MovieChat Forums > Airport (1970) Discussion > Trans Global's strange flight schedule

Trans Global's strange flight schedule

posted 10 years ago by hobnob53
21 replies | jump to latest

When explaining to the young airline aide how she stows away on TGA's flights, Mrs. Quonsett tells him she prefers their transcontinental flight that stops at "St. Louis, Kansas City and Chicago". (He says she prefers this to a "direct" flight, but he meant a "non-stop" flight; counter-intuitive as it sounds, in airline parlance a direct flight is one that makes stops. Anyway....)

Now, she always travels cross-country from Los Angeles to her family in New York. Granted an airline might make a stop between those cities, but three? And that's the least of it. Those three cities are all within three or four hundred miles of one another, about 45 minutes' flying time between any two. An airline is going to schedule a transcontinental flight that makes three puddle-jump stops in the middle of the country?

Not to mention the order of stops she rattled off makes no sense. Taking her literally, this plane not only makes three stops in two states in the middle of the country but does so in reverse order: flying eastward from L.A., Kansas City comes first, then St. Louis, then Chicago. However, according to Mrs. Q., Trans Global flies east to St. Louis, doubles back to fly west to KC, then turns around again to go to Chi.

Remind me never to fly cross-country on Trans Global. Driving would be faster.

[–] k-gage 10 years ago

wow hate it that much to write all that? why watch?

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

That's an idiotic remark. It's not a matter of "hate". Just talking about a single stupid line of dialogue.

I like the movie and enjoy watching it but that doesn't mean I have to put my mind on hold and be uncritical of it. But apparently you equate any criticism with "hate". Grow up.

[–] k-gage 10 years ago

guess i meant it's just a movie, so why does any possible inaccuracy in airplane travel flights bother you so much as to go into that much detail about it? does it really distract from the plot? and i can"t "grow up", i'm stuck at 5'1" :)

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

I went into it as much as I needed to. There are several aspects to point out. It isn't a matter of it "bothering" me as it is simply pointing out a dopey and amusing error that was completely needless.

Like you, I saw this movie when it came out and many times since and I never caught that mistake. Actually I think it's funny because it's so ludicrous. I know from some of your other posts that you really love this movie and that's fine -- I like it too -- but does that mean it's above criticism? Why not point this goof out? Just because we like a film doesn't mean it's without flaws or that we can't comment on them. What's the difference if it affects the plot or not?

My "grow up" remark may have been overdone but your "so much hate" comment was pretty over the top too. So, how about we call it square?

[–] k-gage 10 years ago

we call it square for sure. i guess this flick has a special place in my heart for nostalgic reasons. i don't have your knowledge of flight patterns as i am not a frequent flyer, so for me it wasn't something i even noticed or that mattered. but your point is well taken. i always enjoy reading your posts! i just get tired sometimes of people nitpicking and want to say "it's just a movie"!

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Hi k-gage, your post certainly came out of the blue, and thank you for it.

Actually, I did live in Missouri at one time and regularly flew between that state and New York, but I never stopped to think about Mrs. Quonsett's St. Louis-Kansas City-Chicago business for years. It finally hit me but even then it was a long time before I bothered posting about it. I don't know much about flight patterns, except to know that you don't zig-zag back and forth in opposite directions on one flight, let alone make three close-together stops on a transcontinental flight.

Maybe it's nitpicking, but it is something fun to point out, and no harm done. Besides, when you see a movie you like to be able to take it seriously. Don't you often find that a movie is hurt when they get some of the so-called "small things" wrong? It does diminish a film's credibility, especially because such things are usually needless. Look at it this way: it would have been just as easy -- easier -- for the screenwriter to put in a line of dialogue about the flight Mrs. Q. was on that made sense, instead of something so preposterous.

This is another example of something about filmmaking I read long ago:

Audiences will accept the impossible; they will not accept the improbable.

