Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I haven't been back to WDW for a number of years, Spirit, but my hunch would be that the quality of Cast Members is not as bad as is being portrayed here sometimes.
Originally Posted By nbodyhome >> The secret that the pilots' union doesn't want you to know is that it can all be controlled remotely by computer these days. There's very little reason to have someone in the copilots' seat. << I have a friend who flies planes, and he's told me about some issues he's had on the way up AND down. It isn't all computerized. I'd like to have someone alert and alive in the cockpit. I'm still waiting to hear more of the rogue CM story. Have I missed that?
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Considering that most planes are flown on auto-pilot these days, and even the landings are largely controlled by computer, I wouldn't mind in the least if they got rid of all the co-pilots.>> Being a management guy, that doesn't surprise me in the least. Clearly having 2-3 people upfront is just a waste and a drag on the company line. Perhaps, we can lay them off and they can go from making $100,000-plus a year to $7 an hour at WalMart? We can basically fly planes from the ground now. Even land them and take off. Why not get rid of pilots completely? Do you know how much airlines could save? maybe they could start cleaning the jets daily again? But while computers do a lot of work, and could do all, the human element is very important for a variety of reasons. But one is all that really matters: people would NEVER get on a plane without a flight crew. And sometimes that human element is crucial to having a safe flight. Trains haven't needed conductors for many years either. And AmTrak doesn't exactly do well with them, yet they still exist. They exist because people want them, expect them and need them. People may be fallable, but so are computers ... and I'd rather take my chance with a human being. I bet 95% of folks, or more, agree with me. <<They don't make a bit of difference. Does it make you nervous to ride in a bus that doesn't have an extra driver for safety?>> Buses? The only time I ever ride them are at WDW. And I don't exactly feel very safe on them as is.
Originally Posted By nbodyhome Where are all these airline computers with the air incursions going on?
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I haven't been back to WDW for a number of years, Spirit, but my hunch would be that the quality of Cast Members is not as bad as is being portrayed here sometimes>> It's very hard to say as wahoo, I believe, pointed out. I think most WDW CMs (a good 70-80%) are very, very good. Remarkably so, really, when you consider they deal with the public as well as management that has little to no use for them. But still, if two out of 10 are lousy, you can extrapolate that on out to see how that's a lot of people. So, yeah, if you're talking about CMs in general, I agree. I just believe that those 2(or 3) lousy ones in 10 are 2-3 too many.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Where are all these airline computers with the air incursions going on?>> They likely are in the same place all those posts with the red just went. But most of those are actually during takeoffs and landings -- the most dangerous parts of flying -- and are happening because there are too many planes on the runways and taxiways to begin with. But that's another case where I want a human being making a decision, not a computer.
Originally Posted By nbodyhome Wow, admin has been busy tonight. I don't even remember anything too bad. I guess it's dementia setting in...
Originally Posted By dshyates I have lived on the water all my life and owned a pontoon boat for about 20 years. Most relevant during my teens and I can tell you from experience that if there is a swamping problem the issue isn't weight distribution, but overloading. If the boat is overloaded you can manage it with some tricky moving people around. But if you have to do this it is already dangerous. The other possibility is the boats may be poorly maintained and the pontoons partially filled with water. This could cause the problem. But we really need to know more about what happened to start pointing fingers.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Lesson learned through all this You cannot say there was a fire even if you have no proof. You can say you or someone you know had bad service and someone almost got hurt/killed without proof. Thanks for the lesson Spirit.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Wow, admin has been busy tonight. I don't even remember anything too bad. I guess it's dementia setting in...>> No. Someone who doesn't like me took something I said in a way that wasn't intended. I have apologized to said person, but he doesn't seem willing to accept it. So, I'm just going to stop trying with this person and ignore their posts. I think it's best for him, I and the whole LP community.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<You cannot say there was a fire even if you have no proof. You can say you or someone you know had bad service and someone almost got hurt/killed without proof.>> There is a huge gulf between the first example and the second one. Saying there is a fire at an indoor theme park or whatever DQ is considered could affect others and even prompt a panic amongst people. And if we all needed to provide proof here when we relay experiences, nothing would be posted. In my example, I never said anyone got hurt or killed because it wouldn't be true. I just said the POSSIBILITY existed according to a friend I trusted. I really wasn't intending on posting anymore until I got the whole story, which I should tomorrow.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 The possibility exists that a fire could break out , anytime and anywhere. IMO, your post was much more alarming then a fire at DQ post because it was not meant to be sensanalized, the thread was called "DQ on Fire" not "Lousy CM causes Disney Quest to catch fire" Face it, you look for any reason to slam WDW, even if it means exagerating the truth.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Face it, you look for any reason to slam WDW, even if it means exagerating the truth.>> Well, if I'm 'exagerating the truth,' at least it's true, right? As to your assertion that I look for any reason to slam WDW, that's simply not the case. I love the place. I love many things about it. Someone who has spent as much time and money on a place like I have at WDW would have to. There are things I don't like as well, especially when quality is cut for financial (well, actually any) reasons. I write what I see/experience/know ... whether it's good, bad, ugly, strange etc ...
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<No. Someone who doesn't like me took something I said in a way that wasn't intended. I have apologized to said person, but he doesn't seem willing to accept it. So, I'm just going to stop trying with this person and ignore their posts. I think it's best for him, I and the whole LP community.>> Interesting. I just reviewed Someone's emails and I didn't see anything that resembled an apology. Oh, God. So sorry. We're doing that whole credibility thing here again, aren't we? I HATE to subject LP'ers to that. Tell you what. I'll gladly forward the emails I received to any LP'er who asks for them. Then they can decide the credibility thing for themselves. BTW, shouldn't it be "him, *ME* and the whole LP community"?
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 Wait. I have a better idea. This would be more economical for me (not so many emails to respond to) and would resolve my dilemma about sharing private email. Why don't you just apologize to me here for your "get back into your closet" post? You can take your time and write something more convincing and less defensive than was conveyed in your emails.
Originally Posted By Mr X Why would you guys be emailing at all? I thought you couldn't stand each other.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I write what I see/experience/know ... >> Interesting comment, considering that you started this thread based on an event that you had no first-hand experience with. Using words like "lousy" and "tragedy" to describe something that you admittedly don't even have the full details about, and what details you do have don't match up with the words you use to describe the event. What compells someone to rush immediately to an online message board to post a topic based on scanty information with a hyperbole-infused headline? This is not normal behavior.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder What an interesting thread. Still and all, I'm still trying to figure out why it needed to be started at all. The OP admits he doesn't have many details and once they're in, if ever, maybe this is much ado about nothing. Why not wait to post until more is known?
