PDA

View Full Version : Re: US Airways - NEVER AGAIN !!!


Robert Henry
July 9th 03, 01:54 PM
> I used to fly a considerable amount
>of commercial. I plan to never fly commercial again. Doesn't matter where
>the problem(s) lies, commercial airline travel sucks big time.

Me too - same sentiment. The airlines refuse to adopt SOPs to handle the
weather and FAA issues, imho.

I went full bore to earn my ticket after it took more than 24 hours to fly
from VA to MI and another 24 hours back (Tstorms in Chicago both ways). It's
a 4 hour flight in a 172 and/or a 12 hour car ride. The date of that
infamous trip was Labor Day weekend, 2001.

Back in January I flew MCO to LAX. On the return, there was some localized
<1mi vis fog in PHX (of all places). It took over 36 hours to fly LAX PHX
MCO. The airline (whose airplanes are white with red and green markings)
has 60+ gates, but once we got to PHX we burnt jet fuel for 90 minutes in
the penalty box. (There's no OP (AFAIK) to get the idle planes off one or
two gates and deplane the inbounds....) And, yes, in a 172 I could have made
the return trip, avoiding the fog, in a little less time - having control
over the plan. Granted, MCO LAX would have taken longer, but I had already
invested 8 or so hours flying JYO MLB to leave the kids with the
grandparents. (It takes 6 hours plus checkin and baggage recovery time on DL
on a good day through ATL).

Dana Carvey's "Bush" could say it best about commercial air travel- "Not
gonna do it...wouldn't be prudent."

IIRC, the airlines that don't operate hubs are the ones making money. Alas,
most of them don't go where I need/want to go.

--

Bob
PP-ASEL-IA, AGI/IGI

Sydney Hoeltzli
July 9th 03, 02:16 PM
PS2727 wrote:
> most realize
> that sometimes things just don't go according to plan. I have always thought
> airlines should be more forthcoming in telling customers that not all flights
> will be on time and that it's simply not possible to make flying 100% reliable.

Actually I think airlines have been at considerable pains to persuade
pax that flying is as close to 100% reliable as anything on earth and
that they should be able to expect to get there on time. If people have
unreasonable expectations, it's from believing the commercials.

That's what many people are paying for -- convenience and reliability,
trading the purchase price of the ticket for a presumed savings in
rare time off.

If they were given an accurate description of airline travel today
(expect many delays, plan an extra day transit each way), IMO many
would choose an alternate means of transportation. It's certainly
possible to drive from the midwest to the East coast or Denver in
1 day, though tiring and uncomfortable. Trains are also a possible
alternative between some locations.

Ever stood in an old train station, admired the size and architecture,
and thought to yourself how, 50-60 years ago when these things were
built people thought this was "it", the transportation of the future,
and that they were building for generations of users to follow? Now
it's a hotel, or a shopping mall, or both, and the train station may
be a little hut across town with 1 pax train a day.

I have the same feelings when I stand in a busy airport terminal.
We're about 45 years into the golden age of commercial aviation,
and I find myself wondering when it will be gone and what will
replace it in 50 or 40 or 30 or 10 years.

Scotty, beam me to 'Frisco?
Sydney

Michael
July 9th 03, 04:38 PM
"Capt. Doug" > wrote
> You didn't mention the reasons for their tardiness. I understand your
> frustration, but am not quite ready to place all the blame squarely on the
> airline.

That's irrelevant. When you sell something to a customer, and then
the customer doesn't get what he was promised, then it's your fault.
Even if you put somewhere in the fine print that he might not get what
he was promised, it's still your fault. That arrival time you print
on the ticket? That's a promise. If you have certain
suppliers/vendors/regulators who are known not to be reliable, then
it's your responsibility to either replace them or factor in the
unreliability into your schedules.

> My flight yesterday (NOT for Scareways) started 4 hours late. Our plane was
> delayed inbound for 3 hours because of flow control problems in Chicago. The
> airline can't do anything about it.

Really? Were you shocked that there were flow control problems in
Chicago? How about mildly surprised? No? Is it maybe because the
airline has scheduled way too many flights to arrive and depart at the
same time from the same little patch of concrete, knowing there's not
a chance in hell that will work except under ideal conditions?

