bring skis or rent

Admin":2tmqrk5k said:
Of course. What I believe is bothersome to Jonny, and to me, too, is trying to squeeze every nickel out of passengers for services they used to provide for the price of your ticket. Like lowering the baggage weights and disallowing the packaging of other items with skis (which has nothing to do with security concerns). Like skycap service for only the price of a gratuity.

Remember meals on airlines?

One thing that really got my goat was Frontier charging $5 per flight segment for the same DirecTV service that JetBlue touts as a free service. On my flight from SLC to Houston that would've been $20 to watch CNN! :roll:
Click to expand...

I agree that is annoying. So are things like inflated gas prices, bank service charges and ATM fees, inflated labor charges from mechanics, inflated ski area ticket prices, etc. This is certainly not unique to the airlines and is in fact the modern day American way...squeeze 'em for every dime.

I can't believe I'm defending the airlines which I consider one of the most poorly run businesses in existence, but I also disagree with your assessment that not allowing packaging of other items with skis has nothing to do with security...sure it does. The less the screeners have to look through in such bags the more effective the screening process becomes. That's simple logic.

Again, no offense to anyone, but Americans in general are intolerant of any process that impacts their time frame by more than 10 seconds. We are the most impatient culture in existence and when things don't go exactly as we want them to we bitch and moan like little babies. People go to airports and look for and then brag about ways they find to defeat security measures.

These same assholes are the folks who sue the ariline if something bad happens and that mindset sickens me.
 
JimG.":nnw41407 said:
I agree that is annoying. So are things like inflated gas prices, bank service charges and ATM fees, inflated labor charges from mechanics, inflated ski area ticket prices, etc. This is certainly not unique to the airlines and is in fact the modern day American way...squeeze 'em for every dime.
Click to expand...

What is somewhat unique to the airline industry, however, is creating new revenue streams from what used to be customer services, all to make up for their inability to make a profit through their primary service offering. Face it...in any other industry with greater competition, quality customer service would matter.

JimG.":nnw41407 said:
I also disagree with your assessment that not allowing packaging of other items with skis has nothing to do with security...sure it does. The less the screeners have to look through in such bags the more effective the screening process becomes. That's simple logic.
Click to expand...

So is that ski bags are easier to check. Stuff is spread out linearly and the bags have full-length zippers. Why should they be treated differently than a differently-shaped other piece of luggage?

This is not a new rule, but rather a new enforcement of an old rule, just like the new enforcement of overweight baggage restrictions. It's designed to be a new revenue stream, not a new security measure.

JimG.":nnw41407 said:
Again, no offense to anyone, but Americans in general are intolerant of any process that impacts their time frame by more than 10 seconds. We are the most impatient culture in existence and when things don't go exactly as we want them to we bitch and moan like little babies. People go to airports and look for and then brag about ways they find to defeat security measures.

These same assholes are the folks who sue the ariline if something bad happens and that mindset sickens me.
Click to expand...

On this, you and I agree.
 
JimG.":6xz9ivai said:
Dude, no offense...
Click to expand...
None taken :D

I agree that the airlines have suffered enormously in a economical sense. And I also realize that they are trying to make (read: not lose at an astonishing rate) money any way that they can.

I also don't have a problem with my bags being searched. Hey, it's not much of a vacation if somebody crashes the plane you're on. But searching for stuff is a reactive measure. No matter what you search, somebody is going to be able to get SOMETING onto a plane to blow it up. And no, i don't have a better suggestion.

I do resent haveing to pay for my earphones, that bag of peanuts and a glass of water. Charge me another $20 up front on my ticket.

And about assholes on planes? The guy linked below got fined $1375 for being said orifice.

Air Canada will fine yo' ass
 
Admin":3ddvitch said:
What is somewhat unique to the airline industry, however, is creating new revenue streams from what used to be customer services, all to make up for their inability to make a profit through their primary service offering. Face it...in any other industry with greater competition, quality customer service would matter.
Click to expand...

Not true for banks? Service charges for non-customers who want to cash a paycheck; the poor soul has to fork over money just because his company chooses to bank there? ATM fees for checking your balance? Teller fees for using a live person instead of a machine? Service fees for counting your change? Service fees for sneezing in the bank are next.

Marc, if you think about it the banks have it all over the airlines when it comes to this crap.
 
Jonny D":3g39uqfl said:
But searching for stuff is a reactive measure. No matter what you search, somebody is going to be able to get SOMETING onto a plane to blow it up. And no, i don't have a better suggestion.
Click to expand...

No argument here...it's better than nothing though. If we got really serious airports would be like they are in Israel...if you look suspicious or if they don't like your name, you're grounded. Or you might be allowed on the plane but armed military personnel will be escorting you during your flight.

Jonny D":3g39uqfl said:
I do resent haveing to pay for my earphones, that bag of peanuts and a glass of water. Charge me another $20 up front on my ticket.
Click to expand...

