Proud to be Grumpy

I have to say this is (for me) counter intuitive. So why is it happening? In my opinion we are about to be penalized by Boeing Aircraft Corp., who, in the interests of economy, have found a way to reduce the cost per seat/mile on a whole generation of commercial aircraft ill suited to the markets in which they must operate. In short the Airplanes they are building are too small. Boeing has structured a whole generation of Aircraft to fly low density, high revenue, point-to-point routes because that's how they said the industry would develop. The marketplace however, continues to be orientated around high density hub-and-spoke operations, long-haul international and short-haul commuter traffic. Net result is that Boeing is trying to get more 'bums' in each airplane, smaller seats, (new airplanes are being fitted with 17.5 inch wide seats) thinner upholstery for thinner seats, and shorter pitch between rows. the newer seats don't even recline in the conventional man

The passenger experience needs comment. After my second outbound experience at the beginning of February and most recent return, I now feel qualified to at least offer some observations about Heathrow, and the new Terminal 2. First and foremost, allow yourself plenty of time. Wear walking shoes, and if you have any walking or mobility issues, get help. Terminal 2 now follows the newer design philosophy of a central hub with passenger and baggage handling, Security, Customs and Border Control, and of course, a Departure (Retail) Lounge located there. The actual Gates are located at remote locations, at satellite terminals. So when you are told your gate may be 15 minutes walk away - get going - 'cause they mean it! I understand the operational benefit to that system however the need to keep inbound and outbound passengers separate during the entire process creates some strange effects, seemingly endless corridors connected to other endless corridors with sections of travel

So, it's about six weeks on and I'm returning to the UK (UA659 DFW - IAH, UA921 IAH - LHR). The first leg was on United's updated Airbus designated 319. A good on time flight. As usual on US domestic, about 90 % full. First the seats, PLASTIC is about all I can say about them. The seat pitch had to be less than 30 inches (row 30) because it makes the 767-300 (row 36) I'm sitting in now seem commodious, and I never thought I would say that! So, while my knees were pressed (all be it lightly) against the unyielding plastic, things could have been worse. There was no video screen running continuous commercials under my nose on the seat-back in front of me! It must have been pretty unpopular with others, not just me, plus the added benefit that it is cheaper and probably lighter. I think everybody wins there. Wow, I was just interrupted by dinner and I have to say that it was .... okay. Now let me be clear, you don't fly Economy (certainly not on United) for the gour

United Airlines - We're not satisfied until your not satisfied. I wish I could claim the credit for that slogan but it's down to my little brother! Eight hours into a ten and a half hour flight may not be the ideal time to update your blog, but it does have the benefit of focusing one's attention. As I've said before, at these times, the little things mean a lot. First, the praise, there is little enough of that due, so why be stingy. The coffee was great! So few people back here in 'cattle class' that it was still hot and fresh when I was served. In point of fact, it was so good I'd actually drunk it when the cabin crew came back two minutes later whisking everything away. And therein, the downside, though somewhat of a mixed blessing. Even with the rapid-fire service it points up the truly ghastly nature of the food being served these days on United. I used to think it was cold and nasty because it took so long to be served to the back of the airp

The old Union and the Constitution on which it was built is no longer fit for purpose. Our Constitutional Monarchy was forged to divide and codify political power between Parliament and the Monarch with very little consideration for us, The People. If we are to remain a modern Nation/State rather than be divided into EU regions Now is the time for change.  We need a Constitutional Republic, built from the bottom up, based on the (inalienable) rights of the individual. A Union of autonomous Regions/Nations/States sharing that Constitution. A much smaller Central (Westminster) Government, serving and protecting the Constitution, the interests of the Citizens and the interaction between the Regions/Nations/States, Foreign Relations and  Defense. What we are likely to get, judging by the reaction of the Westminster parties, is just a bit more 'devolution'. An immediate short term 'fix' to appease the Scots, maybe the appearance of some devolution to the (English) Regio