations away (it even said "good riddance" in a few > cases), the head offices moved to Toronto. In the matter of a few years, > Toronto became canada’s most important city, relegating montreal to > "regional sales office" status. Our stock exchange closed a few years > ago.

And some have moved to Calgary, and some are moving from Toronto to Calgary.  Why? > As a result, demand for flights shifted from montreal to toronto and > airlines moved their hubs to Toronto from montreal because that is where > demand for business travel was. Business drives travel. Business drives > air links between cities. > And between large world business centres, this is where the demand for > A380 sized aircraft exist.

Even the 747 was always too big for any Canadian airline.  And AC has replaced their domestic 767s by 321s.  And it’s getting a bunch of Embraer to operate on routes that used to get 319/320 service.  Ever wondered why? Look at LH on FCO-FRA.  Used to be 320s or 737s.  Now CRJs.

Response:

> I know in my parent’s day, when they wanted to go to Europe they would > drive to JFK and get on a 747.  In my day, I go to BOS and get on a 767 > and/or A3xx.

The A3XX isn’t flying yet You need to consider not Boston, but rather new York and Los Angeles, and possibly Chicago. Forgetting the fact that they are hubs (NYC to a lesser extent), their own population and economic activity generate sufficient traffic to fill A380 beasts, while smaller twons such as Boston will get puddle jumpers. What the 7E7 and A350 do is simply displace the hub. Instead of going to JFK to catch a small plane to Nice (because JFK, as a hub, has sufficient demand to justify the flight to a small place), you catch a 330 to Paris and then either train or a 320 to Nice. If your final destination is Paris, then you’re in luck because you are getting non-stop service to your destination. But that is simply because pAris is a large city that generates sufficient demand for a flight from Boston. But that does not deter from the fact that New York-Paris generates far more demand than Boston-Paris. Now, forget trans-atlantic for a minute, and think about the rest of the world. Many countries have fairly focused centres of business with high population density and relatively small geographical areas. That is where the generator of passengers is. That is where head offices of large corpoprations is etc. Canada is a good example of this. When the PQ came in in 1976 and scared all the large corporations away (it even said "good riddance" in a few cases), the head offices moved to Toronto. In the matter of a few years, Toronto became canada’s most important city, relegating montreal to "regional sales office" status. Our stock exchange closed a few years ago. As a result, demand for flights shifted from montreal to toronto and airlines moved their hubs to Toronto from montreal because that is where demand for business travel was. Business drives travel. Business drives air links between cities. And between large world business centres, this is where the demand for A380 sized aircraft exist. For Boston-Nice, you may get seasonal service in the summer. But not year round. The charter operators in canada are good at this. There are few flights to Havana from Canada. Most go directly to resort areas such as Varadero, Holguin, Cayo Largo etc during winter months. In the summer, you can get non-stop flight from Montreal to Nice once a week. But those are all charters. But in the big picture, you need to look at year yound service. And that is driven not by low yield tourism, but by business. On earth, there is a relatively few number of beacons that attract travellers in large numbers. (Interestingly, Mecca is one , hence why arab airlines are keen on the 380). Paris, London, Hong Kong, New York are also large beacons that attract (and generate) large amounts of passengers. For short flight, the inefficiency of using smaller plane is compensated by the lower costs of not going through a hub. But for long haul flights, the inefficiency of a smaller plane ends up costing much more than funneling pax throug the hub and using a very efficient larger aircraft. And this is why the A380 will be fairly focused in trans-atlantic, but used more generously elsewhere because flights are longer.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>> The project itself is on track. A380 will be >> "delivered" this January 18 with >>> first test flight this march. >> I will be extremely surprised if the A380 does NOT >> fly at the Paris Air Show in June. >> A minimum of a flypast.  I’m sure they are aiming >> at full participation. > No matter the extra costs? > The first one of two of the thing is fully assembled by now (and the next > four or five well under way) and well into the process of being tested. The > first one is not expected to ever make into the air as the testing will more > or less dismantle it. They will have had about half a year to test fly the > thing before June. Why do you talk of extra costs?

*If.*

Response:

> What fraction of the money being spent on the A380 > is borrowed?  I understood that > at least some of it came from governments as > "investors" in the project, to be recouped > by dividends as aircraft are sold. As investors, > the governments stand to lose some of > their "investment" if sales are poor.  Not like > nasty old lenders who want their money > repaid with interest no matter what.

That’s orthogonal to the discussion at hand. This said, I thought they had received government loans?  Which under the agreements with the US that the US recently reneged on, had been OK.

Response:

>> bad health of most airlines must hurt as hell?  So I can’t see how they > could possibly get a 20% return value.  Except based on hugely unrealistic > projections. > Well, it was an "internal return".  So I *assume* that it is gross profit for > production of one plane, without any of the development costs included.

Do your homework.  What this means is that borrowing money at that rate, they come out even over the life of the project.  Which is total nonsense.  Quite unbelievable. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I terms of unrealistic projections, current sales goals of reaching 150 by > july 2005 is not too unrealistic. (they are at 139 firm and options right > now). Compared to Boeing which must sell 148  7E7 planes in the next 2 > weeks… > The total market in the next 10 years may have been too agressive/optimistic, > but reaching the 250 units that would make the project profitable is a > reasonable goal. > What Boeing hasn’t factored in is airline consolidation. Fewer airlines, > growing demand. Demand will be sufficient to justify the A380 plane type in > many airline’s fleets. > I know you have a very negative attitude towards the beast. However, if you > have a flight in one plane that has wider seats, more space to roam around, > individual armrests, compared to a plane that may have a fancy ceiling or > windows, but same conventional narrow seats and no room to walk anywhere, > which one will you prefer ?

Dream on. More like, you’ll have to show up three hours in advance to get on. Would be a step back in terms of comfort.  Dreadful.

Response:

> The first one of two of the thing is fully assembled by now (and the next > four or five well under way) and well into the process of being tested. The > first one is not expected to ever make into the air as the testing will more > or less dismantle it. They will have had about half a year to test fly the > thing before June.

Airbus said first flight would be in May. So flying the beast from Toulouse to Paris in June is cutting it close. And I have to wonder about the sanity of flying what would be an untested aircaft in a public show. I wouldn’t be surprised if this were a static display. Also, will that aircraft be outfitted with all the testing equipment ? Also, for the first flight, considering the size of the beast, would they have only pilot/co-pilot on board, or would they put in a few more observers spread out in the cabin in order to detect any really bad sounds/failures which wouldn’t be heard in the cockpit ?

Response:

> The 747 is perhaps the cheapest as far as seat-miles are concerned (I > don’t have the numbers here). However it is still a very old design > (2g). So its premium is not very big – or not so big that the > inconvenience of a bigger plane can compete with the much newer 777, > A330/40 and other 3g planes. Add to this that the 747 has an appealing > cargo capacity (only about the same as the 330) and you have a formula > for a looser in the marketplace.

I see the point. > Its all about how you believe the market will develop. The defrac. > theory believes fundamentally that the market will continue to be > dominated by premium flyers. Convenience first and price second (keep > a service from Nice to Little Rock). The alternative will say price > first and second and third (and then somewhere down about 10 you can > begin consider other issues such as convenience and meals). Boeing > seems to have been a great believer in the first (apparently they > haven’t had the habit of talking to any other than themselves). Airbus > seems more to go for the other alternative.

Well, if you read the link, there’s actual data supporting the trend towards smaller planes over the Atlantic and the Pacific. I know in my parent’s day, when they wanted to go to Europe they would drive to JFK and get on a 747.  In my day, I go to BOS and get on a 767 and/or A3xx.  And if I had a choice, I’d really rather go to an even smaller airport such as PVD or MHT.  And I am by no means a premium traveler.  I just prefer less crowded airports and smaller planes, to try to minimize the cattle effect. –lw–

Response:

> The article is over a year old, but does have lots of data supporting > the market fragmentation theory, and asks the interesting question: if > bigger airplanes are needed, why are so many 747-400s sitting idle?  I > know the A380 will have a much lower seat/mile cost, but the B747-400 > has the lowest seat/mile cost currently available, so if big airplanes > are needed, these should all be flying, no?  Or is it just too hard to > consistently find 400 people who want to go from one place to a second > place all at the same time?

The 747 is perhaps the cheapest as far as seat-miles are concerned (I don’t have the numbers here). However it is still a very old design (2g). So its premium is not very big – or not so big that the inconvenience of a bigger plane can compete with the much newer 777, A330/40 and other 3g planes. Add to this that the 747 has an appealing cargo capacity (only about the same as the 330) and you have a formula for a looser in the marketplace. > I also wonder what will be happening at the end of the decade.  The > optimistic point of view would say that demand will grow as more Asians > decide to partake of air travel, and lots of the current B747-400 > operators who haven’t already ordered A380 will do so, and A380 will > more than break even this decade.  The pessimistic point of view would > say that all the deeply discounted launch orders will be a big drag on > the bottom line, and the order book will stagnate as all the early > prestige orders are filled, and as the initial operators find it hard to > fill such a big plane, and as deep launch order discounts are no longer > made available. > –lw–

Its all about how you believe the market will develop. The defrac. theory believes fundamentally that the market will continue to be dominated by premium flyers. Convenience first and price second (keep a service from Nice to Little Rock). The alternative will say price first and second and third (and then somewhere down about 10 you can begin consider other issues such as convenience and meals). Boeing seems to have been a great believer in the first (apparently they haven’t had the habit of talking to any other than themselves). Airbus seems more to go for the other alternative. Nik

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> The project itself is on track. A380 will be > "delivered" this January 18 with >> first test flight this march. > I will be extremely surprised if the A380 does NOT > fly at the Paris Air Show in June. > A minimum of a flypast.  I’m sure they are aiming > at full participation. > No matter the extra costs?

The first one of two of the thing is fully assembled by now (and the next four or five well under way) and well into the process of being tested. The first one is not expected to ever make into the air as the testing will more or less dismantle it. They will have had about half a year to test fly the thing before June. Why do you talk of extra costs? Nik

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> According to the BBC: > Airbus A380 is $2bn over budget > The Airbus A380 superjumbo project is running 1.45bn euros (

Question:

>He responded by fighting a war with war. That’s what warriors do. Just >because you can’t see the effects of the war on his people because you >don’t live there doesn’t make it any less real. It became real to you on >September 11, but it was real long before then.

