sherpa

Yes it does, and the ignorance of them. Maybe unrelated, but the "forgetting it's in my carry on" scenario happens quite often, as has been pointed out.

There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. It seems as though he had it at the ticket counter, and was not trying to get through a security screen or take it aboard. The problem is that it is not legal in NYC. Regarding having guns on airplanes, you can check them, and they go in the baggage compartment. You cannot carry one in the cabin, unless you are in one of the groups of people who are authorized to do so, and there are a few. If you are in such a situation, the gate agent is advised and tells the captain, so the crew knows what seat has one, and if there are ore than one, they are informed of each other. Since people in the cabin with guns would be be authorized to have them, the divert to LGA scenario above makes no sense.

"Working at his craft." Projectile vomit phrase.

I've always like John Kasich, ex Ohio gov.

They absolutely understand the customer base. They monitor it hundreds of thousands of times per day.

Sad. As a flat earther, he was sphere-less.

This is an extremely important exposure, if true. If it is, there should be relentless international outrage resulting in a true exposure of how horrible the Chinese are at being planet neighbors.

I'm not pretending anything, just relating information on a subject that gets scores of attention and is looked at very closely tens of thousands a time per day as hundreds of thousands of passengers make fare decisions. https://www.forbes.com/sites/airchive/2015/01/14/actually-airlines-are-giving-customers-exactly-what-they-want/#3dbd3c2d29bb From Forbes: " And airline products are determined almost entirely by customer preferences. US airline customers (and really passengers all over the world) have shown time and time again that they care about one factor above all else: price. And not just price but base fares (frequently ignoring out of pocket travel costs and even taxes). Non-business travelers, in aggregate, will choose a seat offered at a low base fare, almost every time. "Leisure travelers are an absolute majority of passengers for US airlines, even at full service carriers like United and Delta. And these passengers, voting with their wallets. Leisure travelers are an absolute majority of passengers for US airlines, even at full service carriers like United and Delta. And these passengers, voting with their wallets, have demonstrated that they care a lot more about low base fares than any of the service elements that Mr. Wu bemoans. Now clearly this doesn’t apply to every airline passenger, there are business travelers who choose flights based on schedules, status, or service, and even leisure passengers willing to pay a bit more for a more comfortable experience. But for about 60% of customers at US majors (and about 80% overall), price is king." "Journal of Air Transport Management" had a lengthy article about it as well, which can be read as PDF.

I'm shortsighted? Do you think, for a second, that this hasn't been tried and the market has voted? Everyday, all the time. By the way, as I noted in my reply to you initially, you may not be familiar with this issue. In the first case, you mentioned value regarding a number of options, and I mentioned that you may not be aware of the cost of these things. In your most recent, you state something regarding how you might pay more for legroom on trips of lengthier duration, but not on shorter ones. Did you think about this before you made that claim? Once an airplane is configured, and they are as "fleets," not individually, which would be insanely idiotic and expensive, they are in the system. Once in the system, they operate on all routes. The people who decide these things do so on market results, and they are not stupid.

Means nothing? The airlines have offered "comfort, food, convenience," and a host of other things that cost money. Know what? Passengers won't pay for it, proven over and over again, and your "reasonably priced" variable is something I doubt you have any idea of the underlying cost I guarantee you have no idea what it costs to offer various meals, and WIFI. WIFI on an aluminum tube with limited space and significant cost to affix anything to the outside fuselage travelling at 600 mph is a different issue than sitting in your living room. I also guarantee you have no idea what it costs to provide schedule reliability in bad weather. Here's some information. Airline crews are "legal" to certain weather minimums. Aircraft and those crews are required to be certified for the lower minimums. That is extremely expensive. Low cost airlines don't have that capability, so they simply cancel, but people buy those tickets every day betting that won't happen, because it usually doesn't. Still, that reliability costs a lot of money. Happens a lot. Here's a tip. A CEO of a major US airline was on CNBC last year. This exact discussion was held. Airlines pay extreme attention to yield management issues. Yield management is the industry term for how much to charge for a seat, and these things are done millions of times per day to achieve a balance. His statement was that a $1 change in price in an economy ticket moves 20% of the market. Get that? If the price for a seat changes by $1, 20% of the people will move to save the dollar. Think those people are willing to pay for increased leg room in coach? If so, you would be among a couple of airline CEO's who have been removed for making that bet, because they were wrong. All of this has been offered before, at the cost of tens of millions, and it has always proved that price is what moves the seats in coach.

Yes. Because it is flammable, so it can't be in the cabin.

And you get what you pay for. The only thing that matters regarding domestic flights is price. Countless attempts have been made to offer more comfort, food, schedule reliability, convenience etc., and it doesn't matter. US passengers, and to an even greater extent, those of other countries, vote with their choices, and it is nothing other than price. Tons of empirical data to back that up, as well as tens of millions spent and lost offering other options.

Evidently the benefit to you is worth the risk. What I am saying is that if any passenger reports it to a flight attendant, and wants to make a bit of noise about it, as everyone seems to be doing now on every single perceived "affront," that flight attendant is going to lose his/her job if they don't react to it, even though they might not care about the consumption.

Because it is illegal, and while you may have gotten away with it, its liking drinking and driving. You can do it a hundred times with no repercussions, but get caught, and the fines are huge. What you may not be considering is the dynamic and context of doing that. If one person spots you, smells you or anything else that points to this, and they report it to a flight attendant, they could lose their job if they don't act on it and the "reporter" decides to may a case of it. If you're willing to bet that much on your fellow passengers, that's your call.

This is REALLY bad advice. If you plan drinking your own alcohol on an airplane, bring your checkbook.

Anybody remember McAdoo missing playing time with the Braves? The official story was something about him eating soap in the shower or some such thing.

Didn't the Magic Carpet have a whistle on a balcony that produced a minor electrical shock when you pulled it? They may have taken that "feature" out do to complaints. I distinctly remember my first time through there and one of my siblings told me to pull the chain to activate the whistle. When the minor shock came, I could't let go because I couldn't open my hand to release it, so my sibling had to pull my hand off it. Never touched again.

No. Lutheran ideology is Christianity without Catholic invention.

I think the marriage prohibition had a lot more to do with passing on assets to heirs rather than an ex spouse. No marriage, in theory, no heirs. Of course a number of dead popes had "nephews," but that is a different story.

These are still available.

But he lives in the "NFL MECCA" of Charlottesville.

We always knew who the whistle blower in that one was.

As this investigation proceeds, watch for two things. First, nobody operates these type helos under FAA Part 135, (charters), with only one pilot. Second, watch for NTSB comments about the number of passengers. In addition, there is a disparity between what Kobe paid for this helicopter and the market value of similar make/model helos. That disparity usually means something.

I appreciate your comments, and mean no disdain. It is just very obvious that in reading your posts, you don't, or didn't, do this for a living. Your posts contain a lot of conjecture, if not guesses. Most are reasonable, but some are not. Regarding experience, which you bought up, I will not argue. I have flown small singles, have a double II, flown fighters from an aircraft carrier, a tour as a TopGun adversary, and airliners for over three decades. I don't want any more experience.

I have read your posts with curiosity. There is no "we." here. There is no "us pilots," to use your term. Frankly, and I'll get killed for this, your posts read like a small airplane pilot or new instructor who has never done this for a living, and is enamored of that, and I don't understand why this thing is pinned.