Originally Posted by llauland (Post 16562678)

This is getting to be much fun. There has been much said thus far about the plausibility of my logic.........but let's face it......while I have the a huge deal of respect for the country and for India in general.......sometimes "logic" does not seem to be at the forefront of the Indian psyche.......Why do pilots cheat on exams and fly with fake licences? Why do people drive outside of the painted traffic lanes as if none existed?Why to motorcycles, and automobiles drive up the wrong side of the road, why do cars cross four lanes of traffic to make a turn, why do the same back up on the major highways (against traffic) because they miss their exit? So the conspiracy theories are now coming out of the woodwork......and the American bashing is taking place........so be it.......while my arguments to you may not be logical (maybe they used some other method for securing the newspaper in the window and not tape.....I don't care....the fact is that the newspaper exists in the first place. I dont care if the used chewing gum!

Please answer this question: WHY DO THE MANUFACTURERS OF THE AIRCRAFT NOT INSTALL WINDOW SHADES AS STANDARD EQUIPMENT IN THE PLANE IF COVERING THE WINDOWS IS AN ACCEPTABLE AND STANDARD PRACTICE? Shouldn't they be there if all of your arguments advocating the practice as acceptable is true.......don't you think that after so many years and pilots offering feedback on improvements and design that they would have offered suggestions for improving the section of the plane that they spend their most time in? I am sure that a method of gathering feedback from the very people who ply the airplanes is in place.......so why aren't permanent shades part of the standard equipment on an airplane? if they were meant to be there they would be......isn't this a logical assumption?

Originally Posted by PVDtoDEL (Post 16562957)

This is a good argument, but it is unfortunately for you fallacious.

Aircraft cockpits do have window shades or other devices that perform this task, but they are notoriously unreliable and ineffective. Therefore, pilots resort to their own techniques (like newspaper) to block the glare.

Originally Posted by llauland (Post 16563445)

I didnt realize they had it so tough......you know, while siting back in economy with my knees near my chin, I really never gave much concern for their comfort......I have been all wrong everyone.......my apologies.......maybe having good eyesight is equally not important either.

Originally Posted by PVDtoDEL (Post 16564086)

:D

Anyway, thanks for being a good sport about it.

Originally Posted by Sankaps (Post 16565536)

Web site that looks it was designed by school students as part of a project
Ridiculous merger integration

Originally Posted by Sankaps (Post 16565536)

Hard to fathom pricing and distribution policies (how many world class airlines tell you to go to a travel agent to get a better fare, when you go to their ticket office to buy a ticket?)

Originally Posted by UA Fan (Post 16565576)

Very true, even worse considering our IT prowess. I think we outsourced the intergration to some Swiss company.:td:



Actually an EK sales agent in the LHR airport once told me the same.

Originally Posted by UA Fan (Post 16565576)

Very true, even worse considering our IT prowess. I think we outsourced the intergration to some Swiss company.:td:

Originally Posted by Sankaps (Post 16565590)

Was that recent? EK now has a lowest price guarantee for direct sales in most markets, I believe.

Originally Posted by Sankaps (Post 16565536)

The original question was "Has AI bashing gone too far?"

My answer, regardless of whether the UA pilot's story holds or not (I see no reason why he would want to make it up), is an emphatic "No!".

This is one airline that cannot be bashed enough. Everytime I think maybe I am being too harsh, something ridiculous happens to make be bash them even more than before.

Examples:
Pathetic ground / airport / check-in experience
Pathetic post-flight experience (baggage claim, post-flight customer service, etc)
Pathetic reliability and on-time performance
Ridiculous scheduling
Web site that looks it was designed by school students as part of a project
Cabin crew that freely smoke in the galleys, pulling the curtains shut
Ground staff who find it perfectly acceptable to scream at passengers
Pathetic state of toilets
Ridiculous merger integration
Hard to fathom pricing and distribution policies (how many world class airlines tell you to go to a travel agent to get a better fare, when you go to their ticket office to buy a ticket?)
Lax attitude to safety norms (eg pax briefing, ensuring seat backs are up and trays folded, etc etc.)

I could go on, but I will stop now.

Originally Posted by Sankaps (Post 16565536)

The original question was "Has AI bashing gone too far?"

My answer, regardless of whether the UA pilot's story holds or not (I see no reason why he would want to make it up), is an emphatic "No!".

This is one airline that cannot be bashed enough. Everytime I think maybe I am being too harsh, something ridiculous happens to make be bash them even more than before.

Examples:
Pathetic ground / airport / check-in experience
Pathetic post-flight experience (baggage claim, post-flight customer service, etc)
Pathetic reliability and on-time performance
Ridiculous scheduling
Web site that looks it was designed by school students as part of a project
Cabin crew that freely smoke in the galleys, pulling the curtains shut
Ground staff who find it perfectly acceptable to scream at passengers
Pathetic state of toilets
Ridiculous merger integration
Hard to fathom pricing and distribution policies (how many world class airlines tell you to go to a travel agent to get a better fare, when you go to their ticket office to buy a ticket?)
Lax attitude to safety norms (eg pax briefing, ensuring seat backs are up and trays folded, etc etc.)

I could go on, but I will stop now.

Originally Posted by rsh913 (Post 16567035)

You make it sound like AI is your MIL. ;)
Seriously though I don't agree with a lot of your comments. But then you're entitled to your opinions.

Originally Posted by Sankaps (Post 16567266)

The aircraft was descending towards ORD, passing thru 10,000 feet, while the captain was sitting in the jump-seat having his meal.

Originally Posted by Sankaps (Post 16567266)

I didn't want to say this publicly, but here goes anyhow.

I used to work for a major airline, and several years ago was given the courtesy of an invite to the flight deck for a landing at Chicago O'Hare -- this was on an AI 747-400.

The captain was a really friendly guy, but what I witnessed on the flight deck was scary.

The aircraft was descending towards ORD, passing thru 10,000 feet, while the captain was sitting in the jump-seat having his meal.

The FO was flying the aircraft and I was in the observer's seat. The captain was chatting with me, and in-between shouting out instructions to the FO between mouthfuls of food: "increase the rate of descent", "ask the tower to repeat last instruction", etc etc.

This was on descent to what was then the world's busiest airport! I could not believe it. Just one pilot at the controls, and the other one on the jump-set having his meal, chatting with a visitor, and "back-seat flying".

I told the captain that I should leave, as clearly there was a lot going on. He insisted, with typical Indian hospitality, that I should stay and not to worry. I politely refused and headed out back to my seat, hoping this would help the captain be a little less distracted.

We landed safely of course, but forgive me for having a very poor impression of AI's cockpit discipline as a result of this. We are just lucky there have not been more major incidents!