Please note: This site's design is only visible in a graphical browser that supports Web standards, but its content is accessible to any browser or Internet device. To see this site as it was designed please upgrade to a Web standards compliant browser.
 
Signal vs. Noise

Our book:
Defensive Design for the Web: How To Improve Error Messages, Help, Forms, and Other Crisis Points
Available Now ($16.99)

Most Popular (last 15 days)
Looking for old posts?
37signals Mailing List

Subscribe to our free newsletter and receive updates on 37signals' latest projects, research, announcements, and more (about one email per month).

37signals Services
Syndicate
XML version (full posts)
Get Firefox!

Airline Industry Jargon

18 Sep 2003 by Matthew Linderman

I received an e-mail from United Airlines today. It started this way:

We’re pleased to announce more details on our low cost carrier, an operation that will complement our current mainline fleet. The new operation will launch in Denver during the first quarter of 2004 and will serve predominantly leisure markets with optimal connectivity to other United flights within our network. A more simplified fare structure will provide low-cost business and leisure fare options.

Mainline fleet? Leisure markets? Optimal connectivity? Fare structure? Sounds good if I’m an airline industry expert. But someone’s asleep in the cockpit if this sort of jargon-heavy copy is going out to regular consumers.

7 comments so far (Post a Comment)

18 Sep 2003 | One of several Steves said...

I got that same email. Maybe I'm spending way too much time on planes, but all of that flew right by me as nothing unusual. Since I'm guessing they probably sent that only to heavy flyers (I'm Premier Executive status with them), maybe it's not missing the boat that much.

By the way, the parallel you were looking for was asleep at the yoke ;)

18 Sep 2003 | ~bc said...

REMIX!

How about serve predominantlyhumans withoptimal connectivity to simplified English?

18 Sep 2003 | pb said...

That's pretty funny. Heavy fligher or not, that's not the right way to talk to consumers. Southwest wouldn't. I'd like to see someone translate it into plain consumerish.

18 Sep 2003 | p said...

i don't know, that sounds really straightforward to me too...

i only fly maybe half-a-dozen times a year and it made perfect sense the first read-through.

18 Sep 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

I suppose it's not incomprehensible, but it's full of deadwood and makes my eyes glaze over. Plus, "low cost carrier" isn't exactly an eye-catching name for a new service. They could have said something more like this:

Were pleased to announce more details on our new Simply United program, which offers simplified, low-cost fare options for personal and business travelers. Simply United will launch in Denver early next year...

18 Sep 2003 | Steven Garrity said...

Pardon the self-link, but I was so bemused by the world "Deplaning" that I wrote a short-story about it.

22 Sep 2003 | jim said...

Don't consumers want to hear this kind of jargon though? After all, we are talking big, complicated jet-planes, convoluted air traffic control etc etc.

Services like flying, services which require the individual to hand all resposibility to a third party should probably remain obscure. Maybe people want, need, that veil of mystery...

Comments on this post are closed

 
Back to Top ^