Question:

nobody schrieb: > Sorry.  We’re already trying to stop Mexico from the very same thing, > and we really don’t have any spare jobs. > The government which you have elected is NOT trying to stop this, they > are in fact facilitating mexicans to work in the USA in order to help > the profitability of large farms in the southern USA. They operate buses > across the border to bring in mexican workers for the day and ensure > they go back to mexico at night.

Even in Germany there used to be permits (and might still be as citizens of most of the new EU member countries are still concerned by work restriction) for international every-day commuters. It was to prevent full (long-term) immigration. > Fact is that if you were to pay farm workers US standard wages, your > food would be way more expensive and you couldn’t compete against > vegetables from other countries and you’d end up importaing from > overseas instead of eating your own vegerables isntead of your current > situation where you even export some of your produce to countries such > as Canada.

The same happens with undocumented workers on Spanish or Italian farms. Regards & F’up2, ULF

Response:

>> Fact is that if you were to pay farm workers US standard wages, > your food would be way more expensive and you couldn’t compete > against vegetables from other countries >That’s quite true. And, considering that Indonesians and others >affected by the tsunami are used to earning just one or two dollars per >day, they would be tremendously grateful for anything more than that >amount. Our prices for vegetables and other goods would be reduced, >giving us more money to spend on other things and making us more >productive. And, our guest workers would be able to send some of their >money back home and help rebuild their countries.

I see.  And what about the then-disenfranchised US worker?  Why should they have to be on unemployment or subsistence to help someone enter the country and take their job? Sorry, but I didn’t elect this government.  Mr. Bush was appointed the first term and somehow bamboozled America into giving him a second term.  I’m all for isolationism, and I have given generously to charity to assist those who were suffering, but I will not allow them to take american employees’ jobs.   But, since you feel that’s OK, how about giving up your job and letting one of the proposed foreign nationals come in and take it. What will your dependents say?  I’m sure your wife and kids (if you have any, of course) will be fully supportive, and your extended family won’t brand you as a congenital idiot for the rest of your life, right? If farm workers were paid a living wage, americans would perform the work and we would not be relying on illegal aliens for the large farms and plants.  Then too, the small and independent farms and plants who earn their money honestly and pay their legal workers a decent wage would have an equal opportunity at profit.  It all balances out in the end. Contrary to popular belief, America is not here for everyone.  There are correct and legal routes to enter the nation, as well as responsibilities to fulfill in order to do so.  We welcome those who meet those standards and eschew those who do not.  If you truly feel this idea is right, then let the other industrialized nations of the world lead by example and absorb the brunt of the burdern for these people, providing jobs and a "decent living." ASA Lives! —-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-

Response:

Our organization, the Jobs for South Asia Coalition, is trying to determine the least expensive means to bring thousands of people from Indonesia, Thailand, or India to the U.S. (east or west coast). Originally we assumed that either a cruise ship or retrofitted oil tanker would be the least expensive method, however someone suggested that all things considered air travel would cost less. That was in this thread: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.transport.marine/msg/5ccc068… We’re asking this question as part of our proposal for a guest worker plan in which hundreds of thousands of Indonesians, Thais, Indians, and others affected by the recent tsunami could come to the U.S. to do the jobs Americans won’t do. They would receive a reasonable wage and be able to send a portion of their earnings back to those most affected by the tsunami. In exchange, the U.S. would get a willing workforce that would make us competitive with China and other low-cost producers of goods. It would truly be a win-win situation. For more information on our organization, see our temporary website at: http://jfsac.blogspot.com/ This page describes our goals in more detail: http://jfsac.blogspot.com/2005/01/welcome-to-jobs-for-south-asia.html

Response:

some stuff about "Cheapest passage for thousands of people: air or sea?", to which I would like to add the following: >We’re asking this question as part of our proposal for a guest worker >plan in which hundreds of thousands of Indonesians, Thais, Indians, and >others affected by the recent tsunami could come to the U.S. to do the >jobs Americans won’t do.

  Dream on. ) But as a mind-wank excersize, you could just contact a cruise operator and ask how much it would be to rent it out for such a trip..  Assuming it would even have the range, which is doubtful. After that check what flights cost.  Flights have the advantage that you won’t have thousands of people all arriving at some port on the West Coast and needing further transportation. Anyway, lovely post.  Gave me my laugh of the day. Presumably you’ve never seen even a single 747 arrive from Asia with loads of people having to clear immigration, ‘homeland security’ checks, etc.  I’d love to see you ferry in a hundred thousand Indonesians from Ajeh.   Should give Osama a wet dream, too. Cheers, Chanchao

Response:

> But as a mind-wank excersize, you could just contact a cruise operator and ask > how much it would be to rent it out for such a trip..  Assuming it would even > have the range, which is doubtful.

It isn’t a question of range, it is also a question of whether the ship is equipped for high sees or not. That is why for instante, The Queen Mary 2 is built very differently from normal cruise ships. Secondly, cruise ships are booked long time ahead and they charge an arm and a leg for luxury cruises. Renting such a ship for such a long journey to transport low yield pax wouldn’t be good for the cruise line. Cargo ships are not equipped to carry large number of people. Chartering 747s is far easier because you only need it for about 12 hours for 415 pax. You’re going to spent money to not only rent the 747s, but also fuel and crews and food, airport fees, taxes etc.  Taking that money to buy goods made in indonesia and give it to indonesians would help then a LOT more than bringing them to the USA to pick lettuce in a climate, language , food and way of life that is totally foreign to them.

Response:

nobody schrieb: > You’re going to spent money to not only rent the 747s, but also fuel and > crews and food, airport fees, taxes etc.  Taking that money to buy goods > made in indonesia and give it to indonesians would help then a LOT more > than bringing them to the USA to pick lettuce in a climate, language , > food and way of life that is totally foreign to them.

To me it seems that once the immigration and work permits are arranged, air transportation is cheaper. IIUC, workers from India in Arab countries normally travel by air, not sea. And this is much closer than the Tsunami region to the U.S. Regards, ULF

Response:

The cheapest way is always through sea, as it always been for thousands of years. It should be noted that the area of the South East Asia that were hardest to be damaged by the tsunami is nearby a heavy travelled sea route. Aceh for example is known "Mecca Porch" in the past. Due that in the past, small ships from many areas in South East Asia harboured there, then their passengers switched on to bigger ships, the final destination of these passengers are usually Mecca. Of course now, many (most?) people go to Mecca using airlines. If you want to transports hundreds of thousands of people, I think that the sea is the only way. The immigration can be handled when the ships are enroute to their final destination. But if you want to transport thousands (three zeros) instead of hundreds of thousands (five zeros), I think that it’s better to use air travel. Just hire a couple of An-124s, the trips might not be the most comfortable though.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The cheapest way is always through sea, as it always been for thousands >of years. >It should be noted that the area of the South East Asia that were >hardest to be damaged by the tsunami is nearby a heavy travelled sea >route. >Aceh for example is known "Mecca Porch" in the past. >Due that in the past, small ships from many areas in South East Asia >harboured there, then their passengers switched on to bigger ships, the >final destination of these passengers are usually Mecca. >Of course now, many (most?) people go to Mecca using airlines. >If you want to transports hundreds of thousands of people, I think that >the sea is the only way. >The immigration can be handled when the ships are enroute to their >final destination. >But if you want to transport thousands (three zeros) instead of >hundreds of thousands (five zeros), I think that it’s better to use air >travel. Just hire a couple of An-124s, the trips might not be the most >comfortable though.

Four flights a day in 50 A380s will transport 5 million people in a month (charter class). Best regards, Spehro Pefhany — "it’s the network…"                          "The Journey is the reward" Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

Response:

> Our organization, the Jobs for South Asia Coalition, is trying to > determine the least expensive means to bring thousands of people from > Indonesia, Thailand, or India to the U.S. (east or west coast).

