Discussion:
American Airlines - Last one standing
(too old to reply)
sechumlib
2005-09-20 01:49:34 UTC
Permalink
In my school days there were many pupils from my home town who travelled
to several 'high schools' in another town.
We simply had 'bus passes' to travel on the normal scheduled bus service.
A few students even travelled by rail.
Didn't need special school buses at all.
Well, that's lovely for a place that has enough scheduled bus service to
handle it. Most parts of the US don't. My part certainly doesn't.

Why don't you give up trying to reform us?
JL Grasso
2005-09-20 01:55:19 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 02:28:06 +0100, Pooh Bear
Each school is a separate building at different locations around the
district.
So ? How does that pose a problem.
Transportation is a serious piece of the budget so they do
make efforts to maximize the results.
It might be maximised better it seems !
In my school days there were many pupils from my home town who travelled
to several 'high schools' in another town.
We simply had 'bus passes' to travel on the normal scheduled bus service.
A few students even travelled by rail.
Didn't need special school buses at all.
Worked fine.
Graham
Graham
Obviously.

Bwaaaaaahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahw!

Jerry
Pooh Bear
2005-09-20 02:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by JL Grasso
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 02:28:06 +0100, Pooh Bear
Each school is a separate building at different locations around the
district.
So ? How does that pose a problem.
Transportation is a serious piece of the budget so they do
make efforts to maximize the results.
It might be maximised better it seems !
In my school days there were many pupils from my home town who travelled
to several 'high schools' in another town.
We simply had 'bus passes' to travel on the normal scheduled bus service.
A few students even travelled by rail.
Didn't need special school buses at all.
Worked fine.
Graham
Obviously.
Bwaaaaaahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahw!
Jerry
Ok - Mr Smartarse - what exactly do you find problematic or puzzling about the
above ? Is your IQ so low that you can't understand that public transport can
rise to the job of taking kids to school ?

Graham
JL Grasso
2005-09-20 02:24:07 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 03:04:36 +0100, Pooh Bear
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by JL Grasso
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 02:28:06 +0100, Pooh Bear
Each school is a separate building at different locations around the
district.
So ? How does that pose a problem.
Transportation is a serious piece of the budget so they do
make efforts to maximize the results.
It might be maximised better it seems !
In my school days there were many pupils from my home town who travelled
to several 'high schools' in another town.
We simply had 'bus passes' to travel on the normal scheduled bus service.
A few students even travelled by rail.
Didn't need special school buses at all.
Worked fine.
Graham
Obviously.
Bwaaaaaahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahw!
Jerry
Ok - Mr Smartarse - what exactly do you find problematic or puzzling about the
above ? Is your IQ so low that you can't understand that public transport can
rise to the job of taking kids to school ?
Graham
It's more than high enough to know a post editing, uninformed,
self-absorbed scum swallowing netkkkop when I see one.

Your knowledge of aviation is still quite marginal, BTW.

Jerry
mrtravel
2005-09-20 02:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pooh Bear
Ok - Mr Smartarse - what exactly do you find problematic or puzzling about the
above ? Is your IQ so low that you can't understand that public transport can
rise to the job of taking kids to school ?
Graham
Great.......... if public transport exists.
Most of the US doesn't have a London style transit system.
Pooh Bear
2005-09-20 01:56:20 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:47:51 +0100, Pooh Bear
So each bus can do an elementary, middle, and high school run.
Yes, I gathered that.
Why can't all age ranges use the same bus ?
Can't the bus visit all the schools ? There seems to be a fixed mindset in
action here assuming that kids have to be segregated by age.
Graham
How deep would you recommend that they stack the students? I'm
assuming you'd agree that putting the highschool kids on the bottom
layer would help stabilize the pile...
Ahhh.... someone 'kinda' gave an answer !

You mean - there's *lots* of kids to transport ?

Haven't you heard of 'double decker buses' ? We have them in the UK btw. You
may know them as 'London buses'. Carry around 70 pax.

They have even bigger ones in HK btw. Max pax up to around 130 persons !

Now tell me a 130 seater bus can't cope.

Graham
mrtravel
2005-09-20 02:30:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pooh Bear
You mean - there's *lots* of kids to transport ?
Haven't you heard of 'double decker buses' ? We have them in the UK btw. You
may know them as 'London buses'. Carry around 70 pax.
They have even bigger ones in HK btw. Max pax up to around 130 persons !
Now tell me a 130 seater bus can't cope.
Graham
Do these cost the same as the smaller buses?
Are they as safe?
Pooh Bear
2005-09-20 01:58:00 UTC
Permalink
I'm puzzled why schools in the USA have different hours depending on the age
group they're teaching. In winter, the staggered hours will simply ensure the
almost impossibility of both arriving and leaving in daylight.
It's a little matter of wanting to spend school system money on
EDUCATION rather than on enough buses to pick up EVERY student at the
same time.
Why don't you use something more modern than those 1940's style school buses then ?
I've been on buses in Hong Kong that'll carry at least 130.

Graham
Clark W. Griswold, Jr.
2005-09-20 01:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Why can't all age ranges use the same bus ?
Mixing ages is not the issue. The issue is that in the US, schools are required
to use school buses, unlike in other countries, where standard buses are
frequently used. This means that said buses must be purchased by said school
districts, or leased from a company that purchases them.

Starting all schools at the same time would require 3 times as many buses, and
three times the cost of running those buses.
Can't the bus visit all the schools ? There seems to be a fixed mindset in
action here assuming that kids have to be segregated by age.
Not at all. You seem to have a problem grasping the concept of utilization and
what it costs to run buses for just an hour in the morning and an hour in the
afternoon.
Pooh Bear
2005-09-20 02:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clark W. Griswold, Jr.
Why can't all age ranges use the same bus ?
Mixing ages is not the issue. The issue is that in the US, schools are required
to use school buses, unlike in other countries, where standard buses are
frequently used. This means that said buses must be purchased by said school
districts, or leased from a company that purchases them.
Starting all schools at the same time would require 3 times as many buses, and
three times the cost of running those buses.
Can't the bus visit all the schools ? There seems to be a fixed mindset in
action here assuming that kids have to be segregated by age.
Not at all. You seem to have a problem grasping the concept of utilization and
what it costs to run buses for just an hour in the morning and an hour in the
afternoon.
S'ok !

You have at last out of all the posters here *finally* explained what it's about !
Essentially - limited resources. Thank you.

I simply suggest larger buses. You'll see from another post of mine that it's
possible for buses to cary 130 pax. It's up to you to decide if you want to use
them.

Graham
Clark W. Griswold, Jr.
2005-09-20 02:00:32 UTC
Permalink
We simply had 'bus passes' to travel on the normal scheduled bus service.
A few students even travelled by rail.
Didn't need special school buses at all.
Student fares are offered on mass transit systems in major cities.

However, unlike in the UK and other countries, the low population density and
associated lack of mass transit in most of the US precludes the use of commuter
buses and standard commuter routes for school transportation.

Hence the requirement for dedicated school buses.
Pooh Bear
2005-09-20 02:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clark W. Griswold, Jr.
We simply had 'bus passes' to travel on the normal scheduled bus service.
A few students even travelled by rail.
Didn't need special school buses at all.
Student fares are offered on mass transit systems in major cities.
However, unlike in the UK and other countries, the low population density and
associated lack of mass transit in most of the US precludes the use of commuter
buses and standard commuter routes for school transportation.
Hence the requirement for dedicated school buses.
Ok - I can see that. I'm puzzled why you can't be more imaginativate about buses
though. Those old crocks that still get made are a 40's design at best !

Use bigger buses ! Problem solved !

Graham
Clark W. Griswold, Jr.
2005-09-20 02:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Sure, that makes sense. What kind of distance betwen pupil and school is typical
btw ?
The minimum distance in the US is typically around 1 mile before the district
has or chooses to provide transportation. This varies though. In urban areas, no
busing may be provided if commuter mass transport is available. The max distance
varies dramatically depending on area, but can go as high as 50 miles in rural
areas.
Is there any reason the buses can't transport all age groups together ?
Is it a behaviour issue ?
See my other posts. Although age segration can be a concern, staggering by age
is more of an administrative/logistical convenience.
sfb
2005-09-20 02:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Are you aware that in some parts of the US, we are talking about county
school districts, 500 square miles, 60,000 kids in 40 or more buildings?
Each school is a separate building at different locations around the
district.
So ? How does that pose a problem.
Pooh Bear
2005-09-20 02:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by sfb
Are you aware that in some parts of the US, we are talking about county
school districts, 500 square miles, 60,000 kids in 40 or more buildings?
Well ! Fancy that ! Shame you didn't mention it earlier !

Do you expect me to read your mind ?

So, what's wrong with bigger buses and transporting all the kids at the same
time ?


Graham
Post by sfb
Each school is a separate building at different locations around the
district.
So ? How does that pose a problem.
khobar
2005-09-20 02:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Each school is a separate building at different locations around the
district.
So ? How does that pose a problem.
Transportation is a serious piece of the budget so they do
make efforts to maximize the results.
It might be maximised better it seems !
In my school days there were many pupils from my home town who travelled
to several 'high schools' in another town.
We simply had 'bus passes' to travel on the normal scheduled bus service.
A few students even travelled by rail.
Did the normal scheduled buses take you right to the school? From my school
days closest stop was within a mile or so - along the main road, and that is
where the
bus service worked to/from. Certainly none of my schools had their own train
stations - you were very lucky. In my day, the train station was a five mile
walk.
Didn't need special school buses at all.
http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=3023114
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4570000/newsid_4575700/4575797.stm
http://www.medway.gov.uk/index/environment/publictransport/buses/11302.html
http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/around/transport/yellow_bus.htm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/23/81mph_school_bus/
etc.