If the Muslims had left the Maronite Christians in Lebanon alone, if they had left Israel alone, if they gave equality to the Copts in Egypt, if they did not persecute the Bahai’s in Iran… they would not have had any "real" problems. Nobody has been pushing the Muslims around and picking on them out of pure spite. Any conflict in their part of the world is the consequence of their hatred and fanaticism. In any case, an event such as that of September 11, 2001, means that it is not America’s turn to engage in self-doubt or soul-searching. It is time for it to proceed boldly, in confidence of the rightness of its cause of self-defence. Instead, it is time for all parts of the Muslim world to abandon completely any monkey business – like the genocide in Sudan, or even the murderous riots in Nigeria on the occasion of the attempt at a Miss World pageant there. If they have any legitimate grievances, this is not really an opportune time to advance them. John Savard http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

Response:

>After reading the transcript of bin Ladin’s speech I was very moved. >I really felt his struggle.  It is obvious to me that this is no >madman as the Bush Regime have portrayed him.  This is a noble man, a >freedom fighter who wants the US and Israel to get the hell out of his >home

Bin Laden is a Saudi national. If the Saudi royal family, long-time friends of the Bush clan, want to allow US troops on their soil, let him hash out his grievances with them. As far as Israel is concerned, the last I checked, they had no presence in Saudi Arabia, military or otherwise. > and who can blame him?!?

I can. Whatever moral capital he may have ever possessed  was squandered forever at the moment when Mohammed Atta flew AA Flight 11 into the North Tower of the WTC (no doubt shouting "Allahu akbar!"). There is absolutely nothing "noble" about the wanton murder of non-combatants, regardless of the motive or the supposed righteousness of one’s cause, and strategically, it can be argued that the 9/11 attacks achieved the opposite of their goal, rendering them useless as well as evil.

Response:

> After reading the transcript of bin Ladin’s speech I was very moved. > I really felt his struggle.  It is obvious to me that this is no > madman as the Bush Regime have portrayed him.  This is a noble man, a > freedom fighter who wants the US and Israel to get the hell out of his > home and who can blame him?!?

Me — Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".

Response:

> You got that one on the knocker! > They do not > even want to consider the fact that American media are liars and puppets of > Bush and his jews!

Do you play with your puppet? "Puppet Man" sung by Tom Jones [Backup girls voices] Puppet man Puppet ma-an Puppet man Puppet ma-an [Enter Jones Vocals] Baby, Baby you know it’s true I’m a puppet just for you I’ll do any little thing you say I wouldn’t have it any other way Take my heart and take my soul I’m givin’ you complete control If you wanna see me do my thing, Baby pull my string Huh, yea [Backup Girls next section] Puppet man, puppet man-an [enter Jones] Baby, Baby, I’m your sweet pet I’m just your personal marionette Wind me up and let me go Don’t you know I’m a one man show? Raise your finger and I’ll perform I’ll crack a jack till’ the crack a dawn If you wanna see me do my thing, baby pull my string [alternates between Jones and backup girls] Pu-pa-pu-pa-pu-pa-pu-pa Pu-pa-pu-pa-pu-pa-pu-pa Ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-na-na-na Shna- na-na-na-na-na-na Ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-na-na-na Ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-na-na-na Shna- na-na-na-na-na-na Na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na [backup girls] Puppet man, puppet ma-an [Enter Jones] Baby, Baby I’m warning you, satisfaction guaranteed Anytime you feel uptight I’m at your service morning noon or night I do whatcha’ want me to Cause I’m a puppet just for you But if you wanna see me do my thing Baby pull my string [Alternates between backup girls and Jones] Pu-pa-pu-pa-pu-pa-pu-pa Pu-pa-pu-pa-pu-pa-pu-pa Shna- na-na-na-na-na-na Na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na Pu-pa-pu-pa-pu-pa-pu-pa Pu-pa-pu-pa-pu-pa-pu-pa Shna- na-na-na-na-na-na Na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na [Jones finishes] Puppet man Baby, I’m your puppet man Ya I might even… If you pull my string I’ll do anything Baby, baby I’m your puppet man Can’t do anything unless ya pull my string Love ya, Love ya, Love ya, Love ya! Down deep in your soul Do anything, I might even love you Wow-oh [FADE]

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The position of Bin Laden is easy to understand. > Indeed. Megalomania with a streak of old-fashioned greed. > If Assama’s cause is so righteous and due to Jooos and America, why is his > brand of Islam on the rampage throughout the world, in conflicts that have > nothing to do with the US or Israel? > Algeria. > India. > Indonesia. > Kosovo. > Nigeria. > Sudan. > Philippines. > And many other countries, all under the threat of fundy Muslim violence.

Algerian conflict is not inspired by Osama, and it was there when osama was born Indian oppression of muslims of Kashmir also predates osama by about a century Indonesian terrorism is local brand and  has nothing to do with Osama, it is a criminal act of a small group and should be dealt as such. Kosovo condlict is a teritorial by nature and predates WWI when this area was "given" to Serbs by British, BTW about 40% of Kosovars are Christians! Nigerian extremist elements who want to impose their own brand of Islam on Nigerians are not supported by any muslims anywhere, and Osama certainly will not support them. Sudan rulers are fascist dicators just like the israeli ones. They are not supporters of osama , and have offered to give him to US in 1993 when the offer was refused by US. Philippine fight against corruption by the island muslims has been going on for some 150 years. That country is so corrupt, that if I had to choose where to live in Philippines, I would only live in the muslim part!

Response:

>Algeria. >India. >Indonesia. >Kosovo. >Nigeria. >Sudan. >Philippines.

Add Morocco and Chechnya (although the latter is accelerated by the poor behavior of Russian troops, both "black widows" who bombed the airplanes last month were supposedly gang-rape victims and one was pregnant, helping to hide her explosives cache). >And many other countries, all under the threat of fundy Muslim violence.

And these radical Islamists have as much to do with the Islamic faith as the IRA to Roman Catholicism … gld

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> He Stirs Your Soul wrote… > After reading the transcript of bin Ladin’s speech I was very moved. > I really felt his struggle.  It is obvious to me that this is no > madman as the Bush Regime have portrayed him.  This is a noble man, a > freedom fighter who wants the US and Israel to get the hell out of his > home and who can blame him?!?  He spoke from his heart and from his > soul, and whenever a man does that, nobody can be against him, for he > speaks truth.  The words come from the very depths of his soul. > Bush and his puppet masters have been quick with their propaganda > brainwashing Americans that bin Ladin and the Moslems are evil, that > they hate freedom.  But this kind of charged rhetoric only works with > Americans because they are blind and brain dead just like their > president.  Americans are the evil ones, and George Bush and Dick > Cheney and Rumsfeld are the Devil. > Until Americans truly understand why they are being attacked the > attacks will continue.  But Americans will never understand because > they are idiots and their government knows that and keeps them in the > dark.  They know American minds are easy to manipulate. > With the coming attacks perhaps the Americans will begin to understand > a little bit better.  Maybe it will take 10 or 20 attacks more, but > that is okay.  Al Qaeda is not going anywhere, and neither is bin > Ladin. > The position of Bin Laden is easy to understand.  Most Americans don’t > understand and don’t care what their country is doing in the Muslim world > because their government keeps them in the dark intentionally.  So if > Muslims or Arabs want to get the attention of the American people they > have to resort to terrorism.  Unfortunately it’s the only thing that > works.  Ask Americans if they are more aware now than before 9/11. > Transcript of bin Ladin’s speech > Saturday 30 October 2004, 15:54 Makka Time, 12:54 GMT > Following is the transcript of Usama bin Ladin’s speech as it > appeared in a videotape aired by Aljazeera on Friday. In the > interests of authenticity the transcript has been left unedited. > To begin: Peace be upon he who follow the Guidance. > People of United States, this talk of mine is for you and > concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan and deals > with the war and its causes and results. > Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable > pillar in human life and that free men do not forfeit their > security contrary to Bush’s claims that we hate freedom. > If so, then let him explain why did not strike – for example – > Sweden. > And we know that freedom haters do not possess defiant spirits > like those of the 19 may Allah have mercy on them. > No, we fight because we are free men who do not sleep under > oppression. > We want to restore freedom to our Nation and just as you lay > waste to our Nation so shall we lay waste to yours. > But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year > after the events of September 11, Bush is still engaged in > distortion, deception and hiding from you the real cause and > thus the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred. > So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and I > shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the > decision was taken for you to consider. > I say to you Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to > strike towers. > But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression > and tyranny of the America/Israeli coalition against our people > in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind. > The events that affected my soul in a difficult way started in > 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and > the American 6th fleet helped them in that. > And the whole world saw and heard but did not respond. > In those difficult moments many hard to describe ideas bubbled > in my soul but in the end they produced intense feelings of > rejection of tyranny and gave birth to a strong resolve to > punish the oppressors. > And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon it entered > my mind that we should punish the oppressors in kind and that we > destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what > we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women > and children. > We have not found it difficult to deal with the Bush > administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the > regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the > military and the other half of which are ruled by the sons of > kings and presidents. > Our experience with them is lengthy and both types are replete > with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and > misappropriation of wealth. > This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Senior to the > region at a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by > America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our > countries. All of a sudden he was affected by these monarchies > and military regimes and became jealous of their remaining > decades in their position to embezzle the public wealth of the > Nation without supervision or accounting. > So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son > and they named it the Patriot Act under the pretences of > fighting terrorism. > In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state > governors and did not forget to import expertise in election > fraud from the regions presidents to Florida to be made use of > in moments of difficulty. > All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke > and bait this administration. > And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General > Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations > should be carried out within 20 minutes before Bush and his > administration notice. > It never occurred to us that the Commander in Chief of the armed > forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers > to face those great horrors alone at a time when they most > needed him. > But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking > to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more > important than occupying himself with the planes and their > butting of the skyscrapers we were given three times the period > required to execute the operations. All praise is due to Allah. > Aljazeera > http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E…

You got that one on the knocker! US uneducated public is mesmerized by CNN and jerusalem FOX. They do not even want to consider the fact that American media are liars and puppets of Bush and his jews!

Response:

> The position of Bin Laden is easy to understand.

