GaryPinC

Hey, I understand what you're saying. And obviously plenty of people stare at the numbers and draw the same generalities. Flying is expensive, so many people are obsessed with keeping the cost as low as possible so it's certainly a difficult customer base and good market research with creativity are required. But it's really about creating value for both the company and customer. United has a row or two of economy plus because enough of its target customers will pay extra for that option allowing them to make a little money at it. They may not sell them all out each flight, be able to do an entire plane with that kind of seating (as was attempted in the past), but they've offered it since about 2017 so they must turn some kind of profit from it. But from the Forbes article: For example, in 2008 US Airways decided to follow in the footsteps of Spirit Airlines and charge for drinks onboard instead of offering them for free. Customer reaction, in the form of booking away from US Airways was swift, and they dropped the policy within seven months. Conversely, American launched its “More Room Throughout Coach” concept in 2000, taking seats out of its airplane (improving comfort) to dry and draw premium yields. The initiative fell apart by 2004 in the face of heavy competition from low cost carriers (LCCs). At every turn, whether by shifting to an a-la-carte pricing model, or investing resources into improving reliability and on-time performance, US airlines have grown adept at giving customers exactly what they’ll pay for. You can argue customers leaving Us Air over drink charging was all about money but for me it was about diminishing the value of what the ticket offered. And unless all the major airlines make the same change people get pissed off and leave. Glad it works for you, I did this one time about 15 years ago and we almost got bumped off the flight as it was overbooked and we didn't have assigned seats.

https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/travel/inflight/cabin/economy.html Hey, look there. United Economy Plus. 6 inches more legroom in economy. Those insane idiots! It's so impossible! And I can tell you from personal experience they've been sold out quickly on longer flights. But you keep on pretending you're some kind of authority.

Again, you are shortsighted with your definition of price and value. Value certainly has to align for both the airlines and the consumer, price will always be a large factor in deciding value. If a seat changes by $1 and 20% of people move, you seem to be ignoring the other 80%. If an airline ticket costs $1 extra dollar for extra legroom and that is properly advertised, taller people would snap those tickets up. I certainly would. If the extra legroom costs, $20,$30,$40 or more, less people will be interested at each higher price bracket. Would I be willing to pay $20 extra legroom from Cleveland to Chicago for a 45 minute flight? No. Would I be willing to pay it for Cleveland to LA? Absolutely. It's about the value. And let's be real. The airlines I've researched to buy tickets from all charge different prices for window/aisle/middle seat. It never used to be like that. How is that working out? Seems to be doing ok... You are correct, I don't know the cost of WIFI and meals and the breakdown of everything. I just know that the airline has to offer a convenience at a price people find reasonable for them to take advantage. If CEO's misjudge the value, well, then they failed at their job. I'm not someone who's against the airlines, I'm just calling it as I see it as a consumer. And yes, part of the consumer market is all about lowest dollar. Just like with gasoline for the car, it's kind of a contest. Spirit Airlines is the perfect example of this. They're all about the bait and switch. Lowest ticket prices until you actually go through their reservation nickel-and-diming process then it costs as much or more than the major carriers, and they bet you're too lazy to double check or restart the reservation process somewhere else. And you can brag to people the original "bargain" price. I definitely see people take advantage of the WIFI and I did it once on a long flight because of my kids. The value was there for me, hopefully it is for the airlines as well to continue offering it.

This statement means nothing. I will always pay some extra money to take a direct flight instead of one or more layovers. But I have my limits on how much more. What attempts at comfort, food, convenience have the airlines attempted that you feel are reasonably priced? Because I don't see too many. You can argue price but it's about value. That's what the airlines have failed at. One example I have seen that has value is wifi for long flights. Definitely a solid number of people pay for this and will until they make it too expensive.

Up to 70% alcohol can be with you in carry-on in 3.4 oz containers

Yeah, I imagine most flight crews will warn first as most people don't fully know the rules. From FAA rules, it seems Jet Blue is right on point, rules don't say the airline has to provide the alcohol, just they have to serve it and any alcohol above 24% is considered a hazardous chemical, which I'm sure entails other rules.

Thanks, I was having trouble picturing it because laptops are pretty flexible. Seems pretty unlucky. But I will make sure I ask the person behind me from now on!

https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/can-you-bring-your-own-booze-on-a-plane-and-make-drinks Up to $11,000 fine. Fly Jet Blue, they allow it if under 24% and you let their flight staff serve it to you!

It's been over 10 years, but the Air Canada planes had significantly more leg room than the US planes. I'm about 6'1 and it felt like a luxury! I can't sit with my legs straight on most US flights, AC plane I could with space to boot! How did it get crushed? Did it fall off the tray?

My last few flights have been on United and seems like they cut the amount of recline to like one inch from two. It seems much less than before and more tolerable. Anyone else notice this? I only recline if I intend to rest and straighten it up when I'm not. Only thing that I dislike is the person that keeps it reclined every possible moment like it's their right to monopolize that extra space.

I don't agree we had a commanding lead, but our coaches shared your opinion. I agree that he choked a bit but I think he started pressing too much to try and get momentum back after our conservative playcalling, trying to sit on our small lead, gave it away. I give him credit for realizing and stepping up to attempt that. With time I think his efforts will be wiser and more effective.

I don't argue that we should have won and a portion of that was on Josh. Daboll called some great plays to take advantage of the coverage, open up parts of the field and bring a receiver through on a delayed pattern. I saw more than one occasion of this and Josh had enough time to set up a mid/deep throw while the delayed underneath route was open with all kinds of YAC. Definitely was obvious Allen had/has more developing to do. Watching the game unfold, while not perfect I felt Daboll did a good job of trying to scheme against them. For me, it was a lack of execution.

Jerry Rice is a great example. Catch rate dropped his last 2 years when their quarterbacking was a mess in SFO then climbed back up in Oakland for a couple years with Rich Gannon. Catch rate is also a factor of the receiver's ability to get open, role in the offense and the QB's ability to deliver him a catchable ball, to name just a few. It's not a simple measure of ability to catch the ball. I'm fine with believing Lofton's drop rate went up but you watching and charting drops in several years of games would be more meaningful than a one year catch percent. There's no context and therefore makes a weak argument. TO's another example, was lower catch rate hand-eye coordination, ability to get open or playing with marginal QB'S has last couple years?

WRT Lofton, PFR only has his catch rate that last year in Buffalo. So, I can't see his historical numbers. His targets dropped way off after that. But 51 receptions is pretty respectable. His yards per reception was also on the decline, hinting to me his speed and agility were fading. But with career ypc around 18, he was always a deep threat type receiver and I wonder if that would skew his catch rate. You got a source with his historical catch rate? Otherwise, your argument seems pretty weak.

For me, it goes beyond that. Sammy talks about skipping all the OTAs and comes off soundings stressed out. I think if I'm KC I think twice about retaining him. I like Sammy and have no ax to grind with him. But he sounds soft and not sold on staying in the NFL.

Easily? Whatever. This Caucasian guy went to school with a high population of Asians, I work in science. My wife is from Nanjing, her entire family is from that area. Other Chinese come up to her and think she's Korean because her face is a little more round than typical Chinese. Other than the bottom guy clearly not being Korean, they both have some Japanese characteristics, top guy could be Chinese also.

I think most to all players are aware of the realities of their job. My disappointment (and perhaps what bothers some of these ex players) with McBeane is they continue to talk these guys like McCoy up and then they cut them. When your culture depends on a family-type locker room, the hypocrisy of this can catch up with you. Be a little less glowing about the guys whose future is uncertain. If you read the various ex-Bills and McD articles where Andy Reid is discussed and so liked/respected by his players and formers, McD would do well to study Reid in these matters. They told Shady they wanted to go with the hot hands at RB and he accepted that. Ragland respects they were patient with his rehab. Reid tries to be realistic but also respectful, went out of his way to set McD up in Carolina when he had to let him go. I'd like to see McBeane trend a little more in this direction. Respecting the business and jerking players around with it are 2 different things.

Hey, I agree that environment plays a bigger role most of the time. Just don't dismiss genetics, it can make a big difference. Unrelated but funny example. My SIL rescues Boston Terriers for pets. Her previous one, Buster was definitely overbred. Bug-eyed, a bit cross eyed and very lovable. Happy, scared of his shadow and the cold, but loved being with people. Completely deferential. Well-aged a few years ago when she left Buster at her dad's. There was a gopher hole about 20 yards from his door. Dad woke up, opened the door to get his paper, heard loud scuffling noises behind him, turned around to look for the dog. No dog. Scratched his head. Turned back around to pick up his paper, Buster was out at the hole, offing the gopher with 5 seconds of violent neck shaking. Thing was at least half as big as him. Came trotting back in and resumed his normal chicken-poop pacifist life. ? ? ? We all had a newfound respect for that little dog! Gophers are just oversized rats!

The breed most definitely has a role to play. I won't argue that dogbite.org has an agenda. So do you. You seem to ignore that breed plays any role. It has to be carefully considered, along with maltreatment the animal has received. Your first source debates breed specific laws, a vet's quote at the bottom: Breed "absolutely" influences a dog's behavior and is one of several factors that shape an animal's temperament, explained Dr. Sagi Denenberg, a diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists and the European College of Animal Welfare and Behavioral Medicine. "No one bred a Golden Retriever to look golden. They bred dogs that can swim and spend a lot of time in the water without getting cold. We essentially bred dogs for thousands of years for their behavior," said Dr. Denenberg, an instructor and researcher at Bristol Veterinary College in the United Kingdom. Back a couple of pages, I touched on a story where a pit bull was eyeing up my son. The dog we were there to adopt was a pit bull mix. We named her Ginger, she was a brindled mutt but definitely the head was pit bull. She was so friendly, shelter employees called the fostering service and she got rescued before being put down. My wife at the time and daughter were in petsmart when they met Ginger. Ginger was the star of the show, completely affable and submissive to whoever happened by, kids and adults. Nice and very intelligent. I'm not big on adopting anything other than pups given I have kids in the house, but the family begged me to adopt her and given her nature I agreed. Ginger was 2 1/2 to 3 years old. Given the entire situation, I was very careful with Ginger in terms of training (almost none) and correcting so she could settle in. She was very obedient and well-behaved anyway. Boy, did she. After about a month of walking her everyday, she started acting aggressively to anyone I met on the street. Pulling to the end of her leash, aggressive stance and barking angrily. Scaring them away, and I had to have a tight grip on the leash. After about 2 months she started getting aggressive with my loopy English setter(after getting along great when she first arrived). It advanced to intimidation and bullying. After a month of this my Setter was allowed to sit on one couch, constantly on alert for Ginger. Then Ginger started attacking her, grabbed her by the back of the neck and tried to shake her (setter's too big though). Trying to figure out what to do next when it happened again with my ex-wife trying to break up the fight and Ginger turned on her and tore up her hand a bit. Minor surgery and full recovery but the dog was put down. I felt Ginger became very possessive of our family, wanting strangers and my other dog out. She was always great with the kids but we only had her a little over 3 months. You can argue she must have been mistreated previously but who really knows and to what extent? Would other dogs have been as affected as she was? Thank God my English setter went back to normal with zero long term issues. I've been around rescues and adoptions my entire life, they're always screwed up on some level but I've never seen behavior quite like that. I would still consider adopting a pit or mix but only as a pup, and knowing full well aggression can be a problem with the breed over most others.

The other statistic I think is important but not easy to find is what percent of the overall population are pitties? Bred seem to account for 6.5%, bred or mixed are estimated around 20% of the dog population. Couldn't find a great source from the articles so no citation. Just to put the attacks in perspective.

One problem many dog owners suffer from is respecting the fact that some people dislike/fear dogs and no amount of contact with Uber-friendly dogs is going to change that. Especially when it's involuntary contact. Lifelong owners especially think everyone loves a friendly dog so no big deal he's off leash and runs up to people. Not just with pit bulls but that really makes it worse!

Haha, yah Cockers really got overbred. You sure it is Britts (medium brown and white) or is it actually Springer Spaniels (black and white)? Britts are rare outside of the bird hunting community but I have come across Springers and some have personality problems. All I would hope for you as a pit owner is that you acknowledge pits were bred for aggression and while you're rightly comfortable with your dog you still maintain some vigilence for the dog encountering a novel situation and if its body language changes. It's breeding means it's not like most dogs. For example, if I ever own a German Shepherd or Shepherd mix I would always be vigilant with it around children, no matter how exemplary its past behavior. Been around too many Shepherds and even the nicest ones can get aggressive towards kids, especially in isolated instances.

I was with everything else you said until this. There are many levels to correcting your dog, immediacy, consistency, body language, and tone of voice play a huge role depending on the sensitivity of the animal. Sharp pulls of the ear or collar, ie discomfort is quite effective especially when paired with the rest. Hitting, if at all, should be a last resort but only briefly and controlled. Indiscriminate hitting of a pit bull by humans the animal is most attached to is a recipe for disaster, and probably a contributing factor to the vicious attacks we read about.

All dogs have a fight or flight reaction in the face of fear and/or aggression. The point is that pit bulls are more predisposed to a disproportionate "fight" response than most other breeds. Some years ago we were adopting a fostered dog whose host was watching a friend's pit bull while we came in to pick ours up. "Don't worry, nicest dog, so friendly". I'm wary of pits so I kept a close eye on my high energy 5 year old, who wasn't interacting with the dog but was running around the room making a great deal of noise which the dog noticed uncomfortably. I asked my son to go play outside to which he threw up his arms screaming nooooo in a half playful half fearful inflection as he ran for the door. At which point the pit's face and body tone changed to where he was contemplating pursuing and attacking my son. The host noticed it too and separated the dog to a secure room after saying aghastly, "I've never seen him act like that before". I know there's some fantastic pits out there but ignoring this prevalent character trait or pretending it's akin to every other dog is perhaps the most harmful of all. I'm not for eliminating the breed but educating potential owners about how to handle training and always being vigilant with these dogs in situations novel to the dog. Responsible pit owners will be careful not to over correct the animals and be vigilant to potential triggers and how to avoid them. Nothing worse than a pit owner who won't acknowledge the potential is there no matter how well they think they know their dog.

The thing that bothers me about what Shanny said, "You saw a bunch of talented guys in that draft," Shanahan said. "It's very tough when you watch college systems and stuff, you don't really know until you get someone in the building. You can see ability, you can see talent, but how's the mind? How do they play in the pocket? How do they process? That's not just an IQ score. That's some stuff I don't think you can totally test. You gotta go through that with them, so there's always a risk when you spend a first-round pick on a quarterback. With the situation we were in, didn't want to be that risky, especially with the second pick in the draft." I was skeptical about Mahomes (still threw like a baseball pitcher, at a school for system quarterbacks, very mobile and unconventional) , but after pushing aside biases and actually watching the tape it wasn't hard to see how extraordinary he was at processing the game for a college QB. In defense of Shanny, I do think QB was a big priority to him as he felt he would get Kirk Cousins to join him. And, let's be honest, other than KC most of the other teams were in the same boat. No guarantees you could change Mahomes' habits and style of play.