easyJet Wants to Really Open Up the Mile-High Club

"I now pronouce you ..."

People get married in odd places (underwater, Las Vegas chapels, haunted houses, funeral homes, etc.) all the time. Go ahead and add "30,000 feet in the air" to that list, because easyJet has requested permission to hold wedding ceremonies on airplanes.

"If our request is replied positively, then so called 'floating on cloud nine' would get a new meaning for people in love - and we can offer another special service to our passengers."

[...]EasyJet captain Jeffery Husson added: "To officiate a wedding is a special honour for me.

"It would be exciting if I could marry couples above the clouds."

It would also be awkward if no one was flying the plane too, Cap. Of course it would make more sense (logically speaking) to have an actual ordained minister performing these rituals. But fiscally, I suppose a guy trained to fly an airplane will suffice in administering the holiest of vows.

Of course, there's one key issues here: where do the folks go for the honeymoon? The restroom seems the only logical place and, well, that's just awkward. Actually there are probably more, but I suppose when you concede to getting married by an airplane pilot, that's just one of the things you prepare for.

United Flight Crew Allegedly Calls Coach Passengers "IDIOTS"

The first rule of being a flight attendent isn't even: "be polite." I think we all know that too well. The first rule is "don't ever call anyone on your plane an 'idiot.'"

Well, according to the Consumerist and reader Nicholas, the flight crew of United Airlines flight 941 from Chicago to Denver did just that.

[...]I am a frequent business traveler. I was on United flight 941 from Chicago to Denver. On takeoff and landing I always listen to the cockpit communications. Hearing the dulcet tones of the pilot helps ease some of my flying nervousness. During flight 941 I didn't hear anything from the cockpit during takeoff and once we were in the air I heard something odd on the cockpit communications channel. It appeared I was hearing the flight attendants communications. I could see them talking on the phone near the bulkhead and I could hear it on the cockpit channel. Most of the conversation was fairly innocuous but when it was time to serve drinks I heard: "We start on drinks for the IDIOTS in coach". It was at that point one of my fellow passengers let them know we could hear what they were saying. They stopped using the communications system and offered no apology.

I've sent the story to United and surprise… no response.

Here's the thing. It's not always personal when something like this happens. Just because it does once doesn't mean that stewards and stewardesses don[t care for the vast majority of people who happen to pay for his/her income. And it doesn't mean that they don't secretly love anyone who doesn't want to waste the extra $300 to sit in a bigger seat and get a hot towel. 

But United, presuming that Nicholas' email is accurate, needs to do something to address this issue, because, as it stands now, they're kind of getting away with it. One has to wonder how long that will last if it gets national attention.

From the "About Time" Dept: Radar May Check for Flocks of Birds

Remember that whole "Plane takes off," "Goose flies in engine," "engine catches on fire," "Plane lands in Hudson River" sequence that happened two weeks ago? (Answer: of course you do.)

Well, the whole thing could have been avoided by simply having radar to detect flocks of birds. Which someone is working on, apparently.

Federal aviation officials say a handful of U.S. airports will soon begin testing experimental radar systems designed to track flocks of birds.

The new technology can monitor birds as far as six miles away from an airfield. It's being tested at airports in Seattle, Chicago and Dallas.

Oh, wow! That's awesome! Except ... WHY DON'T WE ALREADY HAVE THIS? Seriously, airplane people: you have technological systems that allow planes to land themselves, and yet, you can't figure out when a giant group of birds, flying together (likely south, or possibly north) are headed towards an airplane, which is, by the way, also a giant metal object. Sigh.

Google Earth and a Single Day of United States Air Travel

Yes, it is "Crazy Airplane Graphic YouTube Day" here on Travelin' Light. It's not that we're lazy, we just -- like the rest of the world -- are fans of moving pictures. So, for your further enjoyment, check out this Google Earth mapping of American air travel on a single day.

Hmmm. On second thought, maybe using satellites to try and get rid of airplane congestion is a good idea after all.

What a Day of Air Travel Looks Like in Little Yellow Dot Form

The video is a bit shadowed, as you can tell, but the point what you're going to see in this YouTubery is that there are a whole lot of people flying around the world on each day. Each yellow dot that moves around represents a single airplane flight.

Yes, the United States is a tiny bit infested with airplanes. More on that here.

Newark Airport Is Going to Trust the Googles and Start Using Satellites to Land Planes

Landing planes is a serious business. That's why so many people -- from the pilot to the guys with the bright orange glowing thunder stick things to the people I presume live up in the tower and tell the planes where to go -- are involved in the process.

But Newark Airport is going to take a bold step towards the future and decide to trust technology when it comes to guiding these huge winged chunks of metal onto a tiny concrete strip by implementing satellite technology.

The new technology, known as the Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS), will enable planes to fly closer together and land more efficiently, without affecting safety, said the port authority. The new technology is particularly beneficial when planes are landing in low-visibility conditions, added the airport operator.

Radar is inefficient at busy airports because of the length of spacing necessary between planes, the port authority said.

And in doing so, it will cost only ... $2.5 million! Actually, that's kind of a steal -- provided there's no government bailout involved. On the same note though, do any of us really want less space between planes, simply based on the principle of trying to be "more efficient" (read: make more money for the airlines while pretending to be consumer friendly)? Because as much as I like getting places faster, I'm not a huge fan of rear ending another airplane. So, yeah, note to self: don't fly through Newark for the next 75 years.