Not me...because I don't want any of that crap. And I don't want to pay for it upfront either. And yes, I know part of the restriction on liquids is to push selling said crap. Won't work on me. But I probably fly less than some of you guys.
 
JimG.":kiszrceo said:
if you think about it the banks have it all over the airlines when it comes to this crap.
Click to expand...
Picking on the Banks was too easy...
Banks are probably on top of the list when this come to shit.

Any others candidates? Airplane, phone, Oil, utilities? :?

But we can still complain about the airlines. What else can we do? It's too early to start complaining about Kmart not opening early enough? :lol:
 
JimG.":3b87ozta said:
Marc, if you think about it the banks have it all over the airlines when it comes to this crap.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. Neither banks nor airlines get Christmas cards from me.

However:

1) The fact that banks are worse doesn't absolve airlines of their customer service sins; and

2) It's my opinion that blaming ski luggage restrictions on heightened security concerns is naive.
 
Way back when (my father flew 50K miles/year on business in the 1960's) the airlines competed on service. But prices were high and only the affluent could afford air travel for pleasure. Since price decontrol in 1978 the market has spoken. Air travel is a commodity, price is what sells tickets, and the airlines like Southwest and Jet Blue that are efficient and can offer everyday low prices (Wal-Mart?) are the ones that are successful.

We have to have security after 9/11 but there are major economic costs involved. The budget is not unlimited for either the airlines or the government, so efficiency still matters. If that means profiling like the Israelis do, so be it. Having 3 sets of queues at LAX (checked baggage screening) instead of 2 makes it one of everybody's least favorite airports. In 2004 Garry Klassen drove my car home from Telluride in only one hour more than it took me to get home via shuttle to Montrose, plane change in Denver, drive home from LAX. If Garry drives to NASJA Crested Butte next March, I will probably drive home with him.
 
I was drinking rather heavily last night in Boulder. This morning in my hangover daze, I mistakenly stuffed my complementary toothpaste and shaving cream into my shaving kit while packing. I got nailed by the TSA gestapo at DEN. They also confiscated a bottle of Advil claiming it was a gell. <sarcasm> I sure feel much safer now. </sarcasm>

I did a day trip from Boston to Philly that Thursday when the UK announced they'd uncovered that bomb plot to fabricate a bomb from liquids smuggled aboard in carryon luggage. The TSA was shaking down old ladies and confiscating their lipstick. It's perfectly clear to me... The terrorists have won.

The TSA manually searches all ski bags and puts a love note in the bag afterwards. Since I know the bag is going to get unzipped every time, I no longer put clothing in it.
 
Tony Crocker":1rfjurhx said:
...We have to have security after 9/11 but there are major economic costs involved. The budget is not unlimited for either the airlines or the government, so efficiency still matters. If that means profiling like the Israelis do, so be it. ...
Click to expand...

I agree that profiling is the missing link in the current defense. In 1987 my wife and I encountered a pleasant agent while changing planes at Heathrow (UK). She turned out to be a profiler. She questioned us for about 10 minutes and we were impressed with her technique, skill, and extensive knowledge of US passport types. She was clearly a very high-level performer. But her attentiveness required so much energy that we doubted that she could perform at that level for more than 2-3 hours per day. An army of such profilers would greatly increase the cost of US domestic flights. Regardless, I believe that they could be the most effective investment into airline defense because they focus on finding the malevolent agents.

Do not be deceived into believing that TSA could ever find a well-concealed bomb with a hand search. Any competent, maliciously-minded chemist can devise bombs that look and feel like common objects. So, the current TSA effort is mostly a shallow effort that can foil the wankers (e.g. T. McVeigh) and technically unsophisticated terrorists. On the other hand, some advanced instruments used by TSA can find most practical explosives and chemical agents. Their effectiveness requires that a rational threat profile was estimated. Here, mistakes have been made, as TSA seems to have discounted the threat of liquid explosives (even though they are not terribly diffcult to detect). So, current units don?t detect them.

Since the cockpit doors were hardened, I don't worry aircraft security much. Even on 9-11, flying was still the safest conveyance per travel mile.

Cheers,
Jeff
 
Admin":2i2c49bo said:
2) It's my opinion that blaming ski luggage restrictions on heightened security concerns is naive.
Click to expand...

Oh I know they're using the security card to justify ripping passengers off, I'm not that naive.

Then again, most passengers I meet brag openly about how little they paid for a ticket too...it's a 2 way street.

If you're not willing to pay more for a ticket so they can hire more security to thoroughly check bags with tons of stuff packed into it, they'll get their pound of flesh from you with service charges by restricting what's in the bag so that it's easier to check.

Of course, you could avoid the charges by playing by their rules, but I've noticed alot of Americans don't like to do that either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top