Airlines: Welcome to the Digital Age!

Airlines: Welcome to the Digital Age!

Despite the incredibly complicated new technology being invented in our age, the airplane still remains one of the most impressive inventions. What is more dumbfounding than a 100,000 pounds of metal launching into the air and then moving as fast as the speed of sound to land in another country in less than a day? The machines behind the entire process of air travel are fantastic, so why is the process to board airplanes so mundane?

Well, maybe it doesn’t have to be.  Last week, a Canadian man claimed that he was able to enter the United States with a copy of his passport on his iPad. The article said that after security carefully inspected the digital document, Martin Reisch was ushered through border control.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection later denounced the story as false. They clarified that “scanned images” are not an adequate form of identification. Security gave Reisch leave to enter the U.S. because he also presented his driver’s license and birth certificate.

However, this incident has clearly planted an idea in the minds of technology innovators. What if identification were digital? Today, 35% of adults in the U.S. own a smartphone and most of them are rarely seen without them, especially while traveling. The next time you walk through an airport, or are waiting at a gate, count the number of people around you with their faces buried in their iPhones or blackberries. You will surely count a multitude of people, whether you find that discovery surprising or not. Imagine if all you had to do to confirm your identity, whether to airport security or a police officer, is whip out your phone and show an image or a barcode.

Though we haven’t yet reached the age of digital ID, airlines are already taking advances to make checking-in and boarding easier and more reliant on technology. In 1995 Continental Airlines unveiled kiosks: the little machines with touch screens where people can check-in and receive their boarding passes without assistance. Kiosks are now old news, as is the online check-in initiated by Alaska Airlines in 1999. 80 percent of travelers use these options.

The new technological trend for check-in is electronic boarding passes, eboarding. Though it has been five years since Continental began experimenting with this technology, today it is still not widely used, partly because not many people have heard of it.

I used my first eboarding ticket over the summer, on a flight to Chicago, and found that it made the whole process of check-in much easier. An eboarding pass is simply your plane ticket sent to you via email or text (an option you must chose either when booking your flight or using an airline application already downloaded to your phone). You can then open the ticket on your phone and present it to airport staff for scanning.

The ticket consists of your flight’s information and an image of a bar code. However, it is not a typical barcode. I was confused, afraid my phone was malfunctioning, when I opened the email to find an image of what looked like the snow that appears on a television that has lost its signal. Apparently, the barcodes of eboarding passes are 2D as opposed to 1D. 1D barcodes are what most people expect to see, a series of vertical lines varying in width. Eboarding passes use 2D barcodes because they are easier to send via the web. As an added bonus, 2D barcodes offer greater protection than their 1D counterparts because they are encrypted and much tougher to copy.

Another proof of eboarding passes’ superiority to regular paper tickets is that, with eboarding, you simply present your phone and ID to security and the gate attendant to be admitted to your flight. No more messing around with paper tickets that transform into wrinkled balls or fly away from you and get lost. Also, no more standing in absurdly long check-in lines to get your ticket. You already have it! Of course if you have baggage that needs to be checked, that’s a different story. Finally, the icing on the cake for all those environmentalists out there, eboarding passes are eco-friendly!

While eboarding passes have many advantages, the technology is still developing and the tickets sometimes pose quite a few problems. For one, if your phone’s battery dies, you are essentially screwed. At least in the sense that you have to then check-in regularly, which will further delay your trip. Also, sometimes the scanners have trouble reading the passes or the officers and attendants get flustered and annoyed with the unfamiliar technology. However, the biggest drawback is that for parties of more than one person, the eboarding pass is not very efficient. Unless, each person has the boarding pass handy on their separate phones, it wastes time to handle multiple passes on one device.

Luckily, technology is ever changing and improving. The time will come when only machines run check-in or when airplanes become obsolete in light of even faster modes of transportation. However, for now let us look hopefully to a future of digital IDs and digital ticketing and take advantage of the new technology as it emerges.

Flying Germs!

Flying Germs!

I have some bad news and some worse news. The bad news is that the holidays are over. No more merriment, just time to get back to work in the New Year. The worse news? You could soon become sick, if you are not already. But, your upset stomach may not be the result of gorging on holiday candy, and your fever probably is not a symptom of your depression that the joy of the season has passed. If you want a scapegoat for your coughing and sneezing, blame the airplanes.

As countless families crowded the airports this year with their grimy suitcases and running noses, the risk for disease infection while traveling by air increased 20%. Germs are everywhere, so skipping a flight to maintain your health is flawed logic. But, the facts show that the risk of infection in airports is relatively high.

First there is security. Travelers jostle the unmoving lines, hoping to get through quickly, but all they accomplish is creating a dense crowd of germ-infested people. Once a lone traveler breaks free of the oppressive mas, her peril is not averted. Taking off her shoes, her bare feet must rest on a floor crawling with other people’s bacteria, while her own microscopic bugs are added to the writhing mix. Additionally, the buckets containing her shoes and belongings probably haven’t been cleaned recently. After passing through the scanner, she grabs her belongings from the plastic bins and shoves on her shoes, buckles her belt, and wraps herself in her jacket, all of which have had ample amount of time to soak up hundreds of more germs.

