urbanSTL

Went on vacation and flew out on a 737-800 (nice plane) and returned to gate E40. That’s a bit of a hike to the baggage claim.

And your bag probably STILL wasn't at the carousel haha

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

cueball19826 wrote: ↑

Nov 10, 2020

And your bag probably STILL wasn't at the carousel haha

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Just be happy you weren't on United. You might as well go home and come back the next day.

^Heck, the last time I flew United it took them a half an hour just to find someone to move the jetbridge. This was on top of, oh, eight hours of accumulated delays already on the books on that trip. (Mind you, it was a transpacific trip, so as a matter of percentage it's not as bad as it looks. Two hours or so for a busted A/C unit on a 747. Which tells you how recent this wasn't. An hour or two for check in problems in Saigon. (They had one agent working a full 737's worth of checked economy luggage. And Vietnamese travelers do not travel light, so probably two hundred checked bags [and boxes, and crates, and . . . ] more or less. They held the plane it was so bad. Held the plane in Hong Kong too, to my astonishment.) And then the delay at O'Hare was epic, as the pilot went over their hours deadheading from the east coast, I think and they had to find an entirely new crew. And all of this was just one trip.

^As a frequent UA flyer it has happened to me a couple times having to wait at the gate in STL along with the flight crew as there was no one to take the crew to the plane. Plane was at the airport, crew was at the airport, but crew could not get the plane to the gate because of a logistical ***** up. Must be the most stupid reason for a flight delay you can come up with. Missed an international connection once because of this. 

Regarding baggage pick up times, this is about another airport. When I went to Nashville in August, by time a friend and I walked from our gate in the C Concourse to the baggage area at the front of the airport, everyone else's was already picked up and ours was set off to the side. That walk took about 6 minutes too. They went fast and I guess that means efficient too. Southwest was the flight company.

So I don't really understand the deal why St. Louis Airport luggage takes forever to be delivered to the luggage carousel minutes after getting off the plane.

This is a little write up I did on the flight: https://www.thecollegepoints.com/in-the ... xperience/

cueball19826 wrote:And your bag probably STILL wasn't at the carousel haha

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Maybe a minute or two. It was coming out about the time the passengers in back of the plane arrived.

Oakland is by far the worst airport for baggage I have dealt with.

Southwest at STL I do feel like has gotten better over the last year or so but it still can be slow at times.

^ gross. if it were a plane full of dogs everyone would be like "omg, that's awful! how inhumane! we have to stop this!" so f*cking arbitrary and cruel.

(not shooting the messenger, mayor. just sayin'...)

Transporting livestock is pretty essential for any culture that consumes meat, and using airplanes doesn't really seem much different than using trucks or trains, unless I'm missing something?

Assuming I'm not, this seems to be a logical and good-for-stl development that fits in well with our proximity to agribusiness and location near the center of the US.

^ the mode of transportation isn't the problem. the mass production of animals that are at least as intelligent as dogs to be tortured and slaughtered so people can over-consume their meat is the problem. i'm sure it's great for the economy but factory farming is bad for the world in a bunch of different ways from human health to environmental health and it's really really sh*tty for the poor animals.

^I see no reason to be particularly upset if it were dogs, cats, chimpanzees, squid . . . I doubt it's really any worse than flying economy. Probably more space, but worse food. I might take the trade if I still flew economy. We eat pigs. They are delicious. I honestly have no ethical problem with eating dogs, cats, horses, octopi, or any number of other smart, but decidedly not people smart animals. If you don't want to eat the pig, that's fine. I surely won't force you. (Hell, I'll make special allowances. I fully accept that heaven hates ham.) But I'll politely ask you to refrain from criticizing me. Should we eat less meat? Sure. In the U. S. the answer seems fairly straightforward. Should we not eat meat? Not so fast . . . Them's fighting words.

alataristarion wrote: ↑

Nov 12, 2020

Transporting livestock is pretty essential for any culture that consumes meat, and using airplanes doesn't really seem much different than using trucks or trains, unless I'm missing something?

They can't chew gum if their ears pop

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Nov 13, 2020

^ the mode of transportation isn't the problem. the mass production of animals that are at least as intelligent as dogs to be tortured and slaughtered so people can over-consume their meat is the problem. i'm sure it's great for the economy but factory farming is bad for the world in a bunch of different ways from human health to environmental health and it's really really sh*tty for the poor animals.

Environmental footprint of the meat industry (which is already very large) increases considerably.

Sorry, meant to quote the post that this post was responding to.

pattimagee wrote: ↑

Nov 13, 2020

I would argue we should all attempt to lessen our beef consumption and shop ur meat responsibly, if possible.

F'n a, I'll drink to that!

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Nov 13, 2020

^I see no reason to be particularly upset if it were dogs, cats, chimpanzees, squid . . . I doubt it's really any worse than flying economy. Probably more space, but worse food. I might take the trade if I still flew economy. We eat pigs. They are delicious. I honestly have no ethical problem with eating dogs, cats, horses, octopi, or any number of other smart, but decidedly not people smart animals. If you don't want to eat the pig, that's fine. I surely won't force you. (Hell, I'll make special allowances. I fully accept that heaven hates ham.) But I'll politely ask you to refrain from criticizing me. Should we eat less meat? Sure. In the U. S. the answer seems fairly straightforward. Should we not eat meat? Not so fast . . . Them's fighting words.

nowhere did i criticize you. but since you brought it up, i think it's disturbing to have "no ethical problem" with eating "any number of other smart, but decidedly not people smart animals." so, as long as it's not human it's okay to farm, torture, and slaughter any sentient creature en masse because you think they taste good? creatures that, while not as good at problem solving as humans, still experience pain and suffering and exhibit ranges of emotions including happiness and fear and mourning? is that what you're saying? if so, i think that's a very imperial world view lacking in empathy. i mean, why not eat humans—just because we're better problem solvers? it's only by convention that we don't. and the population is getting a little out of control, after all.

yes, people are going to eat meat and i'm not saying that nobody should eat any type of meat. i was reacting to the photo of factory-farmed pigs on their way to be slaughtered in the article. but if we're drawing lines based on perception or emotional range or brain complexity, then the ethical implications of eating a fish =/= the ethical implications of eating a chicken =/= the ethical implications of eating a pig =/= the ethical implications of eating a cow =/= the ethical implications of eating a dolphin =/= the ethical implications of eating an elephant =/= the ethical implications of eating a chimpanzee =/= the ethical implications of eating a human. it's just not reasonable to lump every non-human creature into the "edible" category, much less the "okay to grow and slaughter en masse" category.

i didn't mean to derail the thread so that's the last I'll say about it.

^

Sat behind a pilot on a recent trip. Apparently United has some special simulator equipment at StL. Who knew?

moorlander wrote: ↑

Nov 14, 2020

Sat behind a pilot on a recent trip. Apparently United has some special simulator equipment at StL. Who knew?

A bunch of regional airlines send their pilots here for training. Not sure if it carries over to mainline or not.

^To the old Trans-States/TWA training facility north of the airfield from whence they donated the evacuation trainer a few years back?

It was a regional flight operated by SkyWest.

Flight Safety St. Louis branch has ERJ and CRJ simulators which train a lot of airline pilots, and some corporate pilots flying the equivalent type of aircraft.