Slashdot Mirror


Terminal Chaos

Ben Rothke writes "While Terminal Chaos should be shelved in the current events or business section of a bookstore, it could also be placed in the modern crime section. After reading it, one gets the impression that the state of air traffic today could only come due to criminal neglect or mischief. If one looks at pictures of airline flights from the 1960s, you will see well-dressed passengers enjoying their flight. In 2008, barely a day goes by without an incident of air rage, from irate passengers in the terminal, to those in the air causing flights to be diverted. Today's airline traveler considers it a near miracle if his flight arrives on time with his baggage." Keep reading for the rest of Ben's review. Terminal Chaos: Why U.S. Air Travel Is Broken and How to Fix It author George Donohue and Russell Shaver pages 240 publisher Amer Inst of Aeronautics rating 10 reviewer Ben Rothke ISBN 978-1563479496 summary Fascinating look at the current state and problems with the US air traffic system The reasons for the meltdown in the air traffic system are complex. The book names a number of reasons for today's chaos. Some of these include airline deregulation, multiple governmental agencies with no central oversight or responsibility, multiple corporate entities with conflicting agendas, an air traffic controllers union resisting change, a technologically outdated air traffic control system, and more.

While the public perception in the US is that somewhere out there, government officials are looking out for passenger's rights, the reality is there is no one looking out for them. Unlike their European counterparts, air travelers in the US have very few rights. This lack of passenger advocacy along with the other reasons has a huge impact on the economy, in addition to the costs that flight delays and cancellations cost U.S. travelers, which are estimated annually at over $3 billion.

Terminal Chaos: Why U.S. Air Travel Is Broken and How to Fix It is a fascinating book. The authors show a number of ways to fix the current problems. While the book is part case-study, it is also part tragedy, given the tragedy is that Washington lacks anyone with the pragmatism, willpower and audacity to stand up to the unions and powers that be to fix the system. The book lays out in 7 concise chapters the problems, ringleaders, obstacles and challenges that brought us to the state that we are in today.

The authors sum it up best when they note that the distance from New York to Chicago is 635 nautical miles, and when flown by a piston-powered DC-6 with a cruise speed of 315 MPH over 50 years ago, the scheduled flight time was a little longer than two hours. Today, scheduled airlines fly Boeing 737 turbofans at 511 MPH, but book this as a 3-hour flight.

In chapter 4, the authors note that while some flight delays are the result of post-9/11 security issues, the main reason why flying has become so arduous is that the air transportation system, as it is now structured in the US, is untenable from a fundamental business point of view. The government regulated business model is unstable and irrational and planes are purposely overbooked, flights are cancelled for no publicly explainable reason, and no one will offer the flier a sound reason for why these events occur.

Both authors are professors at the Center for Air Transportation Systems research at George Mason University. The book quotes from research done there, which includes suggestions such as to use larger aircraft (something Continental is doing at Newark), along with other market mechanisms. Other research shows that slot exemption, weight-based landing fees and other issues combine to lead to inefficient use of airport capacity, especially as slot-controlled airports, such as O'Hare, Kennedy, Newark, LaGuardia and Atlanta.

In chapter 6, the authors take a no-holds barred approach to NATCA, which is the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. They view NATCA as a stumbling block to modernization, and an organization whose goal is to protect their members, over the public they are supposed to serve. They also question how NATCA gets away with constantly stating that the US air traffic control system is the safest in the world, when it is actually behind Europe when it comes to safety metrics (Europe has .032 hull losses per 1 million departures vs. .049 in North America).

Ultimately, the book notes that the air traffic control problems exist in the fact that there is a perfect storm of airlines, airports, government agencies (FAA, DOT, OMB, DHS), White House and Congress, all of which seem to believe that they don't have the responsibility to fix the problem. Each seems to be waiting for someone else to take charge.

Chapter 7 lists a number of practical ways in which the air traffic control system can be modernized. Some of the suggestions would require significant financial outlays; others simply require all of the parties involved to play nicely together.

Overall, Terminal Chaos is a landmark book, in that it cuts through the complexity of the air traffic mess, and clearly lays out the problem, and possible solutions.