Indeed. Megalomania with a streak of old-fashioned greed. If Assama’s cause is so righteous and due to Jooos and America, why is his brand of Islam on the rampage throughout the world, in conflicts that have nothing to do with the US or Israel? Algeria. India. Indonesia. Kosovo. Nigeria. Sudan. Philippines. And many other countries, all under the threat of fundy Muslim violence.

Response:

>I would agree with you, except for the little fact that he orchestrated the >flying of aircraft into buildings that slaughtered thousands of Americans.

You got it, Donald.  If it were in an alternate-Earth and OBL, a Saudi businessman and investor, anti-Soviet Afghan war hero and political activist were telling this to Tim Russert on "Meet The Press", September 9, 2001, it would bring some points that one can hear on most college campuses to the American political mainstream.  This is not the case. Also, consider that this may be balanced off as psy-ops with the tape by "Azzim al-Amerikki" on Wednesday, who may be Jason Pearlman of Orange Country, California.  Since I’m posting from the Air Travel newsgroup, it would be ironic if so many non-Americans are being photographed/finger- printed … politically cheap since you’re doing it to non- voters … while Pearlman is back in the US scheming and plotting.  To make border security really effective, as the 9/11 Commission found, even US citizens must present biometric passports to come home. gld

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> After reading the transcript of bin Ladin’s speech I was very moved. > >> I really felt his struggle.  It is obvious to me that this is no > >> madman as the Bush Regime have portrayed him.  This is a noble man, a > >> freedom fighter who wants the US and Israel to get the hell out of his > >> home and who can blame him?!?  He spoke from his heart and from his > >> soul, and whenever a man does that, nobody can be against him, for he > >> speaks truth.  The words come from the very depths of his soul. > > I would agree with you, > I wouldn’t. Fundy Moslems > You’ve taken my words out of context. > Fuck you.

Nice talk. I was responding to the "He Stirs Your Soul" cretin you cross-posted this message to.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I would agree with you, except for the little fact that he orchestrated the > flying of aircraft into buildings that slaughtered thousands of Americans. > After that, all other bets are off, and he is a terrorist made out of > dogshit, regardless of how bad I despise President Bush or the warmongering > pricks that work for him. > I’m not saying that the US is without faults in the global theater, but any > credibility that bin Laden may have had to just "want us (America) to leave > his people alone" went right out the fucking window on September 11.

Agreed.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> He Stirs Your Soul wrote… > After reading the transcript of bin Ladin’s speech I was very moved. > I really felt his struggle.  It is obvious to me that this is no > madman as the Bush Regime have portrayed him.  This is a noble man, a > freedom fighter who wants the US and Israel to get the hell out of his > home and who can blame him?!?  He spoke from his heart and from his > soul, and whenever a man does that, nobody can be against him, for he > speaks truth.  The words come from the very depths of his soul. > Bush and his puppet masters have been quick with their propaganda > brainwashing Americans that bin Ladin and the Moslems are evil, that > they hate freedom.  But this kind of charged rhetoric only works with > Americans because they are blind and brain dead just like their > president.  Americans are the evil ones, and George Bush and Dick > Cheney and Rumsfeld are the Devil. > Until Americans truly understand why they are being attacked the > attacks will continue.  But Americans will never understand because > they are idiots and their government knows that and keeps them in the > dark.  They know American minds are easy to manipulate. > With the coming attacks perhaps the Americans will begin to understand > a little bit better.  Maybe it will take 10 or 20 attacks more, but > that is okay.  Al Qaeda is not going anywhere, and neither is bin > Ladin. > The position of Bin Laden is easy to understand.  Most Americans don’t > understand and don’t care what their country is doing in the Muslim world > because their government keeps them in the dark intentionally.  So if > Muslims or Arabs want to get the attention of the American people they have > to resort to terrorism.  Unfortunately it’s the only thing that works. Ask > Americans if they are more aware now than before 9/11.

It sure worked out better for Arabs after 911 didn’t it, you fuckin’ idiot. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Transcript of bin Ladin’s speech > Saturday 30 October 2004, 15:54 Makka Time, 12:54 GMT > Following is the transcript of Usama bin Ladin’s speech as it > appeared in a videotape aired by Aljazeera on Friday. In the > interests of authenticity the transcript has been left unedited. > To begin: Peace be upon he who follow the Guidance. > People of United States, this talk of mine is for you and > concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan and deals > with the war and its causes and results. > Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable > pillar in human life and that free men do not forfeit their > security contrary to Bush’s claims that we hate freedom. > If so, then let him explain why did not strike – for example – > Sweden. > And we know that freedom haters do not possess defiant spirits > like those of the 19 may Allah have mercy on them. > No, we fight because we are free men who do not sleep under > oppression. > We want to restore freedom to our Nation and just as you lay > waste to our Nation so shall we lay waste to yours. > But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year > after the events of September 11, Bush is still engaged in > distortion, deception and hiding from you the real cause and > thus the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred. > So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and I > shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the > decision was taken for you to consider. > I say to you Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to > strike towers. > But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression > and tyranny of the America/Israeli coalition against our people > in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind. > The events that affected my soul in a difficult way started in > 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and > the American 6th fleet helped them in that. > And the whole world saw and heard but did not respond. > In those difficult moments many hard to describe ideas bubbled > in my soul but in the end they produced intense feelings of > rejection of tyranny and gave birth to a strong resolve to > punish the oppressors. > And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon it entered > my mind that we should punish the oppressors in kind and that we > destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what > we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women > and children. > We have not found it difficult to deal with the Bush > administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the > regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the > military and the other half of which are ruled by the sons of > kings and presidents. > Our experience with them is lengthy and both types are replete > with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and > misappropriation of wealth. > This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Senior to the > region at a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by > America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our > countries. All of a sudden he was affected by these monarchies > and military regimes and became jealous of their remaining > decades in their position to embezzle the public wealth of the > Nation without supervision or accounting. > So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son > and they named it the Patriot Act under the pretences of > fighting terrorism. > In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state > governors and did not forget to import expertise in election > fraud from the regions presidents to Florida to be made use of > in moments of difficulty. > All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke > and bait this administration. > And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General > Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations > should be carried out within 20 minutes before Bush and his > administration notice. > It never occurred to us that the Commander in Chief of the armed > forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers > to face those great horrors alone at a time when they most > needed him. > But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking > to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more > important than occupying himself with the planes and their > butting of the skyscrapers we were given three times the period > required to execute the operations. All praise is due to Allah. > Aljazeera

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E…. htm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

> After reading the transcript of bin Ladin’s speech I was very moved. > I really felt his struggle.  It is obvious to me that this is no > madman as the Bush Regime have portrayed him.  This is a noble man, a > freedom fighter who wants the US and Israel to get the hell out of his > home and who can blame him?!?  He spoke from his heart and from his > soul, and whenever a man does that, nobody can be against him, for he > speaks truth.  The words come from the very depths of his soul.

Just because Bush is an even bigger murdering asshole, doesn’t change or forgive the despicable actions of one of the worst killers and terrorists in history!!!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >>After reading the transcript of bin Ladin’s speech I was very moved. >> >>I really felt his struggle.  It is obvious to me that this is no >> >>madman as the Bush Regime have portrayed him.  This is a noble man, a >> >>freedom fighter who wants the US and Israel to get the hell out of his >> >>home and who can blame him?!?  He spoke from his heart and from his >> >>soul, and whenever a man does that, nobody can be against him, for he >> >>speaks truth.  The words come from the very depths of his soul. >> > I would agree with you, except for the little fact that he orchestrated > the >> > flying of aircraft into buildings that slaughtered thousands of > Americans. >> > After that, all other bets are off, and he is a terrorist made out of >> > dogshit, regardless of how bad I despise President Bush or the > warmongering >> > pricks that work for him. >> > I’m not saying that the US is without faults in the global theater, but > any >> > credibility that bin Laden may have had to just "want us (America) to > leave >> > his people alone" went right out the fucking window on September 11. >> He responded by fighting a war with war. That’s what warriors do. > Not against civilian targets. That’s not war, that’s cowardice. > I don’t accept it from American soldiers, I damn sure won’t accept it from > some second-rate warrior-wannabe that doesn’t even have the balls to carry > out the attacks himself, instead foments hatred through brainwashing to > get > others to do the dirty work. > He’s not a warrior. He’s a coward. >> Just >> because you can’t see the effects of the war on his people because you >> don’t live there doesn’t make it any less real. It became real to you on >> September 11, but it was real long before then. Osama is only one of >> many angry Arabs. Unless the U.S. learns to treat people better, they >> can expect more of the same. Considering they haven’t learned how to >> treat a great many of their own citizens with human decency, this is >> probably a long way off and you can expect many more terrorist >> attacks-ESPECIALLY if Bush is reelected. > You’ve begun an argument of infinite digression. Whether or not I agree > with > anything bin Laden says is irrelevant. > What *IS* relevant is that his words are completely negated by his attack > of > September 11. Yes, I understand the paradox/catch-22 of the situation, and > am fully aware of what he said: I’ve already read the entire transcript. > That doesn’t change the fact that as of September 11, he is only worthy of > a > 9mm round right between his fucking eyes, from my own gun given the > opportunity. >> Notice how he calls Bush a fucking idiot. > Yes, I did notice. Like I said, it is irrelevant if he and I agree on > anything. > I also sat and watched in horror as The Towers collapsed and took 2000 > Americans plus 343 of my brethren to their deaths. That makes him a > terrorist. > Fuck him. Fuck him eternally. > It was the only way he could get the attention of the American people. The > Americans didn’t know and didn’t care about the plight of his people. > Wouldn’t you say they are aware now?

