Beware travelers with bratty kids

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

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?