Date created : 13/02/2019 – 10:09

Since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez first introduced it, the Green New Deal has drawn interest from skeptics, critics, supporters, and more. The proposal, which seeks to aggressively combat climate change while also addressing economic inequality, does offer a number of progressive solutions for its goals. So if you’re wondering whether the Green New Deal eliminates air travel, don’t worry too much.

Within the official outline for the Green New Deal, which was released on Feb. 7, the 10-year goal to move America towards 100% renewable energy is explained in detail. And yes, one of those details is the reduction of air travel — but the outline doesn’t exactly say it wants to get of air travel. Rather, it outlines a plan to reach a point where air travel “stops becoming necessary” as a means of transportation, and it aims to achieve this in a number of ways.

The outline reads in part,

[We aim to] totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle

At another point in the outline, the authors explain that the 10-year goal aims for “net zero” emissions, rather than “zero” emissions, because “we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.”

What’s more, at still another point in the outline, the authors explain why such drastic steps are needed for industries as valuable as the transportation industry: “Simply put, we don’t need to just stop doing some things we are doing (like using fossil fuels for energy needs); we also need to start doing new things (like overhauling whole industries or retrofitting all buildings to be energy efficient).”

It’s not surprising, necessarily, that a climate change proposal would address air travel: transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the nation, according to a report by the Rhodium Group as released by Vox. Vox further noted that a full re-haul of the rail system in the United States wouldn’t be that unheard of, given that many countries offer extensive high-speed train offerings instead of flights, in countries like Japan, South Korea, and Italy, where trains travel as fast as 200 miles per hour.

Vox also reports that shifting transportation needs from airplanes to trains will definitely decrease greenhouse gas emissions in a dramatic way — but only if those high-speed trains run on electricity, not on coal power.

To the publication, Yonah Freemark, a doctoral candidate studying the politics of transportation at MIT, said, “Outside of the US, Canada, and Australia, every developed country has invested quite considerably in high-speed rail transportation systems.”

He added, “I think there is no reason to think that the United States is any different [in its transportation potential] than any other country.”

As of Feb. 12, five presidential candidates have cosponsored the New Green Deal.

Hyderabad: Low-cost airlines have made travel cheaper but there are many complaints against them. The largest number of complaints lodged with the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is against Indigo Airlines followed by Spicejet.

A majority of the complaints are about rude or unprofessional behaviour of the staff. Air India was not too far behind in terms of providing bad service. Frequent cancellations, delays, and misinformation by staff are other common complaints.

 

Passengers also complain about the poor response when they enquire on the phone, promised services not being provided, and the long procedure involved in getting a refund or even denial of refund.

There are complaints about the airline not allowing passengers to board, though they have a valid ticket and checked in on time, because the flight has been overbooked. Loss of baggage for which compensation is not paid, or when paid, is very meagre, and pilferage of baggage has also been reported.

P. Basu had a bad experience with Indigo, travelling from Kolkata to Tirupati. “Tickets for three persons from Kolkata to Tirupati (via Bengaluru) cost me Rs 47,010 on Indigo for December 15. The PNR is ZKU4MK. The tickets were purchased with Indigo Promise which provides compensation for delays/cancellations.

“We reached Bangalore from Kolkata around 1 pm and were informed that the connecting flight to Tirupati was delayed till 5 pm. Post this, after every half hour we saw that the flight was getting delayed by an hour. After waiting till 6 pm when Indigo announced flight ETD was at 8.30 pm, we contacted the ground desk staff. At that point, we were informed that the flight was cancelled. All this while there was no indication from Indigo that the flight would be cancelled. To date, we have not received the full refund or any Indigo Promise Voucher. Complaining to customer relations and calling the contact number has not provided us with any response.”

Mr I. Krishna complained of the exorbitant price. “Spicejet charged exorbitant airfare for a short distance of less than 300 km. Spicejet charged `14,262 on Christmas day from Bengaluru to Thiruvananthamuram. Although I had booked very close to the travel date, the fare was very high and as a consumer, I was being exploited by the airline. When I contacted the airline they informed me that they cannot process my request as it is dynamic fare. My question is dynamic fare means exploitation of people by charging exorbitant fare?”

Mayank Gajera said his Air India flight was cancelled on January 9, 2019, and rescheduled on January 18, 2019. “The services provider intimated the same nine days prior to the scheduled flight. According to DGCA rules, it should be informed at least two weeks before the departure date. The airline is not listening to my request to claim the ticket fee.”

