We have become far too accustomed to fast via the Interstate air carriers etc. that it may be time to slow down a bit and reflect on what has made us a great nation.

That is lovely. We would all be better off if we’d slow down a bit and appreciate our great country, and our fellow citizens, and if we’d treat each other with a little more courtesy to reflect that appreciation.

The real problem in the industry is they are so focused on $$$ they have forgotten that service is what causes a passenger to choose one carrier over another. Even if the fare is a few dollars more on the one that provides great service.

Deregulation opened the skies so many more people could afford to fly. But, flying is not something that most people take to easily. Therefore, treating potentially apprehensive passengers like a person and keeping their minds off the fact that they are no longer in touch with terra firma is a concept that SW saw as key to their succesful model.

Also, many may want to go back a few years ago and really look at what made PANAM the king of the air. They treated you well.

The first flight attendants were required to be registered nurses with class. Maybe the airlines should seek RN’s who want a break to see the world as members of their flight team, whose task is to care for you from take off to landing. But passengers must also treat those who are charged with their safety with the respect they deserve and some of the good ol days can return.

While we are bringing the past up, maybe there should be a grassroots effort to reinstate route 66 to its glory. We have become far too accustomed to fast via the Interstate air carriers etc. that it may be time to slow down a bit and reflect on what has made us a great nation.

A steady flow of tan legged nurses in mini-skirts… now that is something I’d vote for in a heart beat.

Mcguyver on September 8, 2007 at 11:48 PM
And from the Hsu thread:

Chinese gangsters? Freemasons? It’s like a bad movie on a low-rent cable channel. All this lacks is a super-villain with an underground HQ and some hot female assassins.

Thomas the Wraith on September 8, 2007 at 10:52 PM
I had this site all wrong – I thought I would be reading about dull stuff, like politics, instead of what I really crave – soft porn!!

fred5678 on September 9, 2007 at 12:12 AM

Aahh! Still stuck on the soft porn channel!!

For more of my favorite old time airline:

http://www.jetpsa.com/uniforms/wanted.html

It’s pretty clear that the only thing keeping this silly story on life support is the T&A factor.

1972 vintage eye candy is just not the same. That was BEFORE plastic surgeons invented Pamela Anderson’s breasts.

CyberCipher on September 8, 2007 at 3:22 PM

Sorry, CyberCipher, but plastic surgery has ruined more women’s figures than anything else before it.

Breast implants are “pretty” only from a narrow angle, IMHO. Otherwise they vary between looking like bags glued onto flat earth, to hanging bags of water (kinda like if you filled a Ziploc baggie 3/4 full of water, closed it tight, then dangled it from the top edge – GROSS).

Besides that, the risks of the surgery include loss of sensation in the nipple area; and if a woman intends on breast feeding her children later in life, implant surgery may cause her to not be able to lactate.

Now that I am older, I’d much rather something natural, that just barely passes the “pencil test” than something fake.

-Wanderlust

But, yes, I ask questions and they like to answer.

Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 10:08 PM

SIGH.

At least some truths are universal…(ducking as the feminists take aim)

But, yes, I ask questions and they like to answer.

Trash?

Allahpundit on September 8, 2007 at 1:35 PM

I have to say it’s rather funny with what she has up as her graphic on her site. Not as revealing, but the intention is the same. Let’s show some leg and get some attention.

- The Cat

P.S. But hey, I like it.

(Waiting for link for shaved Arab women in order to form an intelligent decision while twitching madly)

Hening on September 8, 2007 at 9:52 PM

If it’s true (Christoph, if it’s not, you’re a horrible tease), then it confirms my belief that there had to be *something* about Islam worth keeping.

Of course Allah wouldn’t stand for linkage on this site, but if you have some linkage, you could always send a nod to shifting_paradigm1 – AT – yahoo

And I don’t even care if it’s taquiyya, either. Besides, doesn’t too much fur contribute to global warming? Trapping greenhouse gases and all that?

One:

SWA could also claim that the shorts WERE complained about and that is why they are not part of

They can’t just perjure themselves and they’re not going to. It has to actually be true.

Two: What counts is the communications they are issuing at the time she flew, which were rather inviting.

Anyone wanna bet that this particular Western “fad” is also alive and well in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey?

I know for a fact it is. And for a lot longer.

Arab women, at least, shave. It is a long tradition.

Hotpants good!!!

Some one has to stop this gay flight steward thing.
There was a day when airlines slutted up their staff to get you aboard.
TheSitRep yesterday

That’s what I was saying.
Thanks for that clip.

Being 1972, undoubtedly furrier. But still hot.

Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 12:27 PM

and

Of course she shaves. It’s the fashion now.

And don’t ask me how I know.

I know.

Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 1:07 PM

I have to add, I don’t miss the days when fur ruled the planet, either.

Anyone wanna bet that this particular Western “fad” is also alive and well in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey?

I really don’t see how old commercials posted as nostalgia and not active advertisements on a web site has anything to do with a legal written agreement that was carried out to the letter as stated in the contract today.

The stewardesses in the old commercials were wearing shorts not mini-skirts and were therefore not able to “flash” themselves during normal routines.

SWA could also claim that the shorts WERE complained about and that is why they are not part of attendants attire today. Just because it was OK then doesn’t mean it’s OK 10 – 20 – 30 years later. What counts is the agreement TODAY.

“reasonable” is determined by SWA and ultimately the Captain of the aircraft.

Hardly. Reasonable as determined by the courts.

And the question is was her dress patently obscene, lewd, etc.

Well, all her lawyer has to do is pull out a cache of the September 8, 2007, Southwest Airlines website and they lose. As Kimmer, who is otherwise supportive of your position, declares.

Heck, *I* support your position. But legally, SW screwed themselves. They’d look like idiots trying to defend this.

It’s not just the videos, it’s the wording describing them: “our favourites” “our unique personality”.

Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 8:06 PM

“reasonable” is determined by SWA and ultimately the Captain of the aircraft. It’s a legal checkmate. She contractually agreed to the terms when she purchased the ticket..

I would love to see the words “Na na, you can’t sue me,” on a product. :)

The courts can override silliness like the fine print on the back of a ticket.

Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 7:49 PM

Also, read the paragraph under item 13 on page 12.

The fare of any passenger denied transportation or removed from Carrier’s aircraft enroute
under the provisions of Article 10 will be refunded in accordance with Article 90 of this
Contract of Carriage. The sole recourse of any passenger refused transportation or removed
enroute will be the recovery of the refund value of the unused portion of his or her ticket.

Christoph on September 8, 2007 at 7:49 PM

Prayer has nothing to do with a legal binding contract which every ticket holder enters into when they purchase a ticket.

See page 11.