Austria Travel

Ukrainian Airlines

admin — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

> The prices are just slightly cheaper on Ukrainian Air. However, the > biggest benefit is that it’s a non-stop with them, while KLM and > Austrian Air all make one stop.

If you fly Ukrainian, it will be fine. Just be sure to ask them to seat you away from the crates of chickens. ant

Response:

> I need to travel from London to Kiev. > I have the option of booking with Ukrainian Airlines (Gatwick – Kiev) or KLM > and Austrian Airlines. > The prices are just slightly cheaper on Ukrainian Air. However, the biggest > benefit is that it’s a non-stop with them, while KLM and Austrian Air all > make one stop.

Note that KLM codeshares with Ukrainian AMS-KBP. > Has anyone traveled on Ukrainian Airlines?

Yes, once (on the codeshare above), about two years ago. I found them OK. The flight back was about an hour late which made me almost miss my connection, but otherwise no complaints. M

NA cities with direct rail link airport-downtown

admin — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

> > Actually I was thinking of cities like Vienna or Stockholm where the > rail station is downstairs in one of the terminal buildings, and this direct > rail link takes a passenger to a downtown station where he/she can > either walk to a downtown destination or walk through the station to > connect to another rail or metro. I prefer trains much more than busses. > In Vienna it’s across the street from the terminal, though there is an > underground walkway. > But almost every major European airport has a train connection of that > quality.

I suppose it depends how ‘major’ an airport is, but neither of the two busiest Scottish airports have rail connections. The new ATH still has a bus connection to the subway, right? What about BUD? — David Horne- www.davidhorne.net usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Response:

> >> Because the OP was, I think, asking about local connections. > Actually I was thinking of cities like Vienna or Stockholm where the > rail station is downstairs in one of the terminal buildings, and this direct > rail link takes a passenger to a downtown station where he/she can > either walk to a downtown destination or walk through the station to > connect to another rail or metro. I prefer trains much more than

busses. Light rail from BWI will get you to Penn Station (railway) in Baltimore, but you have to change once. http://www.mtamaryland.com/services/lightrail/schedule/map.cfm However this doesn’t make much sense considering the short shuttle bus ride to BWI’s own rail station.

Response:

> In that case DCA (National Airport) qualifies (Subway comes to the Airport, > you can connect to Distance Rail at Union Station) but BWI, where you must > get on a shuttle for aobut 10 minutes to the on -airport rail station > does not.

As mentioned in another post, a light rail line does serve the BWI airport. Here is a link to an airport map that shows the location of the line: http://www.bwiairport.com/customer_assistance/airlines_services_map/ (Look near the bottom of the map, beside the International Terminal.) The shuttle bus to the Amtrak/MARC train station leaves from a stop close to the light rail station at the airport.

Response:

> Really? I was not aware of the light rail into the terminal. > But I come to BWI from DC, not from Baltimore, so this is one of those > experience limitations.

It’s at the far end of the terminal (the international end). Very easy not to notice if you always arrive by bus. miguel — Hit The Road! Photos from 35 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu Latest photos: Malaysia, Israel, Palestine, Austria, Thailand

Response:

>> While you are correct about this, the APTA table lists LR. As listed in > BWI’s website: > "Light Rail service is available to downtown Baltimore and Hunt Valley from > BWI." > The rail also goes to DC from BWI.

The light rail that’s actually at the airport only goes to Baltimore. To get to DC you need to take the shuttle bus to the Amtrak/MARC station or to Greenbelt Metro (all heavy rail). miguel — Hit The Road! Photos from 35 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu Latest photos: Malaysia, Israel, Palestine, Austria, Thailand

Response:

> Actually I was thinking of cities like Vienna or Stockholm where the > rail station is downstairs in one of the terminal buildings, and this direct > rail link takes a passenger to a downtown station where he/she can > either walk to a downtown destination or walk through the station to > connect to another rail or metro. I prefer trains much more than busses.

In Vienna it’s across the street from the terminal, though there is an underground walkway. But almost every major European airport has a train connection of that quality. A huge difference to the US where it’s a remarkable thing. miguel — Hit The Road! Photos from 35 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu Latest photos: Malaysia, Israel, Palestine, Austria, Thailand

Response:

>But almost every major European airport has a train connection of that >quality. A huge difference to the US where it’s a remarkable thing.

It’s not that remarkable. In the past year or two I’ve taken trains directly to or from the terminal at MDW, ORD, PHL, DCA, ATL, and SFO. I’ve observed the trains at CLE and STL although I didn’t happen to be going downtown from either. The airport that most desperately needs a rail link is LGA, and there’s a subway line not too far away, but the NIMBYs will never let it happen. — Regards, John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711 Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail

Response:

>>The airport that most desperately needs a rail link is LGA, and >there’s a subway line not too far away, but the NIMBYs will never let >it happen. >It’s much more complicated than that now. The Port Authority of NY/NJ >really has no interest in offering one-seat rides, because it doesn’t >make money on the largest portion of the trip (the subway) since it >doesn’t own it. That’s why you have these incompatible systems like >the one linking the "A" to JFK.

True. There was some thought of the JFK airtrain running on the LIRR tracks into Penn Station. The trains could do it, technically very close to LIRR, but I guess the politics were impenetrable. >If NIMBY was the only issue, you wouldn’t have an elevated rail line >carrying Amtrak trains going right through the area.

Uh, that line was built in 1916, around the time the NIMBYs’ grandmothers were born. I suppose that they could put the subway over the Grand Central Parkway, which is already fairly ugly, at vast cost. R’s, John

Response:

> > BWI – Shuttle bus [free] to heavy [really intercity] rail line (Amtrak, > MARC) > While you are correct about this, the APTA table lists LR. As listed in > BWI’s website: > "Light Rail service is available to downtown Baltimore and Hunt Valley from > BWI."

The intent of my list was to identify locations where there were bus connections to nearby rail service. This was in addition to the APTA list I cited, which already covered the airports with service directly into the terminals, so I didn’t repeat them. In some cases, the airports included in my list were duplicates to the direct service list on the APTA web site. Baltimore is such a case, as it has both a light rail line into the terminal, and a shuttle bus to the BWI Airport rail station where one can catch either Amtrak or MARC trains. The MARC trains will take a passenger into Baltimore or Washington DC. > ORD – Shuttle bus to nearby Metra line > Again, from ORD’s website: > "The Chicago Transit Authority’s Blue Line travels > between O’Hare and downtown Chicago."

As with Baltimore, this is an airport with both a direct connection (the CTA Blue Line) and a shuttle bus to a nearby rail station on the North Central line: http://metrarail.com/Sched/ncs/ohare.shtml

Response:

> The intent of my list was to identify locations where there were bus > connections to nearby rail service. This was in addition to the APTA > list I cited, which already covered the airports with service directly > into the terminals, so I didn’t repeat them. In some cases, the airports > included in my list were duplicates to the direct service list on the > APTA web site. > Baltimore is such a case, as it has both a light rail line into the > terminal, and a shuttle bus to the BWI Airport rail station where one > can catch either Amtrak or MARC trains. The MARC trains will take a > passenger into Baltimore or Washington DC.

Really? I was not aware of the light rail into the terminal. But I come to BWI from DC, not from Baltimore, so this is one of those experience limitations. Julie > > ORD – Shuttle bus to nearby Metra line > Again, from ORD’s website: > "The Chicago Transit Authority’s Blue Line travels > between O’Hare and downtown Chicago." > As with Baltimore, this is an airport with both a direct connection (the > CTA Blue Line) and a shuttle bus to a nearby rail station on the North > Central line: > http://metrarail.com/Sched/ncs/ohare.shtml

– Julie I could be wrong. My experience is limited to my experience. Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm

Response:

>> Because the OP was, I think, asking about local connections. > Actually I was thinking of cities like Vienna or Stockholm where the > rail station is downstairs in one of the terminal buildings, and this direct > rail link takes a passenger to a downtown station where he/she can > either walk to a downtown destination or walk through the station to > connect to another rail or metro. I prefer trains much more than busses.

In that case DCA (National Airport) qualifies (Subway comes to the Airport, you can connect to Distance Rail at Union Station) but BWI, where you must get on a shuttle for aobut 10 minutes to the on -airport rail station does not. — Julie I could be wrong. My experience is limited to my experience. Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm

Response:

> While you are correct about this, the APTA table lists LR. As listed in > BWI’s website: > "Light Rail service is available to downtown Baltimore and Hunt Valley from > BWI."

The rail also goes to DC from BWI. And National Airport does have metro right there. Last week we went to the Dominican Republic, flew back, got on metro took the train back to our home (well, my husband walked home (about a half mile) and I waited for him to drive to the station and pick up four suitcases. When we do backpack- style travel, we can walk to the metro and take train to either DCA or BWI. Julie y — Julie I could be wrong. My experience is limited to my experience. Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm

Response:

>> BWI Baltimore/Washington Also a shuttle bus to the BWI station > on the main rail line between DC and Baltimore, Philly, New York. > I’m probably showing my bias here, but why not continue and say Stamford, > New Haven, Providence, and Boston (South Station).

Because the OP was, I think, asking about local connections. True BWI has a train station for Amtrak only a short shuttle ride away, and fits in this group, but it’s also light rail, the MARC system, which is local. — Julie I could be wrong. My experience is limited to my experience. Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm

Response:

> Because the OP was, I think, asking about local connections.

Actually I was thinking of cities like Vienna or Stockholm where the rail station is downstairs in one of the terminal buildings, and this direct rail link takes a passenger to a downtown station where he/she can either walk to a downtown destination or walk through the station to connect to another rail or metro. I prefer trains much more than busses. Pete

Response:

> Which cities in Canada and the USA have direct rail links from the > airport to downtown? Minneapolis has Metro Transit and Chicago > has the blue line ‘L’. What others? > Pete

Vancouver (YVR) will have it around 2008 or 09. They are about to start and it will be ready for the Olympics. Kent

Response:

> BWI Baltimore/Washington Also a shuttle bus to the BWI station > on the main rail line between DC and Baltimore, Philly, New York.

I’m probably showing my bias here, but why not continue and say Stamford, New Haven, Providence, and Boston (South Station).

Response:

> BWI – Shuttle bus [free] to heavy [really intercity] rail line (Amtrak, > MARC)

While you are correct about this, the APTA table lists LR. As listed in BWI’s website: "Light Rail service is available to downtown Baltimore and Hunt Valley from BWI." >ORD – Shuttle bus to nearby Metra line

Again, from ORD’s website: "The Chicago Transit Authority’s Blue Line travels between O’Hare and downtown Chicago." Also, and unfortunately, PVD won’t be next year.