A senior officer of the DGCA explains what an aggrieved passenger can do. “As per the prevailing regulation, aggrieved passengers are required to lodge their complaints with the concerned airline. For timely redressal of passenger grievance, every airline appoints a nodal officer and appellate authority and displays their contact details on its website. If the airline fails to fulfil its obligations, the passenger may complain to the DGCA. The ministry of civil aviation has prepared a web portal and mobile application (air sewa) to facilitate grievance handling.”

…

At just after 11am on February 9, 1969, the first jumbo jet readied to take to the air for its inaugural test flight. 

Pilot Jack Waddell fired up one of the huge aeroplane’s four mighty Pratt Whitney jet engines.

As a veteran of World War II, when Waddell flew fighters for the U.S. Navy, he had been on many nerve-racking missions, but perhaps none were as tense as this. For this was no ordinary debut. 

With the introduction of the Boeing 747, an opulent age of air travel promised to become affordable for all and change the world as we know it.

Behind Waddell were some 160 tons of aircraft, with a payload of around 54 tons of bulging mail sacks and beer kegs filled with water.

The plane itself was made out of a mind-boggling six million parts, of which a quarter were rivets holding together the 232ft machine.

The Boeing 747  took to the skies on February 9, 1969, and was made out of six million parts, of which a quarter were rivets holding together the 232ft machine

A picture taken on January 13, 1970, shows the aircraft crew from the first commercial flight of the Boeing 747, otherwise known as the ‘Jumbo Jet’, on board a flight from New York to London for Pan American

This fascinating black and white picture shows Pan American flight attendants serving passengers in the first class cabin of the Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet champagne  

First Officer Betsy Carroll, the first woman to pilot a Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet across the Atlantic, sits inside the cockpit of the Jumbo Jet

Pictured: Jess Wallick (left), chief test pilot Jack Wadell (centre) and co-pilot Brien Wygle (right) from the book: Boeing 747: A History: Delivering the Dream By Martin Bowman

The result of 75,000 technical drawings and around 625 days in a wind tunnel, it had so far cost Boeing hundreds of millions of dollars. But then the company did hope it would usher in nothing less than a revolution in the skies.

The factory alone cost $200 million — worth $1.3 billion today — which, at 205 million cubic feet, was the largest building by volume in the world.

Accompanying Waddell was co- pilot Brien Wygle, and chief engineer, Jess Wallick — all equipped with parachutes.

Six flight attendants sit in the reactor of the Boeing 747 in New York on January 24, 1970, before the plane jets off to the city of Paris 

A Pan American World Airways flight attendant serves food and drinks to passengers on-board the economy section of the  747

A picture taken in London, England, January 1970, shows employees of the giant Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet airliner waving to crowds after just arriving at Heathrow Airport for the first time

If anything went catastrophically wrong, they would be able to escape from the cockpit via a fireman’s pole into the cargo bay, from where they could open a hatch and jump to safety.

Just before taking off, Waddell’s boss, Bill Allen, had told him: ‘Jack, I hope you understand that the future of the company rides with you guys this morning.’

That had been no understatement. If the test flight failed, then the company risked going down with the plane.

Three flight attendants, in their traditional uniform, stand on the stairwell of the new Boeing Pan American 747 Jumbo Jet

A U.S. pilot and a navigating officer sitting inside the cockpit of the American commercial jet airliner, the Boeing 747, in 1969 

In December 1965, Boeing had signed a contract with Pan Am to make 25 747s before the model was even fully developed and tested. Failing to deliver would not only have been a reputational disaster for the company, but an astronomical waste of investment.

Boeing was in debt to investors to the tune of $2 billion — $14 billion today. If the jumbo jet failed, Boeing would have ceased to exist, and tens of thousands of workers would have lost their jobs.

• 
  Those magnificent men (and women) and their flying machines:…

  
  ‘Write down your (telephone) number and give it to your…

  
  Shocking moment a tyre explodes off an aircraft tractor and…

At 11.35am, Waddell watched the engines reaching the necessary level of thrust for take-off. He then released the brakes at the northern end of Paine Field near the city of Everett in Washington state, and the massive plane lumbered down the runway.

Onlookers held their breath, especially at the moment when the plane’s nose just started to lift. This was it. ‘Rotate’ called Waddell, using the aeronautical term for pulling back on the yoke.