It is a very well-written and extremely well-researched book. It does have a few slight errors. Most noticeably on page 73 when it says that Continental has been in and out of bankruptcy court, while the table on the next page shows that Continental has been out of bankruptcy court for over 15 years. Also, one of the travel tips the authors give is to have a traveler consider using a private aircraft out of smaller, less congested airports. That is indeed a good suggestion, albeit extremely costly, and not financially feasible for most of the flying public.

Terminal Chaos is a book that should be required reading for anyone involved in air traffic and aviation, from passengers to every employee at the FAA. The authors have innovative ideas that should be listened to and implemented; from holding the government decision-makers responsible, to realistic ways to modernizing the air traffic control system. The book is a fascinating overview of what goes on in the skies above us, and in the air traffic control towers around us.

Ben Rothke is the author of Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know.

You can purchase Terminal Chaos: Why U.S. Air Travel Is Broken and How to Fix It from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

57 of 511 comments (clear)

  1. Back in the day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Airline passengers were the very wealthy elites, now they're not.

    1. Re:Back in the day... by trolltalk.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Airline passengers were the very wealthy elites, now they're not.

      High fuel prices will keep the riff-raff out.

      Seriously, the week after the grounding of all flights, the air was clearer than it has been in decades. We really have to cut back on useless air travel - it's a "luxury" our children will be paying for, and cursing us for. Take a train, take a boat, take some TIME and enjoy it - getting there is supposed to be half the fun.

    2. Re:Back in the day... by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Take a train, take a boat, take some TIME and enjoy it - getting there is supposed to be half the fun.

      Whoever said that never traveled through the midwest or the great plains. Or across an ocean.

      My time is a severely limited quantity; taking a week for a trip which would take a day (on both ends) by air means a lot less time at my destination. Taking a boat across the Atlantic or Pacific is right out; even when there was still regular passenger service, it took more than a month to cross the Atlantic.

    3. Re:Back in the day... by mapsjanhere · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually it took 5 days in most cases, the SS United States did it in under 4 days in 1952.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    4. Re:Back in the day... by bucky0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If by "heavy obligations" you mean, "graduate school" then yes.

      My family lives in Brazil (I'm a dual citizen), if it would take me a month each way, (two weeks being generous) to get me from nashville, TN to Rio de Janeiro, I would never get to see my family.

      >> getting there is supposed to be half the fun

      When you're flying to Rio de Janeiro, I'd much rather be there and on the beach with family/friends than sitting on a boat.

      --

      -Bucky
    5. Re:Back in the day... by cunina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, because any criticism of a union equates to an endorsement of a regressive workers-be-damned plutocracy.

    6. Re:Back in the day... by cduffy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Time is money.

      Taking that much travel time would mean I would be unable to travel to visit my family or convince my employer to send me to a conference... simply because the lost income (for myself or my employer) corresponding with the travel costs in question would be too great to justify the expense.

      You say "obsessed with productivity"; I say "rational".

    7. Re:Back in the day... by osu-neko · · Score: 3, Funny

      Welcome to Slashdot. :) There are no shades of grey here. You must think in binary. You either 100% agree something or you 100% oppose it. Quit being a waffler! :p

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    8. Re:Back in the day... by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The devils advocate argument would be that you have constructed your life irrationally if you have to choose between work and visiting your family.

      I'm pragmatic enough that I won't claim to support that argument (all that much), but that was a big part of the snark in my initial post.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Back in the day... by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 5, Funny

      My time is a severely limited quantity; And yet you're posting on Slashdot. ;)
    10. Re:Back in the day... by Jansingal · · Score: 4, Informative

      No!!

      those were the days when the unions were not as corrupt as they are know.

      buddy of mine works in a ny building. he has almost been killed for the crime of... turning on a router. It was a union ship.

      Today's unions are corrupt.

    11. Re:Back in the day... by cliffski · · Score: 4, Insightful

      indeed. I don't understand this face-meeting obsession by air-mile-obsessed execs.
      Ok, I'm a small fry business, but I have contracts with companies all over the world, and I've never met anyone from any of them. My biggest partners have worked with me for a year and we never even spoke on the phone.

      Business people need to get over this prehistoric desire to go pick fleas off fellow apes if they want to sign deals with them. We have broadband, phones, and webcams, you should be flying much less now for business than you did 10 years ago.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    12. Re:Back in the day... by Steve525 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously, the week after the grounding of all flights, the air was clearer than it has been in decades. We really have to cut back on useless air travel - it's a "luxury" our children will be paying for, and cursing us for. Take a train, take a boat, take some TIME and enjoy it - getting there is supposed to be half the fun.