Many are aware now and want "his people" dead now…

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >>After reading the transcript of bin Ladin’s speech I was very moved. > >>I really felt his struggle.  It is obvious to me that this is no > >>madman as the Bush Regime have portrayed him.  This is a noble man, a > >>freedom fighter who wants the US and Israel to get the hell out of his > >>home and who can blame him?!?  He spoke from his heart and from his > >>soul, and whenever a man does that, nobody can be against him, for he > >>speaks truth.  The words come from the very depths of his soul. > > I would agree with you, except for the little fact that he orchestrated > the > > flying of aircraft into buildings that slaughtered thousands of > Americans. > > After that, all other bets are off, and he is a terrorist made out of > > dogshit, regardless of how bad I despise President Bush or the > warmongering > > pricks that work for him. > > I’m not saying that the US is without faults in the global theater, but > any > > credibility that bin Laden may have had to just "want us (America) to > leave > > his people alone" went right out the fucking window on September 11. > He responded by fighting a war with war. That’s what warriors do. > Not against civilian targets. That’s not war, that’s cowardice. > I don’t accept it from American soldiers, I damn sure won’t accept it from > some second-rate warrior-wannabe that doesn’t even have the balls to carry > out the attacks himself, instead foments hatred through brainwashing to > get > others to do the dirty work. > He’s not a warrior. He’s a coward. > Just > because you can’t see the effects of the war on his people because you > don’t live there doesn’t make it any less real. It became real to you on > September 11, but it was real long before then. Osama is only one of > many angry Arabs. Unless the U.S. learns to treat people better, they > can expect more of the same. Considering they haven’t learned how to > treat a great many of their own citizens with human decency, this is > probably a long way off and you can expect many more terrorist > attacks-ESPECIALLY if Bush is reelected. > You’ve begun an argument of infinite digression. Whether or not I agree > with > anything bin Laden says is irrelevant. > What *IS* relevant is that his words are completely negated by his attack > of > September 11. Yes, I understand the paradox/catch-22 of the situation, and > am fully aware of what he said: I’ve already read the entire transcript. > That doesn’t change the fact that as of September 11, he is only worthy of > a > 9mm round right between his fucking eyes, from my own gun given the > opportunity. > Notice how he calls Bush a fucking idiot. > Yes, I did notice. Like I said, it is irrelevant if he and I agree on > anything. > I also sat and watched in horror as The Towers collapsed and took 2000 > Americans plus 343 of my brethren to their deaths. That makes him a > terrorist. > Fuck him. Fuck him eternally.

It was the only way he could get the attention of the American people.  The Americans didn’t know and didn’t care about the plight of his people. Wouldn’t you say they are aware now?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>>After reading the transcript of bin Ladin’s speech I was very moved. >>>>I really felt his struggle.  It is obvious to me that this is no >>>>madman as the Bush Regime have portrayed him.  This is a noble man, a >>>>freedom fighter who wants the US and Israel to get the hell out of his >>>>home and who can blame him?!?  He spoke from his heart and from his >>>>soul, and whenever a man does that, nobody can be against him, for he >>>>speaks truth.  The words come from the very depths of his soul. >>>I would agree with you, except for the little fact that he orchestrated > the >>>flying of aircraft into buildings that slaughtered thousands of > Americans. >>>After that, all other bets are off, and he is a terrorist made out of >>>dogshit, regardless of how bad I despise President Bush or the > warmongering >>>pricks that work for him. >>>I’m not saying that the US is without faults in the global theater, but > any >>>credibility that bin Laden may have had to just "want us (America) to > leave >>>his people alone" went right out the fucking window on September 11. >>He responded by fighting a war with war. That’s what warriors do. > Not against civilian targets. That’s not war, that’s cowardice. > That puts him in the very same league as Bush. Don’t kid yourself. At > least 40,000 Iraqi civilains have been killed.

Read my words, and get back to me when you comprehend their meaning: Donald: "I’m not saying that the US is without faults in the global theater,…" …and: Donald: "After that, all other bets are off, and he is a terrorist made out of dogshit, regardless of how bad I despise President Bush or the warmongering pricks that work for him." > I don’t accept it from American soldiers, I damn sure won’t accept it from > some second-rate warrior-wannabe that doesn’t even have the balls to carry > out the attacks himself, instead foments hatred through brainwashing to get > others to do the dirty work. > Again, that is Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld to a tee.

No argument from me. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> He’s not a warrior. He’s a coward. > Again, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft, etc. >>Just >>because you can’t see the effects of the war on his people because you >>don’t live there doesn’t make it any less real. It became real to you on >>September 11, but it was real long before then. Osama is only one of >>many angry Arabs. Unless the U.S. learns to treat people better, they >>can expect more of the same. Considering they haven’t learned how to >>treat a great many of their own citizens with human decency, this is >>probably a long way off and you can expect many more terrorist >>attacks-ESPECIALLY if Bush is reelected. > You’ve begun an argument of infinite digression. Whether or not I agree with > anything bin Laden says is irrelevant. > What *IS* relevant is that his words are completely negated by his attack of > September 11. Yes, I understand the paradox/catch-22 of the situation, and > am fully aware of what he said: I’ve already read the entire transcript. > That doesn’t change the fact that as of September 11, he is only worthy of a > 9mm round right between his fucking eyes, from my own gun given the > opportunity. > There are at least hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, possibly millions,

that feel the exact same way about Bush, Cheney, et al. It is a question of semantics and geography. Just as if you examine things closely both Islam and Christianity are religions of fanatics. No argument from me on this point, either. >>Notice how he calls Bush a fucking idiot. > Yes, I did notice. Like I said, it is irrelevant if he and I agree on > anything. > I also sat and watched in horror as The Towers collapsed and took 2000 > Americans plus 343 of my brethren to their deaths. That makes him a > terrorist. > So is Bush in the eyes of much of the world. Osama is hardly alone. The > policies of the Bush administration are, at this moment, creating, > millions of Osamas. Just as Osama is creating millions of you.

I’m not flying airplanes into buildings. I’m pursuing a law degree to change this country from the inside. Maybe I’m pissing in the wind, maybe not. But it beats the fuck out of slaughtering ‘innocents.’ — -Donald in Austin AA #2104 Apatriot #22 Atheist FF/EMT ….and ordained minister Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>After reading the transcript of bin Ladin’s speech I was very moved. >>>I really felt his struggle.  It is obvious to me that this is no >>>madman as the Bush Regime have portrayed him.  This is a noble man, a >>>freedom fighter who wants the US and Israel to get the hell out of his >>>home and who can blame him?!?  He spoke from his heart and from his >>>soul, and whenever a man does that, nobody can be against him, for he >>>speaks truth.  The words come from the very depths of his soul. >>I would agree with you, except for the little fact that he orchestrated > the >>flying of aircraft into buildings that slaughtered thousands of > Americans. >>After that, all other bets are off, and he is a terrorist made out of >>dogshit, regardless of how bad I despise President Bush or the > warmongering >>pricks that work for him. >>I’m not saying that the US is without faults in the global theater, but > any >>credibility that bin Laden may have had to just "want us (America) to > leave >>his people alone" went right out the fucking window on September 11. >He responded by fighting a war with war. That’s what warriors do. > Not against civilian targets. That’s not war, that’s cowardice.

That puts him in the very same league as Bush. Don’t kid yourself. At least 40,000 Iraqi civilains have been killed. > I don’t accept it from American soldiers, I damn sure won’t accept it from > some second-rate warrior-wannabe that doesn’t even have the balls to carry > out the attacks himself, instead foments hatred through brainwashing to get > others to do the dirty work.

Again, that is Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld to a tee. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> He’s not a warrior. He’s a coward. > Again, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft, etc. >Just >because you can’t see the effects of the war on his people because you >don’t live there doesn’t make it any less real. It became real to you on >September 11, but it was real long before then. Osama is only one of >many angry Arabs. Unless the U.S. learns to treat people better, they >can expect more of the same. Considering they haven’t learned how to >treat a great many of their own citizens with human decency, this is >probably a long way off and you can expect many more terrorist >attacks-ESPECIALLY if Bush is reelected. > You’ve begun an argument of infinite digression. Whether or not I agree with > anything bin Laden says is irrelevant. > What *IS* relevant is that his words are completely negated by his attack of > September 11. Yes, I understand the paradox/catch-22 of the situation, and > am fully aware of what he said: I’ve already read the entire transcript. > That doesn’t change the fact that as of September 11, he is only worthy of a > 9mm round right between his fucking eyes, from my own gun given the > opportunity. > There are at least hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, possibly millions, that feel the exact same way about Bush, Cheney, et al. It is a question of semantics and geography. Just as if you examine things closely both Islam and Christianity are religions of fanatics. >Notice how he calls Bush a fucking idiot. > Yes, I did notice. Like I said, it is irrelevant if he and I agree on > anything. > I also sat and watched in horror as The Towers collapsed and took 2000 > Americans plus 343 of my brethren to their deaths. That makes him a > terrorist.

So is Bush in the eyes of much of the world. Osama is hardly alone. The policies of the Bush administration are, at this moment, creating, millions of Osamas. Just as Osama is creating millions of you. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Fuck him. Fuck him eternally.

Response:

> After reading the transcript of bin Ladin’s speech I was very moved. > I really felt his struggle.  It is obvious to me that this is no > madman as the Bush Regime have portrayed him.  This is a noble man, a > freedom fighter who wants the US and Israel to get the hell out of his > home and who can blame him?!?  He spoke from his heart and from his > soul, and whenever a man does that, nobody can be against him, for he > speaks truth.  The words come from the very depths of his soul.

Whilst I agree with the sentiments, really all he is is another billionaire that is trying to rule the world and will kill anyone to do it. I wouldn’t say either Osama or Bush Jnr are any better than each other… because it is the non-billionaires that suffer

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>After reading the transcript of bin Ladin’s speech I was very moved. >>I really felt his struggle.  It is obvious to me that this is no >>madman as the Bush Regime have portrayed him.  This is a noble man, a >>freedom fighter who wants the US and Israel to get the hell out of his >>home and who can blame him?!?  He spoke from his heart and from his >>soul, and whenever a man does that, nobody can be against him, for he >>speaks truth.  The words come from the very depths of his soul. > I would agree with you, except for the little fact that he orchestrated the > flying of aircraft into buildings that slaughtered thousands of Americans. > After that, all other bets are off, and he is a terrorist made out of > dogshit, regardless of how bad I despise President Bush or the warmongering > pricks that work for him. > I’m not saying that the US is without faults in the global theater, but any > credibility that bin Laden may have had to just "want us (America) to leave > his people alone" went right out the fucking window on September 11. > He responded by fighting a war with war. That’s what warriors do.

