Beware travelers with bratty kids

[Kingfish]

Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Kingfish wrote:
> Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921

From the story...

"The father said his family would never fly AirTran again."

Makes me want to fly AirTran.

[Steve Foley]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921
>

Here's a link from a local paper

http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070121/COLUMN01/701210459/1008/NEWS02?page1

[Kingfish]

>
> http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070121/COLUMN01/...

After reading the second account (with the appropriate spin) it does
seem AirTran was a bit heavy-handed here. I think they did the right
thing by refunding the tickets and offering the free passes. I know if
I were stuck sitting behind that kid I'd go out of my tree after too
long

[Paul kgyy]

On Jan 24, 8:12 am, "Kingfish" > wrote:
> Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921

I always carry foam earplugs for situations like this, not to mention
over-loud PA systems, cutesy announcements, ad nauseam.

[Ross]

Steve Foley wrote:

> "Kingfish" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...
>>
>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921
>>
>
>
> Here's a link from a local paper
>
> http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070121/COLUMN01/701210459/1008/NEWS02?page1
>
>
>
Several years ago my wife and I headed to Athens, Greece from NYC, a 10
hour flight. We had a 4 year old boy that would not be quiet for the
whole time. Screemed and kicked all the way and he was sitting right
next to us. About two hours from the end the guy behind then stood up
and said that if they didn't quiet the kid, he would. I thought there
was going to be fight right there. I felt sorry for the parents, that he
just wouldn't quiet down. I would have thought the kid would have worn
himself to sleep.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Ross > wrote:

> Steve Foley wrote:
>
> > "Kingfish" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >
> >>Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...
> >>
> >>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921
> >>
> >
> >
> > Here's a link from a local paper
> >
> > http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070121/COLUMN01/7012104
> > 59/1008/NEWS02?page1
> >
> >
> >
> Several years ago my wife and I headed to Athens, Greece from NYC, a 10
> hour flight. We had a 4 year old boy that would not be quiet for the
> whole time. Screemed and kicked all the way and he was sitting right
> next to us. About two hours from the end the guy behind then stood up
> and said that if they didn't quiet the kid, he would. I thought there
> was going to be fight right there. I felt sorry for the parents, that he
> just wouldn't quiet down. I would have thought the kid would have worn
> himself to sleep.

My wife used to be a flight attendant. Her favorite saying in dealing
with brats is, "Shut up, kid, or I'll stuff a dirty diaper in your
mouth."

I was in line at a store one time behind a bratty kid who was causing
all kinds of ruckus.

I said it and he shut up. When I got to the checkout clerk, she laughed
and told me that another kid in an adjacent line had started to fuss,
too, and had shut up when I said it.

[Jay Honeck]

> Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921

Hooray for AirTran! As the father of two, I know kids can be a
hand-full at times -- but there is no excuse for a tantrum that delays
an entire planeload of paying customers. If the airlines would all
stop putting up with this kind of crap, commercial flying would be a
bit more palatable for us all.

Now if only they would stop serving the lard-butt behemoths that
oooooze across the armrests -- or at least make them buy two seats (or
a wider First Class seat) -- I *might* consider flying commercial
again.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921
>
> Hooray for AirTran! As the father of two, I know kids can be a
> hand-full at times -- but there is no excuse for a tantrum that delays
> an entire planeload of paying customers. If the airlines would all
> stop putting up with this kind of crap, commercial flying would be a
> bit more palatable for us all.
>
> Now if only they would stop serving the lard-butt behemoths that
> oooooze across the armrests -- or at least make them buy two seats (or
> a wider First Class seat) -- I *might* consider flying commercial
> again.

On the issue of lard butt passengers, on a flight we took over Christmas, we
saw a huge couple in line to enter the people-tube we were riding. Kelly
commented that she would hate to be assigned to sit next to them.
Fortunately, we didn't suffer that fate - the two of them were seated a
couple of rows in front of us, and across the aisle. One of them took the
aisle seat and the other took the window seat, leaving the middle seat for
ooooze room. About that time, another grossly obese individual boarded the
airplane, walked down the aisle, compared seat assignments with the already
seated large people, and had one of 'em move to the center seat, so the
third big 'un could sit on the aisle. I have not seen so much pressing of
the flesh since an election year. I was surprised the arm rest along the
aisle could take that much side load...

KB

> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Kingfish wrote:
>> Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921
>
> From the story...
>
> "The father said his family would never fly AirTran again."
>
> Makes me want to fly AirTran.


Hell, yes. In fact, they ought to start an advertising campaign around this
policy. I hate being around whiny kids. I am delighted the father of that
particular one has taken that position. Why would he think that anybody else
would ever want *his* family on an airplane with them again?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Kingfish wrote:
> Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921


The hell you say. Why should other people have to put up with their
shenanigans? Tell him Avis tries harder... or give 'til it Hertz. Then they
can enjoy the full experience of parenthood in pristine solitude.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[john smith]

Kingfish wrote:
> Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921

AirTran did everyone a favor...
- they removed the child and parents from the plane, giving the parents
time to get the child settled down
- in removing the child and parents from the plane, the aircraft was
able to procede on schedule

Everyones problems were solved. While the parents may not have been
happy, they received sufficient time to get the child under control
before the next one.

This is just another example of the "feel good" parenting that
psychologists were spouting in the 90's. In the real world, it doesn't
work. This was the first child for these parents, hopefully they have
learned a hard lesson and will not make the same mistake with the next one.

[Steve Foley]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Everyones problems were solved. While the parents may not have been happy,
> they received sufficient time to get the child under control before the
> next one.

But......

They were not permitted to board another flight within 24 hours, and the
airline did not return their luggage or carseat.

[Jim Macklin]

It is the best news I've heard about airline travel. But
why did they refund the money after they boarded the flight
and caused the disruption.



"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always
Trailways...
|
| http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921
|

[george]

On Jan 25, 7:18 am, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
> It is the best news I've heard about airline travel. But
> why did they refund the money after they boarded the flight
> and caused the disruption.
>
> "Kingfish" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
> | Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always
> Trailways...
> |
> |http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921
> |

Our national carrier won't allow children to be seated anywhere close
to unrelated males....
And for a minute there some people were unhappy with such a good idea

[Jake Brodsky]

Kingfish wrote:
> Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921

I'm appalled at how many of you were cheering AirTran on for their
behavior. I'm a father of three typically well behaved children.

Perhaps most of you prefer not to remember, but kids have energy: LOTS
of energy. Yes, my kids do sit still on aircraft. I've taught them
very well how to behave in airports and on board an airplane. They also
have practice from long road trips. They've done well --even my three
year old.

Yet everyone has an off day. I don't know what the situation was with
these parents or why their kid was such a problem. When I've traveled
with my three children, I took their car seats with them on board the
airliner. It wasn't easy. However, they felt right at home and they
all behaved very well. Expecting a child to sit still in a seat they're
not familiar with is no simple affair, especially when it has so many
buttons and stuff to play with.

I'd have given the parents a few minutes to calm the kid down. It makes
for better press...

Jake Brodsky

[Jim Macklin]

They had a few minutes, airline departures are scheduled,
that delay for a screaming rug-rat brat, was costing more
money than you probably earn in a week, maybe even a month.
To wait longer, was going to delay passenger connections at
the next hub.

Spanking, with an open hand-finger tips, on the butt
emphasizes what you say. But you can't use logic with a
child under about 10-12 years of age, their brain simply has
not developed to that level.

Sit down, shut up and then make them do it.


"Jake Brodsky" > wrote in message
. ..
| Kingfish wrote:
| > Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always
Trailways...
| >
| > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921
|
| I'm appalled at how many of you were cheering AirTran on
for their
| behavior. I'm a father of three typically well behaved
children.
|
| Perhaps most of you prefer not to remember, but kids have
energy: LOTS
| of energy. Yes, my kids do sit still on aircraft. I've
taught them
| very well how to behave in airports and on board an
airplane. They also
| have practice from long road trips. They've done
well --even my three
| year old.
|
| Yet everyone has an off day. I don't know what the
situation was with
| these parents or why their kid was such a problem. When
I've traveled
| with my three children, I took their car seats with them
on board the
| airliner. It wasn't easy. However, they felt right at
home and they
| all behaved very well. Expecting a child to sit still in
a seat they're
| not familiar with is no simple affair, especially when it
has so many
| buttons and stuff to play with.
|
| I'd have given the parents a few minutes to calm the kid
down. It makes
| for better press...
|
| Jake Brodsky

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Jake Brodsky wrote:
>
> I'd have given the parents a few minutes to calm the kid down. It makes
> for better press...


According to the story, they delayed the flight a good 15 minutes before they
got the boot. I'd say the airline was more than patient.

And frankly, if that kid had been sitting close to me when he pulled that crap,
the parents would not be happy with what was going to be said to that child. As
if I gave a ****.

I grew up flying from the age of 9 months on military transports. There's no
excuse... none... for DELAYING A FLIGHT. You may love your kids and be willing
to bend over backwards for them but I sure as hell don't and won't. If you
can't control them, don't bring them. It's as simple as that.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[John Theune]

Jake Brodsky wrote:
> Kingfish wrote:
>> Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921
>
> I'm appalled at how many of you were cheering AirTran on for their
> behavior. I'm a father of three typically well behaved children.
>
> Perhaps most of you prefer not to remember, but kids have energy: LOTS
> of energy. Yes, my kids do sit still on aircraft. I've taught them
> very well how to behave in airports and on board an airplane. They also
> have practice from long road trips. They've done well --even my three
> year old.
>
> Yet everyone has an off day. I don't know what the situation was with
> these parents or why their kid was such a problem. When I've traveled
> with my three children, I took their car seats with them on board the
> airliner. It wasn't easy. However, they felt right at home and they
> all behaved very well. Expecting a child to sit still in a seat they're
> not familiar with is no simple affair, especially when it has so many
> buttons and stuff to play with.
>
> I'd have given the parents a few minutes to calm the kid down. It makes
> for better press...
>
> Jake Brodsky
Just how long do you want to give them? According to the article the
flight was already delayed 15 minutes. The parents could not or would
not get the child into her seat. The plane can't pull back until
everyone is in their seat and belted in. Do you tell all the other
people on the flight that they had better not have connecting flights
because you need to delay more for these parents? Perhaps the parents
should have thought about the rest of the passengers and offered to get
off the plane because their daughter was too upset to fly. I have 2
children and yes I've had to deal with meltdowns. It's not fun but I've
had to leave restaurants because I could not get my kids to stop acting
out. Bottom line is one person should not be allowed to mess up the
lives of 112 others when it's avoidable.

[Steve Foley]

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:5rPth.7114$qN1.5732@trndny02...

> Just how long do you want to give them? According to the article the
> flight was already delayed 15 minutes.

Did it say the 15 minute delay was caused by the unruly kid?

I got the impression ( I could be wrong - it happened once before) that
there had already been a delay boarding, and that the parents were given
virtually no time to try to settle the kid down.

[Peter R.]

On 1/24/2007 3:32:58 PM, "Jim Macklin" wrote:

> They had a few minutes, airline departures are scheduled,
> that delay for a screaming rug-rat brat, was costing more
> money than you probably earn in a week, maybe even a month.

LOL. Pay attention kiddies: *This* is an example of how to use exaggeration
to underscore a point.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

On 1/24/2007 3:35:08 PM, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

> As if I gave a ****.

Yes, the world needs more people who just don't give a ****.



--
Peter

[Mxsmanic]

Kyle Boatright writes:

> On the issue of lard butt passengers, on a flight we took over Christmas, we
> saw a huge couple in line to enter the people-tube we were riding. Kelly
> commented that she would hate to be assigned to sit next to them.
> Fortunately, we didn't suffer that fate - the two of them were seated a
> couple of rows in front of us, and across the aisle. One of them took the
> aisle seat and the other took the window seat, leaving the middle seat for
> ooooze room. About that time, another grossly obese individual boarded the
> airplane, walked down the aisle, compared seat assignments with the already
> seated large people, and had one of 'em move to the center seat, so the
> third big 'un could sit on the aisle. I have not seen so much pressing of
> the flesh since an election year. I was surprised the arm rest along the
> aisle could take that much side load...

I wonder if the pilots had to trim the aircraft to compensate for the
load.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Our national carrier won't allow children to be seated anywhere close
> to unrelated males....

Why?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jake Brodsky writes:

> Yet everyone has an off day.

Anyone who has an off day can fly some other day, a day when he is
"on" instead.

> I'd have given the parents a few minutes to calm the kid down.

They had 15 minutes. How late are you willing to be? How much time
do you have for your connection?

> It makes for better press...

That depends on the readership. I'd be happy to fly an airline that
threw unruly passengers off, even the young ones.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter R.]

On 1/24/2007 3:36:17 PM, John Theune wrote:

> Bottom line is one person should not be allowed to mess up the
> lives of 112 others when it's avoidable.

I was on a 7:00p USAir flight once at busy Philadelphia International where
it took us over an hour to taxi to the runway due to the long line of
departing aircraft.

We were next to go when the pilot comes on and states, "Well folks, I have
never had to apologize for this before but we have been instructed to return
to the gate to pick up two of our pilots that need to be at our destination
before XX:00 due to FAA rules. The problem is, getting back to the gate will
be like a fish swimming upstream, so this will take awhile."

It took us another half hour to get back to the gate. By the time the jetway
rolled over to our aircraft and the door opened, it was time for the 9:00p
flight to our same city to roll back from the gate, which meant that our
entire odyssey was in vane.

I'd say that was a case where two people were allowed to significantly delay
the lives of about 100 others.

--
Peter

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> Spanking, with an open hand-finger tips, on the butt
> emphasizes what you say. But you can't use logic with a
> child under about 10-12 years of age, their brain simply has
> not developed to that level.

It depends on the child, and on the kids intelligence. Unfortunately,
the stupidest and worst-behaved kids usually have stupid and
ill-behaved parents as well. It runs in families.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter R. writes:

> On 1/24/2007 3:32:58 PM, "Jim Macklin" wrote:
>
> > They had a few minutes, airline departures are scheduled,
> > that delay for a screaming rug-rat brat, was costing more
> > money than you probably earn in a week, maybe even a month.
>
> LOL. Pay attention kiddies: *This* is an example of how to use exaggeration
> to underscore a point.

Unfortuately, it is not necessarily an exaggeration. Time on the
ground is very expensive.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter R. writes:

> I'd say that was a case where two people were allowed to significantly delay
> the lives of about 100 others.

If you fire them, they won't be a problem again.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[John Theune]

Peter R. wrote:
> On 1/24/2007 3:36:17 PM, John Theune wrote:
>
>> Bottom line is one person should not be allowed to mess up the
>> lives of 112 others when it's avoidable.
>
> I was on a 7:00p USAir flight once at busy Philadelphia International where
> it took us over an hour to taxi to the runway due to the long line of
> departing aircraft.
>
> We were next to go when the pilot comes on and states, "Well folks, I have
> never had to apologize for this before but we have been instructed to return
> to the gate to pick up two of our pilots that need to be at our destination
> before XX:00 due to FAA rules. The problem is, getting back to the gate will
> be like a fish swimming upstream, so this will take awhile."
>
> It took us another half hour to get back to the gate. By the time the jetway
> rolled over to our aircraft and the door opened, it was time for the 9:00p
> flight to our same city to roll back from the gate, which meant that our
> entire odyssey was in vane.
>
> I'd say that was a case where two people were allowed to significantly delay
> the lives of about 100 others.
>
and how does this make it right?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Peter R. wrote:
> On 1/24/2007 3:32:58 PM, "Jim Macklin" wrote:
>
>> They had a few minutes, airline departures are scheduled,
>> that delay for a screaming rug-rat brat, was costing more
>> money than you probably earn in a week, maybe even a month.
>
> LOL. Pay attention kiddies: *This* is an example of how to use
> exaggeration to underscore a point.

