Dear politically-correct titled person-who-attends-to- your-needs-whilst-on-an-airline-flight from flight 417,
How horrible it must be to have your job. I mean, with every leg of the flight, you experience delays. These delays result in unhappy passengers-me being one.Calling me “Hon” and “Sweetie” wasn’t working to quell my unhappiness so you begin making threats to remove me from the plane – empty threats; I was simply expressing my displeasure.
I paid extra for a seat with extra legroom only to learn my luggage wouldn’t fit in the overhead compartment. Puzzled, Iquestioned you about the logic of baggage meeting restrictions yet the overhead compartments not meeting luggage requirements. When your solution was to use the space under the seat resulted in a complaint, rather than affirming my frustrations, you then chose to express your own frustrations – to me?!
How sad to have to be subservient to others travelling to and from fun and interesting destinations and not being able to enjoy them. Oh wait! You’re PAID to do this job. You CHOSE to do this work. Silly me! Well dear, I’m almost home while you’re still having to deal with cranky people. I win! BTW, bad haircut. —2B
This article appears in Jan 8-14, 2015.
“You’re sitting in a chair in the sky. You’re like a Greek myth right now.”
Oh poor baby. It must be nice to think you’re sooooo special. Instead of being an idiot, just sit there like everyone else quietly or get the fuck off. The attendant has no more power to get the flight off the ground than you do.
Oh, but they are such delightful stewardesses on those Porter flights!
yes op, they are paid to guide people to their seats, dispense food and drinks, hand out blankets and pillows, answer a zillion questions and help save your sorry ass if there is an emergency.
they ( and no one in any service industry) are not paid to take abuse. the wages or salary paid to these people does not entitle you to give them heck. its not like paying for a sub in a dungeon, ok?
‘puzzled, I questioned’ oh riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I can hear the rant now. probably insisting on keeping the stew from attending to anything or anyone else while you belaboured your point ad nauseum.
op, you petulant little whiner.
First world bitching about a first world problem…thanks for wasting my time…a bit self indulgent aren’t you?
The last couple of times I flew, the stews gave off vibes of guarding a freight car bound for Birkenau siding. They don’t all deserve to be the target of cranky abuse, and lord knows the general public can always be counted on to hit new lows of conduct in public, but there is a chicken and egg dynamic going on for airline passengers. If the airlines are going to treat them like cattle, some will act the part, some will complain and some will take it to the next level. For better or worse, flight attendants get to face the frustration of people not getting their money’s worth.
“Whatcher problem, we got ya here alive” just doesn’t cut it.
You must be one of those people with a small rolling suitcase thing instead of actual carry on luggage like a backpack or laptop bag. You took the chance and failed, so it is your fault. Everyone that flies knows there is going to be less and less space for carry on luggage, especially on a full flight.
they charge for luggage on flights, so people take the whole kit and caboodle. for me its the freaking leg and shoulder room, and often the cattle car odour. who remembers real cutlery and actual meals? flying buses
Ha! Those weird Air Canada forks! KLM had the best meals though the coffee on Air Canada was amazing! And you were always able to get an extra bottle of Grand Marnier out of the stewardess if you were charming enough. And if it was a guy, I’d be half-drunk on even short-haul flights…
the porter lounge isn’t bad, my mother steals their glasses
This grievance has all the mad honkings of a menopausal goose who pushes the limits of everyone’s patience.
Stews should be issued pepper spray and/or brass knuckles for such berks.
haha *berks*
But . . but . . isn’t the rolling suitcase (endorsed by Air Canada, with their logo all over it, that’s why I bought it) INTENDED to fit within the carry-on restricted size?
It does indeed fit well within the bars of the little gate-y thing . . . . and also under the seat . . .or am I unwittingly committing an air travel faux-pas each and every time I go anywhere?
AND, when you get shunted onto the teeny-tiny plane for the last leg of some complicated flight to Rubeland (where I always end up), well, that’s what SkyCheck is for . . . right?
Porter. The issue was with Porter. Their luggage size restrictions don’t match the overhead compartments and the rolling suitcase – which fit in every other airline’s overhead compartments – won’t fit in theirs.
In my experience, you pay $60 less for a flight that takes longer in shitty, loud planes and you have to tolerate nasty stewardesses who lack couth personality and people management skills.
On the only flight I took with Porter, the stewardesses had good hair.
The best airline I’ve found was Air Cessna, one always has the best seats and view.