See, the airline CAN do something about it. It can schedule
realistically. If you know the airport can't possibly handle 200
operations in an hour except under ideal conditions, then don't
schedule 200 operations. Really, it's that simple.

> In the meantime, a
> police officer showed up at the cabin entrance and asked for a female
> passenger to be removed. It turns out that the woman had assaulted her
> intransigent teenage daughter while in the terminal.

While I'm certainly not making excuses for assault (there is no excuse
for assault) the fact remains that people are only human, and when
their plans are screwed up due to circumstances beyond their control
they get angry and frustrated, and some are prone to violence. And if
the scheduling had allowed for reasonable airport capacity, rather
than what you can get under ideal conditions, there probably would
have been no assault and consequent investigation.

> I have little doubt that a few of our frustrated passengers may swear off
> traveling with us again. On the other hand, I know that trips with such
> frustration are the exception.

No they're not. In my experience, they're the rule. And I can assure
you that at this point, MOST of your frustrated passengers are only
flying because they have no choice (meaning as a condition of
employment) and many would be happy to see you all go out of business
so they could take alternate transportation.

> I also know that traveling by personal
> aircraft has it's own frustrations.

Yeah. Like just a few months ago I had a mechanical problem - right
engine starter bendix wouldn't engage. Takeoff was delayed by two
hours while I decowled the engine, cleaned out the bendix, and
reassembled. Funny, though - I didn't miss any of my connections,
didn't have to sit for hours in a tiny cramped seat, didn't have to
eat crappy food, and didn't tell my passengers how it wasn't my fault.

Michael

Tony Cox
July 9th 03, 05:15 PM
"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Capt. Doug" > wrote
>
> > My flight yesterday (NOT for Scareways) started 4 hours late. Our plane
was
> > delayed inbound for 3 hours because of flow control problems in Chicago.
The
> > airline can't do anything about it.
>
> Really? Were you shocked that there were flow control problems in
> Chicago? How about mildly surprised? No? Is it maybe because the
> airline has scheduled way too many flights to arrive and depart at the
> same time from the same little patch of concrete, knowing there's not
> a chance in hell that will work except under ideal conditions?
>
> See, the airline CAN do something about it. It can schedule
> realistically. If you know the airport can't possibly handle 200
> operations in an hour except under ideal conditions, then don't
> schedule 200 operations. Really, it's that simple.

Flow control delay is determined by *all* airlines, not just one particular
airline. It can also change when non-scheduled planes arrive, presidents
decide to have haircuts on the taxiway, passengers start fights and a
whole load of other externals which aren't under the control of the airline
you've decided to ride on. Not to mention unpredicted weather.

It's all a trade off. If you are really determined to get where you want
to be exactly on schedule, then pick an airline that schedules just
once per day, so the plane is ready and waiting for you when you turn
up. That would push up the costs tremendously, and even then you
wouldn't be guaranteed an on-time arrival, or even departure.

You should check the Federally-mandated airline on-time statistics &
use your common sense. Me, I tend to prefer Southwest because they're
cheaper. But I know that they maintain their low cost by minimising
idle time. So generally, any cumulative delays mean that they're unlikely
to be on time later in the day, since the plane has done several legs
before mine. But that's fine by me. I try to travel early in the day.
Really,
it's that simple.

Montblack
July 9th 03, 05:17 PM
"Even if we were under full scale attack I couldn't move any faster, not and
maintain a safety factor." -- Scotty, The Naked Time, stardate 1704.2,
Episode 7

or

"I cannot change the laws of physics...I've got to have thirty minutes!" --
Scotty

Either way, I'm seeing transporter delays in your future.

--
Montblack


("Sydney Hoeltzli" wrote)
<snip>
> Scotty, beam me to 'Frisco?

Kevin McCue
July 9th 03, 06:09 PM
Its being a bit unrealistic to take this out on a flight crew member.
They are just the "bus driver" (no offense intended) doing all they can to
keep on schedule and ensure safe operation of the aircraft. The all of my
problems with airlines stem from the "customer service" personnel and their
ideas of what customer service entails. A couple good examples:

1. A large group of passengers from a cruise ship delayed from the ship.
Untied Airlines check-in at LAX is backed up forever. Departure is in 30
min. All the 1st class check-in lines are empty and the personnel do
nothing, even after being told about the problem. "I'm sorry sir, this is
first class check in."

