Wizz Air Airbus A320 in all its pink and purple glory!
Do you like purple? Do you like purple more when it is with pink? Well then Wizz Air is the airline for you (their website gives me a headache). Wizz Air was founded in September 2003 and had its first flight took off in May 2004. It is based out of Hungary and has over 150 different routes in Europe, all serviced by their 26 Airbus A320’s. Their goal is to have 132 aircraft by 2017, which is a very aggressive goal.
They aren’t too concerned about customer service, where they state it takes more than 30 days to process customer complaints and it costs about $1.00 USD per minute to call customer service. But all of this doesn’t matter if you care about getting to your destination on the same airline Barbie would be proud to fly!
Image: Kian
Seatback pocket with BAD, BAD things in it.
Recently Joe Sharkey, a columnist for the New York Times, had an interesting experience with regulations, the FAA, and seatback pockets on a flight from Denver to Tucson.
While the flight attendants were doing the safety announcements, they stated something new. Passengers could not put any items in the seatback pockets. No water, garbage, newspapers, phones, personal magazines etc. The only items allowed were the airline materials placed in there before the passengers boarded.
At first Sharkey had a difficult time finding out why this was happening. Was it a new rule the airline was enforcing? Did the FAA start regulating seatbacks? What was going on? When he first contacted the FAA, they didn’t seem to know that the rule existed.
In 2007, the FAA wrote a directive on cabin safety that states, ’œnothing can be stowed in the seat pockets except magazines and passenger information cards.’ This was news to Sharkey and to many passengers who have recently heard this new rule.
The Flying Pinto confirmed with the FAA that they aren’t going to regulate items in the seatbacks and airlines have the ability to choose their own policies. As a flight attendant, she is happy that the airline she works for is not enforcing this suggestion. ’œI am grateful that my airline has not made this a company policy but I wouldn’t go out and buy the organizer just yet,’ stated the blogger.
Alright, so this might become more of the standard in the future but why? There doesn’t seem to be many people out there to answer that question. It has been on the books since 2007, so why start regulating now? I can see where it might encourage people to bring more carry-ons and limit the airline’s profits for checked baggage. It could speed up the deboarding process with passengers not having to look in so many places, as well as decrease an airplane’s turnaround time, since there will be less to clean.
But is this really worth the time and effort to regulate? Flight attendants already have a hard enough job trying to keep passengers happy. Is having to nag folks to remove their personal items in the seatback really going to build a positive rapport with the customer? Probably not. Is this a big enough deal for passengers to pick a different airline (and pay more) to have a seatback pocket? Again, probably not.
Alright, so this might become more of the standard in the future but why? There doesn’t seem to be many people out there to answer that question. It has been on the books since 2007, so why start regulating now? I can see where it might encourage people to bring more carry-ons and limit the airline’s profits for checked baggage. It could speed up the deboarding process with passengers not having to look in so many places, as well as decrease an airplane’s turnaround time, since there will be less to clean.
But is this really worth the time and effort to regulate? Flight attendants already have a hard enough job trying to keep passengers happy. Is having to nag folks to remove their personal items in the seatback really going to build a positive rapport with the customer? Probably not. Is this a big enough deal for passengers to pick a different airline (and pay more) to have a seatback pocket? Again, probably not.
Image: dyobmit
Qualcomm and American Airlines teamed up to demonstrate satellite-based cell service.
US Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) is looking to make sure talking on a cell phone during flight is not allowed. The bill’s name is Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace Act — or HANG UP. DeFazio defends the bill, saying, “With airline customer satisfaction at an all-time low, this is not the moment to consider making airplane travel even more torturous by allowing in-flight cell phone conversations.”
He has gained support from the National Business Travel Association, the International Airline Passengers Association and the Association of Flight Attendants/Communications Workers of America. Not surprisingly, the majority of the opposition is coming from an organization comprised of people from the telecommunications and satellite industry groups. The group’s executive director Carl Biersack stated, “I’m not here to defend how airlines treat you and how much they charge for baggage and pillows. I would not agree with the premise that having a cell phone on an airplane is an annoyance.” He continues stating that an airplane cabin is already filled with noise and having a conversation on a cell phone would be just as much of a distraction as talking to someone next to you.