Realizing the danger of unsanitary airports, airline officials have asked researchers to find the areas where prevention needs to be targeted. Airports themselves lack sufficient resources to conduct these studies themselves. Already, a National Academy of Sciences panel is six months into a two-year study that is taking samples of specific airport areas to try to pinpoint opportunities for infection. Besides security, the other possible culprit areas are check-in kiosks and baggage claim.

But exposure to germs doesn’t end after boarding the plane. Far from it! Packing 180 people into a long cylinder container is not at all conducive to one’s good health. High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters can capture 99.97% of bacterial and virus-carrying particles…while the filter is working. During those times when the air filters are turned off (boarding, exiting, for long waits on the ground just to save energy), germs can spread like wildfire. Viruses thrive in low-humidity environments, a perfect description for the air on planes. In these conditions, mucus membranes dry out and the body is less effective at preventing infection.

Yet, the horribly sterile smell that permeates the air on all planes is actually your barrier between infection and disease. In 1979 a study was conducted in which passengers sat on a plane for 3 hours with the engines turned off and no air circulation. 72% of those 54 people got sick within two days of the test. Their flu strain was traced to a single passenger. As a direct result of the study, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued an advisory in 2003 saying that passengers should be removed from the plane within 30 minutes if there is no air circulation. However, this policy is not mandatory, along with many other seemingly important FAA regulations. So beware the air!

And beware those passengers seated 2 seats behind, in front of, and on either side of you. A study from the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, proved this two-seat radius to be the “hot zone” for exposure to disease. Not only is air a problem, but also every surface you touch. Tray-tables, seat pockets, pillows, and blankets all can carry unique diseases that, if obtained, make for a not so pleasant welcome home after the holidays.

However the growth of germs in those areas is rather obvious. People recount stories of a mother changing her child’s diaper on her open tray table or a child sticking his slimy boogers under the tray. Passengers have shuttered as their hands touch the soft remains of a used tissue or squishy old French fry stuffed in the seat pocket. All these instances are indeed gross and don’t help the spread of disease, but taking precautionary measures, infection can be easily avoided. Hydrate, wash, and disinfect: three simple ways to fend off evil viruses. In more explicit terms drink lots of water, wash your hands frequently (embrace the virtues of hand sanitizer), and disinfect your tray table with disinfecting wipes.

Whatever the risk, hypochondria is a poor reason to stop traveling by air. If you don’t believe me, ask a true scientist. Mark Gendreau of Boston’s Lahey Clinic Medical Center and his teammates published a paper in 2005 concluding that passenger’s perceived risk of infection is generally higher than the actual risk. “If you take the proper precautions, you should do quite well,” Dr. Gendreau explained. “In most of us, our immune system does what it was designed to do—protect us from infectious insults.”

Your complaints about unsanitary conditions on planes, while sometimes well founded, are more often then not an expression of fear not of reality. While the crowded flying conditions only serve to increase the growth of bacteria, airport and airline staff members try to keep areas sanitary (though they don’t usually put in their best effort). If anyone is to blame for your contraction of a mysterious sickness, it is your unsanitary fellow passengers and your own careless habits.

By Land or By Air?

By Land or By Air?

It’s right before the holiday season and everyone is caught up in travels to bring the family together. But, before everyone can cozy up around a fire with warm mugs of hot chocolate, the details of the trips have to be planned and those many miles have to be traversed. But what is the best way to do so: car, train or plane? To solve this problem, I isolated three different trips, one short (from DC to New York City), one medium (from DC to Chicago), and one long (from DC to Los Angles). After examining each journey, I found that the one I expected to be the correct answer for each trip was shockingly incorrect.

Considering speed, I found that for all of these journeys, including from DC to NYC, the plane is actually the best option. Many travelers would strike the plane out when traveling short distances because they believe the time spent driving to and from the airport, passing through security, and waiting at the gate makes the overall commute much longer than a drive. Yet, the facts show that air travel, even when adding an extra three hours to the actual plane ride, is quicker than a car ride; Compare about 3 hours and 30 minutes to 4 hours. I am not even factoring in the unavoidable holiday traffic, which can make car trips twice as long. Trains, due to the recommended 60 mile per hour speed limit set by the federal railroad administration, travel slower than cars, whose drivers rarely obey the limits. However, there is no traffic on a railway. Compared to a drive through holiday traffic, a train ride can be significantly quicker. For medium and long trips, the plane is quicker without question, deducting anywhere from 6 hours to a whole day off the journey. Yet, if scheduled correctly, the train trip can sometimes be the most efficient. If one takes an overnight train from DC to Chicago spending 8 hours sleeping, then the 11 hour journey becomes a mere 3 hours of active time. To travel by air the trip takes about four hours. Finally, even if a car can get you to your destination fastest, the time spent is wasted because you are forced to pay attention to the road, while on planes and trains you can read, study, work, or sleep.

