[Travel 101] No Longer Held Hostage
David Loewe, Jr.
"The Transportation Department, responding to tarmac horror stories,
orders airlines on Monday to let passengers stuck in stranded airplanes
to deplane after three hours.
With its new regulations, the Obama administration is sending an
unequivocal message to airlines that it won't tolerate the delays
experienced by some passengers, such as an overnight ordeal in
Rochester, Minn., last summer."
A step in the right direction.
--
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain
occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive."
- Thomas Jefferson
Paul Ciszek
In article <4c9vi5lq9dfs4cl4h...@4ax.com>,
David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/21/us/AP-US-TarmacStrandings.html?hp
>
>"The Transportation Department, responding to tarmac horror stories,
>orders airlines on Monday to let passengers stuck in stranded airplanes
>to deplane after three hours.
That needs to be amended to "...or whenever the toilet quits working,
whichever happens first."
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Jay E. Morris
On 21-Dec-2009, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "The Transportation Department, responding to tarmac horror stories,
> orders airlines on Monday to let passengers stuck in stranded airplanes
> to deplane after three hours.
>
> With its new regulations, the Obama administration is sending an
> unequivocal message to airlines that it won't tolerate the delays
> experienced by some passengers, such as an overnight ordeal in
> Rochester, Minn., last summer."
>
> A step in the right direction.
And food and drink after two hours.
I don't understand that though. The regulation provides relief at three
hours, but at two it's a threat?
Dorothy J Heydt
Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>In article <4c9vi5lq9dfs4cl4h...@4ax.com>,
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/21/us/AP-US-TarmacStrandings.html?hp
>>
>>"The Transportation Department, responding to tarmac horror stories,
>>orders airlines on Monday to let passengers stuck in stranded airplanes
>>to deplane after three hours.
>
>That needs to be amended to "...or whenever the toilet quits working,
>whichever happens first."
I haven't read the articles past the headlines, but Hal says the
plumbing has to be maintained all the time. If he's reading it
correctly, this is good.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
David V. Loewe, Jr
Ciszek) wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/21/us/AP-US-TarmacStrandings.html?hp
>>
>>"The Transportation Department, responding to tarmac horror stories,
>>orders airlines on Monday to let passengers stuck in stranded airplanes
>>to deplane after three hours.
>
>That needs to be amended to "...or whenever the toilet quits working,
>whichever happens first."
Not happy to make progress, eh Paul?
--
"There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool
following it."
- Laurence VanCott Niven
Paul Ciszek
In article <Kv27n...@kithrup.com>,
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <hgps3r$gc5$3...@reader1.panix.com>,
>Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>In article <4c9vi5lq9dfs4cl4h...@4ax.com>,
>>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/21/us/AP-US-TarmacStrandings.html?hp
>>>
>>>"The Transportation Department, responding to tarmac horror stories,
>>>orders airlines on Monday to let passengers stuck in stranded airplanes
>>>to deplane after three hours.
>>
>>That needs to be amended to "...or whenever the toilet quits working,
>>whichever happens first."
>
>I haven't read the articles past the headlines, but Hal says the
>plumbing has to be maintained all the time. If he's reading it
>correctly, this is good.
There was a news item a while back about an airline that wasn't letting
passengers use the toilet, even when things were going OK. I hope they
had some passengers urinate in the aisle next to the locked bathroom.
Keith F. Lynch
>>> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>> "The Transportation Department, responding to tarmac horror
>>>> stories, orders airlines on Monday to let passengers stuck in
>>>> stranded airplanes to deplane after three hours.
>>> That needs to be amended to "...or whenever the toilet quits
>>> working, whichever happens first."
If passengers had an ounce of backbone, this order would be redundant
and unnecessary, as the airlines on which these horror stories occur
would find they have no passengers, and the remaining airlines would
do everything physically possible to prevent the same from happening
to them.
Some of this lack of backbone is selection bias: The people least
tolerant of being treated like accused criminals have long since
stopped flying, and won't resume flying until the War on Tourism
is over.
>> I haven't read the articles past the headlines, but Hal says the
>> plumbing has to be maintained all the time. If he's reading it
>> correctly, this is good.
I think the airplane toilets not working isn't usually due to the
plumbing breaking, but to the holding tanks becoming full.
> There was a news item a while back about an airline that wasn't
> letting passengers use the toilet, even when things were going OK.
> I hope they had some passengers urinate in the aisle next to the
> locked bathroom.
For Reagan Washington Reagan National Reagan Airport Reagan (DCA),
there was a rule for a while after 9/11 that nobody was allowed to
leave their seat for any reason for a half hour before scheduled
landing -- even if the schedule keeps slipping. I think this rule
was eventually relaxed, perhaps because too many airlines had to
keep reupholstering or replacing expensive seats.
There was also talk for a while about making toilets on planes
coin-operated, but saner heads prevailed.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Alan Woodford
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>> "The Transportation Department, responding to tarmac horror
>>>>> stories, orders airlines on Monday to let passengers stuck in
>>>>> stranded airplanes to deplane after three hours.
>
>>>> That needs to be amended to "...or whenever the toilet quits
>>>> working, whichever happens first."
>
>If passengers had an ounce of backbone, this order would be redundant
>and unnecessary, as the airlines on which these horror stories occur
>would find they have no passengers, and the remaining airlines would
>do everything physically possible to prevent the same from happening
>to them.
>
>Some of this lack of backbone is selection bias: The people least
>tolerant of being treated like accused criminals have long since
>stopped flying, and won't resume flying until the War on Tourism
>is over.
>
So what about those of us, like me, who think that not flying would be
a victory, albeit an indirect one, for the terrorists?
>>> I haven't read the articles past the headlines, but Hal says the
>>> plumbing has to be maintained all the time. If he's reading it
>>> correctly, this is good.
>
>I think the airplane toilets not working isn't usually due to the
>plumbing breaking, but to the holding tanks becoming full.
>
>> There was a news item a while back about an airline that wasn't
>> letting passengers use the toilet, even when things were going OK.
>> I hope they had some passengers urinate in the aisle next to the
>> locked bathroom.
>
>For Reagan Washington Reagan National Reagan Airport Reagan (DCA),
>there was a rule for a while after 9/11 that nobody was allowed to
>leave their seat for any reason for a half hour before scheduled
>landing -- even if the schedule keeps slipping. I think this rule
>was eventually relaxed, perhaps because too many airlines had to
>keep reupholstering or replacing expensive seats.
We had that on our flight back from ConJose, on 12th Sept 2002. The
pilot explained carefully that if anyone was stood up within half an
hours flight time of New York, he was to abort to the nearest airport
and call for a military escort.
To be fair to the pilot, he gave us plenty of warning on the way into
Newark, so most people shouldn't have had too much problem.
On the way out of Newark, we had the same warning, and then flew out
straight over Central Park. There may be logic there, but I can't see
it!
Security Theatre at it's finest :-(
>
>There was also talk for a while about making toilets on planes
>coin-operated, but saner heads prevailed.
Alan Woodford
The Greying Lensman!
David Friedman
Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:25:16 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
...
> >Some of this lack of backbone is selection bias: The people least
> >tolerant of being treated like accused criminals have long since
> >stopped flying, and won't resume flying until the War on Tourism
> >is over.
> >
>
> So what about those of us, like me, who think that not flying would be
> a victory, albeit an indirect one, for the terrorists?
...
> To be fair to the pilot, he gave us plenty of warning on the way into
> Newark, so most people shouldn't have had too much problem.
> On the way out of Newark, we had the same warning, and then flew out
> straight over Central Park. There may be logic there, but I can't see
> it!
>
> Security Theatre at it's finest :-(
I selected these parts of the exchange, because I think the final bit
points out the tension between Keith's view and Alan's. Keith isn't
staying off airplanes because he is afraid of the terrorists but because
he wants to protest the security theater. From his standpoint,
continuing to fly means that the bad guys have won--American bad guys,
not middle eastern bad guys.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_
Alan Woodford
I can understand that, and agree with it to an extent -we went to some
effort and expense to avoid flying to Canada via the US when we went
to this year's Worldcon.
We may well go to Chicago, if they win, but that will be because my
desire to visit Chicago outweighs the irritation caused by the
security theatre.
If I don't do what I would like to do, because of what the bad guys
are doing, I see that as a win for the bad guys, whether they are from
the USA or from the middle east.
Lowell Gilbert
> If I don't do what I would like to do, because of what the bad guys
> are doing, I see that as a win for the bad guys, whether they are from
> the USA or from the middle east.
Whereas in my view, that boat has sailed. The amount of wasted time,
expense, and aggravation that Americans have inflicted on ourselves (and
our visitors) is simply mind-boggling. I don't see that putting myself
through it voluntarily is any less a success for al Qaeda than my
deciding not to fly would be.
Marty Helgesen
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/21/us/AP-US-TarmacStrandings....
>
> "The Transportation Department, responding to tarmac horror stories,
> orders airlines on Monday to let passengers stuck in stranded airplanes
> to deplane after three hours.
>
> With its new regulations, the Obama administration is sending an
> unequivocal message to airlines that it won't tolerate the delays
> experienced by some passengers, such as an overnight ordeal in
> Rochester, Minn., last summer."