An article you might be interested in:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4098782.stm

Paul Nixon
mrtravel
2005-09-20 02:28:13 UTC
Permalink
So each bus can do an elementary, middle, and high school run.
Yes, I gathered that.
Why can't all age ranges use the same bus ?
Can't the bus visit all the schools ? There seems to be a fixed mindset in
action here assuming that kids have to be segregated by age.
Graham
Graham,

Each bus is making 3 trips in the morning and 3 in the afternoon.
This enables them to use one bus instead of 3. If each bus is at
capacity, they would need 3 buses if everyone started on the same schedule.
Morgans
2005-09-20 03:28:38 UTC
Permalink
Is there any reason the buses can't transport all age groups together ?
Is it a behaviour issue ?
Yes, due to the nature of children picking on, and negatively influencing
the younger students.

I feel somewhat justified speaking on the subject, since I have driven a
school bus before. When a driver is alone with 45 or more students on a
bus, their behavior is somewhat on an honor system. Their is little a
driver can do to maintain discipline, and safely negotiate traffic. Even
with high school students, only, on a bus, there will always be a bully.
Usually, these kind can be taken care of, but I would not want to have a
large age difference in the group.

I have had an elementary student riding with the high school students, but
he was a "special needs" behavior problem. He rode by himself, right behind
me, and still it was nearly always a problem. Imagine that times 20.
Uuugh.

Still this does not speak to the reason some schools drive the same bus for
3 different groups, at different times. It would take triple the drivers
and busses to have enough seat spaces for all of the students. If they are
going to drive three routes, why not segregate them by age? That is why it
is done. Economics.

In my school, we do not have staggered start times, because of the extremely
large, rural nature of our county. Some students live around 35 to 40 miles
from the high school, less for the 4 elementary schools, and two middle
schools. There are so many miles to drive, it takes three times the numbers
of busses, to reduce the driving times down to an acceptable level. As it
is, some of the students are on a bus for an hour and a half, to hour and
forty five minutes. That is already too long, but the best we can do.

