the simple rules to airplane etiquette
Nitty
switch seats with me. you can read about it here:
http://ourhatch.blogspot.com/2006/05/simple-rules-of-airplane-etiquette.html
has anyone else been in a similar situation? what did you do?
beavis
Nitty <nkum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://ourhatch.blogspot.com/2006/05/simple-rules-of-airplane-etiquette.html
>
> has anyone else been in a similar situation? what did you do?
I'd have said, "Sir, I believe you're in my assigned seat." Asking you
to take a middle seat? Ridiculous!
The worst I ever had was being stuck in a middle seat between two guys
who knew each other, and yelled across my face for three hours about
their favorite brands of golf balls. In that case, I repeatedly
offered to switch so they could talk more easily, but they said, "No,
we're fine."
After another 10 minutes... "Guys, I'm glad you're fine, but you're
both shouting in my ears. Could you not do that, or switch seats, so I
can get some sleep?"
They gave me a dirty look, but at least some peace and quiet. I don't
think I was being unreasonable.
Greg Johnson
1. Grow a spine.
2. "I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable sitting in a middle seat."
Of course if the flight wasn't too full or under an hour, you can just
bite the bullet and be a nice guy without feeling abused.
mag3
I have, lots of times. Primarily I think because I tend to travel alone, and often
the seat next to me is empty.
The most common reason for people asking to switch with me is because it's
a couple that either booked at the last minute or got upgraded to BC/BF at the
last minute and couldn't find a free pair of seats together so they seat them in
different rows, aisles. They see the empty one next to me (I'm always on a window)
or one of the two is put in the empty seat next to me, and they then ask me to switch
so they can sit together.
Normally, I refuse as politely as possible. Like you, I take great care in planning my
seat assignment as well and it's precisely where I want to be. It's just that with some
people, you have to be like "What part of 'NO!' did you not understand?" But the question I have
to ask is, what's the flight going to be like with this person sitting next to me now whom
I've just refused a request to be together with his/her significant other? Might be more
prudent to move. Either that, or I have to hope I don't need to use the lavatory any time soon!
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>Two things to do:
:>1. Grow a spine.
:>2. "I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable sitting in a middle seat."
Exactly.
:>Of course if the flight wasn't too full or under an hour, you can just
:>bite the bullet and be a nice guy without feeling abused.
I no longer do flights of less than an hour - just not worth the effort.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
Duh_OZ
Reminds me of a LAS->MDW flight (SWA) two years back. Some guy staked
out the first 'position' in the A line so he could get the only seat (I
forget the row number) that doesn't have another seat right in front of
it. I was BS'ing with him and such and he mentioned how he loved that
seat (guy was about 6'2 - 6'3). We board, he gets his seat, and I am
across from him (exit row). Everything is going fine, when a flight
attendant comes up and tells the two people next to him that they have
to debark (I assume they were standby's). Guy takes the opportunity
to get up to grab something from the overhead bin, when up walk two
college chicks, one who promptly removes the magazine off his seat and
sits down. Poor guy was so dumbfounded he didn't say a word and just
sat down in the aisle seat.
=============
enri
>Normally, I refuse as politely as possible.
I had the unfortunate experience of being asked by a flight attendant
to switch seats in an EZE MIA flight. She would not accept my refusal;
since I had no idea what to do to to prevail, I was virtually kicked
out from my nice window no-seat-in-front-of-me.
The airline was Aerolineas Argentinas.
enri
mag3
What reason did she give? I would think you should at least be entitled to know why.
Also, was the seat "assigned" to you initially or was it "open seating?" I don't believe
I could gripe as much if it were "open seating." You say it was a "no seat in front of me"
so I'm imagining this was either bulkhead or near a door or an emergency exit. Sometimes
they try to keep those rows clear (especially if it's "open seating") for people with "special
needs" or they put in someone who is able/willing to be responsible for opening the
emergency exit if need be.
In the end, if the FA orders me to move for whatever reason, I'd have no choice (can't
"interfere with a flight crew"), but rest assured if it wasn't for a medical or safety
emergency (ie. if it was simply for the convenience of another pax or the crew), I'd have a
nastygram on the way to the head office with both the FA's and FSM's name on it the moment
we landed.
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
One Way Ticket
> http://ourhatch.blogspot.com/2006/05/simple-rules-of-airplane-etiquette.html
>From the site:
" on my recent trip, not only did this guy have the nerve to offer me a
middle seat one row behind my original AISLE seat, he was already
sitting there quite comfortably with seatbelt fastened and luggage
stowed, holding hands with his fiancee. i never had a chance."
I take it that this individual was already in your assigned seat when
you boarded the aircraft? In such a case, shake your head and politely
tell this ill-mannered person that you are going to give them the
option; they can move themselves back to their assigned seat or you
will have an FA provide the necessary encouragement.
You do not need to take the approach of, 'Some neanderthal is in my
assigned seat' if you feel such might sound rude or improper. Instead,
tell the FA that it would appear that, 'I have the same seat assignment
as this gentlemen'. While the FA asks to see their seat assignment
card you can be stowing your belongings in nearest overhead bin.
mrtravel
Why did you let him get away with it?
mrtravel
That's not about being a nice guy, it is about being taken advantage of.
Brian
You should have talked to the flight attendant. I've seen a number of
people who were sitting in the wrong seat moved. I've also seen a case
where two people, one of which was me, had the same seat assigned.
In that case, it was determined that the other person had been given
the seat after mine was assigned, I was there first, and I was with my
family.
PTravel
"Nitty" <nkum...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149106750.9...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I'm not sure what you meant on your blog by saying that you, "never had a
chance." I'd have asked him nicely to move. If he refused, I'd call the FA
who, believe me, would have forced him to move.
>
Bill Burk
sitting in my assigned seat. He, too, had the seat assignment, awarded
later.
The AA stew asked if I were a nice guy and I assured her I was. So, after
boarding everyone else, she took me up to 1st class ! And on departing at
DFW, gave me a comp bottle of wine.
ANYTIME, gang !!
007
--
******************
Bill E. Burk
Publisher, Elvis World Magazine
[Remove "NOSP" from my e-mail address]
Stephen Dailey
Not exactly the same situation, but- on a flight from MCO to SEA, I had an
aisle seat. A lady carrying a baby walks up and says, "move over, I want
that seat." It turned out that she was assigned the middle seat next to
me, and she was traveling with another lady, who was in the middle seat
across the aisle. They wanted to sit next to each other so the baby would
have two laps to sit on. I can understand that, but there's a right way
and a wrong way to ask to trade seats. She did it the wrong way.
The flight wasn't completely full, so the FA was able to seat the two
ladies together.
===
Steve
Shoreline, Washington USA
smda...@seanet.com
31 May 2006, 2111 PDT
-L.
mag3 wrote:
>
> I have, lots of times. Primarily I think because I tend to travel alone, and often
> the seat next to me is empty.
>
> The most common reason for people asking to switch with me is because it's
> a couple that either booked at the last minute or got upgraded to BC/BF at the
> last minute and couldn't find a free pair of seats together so they seat them in
> different rows, aisles.
Sometimes even if you book months in advance, this can happen.
-L.
-L.
I kinda see it as Karma. If someone asks nicely and has a legit need
(they are tall or broad and need an aisle, or have a baby they need to
sit with, etc.) I will accomodate them - even if it means trading my
aisle for a middle. If they are jerks, no way. I would have no
problem saying "Sorry, that seat was assigned to me for a reason" (you
don't have to give the reason - maye you are claustrophobic or get up
to pee a lot) and standing there until they moved.
-L.
mag3
Given the modern convenience of "Seat selector" options on the various airline websites, I find
this hard to believe. All it takes is a little attention to detail, or a quick phone call to the airline
or travel agent. Nonetheless, it comes down to the convenience of one pax. over another, and
in that case, I'll defend mine every time.
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
-L.
mag3 wrote:
> On 31 May 2006 22:10:44 -0700, "-L." <gent...@peacemail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >mag3 wrote:
> >>
> >> I have, lots of times. Primarily I think because I tend to travel alone, and often
> >> the seat next to me is empty.
> >>
> >> The most common reason for people asking to switch with me is because it's
> >> a couple that either booked at the last minute or got upgraded to BC/BF at the
> >> last minute and couldn't find a free pair of seats together so they seat them in
> >> different rows, aisles.
> >
> >Sometimes even if you book months in advance, this can happen.
> >-L.
>
> Given the modern convenience of "Seat selector" options on the various airline >websites, I find
> this hard to believe.
Well, you can find it hard to believe all you want but it's happened to
me on more than one occassion, going PDX or SFO to various
destinations.
>All it takes is a little attention to detail, or a quick phone call to the airline
> or travel agent. Nonetheless, it comes down to the convenience of one pax. over another, and
> in that case, I'll defend mine every time.
The Selfishness of America rears its ugly head once again. And people
wonder why this country is going to hell in a handbasket and is mocked
by the rest of the world...
-L.
irwell
Not always, sometimes the FA will decide in favour
of the two people, having a seat assignment is not
a purchase.
enri
The reason for the request was to accomodate a family which wanted to
sit together. My seat was assigned to me and was not near an emergency
exit. I understand the desires of the family but we are talking of an
eigth to nine hours flight and *my* desires override *their* desires.
At least in my book :)
enri
Frank F. Matthews
-L. wrote:
It is true that selfishness such as that of the folks who insist on
intruding for their convenience is common. What is to be done for
civilization.
-L.
Frank F. Matthews wrote:
> It is true that selfishness such as that of the folks who insist on
> intruding for their convenience is common.
It is and it is a problem as well. But insisting that *your wants*
should *always* superceeed the needs of others is appalling.
> What is to be done for
> civilization.
We will eventually Darwinize ourselves.
-L.
mrtravel
>
> The reason for the request was to accomodate a family which wanted to
> sit together.
How did the FA know the people next to you weren't YOUR family?
I agree that if the family wants seats together for the vacation trip,
they should plan their trip sooner. I have seen people actually get on
an earlier flight as standby's and the FA's asked people to move to
accomodate them.
ptr...@travelersvideo.com
I take it that you don't fly very much.
Having a boarding pass is a "purchase." Sometimes airlines will, by
mistake, issue two boarding passes for the same seat. The GA (and not
the FA) will mediate in that event.l Of course, that isn't at all what
happened to the OP in this thread, but I suppose you'd much rather have
a chance to argue.
irwell
>
>irwell wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 03:39:27 GMT, "PTravel"
>> <ptr...@travelersvideo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Nitty" <nkum...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1149106750.9...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >>i had a really annoying experience this past weekend. someone wanted to
>> >> switch seats with me. you can read about it here:
>> >>
>> >> http://ourhatch.blogspot.com/2006/05/simple-rules-of-airplane-etiquette.html
>> >>
>> >> has anyone else been in a similar situation? what did you do?
>> >
>> >I'm not sure what you meant on your blog by saying that you, "never had a
>> >chance." I'd have asked him nicely to move. If he refused, I'd call the FA
>> >who, believe me, would have forced him to move.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> Not always, sometimes the FA will decide in favour
>> of the two people, having a seat assignment is not
>> a purchase.
>
>I take it that you don't fly very much.
Let that ignoramus statement wither on the vine.
>
>Having a boarding pass is a "purchase."
A boarding pass is not a seat assignment, it is the pass
to board the plane, if say an unaccompanied minor needs
a seat the FAs will re-arrange the plane to make sure the kid is
safe, even if means moving a know it all from his/her seat.
JimL
If you had simply refused to stand up and walk to another seat, what
would they have done? Carried you?
enri
wrote:
I think it was obvious to her that I was traveling alone. I don't know
what else to say. I was un-acommodated, if this word exists in
english, life goes on I I don't think this is was the worst thing that
happened to me.
In a trip MCO-EWK shortly after 9/11, a small kid, maybe 3 or 4, sat
beside me, all alone, family next by. I drifted into a semi-sleep
status before take off, the kid touches me, I jump and unconsciously I
swated the offending touch. My God, the parents, (Indian or
Pakistanis), started a monumental fuss because I dared to touch the
baby. O well......
enri
PTravel
"irwell" <ho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:n5gu72l5212fgeujc...@4ax.com...
