sherpa

You have an undeserved view of your opinion. When a passenger disturbance occurs on the ground, it needs to be resolved before taking it into the air because it never gets better, and ends up taking the entire cabin crew or a divert to stop it. I guarantee you it was more than one individual who was complaining about this issue, and unwilling to sit next to them. I did this for 32 years, and you have absolutely no idea of what can happen. Been there. You should offer your services for conflict mitigation. I'm certain there would be takers. Good God, you have no idea.

I don't understand what some your post is about. You seemed to have included an ATC issue brought about by the gov shutdown into a smelly passenger situation. The two are not remotely related. A "voucher" is a restaurant credit. The airline paid for their hotel, and without transportation, bought them a meal or two without forcing them to find transportation. The rest of your post indicates you know very little about these situations, and how they are best handled. People who do this know what they are doing. You don't. You don't know what is possible if you decide to take a passenger issue into the air, which may not have even been possible, and potentially deal with a divert and a host of other problems, including 180 hotel rooms, 180 meal vouchers, flying a new crew somewhere and delaying everybody for half a day, and disrupting the airplanes planned routing, which is a very big deal. What you have done is take one third of an issue and draw conclusions as if you have seen three different viewpoints, or you have any idea what you're talking about. You don't. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but there is a whole lot about this kind of thing you have no idea about.

Getting baggage off the airplane isn't as easy as people think. It can take a long time and the ramp crew may not have even known about it, and there are a host of other issues that may be involved, like the inability of the crew to take a delay for time on duty purposes. Lots of other factors. It takes more than "one loud mouth." If there's "one loud mouth" only, he/she would be given the option to leave. I guarantee you a member of the cabin crew judged it as a problem as well. You are guessing what they might have smelled like in the morning. I'm certain they did something in the hotel that the airline paid for to adjust the issue.

It not simply pleasing the noses of everybody. There are lots of reasons for removing somebody, and when a number of other other passengers complain about body odor, obscene language from the mouth or on clothing, obvious illness or a host of other things, they can be removed. Never a good idea to take a passenger problem into the air. Never ends well. Clearly they didn't smell as bad the next morning, so off they went. Anti Semitism is a ridiculous charge, though religious customs that result in really strange situations also can and have caused problems.

I've been there a number of times. When I was in the Navy Reserves we used to land there to refuel between Hawaii and Japan/Philippines. It is literally just a runway island. Nothing to see or do, but check out the stuff left over from the war, and a memorial as I recall. If you ever mention Wake to someone who has been there, they'll likely smile and immediately talk about that fan I mentioned. A few times, when flying the 777 between Tokyo and Chicago/NY, due to very unusual winds, we would be on an extremely southern route and Wake would be our emergency divert airport for a couple hours until we got closer to the US. Very rare, but it did happen. I always wondered what we would do with 250 people if we ever actually landed there. Luckily, never had to.

That would be a tough movie. Some of the worst Japanese atrocities of the war were committed there against US POW's, including mass execution. There's still a lot of ordnance in the shallow waters there, clearly visible when swimming. Pretty weird place, mostly known for this extremely high powered fan at the military food facility that activates when you open the door. It blows down on you to keep the flies out.

Not important that you know, and would only lead to unnecessary stress. If the masks drop, there are warning horns that go off in the cockpit, along with messages. Actually, the warnings start well before the cabin reaches the altitude for the masks to auto deploy. Anyway, getting to a habitable altitude where you don't need the masks is easily done in the time O2 is available, and is practiced at every recurrent training process, as well as being one of about five events that require memorization of the procedures.

Wouldn't help. There's only 12 minutes of O2 in those things.

Used to give our 777 from Delhi to Chicago a "special" aerosol treatment after passengers got off.

I used to fly there all the time, all over the Caribbean, and vacation there as well, but take my view for what it's worth. I've provided this same recommendation to others, including my son. The bottom line is what facility you stay at, and what they provide. Beaches are beaches. If I had to choose, I'd choose Punta Cana in the Dominican Republic. I would avoid Jamaica or anything in the US Virgin Islands. Jamaica is the least "revisited" island destination. But again, if you found the perfect situation, who knows?

But the book was so much better.

Enemy at the Gate.

I believe life starts at conception. Not that I want to write laws regarding that, but I know that my wife and I, and everyone else I know that has children, considered my children's lives as starting the second we learned they existed. We certainly behaved that way.