>
> A step in the right direction.
> --
> "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain
> occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive."
> - Thomas Jefferson
I occasionally wondered what would have happened if passengers got
tired of waiting to be let off the planes at their destinations and
started pulling the big, red levers to open the emergency exit
slides. The cost of putting new slides in planes might have gotten
the airlines attention.
-----
Marty Helgesen
Mygmailuseridis mnhccatcunyvm
Support the Emergency Committee to Defend the Third Amendment!
Keith F. Lynch
> Keith isn't staying off airplanes because he is afraid of the
> terrorists but because he wants to protest the security theater.
> From his standpoint, continuing to fly means that the bad guys
> have won--American bad guys, not middle eastern bad guys.
I am staying off airplanes for two main reasons:
1. I don't like to be treated as a criminal suspect. This includes
both "security theater" and being held on the tarmac for several
hours.
2. If enough people did the same, airlines would lobby the government
to end the security theater, as the airlines would have few
customers. By putting up with it, I'd be voting with my feet
that the present situation is acceptable. And that would make
me feel guilty, as I would be helping to make the world a worse
place.
As for who has won, I'd say both the terrorists and the government --
and that there's very little I can do about it.
I was baffled by the 9/11 attacks. What were the terrorists hoping to
accomplish? After I saw how the government reacted, I realized the
answer. Bush was correct when he said the terorists hate freedom.
But he then gave them exactly what they wanted!
Perhaps Bush and bin Laden had an implict contract that Bush would
trash freedom in the US, and in return bin Laden would promise to
stage no more attacks. Obama would seem to be a signatory as well.
Keith F. Lynch
> So what about those of us, like me, who think that not flying would
> be a victory, albeit an indirect one, for the terrorists?
If it is, it's the US government that handed them that victory.
By putting up with security theater, I'd be implicitly saying it's
acceptable, and that I don't mind being treated like a suspected
terrorist. It's not acceptable, and I do mind. Businesses that
treat me like a crook rather than like a valued customer don't
get my business.
> We had that on our flight back from ConJose, on 12th Sept 2002. The
> pilot explained carefully that if anyone was stood up within half
> an hours flight time of New York, he was to abort to the nearest
> airport and call for a military escort.
There are people who need to use the bathroom more often than that.
Fortunately, I'm not one of them. Nevertheless, I went to that con by
train. Three and a half days each way, and it cost more than flying.
Are you sure about the date? I stayed past the end of the con, and
my return trip lasted from the morning of the 3rd to the evening of
the 6th. By the 12th I had been home for nearly a week.
Howard S Shubs
> So what about those of us, like me, who think that not flying would be
> a victory, albeit an indirect one, for the terrorists?
You can be wrong. Those of us who don't fly are not giving in to the
terrorists' spawned security theater. We refuse to let them or the
power mongers in our government win.
--
Don't bother with piddly crap like "gun control".
Life is 100% fatal. Ban it.
Alan Woodford
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> So what about those of us, like me, who think that not flying would
>> be a victory, albeit an indirect one, for the terrorists?
>
>If it is, it's the US government that handed them that victory.
>
Oh, I agree, that's why I said "indirect".
>By putting up with security theater, I'd be implicitly saying it's
>acceptable, and that I don't mind being treated like a suspected
>terrorist. It's not acceptable, and I do mind. Businesses that
>treat me like a crook rather than like a valued customer don't
>get my business.
>
I can see your point, and agree with it to a large extent, but to me,
not doing what I would like in order to demonstrate my disgust at what
someone else is doing *can* have an element of cutting my nose off to
spite my face.
>> We had that on our flight back from ConJose, on 12th Sept 2002. The
>> pilot explained carefully that if anyone was stood up within half
>> an hours flight time of New York, he was to abort to the nearest
>> airport and call for a military escort.
>
>There are people who need to use the bathroom more often than that.
>Fortunately, I'm not one of them. Nevertheless, I went to that con by
>train. Three and a half days each way, and it cost more than flying.
>
Are there really many people flying who can't go half an hour between
pee breaks?
As I said, the pilot did his best to minimise the inconvenience,
giving plenty of warning as the deadline approached.
>Are you sure about the date? I stayed past the end of the con, and
>my return trip lasted from the morning of the 3rd to the evening of
>the 6th. By the 12th I had been home for nearly a week.
Yes, I am sure :-)
We stayed in San Francisco for a few days after the con, playing
tourist, and I'd deliberately not booked our flight back for the 11th.
It wasn't that I was expecting terrorist problems, just that I was
expecting overplayed theatre, and unfortunately I wasn't wrong.
The CNN coverage of the anniversary was truly nauseating.
Alan Woodford
wrote:
>In article <h444j51j0qos8jomf...@4ax.com>,
> Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> So what about those of us, like me, who think that not flying would be
>> a victory, albeit an indirect one, for the terrorists?
>
>You can be wrong. Those of us who don't fly are not giving in to the
>terrorists' spawned security theater. We refuse to let them or the
>power mongers in our government win.
But if you aren't doing something you would otherwise do and enjoy,
because of the government's stupid behavior, how is that not a lose
for you?
David Loewe, Jr.
<al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:15:11 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
><k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> We had that on our flight back from ConJose, on 12th Sept 2002. The
>>> pilot explained carefully that if anyone was stood up within half
>>> an hours flight time of New York, he was to abort to the nearest
>>> airport and call for a military escort.
>>
>>There are people who need to use the bathroom more often than that.
>>Fortunately, I'm not one of them. Nevertheless, I went to that con by
>>train. Three and a half days each way, and it cost more than flying.
>
>Are there really many people flying who can't go half an hour between
>pee breaks?
I was going to ask if there are really people who cannot hold it for a
half an hour who aren't wearing diapers...
Sudden explosive diarrhea, yes, I can understand that. But going off to
pee every 30 minutes?
>As I said, the pilot did his best to minimise the inconvenience,
>giving plenty of warning as the deadline approached.
--
"Always look a gift horse in the mouth."
- Milton Friedman
Keith F. Lynch
> I can see your point, and agree with it to a large extent, but to
> me, not doing what I would like in order to demonstrate my disgust
> at what someone else is doing *can* have an element of cutting my
> nose off to spite my face.
I too would hate to think I was missing out on a pleasant, hassle-free
airline trip in which I was treated like a valued customer, not like a
suspected terrorist, just to make a point. But I'm not. That option
simply isn't available to me. No airline offers it.
When that option is once again available, I will consider resuming
long-distance traveling, if I have sufficient money and sufficient
vacation time.
> Are there really many people flying who can't go half an hour
> between pee breaks?
All it takes is one. See for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes_insipidus
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benign_prostatic_hyperplasia
> As I said, the pilot did his best to minimise the inconvenience,
> giving plenty of warning as the deadline approached.
And it's only half an hour if they're able to use the bathroom
immediately before the cutoff, and again immediately after landing.
And if there are no delays in landing.
David Harmon
F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>I was baffled by the 9/11 attacks. What were the terrorists hoping to
>accomplish? After I saw how the government reacted, I realized the
>answer. Bush was correct when he said the terorists hate freedom.
>But he then gave them exactly what they wanted!
That was going to be my reply; you beat me to it.
Alan Woodford
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> I can see your point, and agree with it to a large extent, but to
>> me, not doing what I would like in order to demonstrate my disgust
>> at what someone else is doing *can* have an element of cutting my
>> nose off to spite my face.
>
>I too would hate to think I was missing out on a pleasant, hassle-free
>airline trip in which I was treated like a valued customer, not like a
>suspected terrorist, just to make a point. But I'm not. That option
>simply isn't available to me. No airline offers it.
>
I can see your point, but when I'm flying somewhere, there is a reason
for the trip, and that reason is, for me, a good enough reason to fly
despite the hassle.
And other than the flights back from ConJose, the hassle has not been
as great as you make it sound.
>When that option is once again available, I will consider resuming
>long-distance traveling, if I have sufficient money and sufficient
>vacation time.
>
>> Are there really many people flying who can't go half an hour
>> between pee breaks?
>
>All it takes is one. See for instance:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes_insipidus
>and
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benign_prostatic_hyperplasia
>
>> As I said, the pilot did his best to minimise the inconvenience,
>> giving plenty of warning as the deadline approached.
>
>And it's only half an hour if they're able to use the bathroom
>immediately before the cutoff, and again immediately after landing.
>And if there are no delays in landing.
That's why the pilot gave warnings, so that people could use the
bathroom just before the deadline.
I don't know whether people were using the bathroom immediately after
landing - most of the passengers seemed to be rushing to get off the
plane.
Evelyn Leeper
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:15:11 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> We had that on our flight back from ConJose, on 12th Sept 2002. The
>>> pilot explained carefully that if anyone was stood up within half
>>> an hours flight time of New York, he was to abort to the nearest
>>> airport and call for a military escort.
>>
>> There are people who need to use the bathroom more often than that.
>> Fortunately, I'm not one of them. Nevertheless, I went to that con by
>> train. Three and a half days each way, and it cost more than flying.
>
> Are there really many people flying who can't go half an hour between
> pee breaks?
