Slashdot Mirror

June, 2017. PHX were one of the first airports anywhere to try this out.

You just have to pay a slightly higher fare for the larger seats.

If you refuse to pay a little extra for the extra legroom, well you've just demonstrated why the airlines are prioritizing lower fares over more space.

100 million pounds of cargo they aren't paying to carry around every year.

Along with that, it's 100,000,000 lbs of cargo they could charge someone else for.

AA Source

You have to consider scale. In the 1980s, American saved $100,000 a year by removing one olive from each salad they served on their flights. One olive is no big deal, but across their entire operation, the savings added up.

American says they operate 6,700 flights per day or around 2.5 million per year. If they remove 40 lbs of dead tree manuals from each flight, that's 100 million pounds of cargo they aren't paying to carry around every year.

I don't buy this at all, it isn't like the airlines calculate fuel so well that they are taking into account the weight of a single or likely even the entire jar of olives. Just based on how long you have to wait in taxi for takeoff with delays on the runway you are burning fuel that far exceed the fuel needed to transport said olive over the entire flight. Furthermore, the airline doesn't have any idea how much the plane is going to weight prior to boarding so I don't think you can say they are saving any amount of fuel by taking 35lbs of paper charts off the plane, what if everyone on the flight just had a big meal prior to boarding on a 747 flight that could be 500 - 1000 lbs of additional weight in undigested food. I don't think you can say that these 35lbs of charts matter at all. While I agree that a digital copy is likely far more useful moment to moment keeping a single paper copy or a USB drive with PDFs and a nice ultrabook if you think that the weight matters would probably a reasonable idea as a backup.

You have to consider scale. In the 1980s, American saved $100,000 a year by removing one olive from each salad they served on their flights. One olive is no big deal, but across their entire operation, the savings added up.

American says they operate 6,700 flights per day or around 2.5 million per year. If they remove 40 lbs of dead tree manuals from each flight, that's 100 million pounds of cargo they aren't paying to carry around every year.

According to *just* American Airlines, eFlight books save $1.2 million per year.

http://hub.aa.com/en/nr/pressr...

Domestic Wi-Fi is now available on nearly all flights within the U.S.

The following URL breaks it down even more by the various airlines:

http://lifehacker.com/how-to-find-out-if-your-flight-has-wi-fi-and-how-much-805389211

Sufficient to say, wifi on US flights isn't that uncommon. And unlike you, I've never had wifi on any of my flights over Europe or Asia.

The airline submits this information to Secure Flight, which uses it to perform watch list matching. This serves to prevent individuals on the No Fly List from boarding an aircraft and to identify individuals on the Selectee List for enhanced screening. After matching passenger information against government watch lists, Secure Flight transmits the matching results back to airlines so they can issue passenger boarding passes.

In other words, YOU are required to tell the government you plan to travel, and they get to decide, in advance, whether you can. Assuming you're not, in their own words, on any "government watch lists".

You can read all about the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

http://www.aa.com/

They sell one-way tickets. Please buy one.

Dear Canada,

      Please stop ending acronyms with an A. It's confusing. We don't know whether you're saying CMRReh, or whether its real name is CMRRA.

And no, saying CMRRAeh doesn't help. There might, for all we know (not that we care - Ed) be a CMRRAA.

Put it another way, how can you distinguish these guys from these guys?

Even if he was on commercial transport, he'd have been fine in the United States. You can put as many weapons as you like in your checked baggage, you're just not allow to have them in your carry on. You're even allowed to have unloaded guns in your checked baggage (e.g. http://www.aa.com/i18n/travelInformation/baggage/firearms.jsp), although in that case you do have to declare them when you check in the bags.

Wow. I should have caught this post sooner. Major slashdot emergency.

Here is Japan Airlines:
http://www.jal.co.jp/

So here is American Airlines:
http://www.aa.com/

Jp Gov site:
http://www.stat.go.jp/

US Gov site:
http://www.uspto.gov/

Ugly Jp Consulting site:
http://www.e-netten.ne.jp/

Horrible US Consulting site:
http://www.bryantwebconsulting.com/

Now for some better pages:
http://www.au.kddi.com/
http://www.sony.co.jp/
http://www.vaio.sony.co.jp/
http://bape.com/ (you cannot see the JP site from the US)
http://www.capcom.co.jp/sf4/

This got world attention:
http://www.uniqlo.com/calendar/

And a typical web site gallery site will quickly help you find more:
http://www.webdesignclip.com/

So all of you who just argued for what Japanese is and what American is, you might want to give this blogger a tweet and call him out for making you think hard about the offensive stereotypes you just helped uphold.