2. Flight on America Worst from PHX to SBA. Gate personnel tell us that
there is fog in Santa Barbara and we have a choice of boarding the plane
with a decision to be made enroute about diverting to Bakersfield. If that
is the decision, "You will be de-planed at Bakersfield and our obligation to
you has ended." OR you can make other arrangements and not get on the plane.
"Sorry, its the weather, not our fault."

Lots of crap like this. None of it is the flight crews fault, but they
are usually the ones that have to put up with the "fall out" from ****ed off
customers. When I do fly commercial, I regard the time in the plane as
relaxation. Look out the window and realize that for now I don't have to put
up with some B.S. the marketing people give customer service as a "reason"
why things aren't their fault.


--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




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

John Galban
July 10th 03, 12:24 AM
(Wdtabor) wrote in message >...
<snippage>
> If I scheduled so that eveything had to go perfectly or
> the whole day went to ****, I would run like US Airways too.

Unfortunately, most airlines operate with zero slack in their
schedules. Your horror story is repeated on most airlines every day.
I haven't set foot on an airliner in 4 years, and truly dread the day
I have to do it again.
>
> And that is the point. They didn't just have a single problem flight. Every
> flight on my itinerary was a problem. They were consistently incompetent and
> didn't give a damn.

Quote snipped from another thread, but it seems quite appropriate
here :

> But Candace Kolander of the Association of Flight Attendants union says the
> airline industry has become too obsessed with pleasing passengers.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

H. Adam Stevens
July 10th 03, 01:13 AM
Long ago I flew from Austin, TX to Burlington VT in a lovely Seminole I
owned at the time.
N2196B; Is she still at Palwaukee?
Two colleagues from work went commercial (I was giving a talk at a
scientific conference).
I beat them. By 10 hours.
More recently my daughter left Richmond on some damn airline; At the same
time I left in my P Baron.
She was 11 hours later than me and my 58P.
Airlines suck. Buses suck for the same reasons.
Excepting Southwest and Quantas and one or two others.
Maybe. Once-in-a-while. Like when you want to go to Australia.
H.
N502TB

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
> (Wdtabor) wrote in message
>...
> <snippage>
> > If I scheduled so that eveything had to go perfectly or
> > the whole day went to ****, I would run like US Airways too.
>
> Unfortunately, most airlines operate with zero slack in their
> schedules. Your horror story is repeated on most airlines every day.
> I haven't set foot on an airliner in 4 years, and truly dread the day
> I have to do it again.
> >
> > And that is the point. They didn't just have a single problem flight.
Every
> > flight on my itinerary was a problem. They were consistently incompetent
and
> > didn't give a damn.
>
> Quote snipped from another thread, but it seems quite appropriate
> here :
>
> > But Candace Kolander of the Association of Flight Attendants union says
the
> > airline industry has become too obsessed with pleasing passengers.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Sydney Hoeltzli
July 10th 03, 01:32 AM
Michael wrote:

> Yeah. Like just a few months ago I had a mechanical problem - right
> engine starter bendix wouldn't engage. Takeoff was delayed by two
> hours while I decowled the engine, cleaned out the bendix, and
> reassembled.

Was it that long? Didn't seem like working on the plane took
that long. Must be because you stopped to gobble down BBQ Pork Loin
or whatever carnivorous material y'all were devouring, fresh salad
which actually had flavor, topped off with the (in)famous brownies.
Catch that being served on an airline during a mechanical or wx
delay

Cheers,
Sydney

H. Adam Stevens
July 10th 03, 01:44 AM
Appropriate management of maintenance completely prevents such things.
I once had a perfect P Baron.
Victor Sloan runs a great shop, by the way;
And I paid HIM a lot of money to be able to say that.
Beech did my first ($40K) annual.
Now I question the point of insurance; THAT'LL MAKE FLYING CHEAPER!!
AIG blows. "How 'bout we cobble something together at the wreckong yard for
$170K?"
Beech SN TJ415 (Anniversary Edition) deserves repair at Beech.
By the book.
H.
N502TB