> On 1 Jun 2006 11:06:14 -0700, ptr...@travelersvideo.com wrote:
>
>>
>>irwell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 03:39:27 GMT, "PTravel"
>>> <ptr...@travelersvideo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"Nitty" <nkum...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:1149106750.9...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>> >>i had a really annoying experience this past weekend. someone wanted
>>> >>to
>>> >> switch seats with me. you can read about it here:
>>> >>
>>> >> http://ourhatch.blogspot.com/2006/05/simple-rules-of-airplane-etiquette.html
>>> >>
>>> >> has anyone else been in a similar situation? what did you do?
>>> >
>>> >I'm not sure what you meant on your blog by saying that you, "never had
>>> >a
>>> >chance." I'd have asked him nicely to move. If he refused, I'd call
>>> >the FA
>>> >who, believe me, would have forced him to move.
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> Not always, sometimes the FA will decide in favour
>>> of the two people, having a seat assignment is not
>>> a purchase.
>>
>>I take it that you don't fly very much.
>
> Let that ignoramus statement wither on the vine.
>>
>>Having a boarding pass is a "purchase."
> A boarding pass is not a seat assignment, it is the pass
> to board the plane,
Only on Southwest. A boarding pass on any other airline must have a seat
assignment.
> if say an unaccompanied minor needs
> a seat the FAs will re-arrange the plane to make sure the kid is
> safe, even if means moving a know it all from his/her seat.
The FAs do not have control over seating until the aircraft door is closed.
The GA will re-arrange seats as necessary.
However, as ever, your comments are completely off-topic and irrelevant to
the thread.
>
>
irwell
wrote:
Then your 'take it that you don't fly very much' remark
has re-bounded on you. Easy-jet and Ryanair fly
millions of people by just such a system.
irwell
wrote:
>
>The FAs do not have control over seating until the aircraft door is closed.
>The GA will re-arrange seats as necessary.
Wrong again, the captain of the plane also has control
over seating, will re-assign the passengers if he needs
to trim the plane's weight balance.
enri
Who knows, I am rather meek in matters like these, life is short and
that sort of thing.
enri
PTravel
EasyJet and Ryanair, like NW, are LCCs and operate in a very different
fashion than primary carriers. The OP's post referenced someone in his
assigned seat and, later, references NWA, which is not an LCC
(notwithstanding their reduction in services and amenities). Your reference
to EasyJet and Ryanair simply establishes the irrelevancy of your remarks,
as well as your limited experience with airlines, e.g. your comment that the
FA rather than the GA handles seating disputes prior to the door being
closed, your claim that a BP is not a seat assignment, etc. Apparently, you
just like to argue.
>
PTravel
Trim is a factor only on commuter planes. However, the captain will not
move pax -- he'll merely advise the FAs to do it. However, again, commuter
planes, LCCs and whatever other exceptions you'll try to find to justify
your erroneous remarks are completely irrelevant to this thread and to the
OP's concerns.
>
>
>
js
But Paul is a world TRAVELER! He's no slovenly tourist....
And a boarding pass is not a guarantee of that seat but rather a
promise by the airline to accomodate your request, when possible, just
like a reservation. Read the CoC of any major US carrier. Ever have
the infamous equipment change? Ever have duplicate seat assignments?
How well did you come out arguing the point?
Now, as far as self-reassignment - personally, I don't think anyone has
the right to expect another passenger to give up their assigned seat.
I do believe any passenger has the right to ask for consideration from
another passenger for a variety of things including changing seats.
And, any passenger can refuse such a request without any reason given.
There are three situations when this behavioral maxim changes -
1. A passenger who is seated in an exit row inappropriately. If you
are not physically able to open that emergency exit, I will not allow
you to sit in an exit row. Period. Just because you are 400 pounds
and have arthritis in your knee is NOT a reason for you to sit in that
seat because you are more comfortable that way. Your fat butt and bad
knee can make the difference between life and death for me and a lot of
other people. If you don't meet the FAA requirements, you will NOT sit
there.
2. A minor or otherwise impaired passenger. In no case should a
minor/impaired be forced to sit in a seat away from their escort. If a
minor is flying unaccompanied, then the flight attendant has the
obligation to seat that minor in a seat where the minor will be
"safest" even if that seat is occupied by Paul Tauger. However, this
should not suggest that a flight attendant can be arbitrary in the
selection and she/he should attempt to find a volunteer. I have
personally witnessed a minor male moved from sitting next to a man to
sitting next a women by having the man and women switch places.
3. Disabled. Every airline makes accomodations for the disabled.
There are specific seats that provide for the raising of an armrest at
the aisle to allow a disabled person easier access. However, this does
NOT imply that a flight attendant can select who must move but rather
that she/he should make an effort to find a volunteer to give up their
"disabled" seat. There is more than one on a plane. It also requires
that the disabled traveler made his/her disability known at the time of
reservation and again at checkin. Read the CoC on this one as well.
24 hours before is the rule in some cases. The convenient disability
because you got stuck in a center seat in the back is not going to be
accomodated.
Here's who is not immediately "entitled" to your seat.
Husband wanting to sit next to wife (insert boyfriend/girlfriend, two
friends, etc.)
Center seater who is conveniently "claustraphobic"
Person with a short connect wanting to switch your 7C for his 29F
The large person who's seated next to another large person and finds
that the two do not fit next to each other.
I'm sure you can come up with others.
And while I'm at it - what is it with this pre-boarding crap anyway?
Here's how it works folks - you board according to three criteria -
class of service/status, special needs, and then rows.
First class is first class and is boarded first. Duh. And after that
are the high status frequent fliers. Duh.
Next comes special needs. Parents with small (4 or under) children.
Disabled passengers in wheelchairs (who, in in some situations are
boarded before first class) are next. Along with the disabled person -
ONE attendant. If you are flying with grandma that doesn't mean the
entire family of 8 adults boards first - its grandma and ONE attendant.
I watched a group of 8 adults, of whom one was in a wheelchair, all
pre-board because they were traveling together. Amazing. Not only
that, but they physically pushed people aside to do this as they
followed behind yelling - we're with her!
Steerage by row. Back of the plane to the front of the plane or window
to aisle - whatever the airline wants - not what you want because you
have two large carryons and are afraid to be left without overhead
space. You picked seat 7A - now deal with boarding later.
And furthermore (rant) - what is it about overhead space some people
don't get?
No, you cannot put your rollaboard above seat 3C if you are seated in
29F. You do that and you run the risk of it being removed from the
plane - trust me, I've seen it done.
No, three carryons are more than the two that are allowed. Two
rollaboards and a purse and a computer bag does not make 2. It makes
4.
No, your garment bag does not get hung in the first class closet unless
you are in first class and there is room. My suit coat does not need
to be pressed, thank you very much.
No, the space under the seat in front of me is not the same as the
space under the seat in front of you. Just because I don't have a bag
there is not permission for you to put one there because there is room.
No, you cannot move my bag to another bin further back to make room for
your oversized rollaboard.
No, you cannot put your briefcase on top of my hat.
The overhead space is shared space - it is first come first served -
BUT - it means one overhead and one under your feet.
js
mrtravel
I suspect they didn't want to bet on what stand the local police would
take. The side of the foreigner or the Argentinas FA??
mag3
>On Wed, 31 May 2006 22:05:49 GMT, mag3 <zmpma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>What reason did she give? I would think you should at least be entitled to know why.
>>Also, was the seat "assigned" to you initially or was it "open seating?" I don't believe
>>I could gripe as much if it were "open seating." You say it was a "no seat in front of me"
>>so I'm imagining this was either bulkhead or near a door or an emergency exit. Sometimes
>>they try to keep those rows clear (especially if it's "open seating") for people with "special
>>needs" or they put in someone who is able/willing to be responsible for opening the
>>emergency exit if need be.
>The reason for the request was to accomodate a family which wanted to
>sit together. My seat was assigned to me and was not near an emergency
>exit. I understand the desires of the family but we are talking of an
>eigth to nine hours flight and *my* desires override *their* desires.
>At least in my book :)
I agree with you. I would have resisted harder. I would have forced the FA to order me
to move. I would then demand to speak with the FSM. If that didn't work, I'd then move,
but I'd then advise them I'd be filing a complaint against them in their corporate HQ.
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
mag3
>
>mag3 wrote:
Pot-->Kettle-->Black.
How selfish is it to demand that a passenger move out of their assigned seat just so that
a family can sit together? Is that family going to be traumatized for life simply because
they were several feet/seats apart for a few hours? Are you telling me that a family's
convenience outranks an individuals?
Not *this* indivdual!
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
mag3
>There are three situations when this behavioral maxim changes -
[SNIP]
>2. A minor or otherwise impaired passenger. In no case should a
>minor/impaired be forced to sit in a seat away from their escort. If a
>minor is flying unaccompanied, then the flight attendant has the
>obligation to seat that minor in a seat where the minor will be
>"safest" even if that seat is occupied by Paul Tauger. However, this
>should not suggest that a flight attendant can be arbitrary in the
>selection and she/he should attempt to find a volunteer. I have
>personally witnessed a minor male moved from sitting next to a man to
>sitting next a women by having the man and women switch places.
I would not agree totally here. An "infant" or 2-3y/o minor perhaps but
any minor old enough to walk & talk on their own, I would disagree.
If I'm sitting alone, and they want me to move to accommodate a kid
(because they don't want the kid sitting with me) I would fight this.
To me that's discrimination. What are they saying? That I couldn't
keep my hands to myself? Again, the convenience of one pax. vs.
another. I'll fight for mine every time.
>3. Disabled. Every airline makes accomodations for the disabled.
>There are specific seats that provide for the raising of an armrest at
>the aisle to allow a disabled person easier access. However, this does
>NOT imply that a flight attendant can select who must move but rather
>that she/he should make an effort to find a volunteer to give up their
>"disabled" seat. There is more than one on a plane. It also requires
>that the disabled traveler made his/her disability known at the time of
>reservation and again at checkin. Read the CoC on this one as well.
>24 hours before is the rule in some cases. The convenient disability
>because you got stuck in a center seat in the back is not going to be
>accomodated.
>
4. A re-location due to a "medical" or "safety" emergency. If my seat
mate is either having a heart attack (or a baby if female etc.), I would
not expect the medical people to work around me while I'm sitting there.
And of course, they would need some privacy then.
>Here's who is not immediately "entitled" to your seat.
>
>Husband wanting to sit next to wife (insert boyfriend/girlfriend, two
>friends, etc.)
Agreed. Biggest problem I have.
>Center seater who is conveniently "claustraphobic"
>Person with a short connect wanting to switch your 7C for his 29F
>The large person who's seated next to another large person and finds
>that the two do not fit next to each other.
>
>I'm sure you can come up with others.
A "celebrity" wanting "privacy" or to accommodate their "entourage."
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
js
mag3 wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2006 15:25:39 -0700, "js" <jonatha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >There are three situations when this behavioral maxim changes -
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >2. A minor or otherwise impaired passenger. In no case should a
> >minor/impaired be forced to sit in a seat away from their escort. If a
> >minor is flying unaccompanied, then the flight attendant has the
> >obligation to seat that minor in a seat where the minor will be
> >"safest" even if that seat is occupied by Paul Tauger. However, this
> >should not suggest that a flight attendant can be arbitrary in the
> >selection and she/he should attempt to find a volunteer. I have
> >personally witnessed a minor male moved from sitting next to a man to
> >sitting next a women by having the man and women switch places.
>
> I would not agree totally here. An "infant" or 2-3y/o minor perhaps
They do not fly as unaccompanied minors. In the case of accompanied
minors, it is in everyone's best interest to have the minor seated next
to their responsible (and I use that loosely) major. Now, if this
requires a reassignment, then so be it - but it is still up to the
flight attendant to find a volunteer. It is not up to the parent to
claim ownership of a seat because it has to be. In all honesty - if
you had the choice between a middle seat toward the front between two
adults or the aisle seat in a row with two 4 year old siblings - would
you honestly not welcome the chance to switch?
> but
> any minor old enough to walk & talk on their own, I would disagree.
> If I'm sitting alone, and they want me to move to accommodate a kid
> (because they don't want the kid sitting with me) I would fight this.
> To me that's discrimination. What are they saying? That I couldn't
> keep my hands to myself? Again, the convenience of one pax. vs.
> another. I'll fight for mine every time.