Probably the most important factor in travel mode is cost. It does cost more to fly to New York than to drive there, but the approximately 19 dollar difference is less than one would imagine. Also, I’ve only taken into account the cost of fuel for the car ride. If you plan to get snacks along the way, a luxury that is provided complimentary in flights, the cost of driving could overtake the cost of a plane ride for even short distances. As for trains, short distances are pretty expensive, more so than a flight; from DC to NYC the cost of a train ticket is about 118 dollars. However, from DC to Chicago, the price of a ticket is 10 dollars less than an airplane ticket. The gas used in a drive up to Chicago costs about 130 dollars but because the person will have to eat multiple times during that 9 hour or more journey, the overall cost could raise to be the same as the cost of the 200 dollar plane or train ticket. Once you begin to consider distances larger than the 600 miles from DC to Chicago, buying a plane or train ticket becomes progressively cheaper than driving to your destination. Lastly, one must consider competition. There are many airlines in the US and all of them compete to get passengers to purchase their tickets. On the other hand, Amtrak is the only train service that reaches destination all across the US. Amtrak thus has a sort of monopoly in the railway transportation industry and so has a more limited supply of trips and sells tickets at higher prices. Overall, the most cost efficient way to travel depends on the distance of the journey, but flying is a cheaper option than most people would expect.

If you have to pay to travel somewhere, you would hope that the journey would be safe and comfortable. Comfort is really a matter of opinion. Many travelers despise airplanes with their small seats, upright backs, and minimal leg room, but I would choose to ride on a plane where I can walk around, read, study, or sleep than to drive in a car where I can’t move for hours. However, whether you want more space or time to be active, a train is the most comfortable option. Passengers are always able to walk around (no takeoff and landing policies) and some trains offer sleeping cabins with beds. Trains are also the safest way to travel. Not so surprisingly, planes are the second safest mode of transportation with a fatality rate of 2.3 billion passenger miles (a passenger mile is equivalent to one passenger transported one mile). The fatality rate for cars, in contrast, is 7.2 billion passenger miles. I find it odd that, in light of these statistics, so many people are afraid of flying but willingly hop is cars everyday. 40,0000 people die in driving accidents every year, whereas some years there are no fatalities in plane crashes. People are probably irrationally afraid of planes because the likelihood of passengers surviving a plane crash is far less than the likelihood of passengers surviving a car accident. However, the chance of a plane crashing is far less than a car crashing, especially as roads become clogged with holiday traffic and road rage ensues.

Generally, people are right to take the car for short journeys and a plane or train for longer trips. But, during the holiday season, when traffic fills up almost every major roadway, flying seems to be the fastest, most cost efficient, and safest option for any distance of travel. I would advise anyone who has not yet made their holiday travel plans to schedule a plane trip; you will probably be in a much more festive mood than if you take a car!

My Space is Not Your Space

My Space is Not Your Space

by Brittany Sanok

One of the biggest fears of air travelers is who will sit next to you on the plane. The last thing anyone wants to hear as a co-passenger arrives at his or her seat is, “I really want to apologize. I’m your worst nightmare.”

Unfortunately for Arthur Berkowitz, those were the exact words that issued from his kind, but morbidly obese co-passenger’s mouth as the 400 pound man plopped himself into the middle seat. Even with the armrests up, the man’s size pushed the poor exchange student on one side of him up against the window. On the other side, the man’s blubber spilled into Berkowitz’s seat, making it extremely uncomfortable to sit and impossible for Berkowitz to fasten his seat belt. He immediately asked the crew if he could switch to a business class seat but the plane was full. When he inquired whether he could sit in the flight attendant seating area, the crew told him that, due to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, all flight attendant seating is off-limits to passengers. So, for takeoff and landing, Berkowitz squeezed himself into his seat, even though he couldn’t fasten his seatbelt, and for the rest of the seven hour US Airways flight from Anchorage to Philadelphia, Berkowitz trudged up and down the aisles of the plane. “I didn’t fly from Alaska to Philadelphia”, Berkowitz said of his ordeal ”I stood”. The whole problem boils down to the fact that there need to be stricter policies to deal with “passengers or customers of size,” as some airlines politely put it.

However, many airlines consider the subject to be a taboo. If airlines charged overweight passengers more for their seats, someone would cry “discrimination” and then airlines would have much bigger problems on their hands. In fact, some people have successfully sued airlines for discrimination against heavier people. One woman sued Southwest airlines because the flight attendant told her she would need to purchase an extra seat after she had already boarded the flight. Another person had the opportunity to sue the crew of an Air France flight when they wrapped him in packing tape. The crew then tried squishing the American into a seat in which he did not fit, to prove that if the man wanted to fly, he would have to purchase another seat. While the crew on Air France clearly did not handle the situation well (though, really, what would you expect from those slim, American-hating French?), both crews in both situations made a good point: if you can’t fit in your seat, you should have to purchase another one. People have to pay for the extra luggage they bring on flights because their bags take up more space, so passengers should also have to pay for the extra mass they bring on a plane because that, too, takes up space. The last one who should suffer from the effects of another man’s obesity is the passenger sitting next to him.

Following the horrible seven hours Berkowitz was forced to stand, he contacted US Airways to complain, and what did they offer the disgruntled man? – A lousy 200-dollar voucher for his 800-dollar flight. Yet, US Airway’s foolishness doesn’t stop there. After Berkowitz called the airline multiple times, trying to voice his concerns, the airline declared the issue closed and, in a formal statement, said “We have attempted to address this customer’s service concerns, but offering increasing amounts of compensation based on a threat of a safety violation isn’t really fair — especially when the passenger himself said he didn’t follow the crew members’ instructions and fasten his seat belt.” US Airways turned the blame on Berkowitz because he didn’t use a seatbelt that was impossible to buckle!