Where I grew up, we had the staggered start times, but our population
density was much higher. We could drive the route three times, and get the
students off in less than an hour, and use less busses, and as a result save
the district much money.
--
Jim in NC
Jeff Hacker
2005-09-20 02:41:19 UTC
Permalink
American
Continental - several trips to bankruptcy court
United - currently in bankruptcy
Delta - filed Ch. 11 today
Northwest - filed Ch. 11 today
US Airways - wasn't a major pre-deregulation, then a regional known as
Allegheny; several trips to Ch. 11
National - gobbled up by Pan Am in 1979
Braniff (original) - shut down 1982
Western - gobbled up by Delta in 1987
Eastern - shut down 1991
Pan Am (original) - shut down 1991
TWA - several trips to Ch. 11, remains gobbled up by AA in 2001
What about Republic? Or weren't they considered a major carrier before
the merger with NW?
Well I figured someone was going to ask about Republic. I'm surprised
it didn't happen sooner.
North Central
Merged with Southern to form Republic
Southern
Merged with North Central to form Republic
Piedmont
Acquired by US Air approximately 1988
PSA
Acquired by US Air approximately 1988
Air California
Name Change to Air Cal; acquired by American approximately 1989
Empire
Acquired by Piedmont mid 1980's
Mohawk
Acquired by Allegheny mid 1970's
Allegheny
Name change to US Air appromately mid 1970's
Northeast
Acquired by Delta in 1972
Southeast
bankrupt 2005.
Lake Central
Acquired by Allegheny approximately 1967
Capital
Acquired by United 1960
Capitol
bankrupt late 1990's.
World
still flying as charter carrier based in Atlanta
Pacific
merged with West Coast and Bonanza approximately 1969 to form Air West,
then renamed Hughes Airwest - ultimately acquired by Republic
Pacific Northern
merged into Western, approximately 1972
West Coast
Merged wtih Bonanza and Pacific to form AirWest
Bonanza
Merged with Pacific and West Cost to form Air West
AirWest
acquired by Howard Hughes and renamed Hughes Airwest approximately 1972,
acquired by Republic approximately 1980.
Hughes Airwest
acquired by Republic, approximately 1980
Air Florida
Bankrupt approximately 1992
People Express
Bankrupt, acquired by Continental approximately 1992
Frontier
Bankrupt approximately 1988. Some assets acquired by Continental. New
airline of same name reborn approximately 1995
New York Air
Merged into Continental approximately 1988
Provincetown Boston
Acquired by continental
Presidential
bankrupt and no longer operating
Air Atlanta
bankrupt and no longer operating (not the same company as Air Atlanta
Icelandic)
Ransome
later Trans World Express, Pan Am Express. Died when Pan Am did
Trans International
became Transamerica through name change
Transamerica
ceased service approximately 1992
Arrow Air
Still operating (cargo carrier based in MIA)
Air South
bankrupt approximately 1985
Wien Air Alaska
bankrupt approximately 1990
Reeve Aleutian
bankrupt approximately 2004
Aloha
Still operating (although in Chapter 11 bankruptcy)
Hawaiian
Still operating
Hawaiian Express
Bankrupt
ONA
name change to National Airlines, then bankrupt early 1990's
Metro Air
Acquired by American Eagle
Tower Air
bankrupt approxmately 2001
MGM Grand
Name change to Champion Air - still operating as a charter carrier
Regent Air
No longer operating
UltrAir
bankrupt
Robertson
Not sure
Robinson
Mid-Continent
Merged into Braniff, 1952
American Overseas
sold to Pan Am, 1950
Varney Air Lines
Became part of United, approximately 1933
Varney Speed Lanes/Lines
Became Continental
National Air Transport
Became National Airlines, acquired by Pan Am 1978
Boeing Air Transport
Became United Airlines
Western Air Express
Became Western Airlines, acquired by Delta 1987
Transcontinental Air Transport
Became Transcontinental & Western Air, then TWA. Acquired by American,
2001
Huff Daland Dusters
Became Delta???
Pitcairn Aviation
Became Eastern Air Lines, Inc.
Ben Franklin Air
No idea
Abe Lincoln Air
No idea
Civil War Airways
No idea
George Washington Speed Lines
Chopped down by a cherry tree
John Hancock Air Transport
name mispelled
Ice Age Air Lines
OD'd on frozen margaritas
XXX Airlines
Now ZZZ
YYY Airlines
ZZZ Airlines ???"
Hope I've saved at least some people some work.
Although I'm sure someone will bitch that I've missed some!
You forgot Braniff, Pan Am, and Panagra
John Mazor
2005-09-20 02:43:33 UTC
Permalink
The "deficit reduction" rules go back 30 years, so they must have been
newly
applied to your company because their funding had fallen to 80% in a
given
plan year.
What I was told was that there was an increase in the obligations in
reaction to
the Enron scandal.
Were the "junior" layoffs to prevent them from vesting? You would think
that they'd target the senior workers, who presumably are amassing
pension
obligations faster (bigger salaries) than junior counterparts. And
sooner
or later, they're going to have to take on more new hires!
Yes, it was to keep them from vesting. There was the additional plus in
that
whatever pension funds had been ammassed for these people were then freed
up and
could be applied to the obligations for others.
As for other considerations, the company was (and still is) fighting for
its
life. The first layoff was almost exclusively people close to their 2nd or
5th
service aniversary. That's illegal, and the company is facing a
class-action
suit, but it's better than bankruptcy. That was November of 2001. Later
layoffs
were much more general -- they got rid of people who were close to
vesting, but
they also got rid of many others across the entire range of experience.
They also targeted people who were close to retirement or who could
retire, but
they didn't lay them off (however, I knew one case in which they tried to
do so
and the man insisted that he be allowed to retire). Perceived performance
was
also a factor in here (as it should be). Those very close to retirement
who had
decent work records were often given extra service years to allow them to
retire. The company had a pension plan in which those who retired at 60
got more
perks than those who retired at 55, and those retiring at 65 more than
those
retiring at 60, so they targeted people who were 59 or 64.
In December of 2001, they redid the pension plan such that the pension
funds are
directly tied to performance of investments and employees get the fund in
cash
when they leave. The earlier plan gave payments for life which were based
on the
last 5 years of salary. Existing employees could choose which plan to
take. New
ones have no choice, but the company has been laying off ever since, so
that's a
moot point. Since the cash balance plan removes the obligation to make
payments
after retirement, it reduced the company's obligations to set money aside.
In
2003, they removed the extra perks that people used to get when they
stayed
until 60 or 65 (medical benefits). That made it less important to convince
people to retire.
All told, they had over 8,000 employees in 2001. They have a little over
2,000
now. The pension obligations are only one factor in the mess. Still, the
vesting
situation was systematic. As far as I know, nobody made their 2nd or 5th
service
anniversary since November of 2001.
Good grief.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...