QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D] But of what value is it? As many times as I've been in the cockpit of an aircraft, I don't recall ever seeing a gauge marked "Hoop Pressure." Is this more of the info "never used outside the school?" Wrong again, reindeer breath! (with appolgies to Johny Carson) Why in the world would anyone measure the hoop, or circumfrential STRESS (not pressure - although the units are the same) in an aircraft fuselage? You DESIGN for it based on the internal pressure. This is really, really basic simple engineering - several hundred years old. It is used ALL OVER THE PLACE outside of "the school". Everything from the water pipes in your house to the brake pipe on a frt car use this stress calculation. It's often called "hoop" stress because of it's application in barrel making. You are either impossibly dense or just rattling my cage.... I feel like I'm stuck in the Bob and Ray "Komodo Dragon" radio play.[:)] http://www.mindspring.com/~biohaz/komodo.txt You seem to be impossibly inept at reading a question. What is the value of the 1.4 million pounds of force other than a exercise in mathmatics? Or trying to impress someone with insignificant numbers? Reference your quote: "10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load." Exactly how would the floor be taking that large of a load, which is far above the cargo capacity of most aircraft, even if it were a pressure bulkhead? A small puncture in the fuselage would cause the plane to explode with that much force inside. Something already disproven on "Mythbusters."
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D] But of what value is it? As many times as I've been in the cockpit of an aircraft, I don't recall ever seeing a gauge marked "Hoop Pressure." Is this more of the info "never used outside the school?" Wrong again, reindeer breath! (with appolgies to Johny Carson) Why in the world would anyone measure the hoop, or circumfrential STRESS (not pressure - although the units are the same) in an aircraft fuselage? You DESIGN for it based on the internal pressure. This is really, really basic simple engineering - several hundred years old. It is used ALL OVER THE PLACE outside of "the school". Everything from the water pipes in your house to the brake pipe on a frt car use this stress calculation. It's often called "hoop" stress because of it's application in barrel making. You are either impossibly dense or just rattling my cage.... I feel like I'm stuck in the Bob and Ray "Komodo Dragon" radio play.[:)] http://www.mindspring.com/~biohaz/komodo.txt
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D] But of what value is it? As many times as I've been in the cockpit of an aircraft, I don't recall ever seeing a gauge marked "Hoop Pressure." Is this more of the info "never used outside the school?"
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D]
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book.....
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear The latest salvo from the Union... LC Letter to the Editor - Albany Times Union Amtrak's service contract with Subway is shortsighted and dangerous First published: Friday, December 2, 2005 An article appeared in your Nov. 20 business section headed, "Amtrak starts with food." I would strongly disagree with the premise. Amtrak should start with a safe and secure trip. The decision to end food and beverage service provided by professional service workers and to contract with Subway franchisees is shortsighted and dangerous. The Empire Corridor trains no longer include service workers who, like flight attendants on the airlines, are responsible for the safety and security of passengers as well as food service. These rail workers received training in emergency protocols to handle bomb threats, evacuation procedures, fire suppression, risk avoidance of communicable diseases and blood borne pathogens, as well as FDA regulations in food handling. There have been more than 181 terrorist attacks against major rail networks, including those in London, Madrid, Paris, Moscow and Tokyo, since 1998. To eliminate on-board service and contract it out to sandwich vendors removes an important level of security on America's passenger trains. On-board service employees have acted heroically in emergency situations helping to evacuate trains and administer first aid. Three years ago, when Amtrak's autotrain derailed in Crescent City, Fla., on-board attendants rescued trapped passengers by opening windows and pulling them to safety. When the California Zephyr derailed in 2001, one on-board attendant rescued 80 passengers despite his own injuries Now, Amtrak has contracted with Subway in a pilot program where Subway employees will hawk sandwiches in the aisles. Amtrak has put itself on record that these workers are to be treated like passengers in case of emergency. Instead of being first responders, they will be first out the door. Trading safety for a sandwich is irresponsible. GARY MASLANKA Chair, Amtrak Service Workers Council Railroad Division Director Transport Workers Union of America New York City
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton One thing we know for sure, Subway won't be selling their products to any passengers in the cargo holds of commercial airplanes. Jay
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