In no way did US Airways handle the situation fairly. It seems that the airline needs a better, more concrete system to deal with overweight passengers. It’s ironic that US Airways does, in fact, have a defined policy to prevent situations such as Berkowitz’s from occurring. US Airways, supposedly, will book a passenger on a later flight or charge the passenger for an additional seat if the person cannot fit in his or her assigned seat. Other airlines also have policies, but really the policies are more like guidelines. Neither American nor Delta requires a passenger to buy an extra seat, but the airlines warn passengers that they should recognize that an overweight passenger might be asked to leave the flight. My personal favorite policy is the one adopted by Southwest and Midwest. It states that a person of size should purchase an extra seat if the person knows he or she will need it. But, if it turns out the flight is not full, the passenger can claim a refund from the company.

However because these are all merely suggestions, the gate attendant, just like any human, would probably be too uncomfortable forcing a person to purchase an extra seat or making a person leave the plane if he or she looked overweight. That is why Berkowitz was stuck standing the entire flight, because someone didn’t have the nerve to discourage the obese man from boarding. Airlines should turn their policies regarding “passengers of size” into rules, so that gate and flight attendants can enforce the regulations without so much reluctance, thereby making flying a little more comfortable for everyone.

Let Me Off This Plane!

Let Me Off This Plane!

By Brittany Sanok

For three hours, you have been sitting on a stuffy plane surrounded by crying babies and complaining people. You’re legs are beginning to cramp up as you yearn for more room than the stingy airline gives you in its economy seating. Now your situation would be bearable if you were in the air, knowing every minute you spend flying is another minute closer to your destination and your freedom from the plane. But, you’re not flying. You are stuck in the plane, on the tarmac, waiting to takeoff. Precious time in your life is wasting away. So the question is, when is enough, enough?

On Monday, DOT charged American Airlines with a $900,000 fine for keeping a total of 608 passengers aboard fifteen flights waiting on the tarmac of Chicago’s O’Hare International airport on May 29, 2011. Because of inclement weather, no flights were able to leave O’Hare, but the airline kept sending planes from other destinations into the airport. To make room for incoming flights, the aircraft that were unable to take off were driven to the tarmac and the passengers were not allowed to exit. It was a ridiculous incident, one that could easily have been avoided if American Airlines had planned more efficiently. But, because of the company’s foolish disorganization, it must pay $650,000 of its fine to DOT within thirty days and the remaining $250,000 must be credited towards rewards, vouchers, and frequent flyer miles for passengers.

While the total fine is the largest penalty ever paid by an airline in a consumer protection case (excluding those cases dealing with civil rights violations), it still falls significantly below the monetary amount American Airlines could have paid. The low fine is due to the fact that after the incident the airline and DOT reached a settlement agreement. But, according to the rules outlined in the “Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections” policy that was put into effect in April 2010, a flight must let its passengers out after three hours or risk a fine of $27,000 per passenger. Therefore, if the case had been taken into court and the judge had found American Airlines guilty, which he easily would have, the airline would have had to have paid over 16 million dollars!

This new fine policy was designed to crack down on airlines that had been disregarding the 3-hour delay cap that had been in place for quite some time. From 2009 to 2010 there were 693 reported delays of over three hours and 105 delays of over four hours. Airlines ignored the rule because, before 2010, the penalties for breaking the delay limit rule were insignificant and airlines didn’t want to loose profits by cancelling flights. However, many people were annoyed that, after the rule was put into effect and despite airlines’ violations, DOT did not enforce the fine. After American Airline’s incident, it took DOT six months to exact the fine: six months during which American Airlines probably spent lobbying and pleading for a lower penalty – which they got.

Yet, even without the rule’s enforcement, there have been signs of the policy’s massive impact. Since the announcement of the new policy, the number of flights with tarmac delays of over three hours has decreased by 97 percent and there have been no reports of delays exceeding four hours. It seems the threat of the rule has caused airlines to be more conscientious. The idea of using threats to achieve outcomes is a common one. The police department uses it everyday. When a driver sees a police car, he slows down. The policeman does not need to arrest the driver to make him drive at the speed limit – the threat is enough to enforce the law. The number of flight delays on the tarmac for over three hours lowered significantly because airlines were threatened by the new policy. Of course, if the policeman never arrests anyone, his threatening power will become obsolete: the policeman arrests speeders once in awhile to maintain his influence. By fining American Airlines, DOT has proven the legitimacy of its new policy, which will hopefully prevent airlines from delaying flights on the tarmac in the future.

Though, there have already been some unforeseen effects to this rule designed to improve passenger comfort. Many airlines, instead of risking the fine, are cancelling their flights when they see a risk for a long delay. ”The rule appears to be associated with an increased number of cancellations for thousands of additional passengers — far more than DOT initially predicted — including some who might not have experienced a tarmac delay,” a recent Government Accountability report concluded. Of course, everything can’t work out perfectly. And I, for one, would much rather stay in the warmth of my own home as I re-schedule my flight then sit squashed in an over packed, noisy, and claustrophobic metal cylinder for who knows how long.