Response:

> Which cities in Canada and the USA have direct rail links from the > airport to downtown? Minneapolis has Metro Transit and Chicago > has the blue line ‘L’. What others?

BWI Baltimore/Washington has light rail – part of the Baltimore system – right at the terminal. Also a shuttle bus to the BWI station on the main rail line between DC and Baltimore, Philly, New York.

Response:

>Which cities in Canada and the USA have direct rail links from the >airport to downtown? Minneapolis has Metro Transit and Chicago >has the blue line ‘L’. What others?

Newark International has New Jersey transit trains to Newark and Manhattan. Philadelphia international has direct trains to three different stations in Philadelphia. — Barbara Vaughan My email address is my first initial followed by my last name at libero dot it.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> > Which cities in Canada and the USA have direct rail links from the >> > airport to downtown? Minneapolis has Metro Transit and Chicago >> > has the blue line ‘L’. What others? > For Chicago, there’s also the Orange Line ‘L’ to Midway. Also the South > Shore Line’s station in South Bend is at the South Bend airport (but who > would fly to South Bend to get to Chicago? Maybe to Michigan City…) > >> PDX >> SFO >> ATL >> LAS (eventually) >> STL >> PVD (next year?) >> Washington-Reagen (not been there, but heard something about it???) > Yes, the terminal building is right next to the Metro station. > >Add MSP > Cleveland. (Red Line to downtown) > > Philadelphia. (Regional Rail to downtown, er, Center City) > Milwaukee. (Amtrak just opened a station at the airport, on the > Milwaukee-Chicago route) > And if it doesn’t have to be a one-seat ride: > Newark NJ (monorail to train to Penn Station in either Newark or New York) > New York (JFK) (Airtrain to Jamaica, where you can take either the subway > or the Long Island RR to Manhattan)

Here is a list of airports with a direct rail link into the airport terminals.: http://www.apta.com/research/stats/rail/airport.cfm The list is from APTA’s web site. It excludes places where you need a bus or van transfer, or where the line doesn’t come directly into the airport. (I think the only one missing on people’s suggestion lists so far is Baltimore’s light rail line): As mentioned by others, there are also airports where a short bus link will take passengers to a nearby rail station, or where the station is very close. Included would be the following: SAN – Scheduled bus to nearby rail lines (Amtrak, Coaster, Trolley) LAX – Bus to nearby light rail line BUR – Short walk to Metrolink commuter line SJC – Shuttle bus to Metro light rail and Caltrain stations OAK – Shuttle bus to nearby BART station BOS – Shuttle bus to "T" BWI – Shuttle bus to heavy rail line (Amtrak, MARC) ORD – Shuttle bus to nearby Metra line PBI – Shuttle bus to nearby commuter line (Tri-rail) FLL – Shuttle bus to nearby commuter line (Tri-rail) MIA – Shuttle bus to nearby commuter line (Tri-rail) MKE – Shuttle bus to nearby Amtrak station YUL – Shuttle bus to VIA Rail and AMT commuter stations The above came to mind, but there are probably many others.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Which cities in Canada and the USA have direct rail links from the > > airport to downtown? Minneapolis has Metro Transit and Chicago > > has the blue line ‘L’. What others? > > Pete > PDX > SFO > ATL > LAS (eventually) > STL > PVD (next year?) > Washington-Reagen (not been there, but heard something about it???) > Add MSP

Add BOS

Response:

>> > Which cities in Canada and the USA have direct rail links from the > > airport to downtown? Minneapolis has Metro Transit and Chicago > > has the blue line ‘L’. What others?

For Chicago, there’s also the Orange Line ‘L’ to Midway. Also the South Shore Line’s station in South Bend is at the South Bend airport (but who would fly to South Bend to get to Chicago? Maybe to Michigan City…) > PDX > SFO > ATL > LAS (eventually) > STL > PVD (next year?) > Washington-Reagen (not been there, but heard something about it???)

Yes, the terminal building is right next to the Metro station. >Add MSP

Cleveland. (Red Line to downtown) Philadelphia. (Regional Rail to downtown, er, Center City) Milwaukee. (Amtrak just opened a station at the airport, on the Milwaukee-Chicago route) And if it doesn’t have to be a one-seat ride: Newark NJ (monorail to train to Penn Station in either Newark or New York) New York (JFK) (Airtrain to Jamaica, where you can take either the subway or the Long Island RR to Manhattan) — Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA

Response:

> Which cities in Canada and the USA have direct rail links from the > airport to downtown? Minneapolis has Metro Transit and Chicago > has the blue line ‘L’. What others? > Pete

PDX SFO ATL LAS (eventually) STL PVD (next year?) Washington-Reagen (not been there, but heard something about it???)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Which cities in Canada and the USA have direct rail links from the > airport to downtown? Minneapolis has Metro Transit and Chicago > has the blue line ‘L’. What others? > Pete > PDX > SFO > ATL > LAS (eventually) > STL > PVD (next year?) > Washington-Reagen (not been there, but heard something about it???)

Add MSP

Response:

Which cities in Canada and the USA have direct rail links from the airport to downtown? Minneapolis has Metro Transit and Chicago has the blue line ‘L’. What others? Pete

Response:

Fastest Way From Gatwick to Heathrow Airport

admin — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

My brother and his friends are traveling from Detroit to Dublin, with a layover in London. They were supposed to have the layover at the same airport, but at the last minute, his flight was changed. Now they have to fly into Gatwick, but out of Heathrow. They will have very little time. What is the quickest way to get from Gatwick to Heathrow – a taxi or express train? Where do they go in the airport to get transportation? Approximately how long will it take to travel from Gatwick to Heathrow? Thank you very much for your help!

Response:

> Now they have to fly into Gatwick, but out of Heathrow. They will have > very little time. What is the quickest way to get from Gatwick to > Heathrow – a taxi or express train?

A connecting flight through Leeds? miguel — Hit The Road! Photos from 35 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu Latest photos: Malaysia, Israel, Palestine, Austria, Thailand

Response:

> My brother and his friends are traveling from Detroit to Dublin, with a > layover in London. They were supposed to have the layover at the same > airport, but at the last minute, his flight was changed. > Now they have to fly into Gatwick, but out of Heathrow. They will have > very little time. What is the quickest way to get from Gatwick to > Heathrow – a taxi or express train? > Where do they go in the airport to get transportation? Approximately > how long will it take to travel from Gatwick to Heathrow?

It would help to know the airline, since there are two terminals at Gatwick, and four at Heathrow. Normally, people ride a bus between the two airports. There are dedicated buses that run about every 15 minutes throughout the day. It takes something like 90 minutes, depending on the time of day. The fare is about 18 pounds. http://www.nationalexpress.com/ A taxi would be the fastest. The fare is about 60 pounds for a prearranged ride. There is no convenient train service between the two airports. If you took the train, you typically have to go into Central London, transfer to another station, then take another train out to Heathrow.

Response:

Fliers up in arms over wide passengers

admin — Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

> Southwest’s policy is to charge for an extra seat only if the plane is > full, Stewart said.

This doesn’t make sense. If the plane was full, what magical seat was she supposed to pay for? joan — Joan McGalliard, UK http://www.mcgalliard.org

Response:

> "> > Overweight people have the same rights as everyone else. In fact, they > pay less for airline seats than normal people do, pound for pound. >> No one wants to be overweight. > I think your ticket price should be a multiple of your weight plus any > baggage you may have brought…When I ship a 5 pound item through the mail > it costs less than a 50 pound item…

That may be the dieting incentive I need, not that I am 120+kg!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > arranged some electrons, so they looked like this : > … > … "> > … > Overweight people have the same rights as everyone else. In fact, they > … > pay less for airline seats than normal people do, pound for pound. > … > > … >> No one wants to be overweight. > … > … I think your ticket price should be a multiple of your weight plus any > … baggage you may have brought…When I ship a 5 pound item through the mail > … it costs less than a 50 pound item… > I like the idea. If anything, it will be an incentive to lose weight. > But keep the luggage out of it – it won’t be using your seat.

It does reduce what freight the plane can carry too tho. Those that want to cart all their possessions around with them should pay for doing that.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > arranged some electrons, so they looked like this : > … … > … > However, the problem came at a tough time for cash-strapped airlines > trying > … > to shrink costs. > … … > … > "Planes are more packed and there are fewer (available) seats," said > Funk. > … > Many of the airlines are downsizing seats, she said. > … > … Sounds like the problem isn’t with the passengers but with the airlines > … downsizing seats to cut costs. Ultimately this method isn’t going to > … work for much longer because there is a limit to how small you can make > … a seat and still put passengers in it. Perhaps they can start shipping > … people as baggage. > Or make larger seats and increase their prices…

Or charge the hippos for two seats.

Response:

> Fliers up in arms over wide passengers > Kirstie Alley should make an excellent poster girl > and advocate for the rights of overweight people. > No one wants to be overweight.

Lie, quite a few do. > If they are they should not be punished for being so.

They are anyway. In spades when they are morbidly obese, punished by atrocious health and early death, well deserved. > Anyway who says they are overweight.

Anyone with a clue. Which obviously rules you out, hippo. > If what the statistics say is true more than 50% of the population > is larger and heavier. Then they are the majority and the norm.

More than 50% arent morbidly obsese, fool. > In that case all public transport must fit their size.

The morbidly obese are welcome to pay for two seats and the less obscenely obese are welcome to fly first class and to pay for that too. > The smaller size people are the minority and therefore below norm.

Pathetic, really.

Response:

>"> > Overweight people have the same rights as everyone else. In fact, they > pay less for airline seats than normal people do, pound for pound. >> No one wants to be overweight. >I think your ticket price should be a multiple of your weight plus any >baggage you may have brought…When I ship a 5 pound item through the mail >it costs less than a 50 pound item…

Yes, there have been very skinny people who have put themselves into a box and attempted to ship themselves somewhere else …….

Response:

> A 127Kg (279.4lbs) woman is most certainly obese. She’s in denial. > I’m sure she’s a nice person otherwise – but still enormous.

Maybe she’s 7-foot-something tall? — Dave Fossett Saitama, Japan

Response:

"> > Overweight people have the same rights as everyone else. In fact, they > pay less for airline seats than normal people do, pound for pound. > No one wants to be overweight.

