Fly me to the moon

This year I have spent a lot of time in planes and airports. To me, this is one of the greatest environments to observe human behavior; people's true colors come out for all to see. I am on my last flight for 2010, using the free Wifi, and I decided this is an appropriate time to list my observations, questions, and a few rants on how air travel could be improved.

Airline announcements:

Have you ever noticed that all airlines make their announcements in the terminal using the same format: Airline, flight number and maybe destination. Why don't they start with the city? People tune out quickly (okay, I do) and I don't want to wait to listen to something which may or may not be relevant to me. People are much more likely to remember their destination than a someone arbitrary collection of numbers, so start with the airline and city - flight numbers only really matter to the airlines and the air traffic controllers.

Priority list for security

I have never understood why there is a priority lane for airline members with status or first class. I have been a beneficiary, of this policy, but it still doesn't make any sense to me. I understand the concept from the airlines point of view - they want their best customers treated well, but the TSA is a government entity. Seems like undue influence on a government operation by the private sector. I can't think of any other situation where a company can have such a visible influence on a government operation, particularly one that deals with safety.

Drinking and pre flight announcements

I try to pay attention when the flight crew is giving the pre flight announcements. I am no Cpt Sully; I just feel bad for them going through the whole routine, which we have all heard a hundred times, and no one pays attention. I feel like if they can get at least one person to politely listen, they might feel less frustrated about their job. Basically, they have to cater to a bunch of whinny children in adult bodies; doesn't sound like fun to me so let's do at least one nice thing for them.

I was thinking about how frustrating their jobs are, while listening to the safety instructions, while I was having a pre-flight cocktail. Then it hit me: how can I be reasonably expected to remember the emergency procedures when I am getting sloshed, courtesy of the airline? I am now under the influence (or possibly further under, depending if there is a delay); my faculties are being compromised while critical information is being given. As the airline is acting as the enabler, how can I be responsible for any of my actions? My sympathy for the good folks in the air grows.

Soup on a plane:

I was flying home recently through Atlanta (which I hate, aside from the Chick-fil-a right by gate A-10), I get the upgrade (score) and there is dinner on the flight (score x2). The choices aren't that good, but acceptable, but get this: the side item with my sandwich is soup.

Okay, I have no room to complain - I am getting upgraded and I am getting food - but doesn't soup seem like a really, Really, REALLY bad idea to serve on a moving plane? Liquids on any moving vehicle tend to slosh, and the ground based ones only travel in two dimensions (usually). Airplanes must - read MUST - travel in three dimensions. The potential for spillage increases exponentially. Fortunately it was a smooth flight so no issues. But the next time I might not be so lucky....

Pets vs people on plane

I have some friends with severe pet allergies. One person I know can't be in the same room if a cat has been in there, even if the cat is gone. So what happens if a person brings a pet on a plane and there is another passenger with severe allergies? What do they do? Do they move them apart? What if they are both in first? Who gets moved: the allergic or the pet owner? What if it is a small plane and not enough space to separate the two and someone needs to get bumped? What are the rules? Every time I see someone bring a pet in a carrier on board, I wonder if this will be the time I finally learn what happens. So far, no luck.

ADA bathrooms

There is a great law that passed in the 90s called the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It insures that any new or remodeled commercial buildings or space eliminates barriers to those with disabilities. One of the more common examples of the ADA at work is with the large stall bathrooms, which allow for someone in a wheelchair to rotate. The law says there must be a 5' circular area so someone in a wheelchair could turn around. How airlines have been able to avoid compliance with this law is beyond me.

The restrooms on planes seem to be getting smaller and smaller, so that even sub 6-footers like me can't go #1 with contorting into a strange position (funny side note: on my visit to see the fam this Xmas, my nephew said he had to go #3. In the words of my sister, I don't want to know what that means). Anyway, with all the new jumbo sized planes being designed, I hope this issue gets addressed.

Boarding procedures

Airlines have tried boarding in rows. Now they are trying in zones. Neither works well and the trend is getting worse. If you want to board an airplane efficiently, try this: board by window, middle, then aisle seats.

