New Knight Rider Gets Hoffed
By Josh Grossberg
Tue Nov 20, 1:47 PM PST
The Hoff is ready to roll.
David Hasselhoff is in talks to reprise his role as Michael Knight in a TV movie sequel to his breakout 1980s hit series, Knight Rider, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
NBC is hoping the TV movie will reboot the franchise and launch a new series. This time out, however, Hasselhoff will cede the KITT-driving to Justin Bruening, who will play Michael Knight's son.
Per the Reporter, the so-called "backdoor pilot" will find Junior holed up in Vegas, where he's in big trouble for unpaid gambling debts and is bitter about his unrequited love for childhood best friend Sarah Kamen.
His luck changes, however, when Sarah (The Young & the Restless actress Deanna Russo), turns up and offers him a way out of his mess.
Little does the younger Knight know that Sarah is the daughter of KITT inventor Charles Kamen, who has gone missing. It's up to Knight to rescue him.
No word yet exactly how big a part the Hoff will have this time around or whether he'll be a regular should a new series get greenlighted.
Producers are also tight-lipped about what kind of vehicle the new KITT will be. The original talking Trans Am was known as Knight Industries Two Thousand. For the new version, the car will be updated to the Knight Industries Three Thousand. Early reports suggested the vehicle would have Transformers-like abilities and indicated producers were still seeking an auto manufacture to partner with.
The Knight Rider telepic is being produced by filmmaker Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity), who may direct the pilot if he can squeeze it into his schedule.
Hasselhoff's last ride with KITT was in the 1991 telepic Knight Rider 2000, and over the years he's made no secret about his desire to rev up a big-screen version. But with the feature film Knight Rider stalled in development, NBC decided to proceed with a new TV incarnaiton.
Meanwhile, Hasselhoff is currently gearing up to star in Tales from the Hoff, a Ryan Seacrest-produced scripted series for E! that will follow his fictionalized escapades, à la Curb Your Enthusiasm. (E! Online is a division of E! Networks.) He's also got a steady gig as a judge on the Peacock's hit reality contest America's Got Talent.
Copyright © 2007 E! Online, Inc. All rights reserved.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
Is United Airlines looking for a suitor?
Is United Airlines looking for a suitor?
Posted Nov 23rd 2007 12:45PM by Michael Fowlkes
Filed under: Deals, Rumors, Management, Competitive strategy, UAL Corp (UAUA), Delta Air Lines (DAL)
Earlier this month, rumors hit the market that United Airlines (NYSE: UAUA) and Delta Air Lines (NYSE: DAL) were considering a possible merger. Shortly afterward, Delta officially denied the rumors, but not surprisingly, United Airlines CEO Glen Tilton did not deny that they were considering merger options, as many industry analysts believe that United is the perfect company for a possible merger.
The airline, which took flight in 1930, filed for bankruptcy following the 2001 terrorist attacks and has appeared to be preparing for a sale ever since emerging from its bankruptcy proceedings. United came out of bankruptcy last year, but the company is still up to its eyeballs in debt, and boasts a miserable 2% profit margin over the past year.
When looking at United a couple of factors jump out at you pointing to the notion that the company feels a merger is the best avenue to explore:
Unlike most of the other large airline companies, United has decided not to add to its fleet. Currently the company has 460 jets in its fleet and it plans to rely on this existing fleet until 2015 or 2016. By this time, the company's planes will have an average age of twenty years. According to the company's official statement, it is just waiting for the next generation of planes, but to industry insiders this is a red flag that the company is trying to make sure it remains as favorable as possible to a takeover, and a long list of plane orders will not help that goal. The company has been looking at ways to get as much debt as it possibly can off the table. It is considering the possibility of selling off its frequent flyer program, worth about $7.5 billion. Consider that United currently has a market cap of slightly under $5 billion. It is also considering the sale of its partial ownership in its maintenance operations along with a possible sale of its cargo business to private-equity investors, bringing in billions in cash and, once again, making the company more favorable to a possible buyer.
Industry insiders have estimated that after the possible spin-offs, the company's stock value could balloon up towards $80 a share. That would be right at a 100% jump from its current selling price of $40.15 a share.
What are your thoughts? Should United look for a favorable suitor?
Posted Nov 23rd 2007 12:45PM by Michael Fowlkes
Filed under: Deals, Rumors, Management, Competitive strategy, UAL Corp (UAUA), Delta Air Lines (DAL)
Earlier this month, rumors hit the market that United Airlines (NYSE: UAUA) and Delta Air Lines (NYSE: DAL) were considering a possible merger. Shortly afterward, Delta officially denied the rumors, but not surprisingly, United Airlines CEO Glen Tilton did not deny that they were considering merger options, as many industry analysts believe that United is the perfect company for a possible merger.
The airline, which took flight in 1930, filed for bankruptcy following the 2001 terrorist attacks and has appeared to be preparing for a sale ever since emerging from its bankruptcy proceedings. United came out of bankruptcy last year, but the company is still up to its eyeballs in debt, and boasts a miserable 2% profit margin over the past year.
When looking at United a couple of factors jump out at you pointing to the notion that the company feels a merger is the best avenue to explore:
Unlike most of the other large airline companies, United has decided not to add to its fleet. Currently the company has 460 jets in its fleet and it plans to rely on this existing fleet until 2015 or 2016. By this time, the company's planes will have an average age of twenty years. According to the company's official statement, it is just waiting for the next generation of planes, but to industry insiders this is a red flag that the company is trying to make sure it remains as favorable as possible to a takeover, and a long list of plane orders will not help that goal. The company has been looking at ways to get as much debt as it possibly can off the table. It is considering the possibility of selling off its frequent flyer program, worth about $7.5 billion. Consider that United currently has a market cap of slightly under $5 billion. It is also considering the sale of its partial ownership in its maintenance operations along with a possible sale of its cargo business to private-equity investors, bringing in billions in cash and, once again, making the company more favorable to a possible buyer.
Industry insiders have estimated that after the possible spin-offs, the company's stock value could balloon up towards $80 a share. That would be right at a 100% jump from its current selling price of $40.15 a share.
What are your thoughts? Should United look for a favorable suitor?
Monday, November 19, 2007
NASA Chief: $2 Billion Would Speed Development of Shuttle Replacement
By Brian Berger
Space News Staff Writer
posted: 16 November 2007
10:08 am ET
NASA Administrator Mike Griffin told a Senate panel Thursday that the United States could field the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and its Ares I launcher within three years of the space shuttle's retirement, but meeting that earlier delivery date would require an extra $2 billion over the next couple of years.
"When I came on board it would have been possible, given the necessary budgetary resources, to retire the shuttle at the end of 2010 and deploy Orion in 2012. Time has passed and that is no longer possible. The earliest we could technically to do it today is September of 2013 ... absent crash efforts," Griffin told the Senate Commerce space and aeronautics subcommittee. The two-hour hearing was devoted to the issues facing the U.S. space program after the shuttle's retirement.
NASA is preparing to retire its three remaining space shuttle orbiters in late 2010 after completing on-orbit assembly of the International Space Station and sending up two dedicated shuttle-loads of critical spare parts. After that, the United States could lack a home-grown means of reaching the space station until Orion and Ares are brought on line in March 2015, the earliest date NASA says it reasonably can guarantee despite budgeting nearly $23 billion for the Constellation effort over the next five years on top of the roughly $5 billion it has spent so far.
Hoping to bridge that gap by buying space transportation services from U.S. firms, Griffin explained that NASA is spending $500 million over the next couple of years to subsidize development of new commercial cargo- and crew-delivery systems.
But with no guarantee that any of the commercial ventures will pan out, NASA is paying Russia to transport U.S. astronauts and their supplies to the station during the gap and is prepared to pay the European and Japanese space agencies to make additional cargo runs if needed.
Griffin also reminded the subcommittee that the only reason NASA is permitted to buy Progress and Soyuz rides from Russia is because Congress granted the space agency temporary relief from the Iran-Syria Non-Proliferation Act, which restricts NASA's purchase of space station-related goods and services from Russia. Unless Congress renews the relief it granted in 2005, NASA will not be allowed to buy Russian rides after 2011. If U.S. firms are not ready to transport astronauts to the station between 2012 and Orion's debut in 2015, Griffin said, NASA either would have to seek permission to buy more Soyuz or keep its astronauts on the ground for a few years.
The two staunch human spaceflight supporters who presided over the hearing, Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) were not pleased with Griffin's assessments. Nelson called NASA's reliance on Russia especially "perilous" in light of the chilling relationship between Washington and Moscow.
"Can anybody in America predict the geopolitics of Russia in 2012 particularly given what we see are the actions of Vladimir Putin right now?" Nelson said.
"And here we have a plan set up by NASA that is going to rely on us paying for Russian vehicles at the same time that we are laying off maybe 5,000 people at the Kennedy Space Center," Nelson said, adding that there is no guarantee Russia will sell the United States Soyuz vehicles at any price in 2012 given the unpredictable and worrisome turns that nation is taking.
'I don't want to leave this committee with the impression that we are in a good position. We are not," Griffin said, adding he finds it "unseemly in the extreme" that the United States very soon could find itself dependent on another nation for putting its astronauts in orbit. But, Griffin said, NASA is doing the best it can within its existing $16.5 billion annual budget.
He also challenged Nelson's assertion that 5,000 of the roughly 15,000 civil servants and contractors that work at Florida's Kennedy Space Center would lose their jobs once the shuttle retires, calling the estimate "on the high side."
Still, he acknowledged that there would be layoffs and said NASA is identifying new roles and responsibilities for Kennedy to blunt the impact of losing the shuttle program.
Turning the topic to money, Hutchison asked how much NASA would need to reduce the gap between the last flight of the shuttle and the first flight of Orion and Ares.
Richard Gilbrech, NASA associate administrator for exploration systems, told the subcommittee that shaving 18 months off Orion and Ares' development is still technically achievable but would cost an extra $1 billion in 2009 and again in 2010. Bringing the delivery date back inside 2014, Gilbrech said, would require an extra $350 million in 2009 and $400 million in 2010 – roughly the budget of two moderately-priced space science missions.
Hutchison, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she was interested in finding NASA the extra money it would need to narrow the gap and would be willing to examine a combination of new money and cuts to other parts of the agency's budget to get the job done.
"I would like to look at that, because it's a worthy goal," Hutchinson said. "I would think this would be a priority the president and the American people would think would be a worthy goal."
But Hutchison also disclosed during the hearing how tough finding extra money can be.
Hutchison, along with Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md) and several other co-sponsors, managed to get a spending bill through the Senate this year that would increase NASA's 2008 budget by nearly $2 billion over current levels, including a one-time $1 billion cash infusion to help the agency financially recover from the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia Accident.
Hutchison, however, said the extra $1 billion does not look like it will survive legislative conference with the House, which passed its own NASA spending bill over the summer.
"You know that I along with Sen. Mikulski tried to put $1 billion into this year's appropriation, which at this point does not appear to be successful in the conference committee," Hutchison said.
