FLYING IN THE AGE OF BUSH
>
My guess-- and it's only a wild guess-- is that 99.9% of Americans have never flown on a private jet. Before I was running a blog I was running a corporate record label and our parent corporation had several jets, some real nice ones too. I suspect I was the only division head who never ordered one. I never; not once. Oh, I didn't mind flying on them. The convenience was almost otherworldly and that was even before the Bush Regime's authoritarian essence made the entire public flying experience-- starting with the degrading cattle lines and stripping at airports-- into a dehumanizing nightmare with kafkaesque overtones. But I always thought private jets were an unacceptable expense... comfortable but an unfair burden on the shareholders. So I would happily catch a lift on someone else's ride but I'd fly commercial, no matter how great the inconvenience-- which was never more than a tiny fraction of what the inconvenience has become since the Bush clique took over.
This last week I did a lot of flying-- from L.A. to Montreal to New York-- and there are no blogger private jets in my life. Let me hold back on the entire day wasted in an airport while the airline lied to us over and over about when the flight would take off. That was a special event related to weather, badly handled, of course, but... like I said, "special." The highhanded nature of the corporations who have license to act like our lords and masters under Bushism, however, is far from special or weather-related. What it's related to is the nature of fascism. But the thoughts on flying in the Age of Bush I had in mind were far more prosaic than the nature of fascism.
Thinking about the gross inconvenience we are subjected to and the entire dehumanizing process that commercial flying has become I realized that part of the problem is that so many of our leaders don't fly commercial. From what I've read Tom DeLay wasn't as reticent as I was about ordering corporate jets to haul his ass around the
Does it cost the taxpayers anything for our noble legislators to be taxied hither and thither in corporate jets? Yeah; believe me, those $50,000 cross country trips on corporate jets are not-- let me repeat: not done as a public service. Are they a quid pro quo? You bet they are, at least in the long run-- and we pay... through the nose. I don't like the idea of Congress making the rules that govern their own conduct and I don't like Congress-- let alone this monarchial executive branch-- making rules governing ours when their own rules are so completely... what was that word I used? Otherworldly. What do Cheney or Bush know about flying commercial? A lot less than Bush's father knew about a checkout scanner I'll guess.
Thursday Barbara Boxer and Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) announced they would be introducing an air passengers' bill of rights. I'm a little skeptical but not closed minded.
On Wednesday, hundreds of JetBlue passengers were grounded for up to 11 hours at JFK International Airport in New York as a result of snow and ice. The airline said it canceled more than half of 505 flights, but some were left on runways and could not return to gates because they were occupied. JetBlue officials apologized and called the delays "unacceptable."
In a statement issued Thursday, Boxer said she has been delayed many times while traveling to and from California.
"But to keep passengers-- which usually include infants and the elderly-- on a plane for 11 hours in the worst of conditions is absurd," she said. "If a plane is stuck on the tarmac or at the gate for hours, a passenger should have the right to deplane. No one should be held hostage on an aircraft when clearly they can find a way to get people off safely."
The impetus for this, though, is a bottom-up initiative that started as a petition drive online. Take a look at the simple petition which is even less burdensome than the nonbinding symbolic legislation passed in the House yesterday against Bush's latest Iraq escalation.
Every time I'm on one of those slow, endless lines-- like at Oakland Airport, which can be particularly heinous-- I always wonder if the end of the Bush Regime will also be the end of the draconian so-called "security measures," designed more to dehumanize travelers than to do anything about our security-- although, presumably, the fear and conformity advanced by these kinds of measures are supposed to insure job security for our somewhat self-imposed fascistic overlords.
I remember the first time I saw the train station in Milan. It is so grand and the proportions so Olympian. The station, at the end of a long, straight and similarly grand boulevard, made the individual feel small... very, very small, but perhaps part of something large. Like an overpowering, all-powerful fascist society. Mussolini did it with architecture. Bush does it on the cheap with endless rules and regulations that chip away at our humanity.
Labels: airplane travel, fascism
4 Comments:
i have had the pleasure of being born in 1933 / we traveled coast to coast on a train and up and down the east coast by train / what fun / well i also flew for the first time in 1939 from DC to New York for the world's fair / as well as coast to coast on the old prop planes / everyone wd throw up / heh / it was 20 years before i ate cantalope again / why we are not reestablishing train travel is beyond me / i flew a lot bc i also lived abroad / luckily i burned out on plane trips before the current regime
My god you hit the nail on the head. Few things have frustrated me in the "post-9-11" way of things as much as flying. (I know this sounds shallow - the war, enron, tax breaks, corruption, etc. - these are all worse in the grand scheme of things i realize; but the flying policies effect me most directly and most often.)
Every time i fly i have this ball of anger in my stomache that comes from the powerless of being in a position where on one hand i am subjected to rules that are blatantly and brazenly arbitrary, intrusive while being assured that they are "for my protection." And i just know that many of these restrictions or policies are put in place for completely different reasons and are only justified as being for "security."
So since we're on the subject, allow me to excercise some deamons by writting a quick list of my frustrations and observations (cheaper than therapy i hope.) Note: not all of these are directly attributal to post-9-11 security concerns, but to me they all seem part and parcel of the high-handed way that airlines and the government treat air travellers.
- No liquids from outside and no toiletries.