^^ bit lacking in the toilet facilities though m’dear.
Great point Molly, but flights are no more than 3 hours in duration at most, gotta be careful on how many coffee’s one has, lol.
for pilots who are tim addicts, I would suggest a large plastic bottle nearby
And why, exactly, could you not put your carry on under your seat? Like, is that idea so terrible that you have to be an obnoxious ass to the poor flight attendant about it? (because I doubt you weren’t an obnoxious ass to the flight attendant, given the tone and length of your bitch).
I put my carry on under my seat all the time. Much easier to get access to my stuff when it’s under there than in the over head. Of course, I don’t tend to take a shitload of crap that doesn’t need to be carried on on the actual plane with me.
You sound like a spoiled brat, OB.
That’s why they have under the seat storage, for those bags. Fuckin’ whiners.
ANOTHER PROBLEM IN LOGIC?
“Puzzled, I questioned you about the logic of baggage meeting restrictions yet the overhead compartments not meeting luggage requirements.” 2B
Clearly, what we have here is a purported problem in logic. On the one hand we have the logic of baggage and on the other the logic of overhead compartments. Logically, one should fit into the other, not unlike a penis and a vagina. However, the analogy fails since neither baggage nor compartment are expandable in size so that one might accommodate the other. So the problem must be addressed in terms of formal logic, specifically that commonly attributed to Aristotle.
Aristotle’s logic is put forth in three axioms: (1) The law of identity posits that A is A at the same time and under the same aspect. While the baggage and the compartment are both, respectively, identical to themselves, no logical traction is gained in respect to the issue at hand. (2) The Law of Non-Contradiction asserts that A cannot be both A and Non-A at the same time and under the same aspect. In other words, neither the baggage nor the compartment can, respectively, be non-baggage and non-compartment at the same time and under the same aspect. But, as with (1), no logical traction is gained in respect to the issue at hand. (3) The Law of the Excluded Middle posits that if A then B, then where A is posited one must also logically posit B. This is the form of logic normally encountered in the syllogism. So, A. All men are mortal. B. Socrates is a man. C. Socrates must therefore logically be mortal. But, once again, no logical traction is gained in respect to the issue at hand. What then is the logic of 2B’s claim?
The only logical conclusion is that 2B was mistaken. There is no relationship of logic obtaining between the “logic of baggage meeting restrictions” on the one hand and “compartments not meeting luggage requirements” on the other. While there may be a real-world issue here, it is not one of logic. 2B was logically mistaken.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
Well, if your tall sitting in a small airline seat and need legroom, then you’d want the space under the seat… how is this bitch so hard to understand?
My father, on his deathbed, awoke from a deam where he was having conversations with Aristotle and Sophocles… may I suggest you lay off the morphine MM? It would seem logical…
“Why can’t we all just get along?” , Mr. B.S.D. Tector (during his 2015 keynote address to the Grand Council of the United KIngdom of Bitchland)
Au contraire, Hing Frogg. If anything, Montrealman needs to do more injectable opiates. And since needles are expensive, he should reuse them, and share with like-minded friends and acquaintances.
RSVPS
:Hing Frogg (1/14, 7:02PM)
“may I suggest you lay off the morphine MM? It would seem logical…”
What is logically pre-supposed in this assertion? Correct, that I am on morphine. But what logical grounds can be advanced to support the claim? Correct, none at all. In other words, Frogg has committed a Rylean “category mistake” (named after the English philosopher Gilbert Ryle) consisting of confounding incommensurable logical and empirical claims. The first is logically misconceived while the latter is factually false.
You must attend my after-school tutorial entitled “Coherent Reasoning.” Bring paper and pen.
: The Pork Eating Crusader (01/15, 6:34AM)
On what logical grounds does the Pork Eater advance the recommendation that I switch from morphine to injectable opiates? Correct, none at all. While the first part of the recommendation in respect to my morphine use is empirically false – I am, rather, on an endorphin-driven philosophical high – the second part of his recommendation is not so much misconceived as it is malevolent in intent. But I understand that. To his dismay, he finds himself in the company of one who clearly possesses both superior intelligence and depth of knowledge and, predictably, reacts in a hostile manner.
You must attend my after-school tutorial entitled “Knowing One’s Place in the Intellectual Hierarchy.” Bring paper and pen.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
Ivan & HF, I don’t think it’s the morphine… the O2 bottle is empty.