Passengers sit down to enjoy the music inside the spacious piano lounge on board the American Airlines Boeing 747 Airplane

This picture captures passengers congregating inside the spacious lounge of American Airlines Boeing 747 Airplane for drinks and food 

Inside the Sky Club Coach Section of the American Airlines Boeing 747, passengers enjoy plenty of leg room as they are served drinks and food by the flight attendants 

A mockup image shows the spacious seating and leg room inside the Boeing 747. When it first took to the skies it transformed the world of  aviation

A few seconds later, hurtling at just over 150 mph, the first jumbo jet took to the skies. From that moment on, the world of aviation would never be the same again.

Since the first flight of the Boeing 747 half a century ago, the jumbo has transported 3.5 billion passengers as well as billions of tons of cargo all around the planet — including another aviation icon, the Space Shuttle, which was ferried around America on the back of a jumbo.

More than any other aircraft, the jumbo jet, with its ability to transport around 600 passengers over 8,000 miles at just under the speed of sound, has shrunk the world.

It also ushered in an age of luxury in the skies: glamorous air stewardesses who offered a smile as they marshalled food trolleys up the aisle serving filet mignon from an a la carte menu; cocktails served to sharply dressed businessmen wreathed in cigar smoke.

This was a time when commercial flights were a holiday in themselves. But now, 50 years later, the jumbo is slowly disappearing from our skies.

Although nearly 1,600 have been built since 1969, there are only around 500 still flying.

British Airways, Boeing’s biggest jumbo customer, has only 34 in the air, with a further 36 in storage. By 2024, the airline will have stopped flying them altogether.

Dutch airline KLM is also phasing them out, while Cathay Pacific and Singapore Airlines are now only using 747s — which weigh 435 tons at full-capacity — as cargo planes.

You do not need to be an aeroplane anorak to find this a little sad. Many of us have an enormous affection for the jumbo, and no matter how many times you fly on one, you still can’t help but be impressed by its size.

The jumbo’s demise is no fault of its age. Boeing is still producing planes even today, with some 24 orders for the latest cargo version — the 747-8F — on its books. Its problem lies in its cost.

On a practical level, it is now possible to fly around 400 passengers across the Atlantic on two engines, and it makes little financial sense to fly 600 people the same distance on the jumbo’s four.

Environmental tariffs and landing fees levied by airports have also dramatically increased.

Landing a jumbo at full capacity at Heathrow costs around £12,500. Of that, nearly £4,000 is in environmental tariffs, whereas for a Boeing 787, which can take around 330 passengers, that tariff is around £1,000.

With airlines operating at such tight margins, it is far more economical to fly two 787s from, say, New York to London, than one jumbo jet.

But while the jumbo’s days might be numbered, it certainly had an extraordinarily good run.

After all, its creators thought all long-haul aircraft would be supersonic by the Seventies, and planned to phase it out after a decade. Many at Boeing didn’t even think the jumbo would last that long, given its birth was beset by myriad problems. The eventual choice of engine, made by Pratt Whitney and known as the JT9D, was a particular cause for concern.

It suffered from power surges and had a tendency to stall — hardly ideal characteristics for any plane, let alone one as large as the 747.

The JT9D’s blades also rubbed against the bottom of the engine casing, which not only made it underperform, but was also potentially lethal if it destroyed the engine.

The Space Shuttle Orbiter is mounted on top of a Boeing 747 carrier aircraft and flown. The first landing test took place on 12th August 1977

The Space Shuttle Endeavour lifts off just just after sunrise on the first leg of its journey back to the Kennedy Space Center atop a Boeing 747 carrier aircraft

The Space Shuttle Discovery sits on top of NASA’s modified Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft as the aircraft takes flight from with Edwards Air Force Base in California

Another large problem was the basic design of the plane, which was intended to have two decks.

But during testing, they found it impossible to evacuate the plane within the required 90 seconds, and, worse still, people actually broke bones at they slid down escape chutes a few storeys high.

As a result, the size of the top deck was reduced. But despite such problems, on September 30, 1968, the first 747 was rolled out to meet the press and public.

To the tune of Elgar’s Pomp and Circumstance, it emerged from its hangar, its red and white livery gleaming in the sun.

Despite the fact that the 747 had never flown, the plane boasted the insignia of the 26 airlines that had already placed orders. 

Accompanying the plane — which would be called City of Everett — were female cabin crew from each of the airlines, who somewhat haphazardly smashed bottles of champagne against the fuselage.

When the test flight took place just over four months later, the plane was treated somewhat better. Pilot Jack Waddell only tried the most gentle manoeuvres, and was delighted to find the 747 handled well.