Everyone knows how idiotic these rules are. You can't take liquid unless it was bought past security. Cause noone could put their exploses into the water bottle that they bought in the airport. Oh, and you CAN bring your own liquid if it's baby-milk or baby-formula. I'm sure no terrorist could ever figure out how to use that loophole. And toiletries are a no-go unless they're in small, see through containers. The see-through part is necessary i guess so that the x-ray machines can see them better. and we all know that if you're dangerous bomb-making liquid is in a small container, it could not be combined with your fellow co-conspirators small liquid bottles to equal a large bottle. (And of course there's all that info out there about how the whole scheme to use toothpaste or whatever is completely unworkable in an airplane...) And then there's the prescription loophole - good thing terrorists can't get prescriptions and TSA officials know how to positively identify what pills of 10mg of Lipitor look like.
So now i have to check my damn toiletries and hope to god that the airlines don't loose my luggage (again).
- Torturously slow screening
It's absolutely amazing to me that the airlines and TSA can be fully apprised of the impending passenger load and still not provide for an efficient screening process. Obviously some airports and worse than others. And right after 9-11 you can imagine there was some learning curve. But give me a break - it's been over 5 years and billions of dollars. One of the worst i've seen is Dulles. I got there with my kids 2 hours before my flight and was rebuked by the check-in gal who saw that i was about to miss my flight that i didn't get their early enough. But not to worry, i found out when i got to my gate that my flight was delayed for an hour (apparently they weren't allowed - i.e. required - to share that info with me as i was hurrying my 1 and 3 year old trough the Dulles-gauntlet.
I think you hit it on the head - the only reason we put up with it is because the folks voting don't have to deal with it. (Oh - and Dulles now has a special line for frequenct fliers and first class - read "business travelers who we dont' want to piss off; but ma & pa, get to the back of the line.
In the end, i decided i should have done like my brother and driven to Tennessee. It would have cost way less and it would have taken only 1 extra hour! And i would have been in the comfort of our van w/radio, dvd, potty breaks, french fries, etc.
- No waiting for passenger pickup
Why you can't 10 minutes for someone to get their bags and come to the car. I understand that logistically the airports would prefer you not clog the area, and i'm actually ok with that. But the justification that it's a security consideration just pisses me off. Like a terrorist can only blow up his car if he idles in it for more than 5 minutes?
- No electronic equipment during takeoff/landing and no cell phones
I've heard people say that it does or might mess with the instruments on the plane. And i've heard other people say that this is crap. I tend to believe the latter. But i know that the telephone companies have an issue with cell phones up in the air having line-of-site to lots of towers. And ten people say "do you really want someone chatting in your ear for an hour." The answer to all of this is that other forms of transportation deal with this. Trains have quiet cars. Presumably my screaming 1 year old is just as disruptive as a cell phone. And as for the plane instruments, here's my advice - if electronics and cell phones do or may interfere - get better instruments. Many electronics are "always on" nowadays. And my car have plenty of fancy stuff in it and it tolerates all these electronics just fine.
This isn't all about me be able to play pong on my ipod. It's also about being able to keep my dvd player running so that my one year old doesn't wail for the last 30 minutes of the flight while her ears are popping on the decent. I'm sure the folks around me on those flights feel the same way.
- Non-posting of weather delays
I don't know why this is, but for some reason airlines don't see the need to have their monitors show that flights are delayed if the delay is due to weather. This information is available however once you get to the gate (after breaking your neck hurrying) and see that the plane is not there. And if you can find an employee of the airline, you may be able to prevail on them to find the actual status. So let me get this straight: You have these monitors to tell people where their flights are and when they'll be there so that they can plan accordingly. But you're only going to show them the information that is consistent with what their boarding pass says - unless of course it's a mechanical failure and the plane will be somewhere else at some other time. If it's weather conditions that cause the change, then that information is NOT usefull to the passengers
OK, i feel a little better now.
Bravo! Traveling by air in America is a degrading, frustrating and exhausting experience. I can't recall the last time I arrived to my final destination without any delays or other weird, off-putting and inconvenient circumstances.
When I compare my experience traveling throughout Italy using their excellent train system to recent experiences travling within the U.S. the difference is incredible. I'm very angry that this option is not available to us. It would be beyond wonderful to have the option to take a high speed train from Sacramento to LA, for example. And,then, once in LA to be able to use a safe, affordable subway system. We have been so screwed over.
After working for the airlines for over 40 years I can tell you the problem. Common sense was replaced by the goal system. You have but one chance to get the flight out on time, do it and the boss is happy if you bring it back or it goes late it effects his pay.
The airlines are now run by a goal system from the senior execs to the local mangers. If they don't make the set goals out the door they go. Now the higher up on the chain you are the easier the goals are to reach.
Its easy for someone sitting in a office thousands of miles away to send airplanes to a place that has a open runway but no place to park the airplane when it gets there. They completed the flight and made the goal.
As far as departing and sitting on the ramp, as long as the aircraft doors are closed the crews are getting paid. Would you like to get paid $160 to $250 (captains pay) a hour for sitting doing nothing and have a 70-80 hour max work month?
All the airlines have to do to fix all this is put common sense and safety back into the avaition world. Right now it's all about the goals and the dollars.
You as a manager make the set goals you will make a few dollars and the upper management don't care how you do it just them so they will make theirs because your goals are part of theirs.
So how many times do you have to get a flight out on time?
What happens to it after that is someone elses problem, so it sits out there for hours I can blame
Airport/FAA/Weather/ATC/Deiceing/Flow control and the list goes on that they point to, but it left the gate on time.
Then the crew runs out of time and we have to find a gate to deplane everyone so the crew can go to the hotel FAA rules, fight cancels but what the heck I made my goal and I get a raise.
Post a Comment
<< Home