Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[AlabamAlum]

I am ashamed I haven't made more.

[bluetick]

Nonsense. You did it the way you wanted. You worked hard, played hard..and made this world a better place.

Reach out and touch

somebody's hand

[AlabamAlum]

Regrets I've had a few
But then again too few to mention
I did what I had to do
And saw it through without exemption

I planned each charted course
Each careful step along the byway
And more, much more than this
I did it my way

[bluetick]

heh

Elvis or Frank?

[AlabamAlum]

Frank. Elvis was weak.

[innocentbystander]

Funny looking back so many years ago...passengers never carried anything on the plane except for a ladies handbag. Maybe a book or magazine under the arm. Comics for the kids. The only thing going into the overhead bin was a man's fedora.

Stewardesses came in two varieties...hot and hotter. I can remember steak and potato dinners in coach. And then people would sit back and light up...even cigars. And there was drink service galore. All kinds of service galore..

Flying seemed like a pretty classy experience back when I was a lad.

You want those hotty-hot Pan Am girls back with the girdles and their waif like size-2 bodies serving your bourbon? Get rid of the Unions (you will NEVER do that Tick) or fly Singapore Airlines.

http://atmo4.theatlantic.com/business/a ... ts/246610/

Stewardesses used to be subject to all sorts of extremely strict rules: they couldn't be married, couldn't gain weight, couldn't get pregnant, couldn't be much over 30. If you fire everyone who violates those rules, then yes, you will select for a much "hotter" group of women than the current crop.

You could probably still get a large group of young, hot women to take a job that involves free flights all around the world. But those jobs are no longer open, because airlines stopped firing all the old, fat parents. Thanks to a combination of feminist shaming, union demands, and anti-discrimination laws. Moreover, once they no longer fired people over a certain age, union seniority rules immediately started selecting for older workers, in two ways: layoffs are usually last hired first fired, and older people have a lot of sunk costs in terms of pension accrual and seniority, so they're less likely to leave. If you fly a major airline, you'll notice very few stewardesses in their twenties.

In the 1970s, these trends would have been playing out; most stewardesses were still young. Now they're lifers.

It's over Tick. Flying is not special. It is just a bus in the sky, all can afford it. And thank God (and Jimmy Carter's de-regulation) for that.

[innocentbystander]

In my experience, checking bags isn't usually that much of a hassle. That's particularly true if you're just flying domestic. International flights can make it a bit more of a fuss.

My biggest problem with carry-ons is that the airlines, as far as I can see, do little to enforce their size restriction policies. I think I've only ever seen one person being told at the gate that their bag was too big. And it was practically a full-size suitcase -- just ridiculous.

Exactly. Stop them. Also, knock off the fees on a second checked bag (with some airlines, it's all checked bags).


Although, there is an airline (Spirit, iirc) that charges $100 for a carry-on at the gate.

The smaller, super cheap airlines (like Spirit) have been doing all sorts of inventive things to crank revenue in other ways.

Allegiant charges $10 to $20 less per ticket, if you go to the airport, go to the ticket counter, and buy the ticket there (yes, the ticket is cheaper at the airport than buying on-line.) Allegiant has no customer service reps (no one to talk to by phone) so you either know what you are doing and can't be bothered to get to the airport early to get the ticket (and you pay an internet premium) or drive to the airport and stand in line for two hours just to buy a ticket. This is what has been happening at Mesa-Gateway airport in Arizona.

Skybus (the airline of Ohio State University) is out business. Defunct. But while they were in business, flight attendant was a sales position. You would sell cosmetics and clothing on flight, earn commission, and your base pay as a flight attendant was $8.50/hour. Pilots earned less than $18,000/year, but they got stock in the company (now worthless.) This model didn't work very well, but it is certainly easier on the bladder than Ryan Air and their pay toilets.

[innocentbystander]

Gone forever.