I think your ticket price should be a multiple of your weight plus any baggage you may have brought…When I ship a 5 pound item through the mail it costs less than a 50 pound item…

Response:

> … > Or make larger seats and increase their prices… > … > … They do – it’s called "First Class". > Not in the entire airplane.

Depends on the airline…

Response:

> "But he kept dozing and when he slept, his elbow kept hitting my chest."

I’d pick his fat arm up and throw it back onto him. He’d probably wake up (who cares?) and if he asked I’d tell him what happened. I suspect women might find this approach too confrontational, though. > "I am overweight, but I’m not obese," said Thompson, 127kg.

Mentioning her weight is not enough. At 280 pounds, even if she is tall, she would still be fat. If she is short, she would be grossly obese. No woman should weigh that much. > "I guess I’m just a fat, black woman

Oh sure, play the race card. It is totally irrelevant that she is black. The only relevant fact is that she is obese. Pete

Response:

Magda writes: > Not in the entire airplane.

There aren’t enough first-class customers to fill the airplane. — Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Response:

> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this : > … Sounds like the problem isn’t with the passengers but with the airlines > … downsizing seats to cut costs. Ultimately this method isn’t going to > … work for much longer because there is a limit to how small you can make > … a seat and still put passengers in it. Perhaps they can start shipping > … people as baggage. > Or make larger seats and increase their prices…

They do – it’s called "First Class". — This signature left blank.

Response:

|>"I am overweight, but I’m not obese," said Thompson, 127kg. No, not obese. Grossly obese. In US terms that’s 280 lbs. I’m a 6′ tall male and was obese at 117kg(257); I’m still overweight at 95kg(209). Among her myriad medical problems (many of which haven’t yet been diagnosed) the most serious one is denial. Unless, as Miguel implied, she’s a starter in a ladies pro basketball team. Cheers, Alan

Response:

Anthony Matonak writes: > Sounds like the problem isn’t with the passengers but with the airlines > downsizing seats to cut costs.

No, the problem is with fat passengers. Normal people can still fit into the seats. — Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Response:

Rod Speed writes: > Or its just another lard arsed hippo attempting to blame anyone > but themselves.

Those are the ones who become and remain extremely fat. — Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Response:

PaPaPeng writes: > Kirstie Alley should make an excellent poster girl and advocate for > the rights of overweight people.

Overweight people have the same rights as everyone else. In fact, they pay less for airline seats than normal people do, pound for pound. > No one wants to be overweight.

But some people aren’t bothered enough by their own obesity to stop overeating, and that’s their own fault. > If they are they should not be punished for being so.

Requiring them to meet the same restrictions as everyone else isn’t punishment. If they find the restrictions inconvenient, they can lose weight. > Anyway who says they are overweight.

I’d say that 127 kg is obese for a woman unless she’s three metres tall. > If what the statistics say is true more than 50% of the population is > larger and heavier.

Fat, you mean. > Then they are the majority and the norm.

That doesn’t make obesity a good thing. > In that case all public transport must fit their size.

Why? > The smaller size people are the minority and therefore below norm.

Normal weight isn’t small. — Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Response:

>Fliers up in arms over wide passengers

Kirstie Alley should make an excellent poster girl and advocate for the rights of overweight people. No one wants to be overweight. If they are they should not be punished for being so. Anyway who says they are overweight. If what the statistics say is true more than 50% of the population is larger and heavier. Then they are the majority and the norm. In that case all public transport must fit their size. The smaller size people are the minority and therefore below norm.

Response:

> > However, the problem came at a tough time for cash-strapped airlines trying > to shrink costs. > … > "Planes are more packed and there are fewer (available) seats," said Funk. > Many of the airlines are downsizing seats, she said. > Sounds like the problem isn’t with the passengers but with the airlines > downsizing seats to cut costs. Ultimately this method isn’t going to > work for much longer because there is a limit to how small you can make > a seat and still put passengers in it. Perhaps they can start shipping > people as baggage.

Yes pitch may be less, but please explain how seat width has reduced. A 737 or A320 etc has always had 6 seats across. unless you know of any in a 4-3 config. oh bugger perhaps I’ve given the airlines some ideas now.

Response:

> A 127Kg (279.4lbs) woman is most certainly obese. She’s in denial. > I’m sure she’s a nice person otherwise – but still enormous.

Yes indeed. I considered myself obscenely overweight at 110kg, so this woman is a massive 17kg heavier, and she’s probably a lot shorter too. This all adds up to morbid obesity.

Response:

> … > However, the problem came at a tough time for cash-strapped airlines trying > to shrink costs. > … > "Planes are more packed and there are fewer (available) seats," said Funk. > Many of the airlines are downsizing seats, she said. > Sounds like the problem isn’t with the passengers but with the airlines > downsizing seats to cut costs.

Or its just another lard arsed hippo attempting to blame anyone but themselves. > Ultimately this method isn’t going to work for much longer because there is a > limit to how small you can make a seat and still put passengers in it.

Mindless silly stuff, as always from fools like you. > Perhaps they can start shipping people as baggage.

They already do, stupid.

Response:

>> "I am overweight, but I’m not obese," said Thompson, 127kg. > A 127Kg (279.4lbs) woman is most certainly obese. She’s in denial.

The article failed to mention that she’s nine and a half feet tall. miguel — Hit The Road! Photos from 35 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu Latest photos: Malaysia, Israel, Palestine, Austria, Thailand

Response:

… > However, the problem came at a tough time for cash-strapped airlines trying > to shrink costs. … > "Planes are more packed and there are fewer (available) seats," said Funk. > Many of the airlines are downsizing seats, she said.

Sounds like the problem isn’t with the passengers but with the airlines downsizing seats to cut costs. Ultimately this method isn’t going to work for much longer because there is a limit to how small you can make a seat and still put passengers in it. Perhaps they can start shipping people as baggage. Anthony

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Fliers up in arms over wide passengers >By Ken Dermota >Thompson is one of four overweight persons who sued Southwest Airlines over >its policy of asking passengers who cannot fit into a seat to pay for a >second one. >"I am overweight, but I’m not obese," said Thompson, 127kg. >She runs a cosmetics business in Exeter, New Hampshire. >A 127Kg (279.4lbs) woman is most certainly obese. She’s in denial. >I’m sure she’s a nice person otherwise – but still enormous.

If she is 5′ 10" or under, she is MORBIDLY obese. According to the fat acceptors, she only needs to proclaim herself beautiful and fit, then her life will be perfect.

Response:

>Fliers up in arms over wide passengers >By Ken Dermota >Thompson is one of four overweight persons who sued Southwest Airlines over >its policy of asking passengers who cannot fit into a seat to pay for a >second one. >"I am overweight, but I’m not obese," said Thompson, 127kg. >She runs a cosmetics business in Exeter, New Hampshire.

A 127Kg (279.4lbs) woman is most certainly obese. She’s in denial. I’m sure she’s a nice person otherwise – but still enormous.

Response:

Fliers up in arms over wide passengers By Ken Dermota Washington – Yara Zubalskyj had a bum foot when she took her seat next to an obese man on a recent Lufthansa flight from Washington. But in Frankfurt, six hours later, other things hurt, too. "He tried to keep in his seat, said Zubalskyj, 58. "But he kept dozing and when he slept, his elbow kept hitting my chest." Zubalskyj is one of a growing number of travellers crowded by wide-body passengers who cannot fit into the standard, 43cm airline seat. One-third of Americans are not just fat but obese, due to junk food diets and lack of exercise, according to official US statistics. The waistline problem is growing. Airlines are caught in the squeeze, by passenger "air rage" and at least four lawsuits in the United States – all by overweight travelers. Zubalskyj said she may become the first to sue an airline on behalf of the slim. "I think they should be sued – by people who are not obese who do not deserve to be hit," she said. ‘I guess I’m just a fat, black woman’ What hurt Zubalskyj most, however, was her pride. Lufthansa’s flight crew suggested she move. She protested that she had reserved a so-called bulkhead seat to accommodate her foot. The only empty seat with foot room was in first class. Lufthansa denied her an upgrade. Lufthansa officials in Germany refused to return her phone calls, and only when she was back home did she receive an offer of $400 (about R2 500), she said. "I found it to be very insulting and demeaning," she said. That was also Nadine Thompson’s experience – but for different reasons. "I wanted to cry but couldn’t," Thompson said. Thompson is one of four overweight persons who sued Southwest Airlines over its policy of asking passengers who cannot fit into a seat to pay for a second one. "I am overweight, but I’m not obese," said Thompson, 127kg. She runs a cosmetics business in Exeter, New Hampshire. Thompson said she liked Southwest so much that she was a frequent flier – until she was escorted from a flight by two armed sheriffs after refusing to buy a second ticket. "I had my armrest down, seat belt fastened," Thompson said, when a manager boarded the plane and told her that for the comfort and safety of herself and other passengers, she would have to buy a second ticket. "I guess I’m just a fat, black woman and I guess I’m not allowed to fly this airline," Thompson said she told the sheriff. Thompson said the airline apologised, but too late. Her discrimination suit goes to trial in February 2006. "It’s not discrimination in any shape, form or fashion," said Southwest spokesperson Ed Stewart. "We have a customer size policy," he said. "It’s the same policy as every other airline." So why is Southwest getting sued? "We had an internal memo that had it enforced around the country," Stewart said. He said other airlines drop the problem into the customers’ lap, so to speak. "This may come as a surprise, but the person in the other seat may not want to be sat on," said Stewart. He pointed out that Southwest had won the other three suits. Southwest’s policy is to charge for an extra seat only if the plane is full, Stewart said. Luckily, Stewart said, less than half of one percent of passengers are affected. However, the problem came at a tough time for cash-strapped airlines trying to shrink costs. "As Americans are getting larger, seats are getting smaller," said Pat Funk, vice president of the Consumer Rights Travel Centre, a nonprofit group which tracks fliers’ rights. "Planes are more packed and there are fewer (available) seats," said Funk. Many of the airlines are downsizing seats, she said. Seat width, now measured in hundredths of an inch, cannot shrink much, but the space from front to back does. Funk, who travels a lot, once weighed 200 pounds. She said she trimmed down, in large measure, to fit into airline seats. "It’s claustrophobic," she said. "I would be just as unhappy as the Lufthansa lady," she said.

