Letters to the editor

Handling danger

Ill-equipped substitute gives air travelers case of the jitters

Editor, The Times:

I found " 'Absolutely terrifying' flight after ground-crew mistake" [Times, page one, Dec. 28], very relevant after just returning by airplane from a visit with relatives. What was most revealing for me is the cause of the incident: contracted baggage handlers damaging the airplane. Alaska Airlines' decision to replace 472 unionized workers with workers from Menzies Aviation may save the airline money, but who really pays the cost?

It is well-documented that a unionized work force is better for the worker, but also important, as this case shows, is the value to the consumer. To save the airline money, this contractor has to cut corners somewhere — most likely in the training and compensation for its employees.

I'd happily pay a higher rate for air travel if I knew that the people responsible for my safe travel were well-trained and compensated.

As with Jeremy Hermanns (the quoted passenger), I too am unsure if I'll fly Alaska again. Hopefully Alaska will get the message and start rehiring 472 laid-off workers.

— Dan Moore, Seattle

Scrutinize the parachute

It is very interesting that when the baggage handler for Alaska Airlines had an accident (and confessed to it), the unions immediately politicized it as "poor training."

It was a human error, and failing to report it was also a human error.

At least the employee didn't try to cover it up and deny his mistakes — unlike what we are witnessing firsthand with inept airline management.

Just take a look at airline executives who make huge mistakes (even ones that impact safety) in the name of cost-cutting, and [yet] walk away with golden parachutes as rewards. These are the people you should be focusing your attention on more.

— Ray Yokoyama, Seattle

Cornering the market

No monopoly on space

I read "Grocery change not sitting well" [Local News, Dec. 22] with concern. I'm appalled by Queen Anne residents who purport to believe in preserving open space and reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but oppose any new developments. This is supposed to be an enlightened city, and we all need to understand how our individual and local decisions have an impact on the entire Puget Sound area — and on the world.

Queen Anne Avenue is a commercial zone on a high-frequency bus route within minutes of downtown Seattle, and is naturally suited for more high-density development. New development can be done in such a way that improves the quality of life in the community, without damaging what we all love about Queen Anne.

The Metropolitan Market issue is a red herring. The only reason the neighborhood is threatened with losing the popular market is because residents rejected a previous development proposal including space for the Metropolitan Market.

If we truly care about retaining the special character of Seattle and about preserving the environment, we will find ways to grow the city in areas precisely like Queen Anne Avenue — areas with good access to mass transit and where residents can accomplish most of their daily activities on foot.

— Lee Pyne-Mercier, Seattle

Take another turn

Once again, a neighborhood that is unique in its configuration is having to relinquish the right to a special design because a family that owns the present property wants more money. Imagine the impact of such a large store on an already congested area.

In addition, the loss of a market that has that one special item not available anywhere else in the neighborhood is disastrous. There are several large markets in the vicinity that meet the needs of the area (i.e., Larry's Market, the aging QFC and Safeway). Maybe the family [that owns Metropolitan] should consider their brand of overkill once again and try to come to a better agreement with the present store, instead of adding another conglomerate that may consider itself unique but is pedestrian.

Better yet, the family should sell the property, take their expansionist ideas and find a more amenable venue for their growth plans.

Seattle must hang on to its unique and special neighborhoods simply because they have a history that the [Cincinnati-based] Kroger chain cannot possibly understand.

— Barbara Phalen, Seattle

Superpowers

In prod we trust

Apparently city officials are concerned that some of us are being — gasp! — "water hogs" by using showerheads that use more water than regulations allow! ["City officials unhappy going with huge flow of showers," Local News, Dec. 23.]

While this clearly is a minor infraction of an even more minor rule, the fact that it even exists clearly exemplifies the over-regulation, meddling and micro-management of our lives that are strangling this country.

When bureaucrats can dictate to us how much water our showers can use, something is woefully wrong in this country.

Land of the free? Hah! Fifty years ago, the notion of some little twit clucking with officious disapproval at the fact that our showers use more than 2.5 gallons of water per minute, and considering fines against those who make the offending devices, would have been an outrage. Today, it's business as usual.

We are being slowly crushed by the weight of our government's inane bureaucracy, the sheer volume of incomprehensible regulations and laws which micro-manage our lives, and the Orwellian use of propaganda and political correctness to induce us to comply with what the bureaucrats think we should do.

We've become a nation of sheep, herded and manipulated by overseers with sheaves of papers, reams of regulations and hordes of lawyers to ensure compliance.

What a sad commentary on our once-great, once-free nation.

— Winston Rockwell, Kirkland

Order of the guarder

As an ex-pat Brit (and nonsmoker, just for clarification) who has made this country home, do I really care what the U.S. Constitution says?

I accepted years ago that I would have to bare my soul to the authorities for the privilege of living here. Once I am naturalized (he says hopefully!), I doubt I will ask for evidence that my fingerprints and inside-leg measurement have been expunged from the system.

What makes me more paranoid, however, are the "concerned citizens" spying on me — the way they are on the lookout to report the slightest misdemeanor of their fellow neighbors, from smoking within 25 feet of a public building to trash being put in the wrong recycling receptacle, etc.

I can live with and accept what the government has to do for my own peace of mind.

But to the concerned citizens out there, let the authorities do their job and you please mind your own business.

— Ian Bowles, Seattle