"Sydney Hoeltzli" > wrote in message
...
> Michael wrote:
>
> > Yeah. Like just a few months ago I had a mechanical problem - right
> > engine starter bendix wouldn't engage. Takeoff was delayed by two
> > hours while I decowled the engine, cleaned out the bendix, and
> > reassembled.
>
> Was it that long? Didn't seem like working on the plane took
> that long. Must be because you stopped to gobble down BBQ Pork Loin
> or whatever carnivorous material y'all were devouring, fresh salad
> which actually had flavor, topped off with the (in)famous brownies.
> Catch that being served on an airline during a mechanical or wx
> delay
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney
>

Robert Henry
July 10th 03, 03:26 AM
"Sydney Hoeltzli" > wrote in message
...
> John Galban wrote:
>
> >>But Candace Kolander of the Association of Flight Attendants union says
the
> >>airline industry has become too obsessed with pleasing passengers.
>
> WHAT is she smoking?
>
> Whatever it is, it's good.
>
> Sydney
>

Oh, I wouldn't be so sure. I am sure airline management is obsessing about
customer satisfaction. The inability of any of them to think outside the
box and make it a reality just creates a vicious cycle.

Sydney Hoeltzli
July 10th 03, 04:12 AM
H. Adam Stevens wrote:

> AIG blows. "How 'bout we cobble something together at the wreckong yard for
> $170K?"

Unfortunately you're not the first person I've heard sing
that song :(.

A few years back there were a pair of Cardinal owners who had
accidents fairly close in time to each other (mechanical failure
being involved in each case).

One had AIG, the other had USAIG. Two letters, and all the
difference in the world in how the claims were handled.

Good luck,
Sydney

Michael
July 10th 03, 10:03 PM
"Kevin McCue" > wrote
> Its being a bit unrealistic to take this out on a flight crew member.

Actually, in the long run it's the right thing to do. It creates
financial consequences for the airline. It ****es off the flight
crew, and as a result the airline has to either pay the flight crew
more for dealing with the fallout or accept less-qualified flight
crew, which will show up in the insurance rates before long.

Michael

Michael
July 10th 03, 10:13 PM
"Tony Cox" > wrote
> Flow control delay is determined by *all* airlines, not just one particular
> airline.

Ah yes, the "Everybody is doing it" defense.

> It can also change when non-scheduled planes arrive, presidents
> decide to have haircuts on the taxiway, passengers start fights and a
> whole load of other externals which aren't under the control of the airline
> you've decided to ride on. Not to mention unpredicted weather.

Like I said - if it happens only very rarely, it's not really a
problem. You can afford to do whatever it takes to make it right for
the customer because it's a very rare event. If it happens often
enough to **** off a lot of customers, and often enough that you just
can't do whatever it takes to make it right for the customer, and you
don't plan for it, then it's your fault for not planning for it. It's
really that simple.

> You should check the Federally-mandated airline on-time statistics &
> use your common sense.

I do. That's why I don't set foot on an airliner unless someone is
not only paying for my ticket but also paying for me to be there. In
those cases, I just don't worry about delays and unanticipated
expenses - the delays are work time for which I'm paid, the expenses
go on my expense report. No problem.

Michael

Ron Natalie
July 10th 03, 11:41 PM
"Michael" > wrote in message m...

> If you're shipping an employee around the country, he must have some
> valuable skills. How much is it costing you to have him sitting
> around for extra hours, being mostly unproductive? How much is it
> costing you when you **** him off by putting him on the most
> inconvenient but cheapest available flight, and he decides not to work
> those extra hours to get the project done on time? Those costs are
> very real, and probably greater than anything you might save on the
> price of the ticket, but they're not so easy to quantify and in any
> case the ticket price is right here right now, and the other costs
> probably won't show up this quarter and maybe not even this year.

This is why we don't let the accountants set the travel policy.
Even when I was working for the federal government, I successfully
fought some rediculous travel arrangements that was not advantageous
to the overall picture of the government. Usually all it takes is to
have your supervisor have some balls to authorize it. Even without
that, savvy gov't travellers know what the rules are and how to exploit them
(to the point of requiring the gov't pay for a rental car to go to non preferred
airports, invoking the fact that they can't make you start a trip outside of duty
hours, etc...

