ATC mutiny brewing

In rec.aviation.student Matt Barrow wrote:
"Michael Ash" wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.student Denny wrote:
It would a hell of a lot more pleasant than the cattle stampede they
call airline travel today...

It would be a hell of a lot more pleasant for sure, and also a hell of a
lot more expensive. Remember the term "jet set"? Remember *why* that term
was used to refer to the leisure rich?

Personally I'd rather have today's craptastic air travel than go back to
top-class service which I can't ever afford to have.

Quite.

One has to wonder how a high priced airline would fare in today's market of
Expedia and Orbitz and people shopping to knock off a few dollars off their
ticket price.

No need to wonder, just watch the smaller airlines which cut amenities to
the absolute bone totally eat the majors alive.

For people who like the amenities, just fly first class. You still get
stellar treatment (or so I'm told) and it's probably still cheaper than
flying was in this bygone era people seem to be so nostalgic for.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Michael Ash wrote in
:

For people who like the amenities, just fly first class. You still
get stellar treatment (or so I'm told) and it's probably still
cheaper than flying was in this bygone era people seem to be so
nostalgic for.

The last time I flew First Class on United Airlines the service was
significantly less than stellar. I've concluded that any class service
is a crap shoot nowadays.

--

In article ,
John Godwin wrote:

Michael Ash wrote in
:

For people who like the amenities, just fly first class. You still
get stellar treatment (or so I'm told) and it's probably still
cheaper than flying was in this bygone era people seem to be so
nostalgic for.

The last time I flew First Class on United Airlines the service was
significantly less than stellar. I've concluded that any class service
is a crap shoot nowadays.

--

United surely has that reputation these days.

Sad, to me anyway, as United was my first flying experience, in 1956.

I was six, and sent in the care of the cabin crew from L.A. to Portland,
OR, in a DC-7. I still remember getting to sit in the observation
section in the tail, watching the cars and houses slide astern.

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:13:15 -0500, Michael Ash
wrote:

It would be a hell of a lot more pleasant for sure, and also a hell of a
lot more expensive. Remember the term "jet set"? Remember *why* that term
was used to refer to the leisure rich?

Was? G

Personally I'd rather have today's craptastic air travel than go back to
top-class service which I can't ever afford to have.

Travel across the field to the charter terminal, or visit your local
"executive" airport. Also, research "NetJet" charters and "shared"
charters.

That's where lots of airline profits went post-9/11. No security
hassles, no waiting in long lines while the cattle deal with their own
security hassles (Why can't I carry my spear gun or taser in the
cabin?), easy parking, and a perceived lower likelyhood of somebody
messing with the airplane to start with. On a shared charter, you
might even pick the departure time.

Many of the folks you see these days in First Class didn't buy the
ticket, they exchanged FF miles, or got them through some corporate
travel come-on. The executives, athletes, celebrities, all far below
the leisure rich, are over at the private side of the airport.

Remember 20 years ago, when we'd see famous folks in the airport while
we waited to board?

Once upon a time, the full-fare coach and first class passengers paid
lots of costs, and the super-saver fare was profit in empty seats. Not
to mention an enormous amount of mail, banking documents, and express
freight. Most of which now either moves by FedEx or UPS, or not at
all, as it's gone electronic.

In rec.aviation.student John Godwin wrote:
Michael Ash wrote in
:

For people who like the amenities, just fly first class. You still
get stellar treatment (or so I'm told) and it's probably still
cheaper than flying was in this bygone era people seem to be so
nostalgic for.

The last time I flew First Class on United Airlines the service was
significantly less than stellar. I've concluded that any class service
is a crap shoot nowadays.

Domestic or international? I couldn't say I'm too surprised to hear that
about a domestic flight, although I thought they'd do better.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

In rec.aviation.student B A R R Y wrote:
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:13:15 -0500, Michael Ash
wrote:

It would be a hell of a lot more pleasant for sure, and also a hell of a
lot more expensive. Remember the term "jet set"? Remember *why* that term
was used to refer to the leisure rich?

Was? G

It's just not used much at all anymore. To the extent that it is used, it
still means that.

Personally I'd rather have today's craptastic air travel than go back to
top-class service which I can't ever afford to have.

Travel across the field to the charter terminal, or visit your local
"executive" airport. Also, research "NetJet" charters and "shared"
charters.
[snip]

You're right that the "bygone" service still exists if you can find it and
afford it. Which is pretty much my point. The people whining and
complaining that airline service isn't what it used to be are ignoring the
fact that if they pay what airline service used to cost they can get the
kind of service they want too. People just want something for nothing,
top-class service with $80 bargain-basement roundtrip tickets, which
obviously just isn't going to happen.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Michael Ash wrote in
:

Domestic or international? I couldn't say I'm too surprised to
hear that about a domestic flight, although I thought they'd do
better.

It was a coast-to-coast domestic flight.

For International, I "took a chance and flew Air France" (a very
enjoyable flight).

I would probably take Aeroflot before considering United. g


--

In rec.aviation.student John Godwin wrote:
Michael Ash wrote in
:

Domestic or international? I couldn't say I'm too surprised to
hear that about a domestic flight, although I thought they'd do
better.

It was a coast-to-coast domestic flight.

For International, I "took a chance and flew Air France" (a very
enjoyable flight).

The foreign national carriers are often very nice. Being subsidized and
not having to turn a profit has certain advantages, especially if you
aren't paying taxes in the country in question.

I would probably take Aeroflot before considering United. g

Can't say I'd blame you. I think my last experience with United resulted
in them stranding me in Beijing for a day after they cancelled my flight
during the SARS scare and didn't bother to inform me of the change.
Although other airliners are often scarcely better, and these bad
experiences are frequently the luck of the draw more than anything.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

FAA EEO wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

YougotitSam wrote:


Here is the FAA's new priority with your tax money. Keep in mind we
have RECORD airline delays

Neither the FAA nor the Air Force would have the authority to fix the
record airline delays. It would take the ability to put into place
procedures that the air line lobby and their bought off flaks in
congress and the executive branch would never allow.


Or automation (that would allow such procedures) that the unions have
opposed, and the funding structure that does not create a revenue
stream that allows such modernization.

It's mostly about commuter jets and not enough runways at major airports.

Atlanta recently spent BILLIONS on a 5th runway and the delays there now
are WORSE than when they had 4 runways. Apparently it is more than just
a runway problem

The facts are the FAA is out of control and is filled with incompetent
women and minorities in senior management positions.

Dance around it all day but the problem is
BAD AND INCOMPETENT FAA MANAGEMENT

PERIOD
The truth of the matter...
yes, Atlanta and the airlines (not the FAA) spent $billions on the 5th
runway. Flight delays immediately decreased significantly. A couple of
months later one of the otehr 4 runways was shut down for about 5 or 6
months for "renovations". During that time the airport again operated
with 4 runways and delays did increase to even worse than before the 5th
runway was completed. Once that runway was put back into service,
delays dropped back to the lower, almost acceptable, levels. Can you
imagine the problems if the 5th runway had not been built and Atlanta
had to operate on 3 runways while the one was renovated.
The biggest cause of flight delays is the airline scheduling and use of
more Regional jets on the same runways... RJs take essentially the same
runway space as traditional jets and only carry 1/4 to 1/3 as many
passangers. More airline flights trying to use the same runways, so
something has to give.
Mike: N44979 Archer II at RYY

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

Mike wrote:
FAA EEO wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

YougotitSam wrote:


Here is the FAA's new priority with your tax money. Keep in mind
we have RECORD airline delays

Neither the FAA nor the Air Force would have the authority to fix the
record airline delays. It would take the ability to put into place
procedures that the air line lobby and their bought off flaks in
congress and the executive branch would never allow.


Or automation (that would allow such procedures) that the unions
have opposed, and the funding structure that does not create a
revenue stream that allows such modernization.

It's mostly about commuter jets and not enough runways at major
airports.

Atlanta recently spent BILLIONS on a 5th runway and the delays there
now are WORSE than when they had 4 runways. Apparently it is more than
just a runway problem

The facts are the FAA is out of control and is filled with incompetent
women and minorities in senior management positions.

Dance around it all day but the problem is
BAD AND INCOMPETENT FAA MANAGEMENT

PERIOD
The truth of the matter...
yes, Atlanta and the airlines (not the FAA) spent $billions on the 5th
runway. Flight delays immediately decreased significantly. A couple of
months later one of the otehr 4 runways was shut down for about 5 or 6
months for "renovations". During that time the airport again operated
with 4 runways and delays did increase to even worse than before the 5th
runway was completed. Once that runway was put back into service,
delays dropped back to the lower, almost acceptable, levels. Can you
imagine the problems if the 5th runway had not been built and Atlanta
had to operate on 3 runways while the one was renovated.
The biggest cause of flight delays is the airline scheduling and use of
more Regional jets on the same runways... RJs take essentially the same
runway space as traditional jets and only carry 1/4 to 1/3 as many
passangers. More airline flights trying to use the same runways, so
something has to give.
Mike: N44979 Archer II at RYY


The ATL 10/28 was originally supposed to be a commuter
runway only. The Federal Government or FAA whatever you want
to call it kicked in quite a bit of the money also. I still
say you can build 50 new runways but if you can't modernize
and you treat your key personnel like crap it won't matter
what you do. The FAA has ruined the controller relationship
and caved into big contractors and purchased crap equipment
that has to be re-engineered in the field.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ7h1ETVTBs

Unqualified and Incompetent FAA Management has led to the
mess the ATC system is in. I am not sure short of a NASA
type overhaul like after the shuttle Challenger blew up if
anything of substance will be done. Sadly the FAA has not
had it's Challenger. Yet.

Here is the FAA priority with our tax money now.I am not
sure what this link has to do with Air Safety but
the FAA cares more about this crap than their mission now.
Most of the FAA is consumed with political correctness and
could care less about aviation. It's all about Kumbaya and
Diversity. The Emperor has no clothes.

https://employees.faa.gov/employee_s...ions_programs/