CAB didn't give these ladies their jobs. All CAB did was make sure Pan Am/Eastern/TWA never went bankrupt. The fact that the industry was new and no one had "seniority" yet in the early 1960s meant they hired only hot women who were willing to be "weighed in" before their flights. No fucking WAY would a Southwest Flight attendant in 2012, allow herself/himself to be weighed in! They would call their Union Rep in 3 seconds and that would be the end of that chauvanistic procedure. They are there for safety, not for serving drinks and eye candy.

The fact that everyone can afford to fly is progress, but with the good you must take the bad.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnf ... 138711.htm

What does the industry's history tell us? Was this effort worthwhile? Certainly it shows that every major reform brings about new, sometimes unforeseen, problems. No one foresaw the industry's spectacular growth, with the number of air passengers increasing from 207.5 million in 1974 to 721.1 million last year. As a result, no one foresaw the extent to which new bottlenecks would develop: a flight-choked Northeast corridor, overcrowded airports, delays, and terrorist risks consequently making air travel increasingly difficult. Nor did anyone foresee the extent to which change might unfairly harm workers in the industry. Still, fares have come down. Airline revenue per passenger mile has declined from an inflation-adjusted 33.3 cents in 1974, to 13 cents in the first half of 2010. In 1974 the cheapest round-trip New York-Los Angeles flight (in inflation-adjusted dollars) that regulators would allow: $1,442. Today one can fly that same route for $268. That is why the number of travelers has gone way up.

So we sit in crowded planes, munch potato chips, flare up when the loudspeaker announces yet another flight delay. But how many now will vote to go back to the "good old days" of paying high, regulated prices for better service? Even among business travelers, who wants to pay "full fare for the briefcase?"

[sardis]

Hack will not be pleased...

http://now.msn.com/entertainment/0507-s ... ketch.aspx

[Op Ed]

I do think there are a lot fewer people excited about Barak Obama.

I know that hurt, but even a small dose of honesty from our non-conservative posters is noticed.

Obama sucks, but Romney would be alot worse.

As bad as Obama has been during his first term, McCain/Palin would likely have been worse in every major policy decision.

What do you think McCain would have done differently? Outside of adding $5 trillion to the national debt, I can't think of anything. Take away all that added debt and it's likely the overall economy would be in better shape as well. McCain would have ordered the military to kill at least as many terrorists as Obama has. Maybe more.

1) McCain would have cut taxes for the people who export jobs, to increase the deficit.

2) McCain would have had us in wars with Iran and Syria already.

Obama has been an unmitigated disaster. Romney can't possibly be any worse.

Romney has worse positions on every policy he has made an opinion on, and has had better positions on most.

But looking at his team of advisers and who he is surrounding himself with, we will get the worse Romney.

[Professor Tiger]

Speaking of Auburn, Prof, Businessweek had an interesting study where they attempted to calculate the Return on Investment to studying at the nation's various colleges.

You may be pleased to note that Auburn was #1 in the state of Alabama, well ahead of UAT

http://www.businessweek.com/interactive ... tment.html

Thanks. That ROI goes up even higher when you don't have to pay tuition, fees or books.

Same goes for University of Illinois at Champaign, which ranks even higher, but their football program sucks.

[Professor Tiger]

Anyway, I'm well off, no doubt. I make no apologies for it. I've earned every cent through my guile and genetically superior intellect. I would never hide it or let someone get under my skin for mentioning it.

I am the 1%.

You should vote Republican.

[innocentbystander]

1) McCain would have cut taxes for the people who export jobs, to increase the deficit.

2) McCain would have had us in wars with Iran and Syria already.

I wish that President Clinton had taken us to war in Afghanistan in 1998 to wag the dog away from Monica. Then maybe 9-11 would have been avoided.

I don't give a FUCK if history would have taught us that President Clinton would have wound up being the worst President in history as a result of his un-provoked attack on Afghanistan. Ed when you and I are DEAD, and we stand in judgement before God, and he levels with us what was avoided by that letcherous pervert invading that pile of rocks in Asia inhabitted by uncivilized animals who grow opium and incest their own daughters, it will be proven THEN (when it is truly important) how wrong you and I were about Bill Clinton and how RIGHT he was.

