«

On 11/24/2012 11:31 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-11-24 06:05:44 -0800, PeterN <> said:
>>>
>>
>> Which is a valid assumption in the absence of skewing information. But
>> that s not the point. When I travel, WiFi is NOT one of my criteria
>> for selection of a flight. In my order, schedule, non-stop, travel
>> comfort, cost. With the exceptions of the now defunct Grand Air, and
>> Concorde, the best meals I have on a flight is when I bring my own food.
>
> For the air travel I have engaged in, my priorities have been schedule,
> minimizing connections, comfort, & cost (sometimes comfort and value
> overrode cost). Connectivity in flight has never been a priority for me,
> and I am a bandwidth using fool. I enjoy the break.
>
> As far as meals go some of the best have been on a 1972 BA coach flight
> from JFK to LHR, a 1981 Swissair coach flight into Zurich, and the
> consistently very good KLM Business Class offerings (my current
> preferred international carrier, they have no first class and I
> understand their coach is quite acceptable). In 12 KLM fights I have
> always enjoyed superb meals.
>
> Then we have the dismal, inexcusably awful meals. A 1985 United Shuttle
> flight from D.C. to La Guardia, a 2005 Alaska Vancouver to SFO flight, a
> 2005 SFO-JFK and return on United, and a 2009 Detroit-SFO Delta. The
> last two were decidedly bad because they were business class offerings.
>
>

Horses for courses. But, unlike others here, I would never try to impose
my preferences on you, and I doubt you would try to impose your
preferences on me. (Except of course if you were traveling on my
business, at my expense.)

--
Peter

On 11/24/2012 11:40 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-11-24 08:31:27 -0800, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>
>> On 2012-11-24 06:05:44 -0800, PeterN <> said:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is a valid assumption in the absence of skewing information.
>>> But that s not the point. When I travel, WiFi is NOT one of my
>>> criteria for selection of a flight. In my order, schedule, non-stop,
>>> travel comfort, cost. With the exceptions of the now defunct Grand
>>> Air, and Concorde, the best meals I have on a flight is when I bring
>>> my own food.
>>
>> For the air travel I have engaged in, my priorities have been
>> schedule, minimizing connections, comfort, & cost (sometimes comfort
>> and value overrode cost). Connectivity in flight has never been a
>> priority for me, and I am a bandwidth using fool. I enjoy the break.
>>
>> As far as meals go some of the best have been on a 1972 BA coach
>> flight from JFK to LHR, a 1981 Swissair coach flight into Zurich, and
>> the consistently very good KLM Business Class offerings (my current
>> preferred international carrier, they have no first class and I
>> understand their coach is quite acceptable). In 12 KLM fights I have
>> always enjoyed superb meals.
>>
>> Then we have the dismal, inexcusably awful meals. A 1985 United
>> Shuttle flight from D.C. to La Guardia, a 2005 Alaska Vancouver to SFO
>> flight, a 2005 SFO-JFK and return on United, and a 2009 Detroit-SFO
>> Delta. The last two were decidedly bad because they were business
>> class offerings.
>
> I forgot to mention the very worst, a 1983 PanAm flight from
> Johannesburg to JFK with a 90 minute stop in Monrovia. I believe this
> had to be one of the original 747's. This plane seemed to be falling
> apart in midair. Interior panels were loose and flapping about and it
> was not pleasant to experience shaking and rattling for about 16 hours
> while being fed bad cafeteria food.
>

Generally I found the worst to be the blessedly defunct, Eastern.
I used to fly between FL and NY about once every two months. In those
days NorthEast was about the best. In those days, AA and Delta were
fairly decent. But, it seemed all my horror stories happened on Eastern.
Of course I cannot forget the time KLM lost my luggage between Amsterdam
and Zurich, a non-stop flight.

--
Peter

On 11/24/2012 12:26 PM, tony cooper wrote:

<snip>

> In 1983, we again flew Aer Lingus to Shannon. I wouldn't say that
> meal was the worst airline meal we've had, but it was your basic,
> average, airline fare. This time, though, the food was better in
> Ireland. I'm partial to smoked salmon, and no smoked salmon in the US
> comes close to what we had in a rather ordinary seeming restaurant in
> Waterford.
>
Can you even get decent smoked salmon in Orlando?


--
Peter

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 19:16:22 -0500, PeterN
<> wrote:

>On 11/24/2012 10:20 AM, tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:05:44 -0500, PeterN
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> Which is a valid assumption in the absence of skewing information. But
>>> that s not the point. When I travel, WiFi is NOT one of my criteria for
>>> selection of a flight. In my order, schedule, non-stop, travel comfort,
>>> cost.
>>
>> Yet, you criticized the choice of Allegiant when the choice was made
>> for those reasons plus the location of the airport. What a phoney.
>>
>>> With the exceptions of the now defunct Grand Air, and Concorde,
>>> the best meals I have on a flight is when I bring my own food.
>>
>> Ahh...you are one of those cheese-eating farters who bring their own
>> lunch box on board.
>Huh!

