Home
Homepage Forums Advertise with Us Gallery Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   TanToday - Tanning Salon Business Forum > Site Info/General Discussion > News About Tanning

Visit Our Sponsors!

News About Tanning Find out what the media is saying about the indoor tanning industry. Note: Please start a new thread in the private forum to discuss articles of a sensitive nature.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 16th May 2008, 09:25 AM   #1 (permalink)
Hall of Famer
 
esun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,255
Default Air tran tv commercial is bad for tanning

http://www.airtranairways.com/advert...ng%20Salon.MPG
I saw this on TV first thing this morning when i got up and it pissed me right off.
What do you all think about this?
esun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16th May 2008, 09:27 AM   #2 (permalink)
Hall of Famer
 
EliteMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,712
Send a message via AIM to EliteMike
Default Re: Air tran tv commercial is bad for tanning

I find it funny. What's even worse is I've seen salons that look like that inside.
EliteMike is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16th May 2008, 10:26 AM   #3 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Kathe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,940
Send a message via AIM to Kathe Send a message via MSN to Kathe
Default Re: Air tran tv commercial is bad for tanning

Can't get the link to work???
__________________


Arbonne International
Vice President & Independent Consultant
Pure, Safe & Beneficial Skin Care for Salons & Independent Consultants
www.katheray.myarbonne.com
e-mail: arbonnekathe@msn.com


Kathe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2010, 11:18 AM   #4 (permalink)
Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 29
Default Re: Air tran tv commercial is bad for tanning

ITS BACK ! fox 5 in Atlanta running it during the news breaks....Air Tran must really be strapped for cash running a 2 yr old commercial
suntanhut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2010, 11:21 AM   #5 (permalink)
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 280
Default Re: Air tran tv commercial is bad for tanning

It is pretty funny unfortunately. I think they are taking advantage of the celebrity of "Jersey Shore" more than anything.
MicroSpa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2010, 11:22 AM   #6 (permalink)
Super Star
 
DB9276's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 918
Default Re: Air tran tv commercial is bad for tanning

I cringe when I see it. It really makes tanning salons look like a joke and makes the operators look incompetent.
DB9276 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2010, 11:48 AM   #7 (permalink)
All Star
 
uvbre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 72
Default Re: Air tran tv commercial is bad for tanning

Wow, what a horrible ad. What we need to do is make a commercial showing how difficult and uncomfortable it is to fly on those discount airlines. Show people crammed in their seats - knees in their chins with no food or drink service and unfriendly flight attendants. Now I know not all airlines are like this or is their staff all unfriendly but hey not all tanning salons (in fact none that I am aware of thank goodness) are like the one portrayed ... but hey..... fair is fair!
__________________
"In the new economy, information, education, and motivation are everything." - Bill Clinton
uvbre is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2010, 11:57 AM   #8 (permalink)
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 280
Default Re: Air tran tv commercial is bad for tanning

Quote:
Originally Posted by uvbre View Post
Wow, what a horrible ad. What we need to do is make a commercial showing how difficult and uncomfortable it is to fly on those discount airlines. Show people crammed in their seats - knees in their chins with no food or drink service and unfriendly flight attendants. Now I know not all airlines are like this or is their staff all unfriendly but hey not all tanning salons (in fact none that I am aware of thank goodness) are like the one portrayed ... but hey..... fair is fair!
Now THAT is a creative idea that would be hilarious. You could have someone waiting and waiting on the airplane, 4 hours goes by and then they have to go back to the gate and get off. Then show someone going into a beautiful tanning salon, getting a great tan and out having a fun time with their friends all while the other person is miserable.

The ironic thing for me is that I do consulting work for them in my day job. I'll have to give them a hard time when I'm in Atlanta next.
MicroSpa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2010, 12:01 PM   #9 (permalink)
Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 29
Default Re: Air tran tv commercial is bad for tanning

maybe they like making other industries look silly while trying to hide there on incompetence...i havent forgot who air tran was before flight 592...hmmm...Value Jet perhaps ?...they dropped the ball on this one Big Time !http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592
suntanhut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2010, 12:04 PM   #10 (permalink)
Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 29
Default Re: Air tran tv commercial is bad for tanning

the link doesnt work so heres the story
ValuJet Flight 592

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
ValuJet Airlines Flight 592Accident summaryDateMay 11, 1996TypeIn-flight fireSiteFlorida EvergladesPassengers105Crew5Fatalities110 (all)Aircraft typeMcDonnell Douglas DC-9-32OperatorValuJet AirlinesTail numberN904VJFlight originMiami International AirportDestinationWilliam B. Hartsfield Atlanta International AirportValuJet Flight 592 was a flight that crashed on May 11, 1996 en route from Miami International Airport in Miami, Florida, United States, to William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia. The crash was a large factor in undermining the credibility of the low-cost carrier ValuJet Airlines, now known as AirTran Airways.
Contents