Don't forget that a half an hour's flight time out of New York can be an
hour (or more) before landing, taxiing to the gate, deplaning, etc. If
you end up circling the airport, it could easily be two hours.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Man is the only animal for whom his own existence is a problem
which he has to solve. -Erich Fromm
Seth
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>I too would hate to think I was missing out on a pleasant, hassle-free
>airline trip in which I was treated like a valued customer, not like a
>suspected terrorist, just to make a point. But I'm not. That option
>simply isn't available to me. No airline offers it.
It's available, but you can't afford it.
Seth
William December Starr
Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> said:
> Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
>> Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> So what about those of us, like me, who think that not flying
>>> would be a victory, albeit an indirect one, for the terrorists?
>>
>> You can be wrong. Those of us who don't fly are not giving in to
>> the terrorists' spawned security theater. We refuse to let them
>> or the power mongers in our government win.
>
> But if you aren't doing something you would otherwise do and
> enjoy, because of the government's stupid behavior, how is that
> not a lose for you?
It looks like both courses of action are losses -- fly and suffer
both the discomfort of security theater and the negative emotional
effects of having to let the jackasses have their way with you, or
not-fly and suffer the negative logistical effects thereof.
-- wds
Keith F. Lynch
I trust that the latest increment in security theater, inspired by
the incompetenet Nigerian Christmas terrorist who only managed to set
himself on fire, will tip the balance toward the latter.
Or is there *no* limit to what passengers are willing to put up with?
Alan Woodford
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> said:
>>> Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>> Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> So what about those of us, like me, who think that not flying
>>>>> would be a victory, albeit an indirect one, for the terrorists?
>
>>>> You can be wrong. Those of us who don't fly are not giving in to
>>>> the terrorists' spawned security theater. We refuse to let them
>>>> or the power mongers in our government win.
>
>>> But if you aren't doing something you would otherwise do and
>>> enjoy, because of the government's stupid behavior, how is that
>>> not a lose for you?
>
>> It looks like both courses of action are losses -- fly and suffer
>> both the discomfort of security theater and the negative emotional
>> effects of having to let the jackasses have their way with you, or
>> not-fly and suffer the negative logistical effects thereof.
>
>I trust that the latest increment in security theater, inspired by
>the incompetenet Nigerian Christmas terrorist who only managed to set
>himself on fire, will tip the balance toward the latter.
>
That depends on what they implement by the next time I fly - I'm
already paid up for Aussiecon, so I'll very likely be flying there.
I'll vot for and join Chicago, but whether I actually attend or not
depends on the security theatre in place then.
>Or is there *no* limit to what passengers are willing to put up with?
There is certainly a limit to what I'll put up with, but it is a
flexible limit - the current theatre level is enough to put me off
going to Reno, but not Australia or Chicago.
It will have to get a lot worse for me not to go to Oz, but it will
have to get less worse to put me off Chicago.
Does anyone actually have a good reason why I shouldn't do things I
want to do that involve flying places, even if I don't like -some- of
what is involved?
I don't like having to wear a shirt and tie for work, but I like the
pay and the holidays, plus the job itself and my workmates.
Should I find another job where I don't have to wear a tie?
It often sounds like this subject is attracting lots of keyboard
warrior typing, but not so much thought.
Keith F. Lynch
> It will have to get a lot worse for me not to go to Oz, but it will
> have to get less worse to put me off Chicago.
How international is airline security theater? A trip from the UK
to Australia and back presumably won't go through the US or be on a
US-flagged carrier.
> It often sounds like this subject is attracting lots of keyboard
> warrior typing, but not so much thought.
I'm not sure what "keyboard warrior" means. If it means someone who
does nothing about a situation except type, the term doesn't apply to
anyone who is in fact refraining from flying due to security theater.
Jette Goldie
> Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> It will have to get a lot worse for me not to go to Oz, but it will
>> have to get less worse to put me off Chicago.
>
> How international is airline security theater? A trip from the UK
> to Australia and back presumably won't go through the US or be on a
> US-flagged carrier.
>
Depends on the route taken - at least one of the flights may pass over
US territory. (one usually has to change planes at least once between
UK and Australia)
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Alan Woodford
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> It will have to get a lot worse for me not to go to Oz, but it will
>> have to get less worse to put me off Chicago.
>
>How international is airline security theater? A trip from the UK
>to Australia and back presumably won't go through the US or be on a
>US-flagged carrier.
The security theatre is pretty much universal now, as far as I'm
aware.
But my experience of it has been less negative outside the US.
It was only the US security guys who left me felling that I had been
treated like pond scum who had dared to disturb their day - the
British, Canadian, Italian, Dutch and Japanese guards I have dealt
with all managed to leave me feeling like I'd been treated as a human,
despite doing more thorough and effective searches than the americans.
Yes, I'm the one who usually gets pulled for an extra check - long
hair, long straggly beard and a relatively dark complexion :-) but the
non-Americans seem to be able to do it without the nastiness of the
Americans.
>
>> It often sounds like this subject is attracting lots of keyboard
>> warrior typing, but not so much thought.
>
>I'm not sure what "keyboard warrior" means. If it means someone who
>does nothing about a situation except type, the term doesn't apply to
>anyone who is in fact refraining from flying due to security theater.
Lines like:
"Or is there *no* limit to what passengers are willing to put up
with?"
from your previous post in this thread, certainly seem to me to be
implying that you are right and the other person is a fool for not
doing things your way.
That may well not be your intention, but that is certainly how it
comes across to me.
Kip Williams
> I'm not sure what "keyboard warrior" means. If it means someone who
> does nothing about a situation except type, the term doesn't apply to
> anyone who is in fact refraining from flying due to security theater.
I myself am heroically refraining from climbing up the outsides of tall
buildings.
Kip W
Keith F. Lynch
> Alan Woodford wrote:
>> Are there really many people flying who can't go half an hour
>> between pee breaks?
> Don't forget that a half an hour's flight time out of New York can be
> an hour (or more) before landing, taxiing to the gate, deplaning, etc.
> If you end up circling the airport, it could easily be two hours.
As part of the increased security, passengers on a flight Saturday
from Brussels, Belgium, to Dulles Airport in Virginia were not
allowed to leave their seats for the last hour of the flight,
a traveler told CNN.
Niki Yazzie said the flight crew told the passengers that they had
to remain in their seats with their seatbelts fastened and couldn't
have any items, such as pillows or blankets, covering their laps;
everything was stowed away.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/12/26/us.passenger.restrictions/
As I mentioned, it used to be a half hour, and only for DCA, which is
much closer to DC than Dulles is. And the "no items" rule is new, I
think. Sigh.
They are of course blaming it on the Nigerian Christmas terrorist
whose savage attack completely destroyed his own trousers.
If he didn't exist, it would be necessary for the TSA to create him.
Karl Johanson
Smarter than climbing mountains. If you fall off the building you can likely
find some bone headed judge who'll let you file a lawsuit against the
building owners. Most mountains aren't owned by someone.
Karl Johanson
David Loewe, Jr.
One wonders, since Mr. Lynch admits he has not flown in a long time,
what exactly he thinks goes on and how prevalent it is.
I am flying to Chicago tomorrow and back on Tuesday - not having flown
since before 9/11. I will give a critique of security theater when I
get back.
--
"I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've
always worked for me."
- Hunter S. Thompson
David V. Loewe, Jr
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Evelyn Leeper <ele...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> Alan Woodford wrote:
>>> Are there really many people flying who can't go half an hour
>>> between pee breaks?
>
>> Don't forget that a half an hour's flight time out of New York can be
>> an hour (or more) before landing, taxiing to the gate, deplaning, etc.
>> If you end up circling the airport, it could easily be two hours.
>
> As part of the increased security, passengers on a flight Saturday
> from Brussels, Belgium, to Dulles Airport in Virginia were not
> allowed to leave their seats for the last hour of the flight,
> a traveler told CNN.
>
> Niki Yazzie said the flight crew told the passengers that they had
> to remain in their seats with their seatbelts fastened and couldn't
> have any items, such as pillows or blankets, covering their laps;
> everything was stowed away.
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/12/26/us.passenger.restrictions/
>
>As I mentioned, it used to be a half hour, and only for DCA, which is
>much closer to DC than Dulles is. And the "no items" rule is new, I
>think. Sigh.
>
>They are of course blaming it on the Nigerian Christmas terrorist
>whose savage attack completely destroyed his own trousers.
Reportedly, he had PETN in his shorts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaerythritol_tetranitrate
There seems to have been enough to have blown a large enough hole in the
plane to have destroyed it in flight.
>If he didn't exist, it would be necessary for the TSA to create him.
--
"...you know, it seems to me you suffer from the problem of
wanting a tailored fit in an off the rack world."
Dennis Juds
David Friedman
Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I'll vot for and join Chicago, but whether I actually attend or not
> depends on the security theatre in place then.
At a tangent ... . Has anyone tried putting on a virtual con? I'm
imagining either something in Second Life, or an equivalent done with
conferencing software, which I gather is now readily available. It would
some of the attractions of a realspace convention, of course, but it
would save a lot on travel costs.
...
> Does anyone actually have a good reason why I shouldn't do things I
> want to do that involve flying places, even if I don't like -some- of
> what is involved?
I don't know about a good reason why you shouldn't, but I think there is
a straightforward explanation for the general attitude Keith is arguing
for in this particular case.