Why not send them to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?  It’s closer, they have plenty of jobs local citizens won’t or can’t do, and they are muslim countries. Perfect for Indonesia citizens. > Originally we assumed that either a cruise ship or retrofitted oil > tanker would be the least expensive method, however someone suggested > that all things considered air travel would cost less. That was in this > thread:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.transport.marine/msg/5ccc068… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> We’re asking this question as part of our proposal for a guest worker > plan in which hundreds of thousands of Indonesians, Thais, Indians, and > others affected by the recent tsunami could come to the U.S. to do the > jobs Americans won’t do. They would receive a reasonable wage and be > able to send a portion of their earnings back to those most affected by > the tsunami. In exchange, the U.S. would get a willing workforce that > would make us competitive with China and other low-cost producers of > goods. It would truly be a win-win situation. > For more information on our organization, see our temporary website at: > http://jfsac.blogspot.com/ > This page describes our goals in more detail: > http://jfsac.blogspot.com/2005/01/welcome-to-jobs-for-south-asia.html

Response:

> We’re asking this question as part of our proposal for a guest worker > plan in which hundreds of thousands of Indonesians, Thais, Indians, and > others affected by the recent tsunami could come to the U.S. to do the > jobs Americans won’t do.

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND?  we already have tooooo many *illegal* immigrants driving down wages, and now you want to add more? NO FUCKING WAY.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Our organization, the Jobs for South Asia Coalition, is trying to >determine the least expensive means to bring thousands of people from >Indonesia, Thailand, or India to the U.S. (east or west coast). >Originally we assumed that either a cruise ship or retrofitted oil >tanker would be the least expensive method, however someone suggested >that all things considered air travel would cost less. That was in this >thread: >http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.transport.marine/msg/5ccc068… >We’re asking this question as part of our proposal for a guest worker >plan in which hundreds of thousands of Indonesians, Thais, Indians, and >others affected by the recent tsunami could come to the U.S. to do the >jobs Americans won’t do. They would receive a reasonable wage and be >able to send a portion of their earnings back to those most affected by >the tsunami. In exchange, the U.S. would get a willing workforce that >would make us competitive with China and other low-cost producers of >goods. It would truly be a win-win situation. >For more information on our organization, see our temporary website at: >http://jfsac.blogspot.com/ >This page describes our goals in more detail: >http://jfsac.blogspot.com/2005/01/welcome-to-jobs-for-south-asia.html

Sorry.  We’re already trying to stop Mexico from the very same thing, and we really don’t have any spare jobs. The problem this creates is that such guest workers do many jobs for far less money than an American would work for.  Any American would do any job providing it pays a living wage.  Most of the "guest workers" also avoid taxes. It’s not that we are xenophobic (like Indonesia), but we need to take care of our own people. Perhaps the easiest method for the people you are trying to help would be to apply for legitimate visas or citizenship.  Then they would be carefully vetted and only those who meet US immigration standards would be eligible to enter.  This would save yourself and your organization much embarrassment. There should be enough jobs available to these people repairing their own destroyed economies and countries.  Much of that work is sponsored by international relief and UN-style organizations. We appreciate your interest in coming to work here, but your proposed workers, their economies and the countries would be better served by employing their talents at home.  Thank you for considering the United States as an employer and we wish you success with your continuing job search. ASA Lives! —-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-

Response:

> Sorry.  We’re already trying to stop Mexico from the very same thing, > and we really don’t have any spare jobs.

The government which you have elected is NOT trying to stop this, they are in fact facilitating mexicans to work in the USA in order to help the profitability of large farms in the southern USA. They operate buses across the border to bring in mexican workers for the day and ensure they go back to mexico at night. Fact is that if you were to pay farm workers US standard wages, your food would be way more expensive and you couldn’t compete against vegetables from other countries and you’d end up importaing from overseas instead of eating your own vegerables isntead of your current situation where you even export some of your produce to countries such as Canada.

Response:

> Fact is that if you were to pay farm workers US standard wages, > your food would be way more expensive and you couldn’t compete > against vegetables from other countries

That’s quite true. And, considering that Indonesians and others affected by the tsunami are used to earning just one or two dollars per day, they would be tremendously grateful for anything more than that amount. Our prices for vegetables and other goods would be reduced, giving us more money to spend on other things and making us more productive. And, our guest workers would be able to send some of their money back home and help rebuild their countries.

Response:

Question:

>In another thread, the seat reclining debate has started again.  I am >all for reclining my seat when I fly.  There are others that are >against reclining.  With all of the dabate, I have never once gotten a >definitive answer from a anti-recliner to the following question: If >seats are not to be reclined, why do the airlines provide seats that >will recline?

I thought I would follow up to my own post.  The vast majority of my flights are on DL metal.  I was curious to get DL’s official stance on the subject.  I am glad I fly Delta.  Below it the response that I received: Dear Mr. Mike, Thank you for contacting us. Delta prohibits the use of devices which may limit the ability of passengers to evacuate the aircraft in an emergency situation. Delta also respects the rights of each passenger to utilize the full functionality of their seat. We appreciate your business and look forward to seeing you on your next Delta flight. Sincerely, Ms. Monique Styles Gold Medallion Desk http://www.delta.com Original Message Follows: PERSONAL INFORMATION: Name           : Mr Michael Weaver SkyMiles Number: xxxxxxxxxx COMMENT DETAILS: Email about Past/Future travel: Current and Future Nature of Comment: Question Suggestion Email Pertaining to: Onboard_Aircraft Email about Other topic: Comments: I am wondering what the official policy of DL is regarding the use of the "knee defender" or other devices that limit the recline of the seat in front?  What is the official policy regarding reclining of coach seats at cruising altitude?  Is it prohibited for a passenger to limit the recline of the passenger in front of them? Would you like a reply to your e-mail? : yes

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >

Question:

>>Welcome to the Fifth Term of the Ronald Reagan Administration > And what does this have to do with recreational air travel?  Nothing.  Keep > it out of here.

Doesn’t have much to do with recreational travel to Europe either.  So?  This is the first time you’ve noticed that off-topic political threads make their way here from time to time?  (And not ALWAYS American politics – although IMO Bush is a greater disaster than most of the others that have been discussed here.) If you don’t choose to participate in the discussion, that’s your prerogative – but you could hardly think the thread title referred to anything else!  Why not just skip it, instead of complaining? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

||| Welcome to the Fifth Term of the Ronald Reagan Administration ||| ||| The Gipper Lives! ||| ||| Back then it was Iran/Contra ||| ||| Now it’s Iraq/Osama ||| ||| Life in the Alzheimer Era ||| ||| "Mistakes?  I didn’t make any mistakes.  And if I did I don’t ||| remember!" ||| ||| || I have just watched the Inauguration live. || In several thousand words, Bush actually said absolutely nothing. || Empty phrases. || But he did wipe off half the nation when praising the Union forces || in the ACW! || || Surreyman Bush rocks. FOUR MORE YEARS, you DEMONrat wimps.

Response:

|| ||| And yet, with all of the Democratic bitching, the majority of ||| Americans felt that he should be reelected.  I guess that’s why we ||| are considered a DEMOCRACY.  Bitching with no action gets no ||| results. || || A majority of 2%.  Wow, what a huge majority. FUCK off DEMONrat asshole. You don’t seem very many Republicans whining on losing the Washington gubernatorial race by something like ONE HUNDRED votes!!!!!

Response:

> FUCK off DEMONrat asshole. You don’t seem very many Republicans whining on > losing the Washington gubernatorial race by something like ONE HUNDRED > votes!!!!!