I don't know that it was that much of an exaggeration. First the total time
that the aircraft would have been delayed had they waited for the parents to
get the kid in the seat is an unknown.

But how many people missed connecting flights and how many more would have
had they waited longer.

The question is how long do you think they should have waited? 30 minutes,
an hour?

[Peter R.]

On 1/24/2007 5:07:52 PM, John Theune wrote:

> and how does this make it right?

It doesn't make it right, it just demonstrates that it happens. After flying
commercial for 10 years, I can attest that it happens all the time. How many
times have airlines held flights for a few passengers who were late
connecting? I have been on a number of flights where this was done, and the
delay was probably on average of 10 to 15 minutes.

--
Peter

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> george writes:
>
>> Our national carrier won't allow children to be seated anywhere close
>> to unrelated males....
>
> Why?

Because they assume the male may be someone like you. You know, creepy.

[Peter R.]

On 1/24/2007 5:16:30 PM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:

> But how many people missed connecting flights and how many more would have
> had they waited longer.

I am only going on what was posted here. From that information I thought the
airline waited 15 minutes before tossing the parents and child, no? If so, no
connection would have been missed for a 15 minute delay.

In any event, I don't necessarily agree that the aircraft should have been
held any longer than it was, either. However, I am getting a kick out of all
of these macho "I will stuff a dirty diaper in your kid's mouth," "The
airlines loses more money than you make in a month," and "I just don't give a
**** about you" comments. Absolutely hilarious example of the anonymous
keyboard muscle syndrome.

--
Peter

[Jim Macklin]

Cost per hour for a USAir flight is [a guess] $3,000, so
that kid and her parents cost the airline $750, more than
the cost of the ticket they had purchased and they got a
full refund and an offer of another trip.

Total cost of the lost time, unknown.


"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
| On 1/24/2007 3:32:58 PM, "Jim Macklin" wrote:
|
| > They had a few minutes, airline departures are
scheduled,
| > that delay for a screaming rug-rat brat, was costing
more
| > money than you probably earn in a week, maybe even a
month.
|
| LOL. Pay attention kiddies: *This* is an example of how to
use exaggeration
| to underscore a point.
|
| --
| Peter

[Jim Macklin]

I use my real name, and just how much do you make in a week?



"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
| On 1/24/2007 5:16:30 PM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
|
| > But how many people missed connecting flights and how
many more would have
| > had they waited longer.
|
| I am only going on what was posted here. From that
information I thought the
| airline waited 15 minutes before tossing the parents and
child, no? If so, no
| connection would have been missed for a 15 minute delay.
|
| In any event, I don't necessarily agree that the aircraft
should have been
| held any longer than it was, either. However, I am getting
a kick out of all
| of these macho "I will stuff a dirty diaper in your kid's
mouth," "The
| airlines loses more money than you make in a month," and
"I just don't give a
| **** about you" comments. Absolutely hilarious example of
the anonymous
| keyboard muscle syndrome.
|
| --
| Peter

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Peter R. writes:
>
>> I'd say that was a case where two people were allowed to
>> significantly delay the lives of about 100 others.
>
> If you fire them, they won't be a problem again.

And what would you fire them for? Not having personal access to a wormhole?

[Peter R.]

On 1/24/2007 5:41:08 PM, "Jim Macklin" wrote:

> Cost per hour for a USAir flight is [a guess] $3,000, so
> that kid and her parents cost the airline $750, more than
> the cost of the ticket they had purchased and they got a
> full refund and an offer of another trip.

Are you claiming that it costs the airline $3,000 per hour (a guess) per
aircraft while that aircraft is sitting at a gate with the engines off and an
APU connected?


--
Peter

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Because they assume the male may be someone like you. You know, creepy.

Why do they make this assumption?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter R. writes:

> Are you claiming that it costs the airline $3,000 per hour (a guess) per
> aircraft while that aircraft is sitting at a gate with the engines off and an
> APU connected?

It can, yes. There are many indirect and substantial costs connected
with an aircraft sitting on the ground. An aircraft at the gate is
costing the airline a lot of money, and it's not generating any
revenue.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> And what would you fire them for?

Being late, and thereby costing the airline more than they are worth.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter R.]

On 1/24/2007 5:42:25 PM, "Jim Macklin" wrote:

> I use my real name, and just how much do you make in a week?

LOL. Now that is balsy of you. If I answer, you will say I am lying and
others will think I have no class. If I don't answer, I look like I am hiding
the fact that I flip burgers at McDonalds. A no-win situation.

Let your imagination derive whatever figure you want, Jim; I'll risk the
negative connotation. And by the way, I will still read and learn something
from your GA-specific posts despite this minor setback.


--
Peter

[Mike Schumann]

15 minutes???? I think is would be reasonable to give the parents a couple
of minutes to get their act together, but anything beyond 5 minutes is
really an imposition on the other passengers. If the parents had been
reasonable and considerate, they would have discussed their options to wait
for a later flight with the flight attendant before the airline kicked them
off involuntarily.

Mike Schumann

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> On 1/24/2007 5:16:30 PM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
>
>> But how many people missed connecting flights and how many more would
>> have
>> had they waited longer.
>
> I am only going on what was posted here. From that information I thought
> the
> airline waited 15 minutes before tossing the parents and child, no? If so,
> no
> connection would have been missed for a 15 minute delay.
>
> In any event, I don't necessarily agree that the aircraft should have been
> held any longer than it was, either. However, I am getting a kick out of
> all
> of these macho "I will stuff a dirty diaper in your kid's mouth," "The
> airlines loses more money than you make in a month," and "I just don't
> give a
> **** about you" comments. Absolutely hilarious example of the anonymous
> keyboard muscle syndrome.
>
> --
> Peter



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mike Schumann]

I suspect that cost is while the airplane is in flight. Cost on the ground
would be significantly less.

Mike Schumann

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> Cost per hour for a USAir flight is [a guess] $3,000, so
> that kid and her parents cost the airline $750, more than
> the cost of the ticket they had purchased and they got a
> full refund and an offer of another trip.
>
> Total cost of the lost time, unknown.
>
>
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
> | On 1/24/2007 3:32:58 PM, "Jim Macklin" wrote:
> |
> | > They had a few minutes, airline departures are
> scheduled,
> | > that delay for a screaming rug-rat brat, was costing
> more
> | > money than you probably earn in a week, maybe even a
> month.
> |
> | LOL. Pay attention kiddies: *This* is an example of how to
> use exaggeration
> | to underscore a point.
> |
> | --
> | Peter
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Jay Honeck]

> I wonder if the pilots had to trim the aircraft to compensate for the
> load.

On an airliner? Nah.

This *is* a serious issue, however. I spent several hours on a flight
to Atlanta seated in the last row of seats (the ones where the ceiling
curves over your head) next to a guy who was the size of two of me.

He could NOT have been comfortable, having our shared armrest
surgically implanted in his side -- and I most assuredly was not
comfortable having his side flopping on top of me. In fact, I would
have to say that it was the most uncomfortable three hours of my life,
and I *paid* for it.

Nothing against fat people -- some of my best friends are overweight --
but when we are all inside the "executive mail tube", the old saying
"Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins" truly *does*
apply. And the airlines are the folks who should be addressing the
problem, rather than trying to pretend that it doesn't exist.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter R.]

On 1/24/2007 6:13:49 PM, "Mike Schumann" wrote:

> 15 minutes???? I think is would be reasonable to give the parents a couple
> of minutes to get their act together, but anything beyond 5 minutes is
> really an imposition on the other passengers.

Who is stating that 15 minutes is reasonable? Not I.

--
Peter

[C J Campbell]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:16:57 -0800, Jake Brodsky wrote
(in article >):

> Kingfish wrote:
>> Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921
>
> I'm appalled at how many of you were cheering AirTran on for their
> behavior. I'm a father of three typically well behaved children.
>
> Perhaps most of you prefer not to remember, but kids have energy: LOTS
> of energy. Yes, my kids do sit still on aircraft. I've taught them
> very well how to behave in airports and on board an airplane. They also
> have practice from long road trips. They've done well --even my three
> year old.
>

The parents had a few minutes. They also were given a refund, a free flight
the next day, and free round-trip tickets to anywhere the airline goes. And
still the father acts like a spoiled brat who believes that everyone else
should wait on him. Well, you see where the daughter gets it from.

Heck, you get all that for a 3 year old's tantrum, flying my grandkids to
Orlando might be profitable... :-)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Judah]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in news:7LPth.7870$8P.7586
@trndny05:

> "John Theune" > wrote in message
> news:5rPth.7114$qN1.5732@trndny02...
>
>> Just how long do you want to give them? According to the article the
>> flight was already delayed 15 minutes.
>
> Did it say the 15 minute delay was caused by the unruly kid?
>
> I got the impression ( I could be wrong - it happened once before) that
> there had already been a delay boarding, and that the parents were given
> virtually no time to try to settle the kid down.

I too got that impression, but it isn't clear. The passenger who was quoted
describing the situation was quoted as having seen it while he was
boarding. But the quote referring to the "walkie-talkie" person coming back
to kick them off was from the father, who probably did not track time
effectively while he was otherwise engaged in managing his crisis, so it
could have been 15 minutes before he was kicked off and felt like no time
at all.

I also agree that they should have returned the luggage. In fact, I'm
surprised that someone didn't make them do that under the "national
security" risk story. I have been on a plane that was delayed for a luggage
/ passenger check.

IMHO they should have given the parents the choice to get off the plane or
to force the child to sit seatbelted-in for taxi and takeoff - either in
her own seat or even on the father's lap at the window seat. The child
would most likely have calmed down after 5-10 minutes, and there would have
been no compromise to safety except to the parent and child themselves, who
volunteered to accept that risk by not getting off the plane.

It would have also helped to warn them of the choice during the final seat
checks. It would have escalated the urgency of the issue to the parents,
and force them to accept culpability for not being able to get the child
restrained in time. The end result may not have been any different, but the
parents would no longer be perceived as the victim - by themselves or
others.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Nothing against fat people -- some of my best friends are overweight --
> but when we are all inside the "executive mail tube", the old saying
> "Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins" truly *does*
> apply. And the airlines are the folks who should be addressing the
> problem, rather than trying to pretend that it doesn't exist.

The airlines are damned if they do and damned if they don't. No
matter what they do, someone will complain.

I think that there are more people of normal weight who are irritated
by the lardballs than there are lardballs who are irritated by
airlines making them pay for being overweight, but perhaps not. I
hear that there are more and more fat Americans; perhaps eventually
the lardballs will be the majority.

I do wonder about the effect that such things have on weight and
balance calculations. With many lardballs on board the weight goes
up.

Maybe the solution is to weigh each passenger at check-in, like the
old days.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[M[_1_]]

On Jan 24, 8:08 am, "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
> I have not seen so much pressing of
> the flesh since an election year. I was surprised the arm rest along the
> aisle could take that much side load...
>

You have no idea how much aileron trim the pilot had to use on that
flight :-)

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Schumann writes:

> I suspect that cost is while the airplane is in flight. Cost on the ground
> would be significantly less.

Not when you subtract cost from revenue. A plane on the ground costs
money but generates no revenue. A plane in the air costs money, too,
but it generates more revenue than it costs. Every minute a plane
spends on the ground is money down the drain.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jay Honeck]

> saw a huge couple in line to enter the people-tube we were riding. Kelly
> commented that she would hate to be assigned to sit next to them.
> Fortunately, we didn't suffer that fate - the two of them were seated a
> couple of rows in front of us, and across the aisle. One of them took the
> aisle seat and the other took the window seat, leaving the middle seat for
> ooooze room. About that time, another grossly obese individual boarded the
> airplane, walked down the aisle, compared seat assignments with the already
> seated large people, and had one of 'em move to the center seat, so the
> third big 'un could sit on the aisle. I have not seen so much pressing of
> the flesh since an election year. I was surprised the arm rest along the
> aisle could take that much side load...

Here's a potential solution, from the folks at Airbus:

http://gridskipper.com/travel/flights/sro-airplane-seats-169456.php

This could help GA more than anything I've ever seen!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[mike regish]

Yes it does-as long as it's delivered with consistency and honesty. You feed
a kid enough BS and eventually they stop listening to you altogether.

mike

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is just another example of the "feel good" parenting that
> psychologists were spouting in the 90's. In the real world, it doesn't
> work. This was the first child for these parents, hopefully they have
> learned a hard lesson and will not make the same mistake with the next
> one.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:14:33 -0600, in
>, Mike Schumann wrote:
> I suspect that cost is while the airplane is in flight. Cost on the
> ground would be significantly less.

Well, probably depends upon the aircraft... Bigger engines burn more fuel
even on the ground... For example, the GE CF34-3B1 used on the CRJ-200
burns around 400 lbs per hour per engine at idle... With 2 engines, that's
800 lbs per hour... Perhaps add some more for the APU, perhaps another
150 lbs per hour... That brings it up to 950 lbs per hour... At 6.7 lbs
per gallon, that's about 141.8 gallons per hour... For a 15 minute delay,
that's about 35.4 gallons... According to AirNav, the FBOs at MCO are
charging at least $5.59 per gallon for Jet-A... Perhaps the airlines get a
discount, so the price is a bit cheaper... Would $5 per gallon be a good
figure? If so, that 15 minutes on the ground costs them $177... Now,
factor in possibly having to run at a higher speed in order to make their
scheduled arrival time or how being late is going to cause other aircraft
for connecting flights to perhaps sit at the gate idling and I can
definitely see where kicking the screaming brat off the plane is best
thing they could do... Well, either that or shipping the brat as cargo...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:53:22 -0800, in
. com>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> Here's a potential solution, from the folks at Airbus:
>
> http://gridskipper.com/travel/flights/sro-airplane-seats-169456.php
>
> This could help GA more than anything I've ever seen!

If it is efficient to put the people vertically in seats, it should also
be efficient to put the people horizontally in seats... Having a series of
bunks that you could lay down on and sleep during a 6 hour flight might
not be a bad idea... I had a 6 hour flight from Alaska to Houston where I
was stuck in the exit row with seats that would not recline... Making it
more fun was the fact that the flight left Alaska at midnight, so
reclining so that I could catch some sleep was definitely something that I
wanted to do... Being "forced" to lay horizontally for the 6 hour flight
would have rather welcome...

[Kev]

On Jan 24, 6:51 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> I do wonder about the effect that such things have on weight and
> balance calculations. With many lardballs on board the weight goes
> up.

On a small airliner, it could definitely be a concern. I believe
there've been a few airline incidents and accidents recently where W&B
played a part. One had to do with having football team(s) aboard.
You'll have to Google for details.

Just a year or two ago they did raise the FAA standard passenger
weight, partly because of heavier people, partly because of winter
gear, IIRC.

PS. I hate the new Google Group interface. Judging from the feedback
in their help group, everyone hates it. No posting preview, small
space to view, etc. Woof.

Kev

[Kev]

On Jan 24, 5:19 pm, "Peter R." > wrote:
>. After flying
> commercial for 10 years, I can attest that it happens all the time. How many
> times have airlines held flights for a few passengers who were late
> connecting? I have been on a number of flights where this was done, and the
> delay was probably on average of 10 to 15 minutes.

Good old Southern based Delta was much beloved by travelers for many
years, because they would wait a long time for any delayed passengers.
If you were on Delta, you knew you wouldn't be left behind.

Then, a few years back, someone decided their "on-time" stats needed
improvement, and they started acting like every other airline. What a
pity.