It's often rational to commit oneself to take certain actions under
certain ccircumstances where, if the relevant situation actually came
up, you would prefer not to take those actions. A clear example is
vengefulness. If you know that injuring me (broadly defined) will result
in my going to a lot of trouble to injure you in return, that's a reason
not to injure me. One can easily imagine circumstances where, after the
fact, revenge costs more than it's worth, but being somehow committed to
it is still in my interest.
The strategy doesn't work very well in a large society--my refusal to
fly represents a trivial cost to the airlines, so the knowledge that I'm
the sort of person who will get mad at them and stop flying if they do
certain things will have a negligable effect in deterring those things.
On the other hand, a lot of our interactions are in much smaller
contexts, so having the (hardwired or learned) propensity to try to get
back at those whom I see as injuring me may still be in my interest.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_
Jette Goldie
> In article <m38fj5dfoqipq3qfj...@4ax.com>,
> Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I'll vot for and join Chicago, but whether I actually attend or not
>> depends on the security theatre in place then.
>
> At a tangent ... . Has anyone tried putting on a virtual con? I'm
> imagining either something in Second Life, or an equivalent done with
> conferencing software, which I gather is now readily available. It would
> some of the attractions of a realspace convention, of course, but it
> would save a lot on travel costs.
>
>
many years ago, yes - nothing so fancy as Second Life - it was all
done on usenet and a few web forums.
Robert Sneddon
<jgold...@btinternet.com> writes
>Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> How international is airline security theater? A trip from the UK
>> to Australia and back presumably won't go through the US or be on a
>> US-flagged carrier.
>Depends on the route taken - at least one of the flights may pass over
>US territory. (one usually has to change planes at least once between
>UK and Australia)
I recently read a comment by someone who had flown to Canada from
Australia. His plane had landed to refuel at Hawaii; during this
procedure the passengers were deplaned. At that point he found he had to
complete an unexpected immigration procedure and got asked questions
such as why he was wishing to enter the United States. The immigration
staff found it difficult to understand that he didn't want enter the US;
at no point did he leave airside or ever intend to.
Other countries with aircraft landing to refuel and continuing to other
countries from their airports do not usually require that passengers go
through an immigration process. It is also usual that people changing
planes and continuing to another country aren't required to go through
immigration, again something that is specifically required in the US.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
Dorothy J Heydt
Lowell Gilbert
> Reportedly, he had PETN in his shorts.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaerythritol_tetranitrate
>
> There seems to have been enough to have blown a large enough hole in the
> plane to have destroyed it in flight.
So far, all statements of that sort have been hedged in pretty much the
same way that they were with Richard Reid (who had the same stuff in his
"shoe bomb"). "It's possible" that the bomb could have affected the
airframe, according to the FBI labs. Eventually, there will be another
competent Al Qaeda attack on a US airplane or building, and this guy may
be the first since 2001, but so far that is far from clear.
Ben Yalow
That varies in other countries.
The last time I flew to the UK from the US with a change in Canada, I had
to clear Canadian Customs/Immigration even though I never left airside in
Toronto.
See http://www.gtaa.com/en/travellers/connecting/connection_tips/ for the
rules about changing there.
>--
> To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
Keith F. Lynch
Keith F. Lynch
> At a tangent .... Has anyone tried putting on a virtual con?
Isn't that exactly what rasff is? A perpetual virtual SF convention?
> If you know that injuring me (broadly defined) will result in my
> going to a lot of trouble to injure you in return, that's a reason
> not to injure me. One can easily imagine circumstances where, after
> the fact, revenge costs more than it's worth, but being somehow
> committed to it is still in my interest.
Indeed. I've heard that stores will prosecute even the most trivial
of shoplifters. The cost of doing so (employees spending time
testifying in court, etc.) is much higher than the costs of the goods
lost in that one case. But if they didn't do so, thieves would become
more numerous and bolder. Just as spammers have, once they discovered
that with negligible exceptions nobody is bothering to prosecute even
the most outrageous non-stop scams, frauds, identity thefts, and
denial of service attacks.
> The strategy doesn't work very well in a large society--my refusal
> to fly represents a trivial cost to the airlines, so the knowledge
> that I'm the sort of person who will get mad at them and stop flying
> if they do certain things will have a negligable effect in deterring
> those things.
The main reason for you to not fly is so that *you* don't experience
the security theater. It's a happy circumstance that if enough people
do the same, airlines will be motivated to lobby the government to
reduce security theater.
As such, it's more rational than voting. If you stay home on voting
day, that doesn't mean you won't have to experience the Obama
presidency. And while it takes nearly 50% of the voters to change
who is elected (not quite 50% due to third parties), a far smaller
percentage of people avoiding flying would suffice to make the
airlines cry "uncle."
Dorothy J Heydt
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>[nothing but quoted text]
Yeah; sorry about that. I thought I would comment; and then I
decided I wouldn't; and then I typed 's' instead of whatever I
was going to type instead.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Alan Woodford
But if you don't fly, you are missing out on whatever you are flying
for.
For most people, that is a non-trivial cost compared to the
inconvenience of the security theatre.
>As such, it's more rational than voting. If you stay home on voting
>day, that doesn't mean you won't have to experience the Obama
>presidency. And while it takes nearly 50% of the voters to change
>who is elected (not quite 50% due to third parties), a far smaller
>percentage of people avoiding flying would suffice to make the
>airlines cry "uncle."
Yes, but that is still a large number of people to miss out on their
buisiness trips, holidays, or whatever.
You have often pointed out how difficult it is to get places without
flying, so why would you expect any significant numbers of people to
give up on the undoubted benefits of flying, to avoid the security
theatre?
Me, I like flying. A lot of people don't like it, or are positively
scared of flying, but are still willing to put up with that for the
benefits they get. Why will security theatre be any different?
Karl Johanson
>> At a tangent .... Has anyone tried putting on a virtual con?
>
> Isn't that exactly what rasff is? A perpetual virtual SF convention?
>
>> If you know that injuring me (broadly defined) will result in my
>> going to a lot of trouble to injure you in return, that's a reason
>> not to injure me. One can easily imagine circumstances where, after
>> the fact, revenge costs more than it's worth, but being somehow
>> committed to it is still in my interest.
>
> Indeed. I've heard that stores will prosecute even the most trivial
> of shoplifters. The cost of doing so (employees spending time
> testifying in court, etc.) is much higher than the costs of the goods
> lost in that one case. But if they didn't do so, thieves would become
> more numerous and bolder. Just as spammers have, once they discovered
> that with negligible exceptions nobody is bothering to prosecute even
> the most outrageous non-stop scams, frauds, identity thefts, and
> denial of service attacks.
One department store in Canada sends shoplifters a bill for their estimated
cost of prosecuting them. I seem to remember their estimate being around
$400 to $500. I forget the percentage of people who paid the bill.
Karl Johanson
David Goldfarb
Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Lines like:
>
>"Or is there *no* limit to what passengers are willing to put up
>with?"
>
>from your previous post in this thread, certainly seem to me to be
>implying that you are right and the other person is a fool for not
>doing things your way.
Keith? Implying that people who don't share his methods and
preferences are fools? No! Unprecedented!
--
David Goldfarb |"I continue to believe...that...GUIs are
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | a passing fad that will eventually subside
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | into a niche market." -- Keith Lynch
William December Starr
Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> said:
> You have often pointed out how difficult it is to get places
> without flying, so why would you expect any significant numbers of
> people to give up on the undoubted benefits of flying, to avoid
> the security theatre?
>
> Me, I like flying. A lot of people don't like it, or are
> positively scared of flying, but are still willing to put up with
> that for the benefits they get. Why will security theatre be any
> different?
You never know. Some people might see a quantitative difference
between:
(a) "This bad part of the flying experience is imposed upon me
by the physical laws of the universe,
(b) "This bad part of the flying experience is imposed upon me by
presumably rational business/economic choices made by the people
running the airlines, along with my own economic decisions," and
(c) "This bad part of the flying experience is unnecessary crap
imposed upon me by a pack of complete jacktards hopped-up on power
that they should never have been given in the first place,"
and might be far more greatly deterred from flying by category (c)
than by (a) or (b).
-- wds
William December Starr
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> said:
> One department store in Canada sends shoplifters a bill for their
> estimated cost of prosecuting them. I seem to remember their
> estimate being around $400 to $500. I forget the percentage of
> people who paid the bill.
What if anything have the courts said about the legitimacy of that
practice? I can see a reasonable argument to be made for
"Prosecuting me was _your_ choice; I'm under no obligation to pay
for it."
Hell, if it was the United States I could see recipients of these
bills suing the stores over it.
-- wds
David V. Loewe, Jr
Starr) wrote:
Or might not be...
--
"I pissed a lot of people off today. I'm good at that."
-- Tim Masterson
David Loewe, Jr.
Starr) wrote:
And I could see the stores suing for court costs...
--
"Well, morning comes and you're still with her
And the bus and the tourists are gone
And you've thrown away the choice and lost your ticket
So you have to stay on."
Al Stewart & Peter Wood
Evelyn Leeper
I'll note that much of (b) lasts for the whole flight (e.g., you are
folded up like a pretzel in a too-small seat, and can never get up
because they're always just coming through with the cart and want
everyone out of the aisles), while (c) (at least until now) has been
something that is of much shorter duration.