Au contraire, fascist….   The repulbicans are crying their eyes out, asking for a new election…. Republicans are the masters of whining.  They constantly whined when Clinton was in office.  Crying…..  oohhh… why do people like Clinton. Easy equation, fella:  Clinton = jobs, Bush = economic depression Thanks, Mike

Response:

THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURATION ADDRESS: Sometimes, you’ve just gotta laugh! Take a listen: http://img58.exs.cx/img58/853/bush1wc.swf (takes a couple of seconds to load)

Response:

|| ||| ||| FUCK off DEMONrat asshole. You don’t seem very many Republicans ||| whining on losing the Washington gubernatorial race by something ||| like ONE HUNDRED votes!!!!! ||| || || Au contraire, fascist….   The repulbicans are crying their eyes || out, asking for a new election…. || || Republicans are the masters of whining.  They constantly whined when || Clinton was in office.  Crying…..  oohhh… why do people like || Clinton. || || Easy equation, fella:  Clinton = jobs, Bush = economic depression Mike = total asshole loser || || Thanks, || || Mike

Response:

> I wonder why, of all the many government agencies, it’s always the military > that does the parading and has all the brass bands and stuff.   IMHO, > there’s really no particular reason why the Education, Treasury, or Social > Security department or even the Post office do the ceremonial stuff. > Actually, since the Post Office routinely delivers stuff, seems to me they > ought to be the ones to deliver the President from point A to point B. > JMHO . . . > -Tock

Hmmmm….. I remember a news story, a while back, about the distraught widow of a military man who had mailed her husband’s ashes to Washington D.C. for burial at Arlington National Cemetery.  The postal service managed to lose them enroute!  (The box arrived, but the urn of ashes was gone.) With that in mind, maybe they SHOULD be in charge of presidential delivery.  I think a lot of Americans, along with most of the rest of the world, would not be too distressed if he’d never made it to his innauguration. (Except that then we’d have Cheney – the best anti-assassination insurance Dubya could have!) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

> And yet, with all of the Democratic bitching, the majority of Americans > felt that he should be reelected.  I guess that’s why we are considered > a DEMOCRACY.  Bitching with no action gets no results.

That’s what we’re TOLD, but given the admitted unreliability of the electronic voting machines, and all the questionable tactics in areas with large minority populations….  Was it REALLY a "majority of Americans", or did the machines "tweak" the results so Mr. Diebold (the manufacturer) could keep his promise to GWB to "deliver the vote"?   I had more faith in my fellow citizens than those election results bore out (IF genuine). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

rk." > Hey, you wanted him.

Only fifty-two percent of us did (IF the election results were legitimate).  Forty-eight percent definitely DID NOT!   > You got him. Alas!    We’ll see how folks feel about it > after the next 4 years.

We’ll see if we’re still a democracy, after the next four years.  Some of us have our doubts.

Response:

> > He got over 50%, that’s a majority.  Clinton, twice, did not get over 50%, > what were you saying then? > A head count ?  :-)

We were promised, OK threatened, with 10,000s of thousands lining the ceremonial route in DC today… all turning their backs as the possession past them in an act defiant solidarity…. 57+ million voted, in minority, against Bush… only some 500+ showed up to protest President Bush’s inauguration today… Michael Jackson gets more than that at one of his pre-trial hearings…. jay Thu Jan 20, 2005 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

> As for the 49%, I pity you poor bastards. All I can suggest is to > move! Whining will do you no good.

We can’t afford to cause he has tanked the dollar!

Response:

>>>And yet, with all of the Democratic bitching, the majority of Americans >>felt that he should be reelected.  I guess that’s why we are considered >>a DEMOCRACY.  Bitching with no action gets no results. > A majority of 2%.  Wow, what a huge majority. >He got over 50%, that’s a majority.  Clinton, twice, did not get over 50%, >what were you saying then?

I was saying "How can it get any worse than the American people actually voting a low-life draft-dodger into the White House?" I found out.  Twice. –Vic

Response:

>And yet, with all of the Democratic bitching, the majority of Americans >felt that he should be reelected.  I guess that’s why we are considered >a DEMOCRACY.  Bitching with no action gets no results. > A majority of 2%.  Wow, what a huge majority.

He got over 50%, that’s a majority.  Clinton, twice, did not get over 50%, what were you saying then?

Response:

> He got over 50%, that’s a majority.  Clinton, twice, did not get over 50%, > what were you saying then?

A head count ?  :-)

Response:

> Welcome to the Fifth Term of the Ronald Reagan Administration

And what does this have to do with recreational air travel?  Nothing.  Keep it out of here.

Response:

>And yet, with all of the Democratic bitching, the majority of Americans >felt that he should be reelected.  I guess that’s why we are considered >a DEMOCRACY.  Bitching with no action gets no results.

The majority of Americans did not vote for him.  However, the majority of votes cast were for him.  Note that if FL had gone the other way, W would be unemployed.  Also note that the majority of Florida is old people that could really give a shit what the country is like 10 years from now.  They figure they will be dead by then… Manwhile, the W crew ise going to spend more and more while taking in less and less.  I am no rocket scientist, but if you spend more than you make, you will have a problem sooner or later.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> And yet, with all of the Democratic bitching, the majority of Americans >> felt that he should be reelected.  I guess that’s why we are considered >> a DEMOCRACY.  Bitching with no action gets no results. >To quote Homer Simpson (who is smarter then G.W.): >"When are people going to learn? Democracy doesn’t work." >Hey, you wanted him.  You got him.  We’ll see how folks feel about it >after the next 4 years. >There are too many of you to fight.  I’ll be laughing when you folks >start crying aobut the debt burden and deficit spending and your taxes >going UP instead of down, because of the way these guys will manipulate >the tax code…. >I’m just going to sit back and watch…  We’ll see who gets the last laugh! >Thanks, >Mike >While you’re sitting back laughing, please don’t forget that 49% of us >did not vote for him.  We did our level best, within the constraints >of our democracy, to kick him out.  We came close, very close.  Still, >we’re stuck with him for the next four years, and are not any happier >about that than the rest of the world.

Sitting back and laughing is about the only satisfaction some of us can gain from this spectacle. As for the 49%, I pity you poor bastards. All I can suggest is to move! Whining will do you no good. — — DFM – http://www.deepfriedmars.com — —

Response:

I wonder why, of all the many government agencies, it’s always the military that does the parading and has all the brass bands and stuff.   IMHO, there’s really no particular reason why the Education, Treasury, or Social Security department or even the Post office do the ceremonial stuff. Actually, since the Post Office routinely delivers stuff, seems to me they ought to be the ones to deliver the President from point A to point B. JMHO . . . -Tock

Response:

> I have just watched the Inauguration live. > In several thousand words, Bush actually said absolutely nothing. > Empty phrases.

Did you actually expect him to say something profound?  The man’s an idiot.  I’d be suprised if his IQ was over 80. > But he did wipe off half the nation when praising the Union forces in the > ACW!

I guess that was "reaching out" to the blue states.  That’s all the reaching out we are going to get.  They are planning to eliminate local tax deductions for income tax, which will hit the blue states the hardest.  Let’s face it, the South finally won the civil war. Thanks, Mike

Response:

And yet, with all of the Democratic bitching, the majority of Americans felt that he should be reelected.  I guess that’s why we are considered a DEMOCRACY.  Bitching with no action gets no results.

Response:

hahaha– send him Media Mail!!!!!! The slower the better…..synonymous with his speaking skills….. Peggy

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I wonder why, of all the many government agencies, it’s always the military > that does the parading and has all the brass bands and stuff.   IMHO, > there’s really no particular reason why the Education, Treasury, or Social > Security department or even the Post office do the ceremonial stuff. > Actually, since the Post Office routinely delivers stuff, seems to me they > ought to be the ones to deliver the President from point A to point B. > JMHO . . . > -Tock

Response:

> And yet, with all of the Democratic bitching, the majority of Americans > felt that he should be reelected.

So you’ve been told.  It’s debatable. I guess that’s why we are considered > a DEMOCRACY.  Bitching with no action gets no results.

True dat. Action time.

Response:

> And yet, with all of the Democratic bitching, the majority of Americans > felt that he should be reelected.  I guess that’s why we are considered > a DEMOCRACY.  Bitching with no action gets no results.