PS2727
July 11th 03, 03:43 AM
>
>Actually, in the long run it's the right thing to do. It creates
>financial consequences for the airline. It ****es off the flight
>crew, and as a result the airline has to either pay the flight crew
>more for dealing with the fallout or accept less-qualified flight
>crew, which will show up in the insurance rates before long.
>

Your logic escapes me. Airline travel has become the bus service in the air so
luxury is out and mass tansit is in now. That means more crowded skies and,
unfortunately, more delays. I think you will find flight crews are not willing
to put up with childish behavior and will simply remove people who can't behave
in a civilized manner. Bringing an attitude on the plane is not a winning
strategy anymore.
If you don't like airline travel then by all means find another way.

Capt. Doug
July 11th 03, 05:18 AM
>Michael wrote in message > Actually, in the long run it's the right thing
to do. It >creates financial consequences for the airline. It ****es off
the flight
> crew, and as a result the airline has to either pay the flight crew
> more for dealing with the fallout or accept less-qualified flight
> crew, which will show up in the insurance rates before long.

You are severely misguided. Flightcrews have been dealing with delays since
commercial flying started in much the same way. A mean-spirited passenger
venting on us won't change anything, except that we may have that passenger
removed from the plane.

D.

Capt. Doug
July 11th 03, 05:18 AM
>Michael wrote in message > If you're shipping an employee around the
country, he >must have some valuable skills. How much is it costing you to
have him sitting
> around for extra hours, being mostly unproductive? How much is it
> costing you when you **** him off by putting him on the most
> inconvenient but cheapest available flight, and he decides not to work
> those extra hours to get the project done on time?

The alternative is easy. Send the employee on a charter flight, or acquire a
plane. However, are these alternatives more cost effective than a few hours
of lost productivity? That employee must have some very special skills
indeed!

D.

Bob Noel
July 11th 03, 03:17 PM
In article >,
(PS2727) wrote:

> If you don't like airline travel then by all means find another way.

believe me, I'd love to convince some people to use the phone
or VTC to conduct meetings rather to always thinking the meetings
have to be face-to-face.

--
Bob Noel

Dylan Smith
July 11th 03, 03:17 PM
On 11 Jul 2003 02:43:12 GMT, PS2727 > wrote:
>Your logic escapes me. Airline travel has become the bus service in the air so
>luxury is out and mass tansit is in now. That means more crowded skies and,
>unfortunately, more delays.

If only airline travel was as convenient as mass transit.

Train: turn up at the station, buy a ticket, get on, go. No need to arrive
at the station more than 10 minutes early except at busy times. Tickets
can be bought at a 'vending machine' if you don't have anything special
keeping queues down. Trip from London to Edinburgh: 3 hrs 59 minutes. On
a weekend, only a small fee to upgrade to First Class. Even discount
tickets have reasonable flexibility. There is usually a train station
reasonably close to your destination. If you have to change trains,
the wait at the intermediate station is usually fairly brief. If you miss
a connection, generally there's not too much trouble getting the next one.

Plane: Obliged to turn up at least an hour before departure. Long queues.
You have to buy the ticket way in advance to get any kind of discount.
Lengthy security checks. Airline airports are almost always a fair distance
to where you actually want to go. Trip from London to Edinburgh + waiting
usually also at least 4 hours. No flexibility with a discount ticket at
all. Layovers are usually at least an hour if you have to change planes.

People complain about the trains, but I'd far rather go by train
than airline. Railway staff don't treat you like a terror suspect.

GA: Go whenever you want. Usually a GA aerodrome close to where you want
to go. Your luggage doesn't get lost. You might get delayed, but you'll
spend the time amongst other flyers, and can usually borrow a car or get
a lift somewhere outside whilst you wait for the weather to improve.
You don't have to be wedged between two other passengers, one of whom
is a screaming toddler.
Expensive, but worth every damned penny. GA gains a great deal of utility
when you live on a relatively small island.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dylan Smith
July 11th 03, 03:27 PM
On 10 Jul 2003 14:45:35 -0700, Michael > wrote:
>The future is Southwest. That means cattle-car seating, peanuts and
>crackers instead of meals, multiple stops for trips of any length, and
>accumulated delays. But the ticket price is low. Does that actually
>reduce cost?