Most six-foot-six chain smokers have long given up flying, one suspects.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Man is the only animal for whom his own existence is a problem
which he has to solve. -Erich Fromm
Alan Woodford
Starr) wrote:
-Might- be is the operative phrase. To read some posters here it seems
like they think it -should- be.
David Friedman
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> In article <64bfj5hq72bb9mqat...@4ax.com>,
> Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Lines like:
> >
> >"Or is there *no* limit to what passengers are willing to put up
> >with?"
> >
> >from your previous post in this thread, certainly seem to me to be
> >implying that you are right and the other person is a fool for not
> >doing things your way.
>
> Keith? Implying that people who don't share his methods and
> preferences are fools? No! Unprecedented!
The implication isn't that people are fools--more nearly that they are
wimps.
Robin Johnson
About the stupid Nigerian: He was apparently told to blow up the
Northwest Amsterdam-Detroit flight
over US territory. Has anyone looked at the route? Only the last few
minutes are over the US.
He seems to have bought a one-way ticket for cash, without any checked
baggage. Lagos airport
should surely have flagged that as unusual - that's what idiot Rogers
did for his Paris-Miami flight.
Nowadays does not a foreigner has to show he has a flight booked out
of the country before being
allowed to board a US-bound flight? It's true of a foreigner visiting
Australia.
Air Canada flights from Australia are now non-stop to Vancouver,
eliminating the annoying Honolulu
stop with enforced US Immigration - and non-existent emigration -
checks. There are still a few other
international flights with intermediate US stops (and of course
diverted flights via a US port would
have the same problem) such as Brazil-Japan and UK-New Zealand.
Allowing Ben's noted exception - possibly due to the location within
Canadian airports of US
Immigation facilities - all other international-in-transit passengers
worldwide do not find it necessary
to go through any immigration procedures - even if changing airline.
As far as I know, the one-hour-before-landing restriction is not
applied here in Australia. How long did
the Washington half-hour restriction endure after the late
unpleasantness? And if they are really
banning people from reading books during this period I hope they stop
the practice of turning off the
video and moving-map display!
About not flying: I live on an island over an hour's flight from
mainland Australia. I have no real
alternative. The busiest air route in Australia currently has 78
flights daily each way, scheduled at
90 minutes or so, many aboard wide-bodied airliners, Alternative
public transport consists of two
daily trans, and four coach (bus) trips daily, takes about 12 hours,
and is cheaper. It is unlikely we
will have the equivalent of French Very Fast Rail service for at least
ten years on this route
(Melbourne-Sydney), and that is optimistic!
Air travel, lunatic terrorists or TSAs or not, is with us to stay. I
can't see the US without air travel
either, short of matter transmission!
David Friedman
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <nWXZm.119976$gg6.1...@newsfe25.iad>,
> "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> said:
>
> > One department store in Canada sends shoplifters a bill for their
> > estimated cost of prosecuting them. I seem to remember their
> > estimate being around $400 to $500. I forget the percentage of
> > people who paid the bill.
>
> What if anything have the courts said about the legitimacy of that
> practice? I can see a reasonable argument to be made for
> "Prosecuting me was _your_ choice; I'm under no obligation to pay
> for it."
Does "prosecuting them" mean suing them or encouraging the criminal
justice system to prosecute them? Crimes are not privately prosecuted in
modern systems, with a few rare exceptions.
As a general rule in U.S. law, each side in a civil case pays its own
costs. Occasionally, one party is required to pay an estimate of the
other party's costs on the grounds (I think) that its legal position was
so obviously wrong that the other party shouldn't have had to go to the
trouble of winning the case.
The English rule, on the other hand, is that the losing party normally
pays an estimate of the winning party's costs. I don't know if Canada
follows that as well or not.
David Friedman
<a0640379-03a4-4eb4...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Robin Johnson <rerjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I
> can't see the US without air travel
> either, short of matter transmission!
Isn't a much increased use of virtual reality a more likely
technological change in that direction?
Karl Johanson
> "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> said:
>
>> One department store in Canada sends shoplifters a bill for their
>> estimated cost of prosecuting them. I seem to remember their
>> estimate being around $400 to $500. I forget the percentage of
>> people who paid the bill.
>
> What if anything have the courts said about the legitimacy of that
> practice? I can see a reasonable argument to be made for
> "Prosecuting me was _your_ choice; I'm under no obligation to pay
> for it."
My understanding is that there is no obligation to pay, but that a
substantial percentage of people do.
Alan Woodford
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <KvCMH...@kithrup.com>,
> gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>
>> In article <64bfj5hq72bb9mqat...@4ax.com>,
>> Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Lines like:
>> >
>> >"Or is there *no* limit to what passengers are willing to put up
>> >with?"
>> >
>> >from your previous post in this thread, certainly seem to me to be
>> >implying that you are right and the other person is a fool for not
>> >doing things your way.
>>
>> Keith? Implying that people who don't share his methods and
>> preferences are fools? No! Unprecedented!
>
>The implication isn't that people are fools--more nearly that they are
>wimps.
So I'm a wimp for not letting governments put me off doing what I want
to do?
This is obviously some strange usage of the word wimp that I was not
previously aware of! :-)
Karl Johanson
> In article <hh9tcs$5v2$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> In article <nWXZm.119976$gg6.1...@newsfe25.iad>,
>> "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> said:
>>
>> > One department store in Canada sends shoplifters a bill for their
>> > estimated cost of prosecuting them. I seem to remember their
>> > estimate being around $400 to $500. I forget the percentage of
>> > people who paid the bill.
>>
>> What if anything have the courts said about the legitimacy of that
>> practice? I can see a reasonable argument to be made for
>> "Prosecuting me was _your_ choice; I'm under no obligation to pay
>> for it."
>
> Does "prosecuting them" mean suing them or encouraging the criminal
> justice system to prosecute them?
I meant the latter.
>Crimes are not privately prosecuted in
> modern systems, with a few rare exceptions.
>
> As a general rule in U.S. law, each side in a civil case pays its own
> costs. Occasionally, one party is required to pay an estimate of the
> other party's costs on the grounds (I think) that its legal position was
> so obviously wrong that the other party shouldn't have had to go to the
> trouble of winning the case.
>
> The English rule, on the other hand, is that the losing party normally
> pays an estimate of the winning party's costs. I don't know if Canada
> follows that as well or not.
A portion of the winners court costs are paid by the loser in some civil
cases. I don't know about criminal cases.
Karl Johanson
Seth
Evelyn Leeper <ele...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Alan Woodford wrote:
>> Are there really many people flying who can't go half an hour between
>> pee breaks?
>
>Don't forget that a half an hour's flight time out of New York can be an
>hour (or more) before landing, taxiing to the gate, deplaning, etc. If
>you end up circling the airport, it could easily be two hours.
There's very little circling these days (it was a victim of Reagan
firing the air traffic controllers for refusing to allow forward
control).
Once the plane is at the gate, there's no prohibition against using
the lavatory, so someone stuck in the back (with a long time before
deplaning) has another option. (In fact, the regulation wouldn't
prohibit using it once the plane landed, so if there's a 45 minute
wait for a gate (as has happened to me), that's still not too much of
a problem.)
Seth
Seth
David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>Reportedly, he had PETN in his shorts.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaerythritol_tetranitrate
>
>There seems to have been enough to have blown a large enough hole in the
>plane to have destroyed it in flight.
How large a hole would that take? (Hint: Aloha Flight 243, about half
of the airplane's skin tore off, and it landed safely.)
Seth
David Friedman
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > The English rule, on the other hand, is that the losing party normally
> > pays an estimate of the winning party's costs. I don't know if Canada
> > follows that as well or not.
>
> A portion of the winners court costs are paid by the loser in some civil
> cases. I don't know about criminal cases.
I've never heard of such a thing in a criminal case.
Under Athenian law, if the (private) prosecutor in a criminal case
failed to get at least 30% of the jury to vote for conviction, the
prosecutor was fined. But I don't think any of the fine went to the
defendant.
Karl Johanson
news:ddfr-E593D2.1...@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com...
> In article <Ko6_m.85999$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad>,
> "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> > The English rule, on the other hand, is that the losing party normally
>> > pays an estimate of the winning party's costs. I don't know if Canada
>> > follows that as well or not.
>>
>> A portion of the winners court costs are paid by the loser in some civil
>> cases. I don't know about criminal cases.
>
> I've never heard of such a thing in a criminal case.
I hadn't before this. It was mentioned by a rep of a department store (I
forget which one) on a radio show around 10 years ago.
> Under Athenian law, if the (private) prosecutor in a criminal case
> failed to get at least 30% of the jury to vote for conviction, the
> prosecutor was fined. But I don't think any of the fine went to the
> defendant.
Karl Johanson
William December Starr
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
> I am flying to Chicago tomorrow and back on Tuesday - not having
> flown since before 9/11. I will give a critique of security
> theater when I get back.
I believe that the newest TSA rules only apply to flights
"departing from any foreign location to the United States
(including its territories and possessions)."