Space News Staff Writer
posted: 16 November 2007
10:08 am ET
NASA Administrator Mike Griffin told a Senate panel Thursday that the United States could field the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and its Ares I launcher within three years of the space shuttle's retirement, but meeting that earlier delivery date would require an extra $2 billion over the next couple of years.
"When I came on board it would have been possible, given the necessary budgetary resources, to retire the shuttle at the end of 2010 and deploy Orion in 2012. Time has passed and that is no longer possible. The earliest we could technically to do it today is September of 2013 ... absent crash efforts," Griffin told the Senate Commerce space and aeronautics subcommittee. The two-hour hearing was devoted to the issues facing the U.S. space program after the shuttle's retirement.
NASA is preparing to retire its three remaining space shuttle orbiters in late 2010 after completing on-orbit assembly of the International Space Station and sending up two dedicated shuttle-loads of critical spare parts. After that, the United States could lack a home-grown means of reaching the space station until Orion and Ares are brought on line in March 2015, the earliest date NASA says it reasonably can guarantee despite budgeting nearly $23 billion for the Constellation effort over the next five years on top of the roughly $5 billion it has spent so far.
Hoping to bridge that gap by buying space transportation services from U.S. firms, Griffin explained that NASA is spending $500 million over the next couple of years to subsidize development of new commercial cargo- and crew-delivery systems.
But with no guarantee that any of the commercial ventures will pan out, NASA is paying Russia to transport U.S. astronauts and their supplies to the station during the gap and is prepared to pay the European and Japanese space agencies to make additional cargo runs if needed.
Griffin also reminded the subcommittee that the only reason NASA is permitted to buy Progress and Soyuz rides from Russia is because Congress granted the space agency temporary relief from the Iran-Syria Non-Proliferation Act, which restricts NASA's purchase of space station-related goods and services from Russia. Unless Congress renews the relief it granted in 2005, NASA will not be allowed to buy Russian rides after 2011. If U.S. firms are not ready to transport astronauts to the station between 2012 and Orion's debut in 2015, Griffin said, NASA either would have to seek permission to buy more Soyuz or keep its astronauts on the ground for a few years.
The two staunch human spaceflight supporters who presided over the hearing, Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) were not pleased with Griffin's assessments. Nelson called NASA's reliance on Russia especially "perilous" in light of the chilling relationship between Washington and Moscow.
"Can anybody in America predict the geopolitics of Russia in 2012 particularly given what we see are the actions of Vladimir Putin right now?" Nelson said.
"And here we have a plan set up by NASA that is going to rely on us paying for Russian vehicles at the same time that we are laying off maybe 5,000 people at the Kennedy Space Center," Nelson said, adding that there is no guarantee Russia will sell the United States Soyuz vehicles at any price in 2012 given the unpredictable and worrisome turns that nation is taking.
'I don't want to leave this committee with the impression that we are in a good position. We are not," Griffin said, adding he finds it "unseemly in the extreme" that the United States very soon could find itself dependent on another nation for putting its astronauts in orbit. But, Griffin said, NASA is doing the best it can within its existing $16.5 billion annual budget.
He also challenged Nelson's assertion that 5,000 of the roughly 15,000 civil servants and contractors that work at Florida's Kennedy Space Center would lose their jobs once the shuttle retires, calling the estimate "on the high side."
Still, he acknowledged that there would be layoffs and said NASA is identifying new roles and responsibilities for Kennedy to blunt the impact of losing the shuttle program.
Turning the topic to money, Hutchison asked how much NASA would need to reduce the gap between the last flight of the shuttle and the first flight of Orion and Ares.
Richard Gilbrech, NASA associate administrator for exploration systems, told the subcommittee that shaving 18 months off Orion and Ares' development is still technically achievable but would cost an extra $1 billion in 2009 and again in 2010. Bringing the delivery date back inside 2014, Gilbrech said, would require an extra $350 million in 2009 and $400 million in 2010 – roughly the budget of two moderately-priced space science missions.
Hutchison, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she was interested in finding NASA the extra money it would need to narrow the gap and would be willing to examine a combination of new money and cuts to other parts of the agency's budget to get the job done.
"I would like to look at that, because it's a worthy goal," Hutchinson said. "I would think this would be a priority the president and the American people would think would be a worthy goal."
But Hutchison also disclosed during the hearing how tough finding extra money can be.
Hutchison, along with Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md) and several other co-sponsors, managed to get a spending bill through the Senate this year that would increase NASA's 2008 budget by nearly $2 billion over current levels, including a one-time $1 billion cash infusion to help the agency financially recover from the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia Accident.
Hutchison, however, said the extra $1 billion does not look like it will survive legislative conference with the House, which passed its own NASA spending bill over the summer.
"You know that I along with Sen. Mikulski tried to put $1 billion into this year's appropriation, which at this point does not appear to be successful in the conference committee," Hutchison said.
US Lawmakers Grill Space Agency on Plans for Shuttle Retirement
US Lawmakers Grill Space Agency on Plans for Shuttle Retirement
Mon, 11/19/2007 - 12:57 — newsdesk
15 November 2007 -- U.S. space agency officials are facing sharp questions from U.S. lawmakers over a five-year gap in American spaceflight capabilities between the planned 2010 retirement of the space shuttle fleet and the anticipated development of a successor vehicle. NASA administrators testified before Congress Thursday.
President Bush has instructed NASA to retire the primary workhorse of America's space fleet, the space shuttle, in September 2010, the target date for completing construction of the International Space Station. Years ago, it had been assumed that the United States would have a next-generation space vehicle ready to take over for the aging shuttles, which began service in 1981.
But NASA says the successor, called the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, will not be ready to go into service until 2015. In other words, there will be a five-year gap.
How will the United States fulfill its obligations to provide crew and cargo to the space station during that period? NASA Administrator Michael Griffin says the agency will, in effect, rent space on Russian spacecraft for transporting personnel and rely on Japanese and European vessels for ferrying cargo.
"I think our plan is very solid," said Griffin.
Not so, according to the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Bill Nelson. The Florida senator noted that space ventures often suffer delays and unforeseen complications. He said NASA is banking on finishing the International Space Station - and retiring the space shuttle - by a specific deadline that may, in the end, have to be postponed.
"All of us know those kind of things [delays] will happen," said Nelson. "What we have is a $50 billion or $60 billion asset up there in space that has got to be tended to and has got to be built. And it may not come [be completed] by 2010."
Meanwhile, the ranking Republican on the committee, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, expressed reservations about relying on the space capabilities of a partner - Russia - with whom the United States has had somewhat-frosty relations.
"If we are not able to go into space at all in a gap period because our relations with Russia are not such that we would be able to go up, the American people are going to wake up and say, 'What happened? What happened to the leadership of our country, to the leadership in Congress, and to the leadership in NASA that we would be in a hiatus from being able to go into space at a time when other countries are emerging and able to do it?'," said Hutchison.
At a time when China and other nations are galloping ahead with their own space programs, NASA officials say they are acutely aware of the need to maintain and strengthen America's space capabilities. Administrator Michael Griffin told the subcommittee he agrees entirely with those who say that the five-year gap in U.S. space transport ability is far from ideal.
"I do not want to leave this hearing or this committee with the impression that we are in a good position," he said. "We are not. The failure to plan for a successor to the space shuttle, and to bring it online in a timely way, was a failure of U.S. strategic planning. We are not in the position I would wish the United States to be in. We are, I think, doing the best that can be done."
Why not simply retain the space shuttle program until the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle is ready for service? NASA says the shuttles require more than $2.5 billion a year to operate. Given NASA's fixed budget, sustaining the shuttle program beyond 2010 would rob funds from other ventures - including the very program to build the shuttle's successor.
Source: VOA News
Mon, 11/19/2007 - 12:57 — newsdesk
15 November 2007 -- U.S. space agency officials are facing sharp questions from U.S. lawmakers over a five-year gap in American spaceflight capabilities between the planned 2010 retirement of the space shuttle fleet and the anticipated development of a successor vehicle. NASA administrators testified before Congress Thursday.
President Bush has instructed NASA to retire the primary workhorse of America's space fleet, the space shuttle, in September 2010, the target date for completing construction of the International Space Station. Years ago, it had been assumed that the United States would have a next-generation space vehicle ready to take over for the aging shuttles, which began service in 1981.
But NASA says the successor, called the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, will not be ready to go into service until 2015. In other words, there will be a five-year gap.
How will the United States fulfill its obligations to provide crew and cargo to the space station during that period? NASA Administrator Michael Griffin says the agency will, in effect, rent space on Russian spacecraft for transporting personnel and rely on Japanese and European vessels for ferrying cargo.
"I think our plan is very solid," said Griffin.
Not so, according to the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Bill Nelson. The Florida senator noted that space ventures often suffer delays and unforeseen complications. He said NASA is banking on finishing the International Space Station - and retiring the space shuttle - by a specific deadline that may, in the end, have to be postponed.
"All of us know those kind of things [delays] will happen," said Nelson. "What we have is a $50 billion or $60 billion asset up there in space that has got to be tended to and has got to be built. And it may not come [be completed] by 2010."
Meanwhile, the ranking Republican on the committee, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, expressed reservations about relying on the space capabilities of a partner - Russia - with whom the United States has had somewhat-frosty relations.
"If we are not able to go into space at all in a gap period because our relations with Russia are not such that we would be able to go up, the American people are going to wake up and say, 'What happened? What happened to the leadership of our country, to the leadership in Congress, and to the leadership in NASA that we would be in a hiatus from being able to go into space at a time when other countries are emerging and able to do it?'," said Hutchison.
At a time when China and other nations are galloping ahead with their own space programs, NASA officials say they are acutely aware of the need to maintain and strengthen America's space capabilities. Administrator Michael Griffin told the subcommittee he agrees entirely with those who say that the five-year gap in U.S. space transport ability is far from ideal.
"I do not want to leave this hearing or this committee with the impression that we are in a good position," he said. "We are not. The failure to plan for a successor to the space shuttle, and to bring it online in a timely way, was a failure of U.S. strategic planning. We are not in the position I would wish the United States to be in. We are, I think, doing the best that can be done."
Why not simply retain the space shuttle program until the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle is ready for service? NASA says the shuttles require more than $2.5 billion a year to operate. Given NASA's fixed budget, sustaining the shuttle program beyond 2010 would rob funds from other ventures - including the very program to build the shuttle's successor.
Source: VOA News
Friday, November 16, 2007
Are alternate airports worth the drive?
Are alternate airports worth the drive?
Posted 8d ago | Comments21 | Recommend7 E-mail | Save | Print |
Digg del.icio.us Newsvine Reddit Facebook What's this? By Ed Perkins, SmarterTravel.com
Almost all travel mavens espouse the mantra of "flexibility" when searching for good deals - airfares, cruises, hotel accommodations, whatever - especially around the holiday season when prime seats/cabins/rooms sell out early and the pickings are slim. One of the standard "flexibility" recommendations is to consider alternate airports at either or both ends of your trip. Granted, you probably know the options in your local area, but you may not have a clue whether, for example, "Rockford/Chicago" is really a feasible alternative for O'Hare or Midway.