Not against civilian targets. That’s not war, that’s cowardice. I don’t accept it from American soldiers, I damn sure won’t accept it from some second-rate warrior-wannabe that doesn’t even have the balls to carry out the attacks himself, instead foments hatred through brainwashing to get others to do the dirty work. He’s not a warrior. He’s a coward. > Just > because you can’t see the effects of the war on his people because you > don’t live there doesn’t make it any less real. It became real to you on > September 11, but it was real long before then. Osama is only one of > many angry Arabs. Unless the U.S. learns to treat people better, they > can expect more of the same. Considering they haven’t learned how to > treat a great many of their own citizens with human decency, this is > probably a long way off and you can expect many more terrorist > attacks-ESPECIALLY if Bush is reelected.

You’ve begun an argument of infinite digression. Whether or not I agree with anything bin Laden says is irrelevant. What *IS* relevant is that his words are completely negated by his attack of September 11. Yes, I understand the paradox/catch-22 of the situation, and am fully aware of what he said: I’ve already read the entire transcript. That doesn’t change the fact that as of September 11, he is only worthy of a 9mm round right between his fucking eyes, from my own gun given the opportunity. > Notice how he calls Bush a fucking idiot.

Yes, I did notice. Like I said, it is irrelevant if he and I agree on anything. I also sat and watched in horror as The Towers collapsed and took 2000 Americans plus 343 of my brethren to their deaths. That makes him a terrorist. Fuck him. Fuck him eternally. — -Donald in Austin AA #2104 Apatriot #22 Atheist FF/EMT ….and ordained minister Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> After reading the transcript of bin Ladin’s speech I was very moved. >> I really felt his struggle.  It is obvious to me that this is no >> madman as the Bush Regime have portrayed him.  This is a noble man, a >> freedom fighter who wants the US and Israel to get the hell out of his >> home and who can blame him?!?  He spoke from his heart and from his >> soul, and whenever a man does that, nobody can be against him, for he >> speaks truth.  The words come from the very depths of his soul. > I would agree with you, > I wouldn’t. Fundy Moslems

You’ve taken my words out of context. Fuck you.

Response:

He Stirs Your Soul wrote… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> After reading the transcript of bin Ladin’s speech I was very moved. > I really felt his struggle.  It is obvious to me that this is no > madman as the Bush Regime have portrayed him.  This is a noble man, a > freedom fighter who wants the US and Israel to get the hell out of his > home and who can blame him?!?  He spoke from his heart and from his > soul, and whenever a man does that, nobody can be against him, for he > speaks truth.  The words come from the very depths of his soul. > Bush and his puppet masters have been quick with their propaganda > brainwashing Americans that bin Ladin and the Moslems are evil, that > they hate freedom.  But this kind of charged rhetoric only works with > Americans because they are blind and brain dead just like their > president.  Americans are the evil ones, and George Bush and Dick > Cheney and Rumsfeld are the Devil. > Until Americans truly understand why they are being attacked the > attacks will continue.  But Americans will never understand because > they are idiots and their government knows that and keeps them in the > dark.  They know American minds are easy to manipulate. > With the coming attacks perhaps the Americans will begin to understand > a little bit better.  Maybe it will take 10 or 20 attacks more, but > that is okay.  Al Qaeda is not going anywhere, and neither is bin > Ladin.

The position of Bin Laden is easy to understand.  Most Americans don’t understand and don’t care what their country is doing in the Muslim world because their government keeps them in the dark intentionally.  So if Muslims or Arabs want to get the attention of the American people they have to resort to terrorism.  Unfortunately it’s the only thing that works.  Ask Americans if they are more aware now than before 9/11. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Transcript of bin Ladin’s speech > Saturday 30 October 2004, 15:54 Makka Time, 12:54 GMT > Following is the transcript of Usama bin Ladin’s speech as it > appeared in a videotape aired by Aljazeera on Friday. In the > interests of authenticity the transcript has been left unedited. > To begin: Peace be upon he who follow the Guidance. > People of United States, this talk of mine is for you and > concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan and deals > with the war and its causes and results. > Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable > pillar in human life and that free men do not forfeit their > security contrary to Bush’s claims that we hate freedom. > If so, then let him explain why did not strike – for example – > Sweden. > And we know that freedom haters do not possess defiant spirits > like those of the 19 may Allah have mercy on them. > No, we fight because we are free men who do not sleep under > oppression. > We want to restore freedom to our Nation and just as you lay > waste to our Nation so shall we lay waste to yours. > But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year > after the events of September 11, Bush is still engaged in > distortion, deception and hiding from you the real cause and > thus the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred. > So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and I > shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the > decision was taken for you to consider. > I say to you Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to > strike towers. > But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression > and tyranny of the America/Israeli coalition against our people > in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind. > The events that affected my soul in a difficult way started in > 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and > the American 6th fleet helped them in that. > And the whole world saw and heard but did not respond. > In those difficult moments many hard to describe ideas bubbled > in my soul but in the end they produced intense feelings of > rejection of tyranny and gave birth to a strong resolve to > punish the oppressors. > And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon it entered > my mind that we should punish the oppressors in kind and that we > destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what > we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women > and children. > We have not found it difficult to deal with the Bush > administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the > regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the > military and the other half of which are ruled by the sons of > kings and presidents. > Our experience with them is lengthy and both types are replete > with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and > misappropriation of wealth. > This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Senior to the > region at a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by > America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our > countries. All of a sudden he was affected by these monarchies > and military regimes and became jealous of their remaining > decades in their position to embezzle the public wealth of the > Nation without supervision or accounting. > So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son > and they named it the Patriot Act under the pretences of > fighting terrorism. > In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state > governors and did not forget to import expertise in election > fraud from the regions presidents to Florida to be made use of > in moments of difficulty. > All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke > and bait this administration. > And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General > Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations > should be carried out within 20 minutes before Bush and his > administration notice. > It never occurred to us that the Commander in Chief of the armed > forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers > to face those great horrors alone at a time when they most > needed him. > But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking > to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more > important than occupying himself with the planes and their > butting of the skyscrapers we were given three times the period > required to execute the operations. All praise is due to Allah. > Aljazeera > http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E…

Response:

> After reading the transcript of bin Ladin’s speech I was very moved. > I really felt his struggle.  It is obvious to me that this is no > madman as the Bush Regime have portrayed him.  This is a noble man, a > freedom fighter who wants the US and Israel to get the hell out of his > home and who can blame him?!?  He spoke from his heart and from his > soul, and whenever a man does that, nobody can be against him, for he > speaks truth.  The words come from the very depths of his soul.

I would agree with you, except for the little fact that he orchestrated the flying of aircraft into buildings that slaughtered thousands of Americans. After that, all other bets are off, and he is a terrorist made out of dogshit, regardless of how bad I despise President Bush or the warmongering pricks that work for him. I’m not saying that the US is without faults in the global theater, but any credibility that bin Laden may have had to just "want us (America) to leave his people alone" went right out the fucking window on September 11. — -Donald in Austin AA #2104 Apatriot #22 Atheist FF/EMT ….and ordained minister Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn

Response:

>> After reading the transcript of bin Ladin’s speech I was very moved. > I really felt his struggle.  It is obvious to me that this is no > madman as the Bush Regime have portrayed him.  This is a noble man, a > freedom fighter who wants the US and Israel to get the hell out of his > home and who can blame him?!?  He spoke from his heart and from his > soul, and whenever a man does that, nobody can be against him, for he > speaks truth.  The words come from the very depths of his soul. > I would agree with you,

I wouldn’t. Fundy Moslems are on the warpath around the world. Fundy Moslems use Jews and now Americans as the scapegoats for their own fucked-up existence. You can’t blame the Jooos or Americans for fundy Moslems on the warpath in the Phillippines. You can’t blame the Jooos or Americans for fundy Moslems on the warpath in Thailand. You can’t blame the Jooos or Americans for fundy Moslems on the warpath in the Nigeria and most of sub-Saharan Africa. Fundy Moslems are responsible for their own problems, and rather than correct those problems they’d rather force their sick beliefs on others.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->After reading the transcript of bin Ladin’s speech I was very moved. >I really felt his struggle.  It is obvious to me that this is no >madman as the Bush Regime have portrayed him.  This is a noble man, a >freedom fighter who wants the US and Israel to get the hell out of his >home and who can blame him?!?  He spoke from his heart and from his >soul, and whenever a man does that, nobody can be against him, for he >speaks truth.  The words come from the very depths of his soul. > I would agree with you, except for the little fact that he orchestrated the > flying of aircraft into buildings that slaughtered thousands of Americans. > After that, all other bets are off, and he is a terrorist made out of > dogshit, regardless of how bad I despise President Bush or the warmongering > pricks that work for him. > I’m not saying that the US is without faults in the global theater, but any > credibility that bin Laden may have had to just "want us (America) to leave > his people alone" went right out the fucking window on September 11.

He responded by fighting a war with war. That’s what warriors do. Just because you can’t see the effects of the war on his people because you don’t live there doesn’t make it any less real. It became real to you on September 11, but it was real long before then. Osama is only one of many angry Arabs. Unless the U.S. learns to treat people better, they can expect more of the same. Considering they haven’t learned how to treat a great many of their own citizens with human decency, this is probably a long way off and you can expect many more terrorist attacks-ESPECIALLY if Bush is reelected. Notice how he calls Bush a fucking idiot. For deeming the reading of a book regarding the ramming of a goat more important than the ramming of real planes and abondoning 50,000 real live American citizens when they needed him most (although he didn’t know the number was actually far less).