We don't KNOW what McCain would have done with Syria if he was President. Lets assume he invades Syria for whatever reason. Maybe (just maybe) an invasion of Syria would have prevented some other dreadful event that now awaits us since Obama did NOT invade. As a Christian, I know that God gives us Free Will. He does not mess with that. We make of this world as we wish. I know that Islam is twisted and evil. I know the Syrian government is twisted and evil. I know that my government (regardless of which political party's man/woman sits in the White House) knows WAY MORE than you or I do about what is going on in the Middle East. We don't have to trust them Ed (I don't), but we do have to acknowledge that (come what may) the primary job of the Federal government it to protect us.

That's it. That is their first goal, security. NOT health care. NOT education. NOT welfare. NOT housing. NOT civil service jobs. And NOT their re-election. Security.

And McCain is a better man than President Obama on security. I'm sorry if you can't see that. And I don't like McCain (even though he is my Senator.) The man had to have his Admiral father pull strings to get him into Annapolis. No way was he bright enough to get in on his own merit, I don't buy it.

Obama has been an unmitigated disaster. Romney can't possibly be any worse.

Romney has worse positions on every policy he has made an opinion on, and has had better positions on most.

But looking at his team of advisers and who he is surrounding himself with, we will get the worse Romney.

I can not even begin to tell you how wrong you are on your evaluation of Mitt Romney.

I have met Senator John McCain, several times. That is because I worked for an airline here in Arizona and as an officer of the company I had to go to several political events. I know the kind of man McCain is.

I've also met Willard Mitt Romney, twice now. I'm not going to get into what he and I talked about each time, but rest assured Ed, his motives are moral. This is a moral man. This is a successful, sane, highly intelligent, moral man, who wants to be President for the sole reason of making this country a better place for his 18 grand children. That's it, he wants to keep them safe. he is already rich and successful. Now he wants to give back and serve the country that he lived in, a country that has been so good to him. And he'll serve as our President for free. He will not take a paycheck. And he will lead with the primary motive of making this world a better place for my kids and your kids and his kids/grandkids.

A moral man Ed.

[Jungle Rat]

IB has waaayyyyyy to much time on his hands.

[sardis]

Still feeding the Hacksaw...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... adium.html

[Hacksaw]

9:1, Sardis...9:1. We're going to see a lot more of this in the coming months.

[Hacksaw]

The notion that McCain definitely would have us at war in either Iran or Syria is utterly absurd. And tax breaks to millionaires would have been a smarter policy than what Obama has given us. There's no way McCain would have grown the national debt as much as Obama has.

Obama's foreign policy decisions have looked a lot like Bush's. McCain was called McSame by many during the last Prez election. He probably would NOT have been much different than Obama on that. But on the economy? My dog could have done a better job.

Romney isn't my first choice, but Obama has to go. He has a bright future as the next Oprah. Give him a daytime TV show where he can keep smiling and not do any damage.

[bluetick]

Well why not - guess who's taking credit for saving the auto industry?

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-taking-cre ... 25566.html

"If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye," Romney wrote in a November 2008 opinion article in the New York Times. "It won't go overnight, but it's demise will be virtually guaranteed."

General Motors posted a record profit in 2011.

[bluetick]

I mean, Al Gore can't really claim to have invented the internet - but at least he wasn't against the internet.

That Mitt...what a rascal. So he had his fingers crossed behind his back the whole time he was railing against the bailout.

Or maybe his money can get him some kind of historical "do-over."

[innocentbystander]

I mean, Al Gore can't really claim to have invented the internet - but at least he wasn't against the internet.

That Mitt...what a rascal. So he had his fingers crossed behind his back the whole time he was railing against the bailout.

Or maybe his money can get him some kind of historical "do-over."

What difference does it make Tick, you weren't voting for Mitt either way.