Cheers, Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Grumman-581 writes:

> Being "forced" to lay horizontally for the 6 hour flight
> would have rather welcome...

Virgin Atlantic is doing this, isn't it?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jay Honeck]

> PS. I hate the new Google Group interface. Judging from the feedback
> in their help group, everyone hates it. No posting preview, small
> space to view, etc. Woof.

Me, too. I had really grown to like the features of Google Groups, but
now they've butchered the user interface.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkinn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave[_5_]]

My worst flight ever was a night flight from Japan to Seattle (IIRC),
in which I was pretty much surrounded by the members of a boys sports
team of some sort (hockey, I think). I was tired, and ready for sleep -
but wouldn't get any that night. Those kids were hyper - and there were
three across in the row behind me. They all had newly purchased
electronic gizmos that they played incessantly. The one behind me kept
pounding on his with his fingers. Of course it was on the tray table
(which As I pointed out to him repeatedly, was directly connected to my
seat). He couldn't keep his hands off of it. The final straw came when
one of them went to the restroom. On his return he dragged his gizmo
across my face in the process of returning to his seat. I jumped up and
made quite a scene - and finally provoked a response from their coach.

Having had enough of that scene, I went and appropriated an empty seat
in a section reserved for the crew. They tried to get me to go back,
but I told them nothing doing - if they wanted to keep the peace on
that flight, they had better leave me alone. They did.

David Johnson

[John Theune]

Judah wrote:
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in news:7LPth.7870$8P.7586
> @trndny05:
>
>> "John Theune" > wrote in message
>> news:5rPth.7114$qN1.5732@trndny02...
>>
>>> Just how long do you want to give them? According to the article the
>>> flight was already delayed 15 minutes.
>> Did it say the 15 minute delay was caused by the unruly kid?
>>
>> I got the impression ( I could be wrong - it happened once before) that
>> there had already been a delay boarding, and that the parents were given
>> virtually no time to try to settle the kid down.
>
> I too got that impression, but it isn't clear. The passenger who was quoted
> describing the situation was quoted as having seen it while he was
> boarding. But the quote referring to the "walkie-talkie" person coming back
> to kick them off was from the father, who probably did not track time
> effectively while he was otherwise engaged in managing his crisis, so it
> could have been 15 minutes before he was kicked off and felt like no time
> at all.
>
> I also agree that they should have returned the luggage. In fact, I'm
> surprised that someone didn't make them do that under the "national
> security" risk story. I have been on a plane that was delayed for a luggage
> / passenger check.
>
> IMHO they should have given the parents the choice to get off the plane or
> to force the child to sit seatbelted-in for taxi and takeoff - either in
> her own seat or even on the father's lap at the window seat. The child
> would most likely have calmed down after 5-10 minutes, and there would have
> been no compromise to safety except to the parent and child themselves, who
> volunteered to accept that risk by not getting off the plane.
>
> It would have also helped to warn them of the choice during the final seat
> checks. It would have escalated the urgency of the issue to the parents,
> and force them to accept culpability for not being able to get the child
> restrained in time. The end result may not have been any different, but the
> parents would no longer be perceived as the victim - by themselves or
> others.
The flight crew did not have the option to let them have the child ride
on a parent's lap. The FAR's are quite clear about age and need to be
in your seat with the seatbelt fastened.

[Jim Macklin]

yes, because it has interest payments, crew salaries, gate
space and a host of other costs.
"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
| On 1/24/2007 5:41:08 PM, "Jim Macklin" wrote:
|
| > Cost per hour for a USAir flight is [a guess] $3,000, so
| > that kid and her parents cost the airline $750, more
than
| > the cost of the ticket they had purchased and they got a
| > full refund and an offer of another trip.
|
| Are you claiming that it costs the airline $3,000 per hour
(a guess) per
| aircraft while that aircraft is sitting at a gate with the
engines off and an
| APU connected?
|
|
| --
| Peter

[Jim Macklin]

What set-back?



"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
| On 1/24/2007 5:42:25 PM, "Jim Macklin" wrote:
|
| > I use my real name, and just how much do you make in a
week?
|
| LOL. Now that is balsy of you. If I answer, you will say I
am lying and
| others will think I have no class. If I don't answer, I
look like I am hiding
| the fact that I flip burgers at McDonalds. A no-win
situation.
|
| Let your imagination derive whatever figure you want, Jim;
I'll risk the
| negative connotation. And by the way, I will still read
and learn something
| from your GA-specific posts despite this minor setback.
|
|
| --
| Peter

[Jim Macklin]

Don't forget the crew has a working day time limit and if
they exceed that time OR WILL before the day is done, they
need an extra crew change. Violations of the duty time
limits cost start at $25,000 per crew member [pilot,co-pilot
and cabin attendants].

Every minute is costly, whether the plane is at cruise or
parked with the crew waiting.



"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message
...
| On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:14:33 -0600, in
| >, Mike
Schumann wrote:
| > I suspect that cost is while the airplane is in flight.
Cost on the
| > ground would be significantly less.
|
| Well, probably depends upon the aircraft... Bigger engines
burn more fuel
| even on the ground... For example, the GE CF34-3B1 used on
the CRJ-200
| burns around 400 lbs per hour per engine at idle... With 2
engines, that's
| 800 lbs per hour... Perhaps add some more for the APU,
perhaps another
| 150 lbs per hour... That brings it up to 950 lbs per
hour... At 6.7 lbs
| per gallon, that's about 141.8 gallons per hour... For a
15 minute delay,
| that's about 35.4 gallons... According to AirNav, the FBOs
at MCO are
| charging at least $5.59 per gallon for Jet-A... Perhaps
the airlines get a
| discount, so the price is a bit cheaper... Would $5 per
gallon be a good
| figure? If so, that 15 minutes on the ground costs them
$177... Now,
| factor in possibly having to run at a higher speed in
order to make their
| scheduled arrival time or how being late is going to cause
other aircraft
| for connecting flights to perhaps sit at the gate idling
and I can
| definitely see where kicking the screaming brat off the
plane is best
| thing they could do... Well, either that or shipping the
brat as cargo...

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Peter R. wrote:
> On 1/24/2007 3:35:08 PM, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
>
>> As if I gave a ****.
>
> Yes, the world needs more people who just don't give a ****.


Well, if I did, I'd give it to you.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
john smith > wrote:

> Kingfish wrote:
> > Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...
> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921
>
> AirTran did everyone a favor...
> - they removed the child and parents from the plane, giving the parents
> time to get the child settled down
> - in removing the child and parents from the plane, the aircraft was
> able to procede on schedule
>
> Everyones problems were solved. While the parents may not have been
> happy, they received sufficient time to get the child under control
> before the next one.
>
> This is just another example of the "feel good" parenting that
> psychologists were spouting in the 90's. In the real world, it doesn't
> work. This was the first child for these parents, hopefully they have
> learned a hard lesson and will not make the same mistake with the next one.


Sort of makes you want to support retroactive abortion?

[george]

On Jan 25, 11:49 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
> > Because they assume the male may be someone like you. You know, creepy.
>Why do they make this assumption?
>
I wonder

[Judah]

John Theune > wrote in
news:3cVth.7155$qN1.892@trndny02:

> The flight crew did not have the option to let them have the child ride
> on a parent's lap. The FAR's are quite clear about age and need to be
> in your seat with the seatbelt fastened.

It's often amazing how large the 2 year olds are these days.

[BT]

I think AirTran did the correct thing..
they got a noisy kid off a plane.. refunded tickets and got the family home
the next day..
1 ****ed off family..
112 happy travelers..
families do not travel much..
business people travel a lot..
who would you rather keep happy..

BT

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
>>
>> http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070121/COLUMN01/...
>
> After reading the second account (with the appropriate spin) it does
> seem AirTran was a bit heavy-handed here. I think they did the right
> thing by refunding the tickets and offering the free passes. I know if
> I were stuck sitting behind that kid I'd go out of my tree after too
> long
>

[G. Sylvester]

First off, the mother called the Flight Attendants as stewardess. She
might as well had called them whores. Ok, maybe not that bad but it is
demeaning and the term steward/ess has been out of use for a couple of
decades. She should learn the right name.


Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...

or the luggage hold.

> Hooray for AirTran!

agreed 150%.


> Now if only they would stop serving the lard-butt behemoths that
> oooooze across the armrests -- or at least make them buy two seats (or
> a wider First Class seat) -- I *might* consider flying commercial
> again.

Agreed even more although in economy plus section on UA only which you
either pay for or have frequent flier status. They are generally
business travelers. The ones of gross size (pun intended) generally get
their companies to pay for C or F. Further, being a United 1K (I did
140k miles last year on UA), UA usually keeps the seats next to you
empty unless the load factor demands it.

The last time I had to deal with that was when I flew WN SJC SNA. I was
thee last person to get on the plane. Middle seat. Last Row. Aisle
seat had a 500 lb sau. Seconds after passing through FL180, the seat
belt sign and I jumped up. I started to ask the flight attendant about
the woman and in mid sentence she interrupted me and said I should
complain. While getting off the plane, another passenger came up to me
and said "wow. I felt really bad for you. You have all my sympathy." I
went down to the customer service desk and they sounded like they were
waiting for me. I got the price of the one-way ticket plus $100 in
voucher form. Not bad and it keeps WN honest.

My worst flight ever was flying HKG YYZ (toronto) SCL (Santiago) on AC.
First time I ever had paid business class seats. Change of A/C from
a A346 to a A345 (or A345 to A344). I got downgraded. Migrant farm
worker with his bare feet sticking in the aisle way, on the tray tables,
over the head of the passenger in front of him. The kid screamed for 5
hours straight. They tried quieting the baby by hitting the monster.
The changed the kid on the tray table too. Worst yet, I got up to
stretch and came back the M****er F***er was sleeping in my seats with
his lice-ridden hair on my pillows (AC gave me the 4 middle seats in Y).
The 2nd short flight, only 10 or so hours, was on a 762 that made
the old Archers I fly look like they were new. I said to the pilot,
"let me guess, this is thee gimli glider." Do a websearch for "air
canada gimli 767." This is during the early to mid-80's AC 767 after
running out of fuel and dead sticking it into a closed air field.

unfortunately my company wont' let employees fly themselves unless you
are flying 2 particular tail numbers. I guess I have to get a type
rating for a Citation and transfer departments. ;-) I wish I could use
my million miles on UA for a type rating in a RJ.

Ok enough talk about passenger'ing. I did have a beautiful San
fRancisco Bay Tour last night. 1 hour of piloting a 1981 Archer over
what looks like a model city of San Francisco complete with twinkling
lights is so much more enjoyable than sitting in first on a UA jet. My
pax enjoyed it too although they complained about no peanuts. ;-)

Gerald Sylvester

[G. Sylvester]

Peter R. wrote:
> On 1/24/2007 6:13:49 PM, "Mike Schumann" wrote:
>
>> 15 minutes???? I think is would be reasonable to give the parents a couple
>> of minutes to get their act together, but anything beyond 5 minutes is
>> really an imposition on the other passengers.
>
> Who is stating that 15 minutes is reasonable? Not I.

ok, some misunderstandings. You have to be onboard and seated 10
minutes before the scheduled departure time. Most likely they had
closer to 25 minutes. Second, since the delay was not weather related,
the airline would have been responsible for putting passengers up in
hotels due to missed connections (and then rebooking them and
potentially having to give involuntary denied boardings to other pax).
I dont' know if this plane was turning around or not, but not only for
these 100 or so pax but all the pax on the future flights as well. What
about having to potentially keep ground staff longer? What about the 35
minute minimum legal transfer times. The 15 minutes quickly makes all
those other pax have to run across the terminals. Further it makes it
more likely that the pax luggage won't make the connecting flight.

Gerald Sylvester
PPL-ASEL-IA and UA 1K

[Judah]

Richard Riley > wrote in
:

> That 15 minute delay cost them $2294.

Not if they made the next scheduled flight segment for that aircraft.

That 15 minute delay cost them nothing in lost revenue opportunity if the
plane would have otherwise spent the same 15 minutes sitting idle at the gate
at the arrival airport.

The baggage handlers, the cleaning crews, the food supply crews and the
fueling crews were all done and gone. So their hourly rates were not lost.

I don't know for sure how pilot's time is tracked, but I believe it's
possible that the 15 minute delay could have caused a crew change
requirement. But that could have easily happened if there was an ATC delay,
or a headwind as well - we're talking about 15 minutes.

The only real, definitive cost that I can figure on is the cost to run the
APU for the extra 15 minutes, and the cost of 15 minutes the relatively small
airline staff necessary to support the departure of the plane from the gate:
- the gate agent and the tow crew.

I still agree that it's hardly likely that 15 minutes of delay costs more
than the average person makes in a year. But perhaps Paul was talking
specifically to MX.

[Judah]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
oups.com:

> Here's a potential solution, from the folks at Airbus:
>
> http://gridskipper.com/travel/flights/sro-airplane-seats-169456.php
>
> This could help GA more than anything I've ever seen!

If you click back to the NYT article, it said that the idea was abandoned by
Airbus in 1993...

[Ron Natalie]

>
> My wife used to be a flight attendant. Her favorite saying in dealing
> with brats is, "Shut up, kid, or I'll stuff a dirty diaper in your
> mouth."
>
The ruckas wasn't the problem. The failure to get her spoiled butt into
a seat with a seat belt around her so the plane could depart was.

[Matt Barrow]

Peter R. wrote:
> On 1/24/2007 3:35:08 PM, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
>
>> As if I gave a ****.
>
> Yes, the world needs more people who just don't give a ****.

Probably half the problems in the nanny state world we now live in derived
from people that really "give a ****".

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >> Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...or the luggage hold.

Careful how you "cut & paste" -- I didn't write that.

> Ok enough talk about passenger'ing. I did have a beautiful San
> fRancisco Bay Tour last night. 1 hour of piloting a 1981 Archer over
> what looks like a model city of San Francisco complete with twinkling
> lights is so much more enjoyable than sitting in first on a UA jet. My
> pax enjoyed it too although they complained about no peanuts. ;-)

Now *that* is flying!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter R.]

On 1/25/2007 9:13:06 AM, "Matt Barrow" wrote:

> Probably half the problems in the nanny state world we now live in derived
> from people that really "give a ****".

I was thinking from the angle of basic human compassion, not government level
intervention. You only need to consider a typical US highway to see a world
of people who just don't give a **** about each other.


--
Peter

[BDS[_2_]]

"Peter R." > wrote

> I was thinking from the angle of basic human compassion, not government
level
> intervention. You only need to consider a typical US highway to see a
world
> of people who just don't give a **** about each other.

I have to agree, and it didn't used to be that way.

For instance, in the past people wouldn't bring their young children into
restaurants and allow them to exhibit extreme behavior out of consideration
for the other patrons. Now these people believe that their "right" to bring
their screaming kids into any public place outweighs the rights of the rest
of the people who are paying the same price and would like to enjoy a nice,
quiet evening. Ditto for theatres, airplanes, and stores. When I was a kid
my parents would apply an immediate "correction" if I got out of line,
especially if it was in a public place.

Same goes for people with pets. They believe it is their right to buy a
dog, tie it up outside, and let it bark all night. No consideration for the
neighbors - after all, it's natural for a dog to bark and their "right" to
own a pet outweighs everyone elses right to peace and quiet.

Same goes for driving - people will pull out into traffic with no
consideration for what the next vehicle might have to do to avoid the
obstacle they have just created. After all, their time is more important
than everyone else's and you have brakes, don't you?

Tolerating poor behavior from your children in public sends them a message -
the message is that it is fine to do whatever you want, wherever you want to
do it, and there are no consequences for doing so - there might even be a
reward. If that doesn't teach them not to give a **** about other people, I
don't know what would.