In recent years, airline passenger comfort has become a greater concern. Many people have started petitioning the government for new legislation regarding passenger rights. The members of FlyersRights.org advertise themselves as the “largest non-profit consumer organization representing online passengers.” Founded by Californian resident Kate Hanni, the organization lobbies Congress for improved airline conditions and publicizes passenger’s airplane horror stories to grab the attention and support of the public. Also, Congressional representative Mike Thompson has tried to introduce a bill to Congress which would require all airline flights, including those run by non-US carriers, to provide water, food, working toilets, ventilation, and the option to depart from the plane in the event of a delay. It seems like a perfectly reasonable request, but Congress has denied the bill three times.

I guess it would be too much to ask airlines to provide people with basic necessities and comforts. It’s true that the industry for airlines is very expensive. The cost to buy planes, buy fuel, hire professionals, and set up communications is astronomical. So airlines think they can forgo providing their customers with food and water to make more substantial profits. However, when people spend complete workdays sitting in the same rigid seat, they deserve basic comforts.

Tropical Cuban Beaches – Still Only a Dream

Tropical Cuban Beaches – Still Only a Dream

By Brittany Sanok

There are direct flights from the U.S. to practically every country in the world, except one: Cuba. Since 1961 and the start of our trade embargo, the government has prevented American citizens from traveling to the Communist country. But times are changing. At the beginning of 2009, Obama announced his initiativeto “reach out to the Cuban people in support of their desire to freely determine their country.”

It’s about time! The U.S. trade embargo on Cuba has become a bit ridiculous. American citizens are allowed to fly leisurely to China, Iran, Iraq, and even Syria, but we are not allowed to visit Cuba. We have been holding an unnecessary grudge against Cuba because of our hatred of its leader, Fidel Castro, who may not even be alive. The fact that our government has finally decided to open up travel between select U.S. cities and Cuba is, a step in the right direction. However, we are taking mere baby steps to improved relations, which leads me to question the effectiveness of these “initiatives.” Do these new policies promise something more or is the government just running in circles?

Certain companies are seeking to restore direct flights between select U.S. airports and Havana, Cuba. One such company is Marazul, a Miami-based travel agency and a partner of Delta airlines. “We are excited to get back into the market in partnership with Marazul,” Delta spokeswoman Gina Laughlin said. While her response promises nothing concrete, some flights did travel from Miami to Havana in October. This Sunday, Marazul is offering a direct flight between New York City’s John F. Kennedy International Airport and Havana. Also, Marazul says, starting this December, it will provide weekly flights to Cuba from Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport.

Other companies also seem to have taken advantage of the new frontier in flights to Cuba. Island Travel & Tours Ltd. plans to set up direct flights from BWI-Marshall airport to Cuba. The travel agency hopes to attract the customers in the Washington DC area, primarily diplomats, businessmen, and religious groups. The flights will operate like scheduled airline flights, leaving BWI at fixed times every Wednesday. So the airlines are fulfilling their promise regarding direct flights to Cuba. Yet, it seems unrealistic to hope that the government would suddenly allow its citizens to travel so easily to Cuba after a 62-year embargo on the country.

My skepticism is indeed warranted. Upon looking at the finer details of these flights, I see one pretty big hindrance to U.S. citizens’ supposed “direct travel” to Cuba. Apparently, only passengers who have been “duly authorized” by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) can travel on these flights. And federal rules say that the passengers who receive permission to visit Cuba must be on “purposeful” travel. So you can forget taking your vacation to Cuba to enjoy the beautiful beaches and tropical climate. The people who the government allows on these flights will most likely be restricted to businessmen, professionals, students, and people visiting close relatives.

Even if someone does believe his trip to Cuba is “purposeful,” he will have to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops to get authorization. First, he must secure a Cuban visa: reasonable, considering visas are required for travel to some other countries, China for instance. Then he will need to obtain a license from the U.S. Treasury Department. Next, the traveler must create a full itinerary of his activities during the trip, knowing, in advance, where he will be and what he will be doing every day that he is in Cuba. Finally, upon boarding, he will be subjected to multiple check-ins and document verifications – let’s see you try to keep track of all those papers.

But, if the tedious process to obtain authorization and the thought of passing through tight security doesn’t deter the traveler from visiting Cuba, the price of the ticket will. A round-trip ticket from BWI costs about $800. Island Travel & Tours Ltd. views the high price for the three hour fifteen minute flight as acceptable when taking into account the complicated travel requirements and hefty charges to land in Cuba. But I think the price is simply not worth the hassle.

Don’t get me wrong, the government is making progress in opening its doors to Cuba. We can’t expect the embargo to end suddenly – Americans are not that easy-going. However, the government’s baby steps are simply not beneficial for the average traveling citizen. If an American really wants to travel to Cuba, it’s still easier to fly out of a foreign country – where the only challenges are the normal woes and discomforts of flying through airports.