The reason I think this is that someone posted the following
in a private newsgroup, but didn't say what his source was:
-------- [ *cut_here* ] -----------------------------------------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Transportation Security Administration
Aviation Security Directive
Subject: Security Directive
Number: SD 1544-09-06
Date: December 25, 2009
EXPIRATION: 0200Z on December 30, 2009
This Security Directive (SD) must be implemented immediately. The measures
contained in this SD are in addition to all other SDs currently in effect
for your operations.
INFORMATION: On December 25, 2009, a terrorist attack was attempted
against a flight traveling to the United States. TSA has identified
security measures to be implemented by airports, aircraft operators, and
foreign air carriers to mitigate potential threats to flights.
APPLICABILITY: THIS SD APPLIES TO AIRCRAFT OPERATORS THAT CARRY OUT A
SECURITY PROGRAM REGULATED UNDER 49 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
(CFR)1544.101(a).
ACTIONS REQUIRED: If you conduct scheduled and/or public charter flight
operations under a Full Program under 49 CFR 1544.101(a) departing from
any foreign location to the United States (including its territories and
possessions), you must immediately implement all measures in this SD for
each such flight.
1. BOARDING GATE
1. The aircraft operator or authorized air carrier representative must
ensure all passengers are screened at the boarding gate during the
boarding process using the following procedures. These procedures are in
addition to the screening of all passengers at the screening checkpoint.
1. Perform thorough pat-down of all passengers at boarding gate prior to
boarding, concentrating on upper legs and torso.
2. Physically inspect 100 percent of all passenger accessible property at
the boarding gate prior to boarding, with focus on syringes being
transported along with powders and/or liquids.
3. Ensure the liquids, aerosols, and gels restrictions are strictly
adhered to in accordance with SD 1544-06-02E.
2. During the boarding process, the air carrier may exempt passengers who
are Heads of State or Heads of Government from the measures outlined in
Section I.A. of this SD, including the following who are traveling with
the Head of State or Head of Government:
1. Spouse and children, or
2. One other individual (chosen by the Head of State or Head of
Government)
3. For the purposes of Section I.B., the following definitions apply:
1. Head of State: An individual serving as the chief public representative
of a monarchic or republican nation-state, federation, commonwealth, or
any other political state (for example, King, Queen, and President).
2. Head of Government: The chief officer of the executive branch of a
government presiding over a cabinet (for example, Prime Minister, Premier,
President, and Monarch).
2. IN FLIGHT
1. During flight, the aircraft operator must ensure that the following
procedures are followed:
1. Passengers must remain in seats beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at
destination.
2. Passenger access to carry-on baggage is prohibited beginning 1 hour
prior to arrival at destination.
3. Disable aircraft-integrated passenger communications systems and
services (phone, internet access services, live television programming,
global positioning systems) prior to boarding and during all phases of
flight.
4. While over U.S. airspace, flight crew may not make any announcement to
passengers concerning flight path or position over cities or landmarks.
5. Passengers may not have any blankets, pillows, or personal belongings
on the lap beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.
AIRCRAFT OPERATOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The aircraft operator must immediately
provide written confirmation to its assigned PSI indicating receipt of
this SD.
AIRCRAFT OPERATOR dissemination required: The aircraft operator must
immediately pass the information and directives set forth in this SD to
all stations affected, and provide written confirmation to its PSI,
indicating that all stations affected have acknowledged receipt of the
information and directives set forth in this SD. The aircraft operator
must disseminate this information to its senior management personnel,
ground security coordinators, and supervisory security personnel at all
affected locations. All aircraft operator personnel implementing this SD
must be briefed by the aircraft operator on its content and the
restrictions governing dissemination. No other dissemination may be made
without prior approval of the Assistant Secretary for the Transportation
Security Administration. Unauthorized dissemination of this document or
information contained herein is prohibited by 49 CFR Part 1520 (see 69
Fed. Reg. 28066 (May 18, 2004).
APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE MEASURES: With respect to the provisions of this
SD, as stated in 49 CFR 1544.305(d), the aircraft operator may submit in
writing to its PSI proposed alternative measures and the basis for
submitting the alternative measures for approval by the Assistant
Administrator for Transportation Sector Network Management. The aircraft
operator must immediately notify its PSI whenever any procedure in this SD
cannot be carried out by a government authority charged with performing
security procedures.
FOR TSA ACTION ONLY: The TSA must issue this SD immediately to the
corporate security element of all affected U.S. aircraft operators.
FOR STATE DEPARTMENT: Retransmittal to appropriate foreign posts is
authorized. Post must refer to STATE 162917, 201826Z Sep 01, Subject: FAA
Security Directives and Information Circulars: Definitions and Handling,
for specific guidance and dissemination.
Gale Rossides
Acting Administrator
-------- [ *cut_here* ] -----------------------------------------
Keith F. Lynch
> 2. Passenger access to carry-on baggage is prohibited beginning 1
> hour prior to arrival at destination.
I wonder if that means you aren't allowed to read a book then.
> 3. Disable aircraft-integrated passenger communications systems
> and services (phone, internet access services, live television
> programming, global positioning systems) prior to boarding and
> during all phases of flight.
*Why*?
> Unauthorized dissemination of this document or information contained
> herein is prohibited by 49 CFR Part 1520 (see 69 Fed. Reg. 28066
> (May 18, 2004).
Tsk, tsk. You're in trouble now. Actually allowing people to know
the laws we're required to obey. Next you'll be revealing the text of
the Constitution itself! Won't someone please think of the children?
> APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE MEASURES: With respect to the provisions of
> this SD, as stated in 49 CFR 1544.305(d), the aircraft operator may
> submit in writing to its PSI proposed alternative measures and the
> basis for submitting the alternative measures for approval by the
> Assistant Administrator for Transportation Sector Network Management.
How are they supposed to do that when some of these rules (e.g. no
in-flight Internet) have no evident purpose?
Tbanks for forwarding that.
Keith F. Lynch
> There's very little circling these days (it was a victim of Reagan
> firing the air traffic controllers for refusing to allow forward
> control).
Was that what he fired him for?
I wouldn't mind seeing similar union-busting in Metro. Overpaid
employees are demanding *raises* at the same time as Metro is once
again discussing what combination of fare increases, tapxayer subsidy
increases, and service cuts will be needed to break even next year.
I wish they'd go on strike, and be fired and replaced by a smaller
number of people each making about a third the salary, i.e. earning
close to the median US income.
Keith F. Lynch
> About the stupid Nigerian: He was apparently told to blow up the
> Northwest Amsterdam-Detroit flight over US territory. Has anyone
> looked at the route? Only the last few minutes are over the US.
According to the secret new rules William December Starr forwarded
to this newsgroup, from now on this will be prevented by keeping
the plane's location secret from the passengers. Don't you feel
safer already?
Perhaps passengers will be given a pre-boarding geography test,
and those who know too much will be added to the no-fly list.
> He seems to have bought a one-way ticket for cash, without any
> checked baggage. Lagos airport should surely have flagged that
> as unusual ...
So what if it's unusual? What action should they have taken in
response to it? And would any such action do anything except
inconvenience legitimate passengers? Obviously terrorists can get a
round trip ticket even if they have no intention of using the return
half of it. And can check baggage. And use a credit card, even if
it's an anonymous prepaid card. All these are negligible expenses
for a major terrorist mission, but major hassles for a legitimate
passenger on a limited budget.
> As far as I know, the one-hour-before-landing restriction is not
> applied here in Australia. How long did the Washington half-hour
> restriction endure after the late unpleasantness?
I don't know, though it was my possibly mistaken impression that it
did eventually go away. As we've seen, it has now returned, and
doubled. And not just for DC.
> And if they are really banning people from reading books during this
> period
It's not clear whether nothing-in-your-lap and carry-on-luggage-stowed
means no book in front of your face. Interpretation of such ambiguous
rules may vary from one airline to the next, or even one plane to the
next, until the new rules are clarified. Which may take a while if
the rules are indeed secret.
> I hope they stop the practice of turning off the video and
> moving-map display!
Apparently there will be no more moving-map display at any time during
the flight. And of course carry-on GPS units are right out.
> About not flying: I live on an island over an hour's flight from
> mainland Australia. I have no real alternative.
Since that flight doesn't go to or through the US, that shouldn't be
an issue.
William December Starr
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> said:
>> 3. Disable aircraft-integrated passenger communications systems
>> and services (phone, internet access services, live television
>> programming, global positioning systems) prior to boarding and
>> during all phases of flight.
>
> *Why*?
In case the bad guy wants to detonate his bomb when the plane's
in a particular place, like over the U.S. instead of Canada
(apparently a factor in the case-in-point's flight to Detroit),
or perhaps at a point calculated to rain wreckage down on the
ground most (a) destructively and/or (b) photogenically.
I assume that the TSA powers-that-be are thinking about mandating
that windows be blacked out too, so that Bad Guy won't know
whether the plane's over land or water. (I imagine that the
propaganda value of crashing a plane goes way down when it
effectively just disappears over the ocean; see "photogenic
wreckage," above.)
-- wds
Paul Ciszek
Ivana Trump was in the news recently when some kids running up and
down the aisle in a plane sent her over the edge. Under the new
rules, would the law crack down on the kids instead?
