Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
08-13-2010, 06:19 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,420
I should write a letter to the editor.
For starters, ever notice that all the writers of aviation articles always use the same adjectives? Usually for older aircraft it is "fuel-guzzling" while newer aircraft are "fuel-sipping" "misers" etc.
I was especially amused that the WSJ actually seemed to think (with a straight face) that people would make some moral-based decision on which aircraft to fly based on the fuel efficiency.
What I really wanted to contrast was the trans-con experience on any single-aisle versus twin-aisle. With a single-aisle 3x3 configuration, you have one aisle, 1/3 of the seats are aisle seats, fully 1/3 are middle seats, and the other 1/3 that are window seats require the window seat passenger to climb over two other passengers to use the lav--which is frequently unavailable due to the FAs and cart blocking the (one and only) aisle.
With a 767 on a 2x3x2 setup, only 1/7 of the seats are middle seats, and they have two options for leaving the seat to hit the lav. 4/7 of the seats are aisle seats. The 2/7 of the seats that are window seats only require the passenger to inconvenience one other passenger to get out of the seat.
A few years ago I flew a few trips with a 6 hour ATL-YVR non-stop. 6 days a week it was on a 757, and on Saturdays it was a 767 due to cruise ship tourists. The FAs told me that they could sense a palpable difference in the stress and attitudes of the passengers comparing Saturdays with any other day.
Of course the real issue is: do we make any money on most 767 domestic flying? And despite their complaints, do passengers really buy a domestic ticket based on the aircraft type? I think that answer to both those questions is no.
For starters, ever notice that all the writers of aviation articles always use the same adjectives? Usually for older aircraft it is "fuel-guzzling" while newer aircraft are "fuel-sipping" "misers" etc.
I was especially amused that the WSJ actually seemed to think (with a straight face) that people would make some moral-based decision on which aircraft to fly based on the fuel efficiency.
What I really wanted to contrast was the trans-con experience on any single-aisle versus twin-aisle. With a single-aisle 3x3 configuration, you have one aisle, 1/3 of the seats are aisle seats, fully 1/3 are middle seats, and the other 1/3 that are window seats require the window seat passenger to climb over two other passengers to use the lav--which is frequently unavailable due to the FAs and cart blocking the (one and only) aisle.
With a 767 on a 2x3x2 setup, only 1/7 of the seats are middle seats, and they have two options for leaving the seat to hit the lav. 4/7 of the seats are aisle seats. The 2/7 of the seats that are window seats only require the passenger to inconvenience one other passenger to get out of the seat.
A few years ago I flew a few trips with a 6 hour ATL-YVR non-stop. 6 days a week it was on a 757, and on Saturdays it was a 767 due to cruise ship tourists. The FAs told me that they could sense a palpable difference in the stress and attitudes of the passengers comparing Saturdays with any other day.
Of course the real issue is: do we make any money on most 767 domestic flying? And despite their complaints, do passengers really buy a domestic ticket based on the aircraft type? I think that answer to both those questions is no.
08-13-2010, 06:46 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
They buy it based on price, convenience and on time.
08-13-2010, 06:57 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: A-320 Capt
Posts: 37
Many years ago, I recall seeing an issue of the USA Today where, in the lower lefthand corner of the front page, they showed the results of an airline passenger survey in pie chart format.
The question was: What is your prime consideration when choosing an airline?
It was hilarious! It was this pie that had a 97% slice labeled "ticket price", and it had a few, barely visible, slivers of the pie with names like "ontime performance", "customer service", and "baggage handling."
It spoke volumes! Mostly, people only care about the price of their ticket. That's not going to stop them from complaining about the ancillary issues, however.
The question was: What is your prime consideration when choosing an airline?
It was hilarious! It was this pie that had a 97% slice labeled "ticket price", and it had a few, barely visible, slivers of the pie with names like "ontime performance", "customer service", and "baggage handling."
It spoke volumes! Mostly, people only care about the price of their ticket. That's not going to stop them from complaining about the ancillary issues, however.
08-13-2010, 07:19 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: A-320 Capt
Posts: 37
Hey 20 Mile, as one who was actually working at the Clinton White House, which I guess qualifies me to have an opinion, I don't think your "rightwing extremist mother-in-law" is that far off base. Statistically, maybe what you are using for a data base isn't that smart either. Just a suggestion. But, from where I sit, she has it right...and you don't.
Oopss..big ooopss for you. You never know whose watching on these APC sites do you?
Oopss..big ooopss for you. You never know whose watching on these APC sites do you?
Yes!
2. Did the majority of Arkansas citizens vote for Clinton for governor in 1982, when he ran a second time?
Yes! And he kept the governorship for TEN YEARS until being elected president.