But, looking at the temperature gauge in the cockpit, he noticed that — for some unknown reason — one of the Pratt Whitney engines was running some 30 degrees hotter than the others. Rather than panic, Waddell coolly decided to continue to climb, and the engines suffered no further issues.

But, several minutes later, Waddell lowered the wings’ flaps and the three-strong crew heard a strange thud.

Something was emphatically not right and, after a quick investigation by chief engineer Jess Wallick, it emerged that part of the flaps on the starboard wing had worked loose. This was a reason for ending the flight and, after one hour and 16 minutes, Waddell made the jumbo’s first ever landing.

Despite the glitches, the test flight was judged a success, and just under a year later — on January 21, 1970 — 336 passengers sat in Pan Am’s Clipper of America to take the first commercial jumbo flight, from New York to London.

Its lift-off was somewhat stunted, however. As the plane taxied down the runway, the pilot noted the exhaust temperature from one engine was too high. Deciding that safety was more important than public relations, he returned to the terminal.

Unsurprisingly, the passengers, all of whom had paid $375 for their tickets — about $5,000 today — were thoroughly annoyed.

Luckily, there was a spare 747, the Clipper Victor, which Pan Am had received only the day before. The passengers switched planes and touched down at London Heathrow just six hours and 16 minutes later.

Since 1970, the 747 has had, well, many ups and downs. The plane has been involved in nearly 150 accidents and incidents, most of which have been caused by human error, or terrorism.

In total, 3,746 people have died in jumbo jets. That may sound high, but it represents just 0.0001 per cent of all those who have flown on the 747.

Tragic though those deaths undoubtedly are, there is much we should celebrate about the jumbo.

It has carried everything from American presidents to pregnant livestock, and even though we will see less of her, she will continue to fly for many years to come.

She is unlikely to survive another 50 years, but when she does land for the final time, she will never be forgotten.

Boeing 747 — A History: Delivering The Dream by Martin Bowman is published by Pen Sword.

 

 

“We now need to go back to supersonic passenger travel. We should think about it,” Putin told the public as he visited the city of Kazan on Tuesday.

The president noted that “a new machine” for the Russian military, the long-range heavy strategic bomber Tu-160 and its technology, could be developed into a civilian version.

“Everything is running like clockwork,” said the Russian president about the Tu-160. “So why not also create a supersonic passenger plane?”

Also on rt.com
Putin eyes supersonic civilian airliner based on Tu-160 strategic bomber

The Soviet Union developed a supersonic passenger plane – the Tupolev Tu-144. The aircraft made its maiden flight in 1968, and was used for passenger service for less than a year in 1977-1978 before it was ruled economically unfeasible and potentially unsafe. The same happened to the only other similar aircraft, the British-French Concorde, which made its last flight in 2003.

It’s not the first time Putin has floated the idea of bringing back a civilian supersonic plane. After witnessing a test flight of Russia’s new Tu-160 strategic bomber last year, the president said that the Tu-144 was too costly for people for its time, but now the economic situation in the country is different and some companies would be able to operate this type of aircraft.

Also on rt.com
Russia to bring back the supersonic passenger airliner

Earlier this year, the Russian Ministry of Industry said that the United Aviation Corporation (UAC) will be in charge of developing the supersonic passenger jet. The company will build a flight simulator demonstrating the new jet’s capabilities by 2022 and then start working on the plane’s design.

For more stories on economy finance visit RT’s business section

Picture this: Airline pilots typically maintain what they call a “sterile cockpit” during takeoff and landing, when no communication is permitted between the cabin and flightdeck. This is to allow pilots to focus on the most difficult, and task-intensive, parts of the flight. But during the recent government shutdown — the longest in our nation’s history — some pilots briefed flight attendants that there would be no sterile cockpit on their flight. They were so concerned that the shutdown had compromised security screening, they felt the need to alter safety procedures so they could be informed immediately if there were a security issue in the cabin.

This is just one of many chilling stories I heard in recent weeks from flight attendants and the pilots we fly with. The shutdown put our lives and livelihoods in danger, risked the safety of everyone who flies, and threatened our entire economy.

Read more commentary:

Shutdown consequences: We’re not paying our protectors while ISIS and al-Qaeda remain a threat

TSA agents fall victim to government shutdown. And they just happen to be protecting our airport security.

Federal employees are working without pay to keep us safe. They deserve a check and more.

