Slashdot Mirror

So what if it's theater? It's very effective theater. And there's still no significant downward trend in airline travel, no matter how miserable they try to make it. The bright side is that the screens built into the seats will be much closer and easier to reach.

Sounds like they're trying to have it both ways.

They would lose a lot of revenue from empty seats if they absolutely had to guarantee a seat to everyone who bought a ticket.

They would gain a lot of revenue if they overbooked and then -- in the 0.01% of cases where the overbooked passenger showed up -- they got a passenger to give up the seat by auction, for as much as it cost.

Since it only happens 0.01% of the time, and they save a lot of revenue by overbooking, they would still come out ahead if they auctioned it for whatever it costs. For $10,000, they'd almost certainly find somebody. http://heelsfirsttravel.boardi... Hell, you could take a cab from Chicago to Louisville for $10,000.

But United cut off the bidding at $1,000, and then called the Chicago cops, who are trained in de-escalation (just kidding).

It's like what the gambling casinos do when a really good poker player comes in and wins a lot of money. They say, "You misunderstood. This is just a game. We're not really playing poker for high stakes (unless you're losing)." And they kick him out and bar him from casinos ever again.

Or it's like what the insurance companies do when your house burns down. They say, "We only collect money. We don't like to give money back. It's in the fine print in your contract."

There is nothing to stop an airline paying more compensation. Take this case:
http://heelsfirsttravel.boardi...

Yeah, how are they so cheap?

Oh right:
http://www.news.com.au/finance...
http://viewfromthewing.boardin...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

“They said, ‘Next time you come through, don’t have a cleared phone,'"

They didn't set out to make a partial upper deck. The original plan was to make it a full double-decker like Airbus eventually did with the A380. But given their deadline, they didn't think they could solve the problem of adding (safe) evacuation slides for passengers on the upper deck in time, so they settled for a traditional single-decker (which they already had experience designing, just needed to scale everything up to make it wider). The short blister on top for the cockpit was added to allow the cargo variant to have a swing nose so you could load cargo through the front, instead of through the side. So it's not really "copying" someone else's design when there's only one practical solution (the impractical one being putting the cockpit in the swing-away nose and designing all sorts of latches for the mechanical linkages between the cockpit controls to the plane's control surfaces).

This is why the upper deck on the early 747-100 is a lot shorter than in later variants like the 747-400. The few upper-deck seats on the 747-100 were an afterthought, added more for novelty than for increased passenger capacity. The lower deck on the 747 already carried nearly 3x as many passengers as any other plane operating at the time. Boeing tried for decades to sell the idea of a full double-deck 747 to the airlines, but not enough of them would commit to them. So Boeing never bothered making it. When Airbus announced their plans for the A380, Boeing tried again to pitch a full double-deck 747, and again not enough airlines said they wanted it. That's why they didn't try to compete with Airbus on the A380.

Production of the A380 will probably soon cease, and its sales have just barely recouped its design costs. The 4-engine airliners like the 747, A340, and A380 are being eaten alive in the market by twin-engine airliners like the 777, 787, and A350 (2 engines are more efficient than 4). The disparity between A380 orders and deliveries is mostly due to airlines which placed orders but have asked to delay delivery or have refused receipt as they consider cancelling. Airbus needs to produce about 20-25 a year for the production facilities alone (i.e. excluding design costs) to operate without losing money. And right now they're scheduled to drop to 12 deliveries/year in 2018, so they'll probably wind up losing money on the A380 overall (the remaining 100 or so orders will probably be delivered at a loss, if they're not canceled outright). So it would appear Boeing's market analysis was correct that there wasn't enough market demand for a full double-deck airliner. It's a good thing the EU government guaranteed the loans Airbus took out to design the plane or this might've bankrupted the company. Competition between Airbus and Boeing is what keeps technology progressing and prices low.

They didn't set out to make a partial upper deck. The original plan was to make it a full double-decker like Airbus eventually did with the A380. But given their deadline, they didn't think they could solve the problem of adding (safe) evacuation slides for passengers on the upper deck in time, so they settled for a traditional single-decker (which they already had experience designing, just needed to scale everything up to make it wider). The short blister on top for the cockpit was added to allow the cargo variant to have a swing nose so you could load cargo through the front, instead of through the side. So it's not really "copying" someone else's design when there's only one practical solution (the impractical one being putting the cockpit in the swing-away nose and designing all sorts of latches for the mechanical linkages between the cockpit controls to the plane's control surfaces).

This is why the upper deck on the early 747-100 is a lot shorter than in later variants like the 747-400. The few upper-deck seats on the 747-100 were an afterthought, added more for novelty than for increased passenger capacity. The lower deck on the 747 already carried nearly 3x as many passengers as any other plane operating at the time. Boeing tried for decades to sell the idea of a full double-deck 747 to the airlines, but not enough of them would commit to them. So Boeing never bothered making it. When Airbus announced their plans for the A380, Boeing tried again to pitch a full double-deck 747, and again not enough airlines said they wanted it. That's why they didn't try to compete with Airbus on the A380.

Production of the A380 will probably soon cease, and its sales have just barely recouped its design costs. The 4-engine airliners like the 747, A340, and A380 are being eaten alive in the market by twin-engine airliners like the 777, 787, and A350 (2 engines are more efficient than 4). The disparity between A380 orders and deliveries is mostly due to airlines which placed orders but have asked to delay delivery or have refused receipt as they consider cancelling. Airbus needs to produce about 20-25 a year for the production facilities alone (i.e. excluding design costs) to operate without losing money. And right now they're scheduled to drop to 12 deliveries/year in 2018, so they'll probably wind up losing money on the A380 overall (the remaining 100 or so orders will probably be delivered at a loss, if they're not canceled outright). So it would appear Boeing's market analysis was correct that there wasn't enough market demand for a full double-deck airliner. It's a good thing the EU government guaranteed the loans Airbus took out to design the plane or this might've bankrupted the company. Competition between Airbus and Boeing is what keeps technology progressing and prices low.

Well it's not like 747s have disappeared from commercial aviation. A number of airlines use the newest 747-8i (such as Lufthansa) and they will use them for years.

I had the luck of flying on a KLM 747 ICN-AMS; and a 747-400 (FRA-YVR) and 747-8i (JNB-FRA) of Lufthansa.

The KLM flight was in business on the upper deck, and it was a fluke because at the time only economy travel was company policy. However my VP took his sweet time to approve my travel, and by the time he did it only business was available. Somehow slipped through the cracks, and I got to fly in business. Poor experience all in all, with slanted seats, mediocre food, and a snoring neighbour. But the first time on the upper deck you can't forget!

Second time was on a 744, and I was booked in business. At the time Lufthansa was flying their 744s with an amazing upper deck configuration with 8 first class seats which also had a bed:

http://onemileatatime.img.boar...

I went to the gate before my flight to get my passport sorted, and the friendly gate agent gave me a shiny first class boarding pass. I could not believe my luck, never got an upgrade before, and now this! Made my way to the first class lounge in Frankfurt, ordered eggs benedict and a glass of champagne, and waited to board. I slept about 8 hours straight on my own flying bed!

Finally I flew the 748 recently on the upper deck in business class, and it was a mostly uneventful flight, but the experience of going up the stairs is always amazing.

Fun fact, if you get to fly first class on the 748 of lufthansa, you actually sit more in front of the pilots, since the nose of the plane is way ahead of the upper deck!

A tax doge?

Uber cars ... don't try to cheat you at every step.

Right....

http://justanotherpointstravel...

Thirdly, Constitutional protections apply at all times, except for a narrow set of circumstances which are legally well-defined.

I'd like to think so, but the justification for the TSA seems to be that you don't have to get on an airplane (which I think is ridiculous). Someone I argued with before used similar arguments and provided this link. Whether it's true or not, such logic would give the government a tremendous amount of power.

