Clearly I travel a lot. Planes all the time and a wife who needs a camera for Christmas so she can remember what I look like. What gets me (today) is the way airlines in 50 years of aviation history have not figured out how to board planes. Let me help you with my years of experience: people are stupid. (I can hear my daughter’s voice saying, “Don’t say stupid!”). The idea of numbers on a boarding pass is great. 1,2,3…68… They are big. Easy to see. Easy to see on my pass as well as on the guy’s in front of you. The elderly don’t even have to put on their glasses to see them. So, you have a 1 you board first right? I mean, what could possibly come before 1? 0? i? Well, First Class could that’s what. Followed by million miler, 100k, 10k, 1k, Business then exec, premier exec, premier, premmies, and people traveling with walking flu machines. All of these people come before 1 and don’t even get a number. Why? Are we trying to save ink? Surely it costs more to scroll out Premier Executive versus 2. Here is why: the airlines enjoy watching the free for all in the boarding line as passengers toting their double-hot venti lattes elbow to the front only to get rejected and have to stand against the wall and fight the impulse not to trip those behind.

Here is my tip: Number everybody. If you are in first class, guess what? You are number 1! Then Business is 2 , Economy plus 3, Economy minus 4 and so on. Is that so hard? You are mixing the experienced travellers with the sheep. Count them all off and everyone can line up and be counted. Let’s assume you actually got the numbers right. Are we in the air yet? Not by a long shot. You still have to make it to your seat. Here is where I compare boarding to putting on your skinny jeans. It looks like they will all fit. The length is right, they fit before, but in the end you have to suck it in and squeeze. The suck factor definitely still exists (after how many years?) with the seating. Everyone is trying to step over the other. Grandma is oblivious to the bag of bricks she is carrying that keep bouncing off my head on her way by. Someone insists they can shove their Samsonite in the overhead while the flight attendant argues they need to gate check it for an additional $532.33. People don’t know their alphabet and can’t fathom why the letter “i” is not used. The attendants are more overweight then the fat cats in first and their attempt to travel back up the line like salmon returning to spawn only adds to the congestion. An announcement is made to hold your coats in your lap, which promptly causes the entire plane to cram their coat in the overhead like they are arranging newspaper under a log ready for kindling. All in all it is chaos. Here is my tip: no suitcases. None. Zip. Nada. People are sheep (did I say that already?) we cannot handle it. We all failed spacial relations in college and now we pay for it every time we fly. Don’t allow suitcases at all. If a bag is not on your shoulder it must go under the plane. This might encourage us to do a few things like pack less and, dare I say, shop less. Do you really need to run off the plane with your roll-a-board? If you have that many clothes you are obviously at your destination for more than a day so what is the hurry? Without the suitcases we actually could put our coats up. The airlines would not have to waste time designing marketing schemes for 2″ more of legroom. I am not saying that it would be an easy fix, but you have to change the mentality. Try this: close the door and then give a $50 coupon to everyone who did NOT bring a suitcase on. Point out the $&-/()&@ who is making our flight late and reward those that own only a purse and a blackberry. Over time the behavior could change and you might actually build brand stickiness with the coupon. For those of you that are reading this trying to think of how you could scheme my new system, I know you are the same ones who never measured your bag in the stainless steel frame for dimensions. To you I say, “Sit down!”

Posted via email from beuk’s posterous

I guess if you fall asleep to Inception the first time you watch it you have to question if you really watched it at all, right?

I found it amusing that this morning’s newscasters reported they too had fallen asleep on the plane trying to watch it. Today I try again and managed to stay awake. It was much easier once Juno entered the picture. Now I at least understand all the hoopla about at what point is he dreaming. Not sure why the target of the first theft where they failed would then hire them to do an even more difficult job? I believe that he was in the dream long before they got on the lane when Sato interrupted him in the bathroom and we never saw the spindle fall. Anyway, I’ve seen it. Sweet dreams.

Posted via email from beuk’s posterous

I just read a good article, but you’ll never know.  The problem is it wasn’t online or on the Kindle so while I’d love to share it with you it was in a magazine.  Yep, print, paper, ink and it was still a good story, but how will you ever know?

 

Contrary to popular belief print still has good articles.  My wife even told me the Tribune on Sunday said something insightful that wasn’t political!  (something about Mom’s in California wanting proposition 19 to pass for tougher penalties, blah, blah…)  The question is why in this digital age of advancement and Twitbook, Facer, blogs, pogs, etc… you would think someone would use a link shortener or 2D code and put it on everyone of their print articles so that friends could share/spread the news of their story.  When I want to save a blurb I photograph it.  This is easy enough for the daily horoscope, but not a 3 page essay.  Wired Magazine actually does a pretty good job at aligning their content from the magazine to their website, so if you know some of the text you can find the article again online.  Although, still no direct link.

 

All it takes is a number or shortener that can be appended to the root domain and people can see the article online too.  You had to type it up so it is not like there is a conversion process from print back to digital.  I imagine something like this:

 

“Hey, I just read this great article in Esquire.  Check it out:  234ght”

 

Now the user would simply type: http://www.esquire.com\234ght.  That should be it!  There is already room at the end for the editor’s names and some follow-up.  How hard is a lil extra text?  There are more advanced procedures like scanning/photographing 2D codes and such, but then you need to have a camera all the time and on a plane your phone is supposed to be off, therefore no picture taking.  Scratching down the name and code should be simple.

 

Newspapers, journalists, media types there still are ways to get your message out and be heard.  Don’t tell me you audience is dwindling.  You are just being stubborn and not moving to keep pace with them.

Posted via email from beuk’s posterous

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/08/2867806.htm?section=justin

Ryanair is now going to charge customers to use the toilet on the plane.  They will take out two toilets and add 6 seats.  That got me thinking:

A standard Boeing 737 which Ryan operates each has a capacity of 190 passengers.
Add 6 for the new toilets and we get, 196.
If each person carries 4 bits (let's say 2 quarters, because I am American) for the "Just In-Case" chance they may need to use the loo.
and each quarter weighs 5.67 grams we get:

196 * 2 * 5.67 = 2222.64 grams or 4.9 pounds.

That is an additional 4.9 pounds of weight that is now being carried on the plane that may not have before.  It makes sense that 5lbs is lighter than two rooms of toilets especially when gaining 6 potential paying customers, but don't forget that those 6 customers (avg. 180lbs a.) now equate to 1080 additional onboard pounds plus the magazines, snacks, drinks etc.. to accommodate them.  I would not be surprised if these flights actually use the Southwest trick of flying slower to conserve fuel.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aNsp.l2CJ1jk

The other issue is that with passengers not able to go to the loo they will now have to hold it longer, meaning more weight during landing that the plane could have jettisoned earlier.
http://ask.yahoo.com/20031031.html

Guess they are going to have to stop serving frank and beans on Ryan Air too!

Posted via email from beuk’s posterous