Well - given the pcness of the world today, how would you respond if
the 4 year old told his mom sitting three rows away that the man next
to him keeps putting his hand on his arm? Innocent as it may seem
(using an arm rest) to you, it could be misconstrued. The case I cited
was that of an unaccompanied minor and the trade was two aisle seats,
one in front of the other.
Which raises another question of etiquette. Unusual as it is today,
there are occasions where flights are less than full. When that
occurs, when is it appropriate to move one's seat? On a flight a few
weeks ago we were light up front (Saturday) and the guy next to me
moved to an empty row. Not sure if he was getting away from me or away
from the bulkhead or to a window.
In the rare instance when this happens, I have noticed some people will
move once boarding has stopped (like taking the popcorn out of the
microwave when you hear what seems to be the last pop), others wait
until the door closes, and the third group after the plane reaches
cruising altitude.
js
mag3
>
>mag3 wrote:
>> On 1 Jun 2006 15:25:39 -0700, "js" <jonatha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I would not agree totally here. An "infant" or 2-3y/o minor perhaps
>
>They do not fly as unaccompanied minors. In the case of accompanied
>minors, it is in everyone's best interest to have the minor seated next
>to their responsible (and I use that loosely) major.
Fair point, but see below.
> Now, if this
>requires a reassignment, then so be it - but it is still up to the
>flight attendant to find a volunteer.
And my point is, they almost *always* pick someone like me to volunteer
simply because I fly alone and the seat next to me is often empty. It's the
easiest thing for them to do. And of course, if you refuse, they get defensive
and start arguing, knowing that at any time they can play the "Interferance
with a flight crew" card. Even if they don't go that far, you can be sure to get
the lousiest service for the remainder of that flight.
> In all honesty - if
>you had the choice between a middle seat toward the front between two
>adults or the aisle seat in a row with two 4 year old siblings - would
>you honestly not welcome the chance to switch?
>
I would choose neither. I would pay for BC/BF where there are normally 2 seats
and no middle, and where I would more than likely avoid scenarios like that. But
assuming I didn't have that option, I would take the aisle with the two kids, simply
because I hate middle seats, not because of who's sitting in them, be they adult
or kid.
>> If I'm sitting alone, and they want me to move to accommodate a kid
>> (because they don't want the kid sitting with me) I would fight this.
>> To me that's discrimination. What are they saying? That I couldn't
>> keep my hands to myself? Again, the convenience of one pax. vs.
>> another. I'll fight for mine every time.
>
>Well - given the pcness of the world today, how would you respond if
>the 4 year old told his mom sitting three rows away that the man next
>to him keeps putting his hand on his arm? Innocent as it may seem
>(using an arm rest) to you, it could be misconstrued.
Yes, it could. But they'd have to prove their accusations and if not, they (ie.
*both* airline and family of kid) risk the wrath of my lawyers.
> The case I cited
>was that of an unaccompanied minor and the trade was two aisle seats,
>one in front of the other.
I'm not totally heartless. If they ask nicely and if it's no further than 1 row
away and the same seat type (window for window etc.) and if it's not for
an inferior seat - ie. an electronic seat with laptop ports etc. that *doesn't*
work when my original seat did work, I really wouldn't mind switching. What
I mind is always being the first to be "volunteered" simply because I'm flying
alone and the seat next to me just happens to be available.
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
irwell
wrote:
>
>"irwell" <ho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:memu7215s74kgllnv...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 12:49:52 -0700, "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>The FAs do not have control over seating until the aircraft door is
>>>closed.
>>>The GA will re-arrange seats as necessary.
>>
>> Wrong again, the captain of the plane also has control
>> over seating, will re-assign the passengers if he needs
>> to trim the plane's weight balance.
>
>Trim is a factor only on commuter planes.
Wrong again, how many more times?
747 Captains have re-arranged passenger seating
to trim their load.
irwell
wrote:
Here is a novel twist on the re-seating switching.
A business man who did not want upgrading from Business Class
to First Class brought an action against Cathay Pacific..
When boarding time was announced, the Vazquezes and their two friends
went to Departure Gate No. 28, which was designated for Business Class
passengers. Dr. Vazquez presented his boarding pass to the ground
stewardess, who in turn inserted it into an electronic machine reader
or computer at the gate. The ground stewardess was assisted by a
ground attendant by the name of Clara Lai Han Chiu. When Ms. Chiu
glanced at the computer monitor, she saw a message that there was a
"seat change" from Business Class to First Class for the Vazquezes.
Ms. Chiu approached Dr. Vazquez and told him that the Vazquezes'
accommodations were upgraded to First Class. Dr. Vazquez refused the
upgrade, reasoning that it would not look nice for them as hosts to
travel in First Class and their guests, in the Business Class; and
moreover, they were going to discuss business matters during the
flight. He also told Ms. Chiu that she could have other passengers
instead transferred to the First Class Section. Taken aback by the
refusal for upgrading, Ms. Chiu consulted her supervisor, who told her
to handle the situation and convince the Vazquezes to accept the
upgrading. Ms. Chiu informed the latter that the Business Class was
fully booked, and that since they were Marco Polo Club members they
had the priority to be upgraded to the First Class. Dr. Vazquez
continued to refuse, so Ms. Chiu told them that if they would not
avail themselves of the privilege, they would not be allowed to take
the flight. Eventually, after talking to his two friends, Dr. Vazquez
gave in. He and Mrs. Vazquez then proceeded to the First Class
Cabin.Is an involuntary upgrading of an airline passenger's
accommodation from one class to a more superior class at no extra cost
a breach of contract of carriage that would entitle the passenger to
an award of damages? This is a novel question that has to be resolved
in this
case.http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/150843.htm
irwell
wrote:
>
It's your erroneous bullshit that triggered this thread'
here is what you said.
>I'm not sure what you meant on your blog by saying that you, "never had a
>chance." I'd have asked him nicely to move. If he refused, I'd call the FA
>who, believe me, would have forced him to move.
Believe you? Why? You are so wrong in your other assertions.
>
>>
>
irwell
wrote:
Your bullshit, not mine. The senior Flight Attendant will handle
all such matters on the plane, if it comes to such a dispute.
>>ur claim that a BP is not a seat assignment, etc.
It isn't. and you haven't established that it is either.
>Apparently, you
>just like to argue.
Of course, you don't.
>
>>
>
js
mag3 wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2006 17:34:37 -0700, "js" <jonatha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >mag3 wrote:
> >> On 1 Jun 2006 15:25:39 -0700, "js" <jonatha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I would not agree totally here. An "infant" or 2-3y/o minor perhaps
> >
> >They do not fly as unaccompanied minors. In the case of accompanied
> >minors, it is in everyone's best interest to have the minor seated next
> >to their responsible (and I use that loosely) major.
>
> Fair point, but see below.
>
> > Now, if this
> >requires a reassignment, then so be it - but it is still up to the
> >flight attendant to find a volunteer.
>
> And my point is, they almost *always* pick someone like me to volunteer
> simply because I fly alone and the seat next to me is often empty. It's the
> easiest thing for them to do. And of course, if you refuse, they get defensive
> and start arguing, knowing that at any time they can play the "Interferance
> with a flight crew" card. Even if they don't go that far, you can be sure to get
> the lousiest service for the remainder of that flight.
In my recent experiences I don't think I have ever been asked to move
to a worse seat - I suppose if I were, I would play the Platinum elite
card. I was asked to move to accomodate a disabled traveler and I
pointed out that the identical seat across the aisle would be just fine
- given that I was traveling with a companion I was a bit hesitant to
accomodate this individual. The rules are pretty clear on this - many
airlines hold seat assignments for certain seats (bulkhead for example)
until 24 hours ahead - but after that, they are open for anyone.
There have been one or two occasions when I have received a boarding
card differnt than my reserved seat, however, prior to boarding. Not
sure exactly why but that's an issue you can take up with the
checkin/gate staff. I've had a lot of success getting those situations
rectified at the club.
> > In all honesty - if
> >you had the choice between a middle seat toward the front between two
> >adults or the aisle seat in a row with two 4 year old siblings - would
> >you honestly not welcome the chance to switch?
> >
>
> I would choose neither. I would pay for BC/BF where there are normally 2 seats
> and no middle,
OK - AA 777 BC - center section.
> and where I would more than likely avoid scenarios like that. But
> assuming I didn't have that option, I would take the aisle with the two kids, simply
> because I hate middle seats, not because of who's sitting in them, be they adult
> or kid.
OK.
> >> If I'm sitting alone, and they want me to move to accommodate a kid
> >> (because they don't want the kid sitting with me) I would fight this.
> >> To me that's discrimination. What are they saying? That I couldn't
> >> keep my hands to myself? Again, the convenience of one pax. vs.
> >> another. I'll fight for mine every time.
> >
> >Well - given the pcness of the world today, how would you respond if
> >the 4 year old told his mom sitting three rows away that the man next
> >to him keeps putting his hand on his arm? Innocent as it may seem
> >(using an arm rest) to you, it could be misconstrued.
>
> Yes, it could. But they'd have to prove their accusations and if not, they (ie.
> *both* airline and family of kid) risk the wrath of my lawyers.
You really want that hassle? OK
> > The case I cited
> >was that of an unaccompanied minor and the trade was two aisle seats,
> >one in front of the other.
>
> I'm not totally heartless. If they ask nicely and if it's no further than 1 row
> away and the same seat type (window for window etc.) and if it's not for
> an inferior seat - ie. an electronic seat with laptop ports etc. that *doesn't*
> work when my original seat did work, I really wouldn't mind switching. What
> I mind is always being the first to be "volunteered" simply because I'm flying
> alone and the seat next to me just happens to be available.
As long as they are just asking - why not just say no?
js
TOliver
"PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote ...
>
> Trim is a factor only on commuter planes. However, the captain will not
> move pax -- he'll merely advise the FAs to do it. However, again,
> commuter planes, LCCs and whatever other exceptions you'll try to find to
> justify your erroneous remarks are completely irrelevant to this thread
> and to the OP's concerns.
>
>
recent years experienced a "trim-induced" reseat in a CO RJ, Houston to
Morelia, hardly a commuter, and an "extra" AA MD80 with a light light load
and a sports team aft, DFW/ORD, neither a "commuter". I'll agree that trim
reseating is much less frequent today, but still encountered in "commuter"
SAB 340s when the baggage load aft is heavy or light.
TMO
mag3
>I was asked to move to accomodate a disabled traveler and I
>pointed out that the identical seat across the aisle would be just fine
Fine for you or for the disabled traveler?
>- given that I was traveling with a companion I was a bit hesitant to
>accomodate this individual. The rules are pretty clear on this - many
>airlines hold seat assignments for certain seats (bulkhead for example)
>until 24 hours ahead - but after that, they are open for anyone.
I tend to avoid those sensitive seats like "exit row" or "bulkead" for that
very reason. And also, because I want "space under the seat in front of
me" for extra carry on storage.
>
>There have been one or two occasions when I have received a boarding
>card differnt than my reserved seat, however, prior to boarding. Not
>sure exactly why but that's an issue you can take up with the
>checkin/gate staff. I've had a lot of success getting those situations
>rectified at the club.
Absolutely. And I'd bring dated documentation to show that I had the seats
reserved well in advance. As long as the seats were not altered due to an
"equipment change" (in which case I'd attempt to get it corrected well in
advance of the flight day), I'd make it difficult for them to deny it to me.
>> > In all honesty - if
>> >you had the choice between a middle seat toward the front between two
>> >adults or the aisle seat in a row with two 4 year old siblings - would
>> >you honestly not welcome the chance to switch?
>> >
>>
>> I would choose neither. I would pay for BC/BF where there are normally 2 seats
>> and no middle,
>
>OK - AA 777 BC - center section.
More likely CO 767/777 BF.
>> and where I would more than likely avoid scenarios like that. But
>> assuming I didn't have that option, I would take the aisle with the two kids, simply
>> because I hate middle seats, not because of who's sitting in them, be they adult
>> or kid.
>
>OK.
>
>> >Well - given the pcness of the world today, how would you respond if
>> >the 4 year old told his mom sitting three rows away that the man next
>> >to him keeps putting his hand on his arm? Innocent as it may seem
>> >(using an arm rest) to you, it could be misconstrued.
>>
>> Yes, it could. But they'd have to prove their accusations and if not, they (ie.
>> *both* airline and family of kid) risk the wrath of my lawyers.