Response:

Looking for some input from experienced travelers

admin — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

>> I think that 5.5 hrs limitation means the only obvious choice is Air > Canada. I think the Iceland-Boston flight is over 6 hours. > Iceland to Boston is not more than 5 hours.

According to Icelandair you’re both wrong, the scheduled time is 5 hr 50 min. Regards David Bennetts Australia

Response:

> >> I think that 5.5 hrs limitation means the only obvious choice is Air >> Canada. I think the Iceland-Boston flight is over 6 hours. > Iceland to Boston is not more than 5 hours. > According to Icelandair you’re both wrong, the scheduled time is 5 hr 50 > min.

Only one leg, on some days. The return leg is 5 hours.

Response:

> > >> I think that 5.5 hrs limitation means the only obvious choice is > Air > >> Canada. I think the Iceland-Boston flight is over 6 hours. > > Iceland to Boston is not more than 5 hours. > According to Icelandair you’re both wrong, the scheduled time is 5 hr > 50 > min. > Only one leg, on some days. The return leg is 5 hours.

The OP said 5:30 max on any leg. Iain

Response:

>>someone writes: >> AC861: LHR – YHT (St Johns Newfoundland) Dep 11:30 Arr 13:30 (Dur 5:35) >> AC631: YHT – YYZ (Toronto) Dep 16:30 Arr 18:41 (Dur 3:41) >> AC793: YYZ – LAX Dep 20:15 Arr 22:44 (Dur 5:29) > The only potential problem is that the elderly relative will then need to > clear customs in Canada, and then again in LAX. >On a flight from Toronto to LAX? US customs would be handled in Toronto.

That would mean that both stops have an increased risk of misconnection due to delays at customs and immigration (including collecting luggage, rechecking luggage, and security screening). — Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Response:

>> AC861: LHR – YHT (St Johns Newfoundland) Dep 11:30 Arr 13:30 (Dur 5:35) > AC631: YHT – YYZ (Toronto) Dep 16:30 Arr 18:41 (Dur 3:41) > AC793: YYZ – LAX Dep 20:15 Arr 22:44 (Dur 5:29) > The only potential problem is that the elderly relative will then need to > clear customs in Canada, and then again in LAX.

On a flight from Toronto to LAX? US customs would be handled in Toronto. miguel — Hit The Road! Photos from 35 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu Latest photos: Malaysia, Israel, Palestine, Austria, Thailand

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Group: > I have an elderly relative who needs to travel from London (UK) to Los > Angeles (CA, US). The 11 hour duration of the normal journey (LHR-LAX) will > simply be too long for him. > I’m looking at an economic (!) way of somehow splitting the journey into two > (approximate) or three legs, with overnight layovers. Either way, no > segment can be more than about 5 hours (absolute tops 5.5hours). > I think that 5.5 hrs limitation means the only obvious choice is Air > Canada. I think the Iceland-Boston flight is over 6 hours.

Iceland to Boston is not more than 5 hours.

Response:

says… > What about London (LHR) – Rejkavik (KEF) – Minneapolis (MSP) – LAX – The > longest flight (KEF-MSP) is about 6 hours.

KEF-MSP is timed at 6hrs 40 mins. Even KEF-BOS is 5 hrs 50. Iain

Response:

> Some explanation may be in order – the reason for the flight length > restriction is on medical advice, due to the person being at high risk of > DVT. She has be councilled by a number of medical practitioners not to fly > long haul, but been told 3-5 hours should be okay, hence the need to break > the flight up.

I think that you should simply take a direct flight but put your relative in an aisle seat. Get her doc to write a letter saying that she requires an aisle seat so that she can exercise during the flight. Follow the advice given at http://www.dvt.net/pdf/InFlightFitness.pdf which suggests walking for half an hour before boarding, and then get up and walk every hour or half hour as well as doing all the stretches, etc. If your relative is too frail to do that, perhaps you should consider some other mode of travel, like taking the Queen Mary II across. I flew LHR-SEA last year, and there were many folks walking laps in the aisle and moving about every half hour or so to stay limber and stretched, myself included. I unfortunately was unable to get my usual aisle seat, and had seatmates that both wanted the armrests down, which meant that I was only able to nap for a short while in BA’s cramped "World Traveller" cabin. If you’re going to fly, business class at least has *some* room to stretch.

Response:

> Group: > I have an elderly relative who needs to travel from London (UK) to Los > Angeles (CA, US). The 11 hour duration of the normal journey (LHR-LAX) will > simply be too long for him. > I’m looking at an economic (!) way of somehow splitting the journey into two > (approximate) or three legs, with overnight layovers. Either way, no > segment can be more than about 5 hours (absolute tops 5.5hours).

I think that 5.5 hrs limitation means the only obvious choice is Air Canada. I think the Iceland-Boston flight is over 6 hours. The only way I can see it working is some variation on AC861: LHR – YHT (St Johns Newfoundland) Dep 11:30 Arr 13:30 (Dur 5:35) AC631: YHT – YYZ (Toronto) Dep 16:30 Arr 18:41 (Dur 3:41) AC793: YYZ – LAX Dep 20:15 Arr 22:44 (Dur 5:29) Return obviously similar Iain

Response:

Multi segment and multi airline flights are a nightmare these days especially if it involves anywhere in North America. It is simply not worth the hassle. Your passenger should fly American Airlines non-stop if legroom is the only consideration. If decent inflight service (food, entertainment, drinks and FA attitude) are important then s/he should fly British Airways non-stop. BA seats in economy don’t have as much leg room as those of AA, but they are certainly comfortable to sit on. Tell the passenger to have a glass of wine or two and chill.

Response:

> Can anyone may any suggestions?

Someone already suggested this routing via Air Canada: AC861: LHR – YHT (St Johns Newfoundland) Dep 11:30 Arr 13:30 (Dur 5:35) AC631: YHT – YYZ (Toronto) Dep 16:30 Arr 18:41 (Dur 3:41) AC793: YYZ – LAX Dep 20:15 Arr 22:44 (Dur 5:29) Another "Canadian Option" would be to look at Air Transat – A charter operator that flies non-stop from London Gatwick to Calgary, Alberta, Canada – and then connecting in Calgary to nonstop flight down the coast to LA. The first leg would be a long haul, but AT offers "Club Class" a relatively inexpensive pseudo-business class with much bigger seats, better service, more leg room and lots of chances to walk around. Club Class is good value and VERY popular so it needs to be booked long in advance. Transat doesn’t interline, so the traveller would have to go through go through customs, claim their bags and check in again for their flight to the states, but they’d have to claim their bags again anyway so its not that much more of a hassle. You don’t mention the dates, but here’s a sample routing: Dep LGW: 9:30 am Arr YYC: 11:40 am Dep YYC: 4:05 pm (on WestJet Flight 900) Arr LAX: 6:20 pm (http://www.westjet.com/) When looking at intineraries I would allow at LEAST two hours for the connection, as the traveller will have to clear Canada Customs in Calgary, then clear US customs, again in Calgary. Cheers, Geoff Glave Vancouver, Canada email: geoff at glave dot org

Response:

Couldn’t find that one on BMI, but they did have a flight to Halifax (duration 5 hrs 35 min), which no doubt has similar connections with Air Canada. Regards David Bennetts

Response:

What about London (LHR) – Rejkavik (KEF) – Minneapolis (MSP) – LAX – The longest flight (KEF-MSP) is about 6 hours. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Group: > I have an elderly relative who needs to travel from London (UK) to Los > Angeles (CA, US). The 11 hour duration of the normal journey (LHR-LAX) > will simply be too long for him. > I’m looking at an economic (!) way of somehow splitting the journey into > two (approximate) or three legs, with overnight layovers. Either way, no > segment can be more than about 5 hours (absolute tops 5.5hours). > My requirements seem to be beyond the travel agents that I’ve consulted > who simply want to sell me tickets for either the direct route or ask me > well what routing do you want! My problem is I don’t know what practical > and economic routings there are. > Can anyone may any suggestions? > Cheers > Deno

Response:

> Group: > I have an elderly relative who needs to travel from London (UK) to Los > Angeles (CA, US). The 11 hour duration of the normal journey (LHR-LAX) will > simply be too long for him.

> I’m looking at an economic (!) way of somehow splitting the journey into two > (approximate) or three legs, with overnight layovers. Either way, no

> segment can be more than about 5 hours (absolute tops 5.5hours).

Someone else raised a good point. How is the length of time, and the ordeal of getting off a plane, walking through a large airport, getting through customs and immigration, and getting yourself transported to a hotel, and then back again to the airport, much easier for an elderly relative ? Wouldn’t it be far easier to sit in an airplane seat for just a few more hours ? If your relative is too frail to sit in one place for a few more hours, I cannot imagine him/her being able to handle 1-2 layovers.

Response:

|Group: | |I have an elderly relative who needs to travel from London (UK) to Los |Angeles (CA, US). The 11 hour duration of the normal journey (LHR-LAX) will |simply be too long for him. | |I’m looking at an economic (!) way of somehow splitting the journey into two |(approximate) or three legs, with overnight layovers. Either way, no |segment can be more than about 5 hours (absolute tops 5.5hours). | |My requirements seem to be beyond the travel agents that I’ve consulted who |simply want to sell me tickets for either the direct route or ask me well |what routing do you want! My problem is I don’t know what practical and |economic routings there are. | |Can anyone may any suggestions? | |Cheers | |Deno | Apart from Iceland, the shortest are generally out of Shannon, Ireland between 6:45 and 7 hours to Toronto/Montreal or the NE US – BOS, NYC, PHL. However, you’re only going to save a half-hour or so over a London departure, with a significant increase in inconvenience. I’ve looked at the Azores and the flights seem to only go to Lisbon. Similarly, Bermuda seems to connect to Miami and similar, but not Europe. I’m also interested if you find a solution. Cheers, Alan

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Group: > I have an elderly relative who needs to travel from London (UK) to Los > Angeles (CA, US). The 11 hour duration of the normal journey (LHR-LAX) > will simply be too long for him. > I’m looking at an economic (!) way of somehow splitting the journey into > two (approximate) or three legs, with overnight layovers. Either way, no > segment can be more than about 5 hours (absolute tops 5.5hours). > My requirements seem to be beyond the travel agents that I’ve consulted > who simply want to sell me tickets for either the direct route or ask me > well what routing do you want! My problem is I don’t know what practical > and economic routings there are. > Can anyone may any suggestions?