But is that really the case? In my personal experience people seem to talk much louder on cell phones than talking to a person next to them. You also don’t hear people saying “are you there, I think I lost you,” while having an in-person conversation. Even if someone can stay quiet on the phone, their ringer wouldn’t be quiet. It would be nearly impossible to get some sleep or work done with cell phones constantly going off.
People opposing the measure feel it would allow folks to make new plans, if a flight is delayed or keep in touch with loved ones. However, with the spread of Wi-Fi on airlines, people already have the ability to stay connected. They can email, chat, and do more than they could on a phone. Companies like Aircell that provide Go-Go inflight Wi-Fi doesn’t allow passengers to talk over the internet, blocking programs like Skype and voice function on Google Chat.
I agree with Mr. DeFazio that talking on cellphones should not be allowed on airlines, but do we need legislation for this? I am not as sure about that. Already, the FCC bans the use of cell phones and it seems the majority of fliers don’t want to sit next to someone on a cell phone. Should this be something the government has control over or should the airlines be able to make the decision themselves?
Image: israel21c_internal
Erotic Airway's Beech H-18S
Joining the mile-high club has never been easier. Formed in 2006, Erotic Airways is the brain-child of pilot Craig Justo and is based in Brisbane, Australia. They fly a twin-engine Beech H-18S and offer 45 and 60 minute flights. For about $725.00 USD you get a nice hour-long flight, first class bedding with “sensuous satin”, a little bubbly, and a complimentary “safe sex” package.
Once you land, you will get an official Mile High Sexperience Certificate, to frame and mount on your wall (you know, for when the family comes to visit).
The website is interesting, although not quite safe for work. Check it out or check out an interview on YouTube (safe for work) showing the plane and bed.
Although this airline experience might not be for everyone, it might be a unique experience for some. I couldn’t imagine the operation growing too much more than what it is now and not sure how something like this in the US would be received.
Hawaiian Airlines Boeing 767-300 (N589HA) at Kahului Airport on Maui
The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), which represents the pilots of Hawaiian Airlines, started “informational picketing” today at the interisland terminal of the Honolulu International Airport. Earlier in the month the ALPA opened up a “strategic preparedness center,” near the airport to help coordinate phones and picketing, if no deal can be reached with the airline. This follows two years of unsuccessful talks between the two sides, that seems it might lead to the pilot’s going on strike.
The ALPA stated, “while progress was made, Hawaiian management still insists that any salary increases over 1%, or other contract gains, be paid for by pilots making offsetting concessions elsewhere in the contract. Based on the airline’s outstanding financial performance and the record bonuses management received last year, this lack of substantial movement has forced the pilots to call for a strike authorization vote.”
They have a valid point with profit changes. The current contract was negotiated in 2005 before Hawaiian emerged from bankruptcy and now the airline is making a profit. However, the airline business has volatile ups and downs. One quarter an airline can be in the black, making profit, the next, deep in the red and talking about bankruptcy. If an airline is going to protect itself for the bad times, then yes, it means there will be surplus in the good times.
The ALPA is seeking a 17% salary increase over four years, plus a 2.5% addition to the pension plan for pilots less than 50 years of age. The ALPA states the airline is offering only a 1% increase each year for four years, with possible additional increases in exchange for concessions in other areas.
Hawaiian Airlines’ CEO, Mark Dunkerley, states that the union is “mischaracterizing” the airlines offer and that a strike is not “imminent.” Dunkerley points out that the airline has offered its pilots a 20% increase over six years with profit sharing, for the ability to modify their bidding rules for new routes, allowing the airline to become more competitive.
The back and forth bickering sounds like a typical contract standstill. There are still quite a few steps before the pilots could strike. The union members need to authorize a strike and the government would also need to give the go ahead. Sadly, the people that lose out the most are the passengers, especially those that might be looking for a nice, much needed vacation to Hawaii.
Image: CruisAir