Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Recent Comments:
AOL Mystery Flyer: AirTran Airways Report Card {AOL Travel News}
May 16th 2010 7:08PM Jeff - you start off ok, but then you take a really radical left turn on Ray: what in his post tells you he is Jewish or leads you to believe he has pocketed any money to which he isn't entitled? All he said was that no one ever offered him the ability to bring both cats, only the one that he did bring. His research into his rights, i.e. purchasing two seats for himself and paying another $69 for the second cat, was prohably a bit underwhelming and blaming the airline for that is probably a bit foolish, but how do you get from there to his being Jewish as being the problem?
Galley Gossip: Flight attendants under investigation for bomb threat {Gadling}
Oct 3rd 2009 3:45PM Heather - I'm with you: I certainly hope that it turns out not to have been the flight attendants in this case. None of you needs any of that negative press that will surely ensue regarding attendants' general rude and now sociopathic behaviour! I fly frequently internationally, so my experience with the attendants is a longer one each time than a BOS/MIA flight, with all the extra work that entails. I've never had one questionable experience with any of them, though I have seen numerous complaints on this board. I can't agree with the other poster's statement that it's a shame whoever it was that did this didn't pay attention to what happened to the attendant who left the note on the Emirates flight: I think he definitely deserved the punishment meted out to him. In this instance, I'd far prefer it were a disguntled passenger than a well-trained attendant who committed this bizarre act, and I certainly have seen many of those!
Galley Gossip: A question (and a poll) about breastfeeding on the airplane {Gadling}
Dec 8th 2008 10:16PM Cherie - I do appreciate how difficult it might have been for you in a public place to keep placing a towel or blanket over your boys' heads as they threw them off; nonetheless, being in a public place, it's just one of those things you needed to have contended with more ably rather than just saying "oh well, he doesn't like it and in a moment or so his head will cover my breast anyway".
I hope that you can equally appreciate that I, and many other posters here, have seen mothers whose sole focus is not the child's feeding - that's secondary. They are quite clearly exhibiting themselves under cover of "natural feeding rights". I nursed my own child and I had to make dinner and enterain others who came to dinner and fly with my child, but I never blithely walked around with him attached to my chest in public: there was always a way to do so in privacy. If you read your history a bit more thoroughly, you'll find that 18thC and 19thC mothers were discreet, contrary to what Crystal intimates in her comments about ankles being provocative then. I'm quite sure that a nursing mother would have been more than provocative in those times: it was considered public indecency. Most posters agree that a mother should be allowed to nurse her child, but most also seem to be saying that discretion is equally desirable with the exception of you and Crystal, that is.
Whether or not some women wear such extreme clothing as to expose most of their skin isn't the question: a modicum of appropriate modesty is and as long as there are people, including children, around to witness the immodestly fed child, then you mothers who are still breastfeeding and by choice not doing so discretely will just need to put up with the unwelcome gawking.
Galley Gossip: A question (and a poll) about breastfeeding on the airplane {Gadling}
Dec 6th 2008 9:20PM Cherie - I'm replying to you because you're last in the string of posters who seem to think it's perfectly all right to whip out a breast any time anywhere because it's the "normal" way to feed a child, whereas a bottle offends you. Others seem to think that it's prudery which motivates some posters to ask that mothers feed discretely, while others are grousing about filthy blankets being the reason for lack of discretion. If you bring your child, along with the equipment the child will need, why not pack a clean blanket that you can tent over your child and your breast? The automatic assumption that it creates a smothering atmosphere is ridiculous - it can be done in such a way as to maintain the privacy of all involved - mother, child and potential audience. I'm sorry to say that those mothers I have seen who feed indiscreetly have clearly done so for the exhibitionistic value, whereas others who come properly equipped, with a small cover of some sort, are clearly more in tune with the bonding that goes along with breastfeeding, which is, after all, a one on one experience, not meant to be "shared" as so many of the posters appear to think is some sort of generosity on their part - twaddle, utter and complete twaddle.