BDS

[[email protected]]

"BT" > wrote:
> I think AirTran did the correct thing..
> they got a noisy kid off a plane.. refunded tickets and got the family home
> the next day..
> 1 ****ed off family..
> 112 happy travelers..
> families do not travel much..
> business people travel a lot..
> who would you rather keep happy..

Agree 100%. Kudos to AirTran.

Apparently the brat AND her parents do not understand cause and effect.
Behave like a out-of-control monster that makes life miserable and/or
unsafe for everyone else and there are consequences--in this case, not
traveling until a later, when she was under control. I love kids as much
as the next person, but IMO, restaurants should do the same when an
out-of-control, screaming brat is running around making the meal
miserable for other paying customers, too.

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> On 1/25/2007 9:13:06 AM, "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
>> Probably half the problems in the nanny state world we now live in
>> derived
>> from people that really "give a ****".
>
> I was thinking from the angle of basic human compassion, not government
> level
> intervention.

That is ALWAYS the way it starts (see: "BUT IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN").

> You only need to consider a typical US highway to see a world
> of people who just don't give a **** about each other.

And when your car breaks down out west, you see beaucoup people who lend a
hand who really don't give a **** what other people think.

[Matt Barrow]

"BDS" > wrote in message
et...
> "Peter R." > wrote
>
>> I was thinking from the angle of basic human compassion, not government
> level
>> intervention. You only need to consider a typical US highway to see a
> world
>> of people who just don't give a **** about each other.
>
> I have to agree, and it didn't used to be that way.
>
> For instance, in the past people wouldn't bring their young children into
> restaurants and allow them to exhibit extreme behavior out of
> consideration
> for the other patrons. Now these people believe that their "right" to
> bring
> their screaming kids into any public place outweighs the rights of the
> rest
> of the people who are paying the same price and would like to enjoy a
> nice,
> quiet evening. Ditto for theatres, airplanes, and stores. When I was a
> kid
> my parents would apply an immediate "correction" if I got out of line,
> especially if it was in a public place.

My wife still does that. The other night she made me wait out in the car...

[Martin Hotze]

Gig 601XL Builder schrieb:

> Kingfish wrote:
>> Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921
>
> From the story...
>
> "The father said his family would never fly AirTran again."
>
> Makes me want to fly AirTran.

ACK!

#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Peter R.]

On 1/25/2007 10:54:46 AM, "Matt Barrow" wrote:

> That is ALWAYS the way it starts (see: "BUT IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN").

Hey, I am just as critical of that attitude as the next guy and I am a tough
disciplinarian to my three little boys, but since having children I have
moved from "the high and the mighty know-it-all" to one who has just a bit
more compassion, even for the obvious bratty kids. After all, it is not their
fault they are that way.

But, the reality is that even the best of children might attempt to cross the
line on occasion, be it due to exhaustion, low blood sugar or just human
nature. Disciplining a child in front of an airplane-full of passengers is
not always the easiest choice (especially in lieu of these new, silly
anti-spanking laws), and walking off the aircraft to handle the child is
understandably tough, too. Without knowing the parents or actually witnessing
the situation, my first, apparently contrarian position is one of compassion
rather than condemnation.



--
Peter

[RST Engineering]

Jim, I haven't looked up the part 121 rules since I left the airlines, but
as I recall, the "duty time" is defined as flight time. No limit on how
long a crewmember can sit idling on the ground. Last I looked it was 8
hours a 24 hour day, 40 hours in a 7 day week, 100 hours in any 30 day
period ("month") and 1000 hours in a calendar year. Perhaps that has
changed.

We had three or four crews during the last week of December on almost any
flight. Fly one leg, run out of yearly time. Swap with another crew. Fly
one leg, run out of time ...

Jim


>
> Every minute is costly, whether the plane is at cruise or
> parked with the crew waiting.
>

[Martin Hotze]

Jake Brodsky schrieb:


> Yet everyone has an off day. I don't know what the situation was with
> these parents or why their kid was such a problem. When I've traveled
> with my three children, I took their car seats with them on board the
> airliner. It wasn't easy. However, they felt right at home and they
> all behaved very well. Expecting a child to sit still in a seat they're
> not familiar with is no simple affair, especially when it has so many
> buttons and stuff to play with.

the kid was not seatbelted. strap the kid to the seat and let it scream
.... and the plane can depart. But the parents failed to buckle up the kid.

> I'd have given the parents a few minutes to calm the kid down. It makes
> for better press...

f*ck the press. and screw those parents. 2 buss loads of people had to
be delayed because of their misbehaviour.

> Jake Brodsky


#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Martin Hotze]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN schrieb:


> According to the story, they delayed the flight a good 15 minutes before they
> got the boot. I'd say the airline was more than patient.


and one may assume that they were one of the first to board the plane.
Don't they board families w/kids first (with 1st class)? this gives some
extra time, too.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

>
> "The father said his family would never fly AirTran again."
>
> Makes me want to fly AirTran.
>
>


Same here!

My wife (a 2nd grade teacher) and I were wondering how many read that
article and said the same. I don't feel sorry for parents who can't
control a kid and seem to feel that everyone else should have to put up
with it.

Imagine how that kid might have acted for the entire flight? <G>

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 1/25/2007 9:13:06 AM, "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>>
>>> Probably half the problems in the nanny state world we now live in
>>> derived
>>> from people that really "give a ****".
>> I was thinking from the angle of basic human compassion, not government
>> level
>> intervention.
>
> That is ALWAYS the way it starts (see: "BUT IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN").
>

Right-on! The good ol' "Kid Card" gets played. <G>

The Kid Card can justify anything the player wants, if played correctly.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Jim, I haven't looked up the part 121 rules since I left the airlines, but
> as I recall, the "duty time" is defined as flight time. No limit on how
> long a crewmember can sit idling on the ground. Last I looked it was 8
> hours a 24 hour day, 40 hours in a 7 day week, 100 hours in any 30 day
> period ("month") and 1000 hours in a calendar year. Perhaps that has
> changed.

Is AirTran unionized?

[John Theune]

B A R R Y wrote:
>>
>> "The father said his family would never fly AirTran again."
>>
>> Makes me want to fly AirTran.
>>
>
>
> Same here!
>
> My wife (a 2nd grade teacher) and I were wondering how many read that
> article and said the same. I don't feel sorry for parents who can't
> control a kid and seem to feel that everyone else should have to put up
> with it.
>
> Imagine how that kid might have acted for the entire flight? <G>
The msnbc site that I read the story on had a poll and 68% of the
respondents agreed with AirTran

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> On 1/25/2007 10:54:46 AM, "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
>> That is ALWAYS the way it starts (see: "BUT IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN").
>
> Hey, I am just as critical of that attitude as the next guy and I am a
> tough
> disciplinarian to my three little boys, but since having children I have
> moved from "the high and the mighty know-it-all" to one who has just a bit
> more compassion, even for the obvious bratty kids. After all, it is not
> their
> fault they are that way.
>
> But, the reality is that even the best of children might attempt to cross
> the
> line on occasion, be it due to exhaustion, low blood sugar or just human
> nature. Disciplining a child in front of an airplane-full of passengers is
> not always the easiest choice (especially in lieu of these new, silly
> anti-spanking laws), and walking off the aircraft to handle the child is
> understandably tough, too. Without knowing the parents or actually
> witnessing
> the situation, my first, apparently contrarian position is one of
> compassion
> rather than condemnation.
>

Well, my kids are in their 20's now, but we never had a problem because, 1)
we nipped bad behavior in the bud from the time they were infants (NOTE: We
never spanked/hit any of the three), and 2) we prepared them for social
settings, and 3) we made sure they were prepared for the days affairs (i.e.,
naps, health, properly fed, no caffeine/sugar before hand...

If the parents behavior is any indication, the kid is just naturally
following what transpires _all the time_ at home. For that I have ZERO
compassion (i.e., mental juvenile delinquents breeding kids).

Matt Barrow

[Matt Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
. net...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "Peter R." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 1/25/2007 9:13:06 AM, "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Probably half the problems in the nanny state world we now live in
>>>> derived
>>>> from people that really "give a ****".
>>> I was thinking from the angle of basic human compassion, not government
>>> level
>>> intervention.
>>
>> That is ALWAYS the way it starts (see: "BUT IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN").
>>
>
> Right-on! The good ol' "Kid Card" gets played. <G>
>
> The Kid Card can justify anything the player wants, if played correctly.

And believe me, they know how to play it (both kids and "adults").

[Matt Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
. net...
>>
>> "The father said his family would never fly AirTran again."
>>
>> Makes me want to fly AirTran.
>
>
> Same here!
>
> My wife (a 2nd grade teacher) and I were wondering how many read that
> article and said the same. I don't feel sorry for parents who can't
> control a kid and seem to feel that everyone else should have to put up
> with it.

What do you want to bet that such behavior is the norm for that kid (if the
parents are as the article indicates)?

> Imagine how that kid might have acted for the entire flight? <G>

Like I said, that's probably the norm for that kid.

[Matt Barrow]

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:LN5uh.8449$qN1.6917@trndny02...
>B A R R Y wrote:
>>
>> My wife (a 2nd grade teacher) and I were wondering how many read that
>> article and said the same. I don't feel sorry for parents who can't
>> control a kid and seem to feel that everyone else should have to put up
>> with it.
>>
>> Imagine how that kid might have acted for the entire flight? <G>
> The msnbc site that I read the story on had a poll and 68% of the
> respondents agreed with AirTran

The other 32% either never had to fly with a bratty kid (or bratty adult),
or their kids behave that way all the time so they're used to it.

[John Clear]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>> Ok enough talk about passenger'ing. I did have a beautiful San
>> fRancisco Bay Tour last night. 1 hour of piloting a 1981 Archer over
>> what looks like a model city of San Francisco complete with twinkling
>> lights is so much more enjoyable than sitting in first on a UA jet. My
>> pax enjoyed it too although they complained about no peanuts. ;-)
>
>Now *that* is flying!

You need to fly Atlas out here sometime!

The sad thing is that I've done the Bay Tour so many times, I don't even
bother taking pictures any more, even though the bridge and the
city look very different depending on the lighting and cloud/fog
conditions. Passengers are always amazed though as we pass over
downtown and SFO at 1500ft.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[george]

On Jan 25, 11:45 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Peter R. writes:
>
> >> I'd say that was a case where two people were allowed to
> >> significantly delay the lives of about 100 others.
>
> > If you fire them, they won't be a problem again.And what would you fire them for? Not having personal access to a wormhole?

Xmess doesn't have to deal with the Pilots Unions or regs in his
fantasy world

[Margy Natalie]

Kingfish wrote:
>
>>http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070121/COLUMN01/...
>
>
> After reading the second account (with the appropriate spin) it does
> seem AirTran was a bit heavy-handed here. I think they did the right
> thing by refunding the tickets and offering the free passes. I know if
> I were stuck sitting behind that kid I'd go out of my tree after too
> long
>
We will never know what the real story was. I was on a flight once
where the flight attendant repeatedly told the parents to have their
child sit down as the seatbelt sign was on and it was for the child's
own protection. The parents would duly buckle up the kid and as soon as
the FA turned her back the kid was running around again. I informed the
FA the kid was up (climbing over unoccupied seats, etc.) and the FA told
me it was the 4th time she'd dealt with them. Mind you this kid was ok,
it was the parents who were idiots. The kid wasn't whining or crying or
anything when seated properly. The FA had the captain turn off the belt
sign and when she had time came and sat in the empty seat next to me and
we chatted about the horrors of passengers.

Margy

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 08:54:47 -0700, in
>, Matt Barrow wrote:
> And when your car breaks down out west, you see beaucoup people who lend
> a hand who really don't give a **** what other people think.

A few weeks ago, we drove from Houston to Jackson, WY for a bit of skiing
and snowmobiling... This was during a major snow storm that had DIA
passengers stuck sleeping in the airport... On the way back, taking a
detour through New Mexico because of some road closures, we were in a very
long line of cars on US-84 heading towards I-40... There was a guy in a
pickup pulled off on the side of the road... It was obvious from his angle
and the marks on the ground that he was stuck and had slid sideways even
though that area was paved... It sloped away from the highway, so he just
couldn't get enough traction to get up the slight incline... Not a single
person had stopped to give the guy a hand... I turned around, drove back,
and informed him that that was probably not a good place to park while
tossing him a chain and pulling him back out onto the road... No big deal,
probably took less than 5 minutes of my time... Often when you do this,
the recipient will ask how much they owe you... I just tell them that next
time they see someone in a similar situation, just stop and help instead
of driving on past them...

Now, on the other hand, if the problem that someone has is just a flat,
I'm less likely to help them since I figure that if you own a car you
should know how to change a flat... If they're out of gas, I might help
them move the vehicle where it is not blocking the road / tow it to the
nearest parking lot... Not so much because I want to help them, but just
to get their damn vehicle off the road and not blocking traffic... Never
drive anything bigger than you're willing to push... For me, that means
being willing to push close to 6000 lbs... Damn, sure hope it's not an
uphill push...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:50:27 +0000, in
>, B A R R Y wrote:
> Imagine how that kid might have acted for the entire flight? <G>

Before or after the sweat sock and duct tape?

[Jim Macklin]

This thread got me to thinking...
Actually ALL children under 5 years of age are BIOHAZARDS
and should be isolated.






"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message
...
| On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:50:27 +0000, in
| >, B A R
R Y wrote:
| > Imagine how that kid might have acted for the entire
flight? <G>
|
| Before or after the sweat sock and duct tape?

[Ross]

John Theune wrote:
> B A R R Y wrote:
>
>>>
>>> "The father said his family would never fly AirTran again."
>>>
>>> Makes me want to fly AirTran.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Same here!
>>
>> My wife (a 2nd grade teacher) and I were wondering how many read that
>> article and said the same. I don't feel sorry for parents who can't
>> control a kid and seem to feel that everyone else should have to put
>> up with it.
>>
>> Imagine how that kid might have acted for the entire flight? <G>
>
> The msnbc site that I read the story on had a poll and 68% of the
> respondents agreed with AirTran

Reread my earlier post on the 4 year old next to my wife and me from NCY
to Athens, Greece. It was not a fun flight.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Montblack]

("Ross" wrote)
> Reread my earlier post on the 4 year old next to my wife and me from NCY
> to Athens, Greece. It was not a fun flight.


A friend of ours is an anesthesiologist. He/she took a long, long, long
flight a number of years ago. He/she had FA's commenting on how well behaved
their toddler was - the entire flight.

Said toddler was "clean" for the return trip. The parents used some
pre-flight sleep deprivation techniques on the little guy, for the flight
home. He slept most of that trip and was an "angel" the rest of the time,
blissfully unaware that the 'special' milk bottle was waiting for him
....just in case.

Bad parents. Bad. <g>


Montblack

[john smith]

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:

> Jim, I haven't looked up the part 121 rules since I left the airlines, but
> as I recall, the "duty time" is defined as flight time. No limit on how
> long a crewmember can sit idling on the ground. Last I looked it was 8
> hours a 24 hour day, 40 hours in a 7 day week, 100 hours in any 30 day
> period ("month") and 1000 hours in a calendar year. Perhaps that has
> changed.

As I was recently told, the crew clock doesn't start until the first
engine is started.

[john smith]

In article >,
"Montblack" > wrote:

> Said toddler was "clean" for the return trip. The parents used some
> pre-flight sleep deprivation techniques on the little guy, for the flight
> home. He slept most of that trip and was an "angel" the rest of the time,
> blissfully unaware that the 'special' milk bottle was waiting for him
> ...just in case.
> Bad parents. Bad. <g>

Remember thescene from the Wizard of Oz where Dorothy falls asleep after
running through the field? It was a field of poppys.