3. Did the state of Arkansas give all its electoral votes to Clinton in the 1992 presidential election?
Yes! Overwhelmingly so, in fact.
4. Did the state of Arkansas give all its electoral votes to Clinton in the presidential 1996 election?
Yes! It wasn't even close.
So, you're saying that most of the people in Arkansas didn't like Clinton? Very doubtful.
Surely (and don't call me Shirley), you're not saying that a call-in talk show has statistical significance.
You worked in the Clinton White House? Cool! I'm not sure how that makes you an expert on the predilections of the Arkansas electorate, however. The numbers speak for themselves, your experience notwithstanding.
08-13-2010, 07:32 AM
Doesn't Get Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,598
If it is so important to spell the name of the company "Delta Air Lines" instead of "Delta Airlines" then why is it spelled "Delta Airlines" on the pilot seniority list? Go look, it's spelled wrong.
08-13-2010, 07:50 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: A-320 Capt
Posts: 37
The nature of a talk show inherently has a biased database and is in no way a representative sample. For instance, what percentage of Rush Limbaugh's listeners would characterize themselves as "liberals"?
What percentage of Air America Radio listeners would characterize themselves as "conservatives?"
Professional pollsters, those who make a living on trying to ferret out ACCURATE results, know that there is actually a SCIENCE to these sort of things - and call-in talk shows are certainly not scientific.
08-13-2010, 07:50 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
1. Did the majority of Arkansas citizens vote for Clinton for governor in 1978?
Yes!
2. Did the majority of Arkansas citizens vote for Clinton for governor in 1982, when he ran a second time?
Yes! And he kept the governorship for TEN YEARS until being elected president.
3. Did the state of Arkansas give all its electoral votes to Clinton in the 1992 presidential election?
Yes! Overwhelmingly so, in fact.
4. Did the state of Arkansas give all its electoral votes to Clinton in the presidential 1996 election?
Yes! It wasn't even close.
So, you're saying that most of the people in Arkansas didn't like Clinton? Very doubtful.
Surely (and don't call me Shirley), you're not saying that a call-in talk show has statistical significance.
You worked in the Clinton White House? Cool! I'm not sure how that makes you an expert on the predilections of the Arkansas electorate, however. The numbers speak for themselves, your experience notwithstanding.
Yes!
2. Did the majority of Arkansas citizens vote for Clinton for governor in 1982, when he ran a second time?
Yes! And he kept the governorship for TEN YEARS until being elected president.
3. Did the state of Arkansas give all its electoral votes to Clinton in the 1992 presidential election?
Yes! Overwhelmingly so, in fact.
4. Did the state of Arkansas give all its electoral votes to Clinton in the presidential 1996 election?
Yes! It wasn't even close.
So, you're saying that most of the people in Arkansas didn't like Clinton? Very doubtful.
Surely (and don't call me Shirley), you're not saying that a call-in talk show has statistical significance.
You worked in the Clinton White House? Cool! I'm not sure how that makes you an expert on the predilections of the Arkansas electorate, however. The numbers speak for themselves, your experience notwithstanding.
08-13-2010, 08:42 AM
Inventory survival kit ..
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: Seeking no jacket required rotations
Posts: 1,069
For those wanting a review of Droid2, these youtube vids are better than any review I could post in the forum.
YouTube - Motorola DROID 2 for Verizon review - part 1
YouTube - Droid 2 hands-on
YouTube - Motorola DROID 2 for Verizon review - part 1
YouTube - Droid 2 hands-on
Last edited by Nosmo King; 08-13-2010 at 09:00 AM.
08-13-2010, 08:55 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
08-13-2010, 09:22 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
The story I head was this:
Back in the day all airlines were Air Lines or airways. All of the other airlines were found guilty of price colusion et al and had to basically become different entites, so they went from Air Lines to Airlines. DAL wasnot part of the CAB's findings at the time and therefore kept the Air Lines and did not have to go to airlines like the rest of the companies.
It was during the CAB if I recall correctly.
I recall something along these lines from one of the CAB courses I took in college as well, but that has been many years ago, and I am too lazy to go find my text books in the basement!
Back in the day all airlines were Air Lines or airways. All of the other airlines were found guilty of price colusion et al and had to basically become different entites, so they went from Air Lines to Airlines. DAL wasnot part of the CAB's findings at the time and therefore kept the Air Lines and did not have to go to airlines like the rest of the companies.
It was during the CAB if I recall correctly.
I recall something along these lines from one of the CAB courses I took in college as well, but that has been many years ago, and I am too lazy to go find my text books in the basement!
. History is cool eh?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
