Confronted with an exodus of veteran air traffic controllers who are hitting retirement age, the Federal Aviation Administration is busy recruiting -- at, among other places, high schools.

The FAA is busy wooing recent high school grads to come right on board, so to speak, and begin training to be controllers. They'll go through three months of training before becoming "controllers in training." Not long after that, they'll be staff.

The New York Post broke the story today.

The FAA has just completed a recruitment drive that placed ads on Craig's List, Myspace and at high schools nationwide. The feds were offering more than $100,000 in signing bonuses to newbies to draw them to the New York area's five understaffed radar centers, says the Post.

There's a one-time $27,000 bonus at the start of training, with another $75,000 paid out over four years.

So far, the Post says, one recent hire is a 20-year-old man who is currently monitoring radars at a station in Westbury, LI. He happens to have majored in air traffic control, but the FAA says students who have completed the 12th grade are eligible.

This news comes after two recent near-misses above the skies of New York that are being attributed to understaffed radar stations.

On July 5, two passenger jets inbound to JFK came within 100 feet of colliding in mid air, which the FAA considers to be an extremely close call. On June 25, a Learjet was given the green light to land at Teterboro Airport on a runway on which maintenance employees were busy working.

By 2011, nearly 60 percent of all air traffic controllers nationwide will have less than five years experience on the job, the Post says.

I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, the FAA has to get new people in there to bring staffing numbers up to a safe level. Then again, how safe do we feel knowing the FAA is searching out applicants for this life-or-death job on Myspace?

Earlier this year, I happened to be in Zuerich and staying at a rather nice hotel. Not top-of-the-line, Ritz or Four Seasons level but some place still charging north of $300 a night. In other words, not a place I would stay at all the time.

Needing to get some work done, I shuffled downstairs and asked about the hotel's wireless connectivity. Yes, there was wireless. Cost: $45 for 24 hours.

Should expensive hotels (or even moderately priced hotels) charge for Internet?

Now, I'm not launching into some annoying, techie talk about how free WiFi is a right. I don't think Internet access is a right. I'd expect to shell out for it at a cheap place on the grounds that one gets what one pays for.

But for places charging $200, $300, $400, $500 a night and up to tack on another $20 or $30 for Internet just makes me feel like my business isn't even appreciated. I almost hear them saying: We're going to squeeze every last penny out of this guy. Worse, they'll think I'm on expenses, which I sometimes am, so they're really thinking I won't care about the principle of the matter because they're sticking it to a faceless corporation.

O.K., let me pull back here.

I tell my friends how annoyed I was that upon graduating from college, my esteemed university charged me $150 for my diploma. My school charged tens of thousands for tuition, I say -- they just couldn't throw in the diploma as a way of saying thanks for my business? I guess this same conceit goes with my problem with pay-to-play Internet at upscale hotels. I mean, they are already overcharging for the room and all that comes with it ($22 burger!). Couldn't they just throw Internet in? Hell, fold it into the cost of the room. Then I'd at least think I was getting something for free.

But reading Joe Brancatelli's latest column at Portfolio.com has at least given me a few things to think about.

Brancatelli tackles just this issue. He says that the cheaper hotels are the ones that will always offer free WiFi, because they see that as their main selling point. In contrast, the luxury brands figure you're staying for other reasons. I hadn't thought of it like that. It still seems a little contrary: you'd think the budget places would not want to be saddled with the cost of Internet without getting money for it, whereas Marriott can afford it.

And I didn't really know how much hotels actually pay for high bandwidth Internet. Brancatelli gives some numbers, and they're not insignificant.

On balance, it still annoys me to be charged for Internet at nice places, because it's the amount these hotels charge. I mean, $5, $10 -- I could live with that. But charging at such a mark up above what I can get at home?

Read Brancatelli's column. What do you think? Hotel WiFi -- fee or free?

If you're heading to Prague this summer, one of the first things you'll notice when arriving at Ruzyne Airport is the number of car services competing for your business.

Prague's airport is not serviced by the city's subway network, though talk is ongoing about eventually extending it. If you go the public transportation route, that means a bus, usually the 119 that takes you to end station on the green, or A, subway line.

But there are other options. Bohemia Prague Airport Transfers is one. The company recently contacted Gadling to tell us a bit about their efforts to corner the market to and from Prague's airport and train stations. The outfit runs a fleet of cars and vans around the clock and can accommodate one to 16 travelers.

We took a look at the company's Web site, which is professional looking, with rates clearly shown, and the fact that you can book cars ahead of time does make Bohemia Prague an attractive option.