Seriously people, if these sites look complex, its because you can't read Kanji.

Is this a realistic risk when aircraft are painted? And is anyone still running any bare Aluminum? I certainly wouldn't, it leads to corrosion.

Don't tell that to American Airlines and here. It's up to the manufacturer to give the go-ahead for polishing instead of painting.

Not painting the plane saves the weight of 2 or more passengers. Plus the cost of the paint.

Is this a realistic risk when aircraft are painted? And is anyone still running any bare Aluminum? I certainly wouldn't, it leads to corrosion.

Don't tell that to American Airlines and here. It's up to the manufacturer to give the go-ahead for polishing instead of painting.

Not painting the plane saves the weight of 2 or more passengers. Plus the cost of the paint.

Is this a realistic risk when aircraft are painted? And is anyone still running any bare Aluminum? I certainly wouldn't, it leads to corrosion.

Don't tell that to American Airlines and here. It's up to the manufacturer to give the go-ahead for polishing instead of painting.

Not painting the plane saves the weight of 2 or more passengers. Plus the cost of the paint.

Since I have yet to see an airline that weighs carry-on luggage, I can see why you would like this policy. The only real criteria for the carry-on is that you must be able to fit it in an overhead bin and be able to lift it there.

I have yet to see this in the continental US, but I have heard that European airports often do (but I have nothing to back that statement up). I know that most airlines have a weight limit but don't enforce it currently (https://www.aa.com/aa/i18nForward.do?p=/travelInformation/baggage/carryOnAllowance.jsp40lbs for American Airlines). I for one would love to see this enforced as my bag usually weighs around 30lbs, which I weigh to ensure if it was checked I would be fine.

Flying now, it is quite obvious there is a lot more carry-on luggage

True, I'll agree with you on that point.

but the airplane has exactly the same amount of luggage as it would have before the charges started.

That can't possibly be true. Similar amounts maybe, but exactly? I know that if I took as much as I used to I would be lugging around 100lbs in one bag plus my personal item laptop bag full, much more than I could reasonably carry. I do believe carry-on luggage has increased but since in my case carry-on weight is around 30-40% of what my total weight used to me I can't see it going anywhere but down. Let's just say I'm a big proponent of this guys idea of http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/010438.htmlWeight Based Pricing You had better believe I'd travel lighter.

Well maybe not, since airlines do not offer a Muslim meal AFAIK
 
You don't know very far. The western nation airlines all offer not only Muslim but also Hindu and Kosher meals:
 
  United Airlines religious meal options
  American Airlines special meal options
  British Airways special meals
 
The list goes on. Pretty much every major airline. Oh wait, just checked Emirates. There aren't Kosher or Hindu option there. For some reason their sample menu looks just like the other airlines' Muslim sample menus.

Well, his intentions were obviously meaningless, since I can apparently still print out my own boarding passes, legit or not.

It's a shame the TSA people think just like you, if people would quit trying to kill the messengers, we might start seeing something that looked more like security and less like cronies securing contracts.

You are saying that this looks like a CRJ-700?

You lost me. Well, I mean - they both have wings, I guess. But I don't think the CRJ-700 can bend it's wings.

There's a red-tail hawk that hangs out over (or lives in) our office complex. Whenever I'm at the airport, I'm always struck by how similar his wingtips are to those on the CRJ-700.

where's the site to help people resign from the state?

Actually, any of these sites can help. Just be sure that you tell them that you only need a one way ticket.

An airline does not not need to provide a full refund if the person refuses to provide identification.