[hide][edit] Accident

The 27-year-old DC-9 aircraft used on this route [1] was previously owned by Delta Air Lines [2]. Flight 592 pushed back from gate G2 in Miami after a delay of 1 hour and 4 minutes due to mechanical problems. At 2:04 pm, the DC-9 took off from runway 9L and began a normal climb. However, at 2:10 p.m. the flight crew noted an electrical problem. Seconds later, a flight attendant entered the cockpit and advised the flight crew of the fire. Passengers' shouts of "fire, fire, fire" were recorded on the plane's cockpit voice recorder when the cockpit door was opened. Though the ValuJet flight attendant manual stated that the cockpit door should not be opened when smoke or other harmful gases may be present in the cabin, the intercom was disabled, and there was no other way to inform the pilots of what was happening. By this time, the plane's interior was completely on fire.
The crew immediately asked air traffic control for a return to Miami due to smoke in the cockpit and cabin. Captain Candi Kubeck and First Officer Richard Hazen were given instructions for a return to the airport. One minute later, the First Officer requested the nearest available airport.
Flight 592 disappeared from radar at 2:14 p.m. It crashed in Browns Farm Wildlife Management area in the Everglades, a few miles west of Miami, at speeds in excess of 500 miles per hour (800 km/h). Kubeck, Hazen, the three flight attendants, and all 105 passengers aboard were killed. The oldest person aboard the jet was 84, the youngest was 5. Recovery of the aircraft and victims was made extremely difficult due to the location of the crash. The nearest road of any kind was more than a quarter mile (400 m) away from the crash scene, and the location of the crash itself was a deep-water swamp with a bedrock base. The DC-9 shattered on impact with the bedrock, leaving very few large portions of the plane intact. Sawgrass, alligators, and risk of bacterial infection from cuts plagued searchers involved in the recovery effort.
[edit] Victims

Notable passengers killed on the flight included:[3]COPS happened to be taping with the Miami-Dade Police Department when the accident occurred. As a result, one of the episodes aired in the 1996-97 season features some of the first 9-1-1 calls and the initial investigations into the accident.
Residences of passengers:[3]
ResidencePassengersCrewTotal Bahamas202 United Kingdom202 United States995104Unspecified202Total1055110[edit] Investigation

Greg Feith, an investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), was at his home and learned of the crash via television news coverage. He said in an interview that he wondered how he would investigate the incident since, through the aerial views on television, he saw no visible wreckage.[6]
The NTSB investigation eventually determined that the fire that downed Flight 592 began in a cargo compartment below the passenger cabin. The cargo compartment's fire suppression created a no-air recycling environment, so a standard fire would have simply run out of air and burned itself out. However, the NTSB determined that just before takeoff, expired chemical oxygen generators were placed in the cargo compartment in five boxes marked COMAT (Company-owned material) by ValuJet's maintenance contractor, SabreTech, in contravention of FAA regulations forbidding the transport of hazardous materials in aircraft cargo holds. Failure to cover the firing pins for the generators with the prescribed plastic caps made an accidental activation much more likely. As the Seconds From Disaster episode about the crash explains, rather than fitting firing pins on the canisters, the SabreTech workers just duct taped the cords around the cans, or cut them, and used tape to stick the ends down. It is also possible that the cylindrical, tennis ball can-sized generators were loaded onboard in the mistaken belief that they were just canisters. SabreTech employees indicated on the cargo manifest that the "canisters" were empty, when in fact they were not.
Chemical oxygen generators, when activated, produce oxygen. As a byproduct of the exothermic chemical reaction, they also produce a great quantity of heat. These two together were sufficient not only to start an accidental fire, but also produce the extra oxygen needed to keep the fire burning, made much worse by the presence of combustible aircraft wheels in the hold. NTSB investigators theorized that when the plane experienced a slight jolt while taxiing on the runway, an oxygen canister activated, producing oxygen and heat. Laboratory testing showed that canisters of the same type could heat nearby materials up to 500 °F (260 °C), enough to ignite a smouldering fire. The oxygen from the generators fed the resulting fire in the cargo hold. A pop and jolt heard on the cockpit voice recording and correlated with a brief and dramatic spike in the altimeter reading in the flight data recording were attributed to the sudden cabin pressure change caused by a semi-inflated aircraft wheel in the cargo hold exploding in the fire. (Two main tires and wheels and a nose tire and wheel were also included in the COMAT).
In 1986, an American Trans Air McDonnell-Douglas DC-10 was destroyed by a fire at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, caused by an improperly stored oxygen generator.
In 1988, American Airlines Flight 132 (a McDonnell-Douglas MD-80, the successor airplane to the DC-9) had a similar accident. A cargo hold fire caused by hazardous materials started, but the crew landed the aircraft safely. After this incident, the NTSB recommended to the FAA that all class D cargo holds have smoke detectors and/or fire suppression systems.[7]
Smoke detectors in the cargo holds can alert the flight crew of a fire long before the problem becomes apparent in the cabin, and a fire suppression system buys valuable time to land the plane safely. In February 1998, the FAA issued revised standards requiring all Class D cargo holds be converted to Class C or E by early 2001.[8]
[edit] Culpability

