Well... we should do online voting and have to pass a quiz about the constitution but, apparently, requiring people to know what they're doing is discrimination.
So my last new wonderful, top of the line, latest and greatest phone I bought died just before my two year contract was up, so I bought an older model phone (different brand) on Amazon that was supposed to work with my provider. It was supposed to be a temporary replacement until I could buy a new, latest and greatest phone.... but long story short, it's smaller, slower, and everything I actually need in a phone, so I just decided to just keep it.
I thought "on time" is defined by when it lands. And the fact is that more and more flights are "on time" because they pad the arrival time (like saying a 1.5 hour flight will arrive 2 hours after scheduled departure time); perhaps it's just building in those typical delays into the estimates.
I fly several times a year for my company, and I completely disagree. I think it's more perception than reality.
1) This is the most valid point, but unless you're late to the airport it's a moot point, because the plane's not leaving any sooner because you didn't have to check a bag. If you are late, then it's your own damn fault.
2) Nearly every time I've flown the bag is already there by the time I get to the carousel, or within 5 minutes or so. It depends when you get off the plane. If you rush off, pushing and shoving people out of your way so that you can be first, then you will wait longer.
3) Yes... I've even had luggage lost before. But the fact is that it's really quite rare. Last stat I read didn't clearly say how much was lost, but "Mishandled" bags was around 0.6%, I would expect most of that was damage - and while it may be a hassle, airlines are responsible for up to over $3k per lost bag, so they are actually doing quite a bit to stop it from happening. They REALLY do not want to lose your luggage. From this report, airlines are "now 70 percent less likely to lose our bags than they were 10 years ago."
I've flown for quite some time, and I can tell you that when they didn't charge for checked bags, a LOT fewer people used carry-ons.
They used to do back to front boarding. I mostly fly Delta now, which uses "zones," but zone 1 doesn't necessarily equate to being in the back, and then they load First Class, "Premiere," "Executives" and whatnot first, then handicapped people and people flying with children... the plane is half full by the time they start boarding zone 1. But even way back when, they'd call "now boarding rows 40 and higher" and everybody would run up to and crowd around the gate anyway.
Why? I get when people want to save money, but I'd rather check the bag instead of having to lug it around the airport all day. All my valuables are still with me in my backpack anyway, and while I've had lost luggage before, it was a LONG time ago and it's actually quite rare.
I check my bags because the company pays. If they'd pony up the $100 for the Skymiles upgrade to the corporate AMEX card, they'd save money, but some executive somewhere couldn't stomach the idea that employees might benefit from free miles when using their corporate cards - so, in my case, it's more out of spite.
Yes - it's mostly the fault of people, not the airlines. "Now boarding rows 40 and higher" and everybody races to the gate. Even when getting your luggage from the carousel: "please stand back until you see your bag so that everybody can see and have access to their bags" and everybody crowds around, mostly the area where the bags initially come out. I personally just stand on the opposite side.
People carry on to avoid $25 checked bag fees. $2 wouldn't stop them. I fly for my company a lot, I always check my bag - even if it would fit in the overhead compartment. They force me to have a corporate AMEX card for traveling, but won't pay the $100 annual fee for the Delta AMEX that would let me do it for "free" because some executive can't stomach that I'd get airline miles for business purposes, so, instead, I make them pay $50 per trip and they end up losing money.
Except that what they've been doing is making service worse and charging people to keep it the same as it was. And it works. So it's a race to the bottom for all the airlines to cram as many people in as possible while reducing service.
And? My development over the years has gone from IRIX to Mac to Linux to Windows. The graphics software I use is Windows only, but I write web services for data integration - they run on Linux, but my local development environment runs under WSL so that I don't need to be connected to work in order to work on it - it's fully functional and recently, while on a remote operation, I just ran my web services from it so that I could continue working in Windows. I had zero problems and was very impressed. I had the Linux partition all up to date with my latest code just in case, but didn't need it. I've been a big MS detractor since before most slashdotters were born (I was in college during the DRDOS escapades), but when something works, it works.
Yes - near. Not "in," but "near." The reason people live in subburbs is because it's less expensive, but they still have access to sporting events and concerts and stuff that the city offers.
IDK if you're being sarcastic or not, but while I still have Linux partitions I can boot with, I use WSL and find that it actually works great. Of course, it still requires installing a distribution (and there are now several to choose from).
Of course - there's a lot of ways to be "best." Best end-user experience, best server, easiest to maintain, etc., etc.... offering an opinion here is pointless.
That may be true, but it was already expensive before Google, before Facebook, before a lot of the tech companies who still want to open their offices there because that's where the action is - only being a little bit farther away still keeps you near the action and lowers costs dramatically. Several of these companies recently opened NEW campuses in those expensive areas - it makes little sense.
If your a direct consumer related business, like a branch of a bank, or even a sport stadium, I get why you want your location to be "in the thick of it," but why do tech companies insist on building their work places in super expensive cities? How much money could these companies save by building in a nearby suburb where their employees could actually afford to live?
And the bigger question is simply if you think they'll actually say "we can't track and forecast this hurricane because of 4% budget cuts because the person forecasting rain in Seattle and the person forecasting wind in Chicago can't help."
Slashdot Mirror
Well... we should do online voting and have to pass a quiz about the constitution but, apparently, requiring people to know what they're doing is discrimination.
So my last new wonderful, top of the line, latest and greatest phone I bought died just before my two year contract was up, so I bought an older model phone (different brand) on Amazon that was supposed to work with my provider. It was supposed to be a temporary replacement until I could buy a new, latest and greatest phone.... but long story short, it's smaller, slower, and everything I actually need in a phone, so I just decided to just keep it.
I thought IQ was supposed to be scaled so that 100 was average.
Either way, it makes it easier for me to check bags.
I thought "on time" is defined by when it lands. And the fact is that more and more flights are "on time" because they pad the arrival time (like saying a 1.5 hour flight will arrive 2 hours after scheduled departure time); perhaps it's just building in those typical delays into the estimates.
I fly several times a year for my company, and I completely disagree. I think it's more perception than reality.
1) This is the most valid point, but unless you're late to the airport it's a moot point, because the plane's not leaving any sooner because you didn't have to check a bag. If you are late, then it's your own damn fault.
2) Nearly every time I've flown the bag is already there by the time I get to the carousel, or within 5 minutes or so. It depends when you get off the plane. If you rush off, pushing and shoving people out of your way so that you can be first, then you will wait longer.
3) Yes... I've even had luggage lost before. But the fact is that it's really quite rare. Last stat I read didn't clearly say how much was lost, but "Mishandled" bags was around 0.6%, I would expect most of that was damage - and while it may be a hassle, airlines are responsible for up to over $3k per lost bag, so they are actually doing quite a bit to stop it from happening. They REALLY do not want to lose your luggage. From this report, airlines are "now 70 percent less likely to lose our bags than they were 10 years ago."
I've flown for quite some time, and I can tell you that when they didn't charge for checked bags, a LOT fewer people used carry-ons.
Yes - that is the cause. There really is no solution. If you offered a "premium" airline, you'd go out of business pretty quickly, I think.
Your town is your oyster.
They used to do back to front boarding. I mostly fly Delta now, which uses "zones," but zone 1 doesn't necessarily equate to being in the back, and then they load First Class, "Premiere," "Executives" and whatnot first, then handicapped people and people flying with children... the plane is half full by the time they start boarding zone 1. But even way back when, they'd call "now boarding rows 40 and higher" and everybody would run up to and crowd around the gate anyway.
Why? I get when people want to save money, but I'd rather check the bag instead of having to lug it around the airport all day. All my valuables are still with me in my backpack anyway, and while I've had lost luggage before, it was a LONG time ago and it's actually quite rare.
I check my bags because the company pays. If they'd pony up the $100 for the Skymiles upgrade to the corporate AMEX card, they'd save money, but some executive somewhere couldn't stomach the idea that employees might benefit from free miles when using their corporate cards - so, in my case, it's more out of spite.
Yes - it's mostly the fault of people, not the airlines. "Now boarding rows 40 and higher" and everybody races to the gate. Even when getting your luggage from the carousel: "please stand back until you see your bag so that everybody can see and have access to their bags" and everybody crowds around, mostly the area where the bags initially come out. I personally just stand on the opposite side.
People carry on to avoid $25 checked bag fees. $2 wouldn't stop them. I fly for my company a lot, I always check my bag - even if it would fit in the overhead compartment. They force me to have a corporate AMEX card for traveling, but won't pay the $100 annual fee for the Delta AMEX that would let me do it for "free" because some executive can't stomach that I'd get airline miles for business purposes, so, instead, I make them pay $50 per trip and they end up losing money.
Except that what they've been doing is making service worse and charging people to keep it the same as it was. And it works. So it's a race to the bottom for all the airlines to cram as many people in as possible while reducing service.
AMEX Platinum doesn't have a yearly fee?
And? My development over the years has gone from IRIX to Mac to Linux to Windows. The graphics software I use is Windows only, but I write web services for data integration - they run on Linux, but my local development environment runs under WSL so that I don't need to be connected to work in order to work on it - it's fully functional and recently, while on a remote operation, I just ran my web services from it so that I could continue working in Windows. I had zero problems and was very impressed. I had the Linux partition all up to date with my latest code just in case, but didn't need it. I've been a big MS detractor since before most slashdotters were born (I was in college during the DRDOS escapades), but when something works, it works.
Yes - near. Not "in," but "near." The reason people live in subburbs is because it's less expensive, but they still have access to sporting events and concerts and stuff that the city offers.
I'm not suggesting the move to Montana, I'm suggesting they pick a subburb that has half the cost of real estate and much less congestion.
IDK if you're being sarcastic or not, but while I still have Linux partitions I can boot with, I use WSL and find that it actually works great. Of course, it still requires installing a distribution (and there are now several to choose from).
Of course - there's a lot of ways to be "best." Best end-user experience, best server, easiest to maintain, etc., etc.... offering an opinion here is pointless.
That may be true, but it was already expensive before Google, before Facebook, before a lot of the tech companies who still want to open their offices there because that's where the action is - only being a little bit farther away still keeps you near the action and lowers costs dramatically. Several of these companies recently opened NEW campuses in those expensive areas - it makes little sense.
You are.... you're... duh. I get it.
If your a direct consumer related business, like a branch of a bank, or even a sport stadium, I get why you want your location to be "in the thick of it," but why do tech companies insist on building their work places in super expensive cities? How much money could these companies save by building in a nearby suburb where their employees could actually afford to live?
4% of the staff - or under 5%, in any event.
And the bigger question is simply if you think they'll actually say "we can't track and forecast this hurricane because of 4% budget cuts because the person forecasting rain in Seattle and the person forecasting wind in Chicago can't help."