Flying Somewhere? Maybe Not

A few days ago, a paying passenger who was waiting in his seat for the plane to take off, was forcefully removed from the plane by police. His crime? He had been "selected" by the airline to get bumped so that they could use the seats to transport airline employees. Admittedly, the airline first sought volunteers. Veteran airline travelers know they can get paid well, with sometimes hotel and meals added in, if they give up their seat and take a later flight. Many are willing to accept the offer.

This particular passenger, though, wanted to get where he was going without being delayed (understandable) and refused to give up his seat. The police were called, things escalated to using force, and the passenger was dragged off of the plane, being filmed by fellow passengers.

Unfortunately for you and me, what the airline did (bumping the passenger to give the seat to someone else) is perfectly legal. The law, as well as the "Terms and Conditions" under which they sell you a ticket, allow them to do this. As a result, it is a common practice to sell more tickets than the plane has seats.

Why is this tolerated? Times have changed. Many airlines have gone bankrupt, and the remaining ones run fewer flights. With fewer seats available, the planes are generally full. When you buy a ticket, it is with the understanding that "if you want to fly with us, this is the way it is". The Federal government also appears to be disinclined to prohibit this practice. Have you ever heard of a member of Congress getting bumped? I doubt that would ever happen. Members of Congress get to fly for free anytime they want (the Department of the Treasury pays for their travel, no questions asked). It is more likely that you would get bumped to free up a seat for a member of Congress than one of them get bumped for you.

Call me old fashioned, but I have a problem with this. If I purchase a service, such as an airline ticket, I expect the service to be delivered. Granted, the service is delivered the vast majority of the time, but the fact that you can get screwed over and it's OK is not OK.

In social media regarding this incident, some people are advocating boycotting United Airlines. While this would be easy for me (I have not flown in over 20 years and have no plans to do so), some people (business travelers, for instance) do not have another viable option.

My question to the airlines is: Is there any need for the practice of bumping to continue? If the airline sells a ticket, they are paid up front. If the ticket holder does not show, the seat is empty but also paid for. Does the airline refund the fare to someone who does not show up for the flight? I doubt it. They charge fees if you want to change to a different flight, but they also already have your money.

To me, buying an airline ticket is a gamble. Granted, you are more likely to fly than not, but not all of us are willing to accept getting bumped. To get me to be willing to fly again, it would have to be a REALLY extraordinary circumstance, and I don't see that on the horizon. As long as the current policies and practices continue, I will be boycotting United Airlines and everyone else. 

The DTS

In my LinkedIn profile, under "Organizations", it lists membership in the Denis Thatcher Society. Denis Thatcher (1915-2003) was the husband of Margaret Thatcher, who served as Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1979-1990.
Margaret Thatcher was a tough and decisive politician, as the Argentinians found out to their regret when they invaded the Falkland Islands. Denis ended up spending the bulk of their married life in the background always being graceful and supportive.
So what is the Denis Thatcher Society? The criteria for membership is a bit vague. One source says that membership is based upon husbands whose wives have jobs that earn more than they do. My preferred explanation is broader, and I tell people that members of the DTS are "men who are married to powerful women".
As a nurse, I have worked in a profession that has been predominately female (about 95%). True or not (I would not want to start a debate) I have been given the impression by that majority that women are superior to men. Over the years, I have found that the best approach is to keep my mouth shut and just try to get along.
We proud members of the DTS respect our spouses and are always prepared to respond to them with the DTS slogan: "Yes dear".
Anyone out there want to join?

Our First Orange President

Recent history is replete with examples of individuals who "enhance" their appearance as part of their mystique. Ozzy Osborne, Alice Cooper and Elton John (in their early years), the late Tammy Fay Baker, the members of KISS and many others got your attention with their appearance, regardless of the accompanying talent.

We can now add Donald Trump, our first orange president, While I recognize that many in public life, including actors and politicians, use makeup (because some look a bit like gargoyles without it), most make choices that fall withing the realm of what may be considered "normal" for the species. Looking at the above photo, Donald Trump's selection doesn't seem to fall within that realm. If you Google "skin color", you will not find orange among the examples.
Ever since Trump announced his run for President, I have found him to be occasionally frightening, but always amusing. His "fact free" pronouncements rivals George W. Bush's "intellectual celibacy". Trying to understand his position on anything is akin to trying to hold smoke in your hand.
The next four years are going to be quite interesting. Even though I don't think highly of Trump, good manners obligates me to at least give him a chance to not prove himself to be the worst President in history.
If I were able to offer Trump a little advice, though, it would be to have his makeup artist select a skin tone that is more toward "Presidential" on the spectrum and further away from "clown".