Did I get some attributions mixed up? I thought nohelp was still
responding. Sorry, Peter. I should have noticed the capitalization.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 19:27:39 -0500, PeterN
<> wrote:

>On 11/24/2012 12:26 PM, tony cooper wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> In 1983, we again flew Aer Lingus to Shannon. I wouldn't say that
>> meal was the worst airline meal we've had, but it was your basic,
>> average, airline fare. This time, though, the food was better in
>> Ireland. I'm partial to smoked salmon, and no smoked salmon in the US
>> comes close to what we had in a rather ordinary seeming restaurant in
>> Waterford.
>>
>Can you even get decent smoked salmon in Orlando?

Sure, in certain places.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 15:24:25 -0800, nospam <>
wrote:

>> Just for shits & giggles, I compared Allegiant and Delta for March
>> 6th. Allegiant is $98.30 and Delta is $119.00. Allegiant charges $35
>> for a checked bag, Delta $25.00.
>
>so almost the same, assuming you check bags, which not everyone does,
>and some get that perk for free anyway. then add in the fees for
>checking in, printing boarding passes, a drink or two, etc, and it's
>not as cheap as it may seem.

>that's how airlines are trying to fool naive customers. they offer a
>lowball price and then tack on extras, in the hopes they don't notice
>the total might be higher.

>> However, Delta's flights are not direct and the travel time is either
>> 4 hrs and 20 min or 5 hrs and 13 min. (depending on the flight) and
>> then add a couple of hours for arrangement and ground travel to
>> Rockford from O'Hare. Also, add the price of a rental car or shuttle
>> bus.
>
>for *you*.

>> Allegiant's travel time is under 3 hrs and no additional ground travel
>> time or cost.

The extra ground cost is valid for anyone traveling from here to
Rockford. The extra time is valid for them, also. That route flys
three days a week, every week, so there are evidently a few other
people.

Speaking of naive people, you ignore the ground costs, ground time,
and extra air and ground time.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 11/24/2012 12:43 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <50b0d454$0$10848$>, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>> I would hardly expect them to say sales are ****. I have no idea how
>> good, or bad their service is, not how much it costs. I remember making
>> telephone calls using Aitfone. It was expensive, with terrible connectons.
>
> things have come a long, long way since airfone.

Whoosh!

>
> gogo is pretty good. it's very popular, so on occasion it can be a bit
> slow if half the plane is trying to watch youtube, but they're working
> to increase bandwidth to the planes. it's more than adequate for web
> surfing and email.
>
>> When I travel, WiFi is NOT one of my criteria for
>> selection of a flight.
>
> that's fine. for other people it is. you do realize what you like is
> not what the rest of the world wants, right?
>
Do you own a mirror.

Are you aware that some business travelers actually work on the plane,
and don't have the time for frivolous activities?

>> In my order, schedule, non-stop, travel comfort,
>> cost. With the exceptions of the now defunct Grand Air, and Concorde,
>> the best meals I have on a flight is when I bring my own food.
>
> then you fly on crappy airlines too. airline food up front can be quite
> good, although it's not like it used to be. the wine quality, however,
> has gone down on most domestic flights, although alaska has wine and
> beer from local wineries and breweries, which are generally pretty
> good.
>
I see you are still talking out of your ass.
You have no idea what I do, or what I have done.


>> BTW what is the actual percentage? Is a 10% failure rate "very likely?"
>
> out of all the flights i've been on with gogo (hundreds), i can only
> recall two instances where it didn't work. one where it was working but
> the flight crew said it wasn't and then they shut it off, and another
> where there was a gogo card in the seat pocket but no signal. that's an
> extremely low failure rate.

You did not answer my question. Give us a verifiable number.

How much time do you spend flying in a year?
Hundreds of flights? Since when? You might even be a million mile flyer.
Congratulations!

>
> i've experienced more mechanicals than gogo failures. those can be much
> more of a hassle.
>
>> As stated above,the purpose of any travel is to get some place, within a
>> certain time frame. WiFi is NOT a driving force. Nor is it for most
>> business travelers. (At least the ones who travel to accomplish
>> something, not play games on OPM.
>
> how is it you know what most business travelers want?

You are right. I should have qualified that statement by inserting the
word "successful."

>
> a lot of people like to travel in comfort and/or get work done, which
> is why some will *pay* for f/j rather than chance an upgrade.
>
So, what is you point? getting work done <> videos.


> business travelers are almost always on their laptops, with or without
> wifi, and when

Depends on why they travel. I used to continually review my files, not
all of which were digitized. When I was preparing for a negotiation,
every detail was planned in advance. Tony Coo[er knows exactly hat I mean.

> there's wifi they can communicate with the rest of the
> company which is usually very important. they don't normally play
> games, but even ceos are entitled to relax a bit now and then.


So! I'm in favor of motherhood and apple pie, too. What does that have
to do with whatever point you are trying to make? Nobody here is sure
what that is.
BTW you have no told us how much this sometimes unreliable and
frustratingly slow WiFi connection costs.
>

>>>> As to cost, I am not a wealthy as you. Therefore, if I had to pay $20
>>>> for a gallon of gas, for me it would be the same as no gas being
>>>> available. (I fully expect you will not understand that analogy.)
>>>
>>> more idiocy.
>> Just carrying your point to its dry conclusion.
>
> i.e., trolling. that's all you do.
>

yep! That a known fact.