Honestly, from one who at 65 (still young) travels often on multi-leg trips, the 11 hours to LHR/LAX will be considerably less exhausting than multiple rides to aand from irports, clearing security, various Customs & Immigration, lugging bag(s) to and from hotel(s), dealing with restaurants, or "room service" at whgat always seems to be odd hours, and all the assorted crap associated with flying. Pick a comfortable airline, comfortable clothes, comfortable "slip on" shoes a good book or two (the optimal personal entertainment device, quiet, portable and self selested) and a comfortable seat up there in bidness class, relax and enjoy it. That’s expecially true, LAX to London, departing in time for apertifs and appetizers leading up to a lengthy multi-course (but hardly gourmet dinner) and dozing thru the night (easy when you’re a bit older – Hell, we doze all sorts of places, behind the wheel, in the movies, in front of TV) to wake up to a curious array of breakfast dishes…a sleep mask and some ear plugs can even improve that a bit. LHR-LAX is more of a time shift problem, racing the clock back to land soon after takeoff….. Great Advertising Motto from 50s…."K.I.S.S." – "Keep it simple, Stupid!" TMO

Response:

Group Thanks for the advice so far – please keep it coming. Some explanation may be in order – the reason for the flight length restriction is on medical advice, due to the person being at high risk of DVT. She has be councilled by a number of medical practitioners not to fly long haul, but been told 3-5 hours should be okay, hence the need to break the flight up. Best D

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Group: > I have an elderly relative who needs to travel from London (UK) to Los > Angeles (CA, US). The 11 hour duration of the normal journey (LHR-LAX) > will simply be too long for him. > I’m looking at an economic (!) way of somehow splitting the journey into > two (approximate) or three legs, with overnight layovers. Either way, no > segment can be more than about 5 hours (absolute tops 5.5hours). > My requirements seem to be beyond the travel agents that I’ve consulted > who simply want to sell me tickets for either the direct route or ask me > well what routing do you want! My problem is I don’t know what practical > and economic routings there are. > Can anyone may any suggestions? > Honestly, from one who at 65 (still young) travels often on multi-leg > trips, the 11 hours to LHR/LAX will be considerably less exhausting than > multiple rides to aand from irports, clearing security, various Customs & > Immigration, lugging bag(s) to and from hotel(s), dealing with > restaurants, or "room service" at whgat always seems to be odd hours, and > all the assorted crap associated with flying. > Pick a comfortable airline, comfortable clothes, comfortable "slip on" > shoes a good book or two (the optimal personal entertainment device, > quiet, portable and self selested) and a comfortable seat up there in > bidness class, relax and enjoy it. That’s expecially true, LAX to London, > departing in time for apertifs and appetizers leading up to a lengthy > multi-course (but hardly gourmet dinner) and dozing thru the night (easy > when you’re a bit older – Hell, we doze all sorts of places, behind the > wheel, in the movies, in front of TV) to wake up to a curious array of > breakfast dishes…a sleep mask and some ear plugs can even improve that a > bit. LHR-LAX is more of a time shift problem, racing the clock back to > land soon after takeoff….. > Great Advertising Motto from 50s…."K.I.S.S." – "Keep it simple, Stupid!" > TMO

Response:

Group: I have an elderly relative who needs to travel from London (UK) to Los Angeles (CA, US). The 11 hour duration of the normal journey (LHR-LAX) will simply be too long for him. I’m looking at an economic (!) way of somehow splitting the journey into two (approximate) or three legs, with overnight layovers. Either way, no segment can be more than about 5 hours (absolute tops 5.5hours). My requirements seem to be beyond the travel agents that I’ve consulted who simply want to sell me tickets for either the direct route or ask me well what routing do you want! My problem is I don’t know what practical and economic routings there are. Can anyone may any suggestions? Cheers Deno

Response:

Don’t think you’ve got too much choice. Suggest you have a look at www.icelandair.com which offers flights from Reykjavik to East Coast USA (eg Boston, New York, Washington) and from London Heathrow. You’d probably have to team up with a domestic USA transcontinental flight. Regards David Bennetts Australia

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Group: > I have an elderly relative who needs to travel from London (UK) to Los > Angeles (CA, US). The 11 hour duration of the normal journey (LHR-LAX) will > simply be too long for him. > I’m looking at an economic (!) way of somehow splitting the journey into two > (approximate) or three legs, with overnight layovers. Either way, no > segment can be more than about 5 hours (absolute tops 5.5hours). > My requirements seem to be beyond the travel agents that I’ve consulted who > simply want to sell me tickets for either the direct route or ask me well > what routing do you want! My problem is I don’t know what practical and > economic routings there are. > Can anyone may any suggestions? > Cheers > Deno

I see the replies are giving you options. One thing I would wonder about is how your elderly relitive will hold up with connections & layover time. Just something to consider compared to a direct flight.

Response:

Crossing the Atlantic – airports on the way?

admin — Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Hi, Someone here mentioned something in an earlier thread that I found intriguing: that a trans-Atlantic flight is pretty much like island hopping. Thinking about it, I can see that it seems not to be far-fetched: you fly over North-America, cross to Greenland, then Iceland… you’re almost there and never too far away from an airport. Is this in fact the route that’s usually taken? If so, another poster mentioned airports in Greenland that could be used in case of emergencies. Which ones would these be, and are they indeed suitable for letting the biggies land, e.g. a 747? Apart from runway length, accomodating passengers seems to be an issue, too. Has such an emergency ever occurred, i.e. did a plane ever have to divert to a Greenland airport? Thanks for replies, Ralph

Response:

Hi Generally, on transatlantic flights, they don’t fly straight over the ocean, but swerve north a bit and fly close to Greenland and Iceland. Sometimes there is also a layover in Iceland. I don’t think a plane has ever been diverted to Greenland, as I am not sure they can accomodate heavies like the Boeing 747. Should such an emergency occur, a plane would always be diverted to Iceland, as we have two airports suitable for 747’s, both the Keflavik International (KEF) and another one in the north of Iceland, Egilsstadir. I can recall one or two incidents in the past few years where planes from AA or UA have had to stop off in Iceland due to problems, but there was never anything major. Also, a layover in Iceland is no bad thing – great nightlife and nature, clean air and water, and just generally great! David – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Hi, > Someone here mentioned something in an earlier thread that I found > intriguing: that a trans-Atlantic flight is pretty much like island > hopping. Thinking about it, I can see that it seems not to be > far-fetched: you fly over North-America, cross to Greenland, then > Iceland… you’re almost there and never too far away from an airport. > Is this in fact the route that’s usually taken? > If so, another poster mentioned airports in Greenland that could be used > in case of emergencies. Which ones would these be, and are they indeed > suitable for letting the biggies land, e.g. a 747? Apart from runway > length, accomodating passengers seems to be an issue, too. > Has such an emergency ever occurred, i.e. did a plane ever have to > divert to a Greenland airport? > Thanks for replies, > Ralph

Response:

> I can recall one or two incidents in the past few years where planes > from AA or UA have had to stop off in Iceland due to problems, but > there was never anything major. Also, a layover in Iceland is no bad > thing – great nightlife and nature, clean air and water, and just > generally great!

And if you’re a billionaire, you might even be able to afford lunch! miguel — Hit The Road! Photos from 35 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu Latest photos: Malaysia, Israel, Palestine, Austria, Thailand

Response:

> Generally, on transatlantic flights, they don’t fly straight over the > ocean, but swerve north a bit and fly close to Greenland and Iceland.

Actually, that is straight over the ocean. What you probably mean is that the route isn’t a straight line on a flat map, but a great circle route, which looks like a curved line on a map, but is the shortest route, and a straight line on a globe. > I don’t think a plane has ever been diverted to Greenland, as I am not > sure they can accomodate heavies like the Boeing 747.

There are several airports on Greenland that can accommodate 747s, Thule and Sondre Stromfjord are two that come to mind. They have both regularly been visited by 747s, for various reasons. > Should such an emergency occur, a plane would always be diverted > to Iceland, as we have two airports suitable for 747’s, …

Here is an example of an SAS 767 that diverted to Greenland, to show it does actually happen: http://www.corkscrew-balloon.com/02/05/2eur/sas937.html

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Hi, >Someone here mentioned something in an earlier thread that I found >intriguing: that a trans-Atlantic flight is pretty much like island >hopping. Thinking about it, I can see that it seems not to be >far-fetched: you fly over North-America, cross to Greenland, then >Iceland… you’re almost there and never too far away from an airport. >Is this in fact the route that’s usually taken? >If so, another poster mentioned airports in Greenland that could be used >in case of emergencies. Which ones would these be, and are they indeed >suitable for letting the biggies land, e.g. a 747? Apart from runway >length, accomodating passengers seems to be an issue, too. >Has such an emergency ever occurred, i.e. did a plane ever have to >divert to a Greenland airport? >Thanks for replies, >Ralph

Not the most direct route, but I think Sata used to have seasonal service (maybe they still do) from the US east coast to Lisbon with a stop in the Azores.

Response:

The routes vary day by day with the weather. occasionally they can be surprisingly far south making the Azores thhe preferred diversion. There are also different routes according to the entry point to the over water section and final destination. Flights from Nortthern Europe to th West Coast follow a more northerly route than those going to the east Coast.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi, > Someone here mentioned something in an earlier thread that I found > intriguing: that a trans-Atlantic flight is pretty much like island > hopping. Thinking about it, I can see that it seems not to be far-fetched: > you fly over North-America, cross to Greenland, then Iceland… you’re > almost there and never too far away from an airport. > Is this in fact the route that’s usually taken? > If so, another poster mentioned airports in Greenland that could be used > in case of emergencies. Which ones would these be, and are they indeed > suitable for letting the biggies land, e.g. a 747? Apart from runway > length, accomodating passengers seems to be an issue, too. > Has such an emergency ever occurred, i.e. did a plane ever have to divert > to a Greenland airport? > Thanks for replies, > Ralph

Response:

> The routes vary day by day with the weather. occasionally they can be > surprisingly far south making the Azores thhe preferred diversion.

A few years ago I flew Dulles to Madrid and return on Spanair. We flew within sight of the Azores in both directions. I concluded that they didn’t have a long-enough ETOPS rating to venture very far from land. The distance from the Azores to Newfoundland is surprisingly short. Lucas Electric = Prince of Darkness

Response:

> Someone here mentioned something in an earlier thread that I found > intriguing: that a trans-Atlantic flight is pretty much like island > hopping. Thinking about it, I can see that it seems not to be > far-fetched: you fly over North-America, cross to Greenland, then > Iceland… you’re almost there and never too far away from an airport. > Is this in fact the route that’s usually taken?