      Seriously, you can't be serious. Maybe you are a student with months of vacation a year, but the rest of us simply don't have the time. An hour of air travel (actual flight time) equals a day of travel by other means.

      No air travel for me would mean...
      No vacations further than 2 days car/train travel.
      No conferences or meetings further than 1 day car/train travel.
      Many fewer visits to my parents (although my wife might consider this a good thing).

      That's not to say if prices go way up, people won't adjust. People flew much less in the 60's. Although I don't think we'll get to that point, we will surely see people fly less as costs go up. To expect people to take a major step backward and give it up completely is ridiculous.

      Also, note that air travel fuel efficiency is about 50-100 mpg per passenger. So, having everyone drive around in cars doesn't save anything. Trains, boats, and buses are indeed more efficient.

    13. Re:Back in the day... by bucky0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They don't have the money to get the trans-american highway to be passable throughout central/south america, what makes you think they will be able to engineer a high speed rail line that works right?

      --

      -Bucky
    14. Re:Back in the day... by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's quite simple. It's called "junket." They're not just meeting with the other execs. They're getting an international vacay in on the company dime. It's pretty standard practice to screw your shareholders whenever you get the chance.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    15. Re:Back in the day... by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Funny

      My time is a severely limited quantity; And yet you're posting on Slashdot. ;) ...while on the toilet, using an iphone. Even when he's on Slashdot, he's getting shit done.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    16. Re:Back in the day... by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Business people need to get over this prehistoric desire to go pick fleas off fellow apes if they want to sign deals with them. We have broadband, phones, and webcams, you should be flying much less now for business than you did 10 years ago.

      Yes, because all those other mediums replace the need to meet face-to-face. Right. Just like the Internet will destroy the parcel post (it did the opposite) and the computer will eliminate paper. (we use more now than ever before)

      I have a heavily distance-based business. I routinely deal with people hundreds of miles away, I do remote desktops and virtual trainings as a matter of course. My laptop is my office, my phone is my lifeline. Does this mean I fly less than ever before? Quite the opposite - I fly rather frequently, despite the virtual sessions, webcams, conference calls, email, and remote desktop support sessions.

      Sometimes, there simply is no replacement for meeting face to face. Yeah, phone calls work for things like talking through a problem, but there is no replacement for being there in the flesh, with all the innuendo, sideways glances, winks, and hand-gestures that webcams approximate but ultimately fail to deliver.

      So despite investing heavily in technologies to reduce our travel budget, and despite the effectiveness of these tools, our travel budget remains hefty. Showing up in person is like wearing nice clothes to work - it shows that you are serious, and that your intention is to make things work. And so we show up, and our company continues to grow profitably.

      And seriously - what difference is a $250 airline tickets, $150 hotel, and $75 car rental fees for a $50,000/year contract going to make? Given that choice, you sit back and enjoy the (prehistoric) flight!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    17. Re:Back in the day... by level99 · · Score: 4, Informative

      An hour of air travel (actual flight time) equals a day of travel by other means.

      That is SO bullshit. If you're traveling less than 4 hours by air, you're quicker to take a train in any place that has a modern transit system (like europe), because of the hassles at the terminals, etc.



      Sorry, but you are wrong. I used to live in Copenhagen - my family lives in Aalborg (both cities in Denmark, Europe). Driving from Copenhagen to Aalborg: 5 hours if you don't hit any congested roads. By train: 4,5 hours. Flying: 30 minutes (+ 30 minutes at the airport prior to departure). That killed your theory right there.

      Because of my work, I traveled to other European countries almost weekly. It takes considerably less time to fly from Copenhagen to Berlin, Cologne, Paris, Zurich, London, Amsterdam, Barcelona and most other cities I frequent. And in none, and I repeat NONE, of those cases would it be faster to go by train, car, bus or stand in the backyard and hope to be magically transported there.

      I was born and raised in Europe and there are many things about the region that I love. But traveling is not easier or different across Europe, than it is for me now that I live in the US and travel just as much. You could in some cases have a point with national travel in some European countries - but not cross border.
  2. Despite this "Terminal Chaos" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Air flight is cheap enough that it has become the trailways bus of today. The reason everything was so nice and dressed up because it was so expensive it selected out the riff-raff.