I've used the service once before, for a visiting family member a couple years ago, and it worked fine. I'd definitely recommend it if you're arriving at the airport and happen to be staying in a location out of the city center.

But Bohemia Prague's claim to be the official transport to and from the airport and train stations is a little overstated. They're not the only game in town. And be a little leery of the fact that, as advertised, the company charges a flat rate for anywhere in Prague. That's usually a sign that you'll be overcharged if you're heading to the prime tourist spots.

Their rate from the airport -- 550 koruna or $32 -- isn't bad, and perhaps it's even cheap compared to other European capitals. But you can also hail a yellow AAA taxi -- they're everywhere outside the airport -- which use meters and direct routes and will end up costing less than 550 koruna, especially if your destination is the Mala strana side of the river.

And of course, if you have time on your hands or are particularly budget conscious, the public transport connection isn't really that bad, and will wind up costing you about $3 for a 20-30 minute journey to the Dejvicka metro, which has rapid connections to the rest of the city.

In reviewing Bohemia Prague's rates, the one thing I'm compelled to say is do not contact them -- or any other taxi or car service, for that matter -- for transport to and from Prague's train stations. Folks, Bohemia Prague's 370 koruna ($21) set price for one way travel is a rip off, especially from Prague's main train station.

Monolingual, white tennis shoes, an unbecoming outfit and an ugly fanny pack: my stereotypical image of an American tourist. But apparently Americans don't win the number one spot for the world's most obnoxious tourists. In Europe, that special place is held for the French, reports Time Magazine.

According to an international survey conducted for Expedia.fr, the French are in fact considered to be overall the worst of the worst of tourists. Employees in 4,000 hotels in Germany, the U.K., Italy, France, Canada and the U.S. were asked to rank their clients on different levels ranging from willingness to speak the local language to discretion and elegance, and French travelers did not fare well.

France fell behind India and China as providing the world with the worst tourists. And the stereotypically obnoxious American tourist? Out of 21 countries, with the most liked at the top, the US got an impressive 11th place. Why is that? Among other reasons, despite language faults, Americans get the top spot for trying to speak local languages the most. Quelle surprise.

While I was living in France a few years ago I remember that Ryan Air was in the throngs of becoming all the rage. The novelty of tickets that cost a mere euro was exciting and soon after low cost airlines began popping up all over the place. Unfortunately -- as many travelers will attest too -- an airline ticket rarely costs less than an espresso. Yes, the advertised fare may be low, but once you throw in all those fees and taxes the full price of your ticket can soon jump to triple digits.

In an attempt to be more fair to travelers, the European Parliament has agreed to ban airlines from advertising fares that don't include the necessary fees and taxes. The new regulation -- not officially voted on but approved as a "common position" of the assembly -- is set to take effect across the European Union at the end of the year. What does it mean? The bold figures that you see advertised by airlines will be the exact price you can expect to pay; no pesky hidden fees.

I can only wonder whether here in the US, with all the new baggage fees and beyond, we will go the same route?

Thanks Moody75!

Everybody knows that flight crew members these days won't help you lift a bag into the overhead compartment, even if you are a 90-year-old woman. Still, one wonders whether there wasn't something Ryanair could have figured out to do in the following case.

A British man recently was forced to carry his disabled wife on board a Ryanair flight departing Luton, England for France after the airline's flight crew refused to help, citing company safety and health regulations, according to the UK's Daily Mail newspaper.

The Ambulift device required by 54-year-old Jo Heath, who is bound to a wheelchair, never showed up at Luton for her flight, despite the fact that Heath had told Ryanair she needed it when she booked her ticket.

The flight crew said it was Ryanair policy to leave behind passengers who could not board themselves, the Mail said.

The next flight left in three days, so Heath's husband decided to throw her over his shoulder and climb the stairs to the plane himself.

She told the newspaper: "It was quite a dangerous thing for Paul to attempt. If he had slipped over or dropped me God knows who would have helped us out.

"I was scared and very embarrassed by it and you could see other passengers were starting to get a bit ratty. I had done everything I needed to for Ryanair to get me on the plane."

The couple said the airline's actions were a violation of the UK's Disability and Discrimination Act.

Ryanair did apologize to the couple, and said it was company policy for the flight crew not to lift passengers up stairs because of health and safety concerns.

The couple did receive a voucher from Ryanair good for about $200.

It's easy to bash Ryanair on this one. Fine. Sometimes company regulations should be overlooked.

But what about this: Were there any good Samaritans on board the plane that day who could have lent a helping hand? Appears not. They were busy getting "ratty."