We'll accept time-travel, aliens, dinosaurs wrecking cities, giant insects, X-Men and superheroes...but an airline flight that goes backwards and forwards while crossing the country? Not so much!

[–] RRozsa 10 years ago

Really? What gave you the idea hobnob hated the movie? The plot holes are some of the best parts of the movie! I just watched the movie this weekend and noticed some of the items mentioned. I've enjoyed reading hob's posts. There are other posts you can read if you don't enjoy them as much as some of the rest of us do!

Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!

[–] RRozsa 10 years ago

Thank you, hob! I needed a good laugh! Hilarious. And true.

I noticed quite a few other glaring plot holes, which are especially glaring to me because I fly a lot for my job, but I make a game out of trying to come up with possible scenarios to explain it all away so it won't spoil the movie for me. For instance, I came up with the assumption that Mrs. Quonsett has purposely selected these flights either because it would be harder to track her (especially if she changed airlines) or because in her past experience perhaps these particular airports were easiest to gain entry, especially if they involve small regional airports. I figured she sticks to little regional airlines whenever she can. That still doesn't explain a whole lot of other problems, but that sort of adds to the charm of the movie. It takes me back to a time, long gone, when people could fake a ticket and get on board, that a plane would still take off if the head count was off, that a pilot could drive across the tarmac with no repercussions, and other little gems that had me saying "Really...? REALLY?" more than once.

It's also funny to observe how much things have changed in the industry since 1970. Computerized check-ins, boarding pass scanners, not to mention all the security changes since 9/11, and also because back then it wasn't as common to travel by plan as it is now. Flying in a plane was a big deal, at least to everyone I knew. And you never saw leggings or spandex worn like pants at the terminal -- people used to dress up somewhat.

Life's a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Thanks, RRozsa, and I agree with you.

Watching this movie also takes me back to those days (I was in my late teens) when flying was still easy (and cheap!), you had good service, you weren't crammed in and treated like the proverbial cattle, and so on -- all the things you mentioned. And it's hard to realize that this film is old enough that it even precedes security checks of any kind -- not just the elaborate stuff we have today. Seeing Burt Lancaster give that disquisition on the jumbo jets that will soon be coming really makes you realize how old this film is!

Yet, if you overlook such things much of the movie still seems new. It looks more modern to me than I think airport scenes in a movie made, say, in 1946 looked to audiences of 1970. It's the particulars of airline travel rather than the overall look or feel of the film that have dated, and you kind of have to think about those to realize it. But maybe that's because I saw this in a theater when it came out and I've sort of grown up with it. Much of it is clichéd (and was even in 1970) and it certainly has its faults but it's still fun and entertaining. Far better than the unwatchable sequels it unfortunately spawned.

And I always dressed up to fly too, well into the 80s. Ah, well, time passes, and so does taste!

[–] Chiscully 10 years ago

In addition to what you mention, here are the things that stand out for me: smoking on an airplane, no covers for the overheads, 3 people in a cockpit, inflight courtesy food service and square-ish airplane windows. My parents saw the movie when it came out and I'm sure contributed to my mother great fear of flying.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

My parents saw the movie when it came out and I'm sure contributed to my mother great fear of flying.

Is that true? I'm really sorry about that! You know, the movie is a bit contradictory on the safety point: one the one hand it's a major plug for the airline industry -- the airlines themselves, the ground crews, air traffic controllers and manufacturers -- where everyone does his job quickly, efficiently and well. On the other hand, we see both a stowaway and a bomber board the same flight without a problem! If you think about it, you'd wonder why all these people and agencies weren't more proactive about preventing such things in the first place, instead of being so good at taking charge and cleaning up after they happen!

By the way, the way Gwen gives her secret knock on the cockpit door and gets in isn't very reassuring either. It's hardly a complex "code", and anyway that door looks exceptionally easy for a determined hijacker or two to kick in...as in fact happened many times over the years, up to and including 9/11.

