Continental DOES NOT care about KIDS

Concerned that my recent seat assignments on Continental have separated my spouse and/or me from our kids, I called Continental to confirm that we could be seated together on an upcoming flight.

Shockingly, I was told by the booking agent on the phone, that Continental not only would not accommodate me, but they won’t even guarantee me a seat on the plane. Really, the agent said, look at the contract you sign when you purchase the ticket. Yes, that is why I booked months in advance and I called specifically after booking to request that my family be seated together on all flights. If I am not allowed to select seats until 24 hours prior to a flight, how can I guarantee this. And, surely, it is not reasonable to expect a total stranger to care for my young children during flight–much less care for them in an emergency.

But, really, I asked you won’t work with me to make sure that I am able to sit with my kids? I asked. What would we do in an emergency? NO, she said. Look at the contract that goes with your ticket. We have no obligations to you. Wow. I have never received such a cold response from an airline.

Amazing. I recommend against flying Continental. I have been flying them for years almost exclusively, but the hubris and complete disinterest in helping me were stunning. I have NEVER had a conversation like this with an airline.

So, it turns out this is pretty low-hanging fruit; a couple minutes on the Internet, and I find dozens of other such cases; see this, for example: http://www.airlinecomplaints.org/showthread.php?t=8109. You would think that Continental could improve on how it works with its paying customers.

I wonder if my members of Congress know about such odd terms of carriage. I can’t imagine that we would allow airlines to so cavalierly put kids at risk.

History Museum & the Selling of Artifacts

The endless debate continues. Philadelphia History Museum Sells Pieces, Reviving Debate – NYTimes.com. Should museums divest themselves of their collections?

As I read this and mull over the Cleveland experience of the Western Reserve Historical Society, I am struck that this sort of culling usually occurs only during times of absolute or relative financial stress, or to promote expansion and renovation. To my mind, this makes the whole process a bit suspect, and particularly troubling even though I believe that museums and collecting institutions should engage in a regular process of reviewing and relieving themselves of their collections.

I am also left to wonder about the relative merits of the standards proposed by the various professional organization. Of particular note is the degree to which historical standards are lesser than art museum standards. And, finally, I am struck by the notion that differences between types of historical artifacts yields a difference in how they should be divested from collections. I am not at all sure if this logic–which is surely true for conservation and for exhibitions and such–applies to standards of care, vis-a-vis policies toward divestiture.

Enough said, in a quick post.