Many Americans breathed a sigh of relief when the shutdown ended, assuming that the crisis had passed. But as your flight attendant, I need to tell you the truth: Everyone is less safe flying today than we were before the shutdown. Things will only get worse if the shutdown continues into day 36 this Saturday, the deadline for Washington to keep our government open with stable funding.

Many of the people who keep our airports and our planes safe were forced to work more than a month without pay, and others were locked out completely. These are real people who suffered real consequences. No money to pay for rent, childcare, medicine — and no sense of when the nightmare would end. Imagine the kind of stress this puts on people in intense, safety-sensitive jobs.

Air travel relies on the whole system working

Flight attendants are not federal workers, and people have asked why we are so involved in this fight. Aviation doesn’t work without federal workers. Air travel is a fully integrated operation that relies on government and private industry working together. When any link in this chain breaks down, the whole system suffers.

Take air traffic controllers. On a normal day, these professionals have jobs so stressful that they’re required to retire at 56. They train for three to five years before becoming fully certified and must be fit for duty on every shift. According to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, a single air traffic controller at Chicago O’Hare is watching over as many as 20-35 planes at one time. A controller at Chicago O’Hare may be responsible for as many as 5,000 lives at any time. There is no room for error. Planes don’t get into fender benders.

Similarly, I spoke to transportation security officers who couldn’t even afford gas to get home or back to work, so they slept in their cars between shifts. Some simply couldn’t afford to stay on the job, leading to long check-in lines — and the overall stress increased the risk of a security breach, endangering all of us.

Most Federal Aviation Administration staff who conduct safety inspections of planes were furloughed, leaving critical gaps in safety. If these workers are locked out again, there will be a higher chance of issues such as mechanical failures, planes grounded and flights canceled because aircraft can’t get certified.

The FAA was rolling out new equipment to prevent incidents where a plane takes off or lands in the wrong place — incidents that happen at least twice a day and cause too many near misses. But this program, and others, were put on hold during the shutdown and haven’t been restarted because agencies don’t know whether they will be closed again.

Air travel stability will be at risk in shutdown

If the shutdown continues, we won’t know when or where problems could happen, meaning travel could be disrupted at anytime, anywhere — and that’s not even counting the damage if there’s a serious incident.

Flight attendants are aviation’s first responders and the last line of defense. We take our responsibility seriously. That’s why, through our unions, we’ve fought to ban smoking on planes, to keep knives out of the cabin and so much more. Now, we are once again standing up for safety.

There are serious issues we need to debate as a country, but our democracy and economy only work when the basic functions of our government are in place. It is immoral to put American lives in danger with reckless political games.

There is bipartisan support to keep the government open with stable, long-term funding. Americans overwhelmingly support this solution. But if Congress ignores the will of the American people and take us to Day 36 of the shutdown, flight attendants will not risk the lives of our colleagues and our passengers.

We have a duty to protect ourselves and the American people from the danger. Working people have power when we come together. If Congress chooses the chaos of a continued lockout, we will use that power.

Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants–CWA, is a 23-year flight attendant. Follow her on Twitter: @FlyingWithSara

Post to Facebook

Posted!

