Friday, February 20, 2009

New rules for airlines...or how you can pay me to deal with the misery that you cause

I flew the most excruciating flight in my life last week. US Airways red-eye from San Francisco to Philly, then a second leg from Philly to Orlando.

Both of the US Airways planes I flew were complete dumps. Each looking like it had participated in been on the ground during the bombing of Dresden.

Why can't your planes be like Virgin America's planes?

This post however is not about how your planes lack polish...

US Airways, lets talk about water. The substance that spawned a mission to Mars. The essential ingredient to life. The thing that if I go without for three days, I will die! And on US Airways, when I wanted to wet my lips with this sweet nectar of life, on a five hour cross country flight, it cost me two dollars. There is one word to describe you US Airways, and that word is "chintzy".

My experience also got me thinking about some new rules for airlines. Rules that'll help to flush the bad taste from the mouths of many of your customers. These rules center around rebates for bad experiences.

On one flight, the back of my seat butted up against a toilet and wouldn't recline. This was not an option I chose to reduce my ticket price. I paid the same price for an experience that was less than I expected.

So new rule. When I am stuck with a seat that doesn't recline, leaving my body stuck at a 90 degree angle, I should be able to invoke the 90 degree clause, obligating you pay me ten dollars for every hour of my misery.

On another flight, I was seated next to a man who's body spilled over into my seat. I didn't pay for 3/4 of a seat. US Airways, I paid you for a whole seat.

So new rule. When I'm seated next to a person who's arm rest has actually become a containment device for their body, I should be able to invoke the sidecar clause, obligating you pay me ten dollars for every hour of my misery.

What do you think of my clauses? What new clauses do you want to see?

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

I support bailout salary caps

While driving to work, I heard an NPR news blurb about a proposal being kicked around in the Whitehouse - capping salaries for employees at companies that accept bailout money.

This is something I fully support.

The recent reports of billions of dollars in bailout money being distributed as bonuses makes me sick. Companies are accepting bailout money because they are in trouble. So why in the hell are they giving out bonuses?

When I think bonus, I think,

"Job well done" and "You've really made a difference"


"Thanks for the mismanagement" and "Way to lose our asses"

The cap proposed is $500,000. Executives can be further compensated in stock that can be redeemed once the bailout money is re-payed.

This is a good plan.