The biggest holdup to boarding is the constant flow of people back into the one row for handling traffic. If no one had to get out of their seat, the amount if time to load a plane would be greatly reduced. This happened to me first hand once before. One time I was flying out of NYC. Our flight was late and we had a very narrow window to get our departure slot. The counter agent ordered everyone in the waiting area to get in their rows and seats, and loaded us in the plane in the manner. Status didn't matter - it was all about efficiency (a woman after my heart). The whole plane got loaded and we pushed off from the gate in under 10 minutes.

Exiting planes

I like it when the pilots stand outside the cockpit when passengers disembark. I like to thank them in person. I don't have a joke, or snide comment to make; I really like it when they do this. If anyone knows a commercial pilot, please ask them to do this; I like thanking them for not crashing.

Happy trails from 24,000… no, feet.

The Streak vs. The Streak

Brett Favre's consecutive game streak of 297 games starting at quarterback came to an end Monday night. It did not lack the drama we expected: a collapsed Metrodome roof gave him one additional day of rest to try and come back from his injury. Before the game started, all you had to was look at his swollen purple and blue right hand and you knew the streak would be over. There was no way he could game through this one, even for a token series, as some Brett-Lovers would have liked. His streak was over.

Now, two almost inevitably things have happened: First, a new streak watch has begun in the NFL to see who is in the lead (I believe is a Manning). Second, comparisons begin as to whose streak was more impressive - Cal Ripken Jr's MLB streak of 2,632 games or Brett Favre's. I don't really care about the debate, but it brings up something that has bothered me ever since Cal Ripken's streak ended Sept 20, 1998:

Cal Ripken is a bum. He should be ashamed of the way his streak ended.

Favre - love him or hate him - could not play on Monday; no one has argued that point. His shoulder and hand were a mess; he may never play football again. Lou Gehrig, the former Iron Man for MLB, played in 2,130 games, until his body, ravaged by the disease that now bears his name, would not let him play anymore. He died two years after his streak ended. Cal Ripken didn't play on Sept 20, 1998 because.....

Yeah, there is a reason you if you can not remember why: there was no reason. He wanted the day off. According to Ripken, "I think the time is right." Click here for full story.

Did Cal Ripken deserve a day off? Yes. Unquestionably, yes. He played hard every day and every game, in a position with a very high injury rate. He played the game with class and decency. Very few players have his character and appeal.

Except on this one point.

On the day his streak ended, he disappointed us all. For 16 years he put his head down, worked hard, and showed us virtue was its own reward. That is until Sept 20, 1998. On that day, he proved he was just as lazy and worthless as the rest of us. He showed us it was okay to wuss out, give up, and think of yourself instead of the team. Worst yet, he was praised for this behavior. No one every questioned why he stopped. He was celebrated for the next three years until he retired in 2001, and he is still considered a baseball god today.

All of this for giving up because he didn't feel like living up to the obligations of his teammates and fans. For this blatant show of laziness, he was praised. It was decision that set a very bad example for all athletes. Should it be any surprise today that we now have a generation of athletes, who only think of themselves (and the money) like Randy "I play when I wanna play" Moss.

It is an unfair double standard for Ripken (and Favre); other players routinely take off games with no consequences. But when you are the focus of a streak, you are held up to another standard. For better or worse, you are made into a role model. Your actions are scrutinized far closer then is fair, but this is hardly surprising news for athletes. They know what they are getting into when they sign the contract for all that money. They have an expectation they have to live up to, and Ripken blew it with the way he ended his streak.

Yes, the O's were 1000 games out of first place when Ripken ended his streak. So are the Vikings. Favre is no saint. His is hated by 98% of Wisconsinites (the 2% is probably a sampling error). He is a prima donna, who loves the attention and will give it - either to a willing public, or unwilling one (via text pics). He won a big game, and he has lost them, too. But the guy loved to play and he was willing to do so had it been possible.

It is a shame it wasn't possible for Favre. This will (most likely*) be his last season, having left it all out on the field, unable to continue his streak any further, setting a new record for endurance and a new standard for perseverance for the NFL. I wish I could say the same for Ripken.