To quote Homer Simpson (who is smarter then G.W.): "When are people going to learn? Democracy doesn’t work." Hey, you wanted him.  You got him.  We’ll see how folks feel about it after the next 4 years. There are too many of you to fight.  I’ll be laughing when you folks start crying aobut the debt burden and deficit spending and your taxes going UP instead of down, because of the way these guys will manipulate the tax code…. I’m just going to sit back and watch…  We’ll see who gets the last laugh! Thanks, Mike

Response:

Welcome to the Fifth Term of the Ronald Reagan Administration The Gipper Lives! Back then it was Iran/Contra Now it’s Iraq/Osama Life in the Alzheimer Era "Mistakes?  I didn’t make any mistakes.  And if I did I don’t remember!"

Response:

> Welcome to the Fifth Term of the Ronald Reagan Administration > The Gipper Lives! > Back then it was Iran/Contra > Now it’s Iraq/Osama > Life in the Alzheimer Era > "Mistakes?  I didn’t make any mistakes.  And if I did I don’t remember!"

I have just watched the Inauguration live. In several thousand words, Bush actually said absolutely nothing. Empty phrases. But he did wipe off half the nation when praising the Union forces in the ACW! Surreyman

Response:

Question:

> > This puts the 380 on roughly the same order of magnitude as very fuel > > efficient cars > Actually, no. There are diesel cars which burn 3 litres of diesel on 100 > kilometers for the *entire car*. Which means 3 litres for 4 passengers, > or even 5 if you accept to be stuffed like in an airplane. > Hard to fit five passengers into a modern car. Usually there are two > seats in the front and three seatbelt positions in the rear, for a total > of five occupants, one of whom is the driver.

And the cars that only takes 3 liters for 100 KM is not the biggest cars either… If you are to compare such a car with four passengers then you would also have to compare that to a A380 with a full maximum load of some 800 pax. Nik

Response:

> But indeed, the comparison is of limited value, as anyone would find > out who’d try to drive his VW from the US to Europe.

I dunno. Russian roads aren’t interstates, but they are certainly present.

Response:

says… >If you look at the number of passengers, then the A380 is vastly more >efficient, because unless a car carries hundreds of passengers, you are >going to have hundreds of drivers and comparatively few passengers >compared to two pilots and hundreds passengers on the Airbus. > More efficient in fuel-per-passenger-mile?  Doubtful.

The A380 doesn’t need 110 pilots to carry 440 passengers. Huge manpower savings.

Response:

>says… > >If you look at the number of passengers, then the A380 is vastly more > >efficient, because unless a car carries hundreds of passengers, you are > >going to have hundreds of drivers and comparatively few passengers > >compared to two pilots and hundreds passengers on the Airbus. > More efficient in fuel-per-passenger-mile?  Doubtful. >The A380 doesn’t need 110 pilots to carry 440 passengers. Huge manpower >savings.

True, but it does need more pilots than 110 passenger cars do. Small manpower savings to the cars! <G> — Alex — Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->says… >> >If you look at the number of passengers, then the A380 is vastly more >> >efficient, because unless a car carries hundreds of passengers, you are >> >going to have hundreds of drivers and comparatively few passengers >> >compared to two pilots and hundreds passengers on the Airbus. >> More efficient in fuel-per-passenger-mile?  Doubtful. >The A380 doesn’t need 110 pilots to carry 440 passengers. Huge manpower >savings. > True, but it does need more pilots than 110 passenger cars do.

How do you work that out? Two pilots versus 110 drivers – the plane clearly has the edge in manpower efficiency.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >says… > >> >If you look at the number of passengers, then the A380 is vastly more > >> >efficient, because unless a car carries hundreds of passengers, you are > >> >going to have hundreds of drivers and comparatively few passengers > >> >compared to two pilots and hundreds passengers on the Airbus. > >> More efficient in fuel-per-passenger-mile?  Doubtful. > >The A380 doesn’t need 110 pilots to carry 440 passengers. Huge manpower > >savings. > True, but it does need more pilots than 110 passenger cars do. >How do you work that out? Two pilots versus 110 drivers – the plane >clearly has the edge in manpower efficiency.

Easy. If 550 people need to get somewhere, the odds are minuscule that any of them are qualified to fly the 380, so they almost certainly will be required to hire a crew (not just pilots). The probability that at least 110 of them are qualified to drive a car is huge, so they will not likely have to hire anyone to make their trip by auto. And they certainly won’t have to hire any pilots! Did you notice the <G> on my original post? No one is taking this seriously. One would have to factor in the time taken by all of the passengers to travel by car versus plane, which would yield a huge advantage to air travel. — Alex — Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Response:

> But indeed, the comparison is of limited value, as anyone would find > out who’d try to drive his VW from the US to Europe.

The comparison has meaning from an environmental point of view. Planes have often been portrayed as being extremely energy inefficient, consuming vastly more fuel per passenger than cars and generating plenty of pollution. This puts the 380 on roughly the same order of magnitude as very fuel efficient cars, and gives the A380 better fuel economy per pax that average US vehicles (which I think is more than 10 litres per 100km).

Response:

> This puts the 380 on roughly the same order of magnitude as very fuel > efficient cars

Actually, no. There are diesel cars which burn 3 litres of diesel on 100 kilometers for the *entire car*. Which means 3 litres for 4 passengers, or even 5 if you accept to be stuffed like in an airplane. Stefan

Response:

> > This puts the 380 on roughly the same order of magnitude as very fuel > efficient cars > Actually, no. There are diesel cars which burn 3 litres of diesel on 100 > kilometers for the *entire car*. Which means 3 litres for 4 passengers, > or even 5 if you accept to be stuffed like in an airplane.

Hard to fit five passengers into a modern car. Usually there are two seats in the front and three seatbelt positions in the rear, for a total of five occupants, one of whom is the driver.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar: >The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to >a fuel efficient diesel car. >Interesting stat, but the followup discussion here points out a >question on exactly what this stat is. Is it fuel burn per passenger >mile at max passenger load (i.e., the 380 carries 110 times as many >passengers as the 5-passenger car, but burns less than 110 times as >much fuel per mile) or fuel burn per passenger mile at typical >passenger loads (i.e., the 380 at a typical passenger load of, e.g., >450 carries 300 times as many passengers as the car at a typical load >of 1.5 people, but burns less than 300 times as much fuel per mile. >Obviously, such a statistic based on capacity is far more significant >than one based on average use. 3 liters/passenger per 100KM? I suspect >there are MANY 5-passenger cars that will go further than 100KM on 15 >liters of fuel, but not may that will go 100KM on 4.5 liters of fuel, >if 1.5 is the average load of the car.

Exactly. Commercial aircraft, and especially long-haul commercial aircraft operating the sorts of routes for which the 380 is designed have far higher occupancy rates than cars, so the number of seats a car has is irrelevant. –==++AJC++==–

Response:

>But indeed, the comparison is of limited value,

Right.  Although it considers fuel efficiency, it fails to address the difference in speed.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– > Hash: SHA1 >    Well, here we go, guys. It’s tomorrow, streamed live on Airbus’ > website. ZDF (Zweite Deutsche Fernsehen, Ch. 2, Germany) and CNN > International are going to be covering it as well. Starts tomorrow at > 10am GMT (2am PST). Agenda as follows (times are GMT): > 07:30                       > Joint press conference with Noel Forgeard, Airbus President and Chief > Executive Officer, and A380 customer Chief Executive Officers. > 10:00 (with live video feed on airbus.com site) Arrival of Heads of   > State and Governments       >    - Mr Jacques Chirac,President of the French Republic >    - The Right Honourable Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United >      Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland >    - His Excellency Mr Gerhard Schroder, Chancellor of the Federal >      Republic of Germany >    - His Excellency Mr Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, President of the >      Government of the Spanish Kingdom > 11:05 [with live video feed on airbus.com site] >    - Beginning of ceremony. >    - Aircraft Reveal. >    - Inauguration of the aircraft. > 11:35 End of ceremony. >    All feeds will be available at > http://www.airbus.com/events/a380_reveal/event/index.asp . >    Enjoy. >                                                    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 v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) > iD8DBQFB7GPCyBkZmuMZ8L8RAvp9AKD4eHgJifiUj5ug5EbHz1WswuMdAACfcjbc > KtKO1b3wGgUz04XsnisDjvc= > =ra8X > —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

I recorded it. 2 hours of circus, stuffed shirts, talking heads and enough hot air to levitate the entire A380 production for the next 10 years. The whole program must have overrun, my recorder switched off before the plane even got shown. What a disappointment. I finally got to see the plane in the evening news. Nice paint scheme, but "rollout"? The plane didn’t move one inch. T.

