Bird fare • Driving lights • PMRF update Bird fare To: Mr. Joshua Gotbaum, Trustee of Hawaiian Airlines Dear Mr. Gotbaum, My wife and I reside on the island of Kaua‘i. Each year we travel to California to spend the
Bird fare
• Driving lights
• PMRF update
Bird fare
To: Mr. Joshua Gotbaum, Trustee of Hawaiian Airlines
Dear Mr. Gotbaum,
My wife and I reside on the island of Kaua‘i. Each year we travel to California to spend the holidays with our children, and we always return to Kaua‘i during the first week of January.
For the past 15 years our bird, a blue crown conure (the size of a small dove) has traveled with us, usually in a travel cage that fits under the seat in the passenger compartment. The initial cost for bringing the bird was $50 each way. This later was raised to $80. Much to our astonishment, last year Hawaiian Airlines raised that price to an OUTRAGEOUS $250 each way!
I attempted to ascertain as to why this unbelievable tariff was levied on pet owners only to find out from Hawaiian’s corporate offices that no one could provide any justification, and that it was merely an edict of Hawaiian’s President and CEO, Mr. Mark Dunkerley. I was informed that he steadfastly refused to consider lowering the rate to a reasonable amount.
Given the fact that I had exhausted all avenues of appeal, I had no choice but to consider another airline, and that is exactly what did. Perhaps I should be grateful to CEO Dunkerly because we found another airline flying from San Francisco to Honolulu with an accommodating schedule and allowing us to bring our pet for $75. Our bird traveled comfortably under the passenger seat, and in addition we received a complimentary alcoholic beverage, a hot meal, a free movie and an ice cream treat prior to landing. All this for the same “people” fare as your carrier. FOR SHAME HAWAIIAN AIRLINES!
Thanks to CEO Dunkerly and his $500 round-trip pet “penalty”, I am now a client of another airline. Furthermore, I have the satisfaction of having influenced several of our associates to fly on other airlines. I will also cancel our Hawaiian Airlines Visa card later this year.
Finally, I ask you as Trustee of Hawaiian Airlines: Is Hawaiian Airlines making that much money that they can afford to lose loyal customers of 20 years – ones who travel to and from the mainland two or more times per year?
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
Larry Stuefloten
Hanalei
Driving lights
As a new resident, I will confess not knowing the state law, as I still am using my former state’s driver’s license. Still, I would venture to say that they are law, or should be.
First, in Florida, it was illegal to drive with only parking lights on, rain or shine, daylight, dusk or dark. I see many drivers, especially at dusk doing so. In Florida, you must turn on your headlights when it is raining. The same is either so at dusk or dark. Here, I see many drivers without the headlights !
Go ahead and kill yourselves, just don’t take me with you.
R. H. Miller
Princeville
PMRF update
The Navy has made a significant request to Hawaii State Department of Land & Natural Resources (DLNR) for expansion of PMRF land and influence on Kaua‘i.
Does the request really make sense for the future of the Navy and Kaua‘i? As part of an attempt to satisfy the complex needs of several interests I have argued that the PMRF should make a phased relocation inland away from the shoreline and create a State Park and wetlands in its place.
Yes it would be expensive, but it would take place over many years and be funded by new PMRF programs and capital investments. Representative Ed Case reviewed this proposal. Although he dismissed the plan unfeasible he said there might have been a rationale “if we were starting from scratch 50, 100 years ago and we could do whatever we wanted”.
We might not be able to change the past, but we do have the luxury of looking ahead. The question is this: If we look forward 50 or 100 years, what is best for the island of Kaua‘i? We can get some help from Pentagon defense adviser Andrew Marshall. He has had considerable sway on US military thinking for three decades. Marshall commissioned a report for the Pentagon. The authors were Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network. The few experts privy to the contents of the report say it shows the threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism.
An article on the report was published on February 22, 2004 in the British publication, The Observer. In it Schwartz and Randall are quoted as saying, “Climate change should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern.” The authors conclude. “An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is plausible and would challenge US national security in ways that should be considered immediately…As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.”
Randall added, ‘We don’t know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years. The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.’
Hawai‘i is threatened in two ways by global warming. Rising seas and chaotic ocean storms. These alone are compelling reasons for a carefully planned relocation of the PMRF away from the ocean. If the Pentagon report is right, global warming is more of a threat to the PMRF than terrorism ever will be.
Juan Wilson
Hanapepe