A Painful Landing

A Painful Landing

By Brittany Sanok

Everyone knows how painful it is to belly flop into a pool, so imagine a plane belly flopping onto the tarmac of an airport and then skidding to a halt, sparks flying everywhere. Last Tuesday, 220 passengers and 11 crewmembers experienced this terrifying ride as their LOT Polish airlines flight from Newark, New Jersey, descended into Poland’s Frederis Chopin International airport. The pilot’s circled the plane above the airport for 80 minutes after its scheduled arrival time before making their dramatic landing. They were probably trying to figure out how to land without landing gear and cursing the people who had manufactured their malfunctioning Boeing 767. Luckily, no one was injured in the skid. The plane didn’t burst into flames as one might expect after such a landing because someone had cleverly thought to coat the tarmac with fire retardant. However, as the plane screeched to a stop, firefighters still had to hose down the smoking aircraft. Emergency vehicles also stood by, waiting as people bumped down the plane’s yellow emergency exit slides. Back at the terminal, LOT rounded up a team of support staff and psychologists to calm the disturbed passengers.

So what really went wrong? It wasn’t the crew’s fault. In fact, LOT praises the pilots for conducting “a perfect emergency landing.” Apparently, the landing gear simply would not come down: so the Boeing manufaturing company is the one at fault. As the pilots began their descent, they noticed a failure in the hydraulic system used to lower the gear. Normally this wouldn’t have been a problem, but I guess the manufacturers didn’t expect that the back-up system would fail too. The back-up seems simple enough – an electric motor opens the doors containing the wheels and releases the gear-up locks, then gravity simply pulls the gears down into a locked position. As the pilots were biding time by circling above the airport, some fighter jets flew up to take a look at the plane and check to see if the back-up system was working. Unfortunately, those military pilots confirmed that the gear was not down and informed the pilots of their predicament. But, the LOT pilots still skillfully landed the plane and saved the lives of the people aboard their flight.

Now, as one would expect, LOT airlines is trying to smooth everything over. LOT is one of the world’s oldest airlines and a member of the Star Alliance, which includes United and Continental airlines. Currently, it is offering special deals on flights from the New York area to Warsaw, Poland. The airline is afraid of loosing its clientele because of such a scary incident and for good reason. If I had to fly to Poland, my first reaction would be to choose any other airline besides LOT. However, should the airline really be punished for this incident? It seems the trained LOT pilots did their job perfectly. What failed to fulfill its task was the equipment – a product of Boeing. A similar situation occurred after 9/11 when American and United airlines struggled to attract passengers to their flights. It wasn’t the airlines fault that the terrorists decided to board their flights, just like it wasn’t LOT’s fault that the machinery was broken. That responsibility lies in the hands of Boeing.

If I sell my friend a glass of milk but it turns out the expiration date on the gallon is wrong and the milk is actually sour, is it my fault? The producers are at fault for labeling the milk incorrectly and as such a boycott should be directed towards the milk producer’s company not on my milk stand. However, one could argue that I should have checked my product before selling it. I become an untrustworthy middleman. Similarly, it is the job of any airline to check its equipment before using it commercially. Of course, the circumstances of the landing gear failure on the LOT flight have yet to be determined. It could be that LOT airlines failed to inspect their gear before takeoff, in which case they deserve the blame. But, if LOT conducted normal pre-flight safety inspections and the gear unexpectedly malfunctioned in the air, then Boeing should take responsibility.

Investigations are being conducted as police try to figure out the reasons for the plane crash. Until more information is known, it is a gamble between whether LOT airlines or Boeing is guilty. But considering Boeing’s extensive history with plane crashes, I would put my money on Boeing’s flaw in design.

Airplane Diva Disasters

Airplane Diva Disasters

By Brittany Sanok

When little kids refuse to fasten their seat belts, adults consider them obnoxious and naughty. But when a celebrity refuses to put on her seatbelt before a flight, she’s considered a diva. That was the case with Whitney Houston last Wednesday when she refused to buckle up for take-off. Sources say she was simply upset over missing an earlier flight.

So it’s ok if a celebrity doesn’t abide by airline rules, right? Wrong. The crew threatened to kick Whitney off the plane if she didn’t put on her seatbelt. Eventually, she was so kind as to let a crew member grab the buckle and fasten the seatbelt for her. She obviously couldn’t mess up her nails on the day she was shooting the first scene of her new movie, “Sparkle.” Not only did Whitney cause a scene, but she also delayed the flight. If I were a passenger aboard that plane, I would have been extremely annoyed.

However, ____Whitney’s fit____ doesn’t come close to some of the truly ____stubborn acts celebrities think they can commit____ on airplanes. A flight attendant asked Billie Joe Armstrong to pull up his pants, which were exposing an indecent amount of his skin, but Green Day’s lead singer refused. The crew proceeded to kick Billie off the Southwest Airlines flight for indecent exposure and for refusing to cooperate. I guess Billie couldn’t abandon his rock-star look for even a few hours aboard a flight. Actor Josh Duhamel was just as arrogant when he refused to switch-off his Blackberry before his flight. The plane was just about to take off, but the pilot had to steer the plane back to the terminal so that airline security could escort the stubborn Josh from the aircraft.

