Saturday, September 25, 2010

A Modest Proposal for Preventing Passengers Boarding Air Carriers from Being a Burden to Their Fellow Passengers

Whenever I fly, I wonder why the airlines board passengers from the front of the plane to the back. Premier and business class travelers, whose seats are so much more comfortable than mine, may prefer to stow their carry-ons and take their ease. That makes sense.

Economy flyers, though, need a better system. When I travel economy, if my seating area is at the back of the plane, I have to wait until last to board. That means I step around or on all those other people who are either still trying to cram their luggage in the overhead compartments, sprawling in their seats or arguing about who has which seat.

Likewise, I don’t understand why people are in such a hurry to get off the plane the minute it lands. If they have tight connections, sure. But many of those people have to pick up their checked baggage at the carousel. It won’t arrive there before they do.

I now modestly propose a more rational system for boarding large aircraft passengers:

First, admit first class and upgraded passengers, passengers with children, and those who need special assistance.

Second, admit everyone sitting in window seats. Then, once the window passengers are seated and out of the aisles, fill the middle seats. When they're out of the way, finally, let in the people with aisle seats.

If people need to make tight connections, they can be sure to reserve aisle seats. Their luggage will be the last stowed, so it should be easily to hand. They can grab it and go.

(Granted, the storage space for carry-on luggage may be used up before the aisle sitters arrive on the plane, but that happens anyway with the current system.)

In a perfect world, the cabin crew would ask other passengers to wait for people on a deadline. They would remind us that instead of a frantic race to the jetway, we could enjoy a serene and leisurely departure.

Think about this the next time you fly, please, and tell me if you don’t think this would make much more sense.

Friday, September 24, 2010

Oakwood Park Youtube Video

Thanks to Maria Ludwig for keeping New Providence residents informed about the upcoming referendum over whether the borough should sell Oakwood Park to Union County for $1.

Today she forwarded the link to this video about the potential sale.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFp9C55h8Gs

Our own Brian Flanagan is running for Union County freeholder. I encourage Union County residents to vote for him.

PS Have you noticed the brick outside the New Providence Library inscribed "No County Park 2009"? I wonder where that came from... kh

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Jury Duty

Last time I served jury duty I noticed that some attorneys had efficient voir dires, but some, not so much.

The ones I liked were the attorneys who asked all potential jurors to stand up. They then asked questions such as “Have you ever been arrested for a speeding violation?” or “Has anyone in your family ever served time in a prison?” The people with “yes” answers sat down. This continued until the attorney had an acceptable number of potential jurors to question more closely.

The slowpokes asked each potential juror each question one by one. Once I’d seen the brisk approach, the laborious one struck me as a waste of time. Worse, I wondered if the poky attorneys purposely lengthened the jury selection process in order to rack up more billable hours.

Luckily for me, when I had jury duty yesterday, I sat next to the best-dressed gentleman in the room. He wore a suit and tie, and I’m pretty sure he carried (but did not wear, as we were indoors) a Panama hat.

Once he identified himself as an attorney, I asked him what he thought of my billable hours theory. He made the very good point that many of the prosecution attorneys worked on a contingency basis, meaning that they wanted to spend as little time as possible on each case.

I asked him why he didn’t hang a placard around his neck announcing that he was an attorney, ensuring that he wouldn’t be impaneled. He responded that in many cases, his profession would not affect his selection or decision. I disagreed with my fellow juror, on that point, but who was I to argue with him?

I still maintain that attorneys don’t want to admit any potential juror whose reaction to evidence they could not predict in advance. A rival attorney, with his or her own background in the law, would be a ripe target for a peremptory challenge. Nonetheless, I admired this attorney’s trust in an even-handed jury system. It was an honor to serve with him.

Fortunately or unfortunately for us both, the jury manager dismissed us all that afternoon. I’ve never yet sat on a jury. I hope that at one point I will, as long as the trial doesn’t last too long.