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

• 1 of 285
• 2 of 285
• 3 of 285
• 4 of 285
• 5 of 285
• 6 of 285
• 7 of 285
• 8 of 285
• 9 of 285
• 10 of 285
• 11 of 285
• 12 of 285
• 13 of 285
• 14 of 285
• 15 of 285
• 16 of 285
• 17 of 285
• 18 of 285
• 19 of 285
• 20 of 285
• 21 of 285
• 22 of 285
• 23 of 285
• 24 of 285
• 25 of 285
• 26 of 285
• 27 of 285
• 28 of 285
• 29 of 285
• 30 of 285
• 31 of 285
• 32 of 285
• 33 of 285
• 34 of 285
• 35 of 285
• 36 of 285
• 37 of 285
• 38 of 285
• 39 of 285
• 40 of 285
• 41 of 285
• 42 of 285
• 43 of 285
• 44 of 285
• 45 of 285
• 46 of 285
• 47 of 285
• 48 of 285
• 49 of 285
• 50 of 285
• 51 of 285
• 52 of 285
• 53 of 285
• 54 of 285
• 55 of 285
• 56 of 285
• 57 of 285
• 58 of 285
• 59 of 285
• 60 of 285
• 61 of 285
• 62 of 285
• 63 of 285
• 64 of 285
• 65 of 285
• 66 of 285
• 67 of 285
• 68 of 285
• 69 of 285
• 70 of 285
• 71 of 285
• 72 of 285
• 73 of 285
• 74 of 285
• 75 of 285
• 76 of 285
• 77 of 285
• 78 of 285
• 79 of 285
• 80 of 285
• 81 of 285
• 82 of 285
• 83 of 285
• 84 of 285
• 85 of 285
• 86 of 285
• 87 of 285
• 88 of 285
• 89 of 285
• 90 of 285
• 91 of 285
• 92 of 285
• 93 of 285
• 94 of 285
• 95 of 285
• 96 of 285
• 97 of 285
• 98 of 285
• 99 of 285
• 100 of 285
• 101 of 285
• 102 of 285
• 103 of 285
• 104 of 285
• 105 of 285
• 106 of 285
• 107 of 285
• 108 of 285
• 109 of 285
• 110 of 285
• 111 of 285
• 112 of 285
• 113 of 285
• 114 of 285
• 115 of 285
• 116 of 285
• 117 of 285
• 118 of 285
• 119 of 285
• 120 of 285
• 121 of 285
• 122 of 285
• 123 of 285
• 124 of 285
• 125 of 285
• 126 of 285
• 127 of 285
• 128 of 285
• 129 of 285
• 130 of 285
• 131 of 285
• 132 of 285
• 133 of 285
• 134 of 285
• 135 of 285
• 136 of 285
• 137 of 285
• 138 of 285
• 139 of 285
• 140 of 285
• 141 of 285
• 142 of 285
• 143 of 285
• 144 of 285
• 145 of 285
• 146 of 285
• 147 of 285
• 148 of 285
• 149 of 285
• 150 of 285
• 151 of 285
• 152 of 285
• 153 of 285
• 154 of 285
• 155 of 285
• 156 of 285
• 157 of 285
• 158 of 285
• 159 of 285
• 160 of 285
• 161 of 285
• 162 of 285
• 163 of 285
• 164 of 285
• 165 of 285
• 166 of 285
• 167 of 285
• 168 of 285
• 169 of 285
• 170 of 285
• 171 of 285
• 172 of 285
• 173 of 285
• 174 of 285
• 175 of 285
• 176 of 285
• 177 of 285
• 178 of 285
• 179 of 285
• 180 of 285
• 181 of 285
• 182 of 285
• 183 of 285
• 184 of 285
• 185 of 285
• 186 of 285
• 187 of 285
• 188 of 285
• 189 of 285
• 190 of 285
• 191 of 285
• 192 of 285
• 193 of 285
• 194 of 285
• 195 of 285
• 196 of 285
• 197 of 285
• 198 of 285
• 199 of 285
• 200 of 285
• 201 of 285
• 202 of 285
• 203 of 285
• 204 of 285
• 205 of 285
• 206 of 285
• 207 of 285
• 208 of 285
• 209 of 285
• 210 of 285
• 211 of 285
• 212 of 285
• 213 of 285
• 214 of 285
• 215 of 285
• 216 of 285
• 217 of 285
• 218 of 285
• 219 of 285
• 220 of 285
• 221 of 285
• 222 of 285
• 223 of 285
• 224 of 285
• 225 of 285
• 226 of 285
• 227 of 285
• 228 of 285
• 229 of 285
• 230 of 285
• 231 of 285
• 232 of 285
• 233 of 285
• 234 of 285
• 235 of 285
• 236 of 285
• 237 of 285
• 238 of 285
• 239 of 285
• 240 of 285
• 241 of 285
• 242 of 285
• 243 of 285
• 244 of 285
• 245 of 285
• 246 of 285
• 247 of 285
• 248 of 285
• 249 of 285
• 250 of 285
• 251 of 285
• 252 of 285
• 253 of 285
• 254 of 285
• 255 of 285
• 256 of 285
• 257 of 285
• 258 of 285
• 259 of 285
• 260 of 285
• 261 of 285
• 262 of 285
• 263 of 285
• 264 of 285
• 265 of 285
• 266 of 285
• 267 of 285
• 268 of 285
• 269 of 285
• 270 of 285
• 271 of 285
• 272 of 285
• 273 of 285
• 274 of 285
• 275 of 285
• 276 of 285
• 277 of 285
• 278 of 285
• 279 of 285
• 280 of 285
• 281 of 285
• 282 of 285
• 283 of 285
• 284 of 285
• 285 of 285

Last SlideNext Slide

 

Do you like to travel, but hate the hassle of dealing with the luggage?

“You travel, we carry” is the promise being made by a new luggage delivery start-up. 