One questioner to a call-in radio show put it this way: "If I ask it, the airfare search engine I use routinely displays options for 'nearby' airports. But how do I know how convenient those nearby airports really are?"
The short answer: I don't know of any exhaustive source. But I'm happy to provide, here, my own idiosyncratic run-down of options at major cities.
The congested airports
The most important alternative airports are those that help ease congestion and overloading at a few of the major U.S. metro areas. Some alternatives are really quite convenient; others are a stretch. Most of them provide extensive service, at least from other major hubs. Several have taken on the name of a major city as far as 50 miles away - sometimes useful, sometimes outright deceptive.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Chicago | LOS ANGELES | Boston | Universal Resource Locator | Jetblue | Rockford | Skybus | Allegiant Air
In general, all of these fields are good choices for travel to/from nearby communities within the larger metro areas, but not necessarily to/from the major city they claim to serve. My comments and recommendations reflect their suitability for travelers headed to the centers of the major cities, not nearby communities.
Boston
• Main airport: Logan: Close in, good public transportation, easy cab access to centers. Manchester-Boston Regional Airport, Manchester, New Hampshire: 58 miles from central Boston, free shuttle to Boston every 3 hours, 15 minutes; too far for cabs; closest Boston airport for Southwest, also other airlines. Use it mainly for Southwest.
•T.F. Green Airport, Warwick, Rhode Island: 59 miles from central Boston; poor public transportation (Amtrak/MBTA airport station under construction); too far for cabs. Boston option for Southwest, also other airlines. Use it mainly for Southwest.
•Pease International Airport, Portsmouth, New Hampshire: 67 miles from Boston. Poor public transportation; too far for cabs; the Boston airport for Skybus, with a history of on-and-off service from other low far lines. Use it only for Skybus.
•Worcester Regional Airport, Worcester Massachusetts: 48 miles from central Boston. Off-and-on history of airline service; currently "off."
Chicago
• Main airports: O'Hare and Midway, both with good public transit, cab, and shuttle access.
•Chicago Rockford International Airport: 86 miles from central Chicago ("Chicago" is a real stretch here). Poor public transportation; too far for cabs; service from Allegiant Air, United Express, and seasonal charters. Use it only for Allegiant. Milwaukee, about the same distance, has far more extensive air service.
•Gary Chicago International Airport, Gary Indiana: 25 miles to center. On-and-off airline service; currently "off."
Los Angeles
• Main airport: Los Angeles International (LAX), reasonably close, poor public transportation; good cab and shuttle service.
•Bob Hope Airport, Burbank: As close as LAX to central L.A. Fair public transportation, good cab and shuttle access. Service from most big airlines. A "hidden gem." A preferred field for Valley cities, Glendale, Pasadena, Altadena, and nearby communities, and easier to use than LAX for downtown L.A.
•Long Beach Airport, Long Beach: 15 miles from central L.A. Poor public transportation, good cab and shuttle access. The primary Los Angeles airport for JetBlue, with limited service from other big lines. Another convenient "hidden gem," especially for beach communities and not bad for downtown; OK but not as good as Orange County for the Anaheim entertainment complex.
•LA/Ontario International Airport, Ontario: 35 miles from central L.A. Poor public transportation, too far for cabs. Service from major airlines. For downtown L.A., use it only in a pinch.
•LA/Palmdale Regional Airport, Palmdale: 65 miles from central L.A. Poor public transportation, too far for cab. Minimal current service to San Francisco. L.A. plans to make Palmdale a major focus of expansion, which will be hugely inconvenient until proposed high-speed rail link is built (don't hold your breath).
New York
• Main airports: JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark. Good public transportation at JFK and Newark, easy cab access at LaGuardia.
•Long Island MacArthur Airport, Islip: 50 miles from Manhattan. Fair public transportation, too far for cab. New York's only option for Southwest; some service from other giant lines. Choose mainly for Southwest.
•Westchester County Airport, White Plains: 30 miles from Manhattan. Poor public transportation; too far for cab. Limited service from giant lines' proximate hubs plus AirTran and JetBlue, with future growth strictly limited by local opposition to more flights. A good choice only for travel to/from nearby communities.
•Stewart International Airport, Newburgh: 55 miles from Manhattan. Poor public transportation, too far for cabs. Stewart's lease is being taken over by the NY/NJ Port Authority, with the intent of building it into a major reliever for the three main— and overcrowded—airports. It will be a very poor choice until a direct rail link is built (several years in the future, at best). Limited service by major airlines from their proximate hubs, plus JetBlue and AirTran.
The others
Although few other main airports are as overused as those in the giant cities, alternative airports have been developed at several other big metro areas. Most provide only limited service. And, in several cases, the primary purpose of the alternative airports is not so much to relieve congestion at the prime fields as it is to entice airlines by offering lower costs.
Orlando
Some flights—especially foreign charters and some low-fare domestic services—use Orlando Sanford International Airport, because of lower costs, not convenience.
Phoenix
The main airport, Phoenix Sky Harbor, is promoting strong growth at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, Mesa, formerly Williams Air Force Base.
St. Louis
MidAmerica St. Louis Airport, Mascouta, Illinois, is one of those "build it and they won't come" ventures. Airline service has been on-and-off; currently, it's limited to Allegiant.
San Francisco
Travelers to Marin County communities can avoid congested bridge traffic to/from San Francisco, Oakland, or San Joseby flying to Charles Schultz Sonoma County Airport, Santa Rosa, from Seattle or Los Angeles. Would probably warrant additional service, absent local opposition to most growth.
Allegiant and Skybus
Two low-fare lines specialize in serving underutilized airports, including some big-city alternative fields.
• Allegiant uses Bellingham (Seattle), Gulfport/Biloxi (New Orleans), Mid-America (St Louis), Rockford (Chicago), and Santa Monica (Los Angeles) for its less-than-daily non-stops to a few prime domestic vacation centers. It provides similar services from more than two dozen smaller cities around the U.S. that have either no scheduled service at all or services limited to short-haul feeder flights.
• Skybus uses Bellingham, Chicopee, Massachusetts (Hartford); Gulfport/Biloxi; Portsmouth (Boston); Punta Gorda, Florida (Ft Myers); and St. Augustine, Florida (Daytona Beach/Jacksonville) for its very cheap flights to/from Columbus. In many cases, those underused airports subsidize Skybus service.
Posted 8d ago | Comments21 | Recommend7 E-mail | Save | Print |
Digg del.icio.us Newsvine Reddit Facebook What's this? By Ed Perkins, SmarterTravel.com
Almost all travel mavens espouse the mantra of "flexibility" when searching for good deals - airfares, cruises, hotel accommodations, whatever - especially around the holiday season when prime seats/cabins/rooms sell out early and the pickings are slim. One of the standard "flexibility" recommendations is to consider alternate airports at either or both ends of your trip. Granted, you probably know the options in your local area, but you may not have a clue whether, for example, "Rockford/Chicago" is really a feasible alternative for O'Hare or Midway.
One questioner to a call-in radio show put it this way: "If I ask it, the airfare search engine I use routinely displays options for 'nearby' airports. But how do I know how convenient those nearby airports really are?"
The short answer: I don't know of any exhaustive source. But I'm happy to provide, here, my own idiosyncratic run-down of options at major cities.
The congested airports
The most important alternative airports are those that help ease congestion and overloading at a few of the major U.S. metro areas. Some alternatives are really quite convenient; others are a stretch. Most of them provide extensive service, at least from other major hubs. Several have taken on the name of a major city as far as 50 miles away - sometimes useful, sometimes outright deceptive.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Chicago | LOS ANGELES | Boston | Universal Resource Locator | Jetblue | Rockford | Skybus | Allegiant Air
In general, all of these fields are good choices for travel to/from nearby communities within the larger metro areas, but not necessarily to/from the major city they claim to serve. My comments and recommendations reflect their suitability for travelers headed to the centers of the major cities, not nearby communities.
Boston
• Main airport: Logan: Close in, good public transportation, easy cab access to centers. Manchester-Boston Regional Airport, Manchester, New Hampshire: 58 miles from central Boston, free shuttle to Boston every 3 hours, 15 minutes; too far for cabs; closest Boston airport for Southwest, also other airlines. Use it mainly for Southwest.
•T.F. Green Airport, Warwick, Rhode Island: 59 miles from central Boston; poor public transportation (Amtrak/MBTA airport station under construction); too far for cabs. Boston option for Southwest, also other airlines. Use it mainly for Southwest.
•Pease International Airport, Portsmouth, New Hampshire: 67 miles from Boston. Poor public transportation; too far for cabs; the Boston airport for Skybus, with a history of on-and-off service from other low far lines. Use it only for Skybus.
•Worcester Regional Airport, Worcester Massachusetts: 48 miles from central Boston. Off-and-on history of airline service; currently "off."
Chicago
• Main airports: O'Hare and Midway, both with good public transit, cab, and shuttle access.
•Chicago Rockford International Airport: 86 miles from central Chicago ("Chicago" is a real stretch here). Poor public transportation; too far for cabs; service from Allegiant Air, United Express, and seasonal charters. Use it only for Allegiant. Milwaukee, about the same distance, has far more extensive air service.
•Gary Chicago International Airport, Gary Indiana: 25 miles to center. On-and-off airline service; currently "off."
Los Angeles
• Main airport: Los Angeles International (LAX), reasonably close, poor public transportation; good cab and shuttle service.
•Bob Hope Airport, Burbank: As close as LAX to central L.A. Fair public transportation, good cab and shuttle access. Service from most big airlines. A "hidden gem." A preferred field for Valley cities, Glendale, Pasadena, Altadena, and nearby communities, and easier to use than LAX for downtown L.A.
•Long Beach Airport, Long Beach: 15 miles from central L.A. Poor public transportation, good cab and shuttle access. The primary Los Angeles airport for JetBlue, with limited service from other big lines. Another convenient "hidden gem," especially for beach communities and not bad for downtown; OK but not as good as Orange County for the Anaheim entertainment complex.
•LA/Ontario International Airport, Ontario: 35 miles from central L.A. Poor public transportation, too far for cabs. Service from major airlines. For downtown L.A., use it only in a pinch.
•LA/Palmdale Regional Airport, Palmdale: 65 miles from central L.A. Poor public transportation, too far for cab. Minimal current service to San Francisco. L.A. plans to make Palmdale a major focus of expansion, which will be hugely inconvenient until proposed high-speed rail link is built (don't hold your breath).
New York
• Main airports: JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark. Good public transportation at JFK and Newark, easy cab access at LaGuardia.
•Long Island MacArthur Airport, Islip: 50 miles from Manhattan. Fair public transportation, too far for cab. New York's only option for Southwest; some service from other giant lines. Choose mainly for Southwest.
•Westchester County Airport, White Plains: 30 miles from Manhattan. Poor public transportation; too far for cab. Limited service from giant lines' proximate hubs plus AirTran and JetBlue, with future growth strictly limited by local opposition to more flights. A good choice only for travel to/from nearby communities.