QUOTE: Originally posted by amtrakjackson Interesting that most everyone concentrates on Amtrak's union issues, and cutting the front line to "save money". But what about Amtrak's bloated management? Sure, they no longer have 80 some-odd vice presidents, but the hundreds of former "on-board chiefs" were given *lifetime* management positions as a condition of the elimination of OBS chiefs. They're now "Operations Supervisors" (with no operations experience), or other nonsensical positions. Once given a management position at Amtrak, you're virtually guaranteed a job for life, and if it looks like the ax may fall, they'll reshuffle and accomodate you accordingly so that no one notices. In Chicago alone, there are close to 100 "managers" in and near the Chicago Terminal. All micro-managing the front-line employees and trying their best to keep their positions in the face of cuts. None ever get demoted, and, in fact, more are hired each year. Michigan alone has two road foremen, and an "operations supervisor" to directly cover roughly 30 employees. Not including the Chicago managers that come out. How many managers are there at NS's huge Elkhart Yard, in relationship the number of employees? Amtrak ought to take a look east 100 miles to see how to get things done. I think Chicago's ratio is somewhere around one manager for every seven employees. Yes, cuts need to be made. As we used to say as children, at Amtrak there are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. (Play on words not intentional.) They unstaff stations and leave passengers out in the cold all over the country, yet have managers tripping over themselves. That's where the problem lies.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. Since we're going to play the "you need to do a little more research" game....you need to do a little more research. It is quite neccessary to pressurize and heat the cargo comparment of aircraft. Fluid containers and sealed pressurized items tend not to react well to pressure changes and if you honsetly think temperature isn't an issue also, you are very wrong. If they were not, you would not be able to take any liquids in your luggage with risk of having them all over your clothes. Dan PS...I'm not going to argue with you about munition......but I am a pilot by trade.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton OK-Here is my deal. If "for hire" passenger airlines are compelled to pay their full share of the costs of all the government services they receive, air traffic control, airports, runways and whatever, then Amtrak can be cut off the government dole. Of course general aviation ought to be required to kick in their share, but I guess that is something akin to private vehicles on public roads. Meanwhile, the FY 2006 grant to Amtrak carries the provision that Amtrak must actually show a reduction in the food and sleeper deficit, and that if that is not accomplished, (no benchmarks are provided), no grant funds may be used for such services after July, 2006. Jay
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... In your first paragraph, you say the argument DOESN'T fly. And in the second and third, you prove that it does. Maybe you need to research how "bond issues and such" are repaid. ???????????????? Tom, I quite familiar how bond issues and repayment works. The idea that Amtrak should be subsized because the airlines receive subsidies is not valid. The Federal government subsidizing Amtrak is not the same as a LOCAL/REGIONAL government subsizing or financing an airport .....through bonds payed back by taxes.....yes I know Tom.......an airport that serves it's region...not someone from Montana subsidizing transportaion for Massachussetts. Much the same way your streets and street lights and enforcement of the rules on your local streets are payed for. Amtrak is not a public good which serves an great number of the population. I can't think of anything I get from Amtrak. Mail...no. Express...no....... But even if I don't fly, I derive benefit from an ATC system, same with the highways. And the railroads themselves...the PRIVATE owners of the ROWs, received incentives and breaks to get where they did. The point is, the continual comparison of Amtrak and airlines is not valid....more like Amtrak and Princess Cruise Line, that's a valid comparison. Dan And continued comparison of freight and passenger haulers, simply because they both run on rails, is just as invalid
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... In your first paragraph, you say the argument DOESN'T fly. And in the second and third, you prove that it does. Maybe you need to research how "bond issues and such" are repaid. ???????????????? Tom, I quite familiar how bond issues and repayment works. The idea that Amtrak should be subsized because the airlines receive subsidies is not valid. The Federal government subsidizing Amtrak is not the same as a LOCAL/REGIONAL government subsizing or financing an airport .....through bonds payed back by taxes.....yes I know Tom.......an airport that serves it's region...not someone from Montana subsidizing transportaion for Massachussetts. Much the same way your streets and street lights and enforcement of the rules on your local streets are payed for. Amtrak is not a public good which serves an great number of the population. I can't think of anything I get from Amtrak. Mail...no. Express...no....... But even if I don't fly, I derive benefit from an ATC system, same with the highways. And the railroads themselves...the PRIVATE owners of the ROWs, received incentives and breaks to get where they did. The point is, the continual comparison of Amtrak and airlines is not valid....more like Amtrak and Princess Cruise Line, that's a valid comparison. Dan
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... In your first paragraph, you say the argument DOESN'T fly. And in the second and third, you prove that it does. Maybe you need to research how "bond issues and such" are repaid. ????????????????
