posted on September 20, 2001 06:46:04 AM new
I have a friend, who after many years of waiting, is booked on a cruise a couple of weeks from now. She must fly from NY to FL and then head out to sea for 5 days, leaving behind her 3 children. SHE doesn't want to go, her DH is insisting that they make the trip. Would YOU go?
My DH & 2 of my boys FINALLY got an opportunity to go on an overnight Boys Scout trip to a real life battleship. The ship is located 2 states away from our home & the trip will be via ferry/car. Several other families booked on this trip have just cancelled. I'm very uneasy about sending them. What would YOU do?
Logically, I KNOW that we should go on, and that cancelling plans in fear would be giving in to the wishes of those responsible for the attacks on our soil, BUT I don't know that I am strong enough to survive should my family become targets of hate.
posted on September 20, 2001 07:20:04 AM new
I'm in the same boat--I'm booked for a dive trip to Fiji this December. The trip is already paid for. I'm just going to have to see what's going on closer to departure before deciding. We might also face problems with the equipment we have to bring. Our dive computers need to be carried on board with us & not in an unpressurized cargo compartment.
posted on September 20, 2001 07:24:11 AM new
Heck yes, I'd go! In fact, I've been trying to figure a way to afford to fly somewhere right now, but money is way too tight, even with the obvious deals you can get.
I look at it this way. As of this AM, approx 65,000 people have been laid off from the major airlines alone. AA has stated the company is in a state of emergency. Planes are empty. We are insuring certain finacial disaster because of the possibility of physical disaster. Sure, if I flew, I imagine I would be nervous. If my family was flying, I would worry. But, I would also feel better knowing that we were helping to try to keep our airlines afloat.
Think about the economic ramifications if American, Delta, United, etc...went under. I'm not an Ec major, but I have many friends that work in travel, and this does seem to be a very real possibility. If we allow ourselves to be so frightened of a "what if", then they will win without lifting another finger. Not only from a symbolic view, but from a finacial one. Now is the time to suck in a deep breath, and take the plane. We get angry at the airlines, their greedy, they overbook, and they lose our stuff. But now is not the time to turn our backs on them.
posted on September 20, 2001 07:32:22 AM new
They'll be trimming their maintenance programs to the bone, no doubt, with little regulatory action to stop them. Since the planes are insured, what better way to do your part to help the airlines than to buy a ticket to anywhere,....or nowhere.
posted on September 20, 2001 07:36:29 AM new
Your friend has a tough decision to make. Prior to 9/11 she was looking forward to this and feeling no anxiety being separated from her children.
I would not be afraid to fly from NY to Fla.
I probably would be a little apprehensive flying from the east coast to the west coast or internationally.
I did hear on the news this morning that cruise ships have been experiencing cancellations.
posted on September 20, 2001 07:41:26 AM new
It's not just transportation. I went to see Kiss Me Kate at the Schubert Theatre in Los Angeles last night. It's a 1300 seat theatre & only half (if that) of the seats were filled. This had been a mostly sold out performance (we fought to get good tickets to it a couple of months ago) and people just didn't show up.
posted on September 20, 2001 07:47:59 AM new
Rancher,
If it were me, I would probably go along with DH & sons. If I couldn't stay overnight with them, I'd stay close by at a hotel.
As for flying, I'd fly today if I had a ticket somewhere.
As for "no doubt" the airlines will be allowing their maintenance to go in order to crash on purpose to get insurance, Actually there is a lot of doubt as to the truth and accuracy of that callous unsubstantiated statement. There is enough real threats without publically spreading rumors simply for the sake of spreading fear.
posted on September 20, 2001 07:55:47 AM new
Hubby is going to Hawaii at the end of the month and so far his trip is still on. I don't have any current travel plans but if I did I wouldn't cancel them.
Especially if the trip is by car, ferry, etc., I see no reason to forego travel. And a cruise? Sure I'd go, if I didn't get horribly seasick on the water.
I can't imagine avoiding public events such as plays, unless financial considerations are behind it.
posted on September 20, 2001 09:35:54 AM new
Real nice, krs. Why don't you try to foresee what will happen to us, as a nation, if the airline industry collapses. Especially if it happens because we were to scared to fly. Because that little economic nightmare is a lot more likely to happen than planes purposly crashing for an insurance check.
It is frightening that the terrorists have mentally manipulated us like this.
