Um, when you're sitting on the plane for hours on end, it's gonna be a little difficult to "ignore".

The psalm is easy to trash or to shove into the seat pocket. The advertisement is glued to the entire table.



[This message has been edited by yevlesh2 (edited Dec 10, 2003).]

Just curious... Would you consider it vandalism if someone put duct tape all over your vehicle or other property you own? I think so.

Perhaps you have a bumper sticker on your vehicle? Would it be vandalism for me to put duct tape over that? I think so...because it would cause damage to your property.

Vandalism: "Willful or malicious destruction of public or private property."

OK. This is my second post about this. I don't really have any concern about the advertising, but am concerned about the thought that it is OK to vandalize property because of a simple disagreement. Let's use another analogy...

Of course, it's because HP owns the space!

By your logic, it would be perfectly acceptable for me to "mark up" a bumper sticker on your car. Maybe I don't like the color of your house? Should I be able to "mark up" your house? Perhaps I don't like the logo apparel that someone wears? Should I be able to somehow deface it, too?

Afterall, (to use your words: "what's so different"? http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...orum/frown.gif

Of course if a US carrier used the same business model they'd get the same results :-)

The EasyJet model defined high occupancy with a few highly publicised heavily discounted fares and many more normally priced ones, only one type of aircraft, rapid turnarounds, semi-remote airports, cramped planes, primarily low-cost [i.e. internet] ticket sales, and no customer service. My guess is that only the last really wouldn't work in the USA, because of the risk of litigation, though it's arguable that there are no such things as remote airports in the USA when everyone has to drive when they get there anyway. [As opposed to a higher rate of use of public transport in Europe.]

The RyanAir model was similar but used incredibly remote airports instead of semi-remote airports and made value of this by way of huge incentives from those airports for RyanAir to bring their flights to that particular location. The legality of these 'subsidies' is still being tested in some European courts.

[edited for typo]

[This message has been edited by kiwibigdave (edited Dec 11, 2003).]

I certainly do not advocate vandalism. But if you were to rent my car (or seat) and I have a bumper sticker plastered thereon that you find offensive... i.e. "I Luv Ozzie", what's wrong with you putting your own little (removable) pastie over it for the duration of your rental and then leaving it behind for the cleaning crew to return to its original state?

Absolutely nothing, if it can be removed quickly and easily, without any trace of it having been there. The duct tape and markings to which I responded earlier are not at all like what you describe.

If the user believes it is necessary to apply a removable pastie, why not remove it prior to returning the rental? It would then cause no harm at all. Why should the rental company or airline have to spend their time, effort, and money to remove this item?

This whole issue seems clear to me... Market forces (not vandalism) should rule. If the advertising is unwanted, simply choose another travel company. This is the (legal) choice that we can all make.

Oh boy here we go with that old "Market Forces should rule" story again. Why should I bother to remove the pastie anymore than I should be obligated to clean up around my seat before leaving? Also, I'd be knocking some poor (cleaning) person out of a job which should have been calculated into the cost of advertising and maintainence thereof. (But oh, I forgot, it's all about Business making money!!!....not the workers)

The key word is destruction. Certain varieties of duct tape come off easily and with very little or no residue.

And then there's masking tape. Think that's destructive?



[This message has been edited by taucher (edited Dec 11, 2003).]

From the article: "Tray table advertising in the brain child of Nick Pajic, president of SkyMedia International, who formerly published in-flight magazines for TWA."

While Mr. Pajic may well have dreamt up this idea on his own (I don't know), the Chinese have been putting ads on those pieces of cloth that cover the headrests for as long as I can remember. They kind of make flying seem like riding on a bus or subway.

For the heck of it I signed up to receive a newsletter on the status of the 7E7 development. There was a survey they asked you to fill out. Questions like: would you prefer more spacious bathrooms or smaller bathrooms in greater number, etc.... One of the questions was would you be offended by advertising in flight (overhead bins and tray tables). Sounds like Boeing wants to present this as a revenue generating option to sell to carriers.

Uh, do you ever rent an apartment? Would it be okay if the Apartment manager sold advertising space on your walls?

So you think it's okay for the apartment manager to place sex ads, soda ads, etc on your walls, and you can't do anything about it?

Your analogy is quite ridiculous.

If the rent was low enough, I would consider such an apartment. I'd gladly stay in free, luxurious advertising-plastered hotel rooms.

And I would agree with you. However, I would bet that ticket prices on HP will not go down one penney when the ads take effect.

Of course the ticket prices won't drop... that would defeat the purpose of putting the ads there in the first place which is to increase revenue. The only way they would back off from this is if their income was to drop as a direct result. For all the indignation and contempt that has been expressed here about this new space invasion, I'd be willing to bet that almost no one would base their choice of carrier on whether or not there is advertising on the tray tables. America West probably believes this too and is going ahead with their "innovative" idea no matter how tacky it is. I doubt if these ads will cause mass hysteria in the general flying public similar to the reaction caused by the introduction of "New Coke" back in the '80s, but I wish it would.