Response:

> > BBC started to cover the ceremony, but decided to switch back to news. > It is currently on BBC News 24.

BBC World did bring it back. Quite the celebration for Europe to have managed such a large project together. It was interesting to see the windows progressively light up in the dark. So far, all the images had been of the 380 in daylight. But seing it lighted up made it look pretty neat and not so disproportionate.

Response:

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar: The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to a fuel efficient diesel car.

Response:

>Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar: >The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to >a fuel efficient diesel car.

How many passengers would such a car carry?

Response:

>>Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar: >The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to >a fuel efficient diesel car. >How many passengers would such a car carry?

Not a relevant statistic either. Factor in the average load factor of a fuel efficient diesal car and an A380 and then you might have a more meaningful figure. –==++AJC++==–

Response:

>>>Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar: >>The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to >>a fuel efficient diesel car. >How many passengers would such a car carry? >Not a relevant statistic either.

Given the OP’s comparative statement above, the implied "statistic" was apparently relevant to her. >Factor in the average load factor of a fuel efficient diesal car >and an A380 and then you might have a more meaningful figure.

Meaningful in what way?  Am I to infer, that you find the metric of fuel-per-passenger-mile irrelevant?

Response:

says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar: >>>The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to >>>a fuel efficient diesel car. >>How many passengers would such a car carry? >Not a relevant statistic either. > Given the OP’s comparative statement above, the implied "statistic" > was apparently relevant to her. >Factor in the average load factor of a fuel efficient diesal car >and an A380 and then you might have a more meaningful figure. > Meaningful in what way?  Am I to infer, that you find the metric of > fuel-per-passenger-mile irrelevant?

If you look at the number of passengers, then the A380 is vastly more efficient, because unless a car carries hundreds of passengers, you are going to have hundreds of drivers and comparatively few passengers compared to two pilots and hundreds passengers on the Airbus.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >says… > >>>Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar: > >>>The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to > >>>a fuel efficient diesel car. > >>How many passengers would such a car carry? > >Not a relevant statistic either. > Given the OP’s comparative statement above, the implied "statistic" > was apparently relevant to her. > >Factor in the average load factor of a fuel efficient diesal car > >and an A380 and then you might have a more meaningful figure. > Meaningful in what way?  Am I to infer, that you find the metric of > fuel-per-passenger-mile irrelevant? >If you look at the number of passengers, then the A380 is vastly more >efficient, because unless a car carries hundreds of passengers, you are >going to have hundreds of drivers and comparatively few passengers >compared to two pilots and hundreds passengers on the Airbus.

More efficient in fuel-per-passenger-mile?  Doubtful.  

Response:

Larry, > How many passengers would such a car carry?

four, including the driver. Available from Volkswagen in Germany as we speak. See http://showrooms.volkswagen.de/vwcms_publish/vwcms/master_public/showro oms/de/lupo/lupo_3l_tdi/home.frameset_outer.html But indeed, the comparison is of limited value, as anyone would find out who’d try to drive his VW from the US to Europe. — Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Response:

>Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar: >The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to >a fuel efficient diesel car.

Interesting stat, but the followup discussion here points out a question on exactly what this stat is. Is it fuel burn per passenger mile at max passenger load (i.e., the 380 carries 110 times as many passengers as the 5-passenger car, but burns less than 110 times as much fuel per mile) or fuel burn per passenger mile at typical passenger loads (i.e., the 380 at a typical passenger load of, e.g., 450 carries 300 times as many passengers as the car at a typical load of 1.5 people, but burns less than 300 times as much fuel per mile. Obviously, such a statistic based on capacity is far more significant than one based on average use. 3 liters/passenger per 100KM? I suspect there are MANY 5-passenger cars that will go further than 100KM on 15 liters of fuel, but not may that will go 100KM on 4.5 liters of fuel, if 1.5 is the average load of the car. — Alex — Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Response:

> http://www.airbus.com/events/a380_reveal/event/index.asp .

Has anyone been able to get any image/video feed from Airbus’s terrible web site ? BBC started to cover the ceremony, but decided to switch back to news.

Response:

> http://www.airbus.com/events/a380_reveal/event/index.asp . > Has anyone been able to get any image/video feed from Airbus’s terrible > web site ? > BBC started to cover the ceremony, but decided to switch back to news.

It is currently on BBC News 24. JohnT

Response:

>> http://www.airbus.com/events/a380_reveal/event/index.asp . >Has anyone been able to get any image/video feed from Airbus’s terrible >web site ?

No, but you can see it at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news >BBC started to cover the ceremony, but decided to switch back to news.

It is being broadcast on ZDF, Euronews and CNN in Europe –==++AJC++==–

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1         Well, here we go, guys. It’s tomorrow, streamed live on Airbus’ website. ZDF (Zweite Deutsche Fernsehen, Ch. 2, Germany) and CNN International are going to be covering it as well. Starts tomorrow at 10am GMT (2am PST). Agenda as follows (times are GMT): 07:30                       Joint press conference with Noel Forgeard, Airbus President and Chief Executive Officer, and A380 customer Chief Executive Officers. 10:00 (with live video feed on airbus.com site) Arrival of Heads of   State and Governments          - Mr Jacques Chirac,President of the French Republic    - The Right Honourable Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United      Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland    - His Excellency Mr Gerhard Schroder, Chancellor of the Federal      Republic of Germany    - His Excellency Mr Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, President of the      Government of the Spanish Kingdom 11:05 [with live video feed on airbus.com site]    - Beginning of ceremony.    - Aircraft Reveal.    - Inauguration of the aircraft. 11:35 End of ceremony.         All feeds will be available at http://www.airbus.com/events/a380_reveal/event/index.asp .         Enjoy.                                                         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 v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFB7GPCyBkZmuMZ8L8RAvp9AKD4eHgJifiUj5ug5EbHz1WswuMdAACfcjbc KtKO1b3wGgUz04XsnisDjvc= =ra8X —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

Question:

>> Is that really an article from the London Sunday Times or > a straight quote from a press-release of Airbus Industries ?????? >Both. For years, media have become simple outlets for press releases. >Governments know this and have used this to the fullest extent. Reporters are >under extreme pressure tyo produce more and under tighter deadlines, so the >time needed to research stories and debunk some of the propaganda from press >releases is often very insufficient.

The Sunday Times is just another of Rupert (born-again pornographer) Murdoch’s rags. It simply cobbled together press releases form both Airbus and Boeing. –==++AJC++==–

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Dwarfing the Boeing 747, this double-decker of the skies has already >> been dubbed the "superjumbo". Its wingspan is nearly as long as a >> football pitch. Its design could accommodate up to 850 passengers, >> though most airlines are initially likely to use a large chunk of the >> extra space to turn flying into an experience more akin to a luxury >> cruise. >Don’t bet on it.  Recall that the early 747s were configured for such >comfort.  Which was soon replaced with the current spam-in-a-can seat >configuration. >My guess would be an aircraft with the potential for multiple levels >of passanger classes; from a first class section to a back-of-the-plane >no frills knees-to-your-nose fun ride.  And several classes in between. > It’ll be real fun at the baggage carrousels.

        Screw the baggage carousels and passengers. I want to see this baby do a barrell roll a la B707!                                                         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 v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFB5s6wyBkZmuMZ8L8RAgGTAJ9VPNoaztxVWJpGVtBW4jnuwH4PcACdF4hH R3cQ/2rqFA++UFBGidPU664= =H5E3 —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

> Dwarfing the Boeing 747, this double-decker of the skies has already > been dubbed the "superjumbo". Its wingspan is nearly as long as a > football pitch. Its design could accommodate up to 850 passengers, > though most airlines are initially likely to use a large chunk of the > extra space to turn flying into an experience more akin to a luxury > cruise.