Supposedly the wealthy can skip all of the TSA bullshit by chartering
a non-scheduled flight out of a smaller airport that doesn't have any
TSA. Have any fen tried to pool their resources and get to a
convention this way? How many people can do this before they start
sending TSA goons to the small airports as well?
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Paul Ciszek
In article <6396b8f8-8a36-4d33...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
>
>I occasionally wondered what would have happened if passengers got
>tired of waiting to be let off the planes at their destinations and
>started pulling the big, red levers to open the emergency exit
>slides. The cost of putting new slides in planes might have gotten
>the airlines attention.
You could do that, provided you were absolutely certain that you
would never, ever, need to take an airplane anywhere ever again.
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> Supposedly the wealthy can skip all of the TSA bullshit by chartering
> a non-scheduled flight out of a smaller airport that doesn't have any
> TSA. Have any fen tried to pool their resources and get to a
> convention this way? How many people can do this before they start
> sending TSA goons to the small airports as well?
I've flown on a private plane a couple of times--not at my expense. It's
much pleasanter and more convenient than a standard commercial flight.
Seth
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Seth <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>> There's very little circling these days (it was a victim of Reagan
>> firing the air traffic controllers for refusing to allow forward
>> control).
>
>Was that what he fired him for?
They were fired for striking illegally. The reason for the strike was
the government's insistence that forward air traffic control (a plane
doesn't take off until it has a reserved landing slot, so planes don't
have to circle their destination airport much if at all) be allowed,
and the ATC union refused to allow that (because planes circling
required more controllers, hence more people paying union dues).
>I wouldn't mind seeing similar union-busting in Metro.
>I wish they'd go on strike, and be fired and replaced by a smaller
>number of people each making about a third the salary, i.e. earning
>close to the median US income.
Too bad it can't happen that way, for political reasons.
Seth
Seth
Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Supposedly the wealthy can skip all of the TSA bullshit by chartering
>a non-scheduled flight out of a smaller airport that doesn't have any
>TSA.
It doesn't have to be an airport without the TSA. It only has to be
one that has private aviation available (which is almost all, except
for the most overcrowded). For example, White Plains Airport has such
flights (and a piloting school or two).
> Have any fen tried to pool their resources and get to a
>convention this way?
It's a lot more expensive per person (at least until you get to full
large planes).
> How many people can do this before they start
>sending TSA goons to the small airports as well?
See above.
Seth
Seth
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>The reason I think this is that someone posted the following
>in a private newsgroup, but didn't say what his source was:
>
>-------- [ *cut_here* ] -----------------------------------------
>
>U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
>Transportation Security Administration
>
>Aviation Security Directive
>
>Subject: Security Directive
>Number: SD 1544-09-06
>Date: December 25, 2009
>
>EXPIRATION: 0200Z on December 30, 2009
So at least those rules are self-expiring. Perhaps they'll be
replaced with something more sensible. I won't hold my breath.
The source seems to be
http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2009/12/27/tsa-security-directive-sd-1544-09-06-the-fallout-from-nw253/
who doesn't specify its source.
Seth
Seth
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>I assume that the TSA powers-that-be are thinking about mandating
>that windows be blacked out too, so that Bad Guy won't know
>whether the plane's over land or water.
I suppose arrival times will be kept secret, too.
The TSA likely won't offer to pay for the fuel used to provide
lighting that wouldn't be required without the blackout shades,
either.
Seth
Keith F. Lynch
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>> I assume that the TSA powers-that-be are thinking about mandating
>> that windows be blacked out too, so that Bad Guy won't know whether
>> the plane's over land or water.
> I suppose arrival times will be kept secret, too.
Or they could ban watches and clocks from the passenger cabin.
> The TSA likely won't offer to pay for the fuel used to provide
> lighting that wouldn't be required without the blackout shades,
> either.
On the other hand, planes can be made lighter and stronger if they're
made without passenger windows.
Perhaps airports will be equipped with giant tilt-tables and vibrators
so that passengers can't tell when they're in flight. They'll
experience what feel like several takeoffs, landings, and periods of
turbulence, and will have no way of knowing which ones are real. This
will discourage terrorists since killing people in a plane while it's
on the ground doesn't count.
I see in today's news that Canada is banning all carry-on baggage on
flights to the US, with a very few exceptions such as medicine that
will be needed during the flight.
I understand prisoners are sometimes shipped around by air. Maybe
whatever method is used with them should be used with all passengers.
It's become clear that nobody except a few nuts like me will refrain
from flying even if passengers are all treated like Hannibal Lector.
Keith F. Lynch
> So at least those rules are self-expiring. Perhaps they'll be
> replaced with something more sensible.
Or with something less sensible. Especially now that terrorists know
they can massively inconvenience tens of millions of people simply by
ruining their own trousers. Or perhaps just by standing up during a
flight and shouting, "Boogity, boogity, I'm the boogeyman!"
Did the TSA executives never go to junior high school? They don't
seem to know that greatly overreacting to minor provocations
encourages further provocations.
Or maybe they *want* further provocations, to justify their own
existence. "See, we saved you from the boogeyman yet again!"
> I won't hold my breath.
Perhaps that will be the next requirement -- that all passengers
refrain from breathing during flight.
Keith F. Lynch
> It doesn't have to be an airport without the TSA. It only has to be
> one that has private aviation available (which is almost all, except
> for the most overcrowded). For example, White Plains Airport has
> such flights (and a piloting school or two).
Or a MAC flight
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Airlift_Command) like the
one I took in 1992. There was no x-ray machine. There was a metal
detector, but it was pushed out of the way, as it was inoperable.
And people could even make *jokes*. Such as saying, "This plane
is going to Cuba" in a fake Spanish accent. (It *was* going to
Cuba. Guantanamo Bay Naval Base more specifically. This was long
before there was a prison there.)
Keith F. Lynch
Indeed.
Keith F. Lynch
> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
>> I occasionally wondered what would have happened if passengers got
>> tired of waiting to be let off the planes at their destinations
>> and started pulling the big, red levers to open the emergency exit
>> slides. The cost of putting new slides in planes might have gotten
>> the airlines attention.
> You could do that, provided you were absolutely certain that you
> would never, ever, need to take an airplane anywhere ever again.
And if you had no plans for the next year or two, which you'd spend in
jail. You'd also be fined into bankruptcy. And those slides aren't
particularly safe anyway. Safer than staying in a burning or sinking
jet, but not safer than staying in a jet without food or working
toilets for a few hours.
Still, if one or two people did it every time, I think that would have
a good effect on the industry. But people can safely and legally have
just as strong an effect by making note of which airlines this happens
on, never flying on those airlines, and writing letters to the CEOs
explaining this.
Keith F. Lynch
>>> and services (phone, internet access services, live television
>>> programming, global positioning systems) prior to boarding and
>>> during all phases of flight.
>> *Why*?
> In case the bad guy wants to detonate his bomb when the plane's
> in a particular place, like over the U.S. instead of Canada ...
I can see what that has to do with global positioning systems, but
what does it have to do with phone, internet access services, or
live television programming?
> I assume that the TSA powers-that-be are thinking about mandating
> that windows be blacked out too, so that Bad Guy won't know whether
> the plane's over land or water.
I was wondering why that wasn't mentioned. And will they somehow hide
or eliminate the cabin air pressure change that indicates that the
plane is descending and approaching its destination?
Paul Ciszek
In article <hhehv3$ltl$6...@reader1.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>I was wondering why that wasn't mentioned. And will they somehow hide
>or eliminate the cabin air pressure change that indicates that the
>plane is descending and approaching its destination?
If they could keep the same pressure throughout the flight--i.e.,
it doesn't drop when you take off, so it doesn't increase again when
you land--that would be really cool, actually, and would make flying
more comfortable for some people.
Getting the doors open after you land in Denver could be tricky, though.
(Even the doors that swing out are rigged so that they have to go *in*
first.)
David Loewe, Jr.
Amusingly, I flew to Chicago on Monday and back to St. Louis today and
was not treated like Hannibal Lecter.
In St. Louis, I ran my coat, toque, gloves, shoes, carryon (including
insulin and syringes), backpack and the contents of my pockets through
the x-ray machine, walked through the metal-detector and got nary a
look. In Chicago, the same thing elicited a query about the insulin and
syringes - once explained, I was on my merry way.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what
they conceal is vital."
- Aaron Levenstein
William December Starr
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> said:
> On the other hand, planes can be made lighter and stronger
> if they're made without passenger windows.
NonObSF: The windowless airplane that Lije Baley flew from
underground New York City to underground Washington, DC on.
-- wds
cryptoguy
> In article <bfefj5p5pube1kvctmgkbtmmvfcjvlt...@4ax.com>,
> David V. Loewe, Jr <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >Reportedly, he had PETN in his shorts.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaerythritol_tetranitrate
>
> >There seems to have been enough to have blown a large enough hole in the
> >plane to have destroyed it in flight.
>
> How large a hole would that take? (Hint: Aloha Flight 243, about half
> of the airplane's skin tore off, and it landed safely.)
It flew for 15 minutes, and was shedding pieces the whole way. The
consensus is that it was very close to a catastrophic breakup at the
time it landed.