The NTSB placed fault for ValuJet Flight 592 on three parties: SabreTech, for illegally transporting dangerous materials aboard a commercial aircraft, improperly labeling them, and not providing safety equipment to ship them; ValuJet, for not properly supervising SabreTech; and the FAA, for not properly supervising ValuJet and not requiring active fire suppression equipment in this cargo compartment.
In 1997, a federal grand jury charged SabreTech with mishandling hazardous materials, failing to train its employees on proper handling of hazardous materials, conspiracy and making false statements. SabreTech's maintenance supervisor, Daniel Gonzalez, and two mechanics who worked on the plane, Eugene Florence and Mauro Valenzuela, were charged with conspiracy and making false statements. Two years later, having been found guilty on the mishandling hazardous materials and improper training charges, SabreTech was fined $2 million and ordered to pay $9 million in restitution. Gonzalez and Florence were acquitted on all charges, while Valenzuela failed to appear and is currently missing.[9] In December 2008, the EPA announced a web site to search for "environmental fugitives," highlighting Mauro Valenzuela as a specific target.[10]
In 2001, United States 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the SabreTech guilty verdict in part. In so doing, the panel concluded that federal law at the time of the crash could not support a conviction for mishandling hazardous materials and that the government did not prove that SabreTech formed an intent to cause harm. The panel did, however, uphold the conviction for improper training, and on remand, the District Court sentenced SabreTech to a $500,000 fine, three years' probation and no restitution.
Just before the federal trial, a Florida grand jury indicted SabreTech on 110 counts of manslaughter and 110 counts of third-degree murder; one for each person who died in the crash. SabreTech settled the state charges by agreeing to plead no contest to a state charge of mishandling hazardous waste and donating $500,000 to an aviation safety group and a Miami-Dade County charity.
SabreTech was the first American aviation company to be criminally prosecuted for its role in an American airline crash. The company, a subsidiary of St. Louis-based Sabreliner Corporation, went out of business in 1999.
ValuJet was grounded by the FAA on June 16, 1996. It was allowed to resume flying again on September 30, but never recovered from the crash. In 1997, it merged with AirTran Airways. The ValuJet name was so tarnished by this time that it decided to take the AirTran name.
Many families of the Flight 592 victims were outraged that ValuJet was not prosecuted, given ValuJet's poor safety record. ValuJet had a higher accident rate than the 10 largest airlines, leading the FAA to take the unprecedented step of barring it from buying more planes or adding more cities without permission.[citation needed] The agency had seriously considered grounding the airline. The victims' families also point to statements made by ValuJet officials immediately after the crash that appeared to indicate ValuJet knew the generators were on the plane, and in fact had ordered them returned to Atlanta rather than properly disposed.[11]
suntanhut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2010, 02:59 PM   #11 (permalink)
Hall of Famer
 
EliteMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,712
Send a message via AIM to EliteMike
Default Re: Air tran tv commercial is bad for tanning

Kind of related, if anyone has watched Mall cop, the scene where the robber falls into the tanning bed is kind of funny. The even show proper eye wear usage
__________________
http://sunlighttruth.com
EliteMike is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2010, 03:08 PM   #12 (permalink)
Hall of Famer
 
John's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,919
Default Re: Air tran tv commercial is bad for tanning

They ran this same ad last year during the winter. Akron, Oh is a main Hub for airtrain.
__________________
John Hayes
Ultraviolet Resources International


John is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:45 AM.
 



Copyright © 2009 by Virgo Publishing LLC, all rights reserved.
P.O. Box 40079, Phoenix, AZ 85067-0079
Phone: 480-990-1101 - Email: admin@tantoday.com
Privacy statement Terms of use