Karl Swartz has a handy "Great Circle Mapper", which gives a fair idea of the routes most likely to be taken. While reading the thread about the BA 747 from LAX to LHR, I built up this URL: http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=lax-man-lhr-lax-ord-lhr-jfk-lax That represents an imaginary 7-segment path. Working for top to bottom and left to right on the map itself, the tracks are: LAX-MAN-LHR Los Angeles -> Manchester -> London LAX-LHR Los Angeles -> London direct LAX-ORD-LHR Los Angeles -> Chicago -> London LAX-JFK-LHR Los Angeles -> New York -> London Each of those routes gives several hours’ flight time within easy reach of US or Canadian airfields, with something like half the total flight path over North America. The northerly routes are, perhaps, marginally safer in that they go over Greenland and close to Iceland. In Ye Olden Dayes, it was quite common for eastbound flights to put down to refuel at Prestwick (near Glasgow in Scotland) or at Shannon (in Ireland) when winds were not as favourable as had been hoped. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if a flight from New York to Dublin set out with just as much fuel as the same crew would select for the same load of passengers and freight bound for London. Why? If they don’t carry sufficient fuel to *guarantee* reaching Shannon then they have big problems. The London-bound flight will *probably* have enough fuel to complete the planned trip with approved reserves, but they have options for refuelling a Shannon, Dublin, Cardiff, Bristol, etc. Around 15 years ago, I believe a *very* senior BA captain’s aeroplane used somewhat more fuel than usual on a transatlantic flight to Heathrow, and the captain elected *not* to refuel at Shannon. He landed safely at Heathrow, but without the approved reserves. AIUI, he was put to flying a desk for the few months until his retirement. Methinks the 747 crew would have been aware of that incident and been quite sure not to do something similar. I think they would also be aware of a QANTAS 747 that landed at Heathrow some years ago without a great deal of fuel (IIRC, that one was below statutory reserves when it was refuelled at the stand, but it wasn’t clear whether it had actually *landed* with statutory reserves and burnt the difference while taxiing in). AIUI, the QANTAS captain should have landed at Schipol for fuel (or have wheedled an explicit assurance out of British ATC to the effect that he wouldn’t be held in a stack before landing). In Ye Reale Olden Dayes, it was quite a common practice for westbound flights to make *scheduled* stops at Prestwick or at Shannon to brim the tanks.

Response:

> The actual flight may usually be somewhat south of the path needed to > use Iceland & Greenland. This week I was flying from Milan to Atlanta. > They had a maintenance problem that required that the flight be nearer > than usual to alternate airports. We thus flew near to Iceland & over > Greenland. If there had not been a problem they would have taken a > quicker route farther south.

The normal routes between Europe and the USA go by route that is determined by the great circle and by the prevailing winds enroute. So sometimes the routes (North Atlantic tracks) take the aircraft over Iceland and Greenland and sometimes the tracks go well to the south of Iceland. These routes are flown by aircraft going from Western Europe to the US east coast, aircraft from central Europe or aircraft going to central or western USA go over Iceland and Greenland under all circumstances.

Response:

The actual flight may usually be somewhat south of the path needed to use Iceland & Greenland. This week I was flying from Milan to Atlanta. They had a maintenance problem that required that the flight be nearer than usual to alternate airports. We thus flew near to Iceland & over Greenland. If there had not been a problem they would have taken a quicker route farther south. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Ralph Holz schrieb: >Someone here mentioned something in an earlier thread that I found >intriguing: that a trans-Atlantic flight is pretty much like island >hopping. Thinking about it, I can see that it seems not to be >far-fetched: you fly over North-America, cross to Greenland, then >Iceland… you’re almost there and never too far away from an airport. > Besides flights from Europe to South America and vice versa. > Regards, ULF

Response:

Ralph Holz schrieb: > Someone here mentioned something in an earlier thread that I found > intriguing: that a trans-Atlantic flight is pretty much like island > hopping. Thinking about it, I can see that it seems not to be > far-fetched: you fly over North-America, cross to Greenland, then > Iceland… you’re almost there and never too far away from an airport.

Besides flights from Europe to South America and vice versa. Regards, ULF

Response:

> Hi, > Has such an emergency ever occurred, i.e. did a plane ever have to divert > to a Greenland airport?

Thule and was it "Bluie West One" have in their time seen the comings and goings, often unplanned, of almost every a/c type, military and civilian, to fly the Atlantic. USAF operated auerial tankers routinely, and my first crossing – a C-130 out of McGuire missed Greenland, but stopped in Newfoundland, Iceland, Prestwick & RheinMain. Heavily loaded, a/c of the WWII and postwar era took just as much runway as today’s birds and often more. Heavy B-36s hardly sprang into the sky, and put plenty AVGAS and a bomb or two in a B-29 and it was a long roll to lift off. The tales of ferrying P-38s, P-47s and P-51s make hairy reading, and a crossing in a C-47 needed some stops. TMO

Response:

No ORD to JFK?

admin — Wed, 06 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Pete schrieb: > During Soviet times, international scheduled traffic to Moscow > went to Sheremetyevo-2 after completion of this terminal. > The Soviets built Sheremetevo in two locations – international (II) > and domestic (I) – to ensure that Soviet citizens did not have the > opportunity to mingle with westerners. The airport was built and/or > expanded for the 1980 Olympics

I guess they built terminal II for the Olympics. Regards, ULF

Response:

I checked the OAG for October 1975 to see what flights were available then from ORD – JFK. What a time-wasting book! 2.50a NW 244 747 (NW 244 MSP-ORD-DTW-JFK) 11.40a UA 252 72S (UA 252 DSM-ORD-JFK) 2.00p TW 880 727 (TW 880 ORD-JFK-ATH-TLV [1]) 2.20p UA 120 DC8 (UA 120 ORD-JFK) 4.55p UA 890 DC8 (UA 890 SFO-RNO-ORD-JFK) 7.25p NW 6 747 (NW 6 Transpacific-ORD-JFK [2]) 7.55p UA 168 (UA 168 LAX-OMA-MLI-ORD-ABE-JFK) 10.30p UA 130 D8S (SJC-SFO-ORD-EWR [3] Notes: 1 Either a change of equipment at JFK, or an error. 2 NW6 flew MNL-OKA-HND-ANC-ORD-JFK on days 1 and 4 TPE-OSA-HND-ANC-ORD-JFK on days 3,5,7 MNL-HND-ANC-ORD-JFK on days 2 and 6 3 The city-city list shows flight UA130 operating to JFK The airline flight itinerary shows EWR. I hope the pilots knew Effective October 26, 3.10P TW 800 B3F (TW 800 LAX-MCI-ORD-JFK-CDG to CDG every day continuing to TLV on days 1, 3 and 6 only) PanAm also flew ORD-JFK-FRA-WAW once a week but no local traffic between ORD and JFK. —

Response:

>>their will to flee. > Yup Miguel it’s certainly a prime example of 70’s – era Soviet architetcure, > that’s for sure. It reminds me of the of the Moscow "Novy Arbat" or those > "panelak" flats that encircle Prague…or my high – rise 1968 college dorm > in downstate Illinois.

Waterson? ISU. Noisy as I remember it. I spent a night there in 1985 during a scholarship competition between the top 100 rated junior college accepted transfers. There was a test (multiple choice and essay) and interview. The top 10 students got the Foundation-Alumni Distinguished Scholarship for 2 years. For 1985, I was one of those 10. Due to having to start my computer science classes almost from the beginning, and IBM interships in Austin, TX (Software Compatibility Testing on AT and XT) and Rochester, MN (coding for the soon to be released AS400), and my hectic Spring 1988 interview schedule (flying all over the country, I think it was a double mileage year), I finally graduated in August 1988. I lived at the ISU Apartments in Cardinal Court.

Response:

> Back in the 70’s there was a big diplomatique contretemps concerning the > USSR and USA embassy compounds in the respective countries. That USSR DC > site is the highest site elevation – wise in The District if i’m not > wrong…

I would believe that was the case back in the day, but now there is a whole new campus of embassies (and a satellite State Dept annex thing) out by the Intelsat monstrosity, looking down on UDC. It’d quite high up and I’d guess higher than anything in Georgetown (could be wrong though). There are about two dozen out there – Pakistan, Malaysia, Austria, UAE, Israel, etc. miguel — Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

Response:

> I would believe that was the case back in the day, but now there is a whole > new campus of embassies (and a satellite State Dept annex thing) out by the > Intelsat monstrosity, looking down on UDC. It’d quite high up and I’d guess > higher than anything in Georgetown (could be wrong though). There are about > two dozen out there – Pakistan, Malaysia, Austria, UAE, Israel, etc.

I used to work at that site when it was NBS. It is considerably higher than Georgetown, but so far north that it doesn’t have a "view" into downtown DC. For years after NBS (now NIST) moved to Gaithersburg they ran a shuttle to the Commerce Dept in downtown DC. In order to be able to talk to the shuttle driver in downtown DC they had a remote two-way radio site – I think at National Cathedral. I understand those big stone towers of the Cathedral are full of two-way radio sites – it has a commanding view over much of DC. The Cathedral is some blocks north of the present Russian embassy location.

Response:

> During Soviet times, international scheduled traffic to Moscow > went to Sheremetyevo-2 after completion of this terminal.

The Soviets built Sheremetevo in two locations – international (II) and domestic (I) – to ensure that Soviet citizens did not have the opportunity to mingle with westerners. The airport was built and/or expanded for the 1980 Olympics, but even then the Stalin mindset of never allowing Soviet citizens to become tainted with western ideas was paramount. Pete

Response:

> Yep. Back in those days even Aeroflot stewardesses/flight crews were kept > "confined" during flight turnarounds so as not to mingle with Westerners, > and in most cases if they had to overnight they usually put up at the local > Soviet embassy compound (a good example of such a "compound" is the present > Russian embassy in NW Washington DC, it was built as a whole self – > contained little Soviet "world" back in the 70’s – 80’s and if you’ve seen > it from the air to/from the approach to DCA you’ll know what I mean)

It’s fascinating even today to walk around the compound (you can walk around 3 sides of it, more or less). Between the little parks and playgrounds, the apartment buldings of various quality ranging from luxury to craphole, and all the fortifications and camera mounts, it’s like something from a movie. These days it seems like people still sort of hang around inside, swinging listlessly in the little playground rather than going to the nicer parks in the neigborhood, even though the gates are no longer locked for them. Perhaps there’s something in the architecture (or the water) that takes away their will to flee. miguel — Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Yep. Back in those days even Aeroflot stewardesses/flight crews were kept > "confined" during flight turnarounds so as not to mingle with Westerners, > and in most cases if they had to overnight they usually put up at the local > Soviet embassy compound (a good example of such a "compound" is the present > Russian embassy in NW Washington DC, it was built as a whole self – > contained little Soviet "world" back in the 70’s – 80’s and if you’ve seen > it from the air to/from the approach to DCA you’ll know what I mean) > It’s fascinating even today to walk around the compound (you can walk around > 3 sides of it, more or less). Between the little parks and playgrounds, the > apartment buldings of various quality ranging from luxury to craphole, and > all the fortifications and camera mounts, it’s like something from a movie. > These days it seems like people still sort of hang around inside, swinging > listlessly in the little playground rather than going to the nicer parks in > the neigborhood, even though the gates are no longer locked for them. > Perhaps there’s something in the architecture (or the water) that takes away > their will to flee.

Yup Miguel it’s certainly a prime example of 70’s – era Soviet architetcure, that’s for sure. It reminds me of the of the Moscow "Novy Arbat" or those "panelak" flats that encircle Prague…or my high – rise 1968 college dorm in downstate Illinois. Back in the 70’s there was a big diplomatique contretemps concerning the USSR and USA embassy compounds in the respective countries. That USSR DC site is the highest site elevation – wise in The District if i’m not wrong…there was some wrangling back in the worst of the Cold War daze that we were "giving away" the site because the Soviets would be able to eavesdrop on all important US sites, including a "straight line" view to the CIA HQ in Langley VA (which you can also see to/from the approach to DCA, you’ve seen it many times Miguel I know…)… [of course there is also the infamous "Soviet Safeway" supermarket on 17th St. in Dupont Circle...but this is not a store that is especially frequented by Russian diplomatic personnel - it is called by that moniker because it is service and selection - wise an amalgalm of a simply crummy rude retail experience...] The original USSR embassy was IIRC was in a nice mansion on 17th St. NW IIRC (you can read about the sumptuous WWII -era parties held there in David Brinkley’s _Washington At War_, e.g "caviar canapes and chilled vodka with Stalin’s portrait glaring down at us" ) but the negotiations for new embassies in the respective capitals was fraught with complications and dragged on for decades…the building of the US complex in Moscow was put to a halt because the Russian construction crews were installing bugs in the walls…the complex in the mid – late 80’s was basically torn down by US Dept. of State construction crews and rebuilt from the ground up…meanwhile the USSR complex in DC was built by mainly *Russian* construction crews…go figure… "In other news the rent dispute over Spaso House, the plush US Ambassador’s 1914 – era mansion (just off the Arbat) in Moscow has finally been resolved. In 1985 the US State Department and the USSR signed a long – term lease that set the yearly rent at some "x" thousands of rubles. The rouble – dollar exchange rate back then was something like 1.6 = 1.00…ravaged by post – Soviet rouble deflation we were later paying the Russkies something like $2.00 per year for the one of the prime residences in Moscow… New terms have been set, both parties decline to state the rent…such are the "vagaries" of diplomatic real estate deals…" — Best Greg

Response:

> Steven Hiatt schrieb: > I guess I’m surprised: I never realized that LaGuardia and JFK had > specialized roles, since it’s impossible to fly direct from San > Francisco to LaGuardia–all our nonstops go to JFK or Newark. Seems > highly inefficient in transport terms–thus you get inquiries like > another recent one in the newsgroup about getting from LGA to JFK and > the problems with rush-hour traffic. Other metro areas split air > traffic among different airports, but don’t specialize to that extreme > extent–eg, Heathrow and Gatwick.

LGA is a bit small for the "heavy iron". Should they abandon it? But traffic already strains JFK and EWR, they couldn’t take more. So LGA specializes in smaller/shorter flights. JFK & EWR have a full mix. The situation is similar in Washington. DCA (max runway 6800 ft) takes only smaller planes and has only a very few transcontinental flights (those recently imposed by Congress). BWI handled all the big jets until IAD was built. Now IAD has most of the long-range traffic, but also some low price carriers and FlyI short-range flights. BWI has a few long range flights and lots of Southwest Airlines (etc) flights.

Response:

Steven Hiatt schrieb: > I guess I’m surprised: I never realized that LaGuardia and JFK had > specialized roles, since it’s impossible to fly direct from San > Francisco to LaGuardia–all our nonstops go to JFK or Newark. Seems > highly inefficient in transport terms–thus you get inquiries like > another recent one in the newsgroup about getting from LGA to JFK and > the problems with rush-hour traffic. Other metro areas split air > traffic among different airports, but don’t specialize to that extreme > extent–eg, Heathrow and Gatwick.

Hmmm, try Moscow. Sheremetyevo 1-2 (two sides of the same airfield), Domodedovo, Vnukovo, Bykovo (no scheduled flights at the moment but aircraft stored), Ramenskoye (freight)…. During Soviet times, international scheduled traffic to Moscow went to Sheremetyevo-2 after completion of this terminal. Fullstop. Correct me if I am wrong. Regards, ULF

Response:

>I guess I’m surprised: I never realized that LaGuardia and JFK had > specialized roles, since it’s impossible to fly direct from San > Francisco to LaGuardia–all our nonstops go to JFK or Newark. Seems > highly inefficient in transport terms–thus you get inquiries like > another recent one in the newsgroup about getting from LGA to JFK and > the problems with rush-hour traffic. Other metro areas split air > traffic among different airports, but don’t specialize to that extreme > extent–eg, Heathrow and Gatwick.

Heathrow and Gatwick? "that extreme extent?" There are destinations that must be served from Gatwick rather than from Heathrow (i.e., Dallas/Houston/Atlanta) and airlines that must serve only Gatwick (most U.S. carriers, for example). LaGuardia is overcrowded and has relatively short runways, necessitating some sort of rationing of space/slots. In the case of LGA, it is by distance rather than destination. Whether that’s better or worse than Heathrow/Gatwick is immaterial. It is just different. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >We live in California, but will need to fly from Chicago to New York > >next month. After checking Orbitz and various airlines websites, we > >found that there are no direct flights from ORD to JFK (except from one > >expensive Delta flight). UA, for example, mostly sends people to JFK > >via Dulles. What’s up with this? Apparently, people flying to, say, > >Europe from ORD via a JFK flight have to fly through Dulles or go to > >LaGuardia and take a cab. No wonder US airlines are in financial > >trouble! > I would imagine it is also due to the fact that most people would > rather NOT fly into JFK. It’s twice as far from Midtown Manhattan than > LGA or EWR and the Van Wyck Expressway can be an exercise in > frustration to put it mildly. > You have to remember that prior to JetBlue’s arrival, JFK was pretty > much used for international traffic and domestic flights in excess of > LGA’s permitted distance.

Response:

>I guess I’m surprised: I never realized that LaGuardia and JFK had >specialized roles,

LGA has a pair of 7000 foot runways with low weight limits since the end of one of the runways is on piers over the river. JFK has a 10000 and 14000 foot runway with very high weight limits. DL flies a few 767s into LGA from ATL, otherwise the biggest stuff there is 757 and A321. There’s very little international traffic at LGA, flights to Canada and a few warm places like Bermuda and Aruba. LGA was originally a waterfront airport for 1930s flying boats, so it never had a whole lot of land and has no room to expand. The Marine Air Terminal that DL shuttle flights use is the old flying boat terminal. It still has a dock that boats to Manhattan use. As several other people noted, for less than transcon distances, the traffic into JFK is either feeders for international flights or low fare Jet Blue. Since ORD has plenty of international flights of its own, Jet Blue doesn’t fly to Chicago, and United would rather you connect at IAD, it’s not surprising that there’s no JFK flights.

Response:

I guess I’m surprised: I never realized that LaGuardia and JFK had specialized roles, since it’s impossible to fly direct from San Francisco to LaGuardia–all our nonstops go to JFK or Newark. Seems highly inefficient in transport terms–thus you get inquiries like another recent one in the newsgroup about getting from LGA to JFK and the problems with rush-hour traffic. Other metro areas split air traffic among different airports, but don’t specialize to that extreme extent–eg, Heathrow and Gatwick. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->We live in California, but will need to fly from Chicago to New York >next month. After checking Orbitz and various airlines websites, we >found that there are no direct flights from ORD to JFK (except from one >expensive Delta flight). UA, for example, mostly sends people to JFK >via Dulles. What’s up with this? Apparently, people flying to, say, >Europe from ORD via a JFK flight have to fly through Dulles or go to >LaGuardia and take a cab. No wonder US airlines are in financial >trouble! > I would imagine it is also due to the fact that most people would > rather NOT fly into JFK. It’s twice as far from Midtown Manhattan than > LGA or EWR and the Van Wyck Expressway can be an exercise in > frustration to put it mildly. > You have to remember that prior to JetBlue’s arrival, JFK was pretty > much used for international traffic and domestic flights in excess of > LGA’s permitted distance.

Response:

> Why would people from Europe want to fly to JFK via Chicago?

If someone lives in Chicago and intends to fly to Helsinki via Finnair, the JFK hub is the only choice. I am sure there are other examples as well. And as I wrote in my other post, considering that American is a oneworld partner of Finnair, this omission is hard to understand. Pete

Response:

>> We live in California, but will need to fly from Chicago to New York > next month. After checking Orbitz and various airlines websites, we > found that there are no direct flights from ORD to JFK (except from one > expensive Delta flight). UA, for example, mostly sends people to JFK via > Dulles. What’s up with this? Apparently, people flying to, say, Europe > from ORD via a JFK flight have to fly through Dulles or go to LaGuardia > and take a cab. No wonder US airlines are in financial trouble! >Why would people from Europe want to fly to JFK via Chicago? >Hilary

What a fucking retarded CUNT you really are. No wonder you like Mr. Travelpedo Michael Voight of Cisco so much. The OP is talking about going FROM Chicago TO Europe VIA JFK. Learn to fucking READ you moronic BITCH! –

Response:

>UAL has a fair amount of flights from IAD onward to Europe >and other International Dests.–no reason to go out of JFK.

From ORD, my first priority would be to fly direct to Europe. Otherwise, UA is pushing connections through IAD and if you are a member of their FF programme, there are bonus miles to be gotten from flying IAD to abroad. gld

Response:

:>We live in California, but will need to fly from Chicago to New York :>next month. After checking Orbitz and various airlines websites, we :>found that there are no direct flights from ORD to JFK (except from one :>expensive Delta flight). UA, for example, mostly sends people to JFK :>via Dulles. What’s up with this? Apparently, people flying to, say, :>Europe from ORD via a JFK flight have to fly through Dulles or go to :>LaGuardia and take a cab. No wonder US airlines are in financial :>trouble! Actually, most customers (of the Chicago/New York route) prefer flying into EWR or LGA. To schedule flights to JFK just so that certain Californians will find things easier would be a waste of money. A cab from LGA is around $24. — http://www.dissensoftware.com Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies.

Response:

> We live in California, but will need to fly from Chicago to New York > next month. After checking Orbitz and various airlines websites, we > found that there are no direct flights from ORD to JFK (except from one > expensive Delta flight). UA, for example, mostly sends people to JFK via > Dulles. What’s up with this? Apparently, people flying to, say, Europe > from ORD via a JFK flight have to fly through Dulles or go to LaGuardia > and take a cab. No wonder US airlines are in financial trouble! > Why would people from Europe want to fly to JFK via Chicago? > Hilary

I flew NCL-LGW-DFW-FLL in 2002 because it was a lot cheaper than flying via BOS or NYC. Perhaps the same logic (?) applies here. JohnT

Response:

> We live in California, but will need to fly from Chicago to New York > next month. After checking Orbitz and various airlines websites, we > found that there are no direct flights from ORD to JFK (except from one > expensive Delta flight). UA, for example, mostly sends people to JFK > via Dulles. What’s up with this? Apparently, people flying to, say, > Europe from ORD via a JFK flight have to fly through Dulles or go to > LaGuardia and take a cab.

Acutally people flying to ORD from Europe most likely would take direct nonstops flights. If they do connect in the New York Area they would connect in EWR. dennis

Response:

> We live in California, but will need to fly from Chicago to New York > next month. After checking Orbitz and various airlines websites, we > found that there are no direct flights from ORD to JFK (except from one > expensive Delta flight). UA, for example, mostly sends people to JFK > via Dulles. What’s up with this? Apparently, people flying to, say, > Europe from ORD via a JFK flight have to fly through Dulles or go to > LaGuardia and take a cab. No wonder US airlines are in financial > trouble!

Delta has a toy-plane (CRJ) flight ORD-JFK, but that seems to be it. I am a little surprised that United does not fly that route, but given that they use IAD as a hub, I am not terribly surprised. What does really surprise me is that American does not fly that route. They use ORD as a hub and supposedly are partners with Finnair. People flying out of ORD expecting to fly Finnair out of JFK are somewhat screwed. Then again, American does not really support Finnair on most routes, so I guess they are consistent. I will never understand why Finnair jumped from Delta’s arms to the arms of oneworld. Pete

Response:

UAL has a fair amount of flights from IAD onward to Europe and other International Dests.–no reason to go out of JFK.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> We live in California, but will need to fly from Chicago to New York > next month. After checking Orbitz and various airlines websites, we > found that there are no direct flights from ORD to JFK (except from one > expensive Delta flight). UA, for example, mostly sends people to JFK > via Dulles. What’s up with this? Apparently, people flying to, say, > Europe from ORD via a JFK flight have to fly through Dulles or go to > LaGuardia and take a cab. No wonder US airlines are in financial > trouble!

Response:

We live in California, but will need to fly from Chicago to New York next month. After checking Orbitz and various airlines websites, we found that there are no direct flights from ORD to JFK (except from one expensive Delta flight). UA, for example, mostly sends people to JFK via Dulles. What’s up with this? Apparently, people flying to, say, Europe from ORD via a JFK flight have to fly through Dulles or go to LaGuardia and take a cab. No wonder US airlines are in financial trouble!

Response:

Austrian Airlines from ORD

admin — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

How many years ago did Austrian stop flying out of ORD? They currently fly out of JFK and IAD, and Toronto I think. Does any one know why they dumped ORD and kept two East Coast hubs? I would have thought they would dump one East Coast hub and keep the central hub. JFK and IAD are not that far apart. Pete

Response:

> I would have thought they would dump one East Coast hub and > keep the central hub. JFK and IAD are not that far apart.

JFK is a good destination for any airline. Business and tourism. IAD is the OS hub for connecting flights in the US. lg Gernot

Response:

>> I would have thought they would dump one East Coast hub and > keep the central hub. JFK and IAD are not that far apart. > JFK is a good destination for any airline. Business and tourism. > IAD is the OS hub for connecting flights in the US.

I am not sure I buy that logic. ORD is an outstanding hub in the USA for connections, and is United’s #1 hub. This is important because United is the only connection Austrian has in the USA. I would have thought they would keep JFK and ORD and dump IAD. I am not the only person who feels that IAD is not United’s best hub. See http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/grossman/2003-09-26-grossman… Pete

Response:

Ear modification in Europe?

admin — Wed, 19 May 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Good evening, is there anybody here knowing a studio / surgeon in Europe (I live in Germany, but body modification is not too common here, so I would be willing to travel to neighbor countries, like UK, Swizerland, Austria, France, Netherlands etc) who is a) able and b) willing to make an ear modification (aka ‘elf ears’)? Any hints would be appreciated, but I would be *most* thankful for advices from people who already had experiences with the studio / surgeon in question *and* can recommend him / her. Of course, I am also interested if you would *not* recommend someone, if something has gone wrong there before, for example. Ears are so delicate and I would definitely not want to look as if I had two broccolis on the sides of my head for the rest of my life *lol* I know already that Steve Haworth seems to be specialized in this kind of body modification, and his work on Kazen’s ear as presented on http://www.bmezine.com/news/people/A10101/htc.html impressed me very much – however, to fly to the US for the ear modification seems to be a bit too far for me. Thanks in advance if you have any hints, SP

Response:

> Good evening, > is there anybody here knowing a studio / surgeon in Europe (I live in > Germany, but body modification is not too common here, so I would be > willing to travel to neighbor countries, like UK, Swizerland, Austria, > France, Netherlands etc) who is a) able and b) willing to make an ear > modification (aka ‘elf ears’)?

The people at Visavajara in Freiburg (http://www.visavajara.com) have a good reputation, and apparently, they also have guests artists from time to time. I haven’t had anything done there myself though. They might be able do direct you elsewhere if they don’t do what you want. You could also try de.rec.bodyart Nina — C’est les microbes qui auront le dernier mot. Louis Pasteur http://www.chaotropic.net

Response:

Austria

admin — Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

I have a couple of questions about Austria that I hope someone can answer. 1. Austria requires booster seats be used for children riding in cars. In the US, we have small booster seats that are like boxes that the child sits on–they have no back. This booster seat raises the child high enough for the shoulder belt in the car to be effective. Would this kind of booster seat be OK/legal for a 4 year old? 2. Are the electrical outlets and voltages the same in Austria and Germany? We are traveling in both Germany and Austria and we would like to buy a baby monitor (a radio that lets you listen in on sleeping children–"Babyfone" in German, I think) for use in Germany and Austria. I’d like to be able to plug it in and use it in both countries. Thank you for any help. Dave

Response:

> 1. Austria requires booster seats be used for children riding in cars. > In the US, we have small booster seats that are like boxes that the > child sits on–they have no back. This booster seat raises the child > high enough for the shoulder belt in the car to be effective. Would > this kind of booster seat be OK/legal for a 4 year old?

Yes. But why take the stuff from home? Travelling with a kid, you will usually have enough stuff to caarry. Just give your car rental company a call: They will have one for you for relatively cheap money. Just to compare: I payed US$ 10 for three weeks when I rented on in the US > 2. Are the electrical outlets and voltages the same in Austria and > Germany? We are traveling in both Germany and Austria and we would like > to buy a baby monitor (a radio that lets you listen in on sleeping > children–"Babyfone" in German, I think) for use in Germany and Austria. > I’d like to be able to plug it in and use it in both countries.

Yes. Same plugs, same 220V/50Hz. Anyway you will mostly be not too happy when travelling with those devices. In hotels they never reach the distance of transmission that is printed on the box. To avoid the checking of the reliability of the system by running around in the hotel with the receiver while the other parent is scratching on the microphone of the transmitter, it pays out (just my personal opinion) to buy a baby monitor that will send you a warning tone when you leave the areaa covered by the transmitter. "Baby Minder" is a brand name of a system to do so that is available in Germany. One more thing that makes sense is digital coding ("Digitale Einschaltcodierung") of the system when switching it on. This will avoid the problem that you jump up during dinner because the nastiest kind of cries come out of your receiver and then find your kid sleeping deeply in the room because someone else was using the same frequency. Jens Travelling father Munich, Bavaria, Germany Working part time in Austria

Response:

>1. Austria requires booster seats be used for children riding in cars. >In the US, we have small booster seats that are like boxes that the >child sits on–they have no back. This booster seat raises the child >high enough for the shoulder belt in the car to be effective. Would >this kind of booster seat be OK/legal for a 4 year old?

Practically it would be OK, from a stict legal standpoint not, as your booster seat probably is not formally approved in the European Union. >2. Are the electrical outlets and voltages the same in Austria and >Germany?

Yes, same outlets and nominally 230 V/50 Hz. Andreas — Andreas Pavlik Wien(Vienna), Austria

Response:

> -Can anyone tell me if Austria is a good place to visit – is it very > expensive?- > remove the spud for no spam email!

Austria is a wonderful place to visit and tour. Our bicycle tours around Salzburg, along the Danube and into Vienna are very popular. The costs are about the same as the San Francisco area in the US…maybe a tiny bit higher.

Response:

> -Can anyone tell me if Austria is a good place to visit – is it very > expensive?- > remove the spud for no spam email!

I found in Austria (but also in Bavaria) some of the best touristic offers in the world. You get very good value for your money. Some country inns are relatively cheap (on an European scale) and truly excellent. Vienna, on the contrary, is much more expensive than the rest of the country. I would not commit to a cheap place here. Home page: http://www.angelfire.com/ar/archivarius (musicologia pratica)

Response:

Dear Kate, here you will get any information about Vienna and Austria – its also available