MK Transportation boat nearly sinks in Bay Lake!

[General Grizz]

Big Thunder Mountain Railroad incident was on fault by Cast Members.

"Faulty maintenece" caused the attraction.

When Cast Members passed the train off as performing a test that was NOT performed, the unchecked safety wheel caused a glitch in the ride and injured guests and killed a visitor.

That's the most anti-Disney one can get. . . and the fact is, MANY Cast Members are like this.

Like Rob has said, most CP CM's don't "care." There is no Cast OWNERSHIP over the attractions. It's a way to get money, because Disney lets it be this way. They strip away magic, conditions, and keep Traditions down to 4-8 hours. Disney's a job. A material. That's what it is now.

There's a Cast Member at Tom Sawyer Island running the rafts. I was talking to a long term CM, who was over at TSI that day, who actually COVERED HER EYES during the docking, because she knew this CM was unqualified. Heck, he crushed a duck once.

On the other hand, there are GREAT Cast Members who understand the Keys to the Kingdom. . . but just thought I'd bring that up.

 

[jaylenofan86]

The FAA already has adjusted the weight of persons and baggage by 10 pounds already. I think they should weigh the passengers on smaller airlines are we do already for most of general aviation.

 

[s25843]

Originally posted by jaylenofan86
The FAA already has adjusted the weight of persons and baggage by 10 pounds already. I think they should weigh the passengers on smaller airlines are we do already for most of general aviation.

The FAA did not adjust the weight limits of checked baggage, the airlines themselves made that rule to bring both extra revenue, and protect (ha) its Union workers.

Non-Unionized airlines like JetBlue still have a weight limit of 70lbs and allow you to check 3 peices of luggage (Vs 1-2 for other carriers)

 

[jaylenofan86]

Well, I do remember reading in a newspaper about 2-3 months after the accident that they did change it. But, it could have been something else because it has been so long. Also, I remember clearly that the unioned airlines reducing the baggage limit way before the accident even happened.

 

[cloudboy]

Fewer checked bags = quicker turnaround times = better aircraft utilization = lower overhead costs. At least as most airlines see it. Plus they get to charge for extra bags.

 

[s25843]

Originally posted by cloudboy
Fewer checked bags = quicker turnaround times = better aircraft utilization = lower overhead costs. At least as most airlines see it. Plus they get to charge for extra bags.

But does it really work? No, the major carriers are still showing losses year after year.
I just recently swictched over from American to JetBlue (to the spots that they fly). I think JB is better managed, they give me more for my buck, and have a brand new fleet...

 

[YoHo]

I'm still happy with United from a customer service standpoint, but I love Alaska Air.


American I hate, If I never get on an MD-80 again it will be too soon. (Alaska has MD-80s too, but they didn't seem as loud or as dirty.)

 

[s25843]

Originally posted by YoHo
I'm still happy with United from a customer service standpoint, but I love Alaska Air.


American I hate, If I never get on an MD-80 again it will be too soon. (Alaska has MD-80s too, but they didn't seem as loud or as dirty.)

I flew on a MD-80 on Delta and it was shocking, The exit door which I was at was An udder mess, when we took off/landed the entire cabin felt like it was going to fall apart, and the brakes needed some serious fixin.

On the otherhand, The last Flight I took with JetBlue a couple of weeks ago was a brand new (I traced it back to 2003) aircraft, clean, comfy, and smooth. Its amazing how they can still turn a profit.

 

[artvandelay]

I'm flying Jet Blue for the first time in April. Jet Blue flies Airbus planes, right?

 

[s25843]

Originally posted by artvandelay
I'm flying Jet Blue for the first time in April. Jet Blue flies Airbus planes, right?

Yes, they have a fleet of AirBus A-320s, all with a service start date of 1999-2004.

Ask for a seat in any row after 12. Rows 12 back have an extra 2 inches of Seat pitch (Legroom)

 

[BeachClub]

What about good ol' Southwest! Talk about more bang for your buck!
Great airline....ON TIME, NO FRILLS (like you get any from the "major" airlines these days anyways)....and NEVER an incidient!!!!

GOOD TO KNOW!:king:

Oh, and did I mention always profitable!
Take note, UA, AA, DL, NW etc..etc...etc....

 

[andre85]

I'll second all of that, BeachClub.

 

[Timekeeper]

Bang!

Originally posted by BeachClub
What about good ol' Southwest! Talk about more bang for your buck!

Any pun intended with using the word bang?

Just curious.

:lol:

Timekeeper

 

[YoHo]

I've got no problem with older equipment if it's kept up.

United and Alaska have been known to run 727's and 737-100s both of which are a minimum of 25 years old. My concern is with how they look and feel and the maintainence record.

It's actually safer statistically to fly on a plane then it is to hop in your car and drive dow the block. Most people don't realize that. They get all freakydeaky about how old a plane is never realizing that they are orders of magnitude safer on it then they were on in the car on the way to the airport.


I Like Airbus planes, but the EU has been subsidizing them for too long now. It was one thing when they first started, but they are a legitimate and strong competitor to Boeing now. They shouldn't be getting handouts. And, on a personal note, I prefer 777s and the new 737-800s to A320/319s any day of the week and twice on sunday, but the A320 is a bit smother ride then a 757.

 

[s25843]

Originally posted by YoHo
I Like Airbus planes, but the EU has been subsidizing them for too long now. It was one thing when they first started, but they are a legitimate and strong competitor to Boeing now. They shouldn't be getting handouts. And, on a personal note, I prefer 777s and the new 737-800s to A320/319s any day of the week and twice on sunday, but the A320 is a bit smother ride then a 757.

Only on WDWMagic can we go from a boat sinking, to talking about our plane prefs :lol:


I like the 737-8, but what the heck was Boeing thinking when they put a 16.8" seat width? Even some commuter jets have a wider seat than that, Im not big, but those seats are tight, and the worst part is that it is now considered a long range aircraft!

I like the A320 because its smooth, and the cabin is wider, even though its only by a foot, but it makes a difference.

Anyone still remember the old L-1011 TriStars that Delta used to fly? I miss em!

 

[niteobsrvr]

Originally posted by YoHo
I Like Airbus planes, but the EU has been subsidizing them for too long now. It was one thing when they first started, but they are a legitimate and strong competitor to Boeing now. They shouldn't be getting handouts.

And its ok for American companies?

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander!

 

[niteobsrvr]

Re: Re: Re: Re: ?

Originally posted by s25843
Like someone else said, There are a certain few rules that Disney makes sure CMs follow, This would be one of them. If they don't follow it, they run the risk of having the Coast Guard ground their entire watercraft fleet for not following safety rules.


Also for insurance purposes Disney has an incentive to make sure the rules in that dept are followed....

I don't beleive the watercraft at Disney are monitored by the coast guard for one simple reason. Disney considers the boats attractions and not transportation.

Its the same reason the Monorails don't fall under the federal rail regulations.

 

[cloudboy]

Monorails don't fall under FRA regulations because they are on an independant track - you can't switch them onto main line trackage. The boats I believe that are on the lakes are covered by regulations, from what I remember of a conversation with a pilot a few years ago. In any case even if they wern't under those regs, I would really suspect that Disney would pretty well follow them anyway.

PS www.airliners.net has a great discusssion board about airlines and aircraft, IF you can keep up with it! Personally I think the LCs (Low Cost) carriers are doing a better job at being regular carriers than the majors, and that is why everyone likes them. And I prefer the A 319/320/321 to the 737. Havn't had the chance to fly a 777 yet. The L-1011 was great, but they were in terrible shape when they stopped flying them.