Letters to the Editor
Details, Details
Published Letters: 61 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Wake me when we get there
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not for the first time am I thankful that I don't part with cash to read Salon.
While it's questionable whether *anyone's* mundane travel tales are worth reading, at the very least you'd expect a commercial pilot's efforts to include something, you know, uniquely tied to his insider-knowledge of aviation.
Instead, we get a "Departures" magazine-style puff-piece about amenities and airports. Patrick, did any of the mentioned airlines--or any other party--happen to pay for any of your trip? Is there a possible conflict-of-interest that even the sloppiest travel writer would acknowledge somewhere in the piece?
Hell, even rank co-opting by an airline PR department would have been marginally acceptable if the result was readable. Instead, we're saddled with this pedestrian bore-a-thon that simply falls of a cliff at the end.
Zzz.
-
Real Aviation Writing vs. ... This
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Patrick:
Since you've addressed my remarks directly, I'll respond in kind.
This column's fatal weakness is that it suffers from a tone that is neither wholly journalistic nor wholly personal, yet entirely First Year Composition in style. Accordingly it offers the gloss of insider knowledge without actually revealing anything of genuine interest, and the personal observations included are sophomoric. Crying Babies Are Annoying is the latest example of the latter.
I'm urged by one of your fans to recall the "years" of previous columns that surely were meatier than this one. I do recall them.
I recall your disappointment at not being aboard an aircraft that was involved in a midair collision. I recall your obsession with things African, apparently rewarding for you, useless for readers. I recall your theft of an artifact and consequent lame (and then absent) defense of same. I recall your insistence that pilots really, really have hard jobs, and aren't paid nearly enough, much less as much as we think they are (and then God created the FMS). Most of all, I recall your persistent defense of an industry that obviously puts revenues and profits ahead of passenger safety. No doubt you imagine this fifth-column performance helps ensure your employability as a pilot in future.
In a week in which we once again heard about two US commercial airline pilots who *fell asleep* and overshot their destination, you offer us First Class Emirates cake.
(As you know, Patrick, engineers at Airbus had to be talked into installing essentially useless side-sticks, where a mouse or scroll wheel would have sufficed for flying the aircraft. Why? Too "demeaning" for the pilots to fly without at least some token physical control of the computers that actually control attitude. Luckily, there was an autopilot in control over Hawaii--and Denver before that--for our snoozing, overpaid, operation technicians.)
This column serves, above all else, not as a source of information or elucidation, but as a defense of the airline industry (with occasional symbolic sniping) and as a simple springboard for nearly equally vapid first-person responses from willing readers. These letters typically begin with, "Another great column, Patrick! Now, here's what happened to ME..." A fascinating give-and-take, if you're 12.
Why continue reading? Like the train-wreck that is any Sarah Palin interview, the column beckons in a way that can't always be avoided. Not every week, but I'll check in often enough to see whether you've started channelling Richard Collins and have something original to offer.
In other words, based on the column's actual content, there is no demonstrable need for "Ask the Pilot" to be written by a pilot. Salon would do just as well to run ATA or IATA press releases and more accurately entitle the effort, "The Airlines: Relax!"
Okay, well, that's that.
Time to revisit yesteryear once again, listen to The Smiths, kiss (or not) that girl, head south to Tanzania, and tell us about the giant glass in the DC10 flight deck and what a great view it affords the hard-working airline employee flying his aircraft on autopilot, backed up by CAT III autoland.
And those important periodic refreshers? Why, what better use for a multi-million dollar simulator at the end of the day than flying under the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. Tex Johnson lives, and 12-year-olds everywhere cheer.
-
Equivocate much?
[Read the article: "Miracle at St. Anna"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This review contains three "but"s, an "and yet," one "on the other hand," capped off by a, "Still..."
Hay-zoos H. Christmas, Steph.
Why the reluctance to tell it like it is--as other, perhaps braver reviewers are doing: This flick is an interminable mess that, with any luck, will finally prove that the real Spike Lee is as interesting to watch as the real M. Night Shyamalan, or any of the other one-hit wonders endlessly promoted by an American film industry desperate for original talent.
Just wondering.
-
Clothes, the King, etc.
[Read the article: Chokin' on Chuck]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Speaking as a reader who's barely able to tolerate Palahniuk's prose even at the Barnes & Noble page-browsing level...
I realize that there are plenty of us out there, the WTF-do-people-see-in-this-twit cohort, but I'm still relieved each time I see this expressed by someone whose opinion means something.
Thanks.
-
"Strike"?
[Read the article: Madeleine Albright strikes back ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Time to slow down a little, there, Joan.
How on earth do you get "strikes back" from Albright's tame response.
Try, "Madeleine Albright responds" for something closer to accurate.
And a pretty wimpy response it was, too.