Galley Gossip: What is RIGHT with the airlines? (There's got to be something!) {Gadling}
Sep 29th 2008 5:33PM Heather - this is my second attempt to answer your question (I think I have a computer poltergeist!) so here goes. While many posters seem to have ignored your question and gone off on other rants against the airlines, I will endeavor to answer your question as posed. I think in this day of heavier traffic, an overworked air traffic control system, fewer flights making more flights full to capacity, less money for the airline employees for longer hours, they do an admirable job of getting millions of passengers per day from point A to point B, and mostly on time despite adverse weather condtions and extraordinary fuel costs, requiring even more cost-cutting and impinging on the employees' ability to provide the service they want to provide. We've all benefited from lower air fares resulting in greater numbers of passengers and I wonder why so many people who have been harried by one security check and one connection don't allow the grace to airline employees, particularly crew, who often have faced multiple TSA checkpoints and delays and connections. We all have bad days, but it seems lots of passengers believe they are the only ones who suffer - in righteous indignation - the problems that the industry deals with daily on thousands of flights with millions of passengers. I'm very happy to board a flight to Europe that will take 6 to 10 hours depending upon point of departure and point of arrival (I live in the southeast) as opposed to a ship that will take 7 to 10 days to get me there. I'm assuming here that the diabetic passengers don't go into a sugar dive every time they fly or they'd buy something after security just in case - at least I'd like to think they'd be smart enough to cover those bases and not blame the crew for not responding in a fashion they think appropriate. Yes there are those flights that are cancelled and those that are delayed for hours, but most do leave reasonably on time and deliver their passsengers exactly where the contract of carriage stated it would, barring equipment failure or weather diverts. The airlines have a tiger by the tail and I think it's astounding given the circumstances that they continue to move so many passengers so successfully.
Hot Seat: Knowledge About Palin {Politics Daily}
Sep 2nd 2008 7:38PM What I don't understand about this whole debate is how anyone who questions the choice made by Mr. McCain, no matter their reasons, is painted as a liberal "dummiecrat" - clever, catchy little snarky phrase - without lending credence to the stated objections or even pretending to contest them. If these family problems are private and should be worked out within the family, why was it ok for this country to waste millions impeaching someone for a blowjob? Shouldn't that have fallen under the same umbrella? I am not allied with either political party, but I sure as hell recognize hypoctisy when it's shoved down my throat. The moral majority must be choking on all that crap they've been dishing out.
JetBlue crew has woman arrested over video of fighting passengers {Gadling}
Aug 17th 2008 7:30PM Heidi - other posters have asked you to back up your very assertive comments regarding the unlawfulness of Mrs. Parver's video, but you just keep spewing the same statements. There is no law against what she did, and no airline has ever said that the public is not permitted to video or photograph during flight, so there isn't a regulation either. There may be a regulation against photographing the flight crew as one poster mentioned previously, but one would think if that is true that it would be mentioned in pre-flight instructions along with every other prohibition that they do cover. Why are your knickers in such a twist over the video the woman took as opposed to the draconian actions of the airline crew and various "authorities"? From your harsh statements, I'm willing to bet that one day soon someone will step all over your toes, and you'll run your mouth and get carted off, screaming all the way about the abuse.
Afghan hijacker found working at Heathrow {Gadling}
May 22nd 2008 9:17AM I don't intend to be an apologist for British government's possible failures at proper screening, but I think it's important to note that this man was hired by an outside contract cleaning facility, and was not an actual airport employee. Nonetheless, if airlines and airport managers are going to subcontract certain chores to outside firms, the vetting process for those firms must be as strict as one hopes it is for security sensitive places such as airports. It seems to me there is plenty of blame to share and much more to be done in properly vetting new hirees. And for the rest of the posters who keep spewing about Mr. Obama's being a Muslim, for crying out loud keep up with the facts and not the rumors: his father was a Muslim; Mr. Obama never was.
Tears Don't Care Who Cries Them {News Bloggers}
Feb 24th 2007 7:15PM First of all, whatever Judge Seidlin did, he paid attention to his task: the welfare of the child and the rights of the child as the only remaining kin. Second, Ms. Smith purchased a double cemetery lot, one side of which is occupied by her son, the other side of which she intended for herrself.
Ms. Smith deserves the right to be buried in a (more) timely manner than has been made possible by all the fuss over the paternity of the child. That question is immaterial to getting this woman buried. There must have been some reason she ran so hard from Texas and established residency in the Bahamas. Beyond that reasoning that can no longer be discovered since Ms. Smith has died, it is crystal clear that she wanted to be buried next to her son, or she wouldn't have purchased that double plot. Let her be buried and rest in peace; find out who may have rights to the child and her possible funds later. Thankfully, the court-appointed guardian of the child will be looking out for her interests solely.
Dixie Chicks Jab at Mel Gibson in N.Y. {The Boot}
Aug 7th 2006 10:50PM I think most of the posters are missing the point, or have deviated from it: the question seems to be whether comments regarding Gibson's excuse for anti-Semitic statements (his being drunk) were appropriate or not. Most have addressed the Chicks' past comments regarding Bush's performance as president or the rights of Americans to free speech. The fact remains that Gibson's drunkenness does not excuse his behaviour; moreover, his lack of inhibition while drunk reveals his true feelings, as is the case with most inebriates. There is no question that he is anti-Semitic now and I fail to understand why anyone who comments on the poor excuse of drunkeness should be called to task, much less their former comments on the president's performance be rehashed.