A number of successful aircraft bombings have involved quite small
bombs; the Lockerbie bomb is thought to have been hidden in a cassette
recorder.
pt
pt
cryptoguy
> Seth <se...@panix.com> wrote:
> > There's very little circling these days (it was a victim of Reagan
> > firing the air traffic controllers for refusing to allow forward
> > control).
>
> Was that what he fired him for?
>
> I wouldn't mind seeing similar union-busting in Metro. Overpaid
> employees are demanding *raises* at the same time as Metro is once
> again discussing what combination of fare increases, tapxayer subsidy
> increases, and service cuts will be needed to break even next year.
>
> I wish they'd go on strike, and be fired and replaced by a smaller
> number of people each making about a third the salary, i.e. earning
> close to the median US income.
Ah! The Circuit City approach to cost containment.
1. Fire all your most experienced (and best paid) line workers.
2. Replace them with rookies willing to work for a fraction of the
salary.
3a. (the theory) Profit!
3b. (the reality) Go bankrupt, as customer service goes down the
toilet, and people find alternatives to your now-lousy service.
Yeah, that'll work.
pt
cryptoguy
> In article <hhee98$cn...@reader1.panix.com>,
Not underground. The cities were mostly above ground, just windowless,
and roofed over. I'm currently listening to "The Caves of Steel" on
audiobook (Trantor; good reading, but *boy* is it dated). That Lije's
boss has a 'window' installed in his office, looking outside, is a
minor plot point.
pt
cryptoguy
> Seth <se...@panix.com> wrote:
> > So at least those rules are self-expiring. Perhaps they'll be
> > replaced with something more sensible.
>
> Or with something less sensible.
If you'd bothered to read the news before posting, you'd know that the
TSA is *already* relaxing the rules.
pt
Alan Woodford
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> said:
>>> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> quoted:
>>>> 3. Disable aircraft-integrated passenger communications systems
>>>> and services (phone, internet access services, live television
>>>> programming, global positioning systems) prior to boarding and
>>>> during all phases of flight.
>
>>> *Why*?
>
>> In case the bad guy wants to detonate his bomb when the plane's
>> in a particular place, like over the U.S. instead of Canada ...
>
>I can see what that has to do with global positioning systems, but
>what does it have to do with phone, internet access services, or
>live television programming?
>
Because they all get turned off during the approach, as a big clue you
are about to land.
>> I assume that the TSA powers-that-be are thinking about mandating
>> that windows be blacked out too, so that Bad Guy won't know whether
>> the plane's over land or water.
>
>I was wondering why that wasn't mentioned. And will they somehow hide
>or eliminate the cabin air pressure change that indicates that the
>plane is descending and approaching its destination?
<Canadian faux-Scots accent> Ye cannae change the laws of Physics,
laddie. </accent>
I'm sure some of the idiots would love to be able to, though :-(
We are agreed that most of the security theatre is pointless, at best.
The only thing we appear to disagree on is how annoying it has to get
to stop us flying. And if it stays at the level William quoted, then
it is unfortunately unlikely that Anne and I wil be at Chicago.
Alan Woodford
The Greying Lensman!
Kip Williams
> Ah! The Circuit City approach to cost containment.
>
> 1. Fire all your most experienced (and best paid) line workers.
> 2. Replace them with rookies willing to work for a fraction of the
> salary.
> 3a. (the theory) Profit!
> 3b. (the reality) Go bankrupt, as customer service goes down the
> toilet, and people find alternatives to your now-lousy service.
>
> Yeah, that'll work.
It's similar to the Spudnuts method, at least as it was practiced in
Fort Collins, Colorado, somewhere around my high school years.
New employees were told, truthfully, that after 90 days of working
there, they'd get a raise. Only they always managed to fire them at
about 89 days.
Kip W
David Loewe, Jr.
Wouldn't a lot depend on the placement of the bomb?
--
"Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war?"
David J. Hayward
Jay E. Morris
And on the Aloha flight one died, sixty-five injured, eight seriously. If
the bomber had been successful in setting it off, even if it hadn't brought
the plane down, I'm sure the results would have been worse. 80 grams of
PTEN. Yeah, the bomber wouldn't have been the only one to die.
Lowell Gilbert
cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> writes:
> Ah! The Circuit City approach to cost containment.
>
> 1. Fire all your most experienced (and best paid) line workers.
> 2. Replace them with rookies willing to work for a fraction of the
> salary.
> 3a. (the theory) Profit!
> 3b. (the reality) Go bankrupt, as customer service goes down the
> toilet, and people find alternatives to your now-lousy service.
Let's face it, though; even before that, my approach to Circuit
City was that they were a fine consumer electronics place, but I
*never* let their staff touch what I was buying, except (as
absolutely necessary) at the cash register. They had remarkable
powers to break pretty much anything.
Lowell Gilbert
A "boombox," actually (not to imply it wasn't a cassette recorder, just
that it was a lot bigger than we think of as portable electronics
today). Would it have even fit within today's carryon size limits?
David Loewe, Jr.
>Evelyn Leeper <ele...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>Alan Woodford wrote:
>
>>> Are there really many people flying who can't go half an hour between
>>> pee breaks?
>>
>>Don't forget that a half an hour's flight time out of New York can be an
>>hour (or more) before landing, taxiing to the gate, deplaning, etc. If
>>you end up circling the airport, it could easily be two hours.
>
>There's very little circling these days (it was a victim of Reagan
>firing the air traffic controllers for refusing to allow forward
>control).
>
>Once the plane is at the gate, there's no prohibition against using
>the lavatory, so someone stuck in the back (with a long time before
>deplaning) has another option. (In fact, the regulation wouldn't
>prohibit using it once the plane landed, so if there's a 45 minute
>wait for a gate (as has happened to me), that's still not too much of
>a problem.)
At O'Hare on Monday and Lambert Tuesday there was no wait for a gate.
However, the seat belt sign did not go off until we reached the gate.
--
"My idea of gun control is a steady aim."
- Jack Kemp
David V. Loewe, Jr
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Seth <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>> There's very little circling these days (it was a victim of Reagan
>> firing the air traffic controllers for refusing to allow forward
>> control).
>
>Was that what he fired him for?
>
>I wouldn't mind seeing similar union-busting in Metro.
So, you *are* against the right of workers to organize. Good of you to
clear that up.
>Overpaid
>employees are demanding *raises* at the same time as Metro is once
>again discussing what combination of fare increases, tapxayer subsidy
>increases, and service cuts will be needed to break even next year.
>
>I wish they'd go on strike, and be fired and replaced by a smaller
>number of people each making about a third the salary, i.e. earning
>close to the median US income.
And replace them with workers with no experience whatsoever?
I understand that you have a low opinion of the skills needed to operate
the trains, but you are required to have a CDL with a Passenger
endorsement to operate one of the busses - and those require training
and skill to obtain. Trust me on this one as I *have* a CDL and know
what the requirements *are*.
--
"Earth is the cradle of human kind, but one cannot live in a cradle
forever."
- Konstantin Tsiokovsky
Jette Goldie
The seat belt sign never goes off till you reach the gate in Europe.
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
David V. Loewe, Jr
<jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:12:49 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>> Once the plane is at the gate, there's no prohibition against using
>>> the lavatory, so someone stuck in the back (with a long time before
>>> deplaning) has another option. (In fact, the regulation wouldn't
>>> prohibit using it once the plane landed, so if there's a 45 minute
>>> wait for a gate (as has happened to me), that's still not too much of
>>> a problem.)
>>
>> At O'Hare on Monday and Lambert Tuesday there was no wait for a gate.
>> However, the seat belt sign did not go off until we reached the gate.
>
>The seat belt sign never goes off till you reach the gate in Europe.
Despite what Seth says, I think that is the case for the US (from
listening to the in cabin announcements on those two flights).
--
"Take me to the magic of the moment
On a glory night
Where the children of tomorrow share their dreams
With you and me"
- Klaus Meine
Evelyn Leeper
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:14:45 +0000, Jette Goldie
> <jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:12:49 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>
>>>> Once the plane is at the gate, there's no prohibition against using
>>>> the lavatory, so someone stuck in the back (with a long time before
>>>> deplaning) has another option. (In fact, the regulation wouldn't
>>>> prohibit using it once the plane landed, so if there's a 45 minute
>>>> wait for a gate (as has happened to me), that's still not too much of
>>>> a problem.)
>>> At O'Hare on Monday and Lambert Tuesday there was no wait for a gate.
>>> However, the seat belt sign did not go off until we reached the gate.
>> The seat belt sign never goes off till you reach the gate in Europe.
>
> Despite what Seth says, I think that is the case for the US (from
> listening to the in cabin announcements on those two flights).
It is the case. It's just that no one seems to pay anything attention
to it.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Man is the only animal for whom his own existence is a problem
which he has to solve. -Erich Fromm
Paul Ciszek
In article <eDJ_m.32$vL...@newsfe12.iad>,
Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>It's similar to the Spudnuts method, at least as it was practiced in
>Fort Collins, Colorado, somewhere around my high school years.
>
>New employees were told, truthfully, that after 90 days of working
>there, they'd get a raise. Only they always managed to fire them at
>about 89 days.
This site claims that there is still one open in Arvada, CO:
...but the number is not a working number. :-(