Don’t bet on it.  Recall that the early 747s were configured for such comfort.  Which was soon replaced with the current spam-in-a-can seat configuration. My guess would be an aircraft with the potential for multiple levels of passanger classes; from a first class section to a back-of-the-plane no frills knees-to-your-nose fun ride.  And several classes in between.

Response:

>> Dwarfing the Boeing 747, this double-decker of the skies has already > been dubbed the "superjumbo". Its wingspan is nearly as long as a > football pitch. Its design could accommodate up to 850 passengers, > though most airlines are initially likely to use a large chunk of the > extra space to turn flying into an experience more akin to a luxury > cruise. >Don’t bet on it.  Recall that the early 747s were configured for such >comfort.  Which was soon replaced with the current spam-in-a-can seat >configuration. >My guess would be an aircraft with the potential for multiple levels >of passanger classes; from a first class section to a back-of-the-plane >no frills knees-to-your-nose fun ride.  And several classes in between.

It’ll be real fun at the baggage carrousels.     *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *     * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Response:

> Dream on. Crammed with minimum width seats at minimum pitch more like.

Right now, we don’t even know if the beast will be able to fly with 550 pax. We’ll know this year. Also, we don’t even know if the current emergency exits will handle 550 pax in 90 seconds, considering how many pax might be affraid to jump out of the upper deck. I am not sure you’ll ever see more than 2-4-2 upstairs and 3-4-3 downstairs. So they won’t reduce seat widths. If it all, removing the extra armrests betwene seats would allow the seats to be wider. Those who might consider 800 pax would probably have it as an all coach config, assuming the beast could take off with that many. The beast was designed at a time where business and first class were big cash cows for airlines. The beast provides huge amount of room for business/first. But many airlines no longer need such large premium classes, so would the A380 be of use to them ? Perhaps Airbus should consider a combi version which would allow airlines such as Aircanada to combine large cargo with medium passenger capacity. Once the beast is flying, Airbus will have a better idea of its performance, and I think we will then see better definition of what it can and cannot do.

Response:

> kooked: > Yeah, I guess most people don’t live lives of idle trolling like you > and have to actually WORK and don’t have time to masturbate on usenet > 24/7. > FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS >    About > JF MEZEI

Oddly enough Mike, one has to ask the same of you. All we see you do is troll, and forge my name to your constant rant. You seem to be the one with the problem.

Response:

> This makes sense. If Boeing reduces the price tag of 747 by 30-40%, > there is enough competition for A380. Boeing doesn’t need to develop a > new air craft.

But then it would not be possible for Boeing to produce the craft economically. Again, a new product is not only new in its design but also in the way that it is being build. With the introduction of a new product there will also be new production techniques introduced that will make the production of the product cheaper and easier. The 747 even in its -400 version is still a second generation aircraft that is very likely more expensive to build than a third generation aircraft such as the 777 (taking the size into consideration of cause). Nik

Response:

> Its design could accommodate up to 850 passengers, >though most airlines are initially likely to use a large chunk of the >extra space to turn flying into an experience more akin to a luxury >cruise. >There is already talk of in-flight casinos, on-board fountains, >duty-free shops, gyms and showers. Some airlines are considering >scrapping the traditional trolley service for meals and allowing >passengers to help themselves from a range of food counters.

Dream on. Crammed with minimum width seats at minimum pitch more like. MJ

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In nine days, one of the most eagerly anticipated aircraft ever built > will be unveiled. > To mark its arrival Tony Blair will join Jacques Chirac, the French > president, and the leaders of Germany and Spain at a huge aircraft > hangar in Toulouse, southwest France. With a lavish sound and light > show, a curtain will be pulled back and the four leaders – along with > up to 5,000 invited guests – will finally get their first glimpse of > the Airbus A-380, the world’s biggest passenger airliner. SNIP SNIP > The A-380 is a symbol of continental might – and Chirac and Gerhard > Schroder, the German chancellor, who fell out with the White House over > the Iraq war, are probably savouring the prospect of a European plane > capturing the lead in air travel from America’s veteran 747s. > Sunday Times, London

Is that really an article from the London Sunday Times or a straight quote from a press-release of Airbus Industries ?????? retired/uk.

Response:

> Is that really an article from the London Sunday Times or > a straight quote from a press-release of Airbus Industries ??????

Both. For years, media have become simple outlets for press releases. Governments know this and have used this to the fullest extent. Reporters are under extreme pressure tyo produce more and under tighter deadlines, so the time needed to research stories and debunk some of the propaganda from press releases is often very insufficient.

Response:

kooked: > Is that really an article from the London Sunday Times or > a straight quote from a press-release of Airbus Industries ?????? >Both. For years, media have become simple outlets for press releases. >Governments know this and have used this to the fullest extent. Reporters are >under extreme pressure tyo produce more and under tighter deadlines, so the >time needed to research stories and debunk some of the propaganda from press >releases is often very insufficient.