•Stewart International Airport, Newburgh: 55 miles from Manhattan. Poor public transportation, too far for cabs. Stewart's lease is being taken over by the NY/NJ Port Authority, with the intent of building it into a major reliever for the three main— and overcrowded—airports. It will be a very poor choice until a direct rail link is built (several years in the future, at best). Limited service by major airlines from their proximate hubs, plus JetBlue and AirTran.
The others
Although few other main airports are as overused as those in the giant cities, alternative airports have been developed at several other big metro areas. Most provide only limited service. And, in several cases, the primary purpose of the alternative airports is not so much to relieve congestion at the prime fields as it is to entice airlines by offering lower costs.
Orlando
Some flights—especially foreign charters and some low-fare domestic services—use Orlando Sanford International Airport, because of lower costs, not convenience.
Phoenix
The main airport, Phoenix Sky Harbor, is promoting strong growth at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, Mesa, formerly Williams Air Force Base.
St. Louis
MidAmerica St. Louis Airport, Mascouta, Illinois, is one of those "build it and they won't come" ventures. Airline service has been on-and-off; currently, it's limited to Allegiant.
San Francisco
Travelers to Marin County communities can avoid congested bridge traffic to/from San Francisco, Oakland, or San Joseby flying to Charles Schultz Sonoma County Airport, Santa Rosa, from Seattle or Los Angeles. Would probably warrant additional service, absent local opposition to most growth.
Allegiant and Skybus
Two low-fare lines specialize in serving underutilized airports, including some big-city alternative fields.
• Allegiant uses Bellingham (Seattle), Gulfport/Biloxi (New Orleans), Mid-America (St Louis), Rockford (Chicago), and Santa Monica (Los Angeles) for its less-than-daily non-stops to a few prime domestic vacation centers. It provides similar services from more than two dozen smaller cities around the U.S. that have either no scheduled service at all or services limited to short-haul feeder flights.
• Skybus uses Bellingham, Chicopee, Massachusetts (Hartford); Gulfport/Biloxi; Portsmouth (Boston); Punta Gorda, Florida (Ft Myers); and St. Augustine, Florida (Daytona Beach/Jacksonville) for its very cheap flights to/from Columbus. In many cases, those underused airports subsidize Skybus service.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Hedge Fund Seeks Delta Merger With United
Hedge Fund Seeks Delta Merger With United
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Reprints Share
By JEFF BAILEY
Published: November 14, 2007
Pardus Capital Management, a New York hedge fund, has sent a letter to management of Delta Air Lines asking it to seek a stock-for-stock merger with UAL, the parent of United Airlines, in a deal that would create the world’s largest airline and could prompt sweeping consolidation in the airline industry.
Gordon M. Bethune, former chief executive officer of Continental Airlines, is working with Pardus, the hedge fund said in the letter. And consultants have identified $585 million in savings the two big airlines — currently Nos. 2 and 3 in the country — could realize by combining operations.
Pardus said in its letter, sent Tuesday night, that it owns seven million Delta shares, about a 2.6 percent stake.
The proposal comes one year after a bid for Delta by US Airways that ultimately failed. That offer raised hopes among investors that airlines, long reluctant to merge because of expected labor problems and other factors, would finally consolidate and make the industry more efficient.
The US Airways bid also, however, attracted opposition from Delta workers, who feared widespread job losses, and from some who expected that the deal would reduce air service in some cities both carriers served.
The recent rise in oil prices, pushing jet fuel to record levels, threatens to snuff out the airline industry’s nascent recovery and send carriers back into the red. That has led to increased speculation in recent weeks that mergers would again be seriously discussed.
Most airlines remain heavily in debt and highly vulnerable to fuel prices or any economic downturn.
Karim Samii, president of Pardus, and Shane Larson, a principal, said in the letter to Delta’s top executives and its chairman that “we believe it is imperative that you seek to enter into a merged transaction with another carrier given the rapid rise in fuel prices and the increased risk to the business as a stand alone entity.”
Estimates of Delta having $1.5 billion in free cash flow for 2007 suggest, with higher fuel prices, that cash flow “would be more than eliminated if fuel prices remain at current levels for full year 2008,” the letter said.
The letter goes on to evaluate potential merger candidates for Delta, including Northwest Airlines and Continental Airlines, but concludes that United is the best fit.
Pardus said in the letter that it had written to Delta management on Sept. 7 recommending a merger but at that time had not named a particular partner.
Since then, the hedge fund consulted with Mr. Bethune, the former Continental chief, and with consultants at Simat, Helliesen & Eichner.
It concluded that United and Delta together would offer the broadest network of routes to business travelers, and substantial savings.
A combination with Northwest would offer more savings — $1.5 billion a year, mostly from combining smaller hubs — but would not create as expansive a network, Pardus concluded. Northwest has a hub in Detroit, and Delta one in Cincinnati; Northwest has a hub in Memphis, and Delta a giant one in Atlanta.
And a combination with Continental would deliver no savings, actually raising the combined airlines’ costs by $171 million a year, and also present difficult management succession issues, the hedge fund concluded.
Pardus recommended that Delta acquire United in a no-premium stock merger. Based on recent trading prices, Delta could swap 2.395 of its shares for each United share, Pardus said. Pardus said it would back Richard H. Anderson, Delta’s chief executive, to run the combined airline, with United’s chief, Glenn Tilton, a former oil man, sticking around as chairman “for the next year or two to help facilitate integration.”
Though Delta might get a better exchange rate by waiting and hoping its stock rises, Pardus recommended seeking a merger immediately. Fuel prices are one factor. And the regulatory climate — the Bush administration may be considerably more tolerant of big mergers than a potential Democratic White House — is another.
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Reprints Share
By JEFF BAILEY
Published: November 14, 2007
Pardus Capital Management, a New York hedge fund, has sent a letter to management of Delta Air Lines asking it to seek a stock-for-stock merger with UAL, the parent of United Airlines, in a deal that would create the world’s largest airline and could prompt sweeping consolidation in the airline industry.
Gordon M. Bethune, former chief executive officer of Continental Airlines, is working with Pardus, the hedge fund said in the letter. And consultants have identified $585 million in savings the two big airlines — currently Nos. 2 and 3 in the country — could realize by combining operations.
Pardus said in its letter, sent Tuesday night, that it owns seven million Delta shares, about a 2.6 percent stake.
The proposal comes one year after a bid for Delta by US Airways that ultimately failed. That offer raised hopes among investors that airlines, long reluctant to merge because of expected labor problems and other factors, would finally consolidate and make the industry more efficient.
The US Airways bid also, however, attracted opposition from Delta workers, who feared widespread job losses, and from some who expected that the deal would reduce air service in some cities both carriers served.
The recent rise in oil prices, pushing jet fuel to record levels, threatens to snuff out the airline industry’s nascent recovery and send carriers back into the red. That has led to increased speculation in recent weeks that mergers would again be seriously discussed.
Most airlines remain heavily in debt and highly vulnerable to fuel prices or any economic downturn.
Karim Samii, president of Pardus, and Shane Larson, a principal, said in the letter to Delta’s top executives and its chairman that “we believe it is imperative that you seek to enter into a merged transaction with another carrier given the rapid rise in fuel prices and the increased risk to the business as a stand alone entity.”
Estimates of Delta having $1.5 billion in free cash flow for 2007 suggest, with higher fuel prices, that cash flow “would be more than eliminated if fuel prices remain at current levels for full year 2008,” the letter said.
The letter goes on to evaluate potential merger candidates for Delta, including Northwest Airlines and Continental Airlines, but concludes that United is the best fit.
Pardus said in the letter that it had written to Delta management on Sept. 7 recommending a merger but at that time had not named a particular partner.
Since then, the hedge fund consulted with Mr. Bethune, the former Continental chief, and with consultants at Simat, Helliesen & Eichner.
It concluded that United and Delta together would offer the broadest network of routes to business travelers, and substantial savings.
A combination with Northwest would offer more savings — $1.5 billion a year, mostly from combining smaller hubs — but would not create as expansive a network, Pardus concluded. Northwest has a hub in Detroit, and Delta one in Cincinnati; Northwest has a hub in Memphis, and Delta a giant one in Atlanta.
And a combination with Continental would deliver no savings, actually raising the combined airlines’ costs by $171 million a year, and also present difficult management succession issues, the hedge fund concluded.
Pardus recommended that Delta acquire United in a no-premium stock merger. Based on recent trading prices, Delta could swap 2.395 of its shares for each United share, Pardus said. Pardus said it would back Richard H. Anderson, Delta’s chief executive, to run the combined airline, with United’s chief, Glenn Tilton, a former oil man, sticking around as chairman “for the next year or two to help facilitate integration.”
Though Delta might get a better exchange rate by waiting and hoping its stock rises, Pardus recommended seeking a merger immediately. Fuel prices are one factor. And the regulatory climate — the Bush administration may be considerably more tolerant of big mergers than a potential Democratic White House — is another.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
When topflight food was standard on planes
When topflight food was standard on planes
NORTHWESTERN | Old airline menus offered lobster
November 12, 2007
BY BEN GOLDBERGER Staff Reporter bgoldberger@suntimes.com
United Airlines' December 5, 1967 Baltimore-to-San Francisco flight was a good one for a hungry passenger. The in-flight meal began with the French shellfish dish Coquilles St. Jacques, followed by a choice of lobster thermidor, grilled beef tournedos or double French lamb chops with mint jelly. There was soup and salad, of course. Dessert offerings included lime tartlette, chocolate torte and almond rum bar.
Sure, that was in first class, but the economy class food of the period was nearly as extensive. Brunch for coach passengers on a 1969 United flight from San Francisco to Omaha featured a mushroom omelette, broiled ham and brandied hazelnut mousse. That same year, a Pan Am New York-to-Barbados flight treated economy flyers to stuffed Rock Cornish Hen with madeira sauce and a separate cheese course before dessert. A split of champagne? A buck, even.
The menus for those high-altitude repasts and nearly 400 others are now viewable online through a new Northwestern University Library web site: http://digital.library.northwestern.edu/tranmenus. Most of the menus, which cover 54 airlines, cruise ships and railroads from 1929 to the present, come from the personal collection of the late Northwestern alum George Foster, a globe-trotting anthropologist who saved the menus from his extensive travels.
The collection is both a nostalgic window on an era of air travel when elegant, multi-course meals were an essential part of a flight -- in any class -- and a cruel reminder of just how spartan air travel has become.
Nearly 40 years after George Foster sampled hazelnut mousse en route to Omaha, almost every American airline has stopped serving complimentary meals in their main cabins on domestic flights. Passengers on United flights longer than three hours can buy pre-made salads and wraps for $5, or a snackbox for $3. Passengers on shorter flights have to settle for peanuts -- even shrink-wrapped food is only available for purchase on longer trips. American Airlines offers similar options, as do most U.S. carriers.
Blame 9/11 and the demand for lower fares, says David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association, a passenger advocacy group.
"The airlines were in such a devastated financial condition after 9/11 that there was a move to just getting back up in the air with very few amenities, and slowly they realized the public was going to accept that, and no meals became the new normal," Stempler said. "We've had a race to the bottom as to fares, [and] in the process people went for the lower fares over food, over pillows, over all kinds of amenities. They keep voting with their wallets."
But all is not lost for the airline gourmand. As carriers have gutted main cabin service, they are increasingly competing to offer the plushest amenities in business and first class. Almost every major airline now has a celebrity chef consulting on its premium class menus.
"Our chefs are really focusing on what the restaurant trends are and keeping airlines up to speed with those trends, rather than having airlines be the last to get there," said Christina Ulosevich, a spokeswoman for the international airline catering firm Gate Gourmet. The company recently paired with TV-friendly Miami chef Michelle Bernstein to design upscale, contemporary menus for Delta's international BusinessElite service. Among the offerings are of-the-moment restaurant fare like braised short ribs, grilled beef filet and shrimp scampi over lemon risotto and pomegranate glazed lamb chops.
"It's a tale of two or three classes on the airplanes," said Stempler. "In the front of the plane, in business and first, there's a race to the top. [The airlines] are all fighting each other for the best food, the best wine, the best service."
Such is the case at Chicago-based United. While George Foster had complimentary grilled spring chicken with shallots on a United flight to Des Moines in 1974, the airline's current main cabin passengers shell out for pretzels. First class flyers on select international flights, however, are served a multi-course menu designed by decorated Chicago chef Charlie Trotter.
THOSE WERE THE DAYS
These three menus were all offered on the same flight from Los Angeles to Auckland, New Zealand, in March of 1980:
LIGHT MEAL
Pineapple spears
Club sandwiches
Blueberry tart
Cheese and biscuits
Coffee -- tea
BREAKFAST
Compote of fruit
Mushroom omelette
Grilled ham
Grilled tomato
Danish pastry - roll
Conserves -- butter
Coffee -- tea
DINNER
Hors d'oeuvre
Fillet steak sauce Bordelaise
Carrots vichy -- butter minted peas
Noisette potatoes
Grateau royal Hawaiian
Cheese and biscuits
Bread roll -- butter
Coffee -- tea
NORTHWESTERN | Old airline menus offered lobster
November 12, 2007
BY BEN GOLDBERGER Staff Reporter bgoldberger@suntimes.com
United Airlines' December 5, 1967 Baltimore-to-San Francisco flight was a good one for a hungry passenger. The in-flight meal began with the French shellfish dish Coquilles St. Jacques, followed by a choice of lobster thermidor, grilled beef tournedos or double French lamb chops with mint jelly. There was soup and salad, of course. Dessert offerings included lime tartlette, chocolate torte and almond rum bar.
Sure, that was in first class, but the economy class food of the period was nearly as extensive. Brunch for coach passengers on a 1969 United flight from San Francisco to Omaha featured a mushroom omelette, broiled ham and brandied hazelnut mousse. That same year, a Pan Am New York-to-Barbados flight treated economy flyers to stuffed Rock Cornish Hen with madeira sauce and a separate cheese course before dessert. A split of champagne? A buck, even.
The menus for those high-altitude repasts and nearly 400 others are now viewable online through a new Northwestern University Library web site: http://digital.library.northwestern.edu/tranmenus. Most of the menus, which cover 54 airlines, cruise ships and railroads from 1929 to the present, come from the personal collection of the late Northwestern alum George Foster, a globe-trotting anthropologist who saved the menus from his extensive travels.
The collection is both a nostalgic window on an era of air travel when elegant, multi-course meals were an essential part of a flight -- in any class -- and a cruel reminder of just how spartan air travel has become.
Nearly 40 years after George Foster sampled hazelnut mousse en route to Omaha, almost every American airline has stopped serving complimentary meals in their main cabins on domestic flights. Passengers on United flights longer than three hours can buy pre-made salads and wraps for $5, or a snackbox for $3. Passengers on shorter flights have to settle for peanuts -- even shrink-wrapped food is only available for purchase on longer trips. American Airlines offers similar options, as do most U.S. carriers.
Blame 9/11 and the demand for lower fares, says David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association, a passenger advocacy group.
"The airlines were in such a devastated financial condition after 9/11 that there was a move to just getting back up in the air with very few amenities, and slowly they realized the public was going to accept that, and no meals became the new normal," Stempler said. "We've had a race to the bottom as to fares, [and] in the process people went for the lower fares over food, over pillows, over all kinds of amenities. They keep voting with their wallets."
But all is not lost for the airline gourmand. As carriers have gutted main cabin service, they are increasingly competing to offer the plushest amenities in business and first class. Almost every major airline now has a celebrity chef consulting on its premium class menus.
"Our chefs are really focusing on what the restaurant trends are and keeping airlines up to speed with those trends, rather than having airlines be the last to get there," said Christina Ulosevich, a spokeswoman for the international airline catering firm Gate Gourmet. The company recently paired with TV-friendly Miami chef Michelle Bernstein to design upscale, contemporary menus for Delta's international BusinessElite service. Among the offerings are of-the-moment restaurant fare like braised short ribs, grilled beef filet and shrimp scampi over lemon risotto and pomegranate glazed lamb chops.
"It's a tale of two or three classes on the airplanes," said Stempler. "In the front of the plane, in business and first, there's a race to the top. [The airlines] are all fighting each other for the best food, the best wine, the best service."
Such is the case at Chicago-based United. While George Foster had complimentary grilled spring chicken with shallots on a United flight to Des Moines in 1974, the airline's current main cabin passengers shell out for pretzels. First class flyers on select international flights, however, are served a multi-course menu designed by decorated Chicago chef Charlie Trotter.
THOSE WERE THE DAYS
These three menus were all offered on the same flight from Los Angeles to Auckland, New Zealand, in March of 1980:
LIGHT MEAL
Pineapple spears
Club sandwiches
Blueberry tart
Cheese and biscuits
Coffee -- tea
BREAKFAST
Compote of fruit
Mushroom omelette
Grilled ham
Grilled tomato
Danish pastry - roll
Conserves -- butter
Coffee -- tea
DINNER
Hors d'oeuvre
Fillet steak sauce Bordelaise
Carrots vichy -- butter minted peas
Noisette potatoes
Grateau royal Hawaiian
Cheese and biscuits
Bread roll -- butter
Coffee -- tea
Glory Days, Noisy Cabins Feature in Smithsonian's Airline Show
Glory Days, Noisy Cabins Feature in Smithsonian's Airline Show
By John Hughes
Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) -- One way to enjoy air travel without any attendant misery is on offer in Washington at the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum.
``America by Air,'' a new $5 million permanent exhibition, reflects a decade of planning and tells the airline industry's story in a space nearly the size of a hockey rink.
``Everything you ever wanted to know about air travel will be covered,'' says Jack Daley, the museum's director.
The most striking new perspective comes from beneath the nose of a Boeing Co. 747, for nearly four decades the largest airliner in the world until the Airbus SAS A380 surpassed it this year.
A 38-foot, 26,500-pound front section of the plane dramatically juts forth from a gallery wall, affording a view travelers rarely get. You can even touch the front tire and landing gear. Northwest Airlines Corp. donated the plane, its first 747 and the 27th ever built.
The 1970 airliner's front section arrived in 11 pieces in January, and the Air and Space Museum had to reinforce the gallery floor to support it.
A bridge high above the floor lets visitors enter the plane, peer into the cockpit and gaze down a spiral staircase.
A 1918 Curtiss JN-4D Jenny plane, built 15 years after the Wright brothers' first flight, shows the industry's roots. Jennys were training planes for World War I pilots and the first aircraft used in regular service to carry mail.
Regular Service
The mail flights showed that a regular air service could work, says Robert van der Linden, the exhibition's curator. In 1926, when the U.S. Postal Service began contracting mail delivery to outside carriers, the airline industry was born.
The first reliable passenger service began in 1930 with federal subsidies, and it wasn't pretty. Museum visitors can experience vibrations and noise similar to what early travelers felt in a Ford 5-AT Tri-Motor, one of seven complete aircraft in the exhibit.
Passenger travel grew from about 500,000 in 1931 to more than 4 million a decade later. The Smithsonian recalls this early boom with a 1936 DC-3, the nation's first plane that made money carrying passengers without a federal subsidy.
The plane flew longer ranges, cutting 8.5 hours from the 25 hours it had taken to fly coast to coast. ``It's a milestone,'' van der Linden says. ``Now you have an efficient aircraft to bring costs down.'' By 1939, DC-3s carried 90 percent of the world's airline traffic.
U.S. air travel reached its glamour days in the 1950s and 1960s. The exhibit includes a 19th-century globe that Pan American Airways founder Juan Trippe used to plan worldwide routes, as well as some provocative hot pants and miniskirt outfits that flight attendants of the era were forced to wear.
Deregulation in 1978 moved airlines toward the current state of cheaper fares and crowded skies.
Beehive of Planes
An air-traffic-control tape of a summer day shows U.S. skies over the whole country becoming a beehive of planes. Other tapes show controllers coping with bad weather and the skies being cleared after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
A simulated Airbus A320 cockpit demonstrates what modern, computerized controls look like as a plane takes off and lands at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
The glamour is gone. People don't dress up to fly, and food -- that is, if you want to buy it -- doesn't come on a tray with metal silverware in coach class anymore.
Only the soda and pretzels are free.
Yet flying is safer, cheaper and more accessible than ever. U.S. airlines carried almost 750 million passengers last year.
``You can fly anywhere you want in the world and get there in less than a day,'' van der Linden says. ``That is a miracle.''
``America by Air'' is a permanent exhibit that opens Nov. 17 at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington.
(John Hughes writes about aviation for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the reporter on this story: John Hughes in Washington at jhughes5@bloomberg.net .
Last Updated: November 13, 2007 00:04 EST
By John Hughes
Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) -- One way to enjoy air travel without any attendant misery is on offer in Washington at the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum.
``America by Air,'' a new $5 million permanent exhibition, reflects a decade of planning and tells the airline industry's story in a space nearly the size of a hockey rink.
``Everything you ever wanted to know about air travel will be covered,'' says Jack Daley, the museum's director.
The most striking new perspective comes from beneath the nose of a Boeing Co. 747, for nearly four decades the largest airliner in the world until the Airbus SAS A380 surpassed it this year.
A 38-foot, 26,500-pound front section of the plane dramatically juts forth from a gallery wall, affording a view travelers rarely get. You can even touch the front tire and landing gear. Northwest Airlines Corp. donated the plane, its first 747 and the 27th ever built.
The 1970 airliner's front section arrived in 11 pieces in January, and the Air and Space Museum had to reinforce the gallery floor to support it.
A bridge high above the floor lets visitors enter the plane, peer into the cockpit and gaze down a spiral staircase.
A 1918 Curtiss JN-4D Jenny plane, built 15 years after the Wright brothers' first flight, shows the industry's roots. Jennys were training planes for World War I pilots and the first aircraft used in regular service to carry mail.
Regular Service
The mail flights showed that a regular air service could work, says Robert van der Linden, the exhibition's curator. In 1926, when the U.S. Postal Service began contracting mail delivery to outside carriers, the airline industry was born.
The first reliable passenger service began in 1930 with federal subsidies, and it wasn't pretty. Museum visitors can experience vibrations and noise similar to what early travelers felt in a Ford 5-AT Tri-Motor, one of seven complete aircraft in the exhibit.
Passenger travel grew from about 500,000 in 1931 to more than 4 million a decade later. The Smithsonian recalls this early boom with a 1936 DC-3, the nation's first plane that made money carrying passengers without a federal subsidy.
The plane flew longer ranges, cutting 8.5 hours from the 25 hours it had taken to fly coast to coast. ``It's a milestone,'' van der Linden says. ``Now you have an efficient aircraft to bring costs down.'' By 1939, DC-3s carried 90 percent of the world's airline traffic.
U.S. air travel reached its glamour days in the 1950s and 1960s. The exhibit includes a 19th-century globe that Pan American Airways founder Juan Trippe used to plan worldwide routes, as well as some provocative hot pants and miniskirt outfits that flight attendants of the era were forced to wear.
Deregulation in 1978 moved airlines toward the current state of cheaper fares and crowded skies.
Beehive of Planes
An air-traffic-control tape of a summer day shows U.S. skies over the whole country becoming a beehive of planes. Other tapes show controllers coping with bad weather and the skies being cleared after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
A simulated Airbus A320 cockpit demonstrates what modern, computerized controls look like as a plane takes off and lands at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
The glamour is gone. People don't dress up to fly, and food -- that is, if you want to buy it -- doesn't come on a tray with metal silverware in coach class anymore.
Only the soda and pretzels are free.
Yet flying is safer, cheaper and more accessible than ever. U.S. airlines carried almost 750 million passengers last year.
``You can fly anywhere you want in the world and get there in less than a day,'' van der Linden says. ``That is a miracle.''
``America by Air'' is a permanent exhibit that opens Nov. 17 at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington.
(John Hughes writes about aviation for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the reporter on this story: John Hughes in Washington at jhughes5@bloomberg.net .
Last Updated: November 13, 2007 00:04 EST
Emirates May Sell 30% Stake in Initial Public Offer
Emirates May Sell 30% Stake in Initial Public Offer (Update3)
By Massoud A. Derhally and Andrea Rothman
Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Emirates, the biggest Arab airline, may seek as much as $9 billion in a share sale, provided the Dubai government approves an initial public offering that would be the largest in the Middle East.
``If we do it, it will be 20 to 30 percent'' of the company, Chairman Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum said today in a telephone interview. ``I don't have a date. It's a government decision.''
Emirates President Tim Clark has said the Dubai-based airline may be worth as much as $30 billion, more than the combined market value of Air France-KLM Group and Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Europe's largest airlines. The carrier would follow Dubai-owned port operator DP World Ltd. in selling shares as the Persian Gulf emirate builds its reputation as a financial center.
``Emirates doesn't need the money, it needs the credibility,'' Doug McVitie, managing director of Arran Aerospace, a consultant in Dinan, France, said in a telephone interview today. ``It has to be seen as able to attract investment from people who are willing to take a risk. There is a huge difference between government dollars and investor dollars.''
Emirates, the largest customer for Airbus SAS's double-decker A380 airliner, started in 1985 with two leased planes. The carrier now operates 111 aircraft, including freighters. It placed more than $34 billion in orders and options at this week's Dubai Air Show, giving the airline firm commitments for 205 aircraft.
The carrier is at the ``peak of the industry'' and is ``the airline to match,'' McVitie said. In the fiscal year ended in March, the company's profit rose 25 percent to 3.1 billion dirhams ($844 million) from 2.48 billion dirhams, helped by rising passenger and cargo traffic.
`Hungry'
Clark said the market is enthusiastic for an IPO. ``It's hungry, it's ready,'' he said. ``If you floated this company, the funds in the region will take care of that valuation. You wouldn't need any institutional investors from the West.''
Emirates has added destinations in China and India, betting that economic growth in Asia's two most populous countries will spur demand for travel.
The company placed a firm order worth $31 billion for 70 A350s and 11 superjumbo A380s, as well as options for 50 more A350s, from Toulouse, France-based Airbus on Nov. 11, the opening day of the Dubai show. It also bought 12 of Chicago-based Boeing Co.'s 777 aircraft valued at $3.2 billion.
Dubai Show Orders
Middle Eastern carriers have posted orders and options worth about $85 billion with Airbus and Boeing this week at the Dubai show. The value of the aircraft is based on list prices and doesn't reflect discounts normally given for large purchases.
Selling shares of Dubai's ``crown jewels'' is a key step in putting the emirate on the financial map, Fahd Iqbal, senior analyst at investment bank EFG-Hermes UAE Ltd, said in an Oct. 30 interview.
Shares of Dubai-owned companies including Emirates offer ``excellent diversification opportunities for global investors and there will be good demand for the IPO, should that happen,'' he said.
Air Arabia, a low-cost airline based in the United Arab Emirates, raised 2.57 billion dirhams in an IPO earlier this year that received 50 percent more bids than shares on offer. The Sharjah-based carrier is valued at 7.98 billion dirhams.
Initial public offerings in the six Gulf Arab countries captured $5.9 billion in the first nine months of 2007, Abu Dhabi- based private-equity firm Gulf Capital said in a report last month. The 26 IPOs this year received more than six times the amount of bids than shares on offer, Gulf Capital said.
The DP World initial share sale may raise as much as $4.32 billion. The company said Nov. 5 that shares will be listed in Dubai by the end of the month.
To contact the reporters on this story: Massoud A. Derhally in Dubai at mderhally@bloomberg.net ; Andrea Rothman in Toulouse, France, at aerothman@bloomberg.net .
Last Updated: November 13, 2007 11:57 EST
By Massoud A. Derhally and Andrea Rothman
Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Emirates, the biggest Arab airline, may seek as much as $9 billion in a share sale, provided the Dubai government approves an initial public offering that would be the largest in the Middle East.
``If we do it, it will be 20 to 30 percent'' of the company, Chairman Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum said today in a telephone interview. ``I don't have a date. It's a government decision.''
Emirates President Tim Clark has said the Dubai-based airline may be worth as much as $30 billion, more than the combined market value of Air France-KLM Group and Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Europe's largest airlines. The carrier would follow Dubai-owned port operator DP World Ltd. in selling shares as the Persian Gulf emirate builds its reputation as a financial center.
``Emirates doesn't need the money, it needs the credibility,'' Doug McVitie, managing director of Arran Aerospace, a consultant in Dinan, France, said in a telephone interview today. ``It has to be seen as able to attract investment from people who are willing to take a risk. There is a huge difference between government dollars and investor dollars.''
Emirates, the largest customer for Airbus SAS's double-decker A380 airliner, started in 1985 with two leased planes. The carrier now operates 111 aircraft, including freighters. It placed more than $34 billion in orders and options at this week's Dubai Air Show, giving the airline firm commitments for 205 aircraft.
The carrier is at the ``peak of the industry'' and is ``the airline to match,'' McVitie said. In the fiscal year ended in March, the company's profit rose 25 percent to 3.1 billion dirhams ($844 million) from 2.48 billion dirhams, helped by rising passenger and cargo traffic.
`Hungry'
Clark said the market is enthusiastic for an IPO. ``It's hungry, it's ready,'' he said. ``If you floated this company, the funds in the region will take care of that valuation. You wouldn't need any institutional investors from the West.''
Emirates has added destinations in China and India, betting that economic growth in Asia's two most populous countries will spur demand for travel.
The company placed a firm order worth $31 billion for 70 A350s and 11 superjumbo A380s, as well as options for 50 more A350s, from Toulouse, France-based Airbus on Nov. 11, the opening day of the Dubai show. It also bought 12 of Chicago-based Boeing Co.'s 777 aircraft valued at $3.2 billion.
Dubai Show Orders
Middle Eastern carriers have posted orders and options worth about $85 billion with Airbus and Boeing this week at the Dubai show. The value of the aircraft is based on list prices and doesn't reflect discounts normally given for large purchases.
Selling shares of Dubai's ``crown jewels'' is a key step in putting the emirate on the financial map, Fahd Iqbal, senior analyst at investment bank EFG-Hermes UAE Ltd, said in an Oct. 30 interview.
Shares of Dubai-owned companies including Emirates offer ``excellent diversification opportunities for global investors and there will be good demand for the IPO, should that happen,'' he said.
Air Arabia, a low-cost airline based in the United Arab Emirates, raised 2.57 billion dirhams in an IPO earlier this year that received 50 percent more bids than shares on offer. The Sharjah-based carrier is valued at 7.98 billion dirhams.
Initial public offerings in the six Gulf Arab countries captured $5.9 billion in the first nine months of 2007, Abu Dhabi- based private-equity firm Gulf Capital said in a report last month. The 26 IPOs this year received more than six times the amount of bids than shares on offer, Gulf Capital said.
The DP World initial share sale may raise as much as $4.32 billion. The company said Nov. 5 that shares will be listed in Dubai by the end of the month.
To contact the reporters on this story: Massoud A. Derhally in Dubai at mderhally@bloomberg.net ; Andrea Rothman in Toulouse, France, at aerothman@bloomberg.net .
Last Updated: November 13, 2007 11:57 EST
Record Companies Look to Sue Yahoo China
Yahoo is 2nd largest search engine in China, but certainly not immune to litigation
The problems for Yahoo China are continuing to mount. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), the organization that protects international music interests, is suing Yahoo China because the search engine allegedly links to sites that are hosting illegally pirated music. Unless the two sides enter negotiations and come to an agreement, the search engine company will be sued in as early as “a few weeks.” The IFPI claims that up to 90 percent of all music recordings in China are illegal. It is not publicly known how much monetary compensation the IFPI will be seeking from Yahoo China and Baidu.
Yahoo China isn't the only search engine company having problems. Baidu.com, the most used search engine in China, is being sued by EMI, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Universal, Go East Entertainment Co., Gold Label Entertainment, Cinepoly Records and Warner Music Group. The record companies plan to use a new law that became effective on July 1 which will fine the distributors of illegally copyrighted music and movies up to $12,500. In theory, the search engines will have to browse and confirm each video and music link is a legitimate, non-copyrighted file.
As mentioned earlier in the article, Yahoo has had problems because of censorship and what some have considered unethical practices in China. Yahoo is reportedly the biggest censor in China, according to Reporters Without Borders. However, since Yahoo is operating its business in China, the company must abide by all laws and regulations of China. The site is also being accused of taking part in getting a Chinese journalist jailed.
The problems for Yahoo China are continuing to mount. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), the organization that protects international music interests, is suing Yahoo China because the search engine allegedly links to sites that are hosting illegally pirated music. Unless the two sides enter negotiations and come to an agreement, the search engine company will be sued in as early as “a few weeks.” The IFPI claims that up to 90 percent of all music recordings in China are illegal. It is not publicly known how much monetary compensation the IFPI will be seeking from Yahoo China and Baidu.
Yahoo China isn't the only search engine company having problems. Baidu.com, the most used search engine in China, is being sued by EMI, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Universal, Go East Entertainment Co., Gold Label Entertainment, Cinepoly Records and Warner Music Group. The record companies plan to use a new law that became effective on July 1 which will fine the distributors of illegally copyrighted music and movies up to $12,500. In theory, the search engines will have to browse and confirm each video and music link is a legitimate, non-copyrighted file.
As mentioned earlier in the article, Yahoo has had problems because of censorship and what some have considered unethical practices in China. Yahoo is reportedly the biggest censor in China, according to Reporters Without Borders. However, since Yahoo is operating its business in China, the company must abide by all laws and regulations of China. The site is also being accused of taking part in getting a Chinese journalist jailed.
Alibaba: The Biggest Dot Com You've Never Heard of
Alibaba is cooked up a bit of magic with its stock debut.
Asian internet firm Alibaba has been gaining significant attention since its energetic debut Tuesday on the Hong Kong stock market.
The debut generated $1.5 billion USD for 858.9 million shares. This figure seems eerily similar to Google's $1.66 billion USD debut in 2004. Investors saw stock prices triple within hours as a flurry of activity occurred.
Alibaba is an ecommerce site which connects Asian manufacturers, big and small,with people who need their products. Users of the popular site can request a certain product and Alibaba will seek out a manufacturer.
While Alibaba, the second largest internet company in Asia draws comparisons to Google, these speculations do not involve Alibaba become a competitor to Google. The pair have very different market sectors, with Google mostly focusing on search engines, advertising and free email services.
The real battle appears to be between Google and another Asian company, Baidu, which is the number one search engine in China. Google meanwhile is second and is constantly looking to boost its position. Earlier this year it was reported by DailyTech that Google was building a new center in Shanghai.
Alibaba does however have some aspirations of taking on Google according to its founder. Similar to Google, Alibaba hopes to gain general world web domination, not limited to just one market sector. Its founder, Jack Ma explains "I want to turn the company into a leading e-commerce platform for China, Asia and even the world."
Yahoo currently has a 40 percent interest in Alibaba and Alibaba owns Yahoo China, a confusing situation to say the least. Jack Ma discussed the acquisition of Yahoo China to reporters in 2005, saying challengingly toGoogle, "We will use all the resources we have to focus on search in the next two to three years in China. ...We already won (over) eBay. We already bought Yahoo! and the money is to stop Google."
Yahoo China is the third largest search engine in China currently, despite being a target of some recent lawsuits of RIAA parent organization IFPI, as reported here at DailyTech.
Rob Enderle, a principal analyst at the Enderle Group, argues that Alibaba and other regional internet firms stand a real threat to Google. "Undoubtedly, Google will be nibbled to death by turkeys because a lot of folks can come in and niche them out by region and bleed Google through that niche,” said Enderle.“They're going to have to address this at some point. For Google who's a global player, they have to try to kind of be the best at doing everything. That means that some other company will be the best at doing something."
Alibaba also owns eBay-esque Taobaba, PayPal-esque Alipay, and Chinese IT and tech software firm Alisoft.
With such a strong debut and a broad portfolio of holdings, it’s likely Alibaba won't remain unnoticed by the West for long.
Asian internet firm Alibaba has been gaining significant attention since its energetic debut Tuesday on the Hong Kong stock market.
The debut generated $1.5 billion USD for 858.9 million shares. This figure seems eerily similar to Google's $1.66 billion USD debut in 2004. Investors saw stock prices triple within hours as a flurry of activity occurred.
Alibaba is an ecommerce site which connects Asian manufacturers, big and small,with people who need their products. Users of the popular site can request a certain product and Alibaba will seek out a manufacturer.
While Alibaba, the second largest internet company in Asia draws comparisons to Google, these speculations do not involve Alibaba become a competitor to Google. The pair have very different market sectors, with Google mostly focusing on search engines, advertising and free email services.
The real battle appears to be between Google and another Asian company, Baidu, which is the number one search engine in China. Google meanwhile is second and is constantly looking to boost its position. Earlier this year it was reported by DailyTech that Google was building a new center in Shanghai.
Alibaba does however have some aspirations of taking on Google according to its founder. Similar to Google, Alibaba hopes to gain general world web domination, not limited to just one market sector. Its founder, Jack Ma explains "I want to turn the company into a leading e-commerce platform for China, Asia and even the world."
Yahoo currently has a 40 percent interest in Alibaba and Alibaba owns Yahoo China, a confusing situation to say the least. Jack Ma discussed the acquisition of Yahoo China to reporters in 2005, saying challengingly toGoogle, "We will use all the resources we have to focus on search in the next two to three years in China. ...We already won (over) eBay. We already bought Yahoo! and the money is to stop Google."
Yahoo China is the third largest search engine in China currently, despite being a target of some recent lawsuits of RIAA parent organization IFPI, as reported here at DailyTech.
Rob Enderle, a principal analyst at the Enderle Group, argues that Alibaba and other regional internet firms stand a real threat to Google. "Undoubtedly, Google will be nibbled to death by turkeys because a lot of folks can come in and niche them out by region and bleed Google through that niche,” said Enderle.“They're going to have to address this at some point. For Google who's a global player, they have to try to kind of be the best at doing everything. That means that some other company will be the best at doing something."
Alibaba also owns eBay-esque Taobaba, PayPal-esque Alipay, and Chinese IT and tech software firm Alisoft.
With such a strong debut and a broad portfolio of holdings, it’s likely Alibaba won't remain unnoticed by the West for long.
Nissan Develops Color Changing Paint for Vehicles
Drivers will be able to change their vehicle color at the flip of a switch
Nissan is truly doing wonderful things in the automotive arena. The company recently unveiled its highly-anticipated 2009 GT-R. The vehicle pumps out an impressive 473 HP and an equally impressive 434 lb-ft of twist from its twin-turbocharged 3.8-liter V6 engine.
Now that development is winding down for what is likely Nissan's most advanced road car ever, the Japanese-based company is turning its attention to more "mundane" matters when it comes to choosing a vehicle: color.
Choosing a color when purchasing a new vehicle can be a gut-wrenching endeavor. Many cars look good in black, but the color is a pain to keep clean. Silver often best shows off the curves of a vehicle, but everyone chooses silver these days. Pick a color like beige, and you'll blend in with the rest of the anonymous Toyota Camrys darting in and out of traffic with the right blinker still on.
Nissan hopes to give car buyers the ability to choose whatever color they like for their vehicle -- at any time. Nissan has developed what it calls a "paramagnetic" paint coating -- a unique polymer layer which features iron oxide particles is applied to the vehicle body. When an electric current is applied to the polymer layer, the crystals in the polymer are then interpreted by the human eye as different colors.
Depending on the level of current and the spacing of the crystals, a wide gamut of colors can be selected by the driver. However, since a steady current is needed to maintain the color effect, the paramagnetic paint doesn't work when the vehicle is turned off -- instead, the vehicle would revert back to a default white color.
If you may recall, Ford offered a similar paint option on its mid-90s Mustang GT and Cobra (Mystic) and 2004 Mustang Cobras (Mystychrome). In both cases, the vehicle appeared to be either green or purple depending on the viewing angle.
Nissan is hard at work on the paramagnetic paint and hopes to have it on production vehicles by 2010.
Paramagnetic paint isn't the first time that Nissan had ventured into ways to improve paint technology. The company also developed a self-healing "Scratch Guard Coat" to apply vehicle paint. Thanks to the advanced coating, vehicle are nearly impervious to superficial scratches caused by carwash brushes, fingernails or other minor surface scratches.
Any scratches that are made on the vehicle are "healed" within one day to a week depending on the depth of the scratch.
Nissan's Scratch Guard Coat is currently available on the 2008 Infiniti EX35 luxury crossover utility vehicle.
Nissan is truly doing wonderful things in the automotive arena. The company recently unveiled its highly-anticipated 2009 GT-R. The vehicle pumps out an impressive 473 HP and an equally impressive 434 lb-ft of twist from its twin-turbocharged 3.8-liter V6 engine.
Now that development is winding down for what is likely Nissan's most advanced road car ever, the Japanese-based company is turning its attention to more "mundane" matters when it comes to choosing a vehicle: color.
Choosing a color when purchasing a new vehicle can be a gut-wrenching endeavor. Many cars look good in black, but the color is a pain to keep clean. Silver often best shows off the curves of a vehicle, but everyone chooses silver these days. Pick a color like beige, and you'll blend in with the rest of the anonymous Toyota Camrys darting in and out of traffic with the right blinker still on.
Nissan hopes to give car buyers the ability to choose whatever color they like for their vehicle -- at any time. Nissan has developed what it calls a "paramagnetic" paint coating -- a unique polymer layer which features iron oxide particles is applied to the vehicle body. When an electric current is applied to the polymer layer, the crystals in the polymer are then interpreted by the human eye as different colors.
Depending on the level of current and the spacing of the crystals, a wide gamut of colors can be selected by the driver. However, since a steady current is needed to maintain the color effect, the paramagnetic paint doesn't work when the vehicle is turned off -- instead, the vehicle would revert back to a default white color.
If you may recall, Ford offered a similar paint option on its mid-90s Mustang GT and Cobra (Mystic) and 2004 Mustang Cobras (Mystychrome). In both cases, the vehicle appeared to be either green or purple depending on the viewing angle.
Nissan is hard at work on the paramagnetic paint and hopes to have it on production vehicles by 2010.
Paramagnetic paint isn't the first time that Nissan had ventured into ways to improve paint technology. The company also developed a self-healing "Scratch Guard Coat" to apply vehicle paint. Thanks to the advanced coating, vehicle are nearly impervious to superficial scratches caused by carwash brushes, fingernails or other minor surface scratches.
Any scratches that are made on the vehicle are "healed" within one day to a week depending on the depth of the scratch.
Nissan's Scratch Guard Coat is currently available on the 2008 Infiniti EX35 luxury crossover utility vehicle.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
O.K., it’s happened: we’re officially old.
O.K., it’s happened: we’re officially old.
Stuart Goldenberg
VideoMore Video » When you sheepishly tell your children that you used to have to watch TV shows by sitting down in a certain place at a certain time — well, you know you’re old.
First came the TiVo and its ilk, eliminating the bit about sitting down “at a certain time.” Then came the Slingbox from Sling Media, which obliterated the need to be “in a certain place.” Later, SlingPlayer Mobile software for cellphones even wiped out the part about “sitting down.”
Of course, the Slingbox isn’t nearly as famous as the TiVo; you may not even have heard of it. In that case, saying that the new Slingbox Solo has a lower price ($180) than its predecessors and has built-in jacks for high-definition gear probably won’t mean much to you.
In that case, a primer is in order.
The Slingbox’s purpose in life is to transmit whatever is on your TV to your laptop or smartphone (like a Treo or Windows Mobile phone) across the Internet. The point, of course, is to allow people who travel — to another room, another city or another continent — to view all the channels and recordings that they’re already paying so much money for at home.
It comes in handy when you want to watch TV upstairs, but your fancy high-definition TiVo is downstairs. It’s also great when you’re in a hotel room, bristling at paying $13 for a movie when your video recorder back home is a veritable Blockbuster. And Slingboxes are also a blessing when you are overseas and longing for the news, or the sports broadcasts, of your hometown.
There are a few other ways to perform a similar stunt, but none with the Slingbox’s high video quality, super-simple setup and ability to display both recordings and live TV.
The new Slingbox Solo is tiny; its trapezoidal shape is meant to evoke the shape of a gold ingot, and it’s now about that size, too (9 by 4 by 2 inches). That’s about half the size of its predecessor, the Slingbox Pro.
(The Pro is still available, however — for $230, plus $50 for an accessory if you want to connect to high-def equipment. The Pro lets you connect up to four video sources — TiVo, satellite box, Apple TV, DVD player and so on — and switch among them by remote control. The Solo, as its name implies, connects to only one. For most people, that’s the TiVo, satellite box or cable box.)
If you’re the kind of person who is terrified by the tangle behind your TV set, the setup is no joyride. For anyone else, though, it’s not bad. You plug your video source into the Solo’s inputs: component cables (for HDTV gear), S-video or composite cables. If a video source has only one output — a cable box, for example — you’ll be grateful that the Solo also has outputs that pass the signal on to your TV. (Another existing model, the Slingbox AV, does not.) In other words, you can wire the Solo in between your cable box and your TV.
You must also connect the Slingbox to a broadband Internet connection. For most people, that means connecting the Slingbox to a home router. This may be the stickiest part of the installation, since your router is probably in the basement, closet or office — not next to the TV. And the Slingbox isn’t wireless.
At this point, you could buy a really long Ethernet cable and thread it through the walls, from Slingbox to router. Sling reports that some people have luck with wireless transmitters, but it recommends its own SlingLink Turbo powerline transmitters ($80 a pair). They use your home’s electrical wiring to carry network signals. You just plug one SlingLink into an outlet near the TV, and the other near your router. And presto: network jacks within a foot of where they need to be.
Finally, you run the setup software on your Mac or PC. It’s supposed to be effortless and automatic, but I wasn’t so lucky; the setup software told me that my oddball router wouldn’t permit automatic configuration. (It’s a Linksys, probably the most popular brand on earth. Some oddball.)
Fortunately, the company’s Web site (slingmedia.com) offers step-by-step instructions for dozens of router models, mine among them; unfortunately, the illustrations didn’t match the hideous configuration screens that I was seeing. Nonetheless, it was enough help to guide me through changing some parameters like IP Address, Port Range Forwarding and Service Management. When it was all over — 20 minutes — I was watching live TV on my laptop over my home’s wireless network.
On your virtual TV screen, you see a perfect replica of the remote control; Sling has re-created on-screen remotes for over 5,000 pieces of video gear. Every button takes a second or two to respond, but it’s still pretty amazing to think that as you sit in Singapore, you’re controlling your TiVo in Tulsa.
The video quality depends on the network speed at both ends. When you’re in your house, connected over your home network, the picture quality is superb: clear, crisp, perfectly smooth (though never quite as good as on the TV itself). Across the Internet, the picture is a good deal softer, more like a VHS recording. It’s still eminently watchable; you just don’t want to watch special-effects blockbusters this way.
For $30, you can even buy a tiny copy of the SlingPlayer software that runs on a growing list of smartphones, including those that run Windows Mobile, PocketPC, the Palm OS (like the Treo and Centro families) and the Symbian OS (many Nokia smartphones).
BlackBerry and iPhone versions are in the works. (The iPhone’s glorious screen should make a terrific TV — while you’re connected in a Wi-Fi hot spot. Unfortunately, the AT&T data network is too slow for a satisfying video transmission when you’re beyond a hot spot.)
Now, a cellphone’s Internet connection generally isn’t fast enough to permit the kind of picture quality you would get on a laptop. But even though there aren’t nearly as many pixels in the picture, they’re shrunken down so tightly on the phone screen that they look sharp anyway.
Incidentally, don’t think that because the Solo accommodates high-def gear, you get a high-def picture on your laptop or cellphone. You don’t. You do, however, get a better picture when watching HDTV broadcasts, especially when you’re viewing on your home network (rather than across the Internet).
There’s really only one prominent drawback of the Solo, and that’s that it commandeers the whole TV setup. If you’re watching in Wilmington or changing channels from Chattanooga, whoever is at home trying to watch TV will be forced to surrender to your tastes. (The more expensive Pro version lets you split the incoming cable signal so that the homebody at least has an independent choice of basic cable channels.) In that regard, the Solo’s name takes on even more relevance; this box is best suited for singletons.
Otherwise, though, the Solo does well what the Slingbox has always done well, but now for less money, in less space and with more flexibility. Nor is Slingbox finished with its upgrading binge; in a month, the company says, it will unleash a free software update that lets you pause, rewind and then fast-forward the incoming video transmission, much the way TiVo owners can. It will also let you record short clips and post them to Sling’s Web site, legal snarls permitting.
So, you can imagine today’s young people explaining TV to their offspring. “When I was your age, we needed a box to place-shift our TV....”
Stuart Goldenberg
VideoMore Video » When you sheepishly tell your children that you used to have to watch TV shows by sitting down in a certain place at a certain time — well, you know you’re old.
First came the TiVo and its ilk, eliminating the bit about sitting down “at a certain time.” Then came the Slingbox from Sling Media, which obliterated the need to be “in a certain place.” Later, SlingPlayer Mobile software for cellphones even wiped out the part about “sitting down.”
Of course, the Slingbox isn’t nearly as famous as the TiVo; you may not even have heard of it. In that case, saying that the new Slingbox Solo has a lower price ($180) than its predecessors and has built-in jacks for high-definition gear probably won’t mean much to you.
In that case, a primer is in order.
The Slingbox’s purpose in life is to transmit whatever is on your TV to your laptop or smartphone (like a Treo or Windows Mobile phone) across the Internet. The point, of course, is to allow people who travel — to another room, another city or another continent — to view all the channels and recordings that they’re already paying so much money for at home.
It comes in handy when you want to watch TV upstairs, but your fancy high-definition TiVo is downstairs. It’s also great when you’re in a hotel room, bristling at paying $13 for a movie when your video recorder back home is a veritable Blockbuster. And Slingboxes are also a blessing when you are overseas and longing for the news, or the sports broadcasts, of your hometown.
There are a few other ways to perform a similar stunt, but none with the Slingbox’s high video quality, super-simple setup and ability to display both recordings and live TV.
The new Slingbox Solo is tiny; its trapezoidal shape is meant to evoke the shape of a gold ingot, and it’s now about that size, too (9 by 4 by 2 inches). That’s about half the size of its predecessor, the Slingbox Pro.
(The Pro is still available, however — for $230, plus $50 for an accessory if you want to connect to high-def equipment. The Pro lets you connect up to four video sources — TiVo, satellite box, Apple TV, DVD player and so on — and switch among them by remote control. The Solo, as its name implies, connects to only one. For most people, that’s the TiVo, satellite box or cable box.)
If you’re the kind of person who is terrified by the tangle behind your TV set, the setup is no joyride. For anyone else, though, it’s not bad. You plug your video source into the Solo’s inputs: component cables (for HDTV gear), S-video or composite cables. If a video source has only one output — a cable box, for example — you’ll be grateful that the Solo also has outputs that pass the signal on to your TV. (Another existing model, the Slingbox AV, does not.) In other words, you can wire the Solo in between your cable box and your TV.
You must also connect the Slingbox to a broadband Internet connection. For most people, that means connecting the Slingbox to a home router. This may be the stickiest part of the installation, since your router is probably in the basement, closet or office — not next to the TV. And the Slingbox isn’t wireless.
At this point, you could buy a really long Ethernet cable and thread it through the walls, from Slingbox to router. Sling reports that some people have luck with wireless transmitters, but it recommends its own SlingLink Turbo powerline transmitters ($80 a pair). They use your home’s electrical wiring to carry network signals. You just plug one SlingLink into an outlet near the TV, and the other near your router. And presto: network jacks within a foot of where they need to be.
Finally, you run the setup software on your Mac or PC. It’s supposed to be effortless and automatic, but I wasn’t so lucky; the setup software told me that my oddball router wouldn’t permit automatic configuration. (It’s a Linksys, probably the most popular brand on earth. Some oddball.)
Fortunately, the company’s Web site (slingmedia.com) offers step-by-step instructions for dozens of router models, mine among them; unfortunately, the illustrations didn’t match the hideous configuration screens that I was seeing. Nonetheless, it was enough help to guide me through changing some parameters like IP Address, Port Range Forwarding and Service Management. When it was all over — 20 minutes — I was watching live TV on my laptop over my home’s wireless network.
On your virtual TV screen, you see a perfect replica of the remote control; Sling has re-created on-screen remotes for over 5,000 pieces of video gear. Every button takes a second or two to respond, but it’s still pretty amazing to think that as you sit in Singapore, you’re controlling your TiVo in Tulsa.
The video quality depends on the network speed at both ends. When you’re in your house, connected over your home network, the picture quality is superb: clear, crisp, perfectly smooth (though never quite as good as on the TV itself). Across the Internet, the picture is a good deal softer, more like a VHS recording. It’s still eminently watchable; you just don’t want to watch special-effects blockbusters this way.
For $30, you can even buy a tiny copy of the SlingPlayer software that runs on a growing list of smartphones, including those that run Windows Mobile, PocketPC, the Palm OS (like the Treo and Centro families) and the Symbian OS (many Nokia smartphones).
BlackBerry and iPhone versions are in the works. (The iPhone’s glorious screen should make a terrific TV — while you’re connected in a Wi-Fi hot spot. Unfortunately, the AT&T data network is too slow for a satisfying video transmission when you’re beyond a hot spot.)
Now, a cellphone’s Internet connection generally isn’t fast enough to permit the kind of picture quality you would get on a laptop. But even though there aren’t nearly as many pixels in the picture, they’re shrunken down so tightly on the phone screen that they look sharp anyway.
Incidentally, don’t think that because the Solo accommodates high-def gear, you get a high-def picture on your laptop or cellphone. You don’t. You do, however, get a better picture when watching HDTV broadcasts, especially when you’re viewing on your home network (rather than across the Internet).
There’s really only one prominent drawback of the Solo, and that’s that it commandeers the whole TV setup. If you’re watching in Wilmington or changing channels from Chattanooga, whoever is at home trying to watch TV will be forced to surrender to your tastes. (The more expensive Pro version lets you split the incoming cable signal so that the homebody at least has an independent choice of basic cable channels.) In that regard, the Solo’s name takes on even more relevance; this box is best suited for singletons.
Otherwise, though, the Solo does well what the Slingbox has always done well, but now for less money, in less space and with more flexibility. Nor is Slingbox finished with its upgrading binge; in a month, the company says, it will unleash a free software update that lets you pause, rewind and then fast-forward the incoming video transmission, much the way TiVo owners can. It will also let you record short clips and post them to Sling’s Web site, legal snarls permitting.
So, you can imagine today’s young people explaining TV to their offspring. “When I was your age, we needed a box to place-shift our TV....”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