Homebrew.... purchase a bag of poppy seeds from the local store.
Boil the seeds. Make poppy seed struedel with the poppy seeds. Save the
water the seeds were boiled in. When the kid gets cranky, give them a
cup of the brew. They will sleep like a baby!

[Jim Macklin]

Duty time is what is left after mandatory rest. Further,
there are limits on flight hours and some exceptions for
number of crew in the cockpit and weather delays.

§ 121.471 Flight time limitations and rest requirements:
All flight crewmembers.
(a) No certificate holder conducting domestic operations may
schedule any flight crewmember and no flight crewmember may
accept an assignment for flight time in scheduled air
transportation or in other commercial flying if that
crewmember's total flight time in all commercial flying will
exceed-

(1) 1,000 hours in any calendar year;

(2) 100 hours in any calendar month;

(3) 30 hours in any 7 consecutive days;

(4) 8 hours between required rest periods.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no
certificate holder conducting domestic operations may
schedule a flight crewmember and no flight crewmember may
accept an assignment for flight time during the 24
consecutive hours preceding the scheduled completion of any
flight segment without a scheduled rest period during that
24 hours of at least the following:

(1) 9 consecutive hours of rest for less than 8 hours of
scheduled flight time.

(2) 10 consecutive hours of rest for 8 or more but less than
9 hours of scheduled flight time.

(3) 11 consecutive hours of rest for 9 or more hours of
scheduled flight time.

(c) A certificate holder may schedule a flight crewmember
for less than the rest required in paragraph (b) of this
section or may reduce a scheduled rest under the following
conditions:

(1) A rest required under paragraph (b)(1) of this section
may be scheduled for or reduced to a minimum of 8 hours if
the flight crewmember is given a rest period of at least 10
hours that must begin no later than 24 hours after the
commencement of the reduced rest period.

(2) A rest required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section
may be scheduled for or reduced to a minimum of 8 hours if
the flight crewmember is given a rest period of at least 11
hours that must begin no later than 24 hours after the
commencement of the reduced rest period.

(3) A rest required under paragraph (b)(3) of this section
may be scheduled for or reduced to a minimum of 9 hours if
the flight crewmember is given a rest period of at least 12
hours that must begin no later than 24 hours after the
commencement of the reduced rest period.

(4) No certificate holder may assign, nor may any flight
crewmember perform any flight time with the certificate
holder unless the flight crewmember has had at least the
minimum rest required under this paragraph.

(d) Each certificate holder conducting domestic operations
shall relieve each flight crewmember engaged in scheduled
air transportation from all further duty for at least 24
consecutive hours during any 7 consecutive days.

(e) No certificate holder conducting domestic operations may
assign any flight crewmember and no flight crewmember may
accept assignment to any duty with the air carrier during
any required rest period.

(f) Time spent in transportation, not local in character,
that a certificate holder requires of a flight crewmember
and provides to transport the crewmember to an airport at
which he is to serve on a flight as a crewmember, or from an
airport at which he was relieved from duty to return to his
home station, is not considered part of a rest period.

(g) A flight crewmember is not considered to be scheduled
for flight time in excess of flight time limitations if the
flights to which he is assigned are scheduled and normally
terminate within the limitations, but due to circumstances
beyond the control of the certificate holder (such as
adverse weather conditions), are not at the time of
departure expected to reach their destination within the
scheduled time.

[Doc. No. 23634, 50 FR 29319, July 18, 1985, as amended by
Amdt. 121-253, 61 FR 2612, Jan. 26

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
| In article >,
| "RST Engineering" > wrote:
|
| > Jim, I haven't looked up the part 121 rules since I left
the airlines, but
| > as I recall, the "duty time" is defined as flight time.
No limit on how
| > long a crewmember can sit idling on the ground. Last I
looked it was 8
| > hours a 24 hour day, 40 hours in a 7 day week, 100 hours
in any 30 day
| > period ("month") and 1000 hours in a calendar year.
Perhaps that has
| > changed.
|
| As I was recently told, the crew clock doesn't start until
the first
| engine is started.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:50:27 GMT, B A R R Y >
wrote:

>>
>> "The father said his family would never fly AirTran again."
>>
>> Makes me want to fly AirTran.
>>
>>
>
>
>Same here!
>
>My wife (a 2nd grade teacher) and I were wondering how many read that
>article and said the same. I don't feel sorry for parents who can't
>control a kid and seem to feel that everyone else should have to put up
>with it.
>
>Imagine how that kid might have acted for the entire flight? <G>

Check the trailers. In addition to the68% that sided with the airline,
there are OVER 700 PAGES of comments with only a rare one agreeing
with the parents.

I particularly liked the one from the woman who said she had to make
an emergency trip so stopped at the airport pharmacy, bought a bottle
of Benadril (sp?) and gave her kid a swig before getting on the plane.
Kid was nice and peaceful for the flight. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Morgans]

"Roger" > wrote

> I particularly liked the one from the woman who said she had to make
> an emergency trip so stopped at the airport pharmacy, bought a bottle
> of Benadril (sp?) and gave her kid a swig before getting on the plane.
> Kid was nice and peaceful for the flight. <:-))

I know doctors who recommend this, and do this with their own children, when
necessary. No harm is done.

Less trauma for the child, and others around the child.

I would go with the view that the behavior was learned, and enabled by how
the child was raised. It is too late, to try to change behavior for one
instance, when it is allowed all along, in earlier times.
--
Jim in NC

[Roger[_4_]]

On 24 Jan 2007 15:18:47 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>
>> I wonder if the pilots had to trim the aircraft to compensate for the
>> load.
>
>On an airliner? Nah.
>
>This *is* a serious issue, however. I spent several hours on a flight
>to Atlanta seated in the last row of seats (the ones where the ceiling
>curves over your head) next to a guy who was the size of two of me.

I liked riding DC-9s and their climb rate, but I heard people complain
about noise and vibration. I couldn't figure out what they were
talking about on a "9". THEN I had the privilege of taking a wait
listing out of Boston for O'Hare. (I should have waited for the next
day as the stay would have been more entertaining) At any rate I had
the outside seat in the row with no window and the seat back wouldn't
move. One seat farther back and I'd have had a private room. I
thought I was on a Gray Hound buss. It sounded like one, it vibrated
like one, and it even smelled like one.

But as to the W&B. I flew out of Boston this time on a DC10. This was
in the days before they limited carryon. Mine was a shoulder bag about
the size of a duffle bag and just as heavy. It would just fit in the
overhead if you worked really hard. I don't think there was an empty
seat. Of course being packed in like sardines IIRC, we were all
overjoyed to hear the announcement "You all will be glad to hear we
are number 57 in line to depart" This was out of Logan. At any rate
I was kinda glad we had to burn off fuel for over an hour when we took
off. It seemed as if we were getting light on the gear almost half
way down the runway. We finally started to bounce along on the gear as
we kept slowly accelerating. Finally the nose came up, but I could
feel the tail kinda tuck under. Any one who has ever felt over
rotation knows that feeling. At that point I must have grabbed the
arm rests as the guy beside me asked if I was OK. I squeaked out "I'm
fine" and then checked for finger prints in the arm rests. We went
between the cranes off the end of the runway as we cleared the
buildings. I have never seen a commercial flight clear the end of the
runway lower than that except for a DC-6 a longggg time ago. I was at
the end of the runway that time and saw his tires hit the tops of the
grass and weeds. I know they have checks on the weight of passengers
and baggage but I'll swear that DC-10 was overloaded.

At any rate a couple minutes later the guy asked me something and I
replied that sometimes it's better not to know what's going on. He
didn't ask any more questions.

When we got to Cleveland I was behind schedule due to the storm we had
just flown over, around, and through had knocked out the RADAR. One
nice young woman (pretty too IIRC) offered to help by getting my
carryon down. I hollered "don't" as I reached from behind her to catch
the bag just as she pulled the bag out of the overhead. We both went
over the armrest behind me with her ending up in my lap and the bag
over her lap. I sure was glad she though it was funny. Made the whole
trip worthwhile. (We had to wait until some kind soul helped move the
bag.)

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On 24 Jan 2007 17:55:00 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> PS. I hate the new Google Group interface. Judging from the feedback
>> in their help group, everyone hates it. No posting preview, small
>> space to view, etc. Woof.
>
>Me, too. I had really grown to like the features of Google Groups, but
>now they've butchered the user interface.

It was even better when it was Dejanews.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dave S]

Grumman-581 wrote:
Would $5 per gallon be a good
> figure? If so, that 15 minutes on the ground costs them $177...

I want to say Southwest airlines has its fuel hedged in the $2 range.
Remember you get a volume discount. The airnav rate is for the people
who buy it by the bucket, not the truckload.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:13:16 -0800, "G. Sylvester"
> wrote:

>First off, the mother called the Flight Attendants as stewardess. She
>might as well had called them whores. Ok, maybe not that bad but it is
>demeaning and the term steward/ess has been out of use for a couple of
>decades. She should learn the right name.

It is.

I've been flying since they had fans on the front. They will always be
stews and stewardesses, just Oshkosh will always be "Oshkosh< and not
Airventure

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:51:57 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> wrote:

>"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Everyones problems were solved. While the parents may not have been happy,
>> they received sufficient time to get the child under control before the
>> next one.
>
>But......
>
>They were not permitted to board another flight within 24 hours, and the
>airline did not return their luggage or carseat.

They should have charged them storage.

>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On 24 Jan 2007 11:56:46 -0800, "george" > wrote:

>
>
>On Jan 25, 7:18 am, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
>> It is the best news I've heard about airline travel. But
>> why did they refund the money after they boarded the flight
>> and caused the disruption.
>>
>> "Kingfish" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>> | Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always
>> Trailways...
>> |
>> |http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921
>> |
>
>Our national carrier won't allow children to be seated anywhere close
>to unrelated males....

I think that's unaccompanied children

OTOH I'd prefer they put them on the other end of the plane.
I've raised two batches of kids and the grand kids are almost out of
highschool. I've paid my dues.

>And for a minute there some people were unhappy with such a good idea
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:16:57 -0500, Jake Brodsky
> wrote:

>Kingfish wrote:
>> Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921
>
>I'm appalled at how many of you were cheering AirTran on for their
>behavior. I'm a father of three typically well behaved children.
<snip>
>
>I'd have given the parents a few minutes to calm the kid down. It makes
>for better press...

They had already given them 15 minutes. That is far more than I'd
give. The airline has a responsibility to the passengers to get them
to the next stop and make connections if possible. If said kid causes
a delay and some one misses a connection that costs a lot of money and
more agrivation. The airline did the right thing althoug I agree they
could have used a bit more tact. As I said in another post. I'm
almost to the grand kids stage. I paid my dues and should not have to
listen to some one elses kid misbehaving no matter how much energy
they have.

>
>Jake Brodsky
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:30:52 -0800, C J Campbell
> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:16:57 -0800, Jake Brodsky wrote
>(in article >):
>
>> Kingfish wrote:
>>> Can't get your kid to behave on a plane? There's always Trailways...
>>>
>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773655/?GT1=8921
>>
>> I'm appalled at how many of you were cheering AirTran on for their
>> behavior. I'm a father of three typically well behaved children.
>>
>> Perhaps most of you prefer not to remember, but kids have energy: LOTS
>> of energy. Yes, my kids do sit still on aircraft. I've taught them
>> very well how to behave in airports and on board an airplane. They also
>> have practice from long road trips. They've done well --even my three
>> year old.
>>
>
>The parents had a few minutes. They also were given a refund, a free flight
>the next day, and free round-trip tickets to anywhere the airline goes. And
>still the father acts like a spoiled brat who believes that everyone else
>should wait on him. Well, you see where the daughter gets it from.

Don't forget the part where he told the gate attendent she should stop
talking now. She should have said, no, I'm just getting started.

>
>Heck, you get all that for a 3 year old's tantrum, flying my grandkids to
>Orlando might be profitable... :-)

Good Gawd no. Mine are teen agers. The passengers and crew might
handel it well, but I don't know if I could. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Mxsmanic]

It's a really incredible coincidence that all the FAA's careful
scientific research produced figures that always came out to nice
round numbers of hours. Who would have thought that the ideal
limitation for a year would just happen to be exactly 1000 hours?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:50:27 +0000, in
> >, B A R R Y wrote:
>> Imagine how that kid might have acted for the entire flight? <G>
>
> Before or after the sweat sock and duct tape?

New product idea!

A kit, similar to a first aid kit, containing duct tape, ty-wraps, an
old sock, and maybe a ball gag (in the first class version), neatly
packed and mounted near each flight attendant station.

You read it here first!

[Jim Macklin]

BOS has short runways
"Roger" > wrote in message
...
| On 24 Jan 2007 15:18:47 -0800, "Jay Honeck"
>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >> I wonder if the pilots had to trim the aircraft to
compensate for the
| >> load.
| >
| >On an airliner? Nah.
| >
| >This *is* a serious issue, however. I spent several hours
on a flight
| >to Atlanta seated in the last row of seats (the ones
where the ceiling
| >curves over your head) next to a guy who was the size of
two of me.
|
| I liked riding DC-9s and their climb rate, but I heard
people complain
| about noise and vibration. I couldn't figure out what
they were
| talking about on a "9". THEN I had the privilege of
taking a wait
| listing out of Boston for O'Hare. (I should have waited
for the next
| day as the stay would have been more entertaining) At any
rate I had
| the outside seat in the row with no window and the seat
back wouldn't
| move. One seat farther back and I'd have had a private
room. I
| thought I was on a Gray Hound buss. It sounded like one,
it vibrated
| like one, and it even smelled like one.
|
| But as to the W&B. I flew out of Boston this time on a
DC10. This was
| in the days before they limited carryon. Mine was a
shoulder bag about
| the size of a duffle bag and just as heavy. It would just
fit in the
| overhead if you worked really hard. I don't think there
was an empty
| seat. Of course being packed in like sardines IIRC, we
were all
| overjoyed to hear the announcement "You all will be glad
to hear we
| are number 57 in line to depart" This was out of Logan.
At any rate
| I was kinda glad we had to burn off fuel for over an hour
when we took
| off. It seemed as if we were getting light on the gear
almost half
| way down the runway. We finally started to bounce along on
the gear as
| we kept slowly accelerating. Finally the nose came up,
but I could
| feel the tail kinda tuck under. Any one who has ever felt
over
| rotation knows that feeling. At that point I must have
grabbed the
| arm rests as the guy beside me asked if I was OK. I
squeaked out "I'm
| fine" and then checked for finger prints in the arm rests.
We went
| between the cranes off the end of the runway as we cleared
the
| buildings. I have never seen a commercial flight clear the
end of the
| runway lower than that except for a DC-6 a longggg time
ago. I was at
| the end of the runway that time and saw his tires hit the
tops of the
| grass and weeds. I know they have checks on the weight of
passengers
| and baggage but I'll swear that DC-10 was overloaded.
|
| At any rate a couple minutes later the guy asked me
something and I
| replied that sometimes it's better not to know what's
going on. He
| didn't ask any more questions.
|
| When we got to Cleveland I was behind schedule due to the
storm we had
| just flown over, around, and through had knocked out the
RADAR. One
| nice young woman (pretty too IIRC) offered to help by
getting my
| carryon down. I hollered "don't" as I reached from behind
her to catch
| the bag just as she pulled the bag out of the overhead. We
both went
| over the armrest behind me with her ending up in my lap
and the bag
| over her lap. I sure was glad she though it was funny.
Made the whole
| trip worthwhile. (We had to wait until some kind soul
helped move the
| bag.)
|
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| www.rogerhalstead.com

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> Now, on the other hand, if the problem that someone has is just a flat,
> I'm less likely to help them since I figure that if you own a car you
> should know how to change a flat...

