 | | Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) Excuse me, but I've got to rail a bit about all this punning. Some of us aren't really stoked for it, and find we've run out of steam long before we've made the grade. Nothing stops you people once you get rolling; stock prices could crash, (...) (26 years ago, 5-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) Sorry if it bothers you, but you don't have to get all LOCO about it. WHEEL stop after a COUPLER more. UNIT, TRAIN yourself to just ignore them. Any any traveler knows, Carryon is better than checked. (26 years ago, 5-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) DIESEL kill me if they keep up. Steve (26 years ago, 5-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
Yeah, but they're so Engenious! (...) (26 years ago, 5-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | really, really bad puns (was Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
I'm SIDING with Steve, stop SPURring us on, John. I'm not sure I can EXPRESS myself any more clearly. (26 years ago, 5-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: really, really bad puns (was Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) You guys must really enjoy PUNisment. (It is the original.) And when Punning, all is fair. Louise (26 years ago, 6-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: really, really bad puns (was Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) This is getting really TERMINAL. There must be SUBWAY we can head this off. I really want to be an AGENT of change. We must BRIDGE our differences, make a POINT of SWITCHing our tactics, and LEGO this whole thread. Steve (26 years ago, 6-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: really, really bad puns (was Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) This thread is already a YARD long and becoming less atTRACKtive. The real humor in this LINE of discussion SPIKEd a long time ago. We should put our semi-CONDUCTORS to better use. Think I'll go TIE one on... -Tom McD. (26 years ago, 6-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: really, really bad puns (was Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) Use a PUN, go to prison. "I should be punishéd For every pun I shed. Do not leave a puny shred Of my punnish head." -Dr. Samuel Johnson (26 years ago, 6-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: really, really bad puns (was Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
Don't freight and have a cow; Guard above will protect you. [1] [1] more proof that all threads eventually lead to the existence of Guard;) (...) (26 years ago, 6-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: really, really bad puns (was Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) ?? That one lost me. (26 years ago, 6-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: really, really bad puns (was Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) Fret and cow guard (cow catcher). Guard I assume is God. Wow. I thought I stretched puns, but those are crossing bounds I've never seen before. That's almost the tail WAGON the dog. -Tom McD. (26 years ago, 6-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 19:22:37 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following profundities... (...) However, it is so often the case that proponents of this philosophy are extremely selfish, leaving no room for anyone else's carry-on. Their one bag taking (...) (26 years ago, 7-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
Whew, you pressed a hot button there. Two points. First, on carryon: Airlines need to make their bins bigger. I am a business traveler. I am often paying 5 and 10 times as much as the leisure traveler because I had to make my arrangements at the (...) (26 years ago, 7-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) I don't fly much, actually never when I can avoid it, so I don't know much about it. But isn't the airline responsible for any damage they might cause to your luggage? (26 years ago, 7-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
Come on, Larr, don't hold back. Tell us how you _really_ feel;-) BTW Please post your travel itinerary so that the rest of us will know which dates to block out for fear of getting steam rolled by samsonite{:-O Personally, I hate the hassles of (...) (26 years ago, 7-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) Yes, but dirt, wet, straps torn off, scratches, or rips in the material are all "normal wear and tear", so, **essentially**, no. (26 years ago, 7-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) I would think that if you forced an airline employee to sign a receipt for your luggage stating that it had none of those things that if you get it back with damage you can demonstrate that it wasn't nomral wear and tear YOU caused. A pipe (...) (26 years ago, 7-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) I've tried. They won't. You can waste lots of time trying, though. Also, it doesn't matter the cause, the point is that they claim that rips THEY cause are part of the luggage "protecting its contents" process and therefore normal. Therefore I (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) <snipped Mr. Nice Guy> <Customer relations anecdote> Having once worked as a bank teller I try to do the same thing because I really appreciated it when folks that had problems would come in and calmly state their case, and then patiently wait (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) No, it requires luggage handling equipment that does not mangle luggage. Most rips occur because the equipment is not properly designed, or was not properly maintained. Since this is typically a shared resource, owned by the airport itself, (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) _forced_ an airline employee? I think they'd be much happier to lose your custom than to set _that_ precedent. Jasper "flown twice in my life - there and back" Janssen (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) _bumped_ from a flight? You mean, as in, you've payed for a ticket, plane leaves on time, you were there, but there was no room for you because some bigwig payed them bigtime to get in ahead of you? Is that _legal_?! Jasper (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) Privatisation also has a history of making stuff a hell of a lot more expensive. Frex, the trains system here has been privatised a few years ago. Now, the gummint has to pay the NS more money to support them, than that the loss used to be (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) Not only legal, but a completely normal daily business practice. I understand the interest they make on tickets paid for bumped flights is staggering. And that's my conspiracy theory of the day. Cheers, - jsproat (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) It's not a matter of who paid how much. Airlines overbook. That usually works because not everyone shows up. When they all do, the airlines are required to first ask for volunteers to give up their seats in exchange for a payment of the (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) Naah.. I think _bumped_from_a_flight means: you're flying over the ocean. Plane hits a speedbump and whoops..there you go. From 15 km hight falling towards the (at that speed rock-hard) water... Mark (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
Side note: you can also "fly on stand-by", which means you're the first to go if there isn't enough room. It's cheaper than regular tickets, but I'm not sure by how much. Or if you get less compensation if you are bumped to a later flight. Steve (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) My luggage story: I don't travel much lately. (I refuse to make myself crazy trying to do it with the kids, my parents can come out here to visit.) Anyway, the last time I did, when I checked in the girl said fine, you can carry that bag on (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
On Mon, 8 Mar 1999 04:34:02 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following profundities... (...) How true. The airports sell a system to the airlines, extolling the virtues of its wonderful new technology. It fails frequently, is usually designed for (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
Yes, see for example this headline from last week's Atlanta Journal/Constitution - "OVERBOOKED: Delta 'denied' 13,449: Atlanta air carrier ranks seventh among U.S. airlines" During the past year(?) they had to turn that many people involuntarily. (...) (26 years ago, 11-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) Won't happen, I would usually already have volunteered (I volunteer on Fridays but not on Sundays as I have more flexibility at the start). (...) and maybe your load factor was lower... the typical hotel load factor averages in the 60s these (...) (26 years ago, 11-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) Sounds _exactly_ like my cable-modem provider. Jasper (26 years ago, 11-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) have (...) Ah, well... if you've volunteered then they don't count it as a "bump" - though you, the customer, might of course still do so. -- Steven | svore at mindspring .com | kf4fbk | TC++MS++#15LS+M+HalYB64m (26 years ago, 11-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) This reminded me of my "twilight zone" trip two years ago - driving across the states as a vacation(1) ended up hitting Minneapolis fairly late - tried to get a room and to misuse a quote "there were none to be found" after trying about 8 (...) (26 years ago, 11-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
The best idea I've heard yet for calming down the anxieties of airports! First airport in line PLEASE be Detroit!!! With a separate cleaning staff, only for that room... so it might get done. Sorry. I'd been trying to figure out how my whimpering (...) (26 years ago, 12-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
|
(...) You just never know what will kick off a thread around here... Steve (26 years ago, 12-Mar-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