    I know it doesn't fit the current lefty memes, but deregulation made air flight the everyman's mode of transportation.

    1. Re:Despite this "Terminal Chaos" by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not just that. For those who have no idea what an absolute mess our airline system is, you can read this book, but for more entertainment value, I also recommend Airframe by Michael Crighton. Yes, it's Crighton's usual stuff -- heavy on technical details, some of which may be flubbed. But he does grasp the complexities of air travel in the U.S. today.

      We have deregulation, which lead to more passengers, more airlines, more competition, cheapter flights, etc. -- but at the same time, we failed to upgrade our infrastructure in a timely fashion. This includes our airports and the planes themselves -- many of which have been in the sky more than twice their intended service life. On top of that, our air-traffic control system is so out of date, it is being featured on an episode of Cavemen.

      Anyway think of it like this: you have a system now that only upper management (aobut 100 users) uses. Now, you intend to open up the system for all 30,000 users in the entire enterprise. But instead of upgrading, management hems and haws about the cost and so you don't upgrade anything except to add couple of new front-end servers, and the backend servers don't get upgraded at all.

      That's what's happened to the airline industry.

    2. Re:Despite this "Terminal Chaos" by ZaskarX · · Score: 3, Funny

      Airlines should take it a step further and make air travel even more spartan (and cheaper), remove the cushy seats and install benches made out of canvas webbing. Rip out all of the sound insulation to make more room and give passengers ear protection when they board. Make passengers pay by weight, you go online and declare your total weight (body and baggage) and pay a price, if you show up and are heavier than what you declared you pay a big penalty . No drinks, mini pretzels, and the minimum number of flight attendants required by law. Flight attendants would carry tasers to subdue air rage which would be reduced due to the fact that no one could hear each other talk anyways. Air travel sucks as it is, why not remove all vestiges of comfort and save us all a few bucks?

  3. Fixed that for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Today's airline traveler considers it a near miracle if his flight arrives on time with his baggage that he was forced to pay extra for. There, fixed that for you.
  4. The explanation is obvious by geekoid · · Score: 5, Informative

    The reason there are so many problems is that the cost is too cheap.
    The price per ticket isn't enough to cover the cost of doing business, so more and more items get cut.
    Boarding because a cattle car types of efficiency, service goes down, everybody becomes rushed, the aircraft become packed, and so on.

    Don't get me wrong, flying 1000 miles for 3 hundred bucks round trip is great, but lets not kid ourselves. If we want service to go back to the 1960s level of service, the costs should at least be as much as it was in 1960s plus inflation and fuel cost increases.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:The explanation is obvious by Bearpaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we want service to go back to the 1960s level of service, the costs should at least be as much as it was in 1960s plus inflation and fuel cost increases.

      At which point, it'll be cost-effective to install and operate a nation-wide high-speed passenger and light-cargo rail service network.
    2. Re:The explanation is obvious by spun · · Score: 3, Funny

      The price per ticket isn't enough to cover the cost of doing business, Yeah, but the make up for it in volume.
      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:The explanation is obvious by ArsonSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

      "A modern airliner costs about the same as a skycraper."

      Wow, that's a deal. Most airliners have 2 or more skycrappers in them.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    4. Re:The explanation is obvious by EMeta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Much of the time advantage of rail over plane is lost with the "Please be at the airport at least 2 hours before your flight" requirements.

    5. Re:The explanation is obvious by Josh+Booth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, but rail systems rarely made money on moving people. Every long distance hauler is really a way to move cargo, with the government mandating they throw on x number of passenger cars or something. And if you have a good enough system of long-haul, light rail, commuter bus and taxi service, not to mention new things like rentable bikes and publicly shared cars, all synchronized with our brand new internet, then you could get from here to anywhere in a minimal number of hops and cost, while also assuring fairly managed resources. So, like routing packets on the internet.

    6. Re:The explanation is obvious by Tuzanor · · Score: 4, Informative

      First, nobody said get rid of the automobile.

      Also, high speed rail (300km/h) is already widely deployed in Europe and Japan. And time is where they do shine. I can go from Central Paris to Central London (465) in less than 3 hours. I can board the train 15 minutes before it leaves. To fly, it's an hour to the airport, plus I'd have to arrive at the airport 2 hours early, wait in 3 different queues (check-in, security, boarding) fly for an hour, arrive, wait for my luggage(at least half hour), and then an hour into the city.

      Obviously this is different going from NY to LA, but amongst denser areas of the US (north-east, california) this is feasible within 1000km distances.

    7. Re:The explanation is obvious by Bearpaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have my doubts. Rail systems are expensive, and they don't bring the same value to the table as aircraft do. Namely, time.

      That's true for cross-country flights, but the comparison is much less lop-sided for closer cities.

      They also don't bring to the table what the automobile does. namely, freedom.

      Apples and rutabagas. Although if rail got the same backing from public funds that autos do ... well. (Also, a lot of that "freedom" is as imaginary as car commercials.)
    8. Re:The explanation is obvious by c_jonescc · · Score: 4, Funny

      It is ALWAYS more efficient to simply state something with capital letters, instead of producing an actual piece of evidence, AND IT'S JUST AS EFFECTIVE!

      --
      Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
    9. Re:The explanation is obvious by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That _really_ depends on where you are.

      The train from Bellingham, WA to Portland, OR (Google Maps informs me it's 262 miles) takes about seven hours and you need to show up at least twenty minutes early. Call it 7 and a half hours.

      On the other hand, I recently flew from Sea-Tac to Chicago O'Hare (~2,000 miles) in about four hours, plus two hours early for checkin = about 6 hours.

    10. Re:The explanation is obvious by Otter+Popinski · · Score: 3, Funny

      So, like routing packets on the internet. Finally a thread where a car analogy actually makes sense, and you go and make an Internet analogy.

      For shame.
    11. Re:The explanation is obvious by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative
      As a frequent flyer (like nearly every week, inside the US or internationally), here's a few tips:

      1. Check yourself in electronically - print out your boarding pass at home. That bypasses 30 minutes, easy.
      2. Check your baggage AT THE CURB. Pretty much every major airport in the US will let you check your baggage at the curb. Yes, it costs an extra $3 per bag to do so, but that saves another 15 minutes.
      3. No metal in your pockets, no liquids in your bag. Yes, you can survive without that bottle of water for 10 minutes.
      4. Always choose the security lane with the fewest number of families and old folks. Even if it's longer, you'll get through faster.

      I rarely show up more than 30 minutes before my boarding time, and have yet to NOT be at the gate prior to the start of boarding.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    12. Re:The explanation is obvious by stubob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Absolutely. Anecdotal evidence from last weekend. I took a trip from Denver to Rapid City, South Dakota to look at the monuments and such. Google Maps says the trip is 400 miles, about 6 hours 30 minutes of drive time.

      Ticket price: $250 a piece for my wife and me. Flight was scheduled to depart at 10 a.m. Left the house at 7 to drive the the airport (45 minutes + parking and walking to the terminal, call it an hour). Check in was pretty easy. I'm on the TSA watch list (still, even after filling out the form two months ago), so we couldn't check in online. So figure another 45 minutes for ticketing, security and getting to the gate. Wait around until 10, plane takes off on time. Flight time is one hour. Wait around to get off the plane and get bags (figure another 30 minutes, it' a small plane and small airport). Another hour from Rapid City to the condo. So in total, 5 hours and change.

      If we'd driven my car, at 25 mpg, gas at $4 per gallon, 800 miles/25mpg*4 = $128 for gas total. So the flight saved one hour and cost 4x as much. And that's on Frontier. Wait until July, when we fly to Michigan on United ($500 each per ticket).

      --
      Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
    13. Re:The explanation is obvious by hiryuu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1. Check yourself in electronically - print out your boarding pass at home. That bypasses 30 minutes, easy.

      Another business frequent flyer here (about the same frequency as you cited), and I can say I did this and loved it until my name landed on the no-fly list in October of last year. I've been trying to get off the list since then, with no luck, and have to check in with a live person for every single flight! I can't even use the automated kiosks.

      Arbitrary governmental action has made my work significantly more cumbersome and troublesome for no real benefit, and that has been the single largest impact I've seen.

      --
      Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
  5. union problem? by belmolis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I don't dispute that unions are sometimes a problem, I wonder how much the union is to blame in this case. One hears regular reports of understaffing and impossible work conditions for air traffic controllers, and these seem quite plausible given what an intricate and high-stress job it is together with the antiquated computer systems they have to use, which don't provide very good support. Back in 1980 the main issue in the air traffic controllers' strike was working conditions, not wages and benefits. When Reagan broke the union and fired the air traffic controllers, wasn't that a huge blow to reform?

    1. Re:union problem? by mbone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Union is not and was not the problem in this case. In 1981 the Union was right and Reagan was very lucky that there wasn't a major air disaster because of his actions. As was the case for basically every action of that Administration, ideology triumphed over both reality and common sense.

    2. Re:union problem? by jandrese · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wasn't the decade after that the worst ever for Airline accidents in the US? The problem isn't that the Air Traffic Controllers are resistant to change because they're afraid of losing their job, it's that the FAA is pathologically risk averse. That's the primary reason it's taking so long for ADS-B to get deployed, because any change could mean a change which could mean danger. It's impossible in the FAA to change the brand of coffee you make without a 2 year investigation.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:union problem? by NullProg · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Union is not and was not the problem in this case. In 1981 the Union was right and Reagan was very lucky that there wasn't a major air disaster because of his actions. As was the case for basically every action of that Administration, ideology triumphed over both reality and common sense.

      Are we rewriting history again?

      1) Federal Employees, which Air Traffic Controllers are, cannot legally strike.
      2) There wasn't a disaster because Reagan shifted Military Controllers into the FAA positions. Supervisors and non-striking controllers took up the rest of the slack.
      3) I would say a $30 billion a year tax generating revenue stream triumphed over the ATC Union desire of a 32-Hour work week for more money.

      Just like the Soviets, the ATC Union thought Reagan was bluffing. He wasn't.

      Enjoy,

      --
      It's just the normal noises in here.
  6. There's something on the wing! by nmb3000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    If one looks at pictures of airline flights from the 1960s, you will see well-dressed passengers enjoying their flight.

    I beg to differ!.

    In any case, some of it is probably just a reaction to more modern events and mindsets. Nowadays, instead of "Oh, it's a distraught passenger who doesn't like flying" it's "OMGTERRORIST". Airlines overbooking flights and employing shoddy baggage handling techniques doesn't help anything either.

    --
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
    /)
  7. A little overstated. by mbone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I fly every week, I have never seen a case of air rage, and I have never lost a bag. I think that the case is over stated.

    It is true that there are too many small flights, which waste both gas and airport slots. But the overall system works decently well IMHO.

  8. Security theater by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 3, Informative

    If I'd be forced to guess I would say that the security theater methods actually increase violence on the plane, due to people getting annoyed and doing stupid things. Therefor this security measure might actually cost lives, instead of saving them.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  9. safety comparison by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Insightful

    when [the U.S.] is actually behind Europe when it comes to safety metrics (Europe has .032 hull losses per 1 million departures vs. .049 in North America).

    You've gone from an argument about the U.S. to cite statistics from North America - which, as you may have noticed, contains other nations. And you've not taken into account differences of flight distances or number of passengers per flight; I would think a much more useful number would be deaths per passenger-mile.

    If you're directly quoting an argument from the book, this puts s large hole in its credibility.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  10. It's all because John Wayne is no lonvger with us. by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    barely a day goes by without an incident of air rage

    That's because 40 years ago, someone who started pitching a violent and/or profane fit in close quarters where other people had paid for a service (like watching a movie or traveling for a few hours) could reasonably expect a sound thumping from someone willing to shut them up. And no jury in the world would give the person doing the thumping a hard time. Shame used to be a useful tool. There was a time when acting like an ass in public carried with it a certain stigma. Now it's celebrated in the news, and is a point of pride in many a music video. This is simply about bad manners made the norm, and a culture of victimhood-as-virtue that provides cover for every mis-step (including the deliberate variety), and which condems anyone looking to deny someone that cover as being somehow cruel. We've become a coddling culture, and this is the price we pay. It's no mystery. Every one of those screaming kids you see in the grocery store today will become the asshat in seat 30B on your flight to Chicago.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  11. Idiotic Nostalgia by netsavior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If one looks at pictures of airline flights from the 1960s, you will see well-dressed passengers enjoying their flight.

    In 1950 an airline ticket was $325... or about $2800 adjusted for today's dollars... So there was a slightly different class of people

    additionally there were significantly LESS people per flight, per terminal, and per airline.

    Maybe a better comparison would be modern Airlines to 1960s busses.
  12. Re:Well not related by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd much rather they charge people with 2 bags more than they charge me and my 1 bag than I would they charge everybody the same.

    The pricing structure of 2007 is not compatible with the fuel prices of 2008; charging Mr. 2 bags is not nickel and diming, it is staying in business.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  13. Re:It's all because John Wayne is no lonvger with by dirkbaztard · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah! That's what we need. Let's thaw out The Duke, and let him and John Cassavetes, and Lee Marvin, and Charles Bronson, and Clint Eastwood, and Chuck Norris be on all the flights they can cover. That will make air travel safer and more enjoyable. At least on those flights.

  14. yep by Quadraginta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here's an amusing site y'all can slashdot, comparing flying the 1960s to the present. A few points the guy makes:

    Flying was expensive. For example: A round trip ticket between Cleveland and Washington D.C. was about $75. This doesn't sound like a bad deal, until you adjust the fare for inflation: That's over $400 in today's dollars! By contrast, I recently paid less than $100 for a round trip between Cleveland and Washington on one of today's low-cost deregulated carriers.

    There was no point in shopping around for the best deal, because all airfares were controlled by regulation. If a roundtrip ticket between Cleveland and Washington was $75 on one airline, it was $75 on all the airlines.

    The vast majority of the passengers were businessmen. White male businessmen. Occasional families. Very few minorities, and virtually no women travelling independently.

    Food and drinks were almost always served, no matter how short the flight. Because there was no price competition, the airlines had to compete based on service. It was amazing to watch the stewardesses hustle to serve everyone on a quick trip, while constantly tugging at their skirts to retain some modesty.

    Sure, that sounds high-class, I guess, if you were a member of the flying aristocracy.

  15. Airplane! by flahwho · · Score: 3, Funny

    "...The life of everyone on board depends upon just one thing: finding someone back there who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner!"

  16. Get Over Yourselves People! by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK, air travel has become a horror. But "criminal neglect"? It's not "criminal" that passengers are miserable. "Criminal" would be planes falling out of the sky. But in fact you're safer flying across the country than you are driving to work. Or, if you believe some statistics, brushing your teeth.

    I used to love flying; now you couldn't get me on a plane without putting a gun to my head. But as long as people make their travel decisions based primarily on price, airlines have no incentive to make things better. I wouldn't argue with a few protective laws and regulations, but airlines' failure to unilaterally improve things in a hypercompetitive market is a matter of economics, not "criminal neglect".

  17. Re:If that was the case... by jandrese · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why are bus and train routes on time more often than planes?
    I see someone has never taken Amtrak or Grayhound ever. On Amtrak is is not unusual at all to be delayed 6 hours because some freight train has priority over you, and the Amtrak employees could care less except that when their shift ends they're out of there, no matter where you are.
    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  18. Re:If that was the case... by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why are bus and train routes on time more often than planes?

    Most airlines I've flown with show higher "on time" numbers than the Dutch railways (they are now but have been struggling to reach the mandated 86% while we are repeatedly mentioned to have one of the world's most efficient networks).

    Why are so many flights cancelled?

    It happened to me once, to Moscow. I was offered a replacement flight the same day and only because my visum was about to expire I had not a single hour to spare - our fault (business trip). It happened to a friend of mine once - we rebooked the flight to another BA one ten minutes later.

    You don't want to know how often I've had a scheduled train exceed that amount of delay or not even showing up at all. The same for metro, tram or bus services. Obviously I travel more by "regular" public transportation than plane, but I'm really not convinced there's a huge difference per mile/km travelled.

    Why are there so many frequent flyer mileage packages which give perks to people who are clearly NOT the everyman?

    I hardly know of any business that doesn't attempt some sort of useless loyalty programme. And frankly, usually I am disappointment when none is available.

    I fly occassionally, twice a year if I'm lucky, round trip, with connections. 5 out of 8 plans I've flown on were delayed.

    I'm sorry to hear that. I make at least twenty different legs a year and maybe one or two of them cause me a delay. Most of my time wasted travelling by plane is by getting there too early because I don't trust getting there on time - blame that on the other forms of transportation.

    More than anything, I do NOT want to be stuck overnight in an airport terminal trying to get home.

    If you book your entire flight at once, most airliners offer you compensation. I must admit I'm specifically lucky here, my bank/creditcard company insures me against delays, I get a huge (more than enough) compensation in case I am forced to get a hotel or buy new clothes and toiletries in case of luggage delay. But I must concede the authors could be right here, I believe this is a good European law where airliners are required to compensate you.

    But you aren't treated like the everyman on an airline, you are treated like crap.

    Never have I felt this way, except maybe when a combined fire and late arrival delayed a flight of mine after stores had closed at the gate (11pm-ish) and we weren't allowed back to the terminal for refreshments even with the two-hour delay. I filed a complaint and got 50% of my total fare back - the full 100% share of that return leg.

    Maybe there's US companies are allowed to treat customers as crap at greater liberty (pun intended), but I seriously doubt it is typical of air travel alone. (Our national railways are required to give refunds as well in case of severe delays. I tried but failed when my 10pm Amtrak train showed up in South Carolina three hours late.)

    (Sidenote: I miss the days when travelling to the US was something one would do for fun, in my case 1997/2001/2002. Continental didn't give me my luggage in 2002 when transferring in Atlanta and entering the country, nobody at customs gave me a hard time for entering the country for three weeks without any luggage and in San Francisco it took me all of ten minutes to asked what to do because it also wasn't there. Actually I pretty much assumed that I could just report it, go to my friends and have it deliver ASAP, which is indeed how these things work.

    "Terminal chaos" has nothing to do with airliners and airports but much more with those inhabitants of this planet who are so braindead to cause a riot when they aren't sure whether they packed a toothbrush while they really aren't going anywhere where they couldn't buy a new one in virtually every street.

    Remember this every time you hear "Mr. Bla, you must board immediately, we're already offloading your luggage" through the terminal speakers, look around you, and then be amazed how airports can function so well with all the idiots using them.

  19. Traveling by sjbe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    getting there is supposed to be half the fun. Unless your goal is specifically to wander (nothing wrong with that) then no, getting there is NOT half the fun. It's not even 1% of the fun. When I visited China I went to see China - not to have "half the fun" on the inside of a 747 and certainly not getting seasick on a boat for several weeks. That prospect does not appeal to me in the slightest.


    I personally don't enjoy the actual act of riding/driving/flying from point A to point B in most cases. I consider it a waste of my time and hence my life. If I want to stop a bunch of places along the way I'd prefer it be intentional. You may feel differently and that's fine. I would like to spend my life doing the things I enjoy, not the things you think I should enjoy. Riding a vehicle somewhere is not what I personally enjoy.

  20. Air traffic controllers are conservative by backwardMechanic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...air traffic controllers union resisting change, a technologically outdated air traffic control system... Air traffic controllers are a very conservative bunch. They don't like change. They like to test things *heavily* before putting them into regular use. I like it that way.

    I briefly worked in ATC research. Whatever neat computer system the scientists came up with, the controllers would look at and say "what do we do when it fails?". And they're serious. If the radars go down they can manage a sector by memory and radio comms. It's very impressive. There are lots of shiney new technology-based answers that just aren't reliable enough. The trouble is, too many people are flying.
  21. Screwed up priorities? by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If somebody really needs to get to another continent within a day, it should be because somebody they love is on their deathbed. It shouldn't be because of yet another business deal. Our priorities are so screwed these days, but I guess that's progress. Who the hell are you to tell me or anyone else what our priorities should be? I welcome fast travel. The faster the better within reason and safety. My life is finite and I'd rather not waste it traveling in unnecessarily slow vehicles when I could be spending my life the way I want to. If slow travel makes you happy that's fine but don't you dare tell me my priorities are screwed up because I don't want to take a week or a month out of my life to travel a few thousand miles.
  22. Trains don't have to take time by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Take a train, take a boat, take some TIME and enjoy it - getting there is supposed to be half the fun.
    Taking a train need not take time. Using the example in the article, if Chicago-New York is 635 nautical miles (=1,175km) then modern trains like the TGV can travel that distance in 4 hours (that is assuming the operating speed of 320km/h, not the max speed of 574.8 km/h). If current flights are scheduled at 3 hours then in this case a train would be far faster since there is no need to arrive 1-2 hours beforehand for your body cavity search plus you start and end at stations which, at least for Chicago, are in the city centre. Other advantages are onboard power, WiFi, cellphone coverage, something to look at out of the window etc.

    It's true that the monetary cost of setting up such a network is not trivial but if you factor in the environmental cost of planes the question you might want to ask is can you afford not to?