When my wife had a flat tire a few years back, on I-25 between Colo. Springs
and Pueblo, four guys on motorcycles stopped to help. She was a bit freaked
out and kept her 40S&W handy as they walked up.

The head of the bunch took out his ID, and showed it through the window.

It was four guys from 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson.

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:50:27 +0000, in
> >, B A R R Y wrote:
>> Imagine how that kid might have acted for the entire flight? <G>
>
> Before or after the sweat sock and duct tape?

A few years back I was flying from Denver to Miami. Due to the miles I used
to do on the airlines, I was on a first class upgrade.

One row back and on the other side of the aisle was fellow, evidently named
'Josh', escorting his elderly father to Miami.

The old man had Turrets Syndrome (or something) and spent the entire flight
YELLING, "Josh, where are you?", "Josh, where is the (something or
other)"....

On and on, again and again, every six to ten seconds....for 1800 miles and
four hours.

[Matt Barrow]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>Imagine how that kid might have acted for the entire flight? <G>
>
> Check the trailers. In addition to the68% that sided with the airline,
> there are OVER 700 PAGES of comments with only a rare one agreeing
> with the parents.
>
> I particularly liked the one from the woman who said she had to make
> an emergency trip so stopped at the airport pharmacy, bought a bottle
> of Benadril (sp?) and gave her kid a swig before getting on the plane.
> Kid was nice and peaceful for the flight. <:-))

With our kids, it was peppermint schnapps.

We also used that when they were teething (recommended by our family doctor
at the time, an older fellow in his 70's). Happiest teethers you ever saw
(but didn't hear).

[Matt Barrow]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger" > wrote
>
>> I particularly liked the one from the woman who said she had to make
>> an emergency trip so stopped at the airport pharmacy, bought a bottle
>> of Benadril (sp?) and gave her kid a swig before getting on the plane.
>> Kid was nice and peaceful for the flight. <:-))
>
> I know doctors who recommend this, and do this with their own children,
> when necessary. No harm is done.
>
> Less trauma for the child, and others around the child.
>
> I would go with the view that the behavior was learned, and enabled by how
> the child was raised. It is too late, to try to change behavior for one
> instance, when it is allowed all along, in earlier times.

Jim,

Would those parents be some of those who don't give a **** about their kids
school, either?

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Barrow writes:

> When my wife had a flat tire a few years back, on I-25 between Colo. Springs
> and Pueblo, four guys on motorcycles stopped to help. She was a bit freaked
> out and kept her 40S&W handy as they walked up.

If I stopped to help someone with a flat tire and she had a Smith &
Wesson handy, I'd be freaked out, too.

> The head of the bunch took out his ID, and showed it through the window.
>
> It was four guys from 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson.

Is that good or bad?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter Dohm]

> >> PS. I hate the new Google Group interface. Judging from the feedback
> >> in their help group, everyone hates it. No posting preview, small
> >> space to view, etc. Woof.
> >
> >Me, too. I had really grown to like the features of Google Groups, but
> >now they've butchered the user interface.
>
> It was even better when it was Dejanews.
>
Very true. It often seems that most progress isn't progress at all.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

> | But as to the W&B. I flew out of Boston this time on a
> DC10. This was
> | in the days before they limited carryon. Mine was a
> shoulder bag about
> | the size of a duffle bag and just as heavy. It would just
> fit in the
> | overhead if you worked really hard. I don't think there
> was an empty
> | seat. Of course being packed in like sardines IIRC, we
> were all
> | overjoyed to hear the announcement "You all will be glad
> to hear we
> | are number 57 in line to depart" This was out of Logan.
> At any rate
> | I was kinda glad we had to burn off fuel for over an hour
> when we took
> | off. It seemed as if we were getting light on the gear
> almost half
> | way down the runway. We finally started to bounce along on
> the gear as
> | we kept slowly accelerating. Finally the nose came up,
> but I could
> | feel the tail kinda tuck under. Any one who has ever felt
> over
> | rotation knows that feeling. At that point I must have
> grabbed the
> | arm rests as the guy beside me asked if I was OK. I
> squeaked out "I'm
> | fine" and then checked for finger prints in the arm rests.
> We went
> | between the cranes off the end of the runway as we cleared
> the
> | buildings. I have never seen a commercial flight clear the
> end of the
> | runway lower than that except for a DC-6 a longggg time
> ago. I was at
> | the end of the runway that time and saw his tires hit the
> tops of the
> | grass and weeds. I know they have checks on the weight of
> passengers
> | and baggage but I'll swear that DC-10 was overloaded.
> |
> | At any rate a couple minutes later the guy asked me
> something and I
> | replied that sometimes it's better not to know what's
> going on. He
> | didn't ask any more questions.
> |

> BOS has short runways

Those old DC-10s and L-1011s were really lead sleds when they were full, and
rode on a few were we seemed to gradually gain speed for a looong time and
then rotate for a while before lifting off about nine tenths of the way down
the runway.

OTOH, personally, I'm betting on overweight, even after burning off a lot of
fuel.

Peter
(In the last row of seats, I could almost hear the pilot behind us--honking
his horn. ;-)))

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> And what would you fire them for?
>
> Being late, and thereby costing the airline more than they are worth.

There was NOTHING in the original post that claimed the pilots were late.

[Montblack]

("B A R R Y" wrote)
>> That is ALWAYS the way it starts (see: "BUT IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN").

> Right-on! The good ol' "Kid Card" gets played. <G>
>
> The Kid Card can justify anything the player wants, if played correctly.


T-Shirt / Bumper sticker

Premarital SEX: It's for the Children


Montblack

[Bob Noel]

In article <11Nth.2595$2n.2338@trndny06>,
"Steve Foley" > wrote:

> They were not permitted to board another flight within 24 hours, and the
> airline did not return their luggage or carseat.

according to a news report, the family refused anything but a direct non-stop
flight.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[G. Sylvester]

Roger wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:13:16 -0800, "G. Sylvester"
> > wrote:
>> First off, the mother called the Flight Attendants as stewardess. She
>> might as well had called them whores. Ok, maybe not that bad but it is
>> demeaning and the term steward/ess has been out of use for a couple of
>> decades. She should learn the right name.
>
> It is.
>
> I've been flying since they had fans on the front. They will always be
> stews and stewardesses, just Oshkosh will always be "Oshkosh< and not
> Airventure

Roger - I have plenty of respect for the things you have to say but in
this case, the term is wrong. It is nonetheless common and somewhat
offensive. Kind of like calling an Asian person an Oriental. It's
wrong and offensive. In NY where I grew up, everyone called Asians as
Orientals. it wasn't until I moved to California I learned that it was
wrong. History won't make it right.

Gerald

[john smith]

In article >,
"G. Sylvester" > wrote:

> Roger wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:13:16 -0800, "G. Sylvester"
> > > wrote:
> >> First off, the mother called the Flight Attendants as stewardess. She
> >> might as well had called them whores. Ok, maybe not that bad but it is
> >> demeaning and the term steward/ess has been out of use for a couple of
> >> decades. She should learn the right name.
> >
> > It is.
> >
> > I've been flying since they had fans on the front. They will always be
> > stews and stewardesses, just Oshkosh will always be "Oshkosh< and not
> > Airventure
>
> Roger - I have plenty of respect for the things you have to say but in
> this case, the term is wrong. It is nonetheless common and somewhat
> offensive. Kind of like calling an Asian person an Oriental. It's
> wrong and offensive. In NY where I grew up, everyone called Asians as
> Orientals. it wasn't until I moved to California I learned that it was
> wrong. History won't make it right.

What Gerald seems to be saying is... you need to learn political
correctness.
The problem is, you don't know which of their self-appointed "leaders"
to follow.
Remember, it's not polite to offend anyone, even if they deserve it.

[G. Sylvester]

john smith wrote:
> In article >,
> "G. Sylvester" > wrote:
>>> I've been flying since they had fans on the front. They will always be
>>> stews and stewardesses, just Oshkosh will always be "Oshkosh< and not
>>> Airventure
>> Roger - I have plenty of respect for the things you have to say but in
>> this case, the term is wrong. It is nonetheless common and somewhat
>> offensive. Kind of like calling an Asian person an Oriental. It's
>> wrong and offensive. In NY where I grew up, everyone called Asians as
>> Orientals. it wasn't until I moved to California I learned that it was
>> wrong. History won't make it right.
> What Gerald seems to be saying is... you need to learn political
> correctness.
> The problem is, you don't know which of their self-appointed "leaders"
> to follow.
> Remember, it's not polite to offend anyone, even if they deserve it.


my god (and I'm a born-again atheist ;-) ) am I being accused of being
politically correct? There's no chance in hell that would happen. My
friends would laugh their a$$es off about that one. Anyway, this isn't
about being politically correct. After all, if you aren't friendly to
the FA's, how could possibly expect to get the pre-departure warm nuts.
Now when you are talking about the UA Red Carpet Club matrons or
dragons, that's another story. ;-) And from now on, I'm referring to
Airbus SIC's as the "assistant to the real pilot" or should that be
"assistant busdriver?" :)

Gerald

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article om>,
says...
> My worst flight ever was a night flight from Japan to Seattle (IIRC),
> in which I was pretty much surrounded by the members of a boys sports
> team of some sort (hockey, I think). I was tired, and ready for sleep -
> but wouldn't get any that night. Those kids were hyper - and there were
> three across in the row behind me. They all had newly purchased
> electronic gizmos that they played incessantly. The one behind me kept
> pounding on his with his fingers. Of course it was on the tray table
> (which As I pointed out to him repeatedly, was directly connected to my
> seat). He couldn't keep his hands off of it. The final straw came when
> one of them went to the restroom. On his return he dragged his gizmo
> across my face in the process of returning to his seat. I jumped up and
> made quite a scene - and finally provoked a response from their coach.
>
> Having had enough of that scene, I went and appropriated an empty seat
> in a section reserved for the crew. They tried to get me to go back,
> but I told them nothing doing - if they wanted to keep the peace on
> that flight, they had better leave me alone. They did.

one of them email funnies...
"The next time you find yourself on a plane, sitting next to someone who
cannot resist chattering to you endlessly, I urge you to quietly pull
your laptop out of your bag, carefully open the screen (ensuring the
irritating person next to you can see it), and hit this link:

http://www.thecleverest.com/countdown.swf
"

--
Duncan

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:33:46 +1300, Duncan wrote:

>and hit this link:
>
>http://www.thecleverest.com/countdown.swf

don't do it in the US. You might be declared an enemy combatant (see
signature).

But hey, it is funny :-)

#m
--
I am not a terrorist. <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

G. Sylvester wrote:
> Roger - I have plenty of respect for the things you have to say but in
> this case, the term is wrong. It is nonetheless common and somewhat
> offensive. Kind of like calling an Asian person an Oriental. It's
> wrong and offensive. In NY where I grew up, everyone called Asians as
> Orientals. it wasn't until I moved to California I learned that it was
> wrong. History won't make it right.


WTH? My sister in law was a Japanese national (now US citizen) and I asked her
about this one time. She seemed a little confused at the notion that "Oriental"
was somehow offensive. Frankly, so am I. All it refers to is someone from the
Orient. We call people from Europe Europeans and nobody's ass gets chapped.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article >,
says...
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:33:46 +1300, Duncan wrote:
>
> >and hit this link:
> >
> >http://www.thecleverest.com/countdown.swf
>
> don't do it in the US. You might be declared an enemy combatant (see
> signature).

Yeah I bet! Don't worry, I believe you.

>
> But hey, it is funny :-)
>
> #m
>

--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

G. Sylvester writes:

> Roger - I have plenty of respect for the things you have to say but in
> this case, the term is wrong. It is nonetheless common and somewhat
> offensive.

It doesn't bother any of the flight attendants I know. Are you a
flight attendant?

> Kind of like calling an Asian person an Oriental.

Orientals are a subset of Asians. Asia is a very big place. Oriental
refers to someone from the Far East, where mongoloid body types and
features are common (e.g., Japan, China, etc.). Two thirds of the
world is Asian, so Asian is a very vague term.

> It's wrong and offensive.

It's neither.

> In NY where I grew up, everyone called Asians as Orientals.

Which Asians? The term only applies to the ones I've described above.
Indians are Asians, but they aren't Orientals.

> it wasn't until I moved to California I learned that it was
> wrong.

Ah ... you moved to California. California isn't the world, and there
are many rational people outside the State, even if the rational ones
within it are not permitted to speak.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

G. Sylvester writes:

> my god (and I'm a born-again atheist ;-) ) am I being accused of being
> politically correct?

What you've described perfectly fits the definition.

> There's no chance in hell that would happen.

Most people afflicted by it don't know they have it.

> Anyway, this isn't about being politically correct.

It's _entirely_ about being politically correct.

> After all, if you aren't friendly to the FA's, how could possibly
> expect to get the pre-departure warm nuts.

FA's with a three-digit IQ aren't likely to worry too much about what
they are called, within reason.

> And from now on, I'm referring to
> Airbus SIC's as the "assistant to the real pilot" or should that be
> "assistant busdriver?"

On an Airbus, all you need is someone to push the buttons.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[john smith]

G. Sylvester wrote:
> my god (and I'm a born-again atheist ;-) ) am I being accused of being
> politically correct? There's no chance in hell that would happen. My
> friends would laugh their a$$es off about that one. Anyway, this isn't
> about being politically correct. After all, if you aren't friendly to
> the FA's, how could possibly expect to get the pre-departure warm nuts.
> Now when you are talking about the UA Red Carpet Club matrons or
> dragons, that's another story. ;-) And from now on, I'm referring to
> Airbus SIC's as the "assistant to the real pilot" or should that be
> "assistant busdriver?" :)

You are correct.
I remember reading one of Gordon Baxter's columns some 20 years ago.
His wife, Diane, had been a FA for Braniff.
She got called in to work one time when she had a bad case of the flu.
As the story goes, a male passenger in first class was giving her a real
bad time. The last straw had something to do with a demand for a drink.
Back then, first class drinks were served in real glass cups.
Before she poured the passengers drink into the glass, she licked the
rim all around.

[john smith]

Looks like something to show the screeners when they ask you to turn
your laptop on to show them it isn't a bomb.

Duncan (NZ) wrote:
> one of them email funnies...
> "The next time you find yourself on a plane, sitting next to someone who
> cannot resist chattering to you endlessly, I urge you to quietly pull
> your laptop out of your bag, carefully open the screen (ensuring the
> irritating person next to you can see it), and hit this link:
> http://www.thecleverest.com/countdown.swf

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-01-27, G. Sylvester > wrote:
> Roger - I have plenty of respect for the things you have to say but in
> this case, the term is wrong.

I'm curious - what makes the term 'steward' or 'stewardess' offensive or
wrong? I can't think of any negative connotations of the term which
would do so. As far as I know, at least where I live, the collective
term is "cabin crew" and the singular term is "steward" or "stewardess",
and this is what the cabin crew actually call themselves.

I always thought "flight attendant" sounded slightly demeaning compared
to "steward" or "cabin crew".

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> I'm curious - what makes the term 'steward' or
> 'stewardess' offensive or wrong? I can't think of
> any negative connotations of the term which
> would do so.

I couldn't agree more! The only difference I can see between
"steward/stewardess" and "flight attendant" is that "stewardess" also
denotes a female. But that's not offensive, it's factual, and there's no
reason why that would have to be private info. What's so offensive or
demeaning or wrong about "stewardess"? It's just an older word for
someone performing the same duties.