It must be outside. People have them inside their houses because they don't use them, but like the way they look. The concept of spending the money needed for a decent telescope, and using it in the house is crazy. You would have no night vision and the window glass would screw it up. I keep mine on the porch, covered. When I need to use them, and cannot spot what I want from the porch, I move them down on the lawn, usually in the afternoon when I know it will be a good night for viewing. It must be done early to accomodate for the temp issue of causing condensation on the optics. You can get a decent telescope for $300+, something that will easily spot the rings of Saturn. Nowhere near what they used to cost, but where you live re light pollution and access to the night sky not obscured by trees are important issues before spending money.

I've got two telescopes and I use them frequently, an 8" Dobsonian mount that wasn't too expensive, and a 10" Schmidt Cassegrain on an equatorial mount that was kind of pricey. You can pick one up fairly cheaply with the advances in optics, but it really helps if you know what to look for. My wife got me Celestron binoculars and I use those as well. They are great for basic planet stuff, or sighting something before putting the t'scope on it. There is a great free website that will show the night sky from your exact location and time. You can slew the view around 360 degrees and vertically as well. You can also change the time if you wish. https://stellarium.org/ At the bottom there is a taskbar that allows you to display all kinds of things. I often use the option that draws the constellation lines and the option that labels them. It's quite nice.

This is a post that demonstrates that its author has absolutely no idea of this issue. Absolutely no idea.

I thought the Milky Way Galaxy was named after the candy bar.

"71. That was my first year on the job. Bad year for libraries. Bad year for America. Hippies burning library cards. Abby Hoffman telling kids to burn books. I don't judge a man by the length of his hair or the kind of music he listens to. Rock was never my bag. But you put on a pair of shoes when you walk into the the New York public library fella."

I've been there a lot. If you have specific questions pm me.

We've used VRBO a bunch of times in Europe. No problems. Used AirBnB twice in the US. No problems with any, but AirBnB piles on the service charges at checkout. The listed price is just a start.

I don't think anybody's "going crazy" about it. It's just getting the usual "what?" response. Steve Bannon wasn't a Congressman. The worst justification for taking people's money is the claim that it only applies to few. It's quite easy for "the few" to become "the none." CNBC was just talking about this proposal. They also mentioned that Canada raised the marginal rate on it's top 1%, expecting to raise 3b, but instead it resulted in a 4.6b revenue decrease. Source not provided, but they're almost always accurate on these matters.

Because in a great deal of instances, infinitely more than what was available in the 50'60's boom years in the US, the business environment is such that a great deal of that personal income can be duplicated abroad. A good deal of income from many operations is ultimately taxed at personal income levels. I know of bunch of people who do just this, offshore. Extremely uncompetitive rates also discourage off shore entrepreneurs from locating in the US, a source of job creation we have really benefited from.

"We" don't need to discourage them, the market will. "We" need to let them make their own decisions. Any idea what property taxes and insurance rates are in those areas? California is a bit unusual because the effects of Prop 13, eventually the market corrects. In fact, "we" (gov intervention), have encouraged them by racing FEMA down there everytime there is an incredibly predictable weather disaster. I hope nobody takes that as an objection to humanitarian aid, because it isn't. It is simply a claim that "we" do silly things with counterproductive results, and jacking marginal tax brackets to 70%, as proposed by this goof, has already been tried, rejected and adjusted to more reasonable levels. TO do so to fund an evolution to a no fossil fuel economy in twelve years is the stuff of folks who just don't understand the situation worldwide.

It didn't "discourage me." I lived there for 12 years, seven spent serving as a Navy pilot, though a good deal of that time was spent out of the state on aircraft carriers, met and married my wife there, had two children, and I used my "God given feet" to leave there, just as I used my "God given feet to leave your state. It certainly isn't "whiney" to make decisions based on what is in the best interest of your family. We don't "need to discourage people from the coasts," anymore than we need some inexperienced Congresswoman proposing idiotic tax policy to fund impossible and ridiculous fossil fuel policy. You should stop giving advice. It isn't sought nor valuable.

What a silly post. By the way, I "got over it" when I moved from California. My wife and I "got over it" when she gave up her nursing career because our federal burden and that state's tax burden, combined with child care costs would have netter her about 43 cents on the dollar to work as a nurse. For that 43 cents, we would have given up our kids for eight hours per day to someone else. Tax burdens have consequences, and it is much easier now to opt out of any countries' tax burden if it is judged confiscatory. 70% is absurd, and her scheme to swipe that money so that we can be fossil free in twelve years is the stuff of morons, as is silly name calling.