"Lou Decruss" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:53:55 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\"" >
> wrote:
>
(Steve Pope) : in
>>rec.food.cooking
>>
>>> Lou Decruss > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:34:53 +0000 (UTC),
>>>
>>>>>I care, in the sense that sound energy policy requires that
>>>>>planes be optimally loaded.
>>>
>>>>I heard a day or so ago than one airline was trying to get the planes
>>>>to fly with less fuel so they used less. The pilots are bitching and
>>>>I don't blame them. It's not like running out of gas and coasting to
>>>>the side of the road.
>>>
>>> This was the US Air pilots. I agree with them, the pilot
>>> not the airline should decide how much fuel load is needed.
>>>
>>> But this is separate from the issue of getting to the optimal
>>> weight payload for the airplane.
>>
>>Jesus... Lou is right. What if there is a problem at the airport and they
>>have to circle several times before landing. Oh mi.
>
> Many things could happen. It's a scary thought.
>
> Lou
Especially after the report regarding the air traffic controllers. After
deregulation by Reagan, they now work on average of 10-12 hour shifts and
get paid around $18k a year. They are wondering why the pool of controllers
is inexperienced/inept. They get what they pay for. If they treated the
employees well and paid them a living wage they would get responsible
workers. Can you see having the planes stacked waiting to land while Junior
tries to figure out what to do in the tower. With the fuel rationed, they
would just start dropping out of the sky. How many planes have to plop on
the tarmac? And most people are now ****ed because they have to pay for
water on the plane ($2 a pop). This is more important.
-ginny