the really, really not so friendly skies
i have been afraid to fly since twa flight 800 blew up not far from new york on its way to paris. i was fairly young at the time, and in boston visiting my sister. i had flown there by myself from dc, and was scheduled to go back either the next day or the day after. whichever day it was, i wanted no part of getting on that plane. i was convinced the plane i was on would meet with the same fate as the one that exploded the day or two before. needless to say it did not, but i was traumatized just the same. after years of anti-anxiety prescriptions, excessive sweating, moaning aloud in terror, bad airplane wine, inadvertently grabbing passengers next to me, surprisingly intense stomach flip-flops, white knuckles, and tension headaches, it seems i've finally gotten my anxiety at least mostly under control. i can fly without drugs. i am still nervous and very tense. i still, on occasion, wail in terror. i still really, really hate it when the plane is making a dramatic turn and i feel like there's just no way it's not going to catch the wind or something and nosedive like experts suspect jfk jr's plane did when he crashed it in martha's vineyard. i don't do well in those moments. so no, i'm not perfect. and i'm definitely still sweaty. but i'm better. and i'm better than my sister, who is still convinced that she mustn't move about the cabin during a flight (and she doesn't) for fear that she could "throw off the balance of the plane in the sky." and at least i can fly in the first place. there were a few years when i thought i might not want to anymore. fear of untimely death during horrific crash was my reason. and not that the following would keep me from air travel, but in terms of reasons not to fly, here are two more.
skywest airlines has just sent james whipple, who hails from a suburb of salt lake city, a letter of apology and a flight voucher after they prevented him from using the airplane's bathroom on a flight from boise to salt lake city. the bathroom was declared out of order for the flight because the light was broken and as the flight is a short one, the crew assumed the passengers could hold out. not so. mr. whipple, who had consumed what he called two "really big beers" at the airport before his flight, was forced to urinate in a motion sickness bag mid-flight. now this is very clearly not a matter of deliquence. no one wants to have to urinate in a motion sickness bag. said skywest spokeswoman sabrena suite-mangum, "for such a short flight, we really felt we were trying to inconvenience the least number of passengers possible by operating that flight." so the airline opted not to delay the flight for repairs to the bathroom light. fair enough, i suppose. but did they really not consider the fact that someone — perhaps a child — might just not be able to hold it? and should they have to? and perhaps most importantly in the grand scheme of things, was it actually necessary to have mr. whipple questioned by police upon arrival in salt lake city? that's right, though no passengers noticed the poor guy uriniating in his seat in a bag, but apparently a flight attendant asked him about it and then ratted him out to the captain who called airport police. for what? to investigate? he was "questioned" about the incident and then went home. i pity mr. whipple, i do. the man had a few beers and had to pee. and props to skywest for the apology and the voucher after the fact. admirable of them to realize the mistake. but, let us face facts, a nicely worded letter and a free flight will not undo the fact that his name has been plastered over all sort of press as "that guy who peed on plane."
though honestly, i think i'd have preferred james whipple's situation to paul trinder's. paul trinder, who'd been dozing happily in first class on a british airways flight from new delhi to london, was roused from his slumber to find a corpse being placed in the seat next to his. that's right, a dead person. it turns out that the elderly woman expired during the flight, and as the coach section of the plane was full, the flight's crew decided that they should give the "grieving family" some privacy. so they moved the family to first-class. the whole family. deceased included. the times (london) quotes trinder: "i didn't have a clue what was going on. the stewards just plonked the body down without saying a thing. i remember looking at this frail, sparrow-like woman and thinking she was very ill. when i asked what was going on, i was shocked to hear she was dead." right. board plane, perhaps eat plane food, read a bit, become drowsy, sleep, and something stirs you. of course it's the dead body that is probably touching you it's so close. and of course the crew isn't going to explain that you are, in fact, seatmates with a stiff (no disprespect to the deceased intended). i wonder if like james whipple, paul trinder needed to use the bathroom and nudged the woman to rouse her. that surely would have been awkward for everyone involved. in any case, according to british airways, about ten passengers die while flying every year and "while each situation is dealt with on an individual basis, safety is paramount." the airline's statement continued: "the deceased must not be placed in the galley or blocking aisles or exits, and there should be clear space around the deceased. the wishes of family or friends travelling with the deceased will always be considered, and account taken of the reactions of other passengers." at least we know they've got their policy down. no dead people blocking the aisle, got it. and the phrase "family or friend travelling with the deceased," doesn't it sounds just like "those travelling with children?" do those travelling with the deceased enjoy comparable pre-boarding privileges? oh, oh my.