All carriers have a "Contract of Carriage" that you, as a passenger, agree to when you purchase a ticket.
American Airlines Copntract of Carriage:
http://www.aa.com/content/customerService/customer Commitment/conditionsOfCarriage.jhtml#CheckIn

This states:

ACCEPTANCE OF PASSENGERS

American may refuse to transport you, or may remove you from your flight at any point, for one or several reasons, including but not limited to the following:

1. Compliance with government requisition of space.
2. Action necessary or advisable due to weather, or other conditions beyond American's control.
3. Refusal to permit a search of person or property for explosives or for deadly, controlled, or dangerous weapons, articles or substances.
4. Refusal to produce positive identification upon request.
5. Your physical or mental condition is such that in American's sole opinion, you are rendered or likely to be rendered incapable of comprehending or complying with safety instructions without the assistance of an attendant.
6. Your conduct is disorderly, abusive or violent, or you
  a. Appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs,
  b. Attempt to interfere with any member of the flight crew,
  c. Have a communicable disease that has been determined by a federal public health authority to be transmissible to other persons in the normal course of flight,
  d. Refuse to obey instructions from any flight crew member,
  e. Have an offensive odor not caused by a disability or illness,
  f. Are clothed in a manner that would cause discomfort or offense to other passengers,
  g. are barefoot, or
  h. Engage in any action, voluntary or involuntary, that might jeopardize the safety of the aircraft or any of its occupants.

You have the right to enter into contracts as you see fit, as an adult, but not into contracts that violate any of your rights... you can't sell yourself into slavery. This is, um, how to say this ....? I think the words "totally false" come into mind. Some rights are waivable. For instance, I have the right to a jury trial if I am accused of a crime. I can, however, plea bargain with the prosecutor and give up my right to a jury trial in exchange for a charge of a lesser offense. This happens all the time. I have the right for police officers not to search me without probable cause. I can, of course, consent to a search for which there is probable cause. I have the right to a jury trial in certain courts and certain jurisdictions for many civil actions; I can waive those rights (in many states) by signing a contract that requires that disputes be arbitrated. Now, some things -- like your status as a free person -- are not waivable. Those rights are very few and far between. Most personal rights, however, are very waivable. Including the one about people looking at your buttocks. Yes, folks, you heard it here first: a porn star's employment contract is enforceable, despite the U.S. Constitution! The real reason the contract argument is drop-dead stupid is that there is no contract that requires me to subject myself to an invasive search. Take a look at the conditions of carriage -- see anything there saying they can see me naked? I didn't think so. It's a federal regulation, not a contract. And that's why the privacy argument matters.

American Airlines most definitely has them, as does US Air. You probably just didn't notice, and I didn't mention you have to use a DC adapter.

Those are the only airlines I fly regularly so I couldn't tell you about the rest. I believe the DC power connectors are standard features on all new Airbus planes... so I would be very surprised if Alitalia didn't have them.

Business class and first class, these days, is defined more by other expensive features than a power outlet, especially given Airbus' move.

I hear American Airlines have a great daily service.
You could become a trolley dolly!

Not that it isn't a pita to have to wait, but I wait at least that long, or I take a taxi. The company is covering it for business, and if it's not business, then anyone who would be picking me up probably came in on the same plane as me.

In short, there are plenty of ways around a 40 minute wait that don't require a cell phone call from the air. So it's hardly a reason for me to have to suffer the droves of cell phone yappers in a cramped environment. Anyway, the only people who could possibly need to be at that level of constant contact have an entourage of people to take care of such things, or better yet, their own damn airplane. Think POTUS. People still flying a commercial airline don't need to be able to call from the air.

• The IT guy at Podunk Lutheran College has no money: Gratis.
• The IT guy at a medium-sized real estate agency has some money: $500.
• The IT guy at a Fortune 100 company has tons of money: $50,000.

For some reason, this sounds familiar.

Of course, I think the whole thing with cell phones and airplanes needs to be addressed. If it is dangerous to use cell phone while the aircraft is in flight, it should be checked somehow. I follow the rules but have occasionally forgotten to turn off my phone while it was stowed in my carry-on. In fact I once forgot to shut it off, had my bag gate-checked (on a tiny commuter aircraft), and retrieved it at the destination to see that I had missed several calls. I know that cell phones emit RF noise even while just receiving the ringing signal, because my computer speakers have a crappy unshielded amp and picks it up -- a distinctive popping sound.

Maybe once they figure out this problem, combination cell phones/PDAs will be allowed to be used on flights again.

Of course, I just looked at American Airlines' policy and they say that you may use cell phone/PDA combinations if the flight attendant can verify that the transmitting capabilites are turned off. Southwest Airlines' policy isn't so clear. So it apparantly varies by airline.