Bringit is an on-demand delivery service and for a $25 fee, air travelers can request their bags be picked up and delivered, whether that be a hotel, office or other location. 

Bags are tagged and sealed to assure they are tamper proof. 

Travelers can track their luggage – in real time – through Bringit’s tracking technology. 

Service launched this month at Miami International. The New York City and Los Angeles International will be added in the coming weeks, according to the service.

Related

Atlanta airport No. 1 for guns detected at security checkpoints in 2018

224 lbs. of marijuana confiscated at Atlanta airport during Super Bowl weekend

Despite pulling out of its involvement with Aerion, a startup developing a supersonic airliner, Lockheed Martin remains bullish on the prospect of high-speed air travel, pointing to its involvement developing NASA’s X-59.

The company says that its contract with Aerion, signed in December 2017, was simply to vet the technical viability of its AS2 aircraft design. After that agreement expired on 1 February 2018 it had no plans to renew it. Lockheed Martin says it made no investment in the startup.

“We wish the Aerion team much success as they continue their work,” the aerospace firm says.

The company did not immediately respond to questions about why it did not want to renew its work with Aerion or what its assessment was of the feasibility of the AS2 design.

The AS2 business jet that Aerion is developing is designed to fly at Mach 1.4 and would have seats for 12 passengers. The aircraft reportedly is projected to cost $120 million and has a first flight goal of 2023.

Aerion

Aerion has swapped development partners several times since its founding in 2003. The company first collaborated with Airbus in 2014 and then Lockheed in 2017.

Boeing announced on 5 February that it made “a significant investment in Aerion to accelerate technology development and aircraft design, and unlock supersonic air travel for new markets”. It did not disclose the investment terms or size.

Notwithstanding its break with Aerion, Lockheed Martin says it remains enthusiastic about supersonic commercial travel. Its Skunk Works department signed a contract with NASA in February 2016 to do the preliminary design of X-59, an aircraft intended to reduce the noise of a sonic boom to about the sound of a car door closing. In 2018, Lockheed Martin was selected to design, build and flight test the experimental aircraft.

The firm sees reducing sonic boom noise as enabling a much larger supersonic commercial market.

“This would open the door to an entirely new global market for aircraft manufacturers, enabling passengers to travel anywhere in the world in half the time it takes today,” the company says.

Video

‘Green New Deal’ seen as litmus test for 2020 Democrats

Top Democrats running for president in 2020 have jumped on and endorsed Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s radical Green New Deal that aims, among other things, to eliminate air travel.

But the elimination of air travel strikes particularly close to the homes of Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris – all of whom extensively used air travel, including private jets – throughout the years in office.

GREEN NEW DEAL: OCASIO-CORTEZ AIMS TO MAKE AIR TRAVEL OBSOLETE, AID THOSE ‘UNWILLING’ TO WORK

Harris, among the leading Democratic candidates in the 2020 race so far, has been an early backer of Ocasio-Cortez’s resolution to tackle climate change by radically transforming the country by rendering air travel obsolete, moving the U.S. to rely completely on renewable energy with net-zero emissions, and guaranteeing economic security even for people who are “unwilling” to work.

“I’m proud to co-sponsor @AOC and @EdMarkey’s Green New Deal. We must aggressively tackle climate change which poses an existential threat to our nation,” she tweeted, adding in that “The Green New Deal is a bold plan to shift our country to 100% clean and renewable energy.”

Yet Harris herself is far from following what she preaches. Since 2015, her campaign has spent around $300,000 on air travel.

Harris’ FEC records also show that she spent less than $7,000 on trains, even though the Green New Deal proposes making trains the main means of transport “at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.”

She is, however, an outlier compared to the three other Democrats when it comes to private jets, with no records or media reports indicating that she took a chartered flight.

Still, Harris’ lavish spending on airline tickets – with many of them first-class tickets – even became a campaign issue in 2015 during her Senate run, as the travel also included first-rate hotels around the country all while her staffers had to fly budget and stay in low-end rooms.

Video

Booker is another 2020 candidate who immediately jumped on the Green New Deal without delving too much on the details, even though he also extensively relies on air travel.

His campaign records show that at least $300,000 were spent on air travel since 2013 by his campaign. He spent just about $11,000 on Amtrak – the Green New Deal’s preferred mode of transport.

While public records don’t clearly indicate whether Booker spent money on chartered flights, multiple media reports have indicated Booker occasionally travels using chartered flights.