[ edited by ConnieM on Sep 20, 2001 09:36 AM ]
posted on September 20, 2001 10:16:33 AM new
Bunnicula,
Is it a choice to not pack your computer?
As a long time diver, and UW photographer, the computers were checked long ago when things like photo gear which are more fragile and expensive became carry on gear.
posted on September 20, 2001 11:10:23 AM new
Well, three days before this happened my husband and I spontaneously decided to drive to NYC to see "The Fantasticks" at the end of the month. It has been running for 41 years and is closing at the end of this year. He has seen it and wanted me to see it, too. With online technology, we bought the tickets to the show and booked a hotel room for one night. We are still planning to go (unless of course something happens between now and then).
posted on September 20, 2001 11:18:26 AM new
Well if the government had a little better track record of being forthright with us we could count on being warned if there was reason to stay home. I view it as reaping what they have sown that people are staying home.
I would be happy to fly on any plane I see a cabinet level official using.
The skies could hardly be safer. Security is dramatically increased (after the fox has gone), and believers in terrorist causes are looking for the deepest of hiding places.
Have a little sympathy for the 85,000 airline indutry lay-offs so far due to the excessive timidity inspired by the disaster.
posted on September 20, 2001 11:30:53 AM new
OMG......will you ppl please CHILL??????? Go about you everyday plans! Plan a vacation? Go for it! Bottom line is this: WHEN YOU ARE DEAD, YOU ARE DEAD! Do you think that you will be looking down from the "heavens" and see what you are missing? Are you going to now live your lives thinking that you are going to die tomorrow? Personally, I refuse to do that.
posted on September 20, 2001 12:31:43 PM newJulie321: One *could* pack the dive computer, but I carry it on: a) because it is expensive and b)because dive shops wherever you are going might not (probably wouldn't) have a Gemini Nitrox dive computer to sell or rent in the event that something happened to my luggage in the cargo hold.
I also carry on my first & second stage. Everything else, fins, mask, wetsuit, and BC vest go into the cargo hold in my dive bag.
posted on September 20, 2001 02:28:34 PM new
Bunnicula - Have you ever thought of shipping it ahead to the hotel or the dive shop you wiill be using? FedEx or UPS is a lot more reliable than the airlines and you can insure it cheaply for the full value and not get in an arguement with the airline about the value. If you are taking a lot it can even cheaper than charges for excess baggage.
If you send it a week ahead or so you will even know for sure if it is waiting for you instead of finding out the airline lost it the day you arrive. We have shipped things ahead FedEx just flying to Florida so we did not have the hassle of dealing with it at the airport. We just take drugs and such on in a very light small carry on.
posted on September 20, 2001 02:59:21 PM new
deliteful,
Because you are not aware of the extreme safety concerns associated with flying does not mean that there are none. Reports associated with the crash of Alaska Air in 1999 point to the broad scale of lapses prior to this incident boh in maintenance practices by airlines et al and the record keeping extant and to the widespread laxity of regulation by the FAA in these matters. The verbage below, taken from one such report should offer substantiation enough for my post above in and of itself, and if you wish more I suggest that you initiate a research on your own so that you will have at least some factual basis for making the derrogatory post above if you find any.
"Many things have happened since the crash that indicate serious
problems not only with this particular plane, but with Alaska Airlines in
general, and, more broadly, the US airline industry as a whole. What
emerges from these revelations is an alarming picture of the state of air
safety.
In the days that followed the crash, three MD-80s aborted flights
because of mechanical problems, including malfunctioning horizontal
stabilizers in two planes, one operated by Alaska Airlines and the other
by American Airlines. This prompted the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) to order the immediate inspection of all MD-80s and similar
aircraft, leading to the grounding of 8 out of 40 of Alaska Airlines' fleet of
such planes, and another 19 by major US carriers such as Continental,
American, Northwest, Delta and TWA. Mechanics had to replace the
jackscrew and nut assemblies on 18 of these aircraft because of damage
and wear.
Given the apparent scale of safety problems, what is remarkable is the
paucity of information available to the flying public".
Given that as a result of this attack the already questionable attention of the FAA to safety matters must be directed of necessity elsewhere, I do not think that it should be beyond the scope of consideration in this thread that heightened safety issues may rank up with heightened security issues as a concern.
posted on September 20, 2001 03:10:09 PM new
As if people aren't frightened enough.....you MUST post these airplane "facts" that will instill more fear?? What REALLY is the point?? Geesh...enough already. Go on with your plans! ENJOY!
posted on September 20, 2001 03:34:58 PM new
These are not "airplane facts" per se. The FAA is very much under the gun to institute security precautions; the airlines are under the gun to do that as well while struggling to remain fiscally viable. I think that safety precautionary practices will be on the back burner for a while, and I think that even the possibility of that being the case is another factor to be considered in light of the others which are affects of this attack.
posted on September 20, 2001 04:01:32 PM new
Move ahead and live life as you always have and keep your plans if you dont it wont be the government you hurt it will be your self.
The government wont be reaping what they so the US economy and all our jobs and lively hoods will be what suffers all the more.
posted on September 20, 2001 04:57:29 PM new
I have very mixed feelings about the proposed airline "bail-out."
On the one hand, the airline industry is a critical, integral, and very necessary part of how our country runs. To allow the industry to collapse would have devastating effects on our economy and put us much more at risk of attacks from our enemies. For these reasons, the bail-out is necessary.
However, the industry has fallen flat on its face when it comes to providing security to its customers and the country in general. I would go so far as to describe it as grossly incompetent. These terrorists did not parachute out of the sky from a stealth plane, blow open the airliners' doors in mid flight and take over the cockpit with machine guns. They just boarded the planes with everyone else and subdued the crews with exacto knives.
In our capitalist society, I would normally say an industry that displays this kind of incompetence should be allowed to wither and die, and be replaced by one that can get the job done right. For the reasons cited above, though, we can't let nature take its course here. They need a bailout.
What I've heard about the new, "beefed up" airline security doesn't give me any reassurances at all. No curbside check-in? They're taking away our steak knives during our midflight meal? Pathetic. Plus, I'm supposed to believe in the midst of massive lay-offs, security will be getting better???
When the mideast buys our 757's and 767's for use in their own countries, they retrofit them to make the cockpit inaccessible from the rest of the plane. They put bathrooms in the cockpit so the pilots do not have to leave the cockpit for any reason. Common sense tells me we should be doing the same. Plus, there should be a security officer on board to deal with problems, so the pilots can concentrate on the business of flying the plane, and not have to leave their posts to deal with a terrorist who has a knife at the throat of one of the stewards.
They're saying the patriotic thing to do now is to just get right back on those planes. And statistically, yeah, I would suppose chances are still very slight that I would end up on a plane that would be commandeered for use as a guided missile. But I still won't be flying anytime soon. I'm patriotic enough to say fine, use my tax dollars to bail out the airlines. But I'm not an idiot. The security system needs to be totally overhauled before I'm going to be comfortable flying.
posted on September 20, 2001 06:31:31 PM new
Well, our family has a major dilemma on our hands...an impending adoption from VietNam. It requires two 1 week trips, approximately 2 months apart... We've waited 11 years to add a child to our family, and we are going to go as far as we can; The only thing that will stop us at this point, is the government.
posted on September 20, 2001 07:07:25 PM new
Sorry but I am not a fatalist who says if my time is up it is up.
I can and do make choices that effect the odds I will be safe or come to harm.
Right now the increased risk of being in a crowd or at a government facility merits caution.
I can understand accepting the added risk for something like an adoption as mentioned - but for something frivelous I would not.
posted on September 20, 2001 10:06:02 PM newGravid: Great idea, but no. My dive computer and first & second stage stay in my hot little hands if at all possible. That way I know they are being treated properly & will be in tip-top working order when I need them. I was careless with my equipment only once--and that resulted in an o-ring popping out of my primary second stage at 50 feet (& thus demonstrating the desirability & usefulness of a Safe Second ). I learned my lesson.
posted on September 21, 2001 12:39:38 AM new
Yeah, but some people on planes are mighty inconsiderate of other people's things. I was on a flight to Portland recently and a woman with an obviously too big bag actually was taking people's stuff out of the overheads and dropping them on the cabin floor as she struggled to fit her damned bag in up there. I had to stand up and point mine out to her with "Lady, you see that bag? You don't touch that bag". I'm scary enough that she sat down with her bag on her lap, then had to ride with her feet up on it when the stewardess wouldn't let her hold it that way.
posted on September 21, 2001 01:12:12 AM new
Hubby was just listening to the shortwave. A person who claimed to have just returned to the US from Israel said his plane held 300 people and there were 6 people on it. Hear-say.
Cin131, I wish you safety and the very best in your adoption.
T
). I learned my lesson.