>
>You really want that hassle? OK
No, I wouldn't, but if I'm forced into it, I'd have to defend myself the best way possible.
And I can't allow the fear of that scenaio to take priority over the exericse of my fair
choice of assigned seating when I took the time and advanced effort to select it and to
get it assigned to me.
>> > The case I cited
>> >was that of an unaccompanied minor and the trade was two aisle seats,
>> >one in front of the other.
>>
>> I'm not totally heartless. If they ask nicely and if it's no further than 1 row
>> away and the same seat type (window for window etc.) and if it's not for
>> an inferior seat - ie. an electronic seat with laptop ports etc. that *doesn't*
>> work when my original seat did work, I really wouldn't mind switching. What
>> I mind is always being the first to be "volunteered" simply because I'm flying
>> alone and the seat next to me just happens to be available.
>
>As long as they are just asking - why not just say no?
I often do.
But, as implied before, sometimes FA's don't like to take "no" for an answer, especially
when fighting for their own "convenience." And since they have the ultimate weapon
in the "interference card," what can we do if they decide to play it? You have to do
what they say.
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
PTravel
"TOliver" <tolive...@Hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8%Mfg.3996$0v4....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote ...
>>
>> Trim is a factor only on commuter planes. However, the captain will not
>> move pax -- he'll merely advise the FAs to do it. However, again,
>> commuter planes, LCCs and whatever other exceptions you'll try to find to
>> justify your erroneous remarks are completely irrelevant to this thread
>> and to the OP's concerns.
>>
>>
> While I know you fly so much as to be conversant with all cases, but I've
> in recent years experienced a "trim-induced" reseat in a CO RJ, Houston to
> Morelia, hardly a commuter,
An RJ most certainly is a commuter.
> and an "extra" AA MD80 with a light light load and a sports team aft,
> DFW/ORD, neither a "commuter".
I agree, an MD-80 isn't a commuter. I'm also suprised, however, to here a
legacy carrier fly a light load.
rkb...@gmail.com
Nitty wrote:
> i had a really annoying experience this past weekend. someone wanted to
> switch seats with me. you can read about it here:
>
> http://ourhatch.blogspot.com/2006/05/simple-rules-of-airplane-etiquette.html
>
> has anyone else been in a similar situation? what did you do?
Someone's little daughter had ensconced herself in my window seat, with
her mother in the aisle seat next to her. The child did not want to
move, and her mother did not want to move her. (She and her husband and
kid had the two aisles and middle in a 2-3-2 configuration.) I think
they hoped that the plane wasn't full.
I regretted having to ask her to move, but I did. I strongly prefer a
window seat for long flights, and didn't feel that I needed to give it
up for a middle aisle. I did mention that I put in my seat request
weeks earlier, and maybe if they did that next time, they would get the
seats they wanted.
I don't see anything discourteous about politely asking for my seat
back. Mostly, it happens by mistake. It's happened to me, too; I've
been in the wrong row or something, and of course when the rightful
occupant arrived, I moved.
Rupa Bose
www.rupabose.org
mrtravel
>
> And my point is, they almost *always* pick someone like me to volunteer
> simply because I fly alone and the seat next to me is often empty. It's the
> easiest thing for them to do. And of course, if you refuse, they get defensive
> and start arguing, knowing that at any time they can play the "Interferance
> with a flight crew" card. Even if they don't go that far, you can be sure to get
> the lousiest service for the remainder of that flight.
What are they going to do, give you a half can of coke?
Seriously, if they give you bad service, that is something to mention to
thier superiors.
mrtravel
Eventually, after talking to his two friends, Dr. Vazquez
> gave in. He and Mrs. Vazquez then proceeded to the First Class
> Cabin.Is an involuntary upgrading of an airline passenger's
> accommodation from one class to a more superior class at no extra cost
> a breach of contract of carriage that would entitle the passenger to
> an award of damages? This is a novel question that has to be resolved
> in this
> case.http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/150843.htm
Why didn't they just wait until after boarding and trade with the people
in BC that took the original seats?
nobody
I was once on a Toronto-Montreal flight operated by AC which used a
747-200 instead of a smaller plane. (probably aircraft repositioning or
sending it for maintenance (it looked like the interior really needed it).
The aircaft was, of course, nowhere near full and passengers were
purposefully distributed "evenly" throughout the aircraft.
On an ATR72 (AA-Eagle), I was asked to move from my front seat to the
back. (probably because of heavier cargo in front and not many pax).
Also, as a result of that US-Air commuter crash in Charlotte (?) a few
years ago, there is a movement now to weight passengers for commuter
aircraft instead of using averages because for a small sample of
passengers, the odds of having a seriously above average weight for
total passengers are much higher.
If you get a football team on a 747-400, their added weight is still
peanuts compared to the total weight and won't change much the average
weight of pax on that aircraft. But if that team is loaded onto a
DASH-8, they mayrepresent 100% of pax and their total weight will be way
above the average used for calculations.
mag3
>mag3 wrote:
>>
>> And my point is, they almost *always* pick someone like me to volunteer
>> simply because I fly alone and the seat next to me is often empty. It's the
>> easiest thing for them to do. And of course, if you refuse, they get defensive
>> and start arguing, knowing that at any time they can play the "Interferance
>> with a flight crew" card. Even if they don't go that far, you can be sure to get
>> the lousiest service for the remainder of that flight.
>
>What are they going to do, give you a half can of coke?
Well, let's put it this way.... Ever seen that movie about waiters who get even with
customers in a restaurant for pisssing them off *before* they serve the meal?
That is, of course, if you even get any service. And they can always do things like
totally skip around you when taking meal orders and come to you last so that you
don't get a choice of meals etc. etc. (that often happens as a matter of routine
for me anyway)....
>Seriously, if they give you bad service, that is something to mention to
>thier superiors.
And who would those superiors be? The FSM? The "Customer Care" center of the
ariline? "Deaf Ears" if you ask me. Maybe you'll get a few thousand FF miles and an
apology letter but I seriously doubt any corrective action will be taken against the FA.
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
js
mag3 wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2006 18:35:08 -0700, "js" <jonatha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I was asked to move to accomodate a disabled traveler and I
> >pointed out that the identical seat across the aisle would be just fine
>
> Fine for you or for the disabled traveler?
Both actually.
> >- given that I was traveling with a companion I was a bit hesitant to
> >accomodate this individual. The rules are pretty clear on this - many
> >airlines hold seat assignments for certain seats (bulkhead for example)
> >until 24 hours ahead - but after that, they are open for anyone.
>
> I tend to avoid those sensitive seats like "exit row" or "bulkead" for that
> very reason. And also, because I want "space under the seat in front of
> me" for extra carry on storage.
I prefer not to have someone recline into me and I prefer to not have
someone climb over me or me have to climb over someone else.
> >There have been one or two occasions when I have received a boarding
> >card differnt than my reserved seat, however, prior to boarding. Not
> >sure exactly why but that's an issue you can take up with the
> >checkin/gate staff. I've had a lot of success getting those situations
> >rectified at the club.
>
> Absolutely. And I'd bring dated documentation to show that I had the seats
> reserved well in advance. As long as the seats were not altered due to an
> "equipment change" (in which case I'd attempt to get it corrected well in
> advance of the flight day), I'd make it difficult for them to deny it to me.
You have this fear of retribution of flight attendants yet none
whatsoever of gate agentrs? You realize that they can do a lot more
damage with there computers than any flight attendant can do with poor
service.
A reservation is a reservation and a boarding pass is a boarding pass
but at the end of the day, its up to the airline personnel and if they
don't want to change something in the interest of customer service -
the don't have to. Just like you don't have to fly with them again.
> >> > In all honesty - if
> >> >you had the choice between a middle seat toward the front between two
> >> >adults or the aisle seat in a row with two 4 year old siblings - would
> >> >you honestly not welcome the chance to switch?
> >> >
> >>
> >> I would choose neither. I would pay for BC/BF where there are normally 2 seats
> >> and no middle,
> >
> >OK - AA 777 BC - center section.
>
> More likely CO 767/777 BF.
No, the 767 has one seat in the center and the 777 has 2 on CO. I
said, like AA 777.
> >> and where I would more than likely avoid scenarios like that. But
> >> assuming I didn't have that option, I would take the aisle with the two kids, simply
> >> because I hate middle seats, not because of who's sitting in them, be they adult
> >> or kid.
> >
> >OK.
> >
> >> >Well - given the pcness of the world today, how would you respond if
> >> >the 4 year old told his mom sitting three rows away that the man next
> >> >to him keeps putting his hand on his arm? Innocent as it may seem
> >> >(using an arm rest) to you, it could be misconstrued.
> >>
> >> Yes, it could. But they'd have to prove their accusations and if not, they (ie.
> >> *both* airline and family of kid) risk the wrath of my lawyers.
> >
> >You really want that hassle? OK
>
> No, I wouldn't, but if I'm forced into it, I'd have to defend myself the best way possible.
> And I can't allow the fear of that scenaio to take priority over the exericse of my fair
> choice of assigned seating when I took the time and advanced effort to select it and to
> get it assigned to me.
OK - you have the right to make choices.
> >> > The case I cited
> >> >was that of an unaccompanied minor and the trade was two aisle seats,
> >> >one in front of the other.
> >>
> >> I'm not totally heartless. If they ask nicely and if it's no further than 1 row
> >> away and the same seat type (window for window etc.) and if it's not for
> >> an inferior seat - ie. an electronic seat with laptop ports etc. that *doesn't*
> >> work when my original seat did work, I really wouldn't mind switching. What
> >> I mind is always being the first to be "volunteered" simply because I'm flying
> >> alone and the seat next to me just happens to be available.
> >
> >As long as they are just asking - why not just say no?
>
> I often do.
So do I. Although I have used the opposite approach. I like to sit in
a certain seat on most planes and on occasion the seat is not
available. Sometimes you see two guys, gals, or a couple split up -
you know they are together. One of them has the seat I want, the other
is sitting next to me. Bingo - offer to change.
> But, as implied before, sometimes FA's don't like to take "no" for an answer, especially
> when fighting for their own "convenience." And since they have the ultimate weapon
> in the "interference card," what can we do if they decide to play it? You have to do
> what they say.
You'd be surprised - fastening your seatbelt on take off and sitting
down when the seatbelt sign is on and turning off your computer below
10K, those are safety rules. Forcing a passenger to change seats for
the conveneince of another passenger, not a safety thing.
But you are OK with being hauled off the plane as a pedophile but
afraid of being hauled off as a FAR violator?
Interesting.
js
TOliver
"PTravel" <ptr...@travelersvideo.com> wrote ...
>
> "TOliver" <tolive...@Hot.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:8%Mfg.3996$0v4....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>>
>> "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote ...
>>>
>>> Trim is a factor only on commuter planes. However, the captain will not
>>> move pax -- he'll merely advise the FAs to do it. However, again,
>>> commuter planes, LCCs and whatever other exceptions you'll try to find
>>> to justify your erroneous remarks are completely irrelevant to this
>>> thread and to the OP's concerns.
>>>
>>>
>> While I know you fly so much as to be conversant with all cases, but I've
>> in recent years experienced a "trim-induced" reseat in a CO RJ, Houston
>> to Morelia, hardly a commuter,
>
> An RJ most certainly is a commuter.
Well, since I started flying commercial back when TreeTop operated DC-3s
with a grand total of 21 seats on main routes, a 60 seat twin jet flying a 2
1/2 hour hop doesn't seem very commuterish to me (nor does it to AA and CO
who deploy them regularly on routes with anticipated passenger loads are too
light for MD80s/730 series birds). While the old 12,500lb gross which used
to define "commuters" is gone, the routes served by RJs and the like today
are those in which only a few years back, DC9s and Fokker 100s were common
(with max pax loads not much greater - wasn't the Fokker's "100" derived
from its design anticipated pax load?). RJs are used on commuter routes.
Their employment in international service and on routes such as DFW/Akron in
which they are increasingly common makes for a debate. At 400 miles, Baton
Rouge/Dallas is a commuter flight, but at 300 miles, isn't DFW/HOU - Hobby -
with no connecting service for AA or CO - also a commuter flight? How can
it have MD80s and 737s, not "commuter a/c?
>
>
>> and an "extra" AA MD80 with a light light load and a sports team aft,
>> DFW/ORD, neither a "commuter".
