Part 121 Regulations Question

Jose wrote:
Yeah...I asked my boss if I could drive to San Francisco next week
instead of flying, and he just looked at me. But you know, it would
be a lot less stressful.

Didja ask if you could fly yourself?

Jose
Probably not in the budget, unfortunately. :-)

"Jose" wrote in message
. net...
People value their convenience much more than they value anything else.
They are perfectly happy putting up with all sorts of dangerous,
ineffective, wasteful, or just plain dumb things if in return they get to
keep some of their convenience.

That statement is laughable, given the "convenience" of modern air travel.

Laughable in what way? In an ironic way? Or you truly believe that people
find air travel less convenient than the alternatives, but continue to use
it?

I'd agree it's laughable in an ironic way, but it's pretty obvious that
people still find air travel more convenient than the alternatives, in spite
of all of the things that many of us find so offensive.

Pete

Laughable in what way? In an ironic way? Or you truly believe that people
find air travel less convenient than the alternatives, but continue to use
it?

You may call it ironic; I find commercial air travel very inconvenient
with all the post 911 nonsense we have to put up with. The only reason
I do it is that for intercontenental trips, driving takes much longer,
and is thus more inconvenient. However I've stopped flying commercially
on anything less than, oh, a thousand miles or so.

Your statement is that "People value their convenience much more than
they value anything else", and I disagree with it. They value their
time much more than convenience, and are willing to put up with
incredible inconvenience and humiliation in order to save time.

Or you truly believe that people
find air travel less convenient than the
alternatives, but continue to use it?

Yes, I do, for that very reason above.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
Laughable in what way? In an ironic way? Or you truly believe that
people find air travel less convenient than the alternatives, but
continue to use it?

You may call it ironic; I find commercial air travel very inconvenient
with all the post 911 nonsense we have to put up with. The only reason
I do it is that for intercontenental trips, driving takes much longer,
and is thus more inconvenient. However I've stopped flying commercially
on anything less than, oh, a thousand miles or so.

Your statement is that "People value their convenience much more than
they value anything else", and I disagree with it. They value their
time much more than convenience, and are willing to put up with
incredible inconvenience and humiliation in order to save time.

You're so right. Flying commercially is one of the most inconvenient
things out there. Problem is, most people don't see it as humiliating,
they see it as necessary for their safety.

Me, I'd rather fly myself than get on other commercial flight, even
though I'm currently limited to VFR. Think I can make it VFR to Taiwan
in a Seminole?

Jose wrote:

You may call it ironic; I find commercial air travel very inconvenient
with all the post 911 nonsense we have to put up with. The only reason
I do it is that for intercontenental trips, driving takes much longer,
and is thus more inconvenient.

I agree that driving across an ocean (for an intercontinental trip)
would qualify as extremelly inconvenient; though if the TSA keeps
it up, I might just have a go at it eventually :-)

may be you meant coast to coast?

sorry to pick on you, couldn't resist :-)

--Sylvain

Emily wrote:

You're so right. Flying commercially is one of the most inconvenient
things out there. Problem is, most people don't see it as humiliating,
they see it as necessary for their safety.

reminds me when my dad came to visit me in California; it was pre-9/11
but he couldn't believe the hassle he had to go through (it was the first
time he had to pay to fly, the first time he didn't have to carry a
weapon when doing so, and actually the first time he landed in the aircraft
with which he took off, but that's a different story :-))

--Sylvain

I agree that driving across an ocean (for an intercontinental trip)
would qualify as extremelly inconvenient;

LOL! Yes, I meant coast to coast. But I was thinking NY to CA, and
California should rightly be considered another continent.

Another world, in fact.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
You may call it ironic; I find commercial air travel very inconvenient
with all the post 911 nonsense we have to put up with.

As do I. But we seem to be in the minority.

The only reason I do it is that for intercontenental trips, driving takes
much longer, and is thus more inconvenient. However I've stopped flying
commercially on anything less than, oh, a thousand miles or so.

Nevertheless, the general population has shown no such reduction in their
air travel. Obviously, they don't find the hassles to be significant enough
to affect their travel decisions.

Your statement is that "People value their convenience much more than they
value anything else", and I disagree with it. They value their time much
more than convenience, and are willing to put up with incredible
inconvenience and humiliation in order to save time.

For most people, convenience and time are inseparable. The very thing that
makes airline travel convenient is the time savings. After all, *nothing*
else about airline travel is more convenient than taking your own car, and
that's always been true.

Saying someone values their time more than convenience is, to me anyway, a
nonsensical statement. You might as well say you'd rather fly a fixed-wing
aircraft than an airplane.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
You may call it ironic; I find commercial air travel very inconvenient
with all the post 911 nonsense we have to put up with.

As do I. But we seem to be in the minority.

The only reason I do it is that for intercontenental trips, driving takes
much longer, and is thus more inconvenient. However I've stopped flying
commercially on anything less than, oh, a thousand miles or so.

Nevertheless, the general population has shown no such reduction in their
air travel. Obviously, they don't find the hassles to be significant
enough to affect their travel decisions.

It's interesting to note though that while the flying public grouses about
what a PITA it is to travel, the "Security IQ" of the flying public remains
painfully low.

Every week it's the same idiotic crap at security:
- Women wearing tons of jewelry
- Men wearing boots with steel shanks or ten miles of laces.
- Large steel buckles on belts
- Laptops left in bags
- Phones left on hips
- Bluetooth headsets left stuck in ears

It's kind of amusing when you run across that someone who is taking their
first airplane ride in several years (maybe even post 9/11.) You can spot
them a mile away.

But unfortunately, I see most of the above being done by people with 100K
tags and World Club tags on their bags....business travelers. Presumably
people who travel frequently.

Snip

Jay B

Peter Duniho wrote:
"GS" wrote in message
om...
As surprising to you as it may be, the flight attendant is correct and you
and the pilot you asked are both wrong (or he misunderstood your question)....

thanks for the clarification.

I'm not alone as many other frequent fliers (and this other Part 121
pilot) thought it was allowed as they have also done it numerous times
and the FA's couldn't care less. It wont' be the last time I'm wrong
either.

Now here's a question for you. How is it that I am not allowed to strap
my laptop into the bag yet I am allowed to strap a cello into a
(purchased) seat?

A flight attendant *ought* to be able to tell passengers to do things, even
when they are not required by regulation, if those things still appear to be
necessary for safety on the flight.

agreed and that is why I did immediately comply. the problem today is
that there are tons of unpublished rules and regulations (Op Sepcs, FA
handbooks, etc.) and there is a small minority of FA's who claim "due to
new security regulations you can't do whatever." if that is truly a
security regulation why is she the only FA to follow this regulation. It
is certainly possible she made it up as a veil to not deal with some
customer. Numerous frequent fliers have asked on other boards about
other circumstancs so I am not alone on this matter. So it is within
every customer's right to question her or the carrier on it *after*
complying with it otherwise we're a bunch of blind and stupid rats.

so is it allowed to be the only passenger standing in the back of a 757
in order to stretch on a 5+ hour flight? According to 99% of the FA's,
no problems at all and they start chatting with the passenger. 1% of
the FA's claim it is against the new security regulations? Hmmm, sounds
like that FA is using it as an excuse. If it is truly a security
regulation are the other 99% of FA's not following the the security
regulations? I'd find that a safety of flight issue that should be
reported. What if the passenger gets a letter from their doctor saying
that due to say low blood pressure the passenger is required to stand
and stretch. Who does the passenger speak to ahead of time to get this
information passed down so it isn't an issue onboard?

thanks for your sharing your knowledge.

Gerald