--
Peter

On 11/24/2012 12:43 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <50b0d4dd$0$10848$>, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>>>> He can recharge his iPad, or laptop, while waiting for the connecting
>>>> flight.
>>>
>>> don't need to.
>>
>> then why do you care about in=flight outlets?
>
> learn to read. i don't need to recharge the ipad or laptop.
>
> if there's an outlet on board i use it, but if not that's ok too.
>

Why would you use it. You don't need it, and someone else may?

--
Peter

On 11/24/2012 8:29 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-11-24 16:19:49 -0800, PeterN <> said:
>
>> On 11/24/2012 11:31 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2012-11-24 06:05:44 -0800, PeterN <>
>>> said:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is a valid assumption in the absence of skewing information. But
>>>> that s not the point. When I travel, WiFi is NOT one of my criteria
>>>> for selection of a flight. In my order, schedule, non-stop, travel
>>>> comfort, cost. With the exceptions of the now defunct Grand Air, and
>>>> Concorde, the best meals I have on a flight is when I bring my own
>>>> food.
>>>
>>> For the air travel I have engaged in, my priorities have been schedule,
>>> minimizing connections, comfort, & cost (sometimes comfort and value
>>> overrode cost). Connectivity in flight has never been a priority for me,
>>> and I am a bandwidth using fool. I enjoy the break.
>>>
>>> As far as meals go some of the best have been on a 1972 BA coach flight
>>> from JFK to LHR, a 1981 Swissair coach flight into Zurich, and the
>>> consistently very good KLM Business Class offerings (my current
>>> preferred international carrier, they have no first class and I
>>> understand their coach is quite acceptable). In 12 KLM fights I have
>>> always enjoyed superb meals.
>>>
>>> Then we have the dismal, inexcusably awful meals. A 1985 United Shuttle
>>> flight from D.C. to La Guardia, a 2005 Alaska Vancouver to SFO flight, a
>>> 2005 SFO-JFK and return on United, and a 2009 Detroit-SFO Delta. The
>>> last two were decidedly bad because they were business class offerings.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Horses for courses. But, unlike others here, I would never try to
>> impose my preferences on you, and I doubt you would try to impose your
>> preferences on me. (Except of course if you were traveling on my
>> business, at my expense.)
>
> I started flying business class because of my wife's disability, mainly
> because of the seating comfort for her and her lack of mobility once on
> the plane. Her last flights were the 2005 SFO-JFK United round trip, and
> those proved to be too much for her.
> Due to accumulated KLM & United milage I was able to fly business class
> on a further 4 KLM, and 2 Delta flights since she died. I haven't done
> much flying recently. I am mostly sticking out West taking road trips.
>

We flew First or business for similar reasons. My wife used to need a
mobility scooter, and has a history of phlebitis. I am well over 6' and
simply require the legroom. If I sit in a cramped position for any
period over about 15 minutes, it takes me a while to be able to walk.
When I was flying for business, I simply needed the room to be able to
work. Lately we have been taking driving vacations simply because flying
is such a PITA, and I like to carry a lot of camera gear.

--
Peter

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 19:59:21 -0500, PeterN
<> wrote:

>Depends on why they travel. I used to continually review my files, not
>all of which were digitized. When I was preparing for a negotiation,
>every detail was planned in advance. Tony Cooper knows exactly what I mean.

Since my business trips took place in the B.L. years, (before laptop),
I'm a paper and pencil guy. When flying somewhere to make a
presentation, I'd make one of those two column lists with "Possible
objections" on one side and "Answers" on the other. It helped me to
try to anticipate what might be brought up.

On one trip to NYC, I stumbled on a place that made business cases. I
had a special binder made with the rings on the top and then had a
print shop print lined paper punched 3-ring at the top. The pages
flipped up and over, and the cover zipped closed. It was stiff like a
clipboard. This gave me a 3-ring binder that took less space
horizontally and didn't have rings that got in the way of my left-hand
writing. It was great for airplane travel.

I don't think I could have worked as well on a laptop if they were
available then. It would be slower to type and tab and move around
the page. Neater, yes, but not more efficient.

nospam will tell me that there are now pads where you hand write with
a stylus, but that's just a more expensive toy to do the same thing
you could do with a legal pad and a pencil.

The one thing I wish I had then was a laptop with a spreadsheet
program. That's one thing that paper and pencil can't touch for being
able to figure out permutations of results.

I had to kinda chuckle at nospam's comment about keeping in touch 24/7
with mobile devices. There were times I *welcomed* not being able to
keep in touch. A 3-hour flight gave me 3 hours of thinking time,
making the occasional note, that was uninterrupted. It was amazing
how the people back at the office could solve problems and handle
things on their own if they couldn't reach me. And, they probably got
more done without me calling them.

Any manager who thinks the business can't survive if he's not
constantly in touch has an exaggerated sense of self-importance.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida