The Indignity of Air Travel

Once upon a time, travel was a treat and a luxury. Now it's more like an abusive relationship. One we can't quite bring ourselves to give up and so we continue to accept the abuse.

My flight left Costa Rica an hour late. The only official explanation (in the early stages) was that they were waiting for the luggage to be loaded, which seemed like a weak excuse. The rumor I heard later was that they were waiting for one passenger. If that's true, it's ironic, given how it unfolded.

We made up a little time on the flight, but still arrived 30 minutes late. I originally had 90 minutes for my connection, now I was down to 60. I asked a flight attendant about my connection but they reassured me it wouldn't be a problem - this was Montreal, it was much better than Toronto. (I suspect he was from Montreal.)

In hindsight I shouldn't have booked a 90 minute connection. That's probably ok for an outgoing connection, but not for an incoming connection where you have to go through immigration and pick up and recheck your bag for customs, and then go back through security. But both flights were Air Canada, and I booked directly on their web site, and it suggested the connection, so it must be ok, right?

I made it through immigration amazingly quickly. For once, automation actually helped. But all that meant is that I had to wait for my bag. It drives me crazy how much luggage people take for carry on. But I have to admit, if I hadn't had a checked bag, this would have turned out much differently. In this case, I had a paraglider and a bunch of camera equipment so I couldn't have traveled with just carry on.

Finally my bag came and I moved to a new line to get through security. Finally I was home free. About 10 people from my flight were trying to make the same connection. We crossed paths multiple times as we tried to speed up an immovable process.

According to my boarding pass, the flight left at 6pm and the gate would close at 5:45. I got to the gate at 5:40 and it was deserted. There was one lone Air Canada employee who turned out to be an IT guy who knew nothing about flights. He turned out to be the most helpful and polite of all the Air Canada employees I dealt with.

It turned out the gate had closed and the flight had left 10 minutes early. No one could explain why they would do this, especially with 10 connecting passengers due at any minute. I'm guessing they filled it up from standby and once it was full they might as well leave. I realize in this day and age it's too much to ask that they hold the flight for you but at least they could leave on schedule. (Later, the Air Canada "manager" denied that the flight left early. Humorously, at least half of the 10 customers had taken a photo of the status monitor showing it leaving 10 minutes early. It's a sad state of affairs when you have to assume that the company will lie to you.)

I went in search of the customer service counter, where I lined up yet again, with all the people from my flight. The line moved agonizingly slowly because they had no good answers and no one wanted to walk away until they got some kind of satisfaction. You'd think it would make sense to deal with all the people in the same situation at the same time, but that would be too rational.

All along the way, everyone assured us that we were fine, that we'd make our connection no problem. That puzzled me at first, since the connection was obviously tight and they couldn't predict things like baggage or security delays. Then I realized that it was simply a way to keep the cattle placid on their way to slaughter.

Once the connection was missed it was a whole different story. Not one of the multiple Air Canada staff apologized or showed the slightest sympathy or empathy. Heck, they weren't even polite. It was our fault we had missed the flight, and it was our problem, not theirs. Obviously the staff we dealt with didn't have any control of anything. They were pawns just like us, and probably just as abused, only more often. But they're still fellow human beings. I guess they've had that hammered out of them.

There wasn't even any attempt at "fake" sympathy like you might see if they had had customer relations training. That kind of training probably got cut as a cost saving measure so the executives could increase their bonuses.

The only common approach was to pass the buck at all costs. No doubt this is the "training" they implicitly receive. This extended to the lack of authority at all levels, and the system of always having a nameless faceless "superior" to assign responsibility to.

On a solitary positive note, the initial customer service agent got me on a flight for the next morning. I'd hoped there would be other flights the same day, and there probably were, but they were probably all overbooked.

The next hurdle was where to stay for the night. I expected Air Canada to provide a hotel voucher. But the customer service agent didn't handle that. We had to talk to a manager. Where was the manager? At the check-in counter in departures, halfway across the airport. I arrived there first of my cohort. There was no sign of anything resembling a service counter, let alone a manager. I asked various people until I found one who directed me to counter 22. (I wonder if the person who chose that had read Catch 22). You couldn't actually reach counter 22 because it was roped off. I ducked under. But counter 22 had a sign on it that it was closed. I got the attention of a nearby attendant and asked where the manager was. He pointed. The manager was heading away but I (probably rudely at this point) called out loudly, "excuse me, are you the manager?". I suspect they would have liked nothing better than to pretend not to hear, but it was a little too obvious. They reluctantly turned and returned to the unlabeled counter 22.

Maybe the manager would have better people skills? No, like everyone else we dealt with they immediately went on the defensive and put all the blame on us for missing the flight. Regardless, she had no authority to give out hotel vouchers. (Since we were sent to her specifically for that purpose, this seemed like yet another run-around.) Next she pulled the trump card and phoned the "connection manager". She then reported that our first flight wasn't that late, that the connecting flight didn't leave early, and that we'd had an hour to make our connection which was officially sufficient time. People kept interrupting her to try to correct the obvious untruths at which point she used another tactic. "If you keep interrupting me and won't let me finish then there's no point talking to you." I agreed and walked away. I left the rest of the cohort still arguing but all they got was more frustration and lies. It wasn't worth it.

I picked the first nearby hotel with a restaurant, took their airport shuttle, and got a room. I canceled my hotel in Vancouver (no refund due to the last minute cancellation) and I would miss my ferry shuttle to Victoria the next day.

My lesson is to allow more than 90 minutes for an incoming connection. Which is obvious in hindsight, but an expensive lesson in this case.

Dogs!

Warning: rant approaching

I'm 5k into an easy 10k run on the trails along the river. I see a woman and a dog off the trail by the river. I don't pay much attention, people (and dogs) are common. The dog comes running after me. I still don't pay much attention, dogs often do that. But in a rush it chases me down and bites me just below my waist. And as quick as it came, it was gone.

It hurt, but it didn't feel like there was much damage. It was more the unexpectedness and the shock.

I stopped and yelled at the lady: "Your f***ing dog just bit me!" (I apologize for swearing, but I was angry and full of adrenaline.)

She replied "I don't think so." What a bizarre response. She wasn't far away but she was behind trees and bushes so she couldn't have seen what happened. Either it was denial or wishful thinking. Of course, what she probably meant was that she didn't believe her dog would do that.

I replied that it had indeed bit me. She didn't say anything. No apology, no "are you ok". And worse, absolutely no reprimand or discipline to the dog. I could imagine her comforting it after the nasty man yelled at them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming it "attacked" me. This was a big full grown German Shepherd. If it had seriously wanted to attack me I have no doubt it would have done a lot more damage. I'm not sure if it saw me as play or prey or just interloper. I can't imagine how it could have felt threatened or defensive since I hadn't gone near them - it had to chase me down.

People tend to say things like "it was just excited". Honestly, I don't give a crap about your dog's state of mind. If I was playing with it and got it too excited and it nipped me, fair enough. But if I'm just passing by, your dog shouldn't bite me regardless of whether it's "excited" or "playful" or whatever euphemism you come up with. And the fact that it's "just a scratch" doesn't justify it either. What if it had been a child? What if it did decide to bite more seriously?

This was not a puppy, this was a large full grown German Shepherd. I'm sure having a big strong dog made the woman feel safe. It doesn't make me feel safe.

If you can't control your dog, maybe you shouldn't have one. At the very least, if your dog is so poorly trained it bites people passing by, I suggest you keep it on a leash. This wasn't even an off leash area. I gave up running in those areas because I got bitten several times.

I realize someone running seems to excite dogs, but that's not my fault. I try to stay away from them and I don't do anything to antagonize them. I guess I should get my exercise indoors in a gym while watching TV like a normal person. Maybe they'll allocate us oddballs a few small designated non-dog parks.

I got rabies vaccinations in case of dog bites in third world countries. I guess dogs are now a first world problem too.

I don't hate dogs. And I don't mean to be offensive to dog owners. I know lots of people with dogs. My family had dogs when I was growing up and I loved them. Back then dogs were mostly for families with kids. Now everyone has to have a dog, if not two or three, and often the bigger the better. Dog ownership is up roughly 30% in just the last 10 years, with multiple dog ownership growing even faster. There are about 100 million dogs in the US. It's almost become the exception not to have a dog. I'm not sure how much of it is fad or fashion, or whether there's some gap in our current psyche that dogs fill. Maybe people need a simple physical friend because they interact with their other 1000 friends through their phones, mediated by giant evil corporations. 

To add insult to injury, it messed up my run stats since my heart rate went through the roof and took quite a while to settle down. A good example of fight or flight response.

In case any other dog lovers are in denial that one of their beloved babies would do such a thing, here's some evidence. (The waist band of my pants protected me from the other half of the bite.) And yes, I'm pretty sure I'll live :-)

Nanny State

A while ago "Trail Closed" signs appeared on the lower unofficial dirt trail along the river. That's my walking route to work, so I ignored the signs and kept taking the trail. Judging by the packed snow on the trail, I wasn't far from the only one.

It always annoys me when they attempt to close these unofficial trails. The city or Meewasin (I'm never sure who does what) didn't build the trails (I suspect they were animal trails originally.) They didn't open the trails and they do little to maintain them.

It annoys me even more when they "close" them for no reason. I never did figure out why the signs were there. There didn't appear to be any construction or washouts which were the usual excuses. Perhaps something had been going on and they just forgot to remove the signs after they were done (common).

It does make me happy to see that I'm not the only one that objects to these attempts to control the wild trails. When there was a landslide on the East side of the river there was a long term battle between the closers (the "stop its" as my father called them) and the trail users. When signs didn't work, they put up fences. When people went around, they put up more fences. When people knocked down the fence, they put up stronger fences. People still knocked them down. What was so wrong about people walking around the trail damage? Or was it just the control freaks don't like being ignored?

Bureaucracies, no matter how well meaning, like to control things. They probably view it as protecting people. Of course, recipients, like me, see it as meddling attempts at control.

Out on my run, I encountered new signs: "Natural area closed. Beavers active. Danger of falling trees." Again, like most people, I ignored the signs and continued on down the trail.

The beavers have been fairly active. But there are always beavers along the river. You never know where they will decide to feed. And the activity was mostly in the fall when they were presumably stocking up for winter. I haven't seen much signs of recent activity. Of course, bureaucracies move very slowly, this is probably a response to what occurred two months ago.

Our culture is afraid of nature. That's partly because we are so disconnected from it. I think it's also because we can't stand the thought that we're not in control, that we're not the top dog. We (humans) think we are the supreme beings, in charge of everything. We don't want to admit that we are never going to be in charge of nature. There's no doubt that we can mess it up, chop down the forests, plow up the prairies, poison the oceans, etc. But being able to destroy does not imply control. A bull can destroy a china shop, that doesn't make him in charge.

Our culture is also obsessed with eliminating risk. But no matter how much we think we can remove risk, it is always there. You could have a heart attack. The brakes in your car could fail. The brakes in the oncoming car could fail and hit you. You could slip on a patch of ice. We cannot put up a sign for every possible risk. Nor would doing so eliminate all the risks.

For the people who don't ignore the signs, all you're accomplishing is making them even more afraid of nature. Less likely to care about protecting it, and more likely to want to turn it into a playground. Next thing you know we'll have to "do something" about the "beaver problem". A euphemism for more attacks on nature.

If you walk in a forest, there is a chance that a tree could fall. If you see that beavers have been chewing on the trees, then you can probably guess that there's a very slightly higher chance of a tree falling. Do we need to "close" a forest because there is a chance of a tree falling? If you really want to be a nanny state, then go ahead and put up your signs saying "Slightly higher danger of tree falling due to beaver activity." I wouldn't recommend standing among the trees in a windstorm, but that's regardless of whether the beavers have been around.

Of course, another reason for these signs is that we're also a culture that doesn't like to take responsibility for anything. If a dead tree falls on us because we stood under it in a wind storm, then we need someone to blame, preferably to sue. Because we're sure as heck not going to admit we did something stupid and paid the price. We sue MacDonalds because the coffee is hot. Really? On the one hand we think we're masters of the universe, on the other hand it's not our fault if we can't remember that coffee is hot? There is no limit to the extremes we will go to blame someone else for our bad luck or stupidity. And thus, we need those signs to supposedly limit liability, even though that's probably useless.

Realistically, what are the odds of a tree falling on you? I've never heard of it happening other than in a windstorm. But every year people get hit by lightning while they're golfing. They don't "close" the golf courses (except maybe during a storm). People get in car accidents all the time, but we don't "close" the roads. Realistically, I'm pretty sure I'm safer on the trail, even with the dastardly beavers, than I am walking and crossing icy streets, contending with drivers late for work with a phone in one hand and a coffee in the other.

Deadfall

One of the excuses the city has been giving for butchering the trees and bulldozing the riverbank is that there was a lot of "deadfall". They say this in horrified tones as if it was some terrible disease.

Gimme a break, deadfall is perfectly normal. A healthy forest will have deadfall. It provides shelter and homes to birds and insects and other animals.  Lichen and moss and mushrooms and other fungi grow on it. It decomposes and provides nutrients to the soil.



Maybe you've seen them clearing deadfall from forests. The reason we do that is because we've suppressed the natural cycle of fires. And so we pile mistake on top of mistake.

Humans have a seemingly insatiable desire to manage nature. We can't have a natural area without supervising it, which means roads and trails and all kinds of interference. We turn Grasslands National Park into a giant cattle pasture, supposedly to make up for wiping out the buffalo. Of course, you can't have cattle without fences and roads and dugouts. How about we just bring the buffalo back. Of course, we can't do that without treating them like cattle and rounding them up and herding them around. We can't have wolves or bears or cougars without radio collaring them. Perhaps it's some deep seated fear of the wild. After all, who knows what horrible beast (without a radio collar!) might be lurking under that deadfall. Perhaps something fearsome like a salamander.



Come on people, nature did perfectly well for billions of years without us to "manage" it. The only reason we need to manage it is because we're in the process of destroying it. If our management did anything to slow down this destruction it might be worth it. But it doesn't. If anything it just hastens the process.

I think another part of the problem is that humans don't have much patience and they seldom take the long view. It takes decades or even centuries to grow trees. It's so much quicker to cut them down and plant grass and asphalt.

I'm ok with making a path so people can enjoy nature. Perhaps they won't destroy it quite so quickly if they appreciate it. But if you destroy the very nature that they're coming to see, in the process of creating the path so they can see it, all you end up with is yet another stretch of sterile pavement. If that's what people wanted they'd be spending their time in parking lots. Oh yeah, I forgot, that is the great outdoors for most people.

We're in the middle of the worst extinction event in the billions of years of our planets existence. Since 1900 the rate of extinctions has been approximately 1000 times faster than normal. If the current rate of human disruption of the biosphere continues, one-half of Earth's higher lifeforms will be extinct by 2100. All as a result of "progress" and "management".

Road Rant

There are a lot of reasons I don't like automobiles. One of them is that they have a bizarre tendency to turn people into jerks. Rudeness that people would never dream of face to face is somehow natural when they're in a faceless vehicle.

I'm lucky that my walk to work only crosses one vaguely main road. Most of the way is on the Meewasin trail, avoiding cars altogether. The other morning when I reached Spadina it was relatively busy. I waited patiently for a gap in traffic. But it was somewhere in the neighborhood of -35 with the wind chill so I wasn't keen on standing there too long. Eventually there was a decent gap in traffic and I started to cross the road. Just to be clear, not only was I at an intersection, but it was also a marked crosswalk. By no stretch of the imagination did I step out into the middle of traffic. (I'm not that stupid!) The roads were not icy. The nearest approaching car was about half a block away. He would have to slow down slightly to give me time to cross, but wouldn't even need to stop. But as soon as I stepped off the curb he started honking at me. I pointed at the crosswalk sign. He kept honking. I got annoyed so I stopped in the middle of the road forcing him to stop. I pointed again at the crosswalk sign. I didn't expect an apology, but I did expect that he'd shut up.

I continued across the road thinking that was the end of it, but as he drove by he rolled down his window and yelled at me not to cross when there were cars around. Seriously? Obviously he didn't like anything slowing down his driving. And I'm sure he didn't appreciate that I tried to imply that he was in the wrong (by pointing at the crosswalk sign).

You'd think people would have a little empathy or even respect for someone walking, especially at these temperatures. I should know better. In a place where there are more cars than people, more parking lots than parks, someone without a vehicle is obviously utterly down and out. Why would you have the least shred of respect for them. Especially when such a low life gets in your way.

I have to laugh when I compare it to crossing roads in Asia. If you waited for a gap in traffic there you'd never get across the street. Your only option is to appear confident and step out into the maelstrom. Any sign of weakness or hesitation and no one will slow down.  But nor do drivers throw a temper tantrum about pedestrians having the nerve to cross the road.