[–] eelb 10 years ago

Truth be told, it would've been difficult for a stowaway to board an airliner in 1970. Maybe once, but doing it repeatedly as Mrs. Quonsett did would've been unlikely.

The mad bomber was far more realistic, and there are several examples of that in the accident files of the 1950's and 60's.

[–] RRozsa 10 years ago

Also, the seats in "tourist" section are as large as ones in first class nowadays, and the aisles are large enough for the stewardesses to pass each other or walk past the refreshment cart.

Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!

[–] eelb 10 years ago

Yep, other than much better navigation systems, and more efficient engines, there's not a lot of difference with the old Boeing 707, and the 737's of today. In fact, the fuselage is pretty much the same. Just a different wing and 2 engines instead of 4.

[–] eelb 10 years ago

Multi-stop cross country flights were not that unusual in the days before the hub and spoke system was conceived. Airlines naturally followed the routings of the railroads, because that seemed the most logical at the time. Then in the late 1970's the idea came about to have all flights feed into a hub, where a passenger could reach any destination with one connection. Which is the system most people today are familiar with.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

To your three posts, eelb....

Agreed, Mrs. Quonsett is unlikely to have been able to stow away on the same flights of the same airline so many times. She did say she flew other airlines but preferred Trans-Global, so she spread her thievery around. But the odds would make it likely she'd be caught before long. That aside, the airlines were more alert to who boarded the plane back then than this film indicates. Mrs. Q. might have gotten away with this once or twice but nowhere near as often as she's supposed to have done.

I've flown both Boeings 707 and 737 and a bunch of others but am hardly an expert. It seems to me the 737 is noticeably different from the 707 but I don't remember enough to comment.

You're right that multi-stop flights were common before the 70s, and they still happen, but that doesn't explain the preposterously silly schedule Trans-Global came up with: LA - St. Louis - KC - Chi - NYC. Right. Ozark wasn't that loopy.

[–] eelb 10 years ago

The 737 first went into service in 1967. The fuselage of the 707,727, and 737 are all of the same cross section and design, the only difference is length. The 737's of today, have a different wing and engines from the original. Otherwise the basic airframe is still the same. Of course the systems are different from 1960's technology.

Interesting you would reference Ozark. You must be my age and from the midwest. I could make a case that Braniff was international in scope (although South American, not European as was the fictional Trans-Global) and flew similar domestic routings that you mention, right up until deregulation. Also I don't think she flew those city pairs on the same flight.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

No, I'm from NY, but went to grad school in Columbia, MO, and spent a lot of time transferring from TWA to Ozark for the in-state flight. I once noticed that it was possible to fly on Ozark from Columbia to NYC...with a total of nine intermediary stops! But yes, we're probably about the same age.

However, Mrs. Q specifically said she liked that one particular Trans-Global flight, the one that went from LA to STL to KC to CHI to NY (probably LGA). I watched her say it again last night. I can only assume this was a line meant for its humorous complexity (throwing in all sorts of cities on one flight), or maybe no one paid attention to the utter illogic and ridiculousness of the route as written in the script. It's just a needless lapse in plot reality.

[–] blacksunday52 10 years ago

Another factor supporting the seemingly irrational route structure was regulation of domestic flight routes, fares, etc. Once airlines were deregulated in the late 1970s, the industry radically transformed itself into what we know today.

A good description of the period is "Hard Landing," by Thomas Petzinger, Jr.

[–] eelb 10 years ago

Yes, those that have only lived in the post-deregulation era, don't have a concept of what airline travel was like in the past.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

I think airline deregulation was a huge mistake overall, but even in the "good old days" no one flew backwards from St. Louis to Kansas City, then back again to Chicago, after first flying in from Los Angeles. You might have had a flight originating in KC that landed in STL on its way east (or vice-versa westbound), or a puddle-jumper flying such a route, but not a repeated zig-zag in opposite directions, and certainly not on a transcontinental flight.