Response:

After reading the transcript of bin Ladin’s speech I was very moved. I really felt his struggle.  It is obvious to me that this is no madman as the Bush Regime have portrayed him.  This is a noble man, a freedom fighter who wants the US and Israel to get the hell out of his home and who can blame him?!?  He spoke from his heart and from his soul, and whenever a man does that, nobody can be against him, for he speaks truth.  The words come from the very depths of his soul. Bush and his puppet masters have been quick with their propaganda brainwashing Americans that bin Ladin and the Moslems are evil, that they hate freedom.  But this kind of charged rhetoric only works with Americans because they are blind and brain dead just like their president.  Americans are the evil ones, and George Bush and Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld are the Devil. Until Americans truly understand why they are being attacked the attacks will continue.  But Americans will never understand because they are idiots and their government knows that and keeps them in the dark.  They know American minds are easy to manipulate. With the coming attacks perhaps the Americans will begin to understand a little bit better.  Maybe it will take 10 or 20 attacks more, but that is okay.  Al Qaeda is not going anywhere, and neither is bin Ladin. Transcript of bin Ladin’s speech Saturday 30 October 2004, 15:54 Makka Time, 12:54 GMT Following is the transcript of Usama bin Ladin’s speech as it appeared in a videotape aired by Aljazeera on Friday. In the interests of authenticity the transcript has been left unedited. To begin: Peace be upon he who follow the Guidance. People of United States, this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan and deals with the war and its causes and results. Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar in human life and that free men do not forfeit their security contrary to Bush’s claims that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain why did not strike – for example – Sweden. And we know that freedom haters do not possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 may Allah have mercy on them. No, we fight because we are free men who do not sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our Nation and just as you lay waste to our Nation so shall we lay waste to yours. But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real cause and thus the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred. So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and I shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken for you to consider. I say to you Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the America/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind. The events that affected my soul in a difficult way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American 6th fleet helped them in that. And the whole world saw and heard but did not respond. In those difficult moments many hard to describe ideas bubbled in my soul but in the end they produced intense feelings of rejection of tyranny and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors. And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressors in kind and that we destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children. We have not found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half of which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents. Our experience with them is lengthy and both types are replete with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth. This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Senior to the region at a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our countries. All of a sudden he was affected by these monarchies and military regimes and became jealous of their remaining decades in their position to embezzle the public wealth of the Nation without supervision or accounting. So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act under the pretences of fighting terrorism. In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors and did not forget to import expertise in election fraud from the regions presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty. All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes before Bush and his administration notice. It never occurred to us that the Commander in Chief of the armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone at a time when they most needed him. But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers we were given three times the period required to execute the operations. All praise is due to Allah. Aljazeera http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E…

Response:

Question:

Delta will be adding in CVG. CVG and Comair will be spared most of the cuts. MOST

Response:

the atlanta journal-constitution has been having an extensive number of articles about delta ajc.com free registration, marketing cookie they had an interesting article (by a local attorney?) a coupla days ago on the actual op ed page in which alfred kahn is beaten-skewered-scortched for his leading participation in  mid-1970s deregulation tried to link it to here, but couldn’t find it because some times spilled milk is "fun" to cry/re-hash/"told ya so"  about my opinions about deregulation: je ne sais pas (hell, if i know)

Response:

Delta will be adding in CVG. CVG and Comair will be spared most of the cuts. MOST FLIGHTS, that’s the word. Delt will be adding flights here in CVG. Most will be on Comair.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > the atlanta journal-constitution has been having an extensive number of > articles about delta > ajc.com > free registration, marketing cookie > they had an interesting article (by a local attorney?) a coupla days ago on the > actual op ed page in which alfred kahn is beaten-skewered-scortched for his > leading participation in  mid-1970s deregulation > tried to link it to here, but couldn’t find it > because some times spilled milk is "fun" to cry/re-hash/"told ya so"  about > my opinions about deregulation: je ne sais pas (hell, if i know)

follow-up: James A. Marshall is that Dallas attorney whom has written a strong advocacy in retrospective against the deregulation of the airline industry His provacative op ed, "Deregulation crashes, burns: add Delta to list of airlines injured by faulty concept," was in the ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION of Friday, Sept 10, 2004 I’ve been unable to find it on-line; but i betcha it’s available somewhere on the internet, such as being published by a Texas newspaper too My main interest: I am a polisci-govt buff, and the deregulatory trend, post the New Deal, is extremely important in understanding & defining our governmental culture-reality-morality-effectiveness-way of life Deregulation has seemingly "worked" to our betterments in the short run in the airline and in the energy industries; but what of the disclocations-chaos spawned by Enron and the awfulness of the power outage last year (?) As I previously acknowledge: I do not know if these industries should have been "deregulated," though it’s interesting/sad to see some of Karl Marx’s doomsy take about the dismalism of (capitalism pattern) economics verified in the real world

Response:

> As I previously acknowledge: I do not know if these industries > should have been "deregulated," though it’s interesting/sad to > see some of Karl Marx’s doomsy take about the dismalism of > (capitalism pattern) economics verified in the real world

The (US) Airline industry relies too heavily on gov’t infrastructure in order to operate.  Airports, the FAA, and now TSA, etc.  What if car dealerships or gas stations were like airports? Gov’t owned, gov’t financed, gov’t build, and gov’t operated?  How well do you think that private corporations (like oil and car companies) would interact with the gas stations or car dealerships then?   Another problem: The "main-line" airlines (AA, United, North West, Delta, Continental, etc) have retained the mindset from the very first days of commercial air travel.  Which is – flying is a luxury, and is (for some) a necessity.  So you design your ticketing to extract the highest possible dollars for any given seat.  How many AmTrack or Greyhound fares are designed this way?  Add to that the sillyness that in many cases return tickets are more expensive than 1-way. Jet Blue, SouthWest, Spirit, and others like them are approaching fare structures more like bus or train tickets.  It means less administrative and customer-service overhead.  It means a single cabin instead of having a first-class cabin that brings it’s own headaches to manage and juggle seats for frequent flyers that want free upgrades. The collapse of full-fare business travel, combined with security and fuel costs which have spiralled out of control, have the mainline airlines scrambling to fill their planes, replacing many of them with smaller regional jets, and cutting back the drinks and food served to first-class passengers.

Response:

> the atlanta journal-constitution has been having an extensive number of > articles about delta > ajc.com > free registration, marketing cookie > they had an interesting article (by a local attorney?) a coupla days ago on the > actual op ed page in which alfred kahn is beaten-skewered-scortched for his > leading participation in  mid-1970s deregulation

"KAHN" is a four letter word for many old timers in the airline business. The arguments for deregulation have been at least paritally negated by the actions of the surviving legacy carriers over hte past 26 years, not to mention the fact that infrastructure hasn’t kept up with the additional passengers, service levels are down, and on an apples to apples basis, I don’t think fares are really lower. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> tried to link it to here, but couldn’t find it > because some times spilled milk is "fun" to cry/re-hash/"told ya so" about > my opinions about deregulation: je ne sais pas (hell, if i know)

Response:

I agree with you, Robert – in the US, they’ve deregulated airlines, trucking, telephones, etc. since the 1970’s and it is clearly debatable whether or not the results have been good. Jeff

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> the atlanta journal-constitution has been having an extensive number of > articles about delta > ajc.com > free registration, marketing cookie > they had an interesting article (by a local attorney?) a coupla days ago on the > actual op ed page in which alfred kahn is beaten-skewered-scortched for his > leading participation in  mid-1970s deregulation > tried to link it to here, but couldn’t find it > because some times spilled milk is "fun" to cry/re-hash/"told ya so" about > my opinions about deregulation: je ne sais pas (hell, if i know) > follow-up: > James A. Marshall is that Dallas attorney whom has written a strong > advocacy in retrospective against the deregulation of the airline > industry > His provacative op ed, "Deregulation crashes, burns: add Delta to list > of airlines injured by faulty concept," was in the ATLANTA > JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION of Friday, Sept 10, 2004 > I’ve been unable to find it on-line; but i betcha it’s available > somewhere on the internet, such as being published by a Texas > newspaper too > My main interest: I am a polisci-govt buff, and the deregulatory > trend, post the New Deal, is extremely important in understanding & > defining our governmental culture-reality-morality-effectiveness-way > of life > Deregulation has seemingly "worked" to our betterments in the short > run in the airline and in the energy industries; but what of the > disclocations-chaos spawned by Enron and the awfulness of the power > outage last year (?) > As I previously acknowledge: I do not know if these industries should > have been "deregulated," though it’s interesting/sad to see some of > Karl Marx’s doomsy take about the dismalism of (capitalism pattern) > economics verified in the real world

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->the atlanta journal-constitution has been having an extensive number of >articles about delta >ajc.com >free registration, marketing cookie >they had an interesting article (by a local attorney?) a coupla days ago > on the >actual op ed page in which alfred kahn is beaten-skewered-scortched for > his >leading participation in  mid-1970s deregulation > "KAHN" is a four letter word for many old timers in the airline business. > The arguments for deregulation have been at least paritally negated by the > actions of the surviving legacy carriers over hte past 26 years, not to > mention the fact that infrastructure hasn’t kept up with the additional > passengers, service levels are down, and on an apples to apples basis, I > don’t think fares are really lower.

snip Oh dear!  It depends on how you define apples.  If you are simply considering the cost of transit from one location to another then fares are clearly much lower currently.  If you are trying to compare the cost of a trip in a noisy prop plane that takes twice as long but provides space with the same today you won’t find any comparisons.  Since there are no available comparisons nothing is lower.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I agree with you, Robert – in the US, they’ve deregulated airlines, >trucking, telephones, etc. since the 1970’s and it is clearly debatable >whether or not the results have been good. > The results are questionable, because in a competitive market > environment, often businesses see benefit far before consumers. > Airlines are no different. Service is and will continued to be > clustered around business centers while smaller communities struggle > to keep it. > I’m not arguing against small towns having service, but I do think too > much is made out of it. There’s an expectation that the free market > will/should step up and provide everything a person or group perceives > they need. But that simply just doesn’t happen. >Jeff

snip Of course it happens.  However the local environment has to pay for it.   There are several instances of small locations having significant services because some local major company made it worth the effort for a carrier.  If the local government wants to pay adequately to have service there will certainly be a carrier willing to provide the service.  However when you want service with someone else paying that isn’t likely to happen often.