>
> I agree, an MD-80 isn't a commuter. I'm also suprised, however, to here a
> legacy carrier fly a light load.
There are a couple of dozen "repositioning" flights on regular schedules,
while others are a daily occurence given mechanical "downs". Light loads on
repos are an accepted price of doing business in an era of paring a/c
inventories down to the bone. I doubt that AA has more than a couple of
"spares" at DFW at any one moment. Don't a couple of Asian airlines
regularly "reposition" a/c from JFK to LAX or SFO? Thai strikes me as one
which follows that practice as the most fuel/cost efficient way to manage
its routes. We don't have many nearly empty 747s these days, but I can
recall (back in the early 70s) cases in which DL's redeye out of SFO for DFW
and ATL went out with a light enough load that aircrew encourage
"re-spotting" the cabin(s).
One Way Ticket
> No, you cannot put your rollaboard above seat 3C if you are
> seated in 29F. You do that and you run the risk of it being
> removed from the plane - trust me, I've seen it done.
I have read that Boeing with their new 787 has been working with one
(or more) carriers to design an overhead bin for each seat. With each
storage bin wide and deep enough for a standard/large suitcase and a
smaller bag or briefcase. But not large enough for the all-too-common
steamer trunk. I hope this approach to bin storage becomes the
industry standard, and the rest of us no longer have to accommodate
those who cannot fly without dragging on-board all of their worldly
possessions.
> No, three carryons are more than the two that are allowed. Two
> rollaboards and a purse and a computer bag does not make 2.
> It makes 4.
And yet, too many passengers continue to try to haul as much as is
humanly possible onto their flight.
> No, the space under the seat in front of me is not the same
> as the space under the seat in front of you. Just because I
> don't have a bag there is not permission for you to put one
> there because there is room.
I have had to tell more than a few ill-mannered flyers that they are
not going to put their articles underneath the seat in front of me.
Sorry, but I need that for my feet. Or have you failed to notice that
cramming seat rows together has limited where we can now successfully
locate our legs and feet.
My favorite incident was an individual sitting several rows behind,
who attempted to cram his over-stuffed backpack into the space under
the seat in front of me, "since this is not being used". I answered
that it was, in fact, being used; and to kindly place his belongings
somewhere else. A response which made him less than pleasant. As it
turned out, he wanted to place his feet in that space in front of his
own seat, which was not possible with his backpack being in the way. (
Fly enough and you will eventually get to see everything. At least
once ).
> No, you cannot move my bag to another bin further back to make room
> for your oversized rollaboard.
Over-sized luggage should be automatically sent on detour and not
allowed on the jetway.
mag3
>I prefer not to have someone recline into me and I prefer to not have
>someone climb over me or me have to climb over someone else.
Fair enough. I accept reclining as part and parcel of flying since I like to
recline also, although I do not fully recline unless we're all fully reclined
for sleeping. I recline only enough to be comfortable and only a hair when
everyone is eating.
>You have this fear of retribution of flight attendants yet none
>whatsoever of gate agentrs?
You mean the gate agents that do the seat tallying and squeezing in of last minute
pax.? Perhaps I should be. But then again, they don't stay on board. The FA's do.
The gate agents at the gate itself don't bother me at all unless they're the one's
who aren't consistent in their pre-boarding policies, leaving me to remind them.
The check-in agents are no trouble at all. I verify the boarding passes before I leave
the counter and if there's a mistake in the seat, I ask them to change it. Haven't
have any recent trouble at all there.
>> >> I would choose neither. I would pay for BC/BF where there are normally 2 seats
>> >> and no middle,
>> >
>> >OK - AA 777 BC - center section.
>>
>> More likely CO 767/777 BF.
>
>No, the 767 has one seat in the center and the 777 has 2 on CO. I
>said, like AA 777.
No what I meant was no "middle" as in a 3+ seat configurations in coach. All BC/BF seats for
aircraft I fly are at most only 2-2-2 config if not the 2-1-2 as you say in a 767 or 2-2 in others.
>> But, as implied before, sometimes FA's don't like to take "no" for an answer, especially
>> when fighting for their own "convenience." And since they have the ultimate weapon
>> in the "interference card," what can we do if they decide to play it? You have to do
>> what they say.
>
>You'd be surprised - fastening your seatbelt on take off and sitting
>down when the seatbelt sign is on and turning off your computer below
>10K, those are safety rules. Forcing a passenger to change seats for
>the conveneince of another passenger, not a safety thing.
No it isn't. But what's to stop the FA from playing the "interference card" with things
that *aren't* safety related? Doesn't the announcement go "You must obey *all* instructions
from a crew member"? Anything can be construed to be "safety related" if they wish it to be.
>
>But you are OK with being hauled off the plane as a pedophile but
>afraid of being hauled off as a FAR violator?
>
>Interesting.
No, I'm definitely not OK with that. But I really don't see that as a very likely scenario... far less
likely at least than being hit with an "exaggerated" FAR violation from a pissed off FA.
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
PTravel
>
> "PTravel" <ptr...@travelersvideo.com> wrote ...
>>
>> "TOliver" <tolive...@Hot.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:8%Mfg.3996$0v4....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>>>
>>> "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote ...
>>>>
>>>> Trim is a factor only on commuter planes. However, the captain will
>>>> not move pax -- he'll merely advise the FAs to do it. However, again,
>>>> commuter planes, LCCs and whatever other exceptions you'll try to find
>>>> to justify your erroneous remarks are completely irrelevant to this
>>>> thread and to the OP's concerns.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> While I know you fly so much as to be conversant with all cases, but
>>> I've in recent years experienced a "trim-induced" reseat in a CO RJ,
>>> Houston to Morelia, hardly a commuter,
>>
>> An RJ most certainly is a commuter.
>
> Well, since I started flying commercial back when TreeTop operated DC-3s
> with a grand total of 21 seats on main routes, a 60 seat twin jet flying a
> 2 1/2 hour hop doesn't seem very commuterish to me (nor does it to AA and
> CO who deploy them regularly on routes with anticipated passenger loads
> are too light for MD80s/730 series birds).
Well, it sure does to me. CO is, as far as I know, the only US airline that
operates RJs as mainline flights. On other carriers, they're relegated to
the franchise "express" operators.
js
mag3 wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2006 06:33:19 -0700, "js" <jonatha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I prefer not to have someone recline into me and I prefer to not have
> >someone climb over me or me have to climb over someone else.
>
> Fair enough. I accept reclining as part and parcel of flying since I like to
> recline also, although I do not fully recline unless we're all fully reclined
> for sleeping. I recline only enough to be comfortable and only a hair when
> everyone is eating.
That is where you and I differ - I accept reclining as part of my space
- and I accept reclining by others as part of their space. Because of
this, my prefernce is to avoid having someone in front of me who can,
at their discretion, recline.
I also prefer the window because I like to control the shade. This bit
about lowering shades so people can see the TV screen the size of a
pinhead to me is one of those non-safety things that if asked, I will
consider, if demanded I will not comply. I like to look out - I feel
safer and more comnfortable with the window shade open.
> >You have this fear of retribution of flight attendants yet none
> >whatsoever of gate agentrs?
>
> You mean the gate agents that do the seat tallying and squeezing in of last minute
> pax.? Perhaps I should be. But then again, they don't stay on board. The FA's do.
> The gate agents at the gate itself don't bother me at all unless they're the one's
> who aren't consistent in their pre-boarding policies, leaving me to remind them.
> The check-in agents are no trouble at all. I verify the boarding passes before I leave
> the counter and if there's a mistake in the seat, I ask them to change it. Haven't
> have any recent trouble at all there.
The gate agent is the same as the checkin agent in many cases,
especially at smaller airports or non-hubs. It takes a key stroke to
lose your ongoing reservation.
I watched the gate agent one time do something very interesting. A
passenger was complaining about his seat - he was very insistant that
he wanted to sit in an aisle and nothing else would do. She said she
would see but he would have to be patient. He wasn't.
He boarded at the very end and I watched as he took the center seat of
the last row of coach.
> >> >> I would choose neither. I would pay for BC/BF where there are normally 2 seats
> >> >> and no middle,
> >> >
> >> >OK - AA 777 BC - center section.
> >>
> >> More likely CO 767/777 BF.
> >
> >No, the 767 has one seat in the center and the 777 has 2 on CO. I
> >said, like AA 777.
>
> No what I meant was no "middle" as in a 3+ seat configurations in coach. All BC/BF seats for
> aircraft I fly are at most only 2-2-2 config if not the 2-1-2 as you say in a 767 or 2-2 in others.
Then you don't, apparently, fly AA metal or 747s lower deck or BA's
2-4-2 beds or ....
Never mind.
> >> But, as implied before, sometimes FA's don't like to take "no" for an answer, especially
> >> when fighting for their own "convenience." And since they have the ultimate weapon
> >> in the "interference card," what can we do if they decide to play it? You have to do
> >> what they say.
> >
> >You'd be surprised - fastening your seatbelt on take off and sitting
> >down when the seatbelt sign is on and turning off your computer below
> >10K, those are safety rules. Forcing a passenger to change seats for
> >the conveneince of another passenger, not a safety thing.
>
> No it isn't. But what's to stop the FA from playing the "interference card" with things
> that *aren't* safety related? Doesn't the announcement go "You must obey *all* instructions
> from a crew member"? Anything can be construed to be "safety related" if they wish it to be.
Have you ever seen a flight attendant play the safety card? I have -
once or twice and it was because of someone overindulging - and what
happend was the pilot came back and explained it.
> >But you are OK with being hauled off the plane as a pedophile but
> >afraid of being hauled off as a FAR violator?
> >
> >Interesting.
>
> No, I'm definitely not OK with that. But I really don't see that as a very likely scenario... far less
> likely at least than being hit with an "exaggerated" FAR violation from a pissed off FA.
Trust me - after the NW incident a few years ago, the airlines are
quite sensitve. Next time you fly, see where the unaccompanied minors
sit and who sits next to them. Summer travel season is here - plenty
of chances.
js
beavis
<ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote:
> Well, it sure does to me. CO is, as far as I know, the only US airline that
> operates RJs as mainline flights. On other carriers, they're relegated to
> the franchise "express" operators.
CO does *not* operate RJs as mainline flights. They're all operated
under the "Continental Express" banner. They run some ridiculously
long lets (such as Dallas to Toronto, and Newark to Omaha), but they're
still operated by ExpressJet, a separate regional carrier.
mag3
>> You mean the gate agents that do the seat tallying and squeezing in of last minute
>> pax.? Perhaps I should be. But then again, they don't stay on board. The FA's do.
>> The gate agents at the gate itself don't bother me at all unless they're the one's
>> who aren't consistent in their pre-boarding policies, leaving me to remind them.
>> The check-in agents are no trouble at all. I verify the boarding passes before I leave
>> the counter and if there's a mistake in the seat, I ask them to change it. Haven't
>> have any recent trouble at all there.
>
>The gate agent is the same as the checkin agent in many cases,
>especially at smaller airports or non-hubs. It takes a key stroke to
>lose your ongoing reservation.
Which is why I never do anything to antagonize them. Primarily because
they never do anything to antagonize me.
>
>> >No, the 767 has one seat in the center and the 777 has 2 on CO. I
>> >said, like AA 777.
>>
>> No what I meant was no "middle" as in a 3+ seat configurations in coach. All BC/BF seats for
>> aircraft I fly are at most only 2-2-2 config if not the 2-1-2 as you say in a 767 or 2-2 in others.
>
>Then you don't, apparently, fly AA metal or 747s lower deck or BA's
>2-4-2 beds or ....
>
>Never mind.
Fair enough. And no, I don't ever fly those other aircraft. Primary BC/BF carriers are CO and TN.
Haven't flown a 747 since 1997 (a NWA 747 from HKG to NRT). I was in the upper deck on a window
where it was a 2 seater on that aisle side. TN's are A340-300's with 2-2-2 in BC and FC.
>> >But you are OK with being hauled off the plane as a pedophile but
>> >afraid of being hauled off as a FAR violator?
>> >
>> >Interesting.
>>
>> No, I'm definitely not OK with that. But I really don't see that as a very likely scenario... far less
>> likely at least than being hit with an "exaggerated" FAR violation from a pissed off FA.
>
>Trust me - after the NW incident a few years ago, the airlines are
>quite sensitve.