They are making no such claim. Yes they are searching everyone without a warrant / PC / RS, but you allow them to by stepping into the building, but an imposition upon the 4th amendment is hardly 'deciding that the constitution does not apply'.

There was a circuit court ruling providing an exception in the 4th Amendment for airport screenings.
http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/20/how-the-tsa-legally-circumvents-the-fourth-amendment/

I have no problem with the government being able to limit aspects of the constitution at certain locations/times/events/whatever within reason (we obviously are going to have different interpretations on what is reasonable), for example pretty much saying the word 'bomb' at the airport regardless of the context will most likely result in getting detaining, that seems reasonable to me.

Many yes, but far too many feel that "If that's the price we have to pay for safety, then so be it".

Not as many as people think.

It's all in how the survey question is stated. If you ask people "Do you support airport security?" you'll find overwhelming support. Obviously. Ask people if they support the TSA irradiating its citizens, "raping" them with invasive pat-downs -- whether they agree with those security procedures, and you'll get much lower response. It's like the IRS: Most people acknowledge they have to pay their taxes. Few agree with the collection tactics the IRS uses, or the lack of judicial oversight.

The fine is not automatically applied for refusing a pat-down.

I do, however, acknowledge that TSA employees have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted.

Your argument is, at best, a ridiculous hyperbole.

read this: http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/20/how-the-tsa-legally-circumvents-the-fourth-amendment/

The Feds have given them the authority. It's "reasonable", and unfortunately currently legal.

Don't like it? Write your congress-critter. Run for office. Lobby. Protest. Sue the feds. Don't fly.

Me? I don't like it, but I like how a jet aircraft can get me 1,000 miles away in ~2 hours, compared to driving 15-20 hours. The TSA screening is a minor annoyance. So I tolerate it.

I'd rather the TSA have a asshole detector at the checkpoint, or a assholes-don't-fly-list. There are a lot of completely rude assholes on airplanes. Trust me, your fellow passengers are far more obnoxious and deserving of an ass-whipping than some poor schmuck TSA agent.

Here's an interesting letter allegedly written by an anonymous DHS lawyer. Summary: DHS knows that the VIPR searches are illegal, and that courts ultimately will not validate TSA's authority to conduct them.

Should a traveler encounter a TSA VIPR team deployed in a non-airport environment I would advise them to refuse to submit to the search. Once they have refused the search they should ask for the team leader and request that person’s name, title and where they are based. If the traveler has a video camera, as most phones now do, I would advise them to record their entire interaction...TSA publicly states that photography and video of TSA operations are legal. Furthermore video in a public space cannot be legally impeded except in certain very limited instances in the United States.

The TSA may threaten the traveler with arrest for refusal to comply and it is possible the local law enforcement on site will comply with the TSA’s arrest request, however this arrest should not hold up in court if the traveler is polite, non-combative and complies with the arresting officer’s request.

So, if you're a protester-type interested in challenging the constitutionality of VIPR searches in the courts, here's a blueprint for you. If not, I'd just avoid the subway altogether.

Read it and weep, motherfucker. Your precious two party system is letting you be fucked for decades now.
 
Obama 2012!!!!

TSA did the same thing a while back with the passenger screening manual. http://boardingarea.com/blogs/thewanderingaramean/2009/12/the-tsa-makes-another-stupid-move/ http://cryptome.org/0001/tsa-ssi-02.htm You would think that they put out a memo on how to properly redact digital documents?

Not true according to this.

I'm not sure if the poster is telling the truth but it's not hard to believe that the experinces are actual.

"had improperly — perhaps illegally — saved [35,000] images [low resolution] of the scans of public servants and private citizens."

Ok, how many times were we told they did not save the images? Sorry, boardingarea.com, voa.com, Tim Bennett, Bruce Schneier, and others, but either you were a willing conspirator in lulling us into accepting this, or you were also lied to. Choose your side now, ok?

And we can stop believing DHS now, can't we? Lying weasels, all of them, even so many of the front-line worker weasels. Soon, airflight security will be so onerous that we will stop choosing to fly. Then the airlines will ask for relief. And there will be none.