Actually, based on the constantly shifting parameters and reporting fiascos, the numbers are very likely much, much lower.

(Written on 2020年09月24日)(Permalink)

First, yes, I do fully understand the difference between service dog vs. "emotional support" animal as the law describes it; and, I think "support" animals should be banned outright. Regardless of that though -- with no ill intent toward you or your wife -- you should read my post carefully again, because I think you've missed the point. Why is it valid for airlines to ignore medical conditions in order to require masks, but it is not valid for them to ignore medical conditions (e.g. blindness) with regard to animals on board aircraft. By the way, my child is asthmatic and severely allergic to dogs -- likely including your seeing eye dog -- so this is not a totally academic question. Given my family flying vs. your family flying on any given day in an aircraft, what is the solution?

(Written on 2020年08月06日)(Permalink)

That's just fine. Now do away with all service animals and "emotional support animals" on flights as well. If medical conditions can be ignored to enforce masks, then they can be ignored to keep furry creatures off the aircraft, too.

(Written on 2020年08月06日)(Permalink)

Of course there is. You mustn't forget all those other things that are "jaw-dropping"! ;-)

(Written on 2019年11月04日)(Permalink)

Another fine example of TSA "security theater". I feel so much safer that a guy couldn't bring a toilet paper holder onto an aircraft. This was almost as bad as the lady who had to give up her leather purse because it had an old-fashioned 6-shooter embroidered on it among other Old West thematic elements (horses, wagons, etc.).

(Written on 2019年11月01日)(Permalink)

First of all, if the pilots actually said half of what Ted claims, they should be in deep crap. Professionalism in the cockpit goes beyond flying the aircraft. I actually suspect ol' Ted is delusional on that point, though. Second of all, Ted needs to stop flying until he gets over himself. He should stop suing over things he doesn't understand too....

(Written on 2019年01月24日)(Permalink)

The TSA apparently disagrees with this idea, based on this quote directly from the article: "The perception that this might have occurred as a result of the partial government shutdown would be false," TSA said. "The national unscheduled absence rate of TSA staff on Thursday, January 3, 2019, was 4.8% compared to 6.3% last year, Thursday, January 4, 2018. So in fact, the national call out rate was higher a year ago than this year on that date.""

(Written on 2019年01月14日)(Permalink)

According to the story: "The directive came straight from John Duncan, FAA’s head of flight standards..."

(Written on 2018年01月29日)(Permalink)

The year was 1981, and on Aug. 5, 1981, President Reagan fired 11,000 striking air traffic controllers who ignored his order to return to work. In 1955, Congress made such strikes punishable by fines or a one-year jail term — a law the Supreme Court upheld in 1971. Reagan also imposed a lifetime ban on rehiring the strikers. In October 1981, the Federal Labor Relations Authority decertified Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization.

(Written on 2016年10月10日)(Permalink)

If Mr. Colescott missed your point, it is only because your point has absolutely nothing to do with the article. The airport management -- operating a publicly funded airfield -- illegally falsified claims against a law-abiding citizen and refused him services to which he was lawfully entitled. If you don't see the problem there (which is precisely what you said), then you are the one who should do some re-reading.

(Written on 2016年09月19日)(Permalink)