as previously stated, i make no argument for abstaining from air travel. it's remarkably useful and exceedingly practical. it makes life much easier most of the time. but it has its downsides. for me, that has always meant everything i've discussed: the terror in the pit of my being, the sweating, all that. but for james whipple and paul trinder it clearly meant other things altogether. and to be honest, at the end of the day i really do prefer the ground. in cars and trains and bikes and such i often have at least an iota of control over the situation should something go wrong. that's not the case while a passenger in giant airborne machines flying thousands of miles over land and water; i really do think the flight attendants can stop it already with the "don't forget your seat cushion is also a floating device" thing. can we just admit that it's not going to help? and speaking of control, in cars and other modes of ground transportation, i find i often have nearly complete control of my bladder activity. and yes, i do live in new york, but i'd venture to say that 99.9% of the time — while on the ground — i also completely command over how many dead bodies people prop up next to me.
i suppose some people are just ground people.
skywest airlines has just sent james whipple, who hails from a suburb of salt lake city, a letter of apology and a flight voucher after they prevented him from using the airplane's bathroom on a flight from boise to salt lake city. the bathroom was declared out of order for the flight because the light was broken and as the flight is a short one, the crew assumed the passengers could hold out. not so. mr. whipple, who had consumed what he called two "really big beers" at the airport before his flight, was forced to urinate in a motion sickness bag mid-flight. now this is very clearly not a matter of deliquence. no one wants to have to urinate in a motion sickness bag. said skywest spokeswoman sabrena suite-mangum, "for such a short flight, we really felt we were trying to inconvenience the least number of passengers possible by operating that flight." so the airline opted not to delay the flight for repairs to the bathroom light. fair enough, i suppose. but did they really not consider the fact that someone — perhaps a child — might just not be able to hold it? and should they have to? and perhaps most importantly in the grand scheme of things, was it actually necessary to have mr. whipple questioned by police upon arrival in salt lake city? that's right, though no passengers noticed the poor guy uriniating in his seat in a bag, but apparently a flight attendant asked him about it and then ratted him out to the captain who called airport police. for what? to investigate? he was "questioned" about the incident and then went home. i pity mr. whipple, i do. the man had a few beers and had to pee. and props to skywest for the apology and the voucher after the fact. admirable of them to realize the mistake. but, let us face facts, a nicely worded letter and a free flight will not undo the fact that his name has been plastered over all sort of press as "that guy who peed on plane."
though honestly, i think i'd have preferred james whipple's situation to paul trinder's. paul trinder, who'd been dozing happily in first class on a british airways flight from new delhi to london, was roused from his slumber to find a corpse being placed in the seat next to his. that's right, a dead person. it turns out that the elderly woman expired during the flight, and as the coach section of the plane was full, the flight's crew decided that they should give the "grieving family" some privacy. so they moved the family to first-class. the whole family. deceased included. the times (london) quotes trinder: "i didn't have a clue what was going on. the stewards just plonked the body down without saying a thing. i remember looking at this frail, sparrow-like woman and thinking she was very ill. when i asked what was going on, i was shocked to hear she was dead." right. board plane, perhaps eat plane food, read a bit, become drowsy, sleep, and something stirs you. of course it's the dead body that is probably touching you it's so close. and of course the crew isn't going to explain that you are, in fact, seatmates with a stiff (no disprespect to the deceased intended). i wonder if like james whipple, paul trinder needed to use the bathroom and nudged the woman to rouse her. that surely would have been awkward for everyone involved. in any case, according to british airways, about ten passengers die while flying every year and "while each situation is dealt with on an individual basis, safety is paramount." the airline's statement continued: "the deceased must not be placed in the galley or blocking aisles or exits, and there should be clear space around the deceased. the wishes of family or friends travelling with the deceased will always be considered, and account taken of the reactions of other passengers." at least we know they've got their policy down. no dead people blocking the aisle, got it. and the phrase "family or friend travelling with the deceased," doesn't it sounds just like "those travelling with children?" do those travelling with the deceased enjoy comparable pre-boarding privileges? oh, oh my.
as previously stated, i make no argument for abstaining from air travel. it's remarkably useful and exceedingly practical. it makes life much easier most of the time. but it has its downsides. for me, that has always meant everything i've discussed: the terror in the pit of my being, the sweating, all that. but for james whipple and paul trinder it clearly meant other things altogether. and to be honest, at the end of the day i really do prefer the ground. in cars and trains and bikes and such i often have at least an iota of control over the situation should something go wrong. that's not the case while a passenger in giant airborne machines flying thousands of miles over land and water; i really do think the flight attendants can stop it already with the "don't forget your seat cushion is also a floating device" thing. can we just admit that it's not going to help? and speaking of control, in cars and other modes of ground transportation, i find i often have nearly complete control of my bladder activity. and yes, i do live in new york, but i'd venture to say that 99.9% of the time — while on the ground — i also completely command over how many dead bodies people prop up next to me.
i suppose some people are just ground people.
posted by blythe at 4:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home