It is rude for celebrities to misbehave on airplanes. Famous people seem to think they are so superior that they can act however they wish, disregarding public safety or, in Billie’s case, public repulsion. Or maybe they want to make a scene so they can get a big news story, even if they are depicted as rude and snobbish. However, it could also be that the media picks on celebrities just because they are famous. We never hear about average Joe being kicked off a flight for refusing to buckle his seat belt. Is it because average people are more compliant with regulations, or is it because no one cares enough about average Joe being kicked off a flight to get any news coverage? Celebrities are always caught committing foul acts more often than the average person, even though we know everyone misbehaves. Yet, I believe we hear more about celebrity tantrums on planes for two reasons. First, celebrities are constantly being watched by the media. So, when they have one bad day or commit any little inappropriate act, it is blown out of proportion. Second, celebrities believe they can get away with more because they are used to letting their inner diva shine; they complain outrageously until they get what they want.

Unfortunately, their inner diva shines in unpleasant ways. French actor Gerard Depardieu urinated into an Evian water bottle in the middle of the airplane aisle because the crew would not allow him to use the toilet immediately before the take-off of the flight. The passengers watched in disgust as the bottle began to overflow, and the crew immediately removed Gerard from the plane. Exactly like a child: refusing to wait to go to the bathroom. Supermodel Naomi Campbell made just as much of a scene, though in not as revolting a manner on a British airways flight. She cursed at the crew, told three police officers to “f*** off,” and began thrashing out, striking one officer in the face, all because the airport had lost her bags. While I understand her distress, especially considering that her bag was probably stuffed with astronomically expensive supermodel clothes, that does not give her the right to start fighting in public and thus delay a flight.

A commonality among all these celebrity fits on planes is that they end up postponing the scheduled take-off. I’m sure the regular passengers, who already spent a total of three hours going through security, waiting to board, and then waiting on the tarmac, do not want to delay their flight any longer simply because of one stubborn person, even if it is a celebrity. In every case the crew has to spend an extra half hour coping with the unruly celebrity and removing him or her from the plane. However, it is nice to know celebrities don’t get special treatment. In every case, the crew tried to reason with the celebrity before just kicking him or her off the flight. So while it is annoying to suffer flight delays from passenger tantrums, I commend flight crews everywhere for treating celebrities just like normal passengers. Even if you are a multi-grammy award winning singer like Whitney, you still are required to wear a seatbelt.

The New Job of Air Marshals

The New Job of Air Marshals

By Brittany Sanok

Four air marshals converged on one unruly passenger on the Delta flight from Amsterdam to Detroit last Tuesday. Mr. Hansen, who had barged into the off-limits business class section of the plane, refused to return to his seat. He then claimed to possess lethal weapons and accused the crew of hijacking the plane. The air marshals tried to hold down the undoubtably drunk man, but Hansen continued to disrupt the flight. “____Mr. Hansen____ threatened to urinate in the aircraft galley and grabbed his penis and threatened to urinate all over himself,” complained one disgusted passenger. Apparently the force of four air marshals wasn’t enough to subdue one drunk man. It makes me wonder how air marshals would prevent a terrorist – someone who possess weapons more lethal than his own appendages – from hijacking a plane.

Overall, this event seems pure fiction. In fact, it almost mirrors the airplane scene from the movie Bridesmaids. When I first saw the scene, I did not believe it could occur in real life. Annie, the protagonist, becomes so drunk that she barges into the first-class cabin, refuses to leave, insults the flight attendants, and is so unruly that an air marshal has to subdue her. Before seeing the movie, I was completely naive to the job of air marshals. They act like regular passengers. Travelers are not supposed to be aware that an air marshal is aboard their flight, which is why many people only hear about air marshals in stories. In the movie, when one of the bridesmaids attempts to reveal the air marshal’s identity, he repeatedly denies his job. Dressed in jeans and a striped shirt, he truly looks like a nondescript passenger. It’s shocking when he later reveals himself. I can only imagine the surprise on the faces of those Delta flight passengers when, not one, but four marshals ran to the crew’s aid.

The government did significantly expand the size of the air marshal force after 9/11 and its numbers continue to grow. While air marshals can help the crew restore order to a flight and physically enforce the law, their ____main job____ is to “detect, deter, and defeat hostile acts targeting U.S. air carriers, airports, passengers, and crews.” Basically, air marshals are meant to prevent terrorist attacks by air.

Apparently they have a very prominent role in law enforcement. Air marshals are considered some of the best marksmen in law enforcement and they fly about 181 days a year, spending five hours a day on aircraft. As such, the training is strenuous and the requirements to become an air marshal are strict. Just to name a few, aspiring air marshals must earn a bachelor’s or master’s degree, receive three years of law enforcement experience, receive aviation training, undergo a panel interview, and be in prime physical condition. Also, all air marshals must be under the age of 37. Surprisingly enough, my browses through online air marshal forums reveal that many people are willing to stick-out the training to get the job. Maybe they are attracted to the financial stability. An air marshal can earn anywhere between 40,000 and 90,000 dollars; above the average household income in America.