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's....
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports.
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. dd Your expectations might not be realistic. You could expect to have trans-Atlantic steamship service at 3x airfare, too, but there is none. Have you ever ridden a dinner train were the food was delivered from a local restaurant (like on the Strassburg RR)? Why not something similar on Amtrak? If the alternative was 5x airfare and have a car attendant or 3x airfare with no attendant or stay home or fly or drive, which would you choose? There's a bit of difference between the 5 mile long Strasburg Railroad, which is in the middle of an established tourist area, and a nationwide system that travels through urban to wilderness areas over several thousand miles of track. The logistics would be a nightmare doing this on Amtrak (not always on schedule thanks in part to the host railroad) as compared to a catering truck driving a few miles from one end of the line to the other. I had the car attendant on my trip in August, and it beat the heck out of flying, driving, or not having them. Well worth the money, but I think your savings figure comparing with (5x) and without (3x) the car attendant is a bit exagerated. Coach rail travel is equivalent to bus or airplane. Sleeping car travel is more first class with private sleeping compartments (bedroom or roomette) and you pay extra for this service. On most trains, these bedrooms sell out early, showing they could probably add sleeping car capacity and sell more of the premium tickets. For an example of this, see how far into the future you need to go to get a Bedroom on the Sunset Limited. I went to August of next year and gave up. I've ridden many thousands of miles in Amtrak sleepers and loved every minute of it. I would really like it if they'd stay around! But, there if there is any truth to the arguement that we're subsidizing discretionary travel in sleepers, then, it's awfully hard to defend. If it can be shown that they earn more than their incremental cost, then, we're home free. But, why are they there in the first place? If it's considered a basic part of LD train service, then you have the case for a subsidy in any event. If they are considered a luxury (more to your definition - calling them 1st class), then how can you justify any subsidy? A luxury "common good"? What is that? So far, NOBODY in Congress, the DOT or Amtrak has tried to define their roll except by inferrence or sound byte. So, we can either sit here and watch the status quo crumble, or demand a defined mission and some real funding for Amtrak
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. dd Your expectations might not be realistic. You could expect to have trans-Atlantic steamship service at 3x airfare, too, but there is none. Have you ever ridden a dinner train were the food was delivered from a local restaurant (like on the Strassburg RR)? Why not something similar on Amtrak? If the alternative was 5x airfare and have a car attendant or 3x airfare with no attendant or stay home or fly or drive, which would you choose? There's a bit of difference between the 5 mile long Strasburg Railroad, which is in the middle of an established tourist area, and a nationwide system that travels through urban to wilderness areas over several thousand miles of track. The logistics would be a nightmare doing this on Amtrak (not always on schedule thanks in part to the host railroad) as compared to a catering truck driving a few miles from one end of the line to the other. I had the car attendant on my trip in August, and it beat the heck out of flying, driving, or not having them. Well worth the money, but I think your savings figure comparing with (5x) and without (3x) the car attendant is a bit exagerated. Coach rail travel is equivalent to bus or airplane. Sleeping car travel is more first class with private sleeping compartments (bedroom or roomette) and you pay extra for this service. On most trains, these bedrooms sell out early, showing they could probably add sleeping car capacity and sell more of the premium tickets. For an example of this, see how far into the future you need to go to get a Bedroom on the Sunset Limited. I went to August of next year and gave up.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. dd Your expectations might not be realistic. You could expect to have trans-Atlantic steamship service at 3x airfare, too, but there is none. Have you ever ridden a dinner train were the food was delivered from a local restaurant (like on the Strassburg RR)? Why not something similar on Amtrak? If the alternative was 5x airfare and have a car attendant or 3x airfare with no attendant or stay home or fly or drive, which would you choose?
QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. dd
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.