Entries about air travel

"Check it out, I'm calling you from the plane!!!" Photo by mig13.

The 8pm train was empty, save about a dozen passengers and myself. A phone rang. Up the other end of the carriage, a young woman answered the call. She was loud, really loud. Like most of my fellow passengers, I did my best to ignore the noise.

The three teenagers sitting behind her didn’t. They countered with cries of “shut up!”. They imitated her by talking at an even louder volume. They made matters much worse.

Eventually, the guy sitting next to me piped up and yelled across the carriage:

"Would you leave the f****** woman alone!"

Pleasant vibes all round. But it shut the teens right up; and the original loud-talking passenger ended her call, seemingly oblivious to the fuss she’d just caused.

It may be better to catch the train than to drive yourself to work, but I find it decidedly uncomfortable when my fellow passengers decide to carry on loud and public conversations on their phones. I've sat on the train and heard a guy bad-mouthing his wife (he was talking to his lover); I've caught the evening train and spent half an hour listening to an excited young gentleman calling his friends - one by one - to tell them he just got a new job.

Maybe I'm just grumpy when I'm on the train. But I'm of the opinion that when you're sharing public transportation, it is respectful to your fellow passengers to maintain a modicum of reserve in your phone conversations.

Apparently, airlines are starting to allow people to carry and use mobile phones on planes. Hurrah. Is the in-flight experience really going to be helped by loud-mouthed, phone-wielding passengers?

I’m not the only one who doesn’t relish the prospect.

Darren Cronian from Travel Rants doesn’t want them.

Charles Starmer-Smith from the Telegraph doesn’t want them.

Rick Seany, the founder of FareCompare.com, points out: “there actually was an age when you couldn’t be reached anywhere at any time, and the world managed to keep turning.”

What about you? Do you think being able to use mobile phones on planes is handy, or are you dreading the thought of being stuck next to someone calling all their friends just tell them they're on a plane?

There's a new breed of travellers. And apparently, they haven't heard of greenhouse gases.

"Mileage runners" string together as many cheap flights as they can in order to rack up their miles. Where the average traveller just wants to get from A to B, the mileage runner will get from A to B by way of stop-overs and connecting flights in C, D, E, F and G. Apparently, “If you like puzzles, it's lots of fun.”

Not all puzzles ought to be indugled in, no matter how much fun they are. Robbing a bank with a high-tech security system appears to be quite fun (or so Hollywood tells me), but it’s not exactly ethical, is it? Charles Starmer-Smith from the Telegraph calls mileage running “inexcusable”, and I’m inclined to agree with him.

The original Wired article about mileage runners sparked quite a debate, as quite a few people commented on the environmental effects of this excessive flying. Somebody called Jerome posted this response to the environmentalist critics:

Listen, scheduled flights are going to fly whether or not the aircraft is full. If anything, mileage running reduces the environmental cost per person. Just like how it's more environmentally friendly to carpool with 3 people in a Range Rover than everyone driving their own Prius.

It’s a convenient kind of logic, but very short-sighted. Less people flying means airlines will be forced to start cancelling services, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Having people fly simply to get some frequent flyer benefits artificially inflates the demand for flights. (As an aside, one person driving a Prius is still better than 3 people sharing a Range Rover. A Prius emits 4 tons of greenhouse gases per year, as opposed to the 13.10 tons a Range Rover produces.)

It seems the whole notion of taking personal responsibility for your “carbon footprint” hasn’t quite sunk in with some people.

Related articles from the Swivellin' Chair:

• Who should bear the burden of global warming?

• Are you a binge flyer?

Ok, so we would have liked to actually see this plane being flown by now, but in the meanwhile have a look at this video of a rehearsed evacuation.

Came across this via The BOOT.

As an anonymous poster there pointed out though:

lucky for them they had

1. No luggage
2. No Kids
3. No old people
4. No people on fire
5. No sinking plane in water
7. No hysterical people
and most importantly, Everybody understood what to do.

Still, it's a fairly impressive routine to watch.

Mark Ellingham, the guy who started Rough Guides has come out with some very strong criticisms of what he dubs "binge-flying". Strong words from a guy that gets his bread&butter from the travel industry.

Balancing all the positives and negatives, I'm not convinced there is such a thing as a 'responsible' or 'ethical' holiday.

His objection is to "binge-flying", where people make as many as 10 short trips in a year, with obviously negative effects on the environment. Personally, he's limited himself to 1 long-haul and 2-3 shorter trips each year, arguing the benefits of tourism.

The social and economic impact of travelling can be very positive, with many countries relying on economies that would completely fall apart without tourism... In addition, there are lots of countries who nurture their environment purely because of the tourists who come to experience it.

Good point, but then we ought to pick destinations where we know our tourist dollars will be spent in a way that has positive social and environmental effects. Perhaps I'm a pessimist, but that seems like a pretty tough challenge for the average consumer to work out.

How has awareness of climate change and global warming challenged you to change the way you travel?

Most airport baggage carousels aren't quite as exhilarating as Venice's casino-themed luggage-turner. And even if they were, my guess is that most of us would rather get out of there as quickly as possible than waste idle minutes appreciating the local casino's creative advertising campaign.

Roulette wheels or baggage carousel? Picture from Disruption.

When it comes to waiting for luggage, most humans are particularly impatient, horded together around the carousel - as if rubbing up against the carousel will bring one's luggage around quicker. It's pretty pointless and probably does more harm than good, which is why they've introduced Air Law 8 over at Bill Geist's Zeitgeist.

AIR LAW 8: From this day forward there will be established a mandatory "No-Touching Zone" that starts 7 feet back from the carousel. All travelers will stand back, take it easy and wait. When you see your luggage, walk easily, efficiently and directly to your bag, pick it up and proceed.

Good idea, but it's not totally new. A few weeks ago we got an email from Christopher Maland, who has dedicated an entire website to what he calls the Maland Line (I wonder how he came up with the name).

The Maland Line is to be either 2 meters or 6.6 feet around the luggage carousel. Not following the Maland Line is not a criminal act but please politely tell the "offenders" to recognize the Maland Line. If there is no Maland Line present, then have people take 3-5 steps backward away from the carousel.

Now I'm all for the Maland Line or Air Law 8 (or whatever else you want to dub it), but the big question is how it's going to catch on. Creating a website or posting a blog entry isn't going to create airport etiquette... But never fear, I think the following idea for implementation suggested in Bill Geist's post should get the ball rolling pretty soon in airports all over the world.

Even better, when our bag appears, let’s give everyone a little post-flight entertainment by doing some dance step up to the carousel, twirl once, casually lean down and pick up your bag, set it down on the floor with a little flourish, pull the handle out of the bag, and skip away. I’ll bet we could get people to applaud. Gee, they might even throw some money at you. You’ve got to be giving them a better show than some schlep on a bridge blowing his saxophone