However well trained air marshals may be, how effective are they? Considering the only news I’ve heard regarding air marshals, features them subduing unruly passengers, not saving flights from terrorists, I wonder to what extent they actually protect our country. First, the industry is not very cost effective. Air marshals arrest on average only four people a year, while the federal government spends 930 million dollars of tax payer money to sustain the industry. It would cost less to give pilots firearms and teach them how to use the weapons. Also, most cock-pits are now built with hardened doors so terrorists have more difficulty taking over the plane. According to a____study____ by Professors John Mueller of Ohio State and Mark Stewart of the University of Newcastle, hardened doors cost 800,000 dollars per life saved, whereas air marshals cost 180 million dollars per life saved. Finally, over 90 percent of airline flights take off without any air marshal personnel on board, making it all the more strange that four air marshals were found on the same flight.

Based on these statistics, it seems that air marshals serve little purpose aboard fights. However, I would not go so far as to condemn the whole air marshal force as inefficient. Besides just protecting flights in the air, air marshals research possible terrorist attacks, review intelligence reports from foreign countries, and scan passenger and cargo lists of every U.S. bound flight. Though the office work that air marshals conduct is not revealed to the public, it is crucial in preventing terrorist attacks from their beginning. So while air marshals in the sky may do little other then preventing a drunk man from dumping his bodily fluids in the aisles, air marshals on the ground are essential in protecting our country.

Safe and Secure…or Not?

Safe and Secure…or Not?

By Brittany Sanok

My family walked up to a shockingly empty security line at LaGuardia airport in New York for our flight back into Reagan National in DC. Of course, the line was only empty because it was 9:00 at night and we were in a portion of the airport only shuttles use; however, the emptiness was a nice contrast to the busy airports I am used to. Stepping up to the scanner we began the long, tedious process of putting our carry-on bags and laptops in separate bins, taking off our jackets and shoes, and placing the whole mess on the conveyor belt. As my youngest brother began to strip his shoes off, the TSA stopped him and let him walk through the detector, shoes and all, with no problem.

Apparently, airport security policies for children have been revised. Children under the age of 12 can now pass through security with their shoes on and TSA has modified the way they pat-down children to be less intrusive. A wonderful and progressive development? In some ways yes. The shoe rule change will save parents time they would normally spend coaxing their kids to take off their shoes or carefully removing their baby’s booties. Also, fewer bins on the conveyor belt leads to an overall quicker scan. As far as the modified pat-downs are concerned, the public can rest a little easier knowing their children are not being subjected to inappropriate and wholly unnecessary gropes by the TSA. The new pat-down policy is a direct response to the outrage many parents expressed about searching children, especially after the video showing an improper ____frisking of a 6 year old girl____ ran rampant on YouTube.

However, the problem with this development is that while it may give parents peace-of-mind and leave a lot of kids happy, it does absolutely nothing to improve adults’ experience. Parents still have to remove their own shoes as their impatient children wait on the other side of security. And, it takes adults a lot longer to take off their loafers than it does for children to slip off their flip-flops.

In early September, when Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary, hinted about the changes in shoe regulations in airport security, people started to get excited about the possiblities of a quicker security process. She stated, “we are moving towards an intelligence and risk-based approach to how we screen…I think one of the first things you will see over time is the ability to keep your shoes on.” Her vague words were simply false hope. Sure, the process is now quicker for kids, who should face minimal security inspections in the first place, but nothing has changed for adults. In fact, her words seem to indicate that airports will start to focus on racial profiling more to randomly select passengers to screen. So now people will be selected for “randomized” screening just on the way they look. It seems airport security remains a traveler’s worst nightmare.

I loathe standing in massive unmoving lines, unpacking all my belongings before security, and rushing to put my clothes back on before the crowds converge upon me. However, I think people have forgotten the reason for all these safety measures. Travelers get so caught up in their own personal problems with security and hatred of the TSA that they forget these regulations were put into effect to catch terrorists.

Controversies have sprung up over the new airport technology which allows the TSA to see completely through your clothes. While the technology allows the TSA to detect any metallic and non-metallic objects concealed on a person, it also reveals a very thorough depiction of one’s silhouette and the outline of one’s underwear. People deplore these machines as an invasion of their privacy. “Body scanners produce graphic images of travelers’ bodies and are an assault on their essential dignity,” said __Barry Steinhardt__, director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Project. While it’s certainly unsettleing to think of any person looking through your clothes, it is the perfect way to catch terrorists: a much better, less discriminatory approach then the racial profiling Napolitano implied. If this technology truly can detect any type of bomb or weapon some crazy person is trying to transport onto a plane, is it really that bad?

Immediately after 9/11, everyone understood the need for extreme precaution in airports. Even two years after the plane crashes, travelers complied with airport restrictions willingly. Now it has been ten years since the event and travelers have become more than discontent. I am just as impatient and complain as much as everyone else, but even I sometimes have to wonder if my arguments are justified. In some cases, such as the frisking of innocent children, they are. No child should be subjected to that kind of exposure. And I fully support new policies directed at decreasing children inspections. But looking at the images of these new ____airport body scanners____, I wonder if the privacy you sacrifice as the TSA observes a distinct outline of your silhouette is really more significant than a possible terrorist attack. I long for a day when travelers can just breeze through airport security, but hearing people complain about “useless” security measures still brings to mind the phrase: it’s better to be safe than sorry.