Ironically, despite this, the best and least aggravating airline flights
I've had in the US are consistently with Southwest - the difference
being great enough that any personal travel I did where I had to go by
airline, I'd fly Southwest by choice. The least pleasant have been with
American, Delta and co. Continental weren't too bad, but their seats
feel like concrete after about an hour.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dave Stadt
July 11th 03, 04:45 PM
"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (PS2727) wrote:
>
> > If you don't like airline travel then by all means find another way.
>
> believe me, I'd love to convince some people to use the phone
> or VTC to conduct meetings rather to always thinking the meetings
> have to be face-to-face.
>
> --
> Bob Noel

That's becoming the norm for many corporations as airlines continue to treat
their best customers, business travelers, like dog turds.

Dennis O'Connor
July 11th 03, 05:54 PM
Trains did not work out as people movers in North America... The continent
is too huge to get a person within walking distance of his destination, and
the political power of the auto companies in the early part of the twentieth
century spelled doom for expanding the rail network... With all the land
all now owned by someone it is not feasible <short of nuclear winter, or
some such> to run more rail beyond what little rail is left...
We do have bus service to most towns in the USA, but it is slow,
uncomfortable, and inconvenient...
The third issue, which most europeans who have not visited the USA do not
comprehend, is that the North American continent is vast... Germany would
barely make one state in the USA, especially west of the Mississippi... We
have counties bigger than some countries in europe...
Denny

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in > Train: turn up at the
station, buy a ticket, get on, go. No need to arrive
> at the station more than 10 minutes early except at busy times.

Michael
July 11th 03, 07:26 PM
Bob Noel > wrote
> > If you don't like airline travel then by all means find another way.
>
> believe me, I'd love to convince some people to use the phone
> or VTC to conduct meetings rather to always thinking the meetings
> have to be face-to-face.

Interestingly, my company is moving over to almost exclusive reliance
on phone and VTC. It's cheaper than flying, there's no loss of
productivity (other than the meeting itself), and it doesn't **** off
the employees the way being shipped around the country by cut-rate
airlines does.

I haven't set foot on an airliner for any reason in over a year.

Michael

Dylan Smith
July 13th 03, 10:55 PM
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:54:45 -0400, Dennis O'Connor >
wrote:
>comprehend, is that the North American continent is vast... Germany would
>barely make one state in the USA

I'm acutely aware of the size of the USA, I flew it coast to coast in
an 85-horsepower airplane!

On distances under 500 miles, I could beat the airlines in the same
85-horsepower airplane, too... (factors: minimal waiting around at
airports, being able to go to an airport very close to my destination)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Michael
July 14th 03, 07:16 PM
Bob Noel > wrote
> > I haven't set foot on an airliner for any reason in over a year.
>
> bless them. What company?

Thermo.

Michael

Wdtabor
July 15th 03, 01:42 PM
In article >, "G.R. Patterson III"
> writes:

>Dylan Smith wrote:
>>
>> Train: turn up at the station, buy a ticket, get on, go. No need to arrive
>> at the station more than 10 minutes early except at busy times.
>
>Flying Delta from Newark to Atlanta takes 2 hours and 17 minutes. Add 1.5
>hours for security, and the whole thing is about 3 hours 45 minutes each
>way. A round trip ticket costs $285.50 if you book the flight a week in
>advance. Decide to go today, and it'll cost you $437.50.
>
Unless you go US Airways, in which case, your flight is cancelled and you are
rescheduled for the next day so it takes you 18 hours each way, counting time
spent waiting for them to actually fly an airplane. And it costs you a day of
your vacation and a day's pay, respectively, on each end.

>The train from Newark to Atlanta takes 17 hours and 51 minutes and the
>return trip takes 17 hours and 15 minutes. Add in the 10 minutes you need
>to make sure you don't miss it, and we're up to 18 hours. A round trip ticket
>costs $406.00 if you book the trip a week in advance. Decide to go today,
>and you'll have to fly - they're booked solid for the next several days.
>Sleepers will cost you extra and are even less likely to be available.
>

Perhaps US Airways would be more comfortable running trains.


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Google