Which incident was this? Do you have an URL to look at?
> Next time you fly, see where the unaccompanied minors
>sit and who sits next to them. Summer travel season is here - plenty
>of chances.
I'll have two chances this year. But I'll be in BC/BF again and I'm not sure how many UNAM's
get to sit there.
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
Please Ignore the Psycho
>On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 04:16:17 GMT, mrtravel <mrtr...@bcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>mag3 wrote:
>>>
>>> And my point is, they almost *always* pick someone like me to volunteer
>>> simply because I fly alone and the seat next to me is often empty. It's the
>>> easiest thing for them to do. And of course, if you refuse, they get defensive
>>> and start arguing, knowing that at any time they can play the "Interferance
>>> with a flight crew" card. Even if they don't go that far, you can be sure to get
>>> the lousiest service for the remainder of that flight.
>>
>>What are they going to do, give you a half can of coke?
>
>Well, let's put it this way....
<snip>
Umm, no, let's not.
Arnold, you've been on this newsgroup for quite a while. By now you should
have figured out that "mrtravel" is a troll/netkook/psychopath. When he asks
stupid trolling questions like the one you're responding to, you should know
by now that he's not interested in hearing your explanation (not that you or
anyone owes that psychopath any explanations) or understanding what you're
saying. He's just TROLLING. He constantly nitpicks messages to start arguments.
He only wants to ARGUE with you. You'll answer his question, and he'll come up
with another objection (or a dozen), you'll answer again, and he'll just keep at it as
long as you keep responding.
So please, do what every other sane person on usenet does and JUST IGNORE
THE PSYCHO! Unless you enjoy helping fat unemployed middle-aged psychopaths
masturbate online.
HTH.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Usenet Public Service Announcement
The "mrtravel" psycho:
- suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder
- is a 47 year old unemployed loser, alcoholic, drug addict/dealer
- has been trolling usenet and flooding newsgroups for TWO DECADES
- has been harassing and stalking usenet posters for TWO DECADES
- is a known criminal, in trouble with the law since he was a teenager
- has no life outside usenet, is online trolling/harassing/stalking 24/7
- is such a loser he often responds to posts within one or two minutes
- is a known liar and bullshitter, lies about everything
- was fired by Cisco in early 2005 for doing all of the above from work
- likes to make death threats
- is a known pedophile and child sexual predator
- is a known importer of Russian whores looking for fast cheap green cards
If you are one of his victims, report him to Scotts Valley police:
Michael D. Voight, aka "mrtravel"
111 Bean Creek Rd, No. 118
Scotts Valley, CA 95066-4148
(831) 438-2485
Scotts Valley PD
One Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
(831) 440-5670
Police Chief Steve Lind
s l i n d @ s c o t t s v a l l e y . o r g
Also contact the Scotts Valley mayor:
Paul Marigonda
m a r i g o n d @ p a c b e l l . n e t
About the "mrtravel" psycho - FAQ
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.cruises/msg/f207022ace08c90c
More info on the psycho
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.travel.cruises/msg/25a7ed8ad9d9d920
mrtravel's drug abuse
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.general/msg/f0c64751c93c3e2c
mrtravel's wife left him
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.air/msg/6828ed1eb3843662
-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
js
mag3 wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2006 09:07:36 -0700, "js" <jonatha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> You mean the gate agents that do the seat tallying and squeezing in of last minute
> >> pax.? Perhaps I should be. But then again, they don't stay on board. The FA's do.
> >> The gate agents at the gate itself don't bother me at all unless they're the one's
> >> who aren't consistent in their pre-boarding policies, leaving me to remind them.
> >> The check-in agents are no trouble at all. I verify the boarding passes before I leave
> >> the counter and if there's a mistake in the seat, I ask them to change it. Haven't
> >> have any recent trouble at all there.
> >
> >The gate agent is the same as the checkin agent in many cases,
> >especially at smaller airports or non-hubs. It takes a key stroke to
> >lose your ongoing reservation.
>
> Which is why I never do anything to antagonize them. Primarily because
> they never do anything to antagonize me.
Give 'em time.
"What upgrade?"
"You weren't booked on this flight"
"The flight was cancelled - we rebooked you on tomorrow's flight - same
time."
> >> >No, the 767 has one seat in the center and the 777 has 2 on CO. I
> >> >said, like AA 777.
> >>
> >> No what I meant was no "middle" as in a 3+ seat configurations in coach. All BC/BF seats for
> >> aircraft I fly are at most only 2-2-2 config if not the 2-1-2 as you say in a 767 or 2-2 in others.
> >
> >Then you don't, apparently, fly AA metal or 747s lower deck or BA's
> >2-4-2 beds or ....
> >
> >Never mind.
>
> Fair enough. And no, I don't ever fly those other aircraft. Primary BC/BF carriers are CO and TN.
> Haven't flown a 747 since 1997 (a NWA 747 from HKG to NRT). I was in the upper deck on a window
> where it was a 2 seater on that aisle side. TN's are A340-300's with 2-2-2 in BC and FC.
NWA 747-100 upper deck, last row. The quitest seat in the sky.
> >> >But you are OK with being hauled off the plane as a pedophile but
> >> >afraid of being hauled off as a FAR violator?
> >> >
> >> >Interesting.
> >>
> >> No, I'm definitely not OK with that. But I really don't see that as a very likely scenario... far less
> >> likely at least than being hit with an "exaggerated" FAR violation from a pissed off FA.
> >
> >Trust me - after the NW incident a few years ago, the airlines are
> >quite sensitve.
>
> Which incident was this? Do you have an URL to look at?
Mary RT Doe, on behalf of her minor son, John ET Doe v. Northwest
Airlines, Inc., Court File No.: 98-666 (State of Minnesota, Hennepin
County District Court)
> > Next time you fly, see where the unaccompanied minors
> >sit and who sits next to them. Summer travel season is here - plenty
> >of chances.
>
> I'll have two chances this year.
I'll have 6 chances this month - I hate flying in the summer. All FC,
but still....
>But I'll be in BC/BF again and I'm not sure how many UNAM's
> get to sit there.
Mine did.
js
PTravel
"beavis" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:020620061220345026%nob...@nowhere.com...
I'll take your word for it. However, there's this:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4339/is_200305/ai_n15169132
ptr...@travelersvideo.com
On closer reading, I see that CO is contemplating financing the
purchase of turboprops for CO Express. However, that goes back to my
original point, which is that RJs are commuter planes.
Traveller
news:j51s72ts532aoad7s...@4ax.com...
>
> I no longer do flights of less than an hour - just not worth the effort.
Depends on where you live. If there's a body of water in between....
Frank F. Matthews
One Way Ticket wrote:
> << snip >>
>
>> No, you cannot put your rollaboard above seat 3C if you are
>>seated in 29F. You do that and you run the risk of it being
>>removed from the plane - trust me, I've seen it done.
>
>
> I have read that Boeing with their new 787 has been working with one
> (or more) carriers to design an overhead bin for each seat. With each
> storage bin wide and deep enough for a standard/large suitcase and a
> smaller bag or briefcase. But not large enough for the all-too-common
> steamer trunk. I hope this approach to bin storage becomes the
> industry standard, and the rest of us no longer have to accommodate
> those who cannot fly without dragging on-board all of their worldly
> possessions.
>
>
It's a nice ides but I doubt the plausibility of the story. I suspect
that it would involve a good bit more storage space even if you intended
the large suitcase to be the 22" standard of today and the other to be a
usual large purse.
I figure about a 75% increase in space. Any other estimates?
AES
"Frank F. Matthews" <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> > I have read that Boeing with their new 787 has been working with one
> > (or more) carriers to design an overhead bin for each seat. With each
> > storage bin wide and deep enough for a standard/large suitcase and a
Or, how about just putting vertical divider walls into existing bins,
spaced closely enough that each slot just allows your properly sized
roll-on to be inserted perpendicular to the aisle, wheels-end first, as
boarding announcements frequently ask you to do, with maybe a coat or
purse or small package on top -- but block anything bigger or longer
from being inserted lengthwise along the bin. Results:
* The "size box" luggage standards in the terminals become
self-enforcing on the plane. Anything too big for a standard slot gets
checked, or shipped.
* Experienced travelers and "road warriers" can continue to have their
standard roll-on suitcases (which are beneficial to them for rapid
checkin and easy exit at destination, and beneficial to the airline,
which doesn't have to handle 'em as checked luggage).
* Anything that fits in the slot will also move freely down the aisle.
No more clogging the bins, and aisles, with boxed TV sets, microwave
ovens, golf clubs, huge backpacks and duffel bags.
* The luggage industry would rapidly adapt to a standard slot size (in
fact, they already have), as would most intelligent travelers.
* Many planes might not even need new bins -- just dividers.
Seems like a winner to me.
beavis
<ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote:
> > CO does *not* operate RJs as mainline flights. They're all operated
> > under the "Continental Express" banner. They run some ridiculously
> > long lets (such as Dallas to Toronto, and Newark to Omaha), but they're
> > still operated by ExpressJet, a separate regional carrier.
>
> I'll take your word for it. However, there's this:
>
> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4339/is_200305/ai_n15169132
The ownership has changed within the past two years, as Continental
Express used to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of CO, rather than a
separate company as it is now.
They always flew under the "Continental Express" banner, though, even
when they were wholly owned. They were operated under a separate FAA
operating certificate, with different employees.
JimL
Put extra air in the tires.
Frank F. Matthews
AES wrote:
> In article <Nj3gg.5873$bk5....@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
> "Frank F. Matthews" <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> I have read that Boeing with their new 787 has been working with one
>>>(or more) carriers to design an overhead bin for each seat. With each
>>>storage bin wide and deep enough for a standard/large suitcase and a
>
>
>
> Or, how about just putting vertical divider walls into existing bins,
> spaced closely enough that each slot just allows your properly sized
> roll-on to be inserted perpendicular to the aisle, wheels-end first, as
> boarding announcements frequently ask you to do, with maybe a coat or
> purse or small package on top -- but block anything bigger or longer
> from being inserted lengthwise along the bin. Results:
>
Most bins are not deep enough for a standard carry on.
If you size the bins for a regular carry on then there are not enough bins.
Frank F. Matthews
beavis wrote:
And particularly with a separate labor agreement.
mrtravel
No kidding. We are flying SJU-STT in August. I believe it is about 68
miles. So, that is 1500 FF miles (500 minimum, 100 percent platinum
bonus and DBL06 25th aniversary AAdvantage promotion):)
I believe the ferry service used to be every other Friday and Sunday
between PR and St. Thomas (depending on direction), but a recent notice
states:
St Thomas/St. John - Puerto Rico Passenger Ferry
Notice: May 2006, This Service is not currently operating. Contact
Transportation Services (340)776-6282 for updates
Nolo Contendre
>>> with one (or more) carriers to design an overhead bin for each
>>> seat. With each storage bin wide and deep enough for a standard
>>> /large suitcase and a
>> Most bins are not deep enough for a standard carry on.
>> If you size the bins for a regular carry on then there are
>> not enough bins.
The 787 design was experimenting with increading the depth of the
overhead bins. Which would allow a suitcase to fit (slide in, end
first) without having to go in sideways. Under that circumstance each
seat could have their own assigned bin. And your steamer trunk would
not be able to infringe on the carry-on articles of fellow passengers.
> * Many planes might not even need new bins -- just dividers.
> Seems like a winner to me.
I would think that there needs to be better control over passengers
hauling on luggage which can hardly fit in the space in the aisles, and
then requires an entire overhead bin. Neither the airlines nor
passengers (those of us who follow the reasonable size restriction)
should have to accept that sort of abuse.
Frank F. Matthews
I have no problem with the concept simply doubts about the feasibility
of execution. On a wide body it would appear that you might manage 4
bins across. How many in a row on the 787? seat pitch * 4 / number in
a row. Would give you the available width for a bin minus the hardware.
Always assuming that the airline will give up the large segments that
they currently use for a variety of reserved space.
I still do not see it working.
Jeff Hacker
"Nolo Contendre" <jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149375152.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I guess this is one of my periodic rants, but - first the airlines
encouraged people to carry on bags so they could cut costs by using fewer
loading people, etc., then they cut back on the number of gate agents to
monitor the boarding process, then they encouraged curbside check-in,
because it was cheaper for them than ticket counter check in (most skycaps
are not airline employees), then they started charging for the curbside
check-in, and then they laid off most of the ticket counter people,
substituting kiosks. What do you expect?