Of course, I think the whole thing with cell phones and airplanes needs to be addressed. If it is dangerous to use cell phone while the aircraft is in flight, it should be checked somehow. I follow the rules but have occasionally forgotten to turn off my phone while it was stowed in my carry-on. In fact I once forgot to shut it off, had my bag gate-checked (on a tiny commuter aircraft), and retrieved it at the destination to see that I had missed several calls. I know that cell phones emit RF noise even while just receiving the ringing signal, because my computer speakers have a crappy unshielded amp and picks it up -- a distinctive popping sound.

Maybe once they figure out this problem, combination cell phones/PDAs will be allowed to be used on flights again.

Of course, I just looked at American Airlines' policy and they say that you may use cell phone/PDA combinations if the flight attendant can verify that the transmitting capabilites are turned off. Southwest Airlines' policy isn't so clear. So it apparantly varies by airline.

Long before outsourcing to India became an issue, large IT companies like American Airlines were virtual H1-B "hardship" visa factories, importing large numbers of technical experts from India and other countries during the dot-com boom.

But when the boom went bust, and the layoffs came, H1-B visa holders were left out in the cold, unable to even look for a new job due to the terms of their visas.

Do the IT professionals you've met feel that US companies and the US government used bait-and-switch tactics to take advantage of cheaper non-US workers? Or did those applying for H1-B visas know what they were in for?

And a follow-up question: does anyone think that US companies will hesitate to leave their outsourcing partners high and dry as soon as they (again) find a cheaper alternative?

Oh look, these people are patently under 14</sarcasm>

That in under a minutes googling. Now crawl back under a rock troll.

And for people who STILL believe that Java is slow, download eclipse (the url is above, for those of you can't google for it, or even guess it) and have a play...it's written in Java and *GASP* is not only a)amazingly useful, but b)damn snappy, seriously, those people who said Java would never work on the desktop because its too slow, they can start eating their hats.

Plus, I just did a job search for c++ vs. Java on a uk job site and guess what, the number of results returned was nearly identical, so by the look of things, lots of people and companies use Java. IMHO, for enterprise n-tiered applications its the shiznitz.

The reason that Java can be faster is because you can do some really nifty optimisations during runtime with the latest JIT compilers that are impossible (or at least monumentally difficult) to do with compile c/c++ code.

In closing: Here is another benchmark...maybe because he has a domain name you'll trust him more?

How do you propose to check in, when they look at the name as it is returned from the database, and it doesn't match your ID?

You haven't flown recently, have you? It is trivial to check in without anyone checking your ID against the database, so long as you have no baggage. Heck, some airlines even offer online checkin from home. If you need to check a bag, though, you're right.

Why don't you look at the American Airlines' onboard technology page? It clearly states the airphone and instructions on how to use it, as well as it's availability in North American and worldwide.

This is where I found the main problem with moving sidewalks in general: they can only go straight. I had to walk all the freaking way from the terminal area to the connecting area, and out to the other terminal area. That sucked.

For those who don't know, the terminals at DFW are semicircles. That time I had to go from a high C terminal to a mid A. I guess I should've taken the train, but I didn't realize just how far away it was!

I was on a flight recently on American Airline flight (O'Hare to Tampa, FL). I believe the plane was an older Boeing MD80 that had been retrofitted. Every seat, even in coach, had a power adaptor under the seat. The best part was that it was not one of the airplane-specific ports, but rather a cigarette lighter outlet (meaning I could charge my Clie, then charge my turned-off cell phone, and then was able to work on my laptop).

You are right, though, I would rather see power outlets as universal before Internet access in planes.

I tend to fly quite a bit (Southwest, mostly) and have to say that the AA airplane was the first I had seen with power outlets in coach.

American Airlines has a page that mentions their push into putting power outlets in planes.

This is worth a good laugh...

How do I determine which browser I am using?
Windows
From your browser, go to the Help menu and choose "About...." A screen will appear showing which browser and version you are using.

Airmail, anyone?

Airmail, anyone?

Airmail, anyone?

Does this mean Google is infringing?

Since when are you bound to a contract by reading it?

" If you do not intend to be legally bound by these terms and conditions, do not access and use the Site. "

The obvious solution would be to use
the google cache instead if you want to find out if it's legal for you to go to the Site at all.

Does this mean Google is infringing?

Since when are you bound to a contract by reading it?

" If you do not intend to be legally bound by these terms and conditions, do not access and use the Site. "

The obvious solution would be to use
the google cache instead if you want to find out if it's legal for you to go to the Site at all.