[Mxsmanic]

Dylan Smith writes:

> I'm curious - what makes the term 'steward' or 'stewardess' offensive or
> wrong?

Wrong is a strong word.

The most rational objection I've heard is that it's inaccurate because
flight attendants are not actually steward(esse)s. A steward is a
kind of personal assistant, or household domestic, or valet, or
waiter, and so on. Flight attendants, however, are safety
technicians; the usual tasks for which they are best known are in fact
just busy work, because the only reason they are really there is to
help in emergencies. Thus, "flight attendant" is more accurate.

However, most flight attendants don't seem to get hyper if someone
calls them a steward or stewardess. It just means that the passenger
is behind the times, usually--way behind, these days, since FAs
haven't been called stewards in quite a while.

> I can't think of any negative connotations of the term which
> would do so.

There aren't any negative connotations, unless you think the
traditional functions of a steward are Bad Things. The inaccuracy of
the term favors something like flight attendant, but I don't know why
anyone would be offended.

> As far as I know, at least where I live, the collective
> term is "cabin crew" and the singular term is "steward" or "stewardess",
> and this is what the cabin crew actually call themselves.

Where do you live?

> I always thought "flight attendant" sounded slightly demeaning compared
> to "steward" or "cabin crew".

It certainly could be taken that way, since it sounds somewhat like
gas-station attendant, and tends to understate the importance of the
job. But perhaps steward sounded too much like a personal slave?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith writes:
> > I'm curious - what makes the term 'steward' or 'stewardess' offensive or
> > wrong?

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Wrong is a strong word.
>
> The most rational objection I've heard is that it's inaccurate because
> flight attendants are not actually steward(esse)s. A steward is a
> kind of personal assistant, or household domestic, or valet, or
> waiter, and so on.

The list of definitions (in the dictionary) goes on to include those
responsible for the comfort of passengers on a ship or airplane.

> Flight attendants, however, are safety
> technicians; the usual tasks for which they are best known are in fact
> just busy work, because the only reason they are really there is to
> help in emergencies. Thus, "flight attendant" is more accurate.

They were always there to not only do the "busy work" (serve food,
drinks or bring blankets/pillows), but also to provide instruction and
assistance in an emergency.

I wouldn't say "flight attendant is more accurate" as much as it's just
an updated title ... sort of the same way waiter/waitress has been
replaced by "food server". Same job, updated title.

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 05:27:59 -0500, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:
>
>WTH? My sister in law was a Japanese national (now US citizen) and I asked her
>about this one time. She seemed a little confused at the notion that "Oriental"
>was somehow offensive. Frankly, so am I. All it refers to is someone from the
>Orient. We call people from Europe Europeans and nobody's ass gets chapped.

That one always confused me, as well.

If I were Japanese, Thai, Tibetan, Korean, or Chinese, I think I'd
want to be called Japanese, Thai, Tibetan, Korean, or Chinese. "Asian"
is really no different than "Oriental" as it lumps them all together
based on similar geographic origin. How does "Oriental" offend, but
not "Asian"? It seems to me that if one offends, so should the other,
or neither. I've never referred to the folks I know locally as
Oriental or Asian, because I happen to know they are Thai, Tibetan,
Korean, and Chinese.

Here in New England, we have "Oriental Markets" and stores that sell
"Oriental rugs" and "Oriental antiques". We also have Thai, Tibetan,
Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and even Korean restaurants.

I never even heard the term "Asian" until I went to California for the
first time. That's also the first time I saw an "Asian Restaurant".
Apparently politically correct people on the west coast can't tell the
difference between Chinese, Thai, and Tibetan food? <G>

[Sylvain]

Duncan (NZ) wrote:

> "The next time you find yourself on a plane, sitting next to someone who
> cannot resist chattering to you endlessly,

I have a very effective way of getting rid off people like that; they
inevitably ask me about my disability, none of their business but in
these occasions I am only too glad to oblige: oh that? airplane
crash, no, no other survivor (entirely true, I was the only
one on board, but I skip that part for the occasion); if I do it
right, I can elaborate a little bit further, it shuts them up for the
rest of the flight (except for some mumbling to themselves)

--Sylvain

[G. Sylvester]

I can't believe I'm saying this but what Mxsmanic said is correct.
Please, please, do hold what I just said against me. ;-)


Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> G. Sylvester wrote:
> WTH? My sister in law was a Japanese national (now US citizen) and I
asked her
> about this one time. She seemed a little confused at the notion that
"Oriental"
> was somehow offensive. Frankly, so am I. All it refers to is
someone from the
> Orient. We call people from Europe Europeans and nobody's ass gets
chapped.

in all honesty, beats the hell out of me why it is offensive. I learned
this when I was 23 years old when I moved to southern california for
gradual <sic> school. All I know is when I used the term I got looks
like I had 5 heads. Maybe Kalifornians are a little, ummm, sensitive.
<smirk>. I certainly did my best to soften them up. Ironically, I was
talking to a friend in NY years later and he told me the same thing.

Gerald





Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dylan Smith writes:
>
>> I'm curious - what makes the term 'steward' or 'stewardess' offensive or
>> wrong?
>
> Wrong is a strong word.
>
> The most rational objection I've heard is that it's inaccurate because
> flight attendants are not actually steward(esse)s. A steward is a
> kind of personal assistant, or household domestic, or valet, or
> waiter, and so on. Flight attendants, however, are safety
> technicians; the usual tasks for which they are best known are in fact
> just busy work, because the only reason they are really there is to
> help in emergencies. Thus, "flight attendant" is more accurate.
>
> However, most flight attendants don't seem to get hyper if someone
> calls them a steward or stewardess. It just means that the passenger
> is behind the times, usually--way behind, these days, since FAs
> haven't been called stewards in quite a while.
>
>> I can't think of any negative connotations of the term which
>> would do so.
>
> There aren't any negative connotations, unless you think the
> traditional functions of a steward are Bad Things. The inaccuracy of
> the term favors something like flight attendant, but I don't know why
> anyone would be offended.
>
>> As far as I know, at least where I live, the collective
>> term is "cabin crew" and the singular term is "steward" or "stewardess",
>> and this is what the cabin crew actually call themselves.
>
> Where do you live?
>
>> I always thought "flight attendant" sounded slightly demeaning compared
>> to "steward" or "cabin crew".
>
> It certainly could be taken that way, since it sounds somewhat like
> gas-station attendant, and tends to understate the importance of the
> job. But perhaps steward sounded too much like a personal slave?
>

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The list of definitions (in the dictionary) goes on to include those
> responsible for the comfort of passengers on a ship or airplane.

Those definitions are derived from the earlier ones, however.

And the thing is, on an aircraft, FAs are _not_ there to ensure the
comfort of passengers.

> They were always there to not only do the "busy work" (serve food,
> drinks or bring blankets/pillows), but also to provide instruction and
> assistance in an emergency.

Their sole purpose is the latter. Rest assured, if the FAA didn't
require flight attendants, they would have disappeared long ago.

> I wouldn't say "flight attendant is more accurate" as much as it's just
> an updated title ... sort of the same way waiter/waitress has been
> replaced by "food server". Same job, updated title.

In any case, I don't think "stewardess" is likely to produce hysteria
in the average FA.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[601XL Builder]

G. Sylvester wrote:
> I can't believe I'm saying this but what Mxsmanic said is correct.
> Please, please, do hold what I just said against me. ;-)
>
>
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> > G. Sylvester wrote:
> > WTH? My sister in law was a Japanese national (now US citizen) and I
> asked her
> > about this one time. She seemed a little confused at the notion that
> "Oriental"
> > was somehow offensive. Frankly, so am I. All it refers to is
> someone from the
> > Orient. We call people from Europe Europeans and nobody's ass gets
> chapped.
>
> in all honesty, beats the hell out of me why it is offensive. I learned
> this when I was 23 years old when I moved to southern california for
> gradual <sic> school. All I know is when I used the term I got looks
> like I had 5 heads. Maybe Kalifornians are a little, ummm, sensitive.
> <smirk>. I certainly did my best to soften them up. Ironically, I was
> talking to a friend in NY years later and he told me the same thing.
>
> Gerald
>


It's all part of the California PC culture. If you say Asian you are
saying where they or their family is FROM. If you say Oriental you are
making a point of their race.

I have a friend from school that was a South African national and has
become a US Citizen since. He answers African-American when ever
possible. He is VERY Caucasian, blond hair, blue eyes.

[G. Sylvester]

For reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_attendant


BTW, also found these comments on flyertalk....


>I've recently learnt that the words "steward/stewardess"
>are being replaced by "attendant" due to political
>correctness. Both are AmE or BrE according to my Cambridge Dict (Am
and Br)


>Political correctness describes a word or expression that
>is used instead of another one to avoid being offensive
>Some people think that 'fireman' is a sexist term, and
>prefer the politically correct term 'firefighter'.


>I try to avoid the issue and say cabin crew for the
>group in general, as it's a political correctness issue.


ok, I admit, I'm disgusted with myself for being PC. Jeez. If my
friends find out about this, they'll be ridiculing me for years. The
only reason I used FA vs. steward(ess) was because having flown 600k
plus miles over the past 7 years was FA was the only term I ever heard
used other than the vacation mongers who hang out with "low class" (vs.
business/first class) folk. Now I only wonder if the UA RCC "Dragons"
will take offense to that term.

Ok, lets get off the passenger talk and back to the flying. I guess
that leaves out mxmaniac.


B A R R Y wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 05:27:59 -0500, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:
> If I were Japanese, Thai, Tibetan, Korean, or Chinese, I think I'd
> want to be called Japanese, Thai, Tibetan, Korean, or Chinese. "Asian"
> is really no different than "Oriental" as it lumps them all together
> based on similar geographic origin.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oriental has an explanation.
Back in NY it made no difference. Out in the Republik of
Kalifornia, it makes a world of difference. I think I'm going to go
back to the term Oriental.

>That's also the first time I saw an "Asian Restaurant".
> Apparently politically correct people on the west coast can't tell the
> difference between Chinese, Thai, and Tibetan food? <G>

please, do not discriminate. We're all Americans...you know, one nation
under gawd, all that <grin>

Gerald

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:33:42 -0600, 601XL Builder
<wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote:


>
>It's all part of the California PC culture. If you say Asian you are
>saying where they or their family is FROM. If you say Oriental you are
>making a point of their race.

_The ORIENT_ is a place, just like Asia! <G>

There's even an airline named after the Orient as a place.

[Jay Honeck]

> > "The next time you find yourself on a plane, sitting next to someone who
> > cannot resist chattering to you endlessly,I have a very effective way of getting rid off people like that; they
> inevitably ask me about my disability, none of their business but in
> these occasions I am only too glad to oblige: oh that? airplane
> crash, no, no other survivor (entirely true, I was the only
> one on board, but I skip that part for the occasion); if I do it
> right, I can elaborate a little bit further, it shuts them up for the
> rest of the flight (except for some mumbling to themselves)

That is EVIL.

I love it!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

601XL Builder writes:

> I have a friend from school that was a South African national and has
> become a US Citizen since. He answers African-American when ever
> possible. He is VERY Caucasian, blond hair, blue eyes.

The problem with political correctness is that it is deliberately
designed to confuse and mislead. In PC-land, African-American doesn't
actually mean African or American, it means dark-skinned; and anyone
who has light skin and uses it to describe himself is automatically a
racist in PC eyes, even if he was born and raised in Africa and has
immigrated to the U.S. (thus making himself an African-American).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> I always thought "flight attendant" sounded slightly demeaning compared
> to "steward" or "cabin crew".


Don't attendants pass out hand towels in classy bathrooms? The only thing I
can think of with "stewardess" is that it's a slightly archaic term. But it's
not demeaning to my way of thinking.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mxsmanic]

G. Sylvester writes:

> please, do not discriminate. We're all Americans...you know, one nation
> under gawd, all that <grin>

What is gawd?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> There's even an airline named after the Orient as a place.

Which one?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

B A R R Y wrote:
> If I were Japanese, Thai, Tibetan, Korean, or Chinese, I think I'd
> want to be called Japanese, Thai, Tibetan, Korean, or Chinese. "Asian"
> is really no different than "Oriental" as it lumps them all together
> based on similar geographic origin. How does "Oriental" offend, but
> not "Asian"? It seems to me that if one offends, so should the other,
> or neither. I've never referred to the folks I know locally as
> Oriental or Asian, because I happen to know they are Thai, Tibetan,
> Korean, and Chinese.


What will offend a Japanese is to be referred to as Chinese, Korean or Thai.
You can call them Japanese. You can call them Asian. You can call them
Oriental. Nobody gets upset. Call them by the wrong country and trust me,
everybody's nose get out of joint.

Getting back to the European example I listed before, Germans, Swiss,
Norwegians, Danes, etc. don't mind being called Europeans. They do object to
being called French.

If you're going to be specific as to country of origin you damn well better get
it right.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Sylvain wrote:
> I have a very effective way of getting rid off people like that; they
> inevitably ask me about my disability, none of their business but in
> these occasions I am only too glad to oblige: oh that? airplane
> crash, no, no other survivor (entirely true, I was the only
> one on board, but I skip that part for the occasion); if I do it
> right, I can elaborate a little bit further, it shuts them up for the
> rest of the flight (except for some mumbling to themselves)


Well, what do you know? I've been in two... one of which left me embarassed and
the other one left me with some significant changes.... I know you know what I
mean. But I digress....

I was sitting in the back of a Jetstream once with an overly chatty passenger
once. We hit some turbulence and I declared loudly: "SURE HOPE WE DON'T
CRASH!" The rest of the ride was in blessed silence.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Jay Honeck]

> >I'd have given the parents a few minutes to calm the kid down. It makes
> >for better press...

> They had already given them 15 minutes. That is far more than I'd
> give.

Here's what the AP Travel Editor thinks of the situation:

http://tinyurl.com/28zuf7
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Don Tuite]

Occasionally, you guys sound like media reporters talking about
"stalls."

"Orient" came into disrepute when Edward Said published _Orientalism_
in 1978. Read the book, or at least some reviews, and make up your
own minds about Said said, but recognize that historically, "the
Orient" was mostly used by pre-war Europeans to refer to the Ottoman
empire. The terminus, for the "Orient Express," ferex, was Istanbul.

An "Asian" restaurant FWIW, typically offers a range of dishes from
east-Asian countries. (No Bulgarian kapama)

Don (northern-European mongrel-American)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-01-27, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dylan Smith writes:
>
>> I'm curious - what makes the term 'steward' or 'stewardess' offensive or
>> wrong?
>
> Wrong is a strong word.
>
> The most rational objection I've heard is that it's inaccurate because
> flight attendants are not actually steward(esse)s. A steward is a
> kind of personal assistant, or household domestic, or valet, or
> waiter, and so on. Flight attendants, however, are safety
> technicians; the usual tasks for which they are best known are in fact
> just busy work, because the only reason they are really there is to
> help in emergencies. Thus, "flight attendant" is more accurate.

Hrm. I always thought about it the other way - "flight attendant", to me
at least, always sounded to me more to describe a "waiter in the sky",
whereas steward or stewardess seemed to suggest a lot more.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:19:38 GMT, B A R R Y wrote:

>How does "Oriental" offend, but not "Asian"?