>
Maxx
Modern day air travel has become a matter of survival, and strategy.
People are doing what they have to do in order to get from A to B with
their belongings.
-L.
mag3 wrote:
>
> Pot-->Kettle-->Black.
>
> How selfish is it to demand that a passenger move out of their assigned seat just so that
> a family can sit together? Is that family going to be traumatized for life simply because
> they were several feet/seats apart for a few hours? Are you telling me that a family's
> convenience outranks an individuals?
>
> Not *this* indivdual!
Of course not. Nobody matters but you, right?
What if it is someone with a small child who needs assistance? Or
someone who is handicapped who needs assistance? Would you still
insist that your "convenience" is still as important as their need?
-L.
mrtravel
This is apples and oranges, isn't it?
In the cases I have been asked to move, it usually involved a couple
traveling together. Why should I give up a "premium" seat for their
convenience? Even if it was a small child needing assistance, this
doesn't require the entire entourage sitting together, does it?
I remember a flight when a group of about 20 people tried to pre-board
with the infant that was in their group. Did all 20 people really need
to help the youngster pre-board? Would all 20 people need to sit near
the infant?
mag3
>
>mag3 wrote:
>>
>> Pot-->Kettle-->Black.
>>
>> How selfish is it to demand that a passenger move out of their assigned seat just so that
>> a family can sit together? Is that family going to be traumatized for life simply because
>> they were several feet/seats apart for a few hours? Are you telling me that a family's
>> convenience outranks an individuals?
>>
>> Not *this* indivdual!
>
>Of course not. Nobody matters but you, right?
Wrong. I was simply stating that if the defense of my rights is "selfish" by your standard, then
by mine it is equally as selfish for a pax. to request/demand that another pax. give up that
right simply to facilitate their own convenience (eg. a family that wants to sit together). And Yes,
other things/people do "matter" besides me, but we weren't discussing that before.
>What if it is someone with a small child who needs assistance?
>Or someone who is handicapped who needs assistance? Would you still
>insist that your "convenience" is still as important as their need?
OK *now*, we have something to discuss. As stated elsewhere in this thread, there are
scenarios where I would be willing to give up that right and cheerfully so - the primary
being a medical or safety emergency. It would be inhuman to demand that I be allowed to
stay in my seat next to someone who is dying of a heart attack or a pregnant female giving
birth to a child or some such event. Likewise, if someone were being transported home with
an injury and needed several seats to be comfortable, of course I would move (which I've
actually done).
However, I draw the line when it comes to people who want to switch seats with me simply
because "they want to sit together." That's a "convenience" thing. And in this case, I will
defend my right to sit in my assigned seat. You call it selfish. I call it standing up for my rights
and not being intimidated by those who feel they can impose upon others simply because they
present themselves.
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
-L.
mag3 wrote:
<snip>
> >
> >Of course not. Nobody matters but you, right?
>
> Wrong. I was simply stating that if the defense of my rights is "selfish" by your standard, then
> by mine it is equally as selfish for a pax. to request/demand that another pax. give up that
> right simply to facilitate their own convenience (eg. a family that wants to sit together). And Yes,
> other things/people do "matter" besides me, but we weren't discussing that before.
My apologies. I misinterpreted what you had written before. You
wrote: "Nonetheless, it comes down to the convenience of one pax. over
another, and
in that case, I'll defend mine every time. " You were talking merely
about *convenience*, not need. I thought what you meant was that you
wouldn't give up your seat in any circumstance. Again, I apologize.
>
> >What if it is someone with a small child who needs assistance?
>
> >Or someone who is handicapped who needs assistance? Would you still
> >insist that your "convenience" is still as important as their need?
>
> OK *now*, we have something to discuss. As stated elsewhere in this thread, there are
> scenarios where I would be willing to give up that right and cheerfully so - the primary
> being a medical or safety emergency. It would be inhuman to demand that I be allowed to
> stay in my seat next to someone who is dying of a heart attack or a pregnant female giving
> birth to a child or some such event. Likewise, if someone were being transported home with
> an injury and needed several seats to be comfortable, of course I would move (which I've
> actually done).
>
> However, I draw the line when it comes to people who want to switch seats with me simply
> because "they want to sit together." That's a "convenience" thing. And in this case, I will
> defend my right to sit in my assigned seat. You call it selfish. I call it standing up for my rights
> and not being intimidated by those who feel they can impose upon others simply because they
> present themselves.
I agree whole heartedly, actually.
I guess my main point was, there are circumstances where giving up your
seat is the humane thing to do - and I would be saddened (and
disgusted) if people didn't do so under those circumstances.
Again, sorry for the misinterpretation of what you had posted. That's
what I get for reading late at nigh under little sleep. :p
-L.
mag3
>
>mag3 wrote:
><snip>
>
>> >
>> >Of course not. Nobody matters but you, right?
>>
>> Wrong. I was simply stating that if the defense of my rights is "selfish" by your standard, then
>> by mine it is equally as selfish for a pax. to request/demand that another pax. give up that
>> right simply to facilitate their own convenience (eg. a family that wants to sit together). And Yes,
>> other things/people do "matter" besides me, but we weren't discussing that before.
>
>My apologies. I misinterpreted what you had written before.
No problem. I've done that before many times.
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
nob...@spamcop.net
wrote:
I've always felt that, with rare exceptions for the obviously
handicapped, if you can't bench press your bag into the overhead
unaided, you need to stick it under your seat or check it. When you
see someone struggling to tote something that appears to have a small,
heavily-shielded nuclear reactor in it and it takes two or even three
people to hoist it, do you *really* want that thing sitting over your
head if things go sour? Not to mentiont he inevitable five minute
dleay while they force the thing into the bin with hydraulic jacks and
axle grease?
Jim P.
Frank F. Matthews
nob...@spamcop.net wrote:
I like your standards. I should be able to double my carry on stuff
with your restriction that simply I must be able to carry it myself and
load it up top. Actually I find it simpler to help the shorter and more
frail folk than to whine about their problems. As to having to force
the bag in I would sympathize more if the bins didn't vary so much. I
wonder if the bags that have to be forced in aren't safer since they
will take force to pop out.
pv
737. Had to gate-check our carry-on's on all four flights. The gate agents
on each of the CRJ flights told us that our carry-on's would not fit in the
overheads, which was wrong but we didn't feel like arguing. When we got to
the gate for the "big plane" flight we were told that the overheads were
already full and that we'd have to check our carry-on's. Again, didn't feel
like arguing. (We were a little later getting to the gate than I like to be
since our inbound flight had been delayed--same as always into ORD!) At
least with the CRJ's we could pick up our carry-on's planeside when we got
off. The 737 flight we had to get our carry-on's at the baggage carousel.
B-(
Bottom line, as planes get smaller there'll be less room in the cabin for
carry-on's. And, planes are getting smaller. At least in interior space
per passenger, if not in total size.
Gary Vocks
www.under-1-roof.com
"Nolo Contendre" <jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149375152.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
One Way Ticket
> carry-on's. And, planes are getting smaller. At least in interior space
> per passenger, if not in total size.
This will be something which the airlines will be forced to eventually
address -- when is too big actually too big. On average I fly three
times a month. On almost all flights I carry on a briefcase and
check-in my modest size suitcase. I may be pushing the odds on this,
but my luggage has never failed to arrive, and I have never been
restricted by a long wait in baggage claims. Years ago, damage to a
piece of luggage was promptly addressed by the airline.
When we hear or read about lost or damaged luggage such reports are
embellished to the point that casual flyers are unwilling to check in
their over-sized suitcases. And they join the ranks of business flyers
who consider themselves too important to not have their luggage with
them at all times. The results, every flight becomes a bottleneck
when boarding and exiting.
js
One Way Ticket wrote:
> > Bottom line, as planes get smaller
Planes are not getting smaller. A 737 today is still the same size as
it was 2 years or 10 years ago. Some versions (700, 800, 900 series)
are longer than earlier versions.
In some versions, overhead bins are bigger (Continental) than previous.
> there'll be less room in the cabin for
> > carry-on's. And, planes are getting smaller. At least in interior space
> > per passenger, if not in total size.
Not.
> This will be something which the airlines will be forced to eventually
> address -- when is too big actually too big.
That's why the sizers sit outside the gate.
> On average I fly three
> times a month. On almost all flights I carry on a briefcase and
> check-in my modest size suitcase. I may be pushing the odds on this,
> but my luggage has never failed to arrive, and I have never been
> restricted by a long wait in baggage claims.
Then you've never enjoyed EWR.
> Years ago, damage to a
> piece of luggage was promptly addressed by the airline.
Normal wear and tear?
> When we hear or read about lost or damaged luggage such reports are
> embellished to the point that casual flyers are unwilling to check in
> their over-sized suitcases. And they join the ranks of business flyers
> who consider themselves too important
Don't ever put these two in the same paragraph.
> to not have their luggage with
> them at all times.
Here's the rationale, like iit or not.
Most of us "business" fliers travel for a day ort two at a time. We
don't need seventy pairs of shoes, fourteen changes of clothes, or
whatever else grandma needs on her annual excursion to see the
grandkids.
Most of us "business" fliers typically have time constraints and
checking luggage and then waiting for it to return is not a flexibility
inherent to our schedules.
Most of us "business" fliers have tickets that allow flexibility -
change in schedule enroute, change in flights, or change in times. For
example, two flights going to the same city one hour apart. The
non-refundable gets to wait for the second flight - the "business"
flier has the option to take the earlier one. For example - mechanical
cancels flight. Business flier who happens to be a VFF is
automatically rebooked and off they go - luggage in tow. The not-so
VFF waits at the service center to be rebooked tomorrow.
> The results, every flight becomes a bottleneck
> when boarding and exiting.
Not because of the "business" flier. I board first, get off first, and
never get in your way.
js
PTravel
"pv" <paw...@nonspamaol.com> wrote in message
news:768c5$448d7574$c9c7841$20...@CTITECH.COM...
> Bottom line, as planes get smaller there'll be less room in the cabin for
> carry-on's. And, planes are getting smaller. At least in interior space
> per passenger, if not in total size.
Planes aren't getting smaller. Interior space per passenger has remained
constant since airlines tightened up seat pitch more than 10 years ago. If
anything, storage space has been increased, through the removal of galleys,
pillows, blankets and other in-flight amenities support.
Airlines are transferring more domestic routes to their contracted express
carriers, who use RJs and other smaller planes. Of the four flights you
described, only one was mainline United. The other three were on United
Express, which is the catch-all term for a number of small companies that
contract with United to provide short-haul domestic service.
Mainline planes are the same size they've always been, and Boeing and Airbus
have been working with the airlines to increase bin space. For example, bin
depth has been increased so that rollaboards will fit wheels- or hand-first,
rather than being placed sideways.
The unavailability of overhead storage is the result of two factors:
1. Because of the airlines' abyssmal record losing and delaying baggage, as
well as taking forever to get it to the baggage carrousels, more and more
people are carrying on, resulting in increased competition for overhead
space.
2. In their race to the bottom, airlines have priced tickets so low that
all sorts of inexperienced, casual flyers are now on board. In my
experience, it is these casual flyers who routinely exceed their carryon
allotment, bring on over-sized non-standard bags that take up too much room,
grab the first empty bin they see, rather than taking their bags to the back
near their seat, and stick all of their carryons in the overhead bin,
instead of under the seat in front of them.
Frank F. Matthews
pv wrote:
> Flew four legs this past weekend on "United"--three on CRJ's and one on a
> 737. Had to gate-check our carry-on's on all four flights. The gate agents
> on each of the CRJ flights told us that our carry-on's would not fit in the
> overheads, which was wrong but we didn't feel like arguing. When we got to
> the gate for the "big plane" flight we were told that the overheads were
> already full and that we'd have to check our carry-on's. Again, didn't feel
> like arguing. (We were a little later getting to the gate than I like to be
> since our inbound flight had been delayed--same as always into ORD!) At
> least with the CRJ's we could pick up our carry-on's planeside when we got
> off. The 737 flight we had to get our carry-on's at the baggage carousel.