Even if you manage to do more than a staycation this summer, vacations just aren't what they used to be. Along with paying to check baggage and incredibly high gas prices comes a whole new level of social responsibility; seems like we can't even take a simple American road trip without considering all the environmental costs involved.

For those of you that are concerned with just how green your summer travels are, the Sierra Club has two easy quizzes to figure out where your vacation ranks on the green scale. The How Green is My Destination quiz looks at the environmental impact of where you are going and the How Green is my Getaway quiz analyzes just how your mode of travel -- bike, bus, airplane, etc. -- changes the greeness of your upcoming vacay.

To take the quizzes click here.

Back in March, Gadling blogged about a firearm training system, Lamperd, which had patented a bracelet that worked like a stun gun when activated.

At the time, Lamperd was lobbying the Transportation Security Administration to make it mandatory for all airline passengers to wear one, with the thinking that it was the best way to thwart a terrorist.

Well, here's an update.

The Department of Homeland Security, ever the shepherds watching over their flocks, appears to be seriously weighing making this bracelet mandatory and has sent a letter to Lamperd encouraging the company to draft a formal proposal for integrating its bracelet into flight security.

That's right. Your tax dollars are funding the R&D arm of DHS, which wants to develop technology that acts essentially as a GPS attached to your wrist, allowing the government to track pretty much everywhere you go once you check in for your flight, and giving the flight crew the ability to waylay you if you get out of hand.

O.K., that might be overstating it: Officials say the bracelet would only be activated in the event of a terrorist attack. But still....

Here is a promotional video for the bracelet that piqued DHS's interest.

The Washington Times today quotes a letter from DHS's Paul S. Ruwaldt, of the Science and Technology Directorate, in which he writes to Lamperd saying, "To make it clear, we are interested in...the immobilizing security bracelet and look forward to receiving a written proposal."

The Times says the letter was written on Federal Aviation Administration letterhead.

The Times goes on to detail what the bracelet could do. It would:

• Eliminate the need to carry a boarding pass
• Contain personal data about you, including your travel history
  
• Monitor the whereabouts of both you and your luggage after check-in
  
• Employ Electro-Musclar Disruption technology that could immobilize a passenger for nearly 10 minutes

Now, with all the idiotic things passengers have been doing on planes of late, I could maybe get behind employing some kind of bracelet stun gun.

But seriously, I consider all this with some foreboding. I mean, slipping a bracelet on a little kid that could deliver a shock powerful enough to make an electronic dog fence zap seem like a pinprick is a scary thought. What if a flight attendant accidently activates one of them?

What do you think? Would mandatory bracelets like these make air travel safer, or is this just another way for the government to look over our shoulders?

What other strange things have been found on planes?

Click the image to read the bizarre story...

As a child I was always a fan of the window seat when flying. Then I grew taller and became a fan of the aisle seats where I could comfortably stretch out my legs as long as it wasn't beverage service time. Even better would be if I lucked out with an aisle emergency exit seat. But it looks like those of us who prefer the aisle seat have yet another reason to do so: safety.

In a study commissioned by United Kingdom's Civil Aviation Authority, where 105 plane accidents and 2000 personal accounts were analyzed, emergency exit seats and the rows in front and behind them were found to be the safest. For the best chance of escaping from a burning aircrafts, the report said that passengers should choose aisle seats near the front of the aircraft and within five rows of the emergency exit.

What are the most dangerous seats? Anything six rows or more from the emergency exit. Here are the survival rates for escaping from a burning aircraft:

• Front of the aircraft, 65%
• Rear of the aircraft, 53%
• Aisle seat, 64%
• Non-aisle seat, 58%

Need help on just how to score an emergency exit seat? Read this.

Flight delays, baggage complications and tight seating; flying isn't really on anyone''s list of favorites anymore. But because the state of airline and airport affairs is so mediocre, whenever you have a good experience there is a sense of elation; "My plane landed on time?!?!? Great!" That feeling is a whole lot better than knowing that you'll be flying into one of the world's most delayed airports.

If you want to plan your flying schedules around the airports that are known for getting their jets in and out in a timely fashion -- so you can actually stick to your travel schedule -- where should you go? MSNBC posted an article today with America's top 15 most on-time airports. Here are the top five with their percentage of on time flights:

1. Honolulu International, 84.3%
2. Kahului, 84.2%
3. Portland International, 81.8%
4. Salt Lake City International, 81.1%
5. Albuquerque International, 81%
   

Check out the other ten here and then book accordingly.



Thanks Emma!