American Airlines specifically denies you permission to hyperlink or provide references to the Site, unless you are allowed to do so under a separate written agreement with American Airlines. You are also denied permission to use any trademarked or copyrighted material to provide such hyperlinks or references, unless you are allowed to do so under a separate written agreement with American Airlines. American Airlines bears no responsibility for sites that provide hyperlinks or references to the Site unless those sites are operated by American Airlines.

Is it illegal if I haven't agreed?
What can they do to me
Why do they care if people link to them
What a load of rubbish

Sorry probably a waste of ones and zeroes but not as much as that dribble. The agreement says it is to protect your privacy while using the site but if you read the whole agreement they can do what ever they want with third parties, no recourse to tell you and the agreement can be changed at any time anyway. They aren't protecting privacy at all in that document in fact it looks pretty much like they have already sold their customers down the river and added a clause in the agreement that you can not sue them for anything that results from using the site, like the selling of personal information.
So the agreement should read
We can and will sell your information to third parties.
If you use this site you can not sue us.
It would be an easier read at that.

But the can't hyperlink clause is funny.

American Airlines specifically denies you permission to hyperlink or provide references to the Site, unless you are allowed to do so under a separate written agreement with American Airlines. You are also denied permission to use any trademarked or copyrighted material to provide such hyperlinks or references, unless you are allowed to do so under a separate written agreement with American Airlines. American Airlines bears no responsibility for sites that provide hyperlinks or references to the Site unless those sites are operated by American Airlines.

Is it illegal if I haven't agreed?
What can they do to me
Why do they care if people link to them
What a load of rubbish

Sorry probably a waste of ones and zeroes but not as much as that dribble. The agreement says it is to protect your privacy while using the site but if you read the whole agreement they can do what ever they want with third parties, no recourse to tell you and the agreement can be changed at any time anyway. They aren't protecting privacy at all in that document in fact it looks pretty much like they have already sold their customers down the river and added a clause in the agreement that you can not sue them for anything that results from using the site, like the selling of personal information.
So the agreement should read
We can and will sell your information to third parties.
If you use this site you can not sue us.
It would be an easier read at that.

But the can't hyperlink clause is funny.

American Airlines specifically denies you permission to hyperlink or provide references to the Site, unless you are allowed to do so under a separate written agreement with American Airlines. You are also denied permission to use any trademarked or copyrighted material to provide such hyperlinks or references, unless you are allowed to do so under a separate written agreement with American Airlines. American Airlines bears no responsibility for sites that provide hyperlinks or references to the Site unless those sites are operated by American Airlines.

Is it illegal if I haven't agreed?
What can they do to me
Why do they care if people link to them
What a load of rubbish

Sorry probably a waste of ones and zeroes but not as much as that dribble. The agreement says it is to protect your privacy while using the site but if you read the whole agreement they can do what ever they want with third parties, no recourse to tell you and the agreement can be changed at any time anyway. They aren't protecting privacy at all in that document in fact it looks pretty much like they have already sold their customers down the river and added a clause in the agreement that you can not sue them for anything that results from using the site, like the selling of personal information.
So the agreement should read
We can and will sell your information to third parties.
If you use this site you can not sue us.
It would be an easier read at that.

But the can't hyperlink clause is funny.

American Airlines specifically denies you permission to hyperlink or provide references to the Site, unless you are allowed to do so under a separate written agreement with American Airlines. You are also denied permission to use any trademarked or copyrighted material to provide such hyperlinks or references, unless you are allowed to do so under a separate written agreement with American Airlines. American Airlines bears no responsibility for sites that provide hyperlinks or references to the Site unless those sites are operated by American Airlines.

Is it illegal if I haven't agreed?
What can they do to me
Why do they care if people link to them
What a load of rubbish

Sorry probably a waste of ones and zeroes but not as much as that dribble. The agreement says it is to protect your privacy while using the site but if you read the whole agreement they can do what ever they want with third parties, no recourse to tell you and the agreement can be changed at any time anyway. They aren't protecting privacy at all in that document in fact it looks pretty much like they have already sold their customers down the river and added a clause in the agreement that you can not sue them for anything that results from using the site, like the selling of personal information.
So the agreement should read
We can and will sell your information to third parties.
If you use this site you can not sue us.
It would be an easier read at that.

But the can't hyperlink clause is funny.

American Airlines