Response:

Well at least the employees that are left can’t complain because they will be still be some of the highest paid in the industry. Matt – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– > Hash: SHA1 > [ Ouch. -Ed. ] >    Delta to Cut Up to 7,000 Jobs in 18 Months >    Sep 8, 11:38 AM (ET) >    By HARRY R. WEBER >    ATLANTA (AP) – Delta Air Lines will cut up to 7,000 jobs, reduce wages >    and  pull  back  at  its  Dallas-Fort  Worth  airport hub as part of a >    sweeping  restructuring  plan  that could still leave it vulnerable to >    bankruptcy. >    The  job  cuts representing about 10 percent of its overall work force >    will  come  over  the  next  18  months,  Delta chief executive Gerald >    Grinstein  said  Wednesday  during a meeting with 300 of the company’s >    middle managers. More job cuts are likely in the future, he added. >    There will be a 15 percent reduction in administrative overhead costs, >    including  management cuts. A reduction in wages will announced by the >    end  of  the  month,  and  employees  will  be  expected to pay larger >    contributions for health insurance. >    In  addition,  Grinstein said Delta will no longer use the Dallas-Fort >    Worth  airport as one of its four hubs as of 2005. Instead, Delta will >    expand  its  hubs  in  Cincinnati,  Atlanta  and  Salt  Lake City with >    redeployed aircraft from Dallas-Fort Worth. >    About  2,000  of  the  jobs  will  be  cut  from Dallas-Fort Worth and >    significant cuts are expected at the airline’s Atlanta headquarters. >    Despite  all  of  these measures, Grinstein said "bankruptcy is a real >    possibility." >    "We’re working hard and fast to avoid it," Grinstein said. >    Delta  Air  Lines  Inc. (DAL), the nation’s third-largest carrier, has >    been  warning investors for months that it may have to file bankruptcy >    if  it  didn’t  get deep wage cuts from its pilots. Management said on >    July  30  it needed a minimum of $1 billion in concessions from pilots >    to  survive.  Pilots  had  previously offered up to $705 million, then >    accused  the  company  of  acting  in bad faith when it asked for much >    more. >    Grinstein  said  talks  with  the  pilots are continuing, "but time is >    running out" to reach an agreement. He declined to be more specific. >    Delta  has  lost  more  than  $5 billion and reduced its work force by >    16,000  in  the  last three years. The changes announced Wednesday are >    part of Delta’s goal to save more than $5 billion by 2006. >    "Given   the  severity  of  our  financial  situation,  there  are  no >    guarantees  for success and there is no time to waste," Grinstein said >    during  the  meeting.  He  said  he  still  has hope for the airline’s >    future. >    As  of  June  30,  Delta  and  its  subsidiaries  had 70,300 full-time >    employees  and 842 total aircraft, regulatory filings show. Delta also >    has  several  regional carriers, including Atlantic Southeast Airlines >    and Comair, and a low-fare carrier, Song. >    Besides the Dallas-Fort Worth hub targeted in the cuts, Delta has hubs >    in  Atlanta, Cincinnati and Salt Lake City. Delta also is a major U.S. >    carrier to Europe. >    "In  the  past,  we are used to living from cycle to cycle," Grinstein >    said.  "What  we’re  now  seeing is something that is so fundamentally >    different,  there  is  no comparison to the past. What we are doing is >    building a new airline for the new era." >    Last  week,  rival  American  Airlines and its regional affiliate said >    they  would  add  70  flights from Dallas-Fort Worth airport by summer >    2005.  American,  the  largest  U.S.  carrier  and a unit of AMR Corp. >    (AMR),  said  it  would  increase  frequency of flights from DFW to 31 >    other airports in the United States and Mexico. >    "This  is  our  home  and  Dallas-Fort  Worth  Airport is a key to the >    long-term  success  of  our company in an extremely difficult industry >    environment,"  said  Gerard  J. Arpey, chairman and chief executive of >    both American and parent AMR. >    In  late  morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange, Delta shares >    were  down  22  cents,  or nearly 5 percent, at $4.26 while AMR shares >    rose 25 cents, or nearly 3 percent, to $9.17. > BL. > – — > Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead!  | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto >   PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569  F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF > —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– > Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) > iD8DBQFBP1P/yBkZmuMZ8L8RAjquAKCgf3/Evbd+2qRsdp7bAiNGVVI8aQCdH3+W > Nj4bj8DUueVOo9DnKM+bQr4= > =PZa+ > —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

> —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– > Hash: SHA1 > [ Ouch. -Ed. ] >    Delta to Cut Up to 7,000 Jobs in 18 Months >    Sep 8, 11:38 AM (ET) >    By HARRY R. WEBER >    ATLANTA (AP) – Delta Air Lines will cut up to 7,000 jobs, reduce wages >    and  pull  back  at  its  Dallas-Fort  Worth  airport hub as part of a >    sweeping  restructuring  plan  that could still leave it vulnerable to >    bankruptcy.

DFW residents meanwhile will receive a further screwing with high airfares.

Response:

(caveat lecter: these are merely my  rambling, subjective comments not meant to offend, simply my  thoughts about phenomena that interest me, and which may interest another) this is sorta ancient history now, but i would like to bring some of it back the senior delta pilots REPORTEDLY make terrifically good incomes, and i recall reading of $500,000+, but please don’t hold me to it as i don’t really know the salary figures, as i only know what i glance at in the atlanta newspaper and generally forget thereafter and i also recall some delta executives/ big  bosses REPORTEDLY  deriving multi-million dollar incomes (10 million yearly for the ceo mullin?), including when the airline was losing big money after 9/11 (apparently because of his long term contract or however) they were once a pleasant, highly rated good service smaller airline mostly here in the southeast u.s. then they expanded–boughtout northeast, & western & pan am–can’t recall the others well, they seemingly got too biggg, especially after the passenger airplane bizness really DE-REGULATED circa mid-1970s the southwests & the value jets/air trans etal are now eating delta’s lunch delta’s "song" version in the cut-throat competition comes late the overall lesson learned is adapt to some austerity or go bust: i read somewhere that delta’s new boss grinsten’s income is approx only $100,00 and so, when your industry becomes de-regulated: 10. shit can happen 9. travel consumers are econ animals too 8. the walmarts/air trans eat you alive 7. don’t be a  fool if you’re an investor–warren buffet says he learned about airline investing the hard way 6. it’s seemingly cheaper to fly to many places than to ride busses and trains–thanks to that awful cuththroat competition 5. united is reportedly owned by their unions  in large part, though reportedly still much hurting nevertheless 4. flying half-empty airplanes isn’t efficient uses of fuel (if nuthin else) 3. meanwhile, air travel can be such a hassle that one tends to avoid the necessary inconveniences 2.  united and delta etal should be allowed to "unite" at times to fill-up empty seats–joint computerization could solve some of the complexities 1. i do enjoy expressing my piss ant ideas–thanks for your valuable time 0. i shall soon be running for president should i be nominated at the prohibition party’s convention

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1                         [ Ouch. -Ed. ]    Delta to Cut Up to 7,000 Jobs in 18 Months    Sep 8, 11:38 AM (ET)    By HARRY R. WEBER    ATLANTA (AP) – Delta Air Lines will cut up to 7,000 jobs, reduce wages    and  pull  back  at  its  Dallas-Fort  Worth  airport hub as part of a    sweeping  restructuring  plan  that could still leave it vulnerable to    bankruptcy.    The  job  cuts representing about 10 percent of its overall work force    will  come  over  the  next  18  months,  Delta chief executive Gerald    Grinstein  said  Wednesday  during a meeting with 300 of the company’s    middle managers. More job cuts are likely in the future, he added.    There will be a 15 percent reduction in administrative overhead costs,    including  management cuts. A reduction in wages will announced by the    end  of  the  month,  and  employees  will  be  expected to pay larger    contributions for health insurance.    In  addition,  Grinstein said Delta will no longer use the Dallas-Fort    Worth  airport as one of its four hubs as of 2005. Instead, Delta will    expand  its  hubs  in  Cincinnati,  Atlanta  and  Salt  Lake City with    redeployed aircraft from Dallas-Fort Worth.    About  2,000  of  the  jobs  will  be  cut  from Dallas-Fort Worth and    significant cuts are expected at the airline’s Atlanta headquarters.    Despite  all  of  these measures, Grinstein said "bankruptcy is a real    possibility."    "We’re working hard and fast to avoid it," Grinstein said.    Delta  Air  Lines  Inc. (DAL), the nation’s third-largest carrier, has    been  warning investors for months that it may have to file bankruptcy    if  it  didn’t  get deep wage cuts from its pilots. Management said on    July  30  it needed a minimum of $1 billion in concessions from pilots    to  survive.  Pilots  had  previously offered up to $705 million, then    accused  the  company  of  acting  in bad faith when it asked for much    more.    Grinstein  said  talks  with  the  pilots are continuing, "but time is    running out" to reach an agreement. He declined to be more specific.    Delta  has  lost  more  than  $5 billion and reduced its work force by    16,000  in  the  last three years. The changes announced Wednesday are    part of Delta’s goal to save more than $5 billion by 2006.    "Given   the  severity  of  our  financial  situation,  there  are  no    guarantees  for success and there is no time to waste," Grinstein said    during  the  meeting.  He  said  he  still  has hope for the airline’s    future.    As  of  June  30,  Delta  and  its  subsidiaries  had 70,300 full-time    employees  and 842 total aircraft, regulatory filings show. Delta also    has  several  regional carriers, including Atlantic Southeast Airlines    and Comair, and a low-fare carrier, Song.    Besides the Dallas-Fort Worth hub targeted in the cuts, Delta has hubs    in  Atlanta, Cincinnati and Salt Lake City. Delta also is a major U.S.    carrier to Europe.    "In  the  past,  we are used to living from cycle to cycle," Grinstein    said.  "What  we’re  now  seeing is something that is so fundamentally    different,  there  is  no comparison to the past. What we are doing is    building a new airline for the new era."    Last  week,  rival  American  Airlines and its regional affiliate said    they  would  add  70  flights from Dallas-Fort Worth airport by summer    2005.  American,  the  largest  U.S.  carrier  and a unit of AMR Corp.    (AMR),  said  it  would  increase  frequency of flights from DFW to 31    other airports in the United States and Mexico.    "This  is  our  home  and  Dallas-Fort  Worth  Airport is a key to the    long-term  success  of  our company in an extremely difficult industry    environment,"  said  Gerard  J. Arpey, chairman and chief executive of    both American and parent AMR.    In  late  morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange, Delta shares    were  down  22  cents,  or nearly 5 percent, at $4.26 while AMR shares    rose 25 cents, or nearly 3 percent, to $9.17.                                                         BL. – — Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead!  | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto   PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569  F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBP1P/yBkZmuMZ8L8RAjquAKCgf3/Evbd+2qRsdp7bAiNGVVI8aQCdH3+W Nj4bj8DUueVOo9DnKM+bQr4= =PZa+ —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

Question:

How do you like to be identified as a "terrorist" or a "potential terrorist" by a computer program? That’s what happened to thousands of air travellers recently. This is another prime example of how well the government is working. First they slept on the job and let the terrorists strike the US. Then the post 9-11 led to an out-of-control psychoneurosis state among the American people feeding on to the egotistical nature of the useless government. The very same government that failed to protect the American people now is inflicting more pain and insult to American air travellers by carrying out faulty security checks at the airports. Even a well known senator would not spared from the stupid TSA procedures. Ted Kennedy (D) has been harassed by airport authority for several weeks before the problem was resolved from the very top! Unfortunately ordinary people like you and me may not have the privilege of calling Tom Ridge on his direct line to tell him that he’s an idiot. It’s quite ironic that we have the most incompetent people safeguarding this great nation at a most expensive price tag. Perhaps it’s cheaper to hire the so called terrorists to do the guarding job. It can’t be worse than what Ridge and his gang is doing.