Divine Retribution

My late father was a UCC (United Church of Christ) minister for 50 years. While I was never heavily involved in the church, the title of this piece is one of the terms he occasionally used and which has stuck in my mind after all of these years. He was not referring to God sending a series of plagues or striking someone down with a lightning bolt. He was saying that, sometimes life hands someone punishment for what they have inflicted upon other. Even though we may be mistreated and would like to have some sort of revenge, sometimes life takes care of this for us.
Having worked in two large academic medical centers (one with 8000 employees and the other with 15000 employees), I have been exposed to some world-class sociopaths. Fortunately, with most of them, my dealings were minimal, but I have had the misfortune to have had to work for some people who can most politely be referred to as sociopathic bullies. In public, these people were all invariably polite, enthusiastic "team players". A few had to cope with their ambition exceeding their competence by a wide margin, which could make life frustrating and challenging to those of us who had to work for them. In private, these people were sometimes polite, mixed with interactions in which one would be berated, insulted, and threatened; one never knew what to expect. I did not get to be where I am professionally by being incompetent or dishonest, so being accused of either is more than a bit disturbing.
It is said that the first casualty of war is truth. The same can be said for having to work with or for this type of individual. Saying whatever is convenient at the moment (similar to at least one of the current presidential candidates) creates a challenge for people like me because, what was OK today may not be OK tomorrow.
Fortunately for me, the people like this with whom I have had to work closely over the last 40 years can be counted on one hand, so I guess I am lucky. Two of them, in particular, have experienced Divine Retribution and are no longer in their jobs because of the institutional politics. It can only be hoped that they did not move on to similar positions elsewhere so that they could continue their bullying. Regardless, while I will never forget them, I am free from their negative behavior.
Working with people like this, there are three things that can happen: you quit and move on somewhere else, you get fired, or you do your best to hunker down and tolerate it. I have experienced all of them, and all can be unpleasant to some degree. If they aren't going anywhere, moving on if you can is always best.
From my experience, Divine Retribution is a good thing. Unfortunately, it just doesn't happen as often as it should.

Someone has to sit on the curb and clap when the parade goes by

George Carlin had a unique perspective on life. The title of this piece, although maybe not as well known as some of his other sayings, is no less profound.

Even if you aren't one of them, we all know people in this world who have a need to be involved in everything. I, most definitely, am not one of them, and I often feel tempted to tranquilize those that are. There are many things I don't know much about, tasks I can't perform, people I don't know, and a large volume of stuff I simply don't care about because I don't feel a need to. 

There are meetings I don't need to attend (although sometimes I have to in order to make other people happy), decisions I don't need to make (although others should) and things that other people may find important that I don't need to expend energy upon. One of the most valuable skills I have developed in life is how to say "no" without feeling guilty all of the time. While my job involves 24/7 accountability, I work with a lot of good people whom I respect and trust to make good decisions, and I am fortunate in that this is what happens most of the time. When things go wrong, I deal with it, but I also have a life outside of work that I value.

That's why I get opportunities to sit on the curb and clap. I hope you get chances to do the same.

Millard Fillmore and the Kardashians

Millard Fillmore, 13th President of the United States, served from 1850-1853. What was he famous for and what does it have to do with the Kardashians? If you tried to list the well-known accomplishments by Fillmore, aside from being elected to the Presidency, your list would be blank. Fillmore is famous for having done nothing famous while in office.
Fast forward to the Kardashians. While they have a "reality" television show, none of them is likely to win an Academy Award or the Nobel Peace Prize. My youngest daughter watches the show sometimes, and I have glanced at it for a few minutes; I have to say I was not entertained.
Kim Kardashian's husband recently nominated her for a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and the Hollywood Chamber of commerce rejected the nomination. Apparently, she had not done anything worthy of deserving a star. Considering some of the people who have stars on the Walk of Fame, the bar appears to be pretty low sometimes. Apparently, though, if your name is Kardashian, not low enough. It looks like Bugs Bunny and Big Bird, can have their stars, but not poor Kim.
Being famous without actually doing anything? It worked for Millard Fillmore, and, apparently, it works for the Kardashians. I guess they are the Millard Fillmores of the 21st century.

Congress: Pay Them What They Earn

The current salary for a member of Congress is $174,000. After taking office as Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan announced that Congress would work a total of 111 days in 2016. For the 888 hours our members of Congress will be working (based on an 8-hour day), that works out to $195.95 per hour.
Call me a heretic, but I find that to be a bit excessive. I'm sure the members of Congress would tell you that they spend a great deal of time in their home districts addressing concerns of their constituents, taking trips at taxpayer expense for a variety of noble reasons or participating in fundraising activities so they can fund reelection campaigns.
Those, and other excuses, just don't impress me. If I have a problem and call my Senator's office, Bernie Sanders does not answer the phone and deal with my issue; his staff does. There's nothing wrong with this, but let's at least be honest about it.
When members of Congress take trips overseas, what is the measurable outcome of the trip and how does it benefit our country? In a word: nothing In today's world, we are encouraged to embrace technology and use such things as "Go to Meeting" to conduct business rather than travel. Why can't Congress have the same requirement? The answer is that they would have to impose it upon themselves, so it ain't going to happen.
In my opinion, based upon what they actually accomplish, Congress appears to be one of the most dysfunctional groups on the face of the planet. If I gave you a pencil and a blank sheet of paper and asked you to list their accomplishments in the past year, would you be able to identify any? I don't think I could. What stands out more is what they can't or don't do (such as confirm a new Supreme Court Justice) as opposed to what they do.
I recently saw a proposal to pay members of Congress minimum wage. If you support the position that they should be paid according to what they do, even this might at times be excessive. An alternate proposal would be this: A normal full-time job is considered to be 2080 hours per year.  By working 888 hours, members of Congress work 43% of what is considered to be full time. If $174,000 is considered the annual salary for working full-time, their pay could be adjusted downward to $74,820. I don't know about you but, if I was working less than half time, I would consider that pretty generous. Many people who work full time would love to earn that much.
Unfortunately, it really doesn't matter what you or I think about this, because we can't change it. Congress is not a bargain, and never will be.