Yeah, I guess most people don’t live lives of idle trolling like you and have to actually WORK and don’t have time to masturbate on usenet 24/7. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS    About JF MEZEI The "nobody" troll of rec.travel.air and "John Doe" troll of the sci.space.* newsgroups. (Rev. Jan. 01, 2005) Written by: Darrell Larose 121 Northwestern Ave Ottawa, ON K1Y 0M1 (613) 725-0245 1.  Who is JF Mezei? Jean-Francois Mezei is the worst netkook and megatroll to have ever hit rec.travel.air and various other usenet newsgroups.  He is also one of the longest running trolls in usenet history. ***WARNING:  JF MEZEI IS A ROGUE CANCELLER.  HE FORGES THE NAME AND E-MAIL ADDRESS OF USENET POSTERS HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH AND CANCELS THEIR MESSAGES.*** If you participate in the same newsgroups he does, you should monitor the control.cancel newsgroup.  If you find that he has cancelled your Also http://www.usenetabuse.com . 2.  How long has he been trolling? For well over a decade. 3.  Where does he live? Montreal, Quebec, Canada Jean-Francois Mezei 86 Harwood Gate Beaconsfield, QC H9W3A3 (514) 992-0474 (514) 695-8259 His website is http://www.vaxination.ca . 4.  What makes him such a malicious troll? His trolling is constant, repetitious, relentless.  Once he invades your newsgroup he will stay for decades, troll around the clock, day in and day out, every day of the year, for years and years on end.  He does not listen to pleas to stop, he does not listen to anything anyone tells him, he does not pay attention when the misinformation/disinformation he posts is corrected, he just goes right on trolling year in, year out like a little child holding his ears closed while yelling "I can’t hear you, I can’t hear anything you say!" 5.  What does he troll about? His favorite subjects are USA-bashing and anything to do with sex.  He hates the USA and Americans and will hijack any thread and turn it into a USA-bashing fest.  If he can’t do that then he’ll just start making lewd posts. 6.  What does he hate about the USA? Everything!  He is part of a larger group of Canadian trolls who have a visceral hatred of the USA, motivated by envy mostly.  The USA is a happier, better, more successful version of their country and they can’t stand it.  Some of JF’s favorite troll bait is "the Bush regime", "the Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz axis of evil", "Americans are brainwashed", "Cars are evil", "SUVs are evil", "all Americans are stupid" etc. 7.  What about his sexual trolling? Ah, that is JF at his trolling best.  No sexual topic is too bizarre. Among his favorites are child sexuality, masturbation, women’s genitalia, sex toys, circumcision, the sex lives of Americans (of course) … the list is endless. 8.  Circumcision??? Yes, JF trolled the circumcision newsgroups for years.  He still likes to insert circumcision into his trolling every now and then. Apparently, JF was traumatized as a child because his parents, poor Hungarian immigrants to Canada, left him uncircumcised when he was born, as is the custom in most of the world.  Growing up in Canada where male infant circumcision was prevalent at the time, he was psychologically scarred (so he claims).  As soon as he could he arranged to get himself snipped, and then joined the brigades of circumcision proselytizers in the newsgroups advocating the joys of a free willy.  His main argument is how much better he was able to masturbate after getting circumcised without that "pesky foreskin" getting in the way of his enjoyment, and he has made it his mission in life to spread the circumcision gospel. 9.  What’s his interest in child sexuality?  That sounds kind of freaky. Well, everything having to do with Mezei *is* freaky.  Among the subjects dear to his heart are the genitals of little boys and girls, especially little boy’s foreskins (and how tight they are) and little girls’ hymens.  He is also a tireless activist and advocate that children should be taught to masturbate early on so that they don’t grow up "sexually repressed like Americans". He also counsels all parents of boys that they constantly check their little boys’ penises and foreskins frequently to ensure a good fit, proper movement, and that they be able to masturbate with no problems. Utopia for JF would be a world full of parents manipulating their little boys’ penises. 10.  Ewww!  This guy is sounding more and more disgusting by the minute!  Are you sure about all this stuff? Yes, you can check the google archives for yourself.  There’s over a decade full of Mezei trolling in there. 11.  How can I find all that out, doesn’t he change aliases all the time like all trolls do? Of course!  See the appendix below for a list of many of his known trolling aliases. 12.  So where does this guy get so much time to troll, doesn’t he work? Ha ha ha!  JF hasn’t worked a day in his life!  He’s an adult baby, a grown man who still lives at home with mommy and sleeps all day and trolls the newsgroups all night.  In his free time when he isn’t trolling he likes to ride his bike down to Dorval Airport and race the planes down the runway in his bike. 13.  That seems strange, is he mentally ill or something? Bingo!  JF is a boy in a grown man’s body.  Psychologically he never got past the age of 13 and got stuck in a world of bathroom humor (i.e. "pull my finger!") and locker room antics that he has never been able to outgrow. 14.  Speaking of locker rooms, I heard he has a sexual fetish about them, is that true? Yes!  JF goes to the gym not to work out but to watch men in the locker room.  He loves to post about the male sexual organs he has seen in locker rooms over the years, especially his unnatural obsession with foreskins.  He stalks the men in locker rooms trying to measure how much foreskin they have, or how little is left if they have been circumcised.  He gets extremely excited when he spots a case of phimosis. 15.  Oh my Gawd, this guy is nuts!  He should be locked up in an insane asylum! Yep, JF is certifiably insane.  He lives in a black helicopter / tin foil hat world where others are out to get him.  The key to understanding JF is that he sees himself as a VICTIM.  To JF the world is out to get him, especially the USA.  Victimhood is what JF is all about. What seems to have sent him over the edge was when the Canadian rail system was "killed", in his words.  He used to be a major train nut, spotting trains, writing down their numbers and chasing them down at the train yard like a good freak.  Then he turned his attention to aviation.  Major events that made him fall head first deep into the abyss were the bankruptcy of Canadian Airlines and their subsequent takeover by Air Canada (whom he sees as evil).  So paranoid is he that when an Air Canada plane crashed he claimed that Air Canada employees went lurking about in the night with buckets of white paint to cover up the Air Canada markings.  He saw that as symbolic of a cover up of the crash investigation.  He has never recovered from this. 16.  Where else does he hang out, I want to avoid him! His main haunt on usenet is comp.os.vms, a newsgroup dedicated to some ancient, arcane, obsolete piece of vax crapware that nobody has taken seriously for decades.  JF hangs out there with other misfits and social dropouts who share his psychological traumas, crying for the good old vax days of yore.  It’s really pathetic! 17.  Where else does he hang out? can.internet.highspeed, alt.cellular.fido, and a few other geeky computer groups.  For a while after the Shuttle Columbia disaster he invaded the sci.space groups, sci.space.shuttle in particular, and trolled it relentlessly with the anti-American, conspiracy theory crap he’s so famous for.  But they ran him off that group and he had to go crawling back to comp.os.vms with his tail between his legs, licking his wounds. 18.  It sounds like comp.os.vms is the only group he respects and doesn’t troll. Pretty much.  For a megatroll like JF it’s impossible not to troll, so he slips in troll bait every now and then, but by and large he respects comp.os.vms, and, more importantly, he tries to hide his trolling activities from them so they won’t find out what a major netkook he is. 19.  Wow, sounds like he should be exposed so they will know what kind of psycho he is! Exactly.  Feel free to post all his trolls to comp.os.vms.  And while you’re at it post them to can.internet.highspeed and alt.cellular.fido too.  And to alt.usenet.kooks, a group for the likes of JF, and news.admin.net-abuse.usenet. 20.  What else can I do?  Is there an abuse address? Yes, you should send complaints along with copies of his troll posts to: also http://www.usenetabuse.com You can also call directly, troll free, 1-877-779-1575. TekSavvy Solutions Inc. 330 Richmond St., Suite 205 Chatham, ON, Canada N7M 1P7 And feel free to distribute this FAQ freely.  Post it to newsgroups, email it to people, you may host it at your own website, send it to newspapers and magazines that do Internet articles or anything to do with Montreal or Canada, etc.

… read more »

Response:

> > "Time will tell who is right," Harry Stonecipher, CEO of Boeing, said > recently. "If demand increases, we’ll build a supersize aircraft." > Nop. The demand for such large aircraft won’t be big enough to justify Boeing > spending megabucks to develop a new aircraft with only the hope of capturing > half of that market. If airvus breaks even on the A380, it will be a big > enough accomplishement. > What Boeing might do however is just lower the price tag of the 747 > sufficiently to make the thing really competitive.

This makes sense. If Boeing reduces the price tag of 747 by 30-40%, there is enough competition for A380. Boeing doesn’t need to develop a new air craft.

Response:

In nine days, one of the most eagerly anticipated aircraft ever built will be unveiled. To mark its arrival Tony Blair will join Jacques Chirac, the French president, and the leaders of Germany and Spain at a huge aircraft hangar in Toulouse, southwest France. With a lavish sound and light show, a curtain will be pulled back and the four leaders – along with up to 5,000 invited guests – will finally get their first glimpse of the Airbus A-380, the world’s biggest passenger airliner. Dwarfing the Boeing 747, this double-decker of the skies has already been dubbed the "superjumbo". Its wingspan is nearly as long as a football pitch. Its design could accommodate up to 850 passengers, though most airlines are initially likely to use a large chunk of the extra space to turn flying into an experience more akin to a luxury cruise. There is already talk of in-flight casinos, on-board fountains, duty-free shops, gyms and showers. Some airlines are considering scrapping the traditional trolley service for meals and allowing passengers to help themselves from a range of food counters. Futuristic it may sound, but the A380 is expected to make its first test-flight by March-end and to enter service next spring with flights between Singapore and London. The superjumbo project, however, is not merely just about a plane. It is at the forefront of a battle for supremacy of the skies between Europe and America. The A-380 is a symbol of continental might – and Chirac and Gerhard Schroder, the German chancellor, who fell out with the White House over the Iraq war, are probably savouring the prospect of a European plane capturing the lead in air travel from America’s veteran 747s. To its supporters, the superjumbo will herald a new golden age in air travel. But to doubters there is still turbulence ahead. They predict that travel trends are changing and that demand for large aircraft will be limited. Gordon Bethune, CEO of Continental Airlines, told a travel industry group: "What’s in it for me to sit on an airplane with 500 other people, wait for my bags with 500 other people, check in with 500 other people?" And if airlines used the A-380’s full capacity, passengers could find themselves corralled, "cattle class" style, in even bigger groups. So, in contrast to Airbus, Boeing is concentrating its efforts on developing a smaller plane. But if the superjumbo is more success than white elephant that will not be an end of the rivalry for the skies. "Time will tell who is right," Harry Stonecipher, CEO of Boeing, said recently. "If demand increases, we’ll build a supersize aircraft." Sunday Times, London Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/985371.cms

Response:

> Dwarfing the Boeing 747, this double-decker of the skies has already > been dubbed the "superjumbo".