Response:

> How do you like to be identified as a "terrorist" or a "potential > terrorist" by a computer program? That’s what happened to thousands of air > travellers

I was at a WN gate today and there was an AS pilot trying to get a jump seat and he recently started having problems due to the no fly list.

Response:

Question:

Do not feed the troll.

Response:

     Count on aviation to come to an end:      RISE IN AIR TRAVEL HARMING GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT Agence France-Presse, July 5, 2004  London – Rising demand for air travel is one of the most serious environmental risks facing the world, an international research body said Sunday.  "This growth has been fuelled by generous tax breaks and state aid and is contrary to the objectives of environmental policy, especially efforts to prevent the worst consequences of climate change," the Stockholm Environment Institute’s regional centre at the University of York in northern England said.  Britain and other EU governments have made a massive commitment to expanding aviation, the report says.  The report, of which a full version was to be published Monday, argues that the aviation industry should play its full role in helping to reduce greenhouse gases.  The study recommends a series of actions, including an end to the tax-free status of aviation fuel, to be carried out by the British government and European Union over the next 30 years to combat the problem of increasing air travel.  It advises also that journeys of less than 400 miles (640 kilometres) should be made by train – reducing the number of flights by 45 percent – while businesses should use video conferencing rather than flying staff to meetings.  Airlines should pay also an environmental charge equal to the damage they cause, the study suggests.  One of the report’s two authors, Professor John Whitelegg, said that high-speed rail services such as Eurostar, currently linking London with Paris and Brussels via the Channel Tunnel, needed to be improved so that every British city was linked by train to mainland Europe.  "At the moment we have cheap flights and some of the most expensive railways in the world. That is the wrong way around," he told BBC online. "We should also build high-speed trains underneath the oceans which will connect the world’s cities." According to Whitelegg, several underwater train routes, which would go through tunnels built on the ocean floor, are being studied. * * * Copyright 2003 Agence France-Presse. # # # Rachel’s Environment & Health News Environmental Research Foundation POB 160 New Brunswick NJ 08903-0160 T: 732-828-9995 F: 732-791-4603 W: http://www.rachel.org

Response:

Question:

> New York Times     > Lost Luggage Is Rare, but the Trauma Can Be Acute

Sometimes I wonder if there are certain people who just go through life the best they can, yet keep having the most unpleasant things happen to them. I travel by air an average of three times a year, maybe a bit more. I have been doing this for at least the past ten years. Probably about 20% of my air travel is personal, not business. Not once in all those flights have I ever had a problem with lost luggage. Nothing has ever been stolen from my luggage either, although I only pack my clothes and other easily replaceable items in my checked luggage. The worst that’s happened to me is I had a few scratches in my hard sided American Touraster suitcase and a small rip in a cheap soft sized suite case that I actually won in a contest a few years ago. On the other hand, my sister travels by air maybe once every five years. This past January, she went on a ten day vacation from Philadelphia to somewhere in Costa Rica and her luggage was lost upon arrival in Costa Rica. Fortunately, the luggage was found later the same day. By the next day, the airline delivered her luggage to her hotel room.

Response:

> New York Times > Lost Luggage Is Rare, but the Trauma Can Be Acute snip > To reduce the rate of lost luggage, the airline industry is turning to > technology, like tiny radio transmitter chips with unique identifying > numbers on luggage tags that allow bags to be tracked continuously. > McCarran Airport in Las Vegas plans to start phasing in this system, > known as RFID for radio- frequency identification, in the summer. > McCarran can use the initiative because it supplies the computerized > check-in process for virtually all the airlines that use it, according > to Samuel Ingalls, the airport’s information systems manager, while > other airlines typically use their own systems.

A lot of people (needlessly, I think) fear RFID, but this is a great example of how important this technology will be in the very near future. The cost savings for virtually all industries is astounding.

Response:

New York Times   Lost Luggage Is Rare, but the Trauma Can Be Acute By SHARON McDONNELL Published: June 8, 2004 Picture1: http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/06/08/business/08LOST.unclai… Caption: Rick Owens for The New York Times Shoppers at the Unclaimed Baggage Center in Scottsboro, Ala., look through clothing that was recovered from luggage left at airports. Picture2: http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/06/08/business/08LOST.scott.jpg Caption: Rick Owens for The New York Times Scott Roberts shops at the center with sons Ian, 3, and Andrew, 6. Even for business-travel lore, which is as rich in horror stories as lost luggage, Valerie Bent’s ordeal stands out. Ms. Bent, then an executive with a dot-com company, arrived in Buenos Aires two years ago on a Varig Airlines flight from S

Question:

Dule Astro schrieb: > What’s the cheapest way to fly to Rio de Janeiro, from Europe? > Which Air company, do I have to book few months early…

I found a last minute 435/525 EUR rt. offer for Martinair on Amsterdam <-> Fortaleza (not Rio). Regards, ULF

Response:

For Rio: try www.airmadrid.com

Response:

> If I was making that journey I would look into buying a ticket from Belgrade > to London and another one from London to Rio. > That combination seems a lot cheaper than booking straight through. > Allow plenty of connection time in London if transferring from one airline > to another, 4 hours absolute minimum, overnight preferable. > Also check you fly into and out of the same airport!

It’s possible he may need a transit visa if going via London?

Response:

If I was making that journey I would look into buying a ticket from Belgrade to London and another one from London to Rio. That combination seems a lot cheaper than booking straight through. Allow plenty of connection time in London if transferring from one airline to another, 4 hours absolute minimum, overnight preferable. Also check you fly into and out of the same airport!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am from Serbia. > I would like to know when air company allow discounts. >   —– Original Message —– >   Newsgroups: rec.travel.air >   > What’s the cheapest way to fly to Rio de Janeiro, from Europe? >   > Which Air company, do I have to book few months early… >   Try www.expedia.co.uk www.travelocity.com etc. or visit your local travel >   agents. >   Europe is a huge place and unless you say where you are flying from then >   it’s impossible for anyone to give you a definite answer.

Response:

What’s the cheapest way to fly to Rio de Janeiro, from Europe? Which Air company, do I have to book few months early…

Response:

> What’s the cheapest way to fly to Rio de Janeiro, from Europe? > Which Air company, do I have to book few months early…

Try www.expedia.co.uk www.travelocity.com etc. or visit your local travel agents. Europe is a huge place and unless you say where you are flying from then it’s impossible for anyone to give you a definite answer.

Response:

I am from Serbia. I would like to know when air company allow discounts. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -  —– Original Message —–   Newsgroups: rec.travel.air   > What’s the cheapest way to fly to Rio de Janeiro, from Europe?   > Which Air company, do I have to book few months early…   Try www.expedia.co.uk www.travelocity.com etc. or visit your local travel   agents.   Europe is a huge place and unless you say where you are flying from then   it’s impossible for anyone to give you a definite answer.

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Yeah, an "outstanding site" LOL….. > But.. why use beam.to/alt1 and not go directly to cheapairlines.com? > What a place… You will charge be a $30 processing fee for fares that > don’t appear to be cheaper for my normal flights. There is also a > maximum purchase of $1500. Why??? Airline must be contacted for seat > assignments. YOU have the right to cancel requests for "high security > risk areas"?  Why do you care where I choose to fly if the airline is > flying there? If my reservation is not eligble for an e-ticket, you will > charge $15 to send the ticket. So, that means it would cost me $45 in > extra charges to purchase a ticket from you and have it mailed. > Plus if you need to be contacted for a change, you add $30 on top of > what the airlines charge. You do not offer non refundable fares and no > purchases over $1500. > What exactly are the advantages the consumers gets at this web site? > Oh yeah, how can you book by schedule instead of by pre-linked outbound > and return flights? This seems to be a missing function.

Also, doesn’t include Southwest Airlines (and how many other small, low-fare carriers).  Doesn’t seem to be able to handle searching just non-stop flights.  All in all, not the best of sites to use.

Response:

Great Source for cheap air travel tickets             http://beam.to/alt1

Response:

> Great Source for cheap air travel tickets >             http://beam.to/alt1

Yeah, an "outstanding site" LOL….. But.. why use beam.to/alt1 and not go directly to cheapairlines.com? What a place… You will charge be a $30 processing fee for fares that don’t appear to be cheaper for my normal flights. There is also a maximum purchase of $1500. Why??? Airline must be contacted for seat assignments. YOU have the right to cancel requests for "high security risk areas"?  Why do you care where I choose to fly if the airline is flying there? If my reservation is not eligble for an e-ticket, you will charge $15 to send the ticket. So, that means it would cost me $45 in extra charges to purchase a ticket from you and have it mailed. Plus if you need to be contacted for a change, you add $30 on top of what the airlines charge. You do not offer non refundable fares and no purchases over $1500. What exactly are the advantages the consumers gets at this web site?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Great Source for cheap air travel tickets >             http://beam.to/alt1 > Yeah, an "outstanding site" LOL….. > But.. why use beam.to/alt1 and not go directly to cheapairlines.com? > What a place… You will charge be a $30 processing fee for fares that > don’t appear to be cheaper for my normal flights. There is also a > maximum purchase of $1500. Why??? Airline must be contacted for seat > assignments. YOU have the right to cancel requests for "high security > risk areas"?  Why do you care where I choose to fly if the airline is > flying there? If my reservation is not eligble for an e-ticket, you will > charge $15 to send the ticket. So, that means it would cost me $45 in > extra charges to purchase a ticket from you and have it mailed. > Plus if you need to be contacted for a change, you add $30 on top of > what the airlines charge. You do not offer non refundable fares and no > purchases over $1500. > What exactly are the advantages the consumers gets at this web site?

Oh yeah, how can you book by schedule instead of by pre-linked outbound and return flights? This seems to be a missing function.

Response: