I'm a photographer, not a terrorist!

rdenney wrote in post #9130374
Airlines were deregulated in the late 70's. My extensive business travel started 15 years later, and the degradation in service I've seen has been since then. I don't think deregulation can take the blame here. Poor business practices, lack of competition at too many big airports, and many other reasons crowd in front of it in line. If costs can't support prices, then raise prices and demand will drop. The problem is that current airline practices favor the budget-traveling tourist at the expense of business travelers, especially those who don't travel enough to get privileges.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one pal.

But honestly, the entire discussion (from both our points of view) hinges on what I highlited above. You, I, We pale in comparison to this segment of the traveling public. We're simply vastly outnumbered and by and large irrelevant.

And for the record, I truly have no love for the airline industry if for no other reason than the slimey tactics they're using to try and impinge on my General Aviation flying privaledges. They want "little airplanes" to go away but what they don't tell people is that along with the four-place Cessnas and Pipers go Life Flights, Freight Flights, Air Taxi, Firefighting and a whole host of other operations that are classified as General Aviation.

I'm truly sorry you're in a position where you catch it from both sides. I've been there as well but it's only travel and not brain surgery. Ultimately, the US has the finest air traffic system in the world. It's far from perfect but it's a damn sight better than what the rest of the world has.

Peace...

Wilt wrote in post #9129784
Luggage may have been checked, and the person not showing up for flight could be an indication of explosives within the checked luggage, where the bomb planter might not want to become a victim of their own wrongdoing. Very valid reason to NOT fly without that passenger.

The cargo door was never opened after initial loading of baggage; so unless they were using some fancy new xray goggles, then that was not the case

I read a while back that Canada was proposing a law where (amongst other things) be required to deplane if there is a delay of more than 30 minutes. Even the government is getting the idea that the private firms running the airlines have started to go a bit overboard with silly rules.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #9130420
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one pal.

I can live with that.

Given that business travelers are the only ones paying ticket prices that actually carry their weight vis a vis costs, one would think they would get the higher consideration. The business travelers are usually not the problems at airport. They know the rules, follow them, pack lightly, take their shoes off without being asked, and so on. But they are also the travelers under the most real stress and time constraint.

Rick "not sure we disagree all that much, actually" Denney

My dad and most of his office staff had to go to some conference somewhere. Anyway, he chartered an aircraft for them instead of buying tickets on a major airline. Not only was the trip far more pleasant, but it ended up costing less. The airlines here did away with the business class, which was a big "screw you" to their primary customers. After all, 80% of your revenues come from 20% of your customers (in this case, those frequent business travellers).

rdenney wrote in post #9130518
I can live with that.

Fair 'Nuff...

IMO, the airlines count on this level of experience and understanding far too much. Can you imagine though what a Goat Rope the entire process would be if they didn't devote so much energy to getting Ma and Pa Kettle from point A to point B and just left them to their own devices?

Holy Jeebus...!

Jay "This Space For Rent" Beckman

beeng wrote in post #9130551
My dad and most of his office staff had to go to some conference somewhere. Anyway, he chartered an aircraft for them instead of buying tickets on a major airline. Not only was the trip far more pleasant, but it ended up costing less.

I'm not suprised by this really.

The ability to operate out of smaller airports (and therefore spending less time going from major airport to office and back to major airport) is one of the prime reasons GA works so well.

They crucified the auto executives for flying to DC in bizjets but nobody bothered to mention that by doing so, they could be back in their offices later that same day and back at work. However, by commercial airline, it was a three day trip for each of them so now you add on Rental Car or Cab charges, Hotel, Per Diem, etc...

On Topic .. Have a commercial jet photo:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #9130579
They crucified the auto executives for flying to DC in bizjets but nobody bothered to mention that by doing so, they could be back in their offices later that same day and back at work. However, by commercial airline, it was a three day trip for each of them so now you add on Rental Car or Cab charges, Hotel, Per Diem, etc...

Wasn't the issue that they owned, and ended up buying some more private jets for themselves?

beeng wrote in post #9130607
Wasn't the issue that they owned, and ended up buying some more private jets for themselves?

AFAIK, only GM ever actually owned any aircraft. In fact, for a while, GM ran their own "airline" called GMATS or General Motors Air Transport Service. These weren't Lear Jets or Gulfstreams but older mid-sized transport aircraft and flew out of a terminal at Detroit Metro. I think they either moved or just started other flights out of Detroit City Airport as well.

They actually ran round robin flights from Detroit to several of their key eastern cities like Tanawanda, NY, NYC and Dayton, OH. However, these flights were for more than just the upper crust muckity mucks. My dad was a middle-level architectual engineer and he used to fly these regularly. It was cheaper and more efficient for getting whole teams of guys to job sites than having them go by airline.

Chrysler may have owned one or two but I think they sold them off around the time Lee Iacoca got Chrysler bailed out the first time.

The vast majority of "Company Jets" are on lease deals from brokers or else they're on a time share deals from NetJets or similar.

It's very difficult for most folks to understand how valuable a CEOs time really is. It's much, much more financially efficient for the head of a major corporation to be able to get to several cities and press the flesh in one day and get home that night than to make a 7 to 10 day epic out of the process.

I freely admit that this is the Pro Aviation side's propaganda but it's a pretty good website that lays out how valuable GA is to the US:

http://www.gaservesame​rica.com/

beeng wrote in post #9129373
Yup; good luck trying to explain these sorts of practical things to them though :P

If you're brave, or have free time, it could lead to an interesting "discussion", however.

beeng wrote in post #9130446
The cargo door was never opened after initial loading of baggage; so unless they were using some fancy new xray goggles, then that was not the case

Sorry but I am not following your logic on this one...The scenario can easily be...9:00 passenger checks in and checks baggage for 10:30 flight...9:45 begin boarding process...10:00 luggage is loaded into airplane...10:20 door is supposed to be locked, but passenger is missing (his luggage is loaded already)...10:45 airplane is full of p*ssed off passengers waiting on missing passenger. So luggage is on board (perhaps with explosive) and passenger who checked luggage is not on board.

Wilt wrote in post #9132150
Sorry but I am not following your logic on this one...The scenario can easily be9:00 passenger checks in and checks baggage for 10:30 flight9:45 begin boarding process10:00 luggage is loaded into airplane10:20 door is supposed to be lock, but passenger is missing (his luggage is loaded already)10:45 airplane is full of p*ssed off passengers waiting on missing passengerSo luggage is on board (perhaps with explosive) and passenger who checked luggage is not on board.

IOW, bag is on but passenger isn't...

But, if there's a bag without a passenger, the baggage door should have been re-opened to remove the passenger-less bag.

(Yes, I've been on a flight where every bag was removed to find one with no passenger then they were all re-loaded but the offending item.)

The gap in the whole Bag + Passenger thing is that connections don't apply. Passenger can get off during a stopover and bag will stay on plane if checked all the way through.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #9129573
Bottom Line: Flying is a privaledge and not a right. When you're on a commercial aircraft, you're in their office much more so than you're in your living room. You can't just waltz into an office building and do as you please and a commercial jet's really no different.

That is a wee bit out of whack as I would never pay to go into an office I do, however pay (a heck of a lot) to go from A to B on an aircraft. Whilst the flight-crew are by far the most important people on the air in terms of enabling the activity to happen safely, were there no paying passengers, they would not be there at all!