> B-(
>
> Bottom line, as planes get smaller there'll be less room in the cabin for
> carry-on's. And, planes are getting smaller. At least in interior space
> per passenger, if not in total size.
>
snip
And, especially at major hubs, if you are using carryons don't schedule
anything but a long connection.
Frank F. Matthews
One Way Ticket wrote:
>>Bottom line, as planes get smaller there'll be less room in the cabin for
>>carry-on's. And, planes are getting smaller. At least in interior space
>>per passenger, if not in total size.
>
>
> This will be something which the airlines will be forced to eventually
> address -- when is too big actually too big. On average I fly three
> times a month. On almost all flights I carry on a briefcase and
> check-in my modest size suitcase. I may be pushing the odds on this,
> but my luggage has never failed to arrive, and I have never been
> restricted by a long wait in baggage claims. Years ago, damage to a
> piece of luggage was promptly addressed by the airline.
>
You are lucky things have changed. I have eventually gotten my luggage
but this spring Continental managed to smash the corner housing on two
duplicate bags (yep the same corner). They say damage isn't their fault
if a wheel is involved and the bag folks say that the airline mishandled
the bags.
One hint use a soft carryon. They fit much more easily than a roller
for the same volume.
> When we hear or read about lost or damaged luggage such reports are
> embellished to the point that casual flyers are unwilling to check in
> their over-sized suitcases. And they join the ranks of business flyers
> who consider themselves too important to not have their luggage with
> them at all times. The results, every flight becomes a bottleneck
> when boarding and exiting.
>
The story isn't embellished. Continental effectively ruined two bags
and there is no responsibility. I am seriously considering taking more
bags and getting heavier and more reinforced bags. Perhaps metal safes.
Frank F. Matthews
PTravel wrote:
> "pv" <paw...@nonspamaol.com> wrote in message
> news:768c5$448d7574$c9c7841$20...@CTITECH.COM...
>
>
>>Bottom line, as planes get smaller there'll be less room in the cabin for
>>carry-on's. And, planes are getting smaller. At least in interior space
>>per passenger, if not in total size.
>
>
> Planes aren't getting smaller. Interior space per passenger has remained
> constant since airlines tightened up seat pitch more than 10 years ago. If
> anything, storage space has been increased, through the removal of galleys,
> pillows, blankets and other in-flight amenities support.
>
> Airlines are transferring more domestic routes to their contracted express
> carriers, who use RJs and other smaller planes. Of the four flights you
> described, only one was mainline United. The other three were on United
> Express, which is the catch-all term for a number of small companies that
> contract with United to provide short-haul domestic service.
>
If they show an airline flight number then they are the responsibility
of that airline. United was still responsible.
> Mainline planes are the same size they've always been, and Boeing and Airbus
> have been working with the airlines to increase bin space. For example, bin
> depth has been increased so that rollaboards will fit wheels- or hand-first,
> rather than being placed sideways.
>
> The unavailability of overhead storage is the result of two factors:
>
> 1. Because of the airlines' abyssmal record losing and delaying baggage, as
> well as taking forever to get it to the baggage carrousels, more and more
> people are carrying on, resulting in increased competition for overhead
> space.
>
Include damaged bags as well. As well as their refusal to provide
secure carrying of the baggage. If it's stolen it is your fault.
> 2. In their race to the bottom, airlines have priced tickets so low that
> all sorts of inexperienced, casual flyers are now on board. In my
> experience, it is these casual flyers who routinely exceed their carryon
> allotment, bring on over-sized non-standard bags that take up too much room,
> grab the first empty bin they see, rather than taking their bags to the back
> near their seat, and stick all of their carryons in the overhead bin,
> instead of under the seat in front of them.
>
An experienced passenger will take the last available bin that he sees
open. In some cases it will be the first one seen. You have no chance
to fight your way upstream if the bins near your seat are full. If the
doors are closed or you pretty much see bags in the bins take whatever
you see.
>
snip
beavis
Matthews <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> The story isn't embellished. Continental effectively ruined two bags
> and there is no responsibility. I am seriously considering taking more
> bags and getting heavier and more reinforced bags. Perhaps metal safes.
I work for Continental (as a pilot), and you'd be amazed at the number
of bags, some very expensive, which are simply not up to the task of
being loaded on, and unloaded from, an airliner. I see leather garment
bags (!), and owners surprised when they get scuffed, or discolored on
a rainy day. And I see $300 "designer" rollers that look like they
were made as poorly as the $50 ones at Wal-Mart.
If you want a bag that's sturdy and up to the job, may I suggest buying
what I use myself:
http://www.luggageworksonline.com/
They're heavy. They're very sturdy, with thick steel frames. They
*take* the rough handling that, quite frankly, is necessary to handle
bags efficiently at the price travelers are willing to pay. The above
bag gets loaded in and out of the bin by our handlers every day that I
fly, and doesn't have so much as a broken zipper.
PTravel
"Frank F. Matthews" <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:n8ijg.24194$bk5....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
>
> PTravel wrote:
>
>> "pv" <paw...@nonspamaol.com> wrote in message
>> news:768c5$448d7574$c9c7841$20...@CTITECH.COM...
>>
>>
>>>Bottom line, as planes get smaller there'll be less room in the cabin for
>>>carry-on's. And, planes are getting smaller. At least in interior space
>>>per passenger, if not in total size.
>>
>>
>> Planes aren't getting smaller. Interior space per passenger has remained
>> constant since airlines tightened up seat pitch more than 10 years ago.
>> If anything, storage space has been increased, through the removal of
>> galleys, pillows, blankets and other in-flight amenities support.
>>
>> Airlines are transferring more domestic routes to their contracted
>> express carriers, who use RJs and other smaller planes. Of the four
>> flights you described, only one was mainline United. The other three
>> were on United Express, which is the catch-all term for a number of small
>> companies that contract with United to provide short-haul domestic
>> service.
>>
>
> If they show an airline flight number then they are the responsibility of
> that airline. United was still responsible.
Well, yes, but irrelevant to the point, which: The mainline airlines don't
operate small planes.
>
>> Mainline planes are the same size they've always been, and Boeing and
>> Airbus have been working with the airlines to increase bin space. For
>> example, bin depth has been increased so that rollaboards will fit
>> wheels- or hand-first, rather than being placed sideways.
>>
>> The unavailability of overhead storage is the result of two factors:
>>
>> 1. Because of the airlines' abyssmal record losing and delaying baggage,
>> as well as taking forever to get it to the baggage carrousels, more and
>> more people are carrying on, resulting in increased competition for
>> overhead space.
>>
>
> Include damaged bags as well. As well as their refusal to provide secure
> carrying of the baggage. If it's stolen it is your fault.
That's TSA's fault, as well. I never, ever check bags unless it's
absolutely impossible to avoid doing so.
>
>> 2. In their race to the bottom, airlines have priced tickets so low that
>> all sorts of inexperienced, casual flyers are now on board. In my
>> experience, it is these casual flyers who routinely exceed their carryon
>> allotment, bring on over-sized non-standard bags that take up too much
>> room, grab the first empty bin they see, rather than taking their bags to
>> the back near their seat, and stick all of their carryons in the overhead
>> bin, instead of under the seat in front of them.
>>
>
> An experienced passenger will take the last available bin that he sees
> open. In some cases it will be the first one seen.
Not so. If you're one of the last on the plane, and most of the bins are
full, you will. However, experienced passengers understand that the later
you board, the more likely you'll have to gate-check (airline-speak for,
"give the airline an excuse for losing your bag.")
> You have no chance to fight your way upstream if the bins near your seat
> are full. If the doors are closed or you pretty much see bags in the bins
> take whatever you see.
Or, you can try to board early, which is why passengers with elite status
board before those without. Of course, sometimes it's unavoidable, e.g. if
you have a tight connection or a late-arriving connecting flight.
>
>>
> snip
Timothy J. Lee
Frank F. Matthews <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>Most bins are not deep enough for a standard carry on.
Some are large enough, some are just barely too small (an odd choice
of dimensions). On some Northwest planes, there are even labels telling
you to put the rollaboards so that the bottom faces the aisle so that
more of them can fit in the overhead bin.
Of course, the size templates that the airlines have at the gate and
check in areas are just one size; the actual sizes of the overhead
bins and under seat spaces vary. For example, on a newer Southwest
737, the middle seats have larger under seat spaces, but on an older
Southwest 737, the window seats have larger under seat spaces.
Squishy duffel bag type of bags tend to work better as carryons,
since they fit into slightly too small or oddly shaped spaces more
easily.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Frank F. Matthews
beavis wrote:
> In article <d3ijg.24169$0v4....@tornado.texas.rr.com>, Frank F.
> Matthews <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The story isn't embellished. Continental effectively ruined two bags
>>and there is no responsibility. I am seriously considering taking more
>>bags and getting heavier and more reinforced bags. Perhaps metal safes.
>
>
> I work for Continental (as a pilot), and you'd be amazed at the number
> of bags, some very expensive, which are simply not up to the task of
> being loaded on, and unloaded from, an airliner. I see leather garment
> bags (!), and owners surprised when they get scuffed, or discolored on
> a rainy day. And I see $300 "designer" rollers that look like they
> were made as poorly as the $50 ones at Wal-Mart.
Two bags both crushed in the same corner on the same flight. It still
looks to me as if they were dropped from a significant height in a
stack. One bag or a problem at different times OK but they have been
thru a fair amount of service and had survived. I still think that
Continental messed them up.
Frank F. Matthews
PTravel wrote:
> "Frank F. Matthews" <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:n8ijg.24194$bk5....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
>>
>>PTravel wrote:
snip
>>>Airlines are transferring more domestic routes to their contracted
>>>express carriers, who use RJs and other smaller planes. Of the four
>>>flights you described, only one was mainline United. The other three
>>>were on United Express, which is the catch-all term for a number of small
>>>companies that contract with United to provide short-haul domestic
>>>service.
>>>
>>
>>If they show an airline flight number then they are the responsibility of
>>that airline. United was still responsible.
>
>
> Well, yes, but irrelevant to the point, which: The mainline airlines don't
> operate small planes.
>
snip
I have flown fairly small (2-1) planes with Continental flight numbers.
If the airline puts their flight number on the flight I do not care
who they contract for to operate the flight. They are responsible.
I suspect that all the flights mentioned were United flights whoever the
operators were.
beavis
Matthews <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
What kind of bags were they, specifically?
I think you missed my point that many bags are simply not durable
enough for airline baggage handling. We'd love to be able to gently
lift each one, and store it in its own little individual crushproof
container, but that's neither economical nor practical.
What kind of bag? Brand and model, if you know.
Frank F. Matthews
The Brand is Maestro. I have no idea what the model number is. I was
interested by the combination of a hard side with an expandable cloth
side. Sitting vertically say soft front with hard back. It was able to
be pretty waterproof when set on its back yet could expand. Medium size
and probably about 35-40 pounds. On the trip to Charlotte from Houston
both of the bags had the wheel housing crushed on the same side. As I
said I cannot imagine how to make it happen except by dropping a stack
of bags or, perhaps running a cart of bags into an object at speed.
I think what frosted me was the attitude of the baggage staff. "Wheel
housing" -- Your problem. We're not interested in details.
It was clearly not a case of needing a gentile lift.
rkb...@gmail.com
One Way Ticket wrote:
> > Bottom line, as planes get smaller there'll be less room in the cabin for
> > carry-on's. And, planes are getting smaller. At least in interior space
> > per passenger, if not in total size.
>
> This will be something which the airlines will be forced to eventually
> address -- when is too big actually too big. On average I fly three
> times a month. On almost all flights I carry on a briefcase and
> check-in my modest size suitcase. I may be pushing the odds on this,
> but my luggage has never failed to arrive, and I have never been
> restricted by a long wait in baggage claims. Years ago, damage to a
> piece of luggage was promptly addressed by the airline.
I'd say you're pushing the odds. My luggage has failed to arrive
several times. The airlines usually had it to me in a day or
two...though one guest I had finally connected with his luggage only
the day he was leaving the country to return home.
I try not to have anything in my luggage that would be a dire loss if
it went to Bag Heaven.
When on business, I try to ensure I have all crucial documents and
flash memory and so on with me, carry on. I also carry my laptop, which
I would love not to be able to do. However, the risk is too great.
For some years, I travelled only with two carry-ons. Not any more.
Rupa Bose
www.rupabose.org