It looks more like a beast. Actually, in its green pain, under certain viewing angles, it reminds me of a klingon bird of prey. > football pitch. Its design could accommodate up to 850 passengers,

Does anyone know if the current plane can handle 850 pax with current emergency exit config ? Or is the architecture of the 380 such that it could be stretched to accomodate that many ? > There is already talk of in-flight casinos, on-board fountains, > duty-free shops, gyms and showers.

They forgot the olympic size swimming pool, tennis courts, dining rooms, hairdressers, theatre, imax cinema and snack bar > Some airlines are considering > scrapping the traditional trolley service for meals and allowing > passengers to help themselves from a range of food counters.

While this would truly be neat from a passenger experience point of view, this has to be balanced with the "fasten your seat belt at all times in case of unexpected turbulence" issue. > travel. But to doubters there is still turbulence ahead. They predict > that travel trends are changing and that demand for large aircraft will > be limited.

Assuming the beast actually does fly and provide the promised savings, promised range and payload, even if only a few airlines buy it, the plane would still be a success. But it would be, like Concorde, a financial disaster for the builder. > group: "What’s in it for me to sit on an airplane with 500 other > people,

Wider seats for one thing.  Does CO have it head office laid out in a large number of small homes, or are they in a more efficient office building ? Does he mind having to work with thousands ofther humans in the same building ? The fact that the plane is split on two floors will probably reduce the feeling of 550 people on the plane. > wait for my bags with 500 other people, check in with 500 other > people?"

Better than being stuck on a runway or fly around an airport until you run out of fuel because of airport congestion. > So, in contrast to Airbus, Boeing is concentrating its efforts on > developing a smaller plane.

Not really. Boeing is making a replacement for the 767 that is bigger than the 767 to compete against the airbus 330 (and now 350). > "Time will tell who is right," Harry Stonecipher, CEO of Boeing, said > recently. "If demand increases, we’ll build a supersize aircraft."

Nop. The demand for such large aircraft won’t be big enough to justify Boeing spending megabucks to develop a new aircraft with only the hope of capturing half of that market. If airvus breaks even on the A380, it will be a big enough accomplishement. What Boeing might do however is just lower the price tag of the 747 sufficiently to make the thing really competitive.

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:

> Unfortunately I can’t link to this message

Hi Mike, The link was to a usenet posting made by someone in Finland, so even if your browser could display it unless you can read Finnish I don’t think it would help.  It displayed as gibberish to me. Sorry about that. However, I did enter… +"Jim Crow laws" +"air travel" +"Jim Crow laws" +airlines …into google and got some hits, particularly this thread: http://www.h-net.org/~south/archives/threads/airlines.html Cheers, Geoff Glave Vancouver, Canada

Response:

I can’t get an answer to this question on google.  Does anyone know if flights in the South (for example New Orleans to Birmingham) were segregated like buses or railroads were under the Jim Crow laws? Any information would be appreciated.

Response:

Question:

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

Response:

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

Response:

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

Response:

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

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

Response:

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

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

Response:

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

Response:

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

Response:

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

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

Response:

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

Question:

Why do you insist posting off-topic articles related to everything but air travel? This group is CLEARLY (and americans, in your native language) marked as being related to air travel. Posting articles about Bush, terrorism, moving to Canada or whatever else to here should be another indicator for the much debated level of IQ of americans. And I think that these brainless off topic posters represent a (somehow) higher IQ level or vision compared to an average american, as they (hopefully) are aware that there is a world outside US. When I imagine the average american then, I feel very lucky about being european.

Response:

> Why do you insist posting off-topic articles related to everything but > air travel? > This group is CLEARLY (and americans, in your native language) marked > as being related to air travel. Posting articles about Bush, > terrorism, moving to Canada or whatever else to here should be another > indicator for the much debated level of IQ of americans. > And I think that these brainless off topic posters represent a > (somehow) higher IQ level or vision compared to an average american, > as they (hopefully) are aware that there is a world outside US. > When I imagine the average american then, I feel very lucky about > being european.

If I’m reading your post correctly, you’re blaming Americans for off topic posts.  A bit more research on your end is needed.  things aren’t what they seem.– "ST" "Everywhere is within walking distance,   if you have the time"   (-Steven Wright-)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Why do you insist posting off-topic articles related to everything but > air travel? > This group is CLEARLY (and americans, in your native language) marked > as being related to air travel. Posting articles about Bush, > terrorism, moving to Canada or whatever else to here should be another > indicator for the much debated level of IQ of americans. > And I think that these brainless off topic posters represent a > (somehow) higher IQ level or vision compared to an average american, > as they (hopefully) are aware that there is a world outside US. > When I imagine the average american then, I feel very lucky about > being european. > If I’m reading your post correctly, you’re blaming Americans for off topic > posts.  A bit more research on your end is needed.  things aren’t what they > seem.–

Such as the European posting off-topic, for example?

Response:

Question:

> >With these geniuses in charge of security, airline travel is no more >secure today that it was on 9/11. All we’ve done is created an >entirely new class of civil servant control freaks and given them >power to fuck with peoples’ lives. > Yep.  I think most people agree we need good security in airports, but > gov’t. bureauracy never does anything very well. > Just another reason to be afraid of socialized medicine.

Response:

> With these geniuses in charge of security, airline travel is no more > secure today that it was on 9/11. All we’ve done is created an > entirely new class of civil servant control freaks and given them > power to fuck with peoples’ lives.

Exactly. And they fuck with peoples’ lives because they are incompetent or just because they can.

Response:

>Just another reason to be afraid of socialized medicine.

Abolish Medicare? gld

Response:

>There is a certain amount of security in "random" security since it makes it >much harder to plan some attack.

Ah, so the chaos is actually part of some brilliant plan … I get it! (-; (-; (-; gld

Response:

>With these geniuses in charge of security, airline travel is no more >secure today that it was on 9/11. All we’ve done is created an >entirely new class of civil servant control freaks and given them >power to fuck with peoples’ lives.

Yep.  I think most people agree we need good security in airports, but gov’t. bureauracy never does anything very well. Just another reason to be afraid of socialized medicine. — There’s no way to delay that trouble comin’ everyday

Response:

>With these geniuses in charge of security, airline travel is no more >secure today that it was on 9/11. All we’ve done is created an >entirely new class of civil servant control freaks and given them >power to fuck with peoples’ lives.

isn’t that the truth?

Response:

> With these geniuses in charge of security, airline travel is no more > secure today that it was on 9/11. All we’ve done is created an > entirely new class of civil servant control freaks and given them > power to fuck with peoples’ lives.

 There is a certain amount of security in "random" security since it makes it much harder to plan some attack.

Response:

> >But it *is* necessary, Paul, and the grownups among us understand >that and have come to terms with it.  You should try and do the >same.

<Geoff> That’s fine. If you want to submit the government "security," measures, inorder to excercise a privledge (travelling by air), that’s fine with me. I chose not to submit to those measures and as such, I don’t travel by air as air travel is not a right. I’d rather be secure in my person and my possessions at the expense of getting somewhere a little quicker. > My friend had a fun experience flying home the other day. Seems our > last name is similar to another passenger on the flight – a passenger > that the airline had flagged for "extra" screening. They gave my > friend this woman’s boarding pass by mistake; my friend didn’t notice > right away.

Gee, I wonder why the other person was "flagged." Pissed off a gate agent somewhere? > When she got to the screening station, she got the full treatment: the > wanding, the swabbing, the individual inspection of every item in her > luggage. The brilliant agents of the TSA didn’t notice that the > boarding pass was incorrect, either – even though they looked at my > friend’s ID.

<sarcasm> Instills alot of confidence in the tsa, doesn’t it? </sarcasm> > After the screening was over, my friend went to the gate. It was then > she noticed that she had the wrong boarding pass. So she went to the > airline counter, explained what had happened, and received the correct

<snip> > entirely new class of civil servant control freaks and given them > power to fuck with peoples’ lives.

Yet another reason to stay the hell off commercial airlines if at all possible. The civil servants running the security show couldn’t screen out a terrorist if their own lives depended on it.

Response: