When you are having dinner on a patio and you see an AA 787 landing in Indianapolis -- you know Chicago is not having a good day.

(Written on 08/11/2021)(Permalink)

The Government of Canada wrote the better article.

(Written on 08/02/2021)(Permalink)

This is sloppy and disappointing journalism. (But the uninformed comments are humorous.) I know the attempt was to highlight "$$ for fake vaccination documents" related to international travel, but when incomplete or incorrect supported statements are made about Canada's travel requirements, it puts even the headline in question. If there was ever a time to report accurately about international travel; this is it. Unless that wasn't the point...

(Written on 08/01/2021)(Permalink)

(We shall avoid the medical and political side of the discussion.) If the airline required you to wear a hat, you wear a hat. (This was a thing BTW, Wardair 1960s) Airplanes, like ships, are not a democracy. A passengers so-called "rights" never ever supersedes a captain's legal responsibility and liability. The airline has a rule, the captain (and crew) enforces that rule. This extends from wearing a seatbelt, to no-nuts and now requiring face-masks.

(Written on 07/31/2020)(Permalink)

If, at this point, folks don't understand 'No-Mask - No Service' -- how did they manage to get to the airport un-assisted?

(Written on 07/29/2020)(Permalink)

drive

(Written on 07/28/2020)(Permalink)

United hasn’t had ‘Channel 9’ for many years. The old CO aircraft never had it. None of the UA-Express fleet had it either. Most of the old UA 319/320 fleet seems to have lost it as they installed WiFi and then WiFI with Inflight Entertainment. Now if you connect up to the WiFi and stream liveatc.net...

(Written on 08/01/2019)(Permalink)

In an attempt to not-disclose the airline (which truly has minimal relevance to the story), there is a picture of the thank you note pre-printed in a well known Canadian airline’s corporate typeface. SMH.

(Written on 03/26/2019)(Permalink)

Say your baby really does have an infectious skin condition that you, and your doctor (with a note) and possibly even some of the flight crew, thought it was merely a genetic skin condition. And say that infection condition spreads. The captain remains legally liable for the health of all aboard. Even with that medical note. It requires the flight crew to make a quick assessment and acceptance of risk. It sucks because there are so many possible situations. But in the vast majority of cases, everything works out fine. I have spoken to two captains after they have had to ask passengers to leave. (One because the pax was yelling loudly that she has bad anxiety and another because the pax declared they had a bad peanut allergy and wanted an announcement made that no one should eat peanuts.) Both captains hated making those decisions. But they did out of a genuine concern of safety for all passengers.

(Written on 03/03/2019)(Permalink)

Here we go again. A commercial airline, once the door is closed, is not a democracy. While there are many conditions (like this) and situations (many peanut allergies) which from external review are perfectly safe, the captain thru their flight crew has the legal responsibility and liability for the health and safety of all customers. A doctor's note doesn't exempt them. We can only continue to build better education mechanisms in place so that the flight crew feels comfortable to accept that the risk is minimal and let the passenger fly.

(Written on 03/02/2019)(Permalink)