IMHO Oriental is tended to address more or less the Arabic region (whatever
you think about what the correct geographic region should be), as Asian
more or less addresses the more eastern region. There might be some issues
for Asians to be mixed up with Orientals.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist. <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 02:34:50 GMT, "G. Sylvester"
> wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:13:16 -0800, "G. Sylvester"
>> > wrote:
>>> First off, the mother called the Flight Attendants as stewardess. She
>>> might as well had called them whores. Ok, maybe not that bad but it is
>>> demeaning and the term steward/ess has been out of use for a couple of
>>> decades. She should learn the right name.
>>
>> It is.
>>
>> I've been flying since they had fans on the front. They will always be
>> stews and stewardesses, just Oshkosh will always be "Oshkosh< and not
>> Airventure
>
>Roger - I have plenty of respect for the things you have to say but in
>this case, the term is wrong. It is nonetheless common and somewhat
>offensive.

A term is offensive only when the person takes it as offensive. That
they have changed the name of the job has not changed the job, nor
does it change the thinking of people who have been around for a long
time.

> Kind of like calling an Asian person an Oriental. It's

Which is quite proper in most of the world

>wrong and offensive. In NY where I grew up, everyone called Asians as
>Orientals. it wasn't until I moved to California I learned that it was

Now that explains it. Moving into Kalifornia that is.

>wrong. History won't make it right.

But moving out of California would.

This is confusing politically correctness with whether something is
right or wrong. You've picked a geographically localized PC term
where a local group had determined something is wrong even if most of
the world doesn't think that way.

Most Japanese and Indonesians I know do not find the term offensive
which I find strange in a way as the Japanese language and its use is
loaded with honorifics. It is also difficult to translate directly.
Translated literally, much of it can be very confusing to English
speaking people. As one Japanese friend said, "Just think Yoda" as
they must have used Japanese for his speech model. She works as a
translator.

>
>Gerald
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[G. Sylvester]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Don't attendants pass out hand towels in classy bathrooms? The only thing I
> can think of with "stewardess" is that it's a slightly archaic term. But it's
> not demeaning to my way of thinking.

FA's pass out warm cloth towels in business and first class too. Doh!
I'm never going to get an upgrade again.

Gerald

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If seeing to the comfort of passengers was *not* part of their job, they
> wouldn't be serving drinks, food, and bringing people pillows and
> blankets. They're there to provide safety in case of an emergency, but
> they're also there to serve the needs of the customers (passengers).

It's just busy work. If they didn't do that, passengers would wonder
what they were for, and it would make passengers nervous to learn that
they were there just for emergencies. Additionally, airlines figure
that as long as they have to have FAs and pay them, they can make them
do other things that will increase revenue or customer satisfaction.
However, every FA knows that safety is job one (in fact, the only real
job).

> It's a big part of their job, but it is not their "sole purpose."

It really is their sole purpose.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

writes:
> > The list of definitions (in the dictionary) goes on to include those
> > responsible for the comfort of passengers on a ship or airplane.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Those definitions are derived from the earlier ones, however.

Yeah, but point is, that *is* what they do and has been what they do for
years.

> And the thing is, on an aircraft, FAs are _not_ there to ensure the
> comfort of passengers.

If seeing to the comfort of passengers was *not* part of their job, they
wouldn't be serving drinks, food, and bringing people pillows and
blankets. They're there to provide safety in case of an emergency, but
they're also there to serve the needs of the customers (passengers).

> > They were always there to not only do the "busy work" (serve food,
> > drinks or bring blankets/pillows), but also to provide instruction and
> > assistance in an emergency.
>
> Their sole purpose is the latter.

It's a big part of their job, but it is not their "sole purpose."

[Roger[_4_]]

On 27 Jan 2007 14:24:16 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>
>> >I'd have given the parents a few minutes to calm the kid down. It makes
>> >for better press...
>
>> They had already given them 15 minutes. That is far more than I'd
>> give.
>
>Here's what the AP Travel Editor thinks of the situation:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/28zuf7

Man, a reporter with her head on straight. Will wonders never
cease.<:-))


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:12:40 GMT, G. Sylvester wrote:

>> Don't attendants pass out hand towels in classy bathrooms? The only thing I
>> can think of with "stewardess" is that it's a slightly archaic term. But it's
>> not demeaning to my way of thinking.
>
>FA's pass out warm cloth towels in business and first class too.

and also in coach.


#m
--
I am not a terrorist. <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[C J Campbell]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:50:28 -0800, Judah wrote
(in article >):

> John Theune > wrote in
> news:3cVth.7155$qN1.892@trndny02:
>
>> The flight crew did not have the option to let them have the child ride
>> on a parent's lap. The FAR's are quite clear about age and need to be
>> in your seat with the seatbelt fastened.
>
> It's often amazing how large the 2 year olds are these days.

Well, of course if you are going to expect the flight crew to risk their
careers (and the child's safety) by breaking the FARs then they have the
right to expect you to support them for the rest of their lives if they get
caught, right?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Matt Barrow]

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> Occasionally, you guys sound like media reporters talking about
> "stalls."
>
> "Orient" came into disrepute when Edward Said published _Orientalism_
> in 1978.

"Disrepute" and "Edward Said" in the same sentence is redundant.

[john smith]

Roger wrote:
> Man, a reporter with her head on straight. Will wonders never
> cease.<:-))

Here is the key statement from the article...

Steve Loucks, a spokesman for Carlson Wagonlit Travel, the travel
agency, said parents need to realize that, "in the post-9/11 world,
there's no room for error on airplanes. Unruly passengers, regardless of
who they are, whether it's an elderly person or a young child, can be
grounds for turning the plane around and letting them off. ... If ever
there were a place where you need to make sure your children were
behaving, this is the place."

[Mxsmanic]

john smith writes:

> Steve Loucks, a spokesman for Carlson Wagonlit Travel, the travel
> agency, said parents need to realize that, "in the post-9/11 world,
> there's no room for error on airplanes. Unruly passengers, regardless of
> who they are, whether it's an elderly person or a young child, can be
> grounds for turning the plane around and letting them off. ... If ever
> there were a place where you need to make sure your children were
> behaving, this is the place."

Interesting, but 9/11 didn't produce this; it was the case long before
that happened.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Judah]

C J Campbell > wrote in
e.com:

> Well, of course if you are going to expect the flight crew to risk their
> careers (and the child's safety) by breaking the FARs then they have the
> right to expect you to support them for the rest of their lives if they
> get caught, right?

Are you implying that if the parent put the kid on his lap, got the kid to
shut up, and told the attendant that he was 2, there would be an FAA
investigation yielding evidence of the child's age?

Or is it more likely that the parent would have accepted responsibility for
the safety of the child, and for the violation of the FARs, and yet the plane
would have taken off and landed uneventfully. And had that not been the case,
the flight crew's lives would not have lasted much longer than the childs, so
no additional support would be necessary.

[601XL Builder]

Judah wrote:
> C J Campbell > wrote in
> e.com:
>
>> Well, of course if you are going to expect the flight crew to risk their
>> careers (and the child's safety) by breaking the FARs then they have the
>> right to expect you to support them for the rest of their lives if they
>> get caught, right?
>
> Are you implying that if the parent put the kid on his lap, got the kid to
> shut up, and told the attendant that he was 2, there would be an FAA
> investigation yielding evidence of the child's age?
>
> Or is it more likely that the parent would have accepted responsibility for
> the safety of the child, and for the violation of the FARs, and yet the plane
> would have taken off and landed uneventfully. And had that not been the case,
> the flight crew's lives would not have lasted much longer than the childs, so
> no additional support would be necessary.


I don't know what CJ was saying but I'd say that if the parents were
holding the child in their lap and there had been an event that caused
the child to be injured I'm quite sure these parents would have sued the
airline.

And what could the FAA do to the parents for violation of an FAR? For
all we know there may have been FAA inspectors on the aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

601XL Builder writes:

> And what could the FAA do to the parents for violation of an FAR?

They were interfering with a flight crew, which is a felony.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:17:29 GMT, Judah > wrote:

>C J Campbell > wrote in
e.com:
>
>> Well, of course if you are going to expect the flight crew to risk their
>> careers (and the child's safety) by breaking the FARs then they have the
>> right to expect you to support them for the rest of their lives if they
>> get caught, right?
>
>Are you implying that if the parent put the kid on his lap, got the kid to
>shut up, and told the attendant that he was 2, there would be an FAA
>investigation yielding evidence of the child's age?
>
>Or is it more likely that the parent would have accepted responsibility for

That is not an option. The parent can not take responsibility that
belongs to any of the flight crew. It is quite likely that some time
in the not too distant future even infants will have to be in an
approved seat restraint at take off and landing.

>the safety of the child, and for the violation of the FARs, and yet the plane
>would have taken off and landed uneventfully. And had that not been the case,
>the flight crew's lives would not have lasted much longer than the childs, so
>no additional support would be necessary.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[G. Sylvester]

Roger wrote:
> That is not an option. The parent can not take responsibility that
> belongs to any of the flight crew. It is quite likely that some time
> in the not too distant future even infants will have to be in an
> approved seat restraint at take off and landing.

they should be. Pax are not allowed to hold a small bag weighing 10
pounds but a parent holding a 35 pound 'meat missile' is completely
fine. I'm surprised the FAA and JAA has allowed this to go on this long.

Gerald

[Sylvain]

G. Sylvester wrote:

> they should be. Pax are not allowed to hold a small bag weighing 10
> pounds but a parent holding a 35 pound 'meat missile' is completely
> fine. I'm surprised the FAA and JAA has allowed this to go on this long.

personally, I'd rather see all kids (say under 18), sedated, in
properly setup crates (water supply, very absorbant ground cover)
shipped in the cargo hold with other large pets.

--Sylvain

[Judah]

Roger > wrote in
:

> That is not an option. The parent can not take responsibility that
> belongs to any of the flight crew. It is quite likely that some time
> in the not too distant future even infants will have to be in an
> approved seat restraint at take off and landing.

What documentation is a parent required to provide in order to fly a 2 year
old on his lap?

[John Theune]

Judah wrote:
> Roger > wrote in
> :
>
>> That is not an option. The parent can not take responsibility that
>> belongs to any of the flight crew. It is quite likely that some time
>> in the not too distant future even infants will have to be in an
>> approved seat restraint at take off and landing.
>
> What documentation is a parent required to provide in order to fly a 2 year
> old on his lap?
No amount of documentation will change this. You can't fly with a 2
year old in your lap. Under 2 you can but 2 or older must be in a seat
with the seat belt fastened

[Judah]

John Theune > wrote in
news:kwnvh.2765$Hb6.1352@trndny02:

> Judah wrote:
>> Roger > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> That is not an option. The parent can not take responsibility that
>>> belongs to any of the flight crew. It is quite likely that some time
>>> in the not too distant future even infants will have to be in an
>>> approved seat restraint at take off and landing.
>>
>> What documentation is a parent required to provide in order to fly a 2
>> year old on his lap?
> No amount of documentation will change this. You can't fly with a 2
> year old in your lap. Under 2 you can but 2 or older must be in a seat
> with the seat belt fastened

I was under the impression it was 2 and under. The point being, what
documentation does a parent need to provide to prove the child is within the
age limit? Without documentation, how does a flight attendant who has no
first-hand experience dealing with children discern a 22 month old child from
a 28 month old child?

Presumably, the parent simply says the child is under 2, and the problem goes
away.

[John Theune]

Judah wrote:
> John Theune > wrote in
> news:kwnvh.2765$Hb6.1352@trndny02:
>
>> Judah wrote:
>>> Roger > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> That is not an option. The parent can not take responsibility that
>>>> belongs to any of the flight crew. It is quite likely that some time
>>>> in the not too distant future even infants will have to be in an
>>>> approved seat restraint at take off and landing.
>>> What documentation is a parent required to provide in order to fly a 2
>>> year old on his lap?
>> No amount of documentation will change this. You can't fly with a 2
>> year old in your lap. Under 2 you can but 2 or older must be in a seat
>> with the seat belt fastened
>
> I was under the impression it was 2 and under. The point being, what
> documentation does a parent need to provide to prove the child is within the
> age limit? Without documentation, how does a flight attendant who has no
> first-hand experience dealing with children discern a 22 month old child from
> a 28 month old child?
>
> Presumably, the parent simply says the child is under 2, and the problem goes
> away.
Upon request, you would have to produce a birth certificate or other
accepted proof of age ( passport or other government issued ID ) If you
cannot produce the documents then you buy a seat and put the child in
it. The FA does not have to judge, they just err on the side of caution
and it's up to the parent to document what they say. Don't you ever
watch Airline :)

[Buck Murdock]

In article >,
Judah > wrote:

> I was under the impression it was 2 and under.

It's "until the child has reached his second birthday." It's still a
monumentally stupid idea to try and hold a kid that young, but it's
legal for the moment. In severe turbulence or an accident, it will be
*impossible* to hold onto him without killing him.

> The point being, what
> documentation does a parent need to provide to prove the child is within the
> age limit?

Many airlines require a birth certificate be presented to prove the
child is under 2. For example...

<http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/infants.html>
"A birth certificate is required to validate age of all infants under
age two."

> Presumably, the parent simply says the child is under 2, and the problem goes
> away.

Not likely.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 07:57:11 GMT, "G. Sylvester"
> wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>> That is not an option. The parent can not take responsibility that
>> belongs to any of the flight crew. It is quite likely that some time
>> in the not too distant future even infants will have to be in an
>> approved seat restraint at take off and landing.
>
>they should be. Pax are not allowed to hold a small bag weighing 10
>pounds but a parent holding a 35 pound 'meat missile' is completely
>fine. I'm surprised the FAA and JAA has allowed this to go on this long.

IIRC It was planned or at least talked about strongly back when I was
doing a lot of traveling (91 through 97), but there was so much
opposition it was dropped. On-the-lap kid went free. Baby in a seat
restraint was charged. Airlines wouldn't give up the seats and
parents wouldn't pay. I don't remember what group was fighting it,
but the talk just sorta disappeared with no action.

Many, if not most parents who are not pilots have no comprehension of
the forces involved and believe they can hold their child under any
circumstances. They don't realize that at 10Gs which is well under
what they'd undergo in an impact, that 35# infant weights 350# and at
20Gs it's 700#. Sure they're gonna hold onto them.

I've been in a high G car crash. A 2 Oz radio control head smashed a
metal mount flat. It would have required a good size hammer if I
smashed it that flat. I survived AND *uninjured* only because of
airbags and the seat belt, shoulder harness combination. I Wasn't even
sore the next day but the inside of my forearms were discolored with
lots of little spots from when I wrapped the steering wheel around the
column. I stopped in 12 to 15 feet from 50 to 55 MPH. I wonder what
the blood pressure was at those points in my arms.


>
>Gerald
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Morgans]

"Sylvain" > wrote

> personally, I'd rather see all kids (say under 18), sedated, in
> properly setup crates (water supply, very absorbant ground cover)
> shipped in the cargo hold with other large pets.

I'm sure that this was written (I hope, at least) very much tongue in cheek,
based upon some children misbehaving on flights that you have been on.

The first flight my wife and I took our children on was at ages about 4 and
6, going to Disneyland. They were perfectly behaved on the whole flight. We
flew a time or two a year, throughout their young and teen years, enjoying
adventures as a close and loving family. I have never been embarrassed on a
flight, or in a restaurant with them.

Part, and I would say a large part, of the ability to pull off taking
children in public, is firm guidelines, rules and expectations as to what is
acceptable and unacceptable behavior while in public. This can be, and must
be, worked on by taking the children out often, and making sure that
expectations are met, with rewards and consequences for desirable and
undesirable behaviors. Small outings, working up to larger things like
airplane rides is the way to go.

I suspect that the child in this incident was used to getting her own way,
in most situations. It can't work that way. Results like this incident is
the likely outcome, if it does work that way.

We often would get compliments, sometimes from total strangers, on how they
behaved in long and difficult situations.

It wasn't an accident, when our children behaved as expected. It _is_ an
accident when some children behave.
--
Jim in NC