CORY BOOKER COMPARES GREEN NEW DEAL TO GOING TO THE MOON, DEFEATING NAZIS

The New Jersey Democrat defended his support for the proposal on Friday, comparing it to the government-led push to overhaul the nation’s economy and energy sector to landing on the moon and defeating the Nazis in World War II.

“There’s a lot of people now going back on the Green New Deal, they’re like ‘oh it’s impractical, oh it’s too expensive, oh it’s all of this,’” he said at a stop in Mason City, Iowa. “If we used to govern our dreams that way, we would have never gone to the Moon. ‘God, that’s impractical. See that ball in the sky? That’s impractical.’”

Gillibrand, a New York Democrat and a close friend of Booker, is also backing the Green New Deal, despite being one of the worst offenders when it comes to air travel.

“A #GreenNewDeal is ambitious. It’s bold. And I’m cosponsoring this resolution with @aoc and @senmarkey because it’s exactly the kind of action it will take to conquer the biggest threat of our lifetime,” she tweeted.

But Gillibrand has long been criticized for her extensive use of private jets. A Fox News review of public records reveal that Gillibrand’s campaign spent at least $439,000 on air charter company Zen Air between 2010 and 2017. In the last decade, her campaign also spent an additional $465,000 on non-charter flights.

The New York senator doesn’t always charge her campaign for the travel. She charged American taxpayers $93,098 in 2013 and $194,797 in 2012 for chartered flights, according to Senate financial documents, the USA Today reported. She ranked just below her fellow Democrat Chuck Schumer, who hasn’t endorsed the Green New Deal.

Video

Lastly, Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator who long fought for against climate change, is one of the original backers of Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal.

“I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal proposal. We must address the existential crisis of planetary climate change, while at the same time creating millions of good-paying jobs in our country,” he wrote.

While Sanders hasn’t yet declared his candidacy for president in 2020, he likely to face attacks even from other progressives for his excessive use air travel.

Just last October, Sanders reportedly spent $300,000 on private air travel just so he could speak to people in nine battleground states prior to November’s midterm elections.

Sanders’ 2018 campaign committee issued an Oct. 10 payment of $297,685 to New York-based Apollo Jets, a charter jet company used by retired sports stars Derek Jeter and Shaquille O’Neal, according to federal campaign reports obtained by VTDigger.org, a watchdog news site in Vermont.

Since 2015, his Senate campaign also spent an additional $100,000 on air travel. Sanders also ran for Democratic Party’s nomination for president in 2016, meaning some of the travel costs were made on behalf of the presidential campaign.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

His presidential campaign spent over $10 million on air travel, compared to just around $75,000 on train travel.

Democrats unveiled their Green New Deal last week. For Republicans and the White House, this should be the gift that keeps on giving.

The proposal is a radical socialist manifesto that is less about protecting the environment than about disrupting and dismantling an economic system that has made this nation the most prosperous in world history. That many of the Democratic presidential hopefuls have embraced this platform is astonishing. It should also help awaken moderate American voters to just how far left the Democratic base has lurched in recent years.

Skeptics have long been dismissed as paranoid cranks for suggesting the true danger of climate change is that the issue would become a Trojan horse for an extreme progressive agenda intended to advance collectivism. Those skeptics have now been vindicated.

It’s true that the Green New Deal was introduced in the form of a resolution, so it has no weight of law. But it nevertheless highlights precisely what Americans will get if they reward Democrats with control of the White House and Congress.

Far from being a simple road map on how to wean the country off fossil fuels in the next decade, the declaration sports a laundry list of leftist and union fantasies that have nothing to do with the environment. There’s a guaranteed government job for anyone who wants it, government-run health care, “adequate housing” for all and “economic security” for those who are “unwilling to work.”

No sector of the economy is safe from the tyranny of these central planners. The proposal advocates “overhauling entire industries” and forcing every homeowner and building owner to retrofit their property to please the whims of autocratic progressives. It envisions getting “rid of … airplanes” — really! — and essentially nationalizing U.S. energy, agricultural and transportation interests. Stalin would be proud.

To pay for all this and create a green energy utopia — no nuclear power, of course — the government will just “extend credit” and create public banks to hand out taxpayer money to favored interests. It’s just that simple!

The Green New Deal is a dangerous sham that would cost millions of Americans their jobs, upend their day-to-day lives and erode their freedoms while destroying the nation’s standard of living. The campaign ads write themselves. If Republicans can’t spin this colossal overreach into gold, they might as well disband.