1940 Air Terminal Museum suddenly closes

A week ago, one of Houston's more unique museums abruptly shut its doors:

The 1940 Air Terminal Museum, a longstanding tribute to Houston's aviation history, has closed because it was no longer economically sustainable, according to its president.

The museum is adjacent to Houston's Hobby Airport. Karen Nicolaou, president and director of The Houston Aeronautical Heritage Society, the nonprofit that operates the museum, said she hopes the closure is temporary as a workable financial solution is sought. 

"The museum has ceased operations at this time," according a Facebook post. "Thank you to everyone who has contributed."

That terse post, which appeared the evening of Sunday March 1st, was followed by a longer post a few days later that went into details about the museum's financial troubles:

The closure of the 1940 Air Terminal Museum, an all-volunteer organization, is the result of mounting financial pressures that accumulated over time, ultimately reaching a breaking point. The problem is straightforward: the museum's revenues simply do not match its expenses.

The economic climate has made it increasingly difficult for small, independently operated cultural institutions like this one to stay afloat. Operating costs — from utilities and staffing to maintenance of an aging historic structure — have continued to climb, while income streams have proven unreliable and insufficient.

Perhaps the most significant financial blow came from the failure of a once-reliable fundraising channel. The museum had previously raised $100,000 or more per year by raffling vintage aircraft; however, that revenue stream dried up entirely. Due to inflation and other economic factors, vintage aircraft we have raffled in the past have easily doubled in cost.  This loss represented a critical pillar of the museum's operating budget, and no adequate replacement has been found. While the museum continued to generate income through admissions, events, and private rentals, those sources simply haven't been sufficient to cover costs.

Although not mentioned here, the Chronicle article about the closure also notes that the raffle was also hampered by Facebook's decision to not promote posts about the raffle because they considered it to be gambling. (As if you need another reason to hate Mark Zuckerberg...) The post also points out the challenges caused by the museum's location, in an industrial area a couple of blocks off Telephone Road and not directly accessible from Hobby Airport's main terminal. Unlike the institutions in the Museum District that can feed off each other for patronage, the 1940 Air Terminal Museum's isolated location makes it difficult to attract casual visitors. Indeed, both times I've attended the museum it was essentially empty.

The building's listing on the National Register of Historic Places means that its preservation is not simply a local concern — it is a matter of national cultural heritage. While that designation provides legal protections against demolition, it does not guarantee funding for upkeep. The ongoing maintenance of a structure of this age and architectural complexity requires a steady, reliable, and substantial financial commitment that the current model has proven unable to sustain.

The Board hopes the closure will serve as a wake-up call. What this museum needs is not another raffle or another one-time fundraiser — the museum needs a permanent and sustainable funding structure that can weather economic downturns and changes in the philanthropic landscape.

The museum's financial challenges are nothing new; I remember they had an emergency fundraiser several years ago that I donated to. I'm sorry the situation got to the point where the had to shut down completely. I can only hope that the city and its philanthropic ecosystem can step in to find a solution. The 1940 Air Terminal Museum is a valuable piece of the city's history and its permanent demise would be a significant cultural loss for Houston.

 Kuff has more.

Houston to Rome, nonstop

Si, per favore!

ITA Airways is expanding its transatlantic route network by introducing new flights from Rome Fiumicino International Airport (FCO) to Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH), marking the first-ever direct route between the two cities. With the addition of Houston, the airline’s network will expand to nine North American destinations.

The Italian flag carrier has already opened ticket sales, with the inaugural flight set for May 1, 2026. The aircraft operating this route will be the carrier’s youngest widebody type, the Airbus A330-900 from the A330neo family.

The seasonal service will begin with three nonstops per week, ramping up to five nonstops per week on June 1st - just in time for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. The service will operate through at least October 24th. 

Simple Flying, which first reported that this service was a possibility last June, explains the logic behind it:

The new FCO-IAH route will improve connectivity not only for passengers traveling directly to Houston, but also for those connecting onward to destinations across the US or Canada. To support these connections, ITA has recently launched codeshare agreements with United Airlines and Air Canada, which are both members of the  Star Alliance. It is also worth noting that the Italian flag carrier is in the process of joining Star Alliance, following its integration into the Lufthansa Group.

I'm always happy when Houston adds more nonstop flights to international destinations, and as somebody who spent a few days in Rome three years ago and wants to go back, I can see myself making use of this service. Hopefully it will be successful enough to warrant year-round, rather than seasonal, service.

One Mile at a Time and KHOU have more.

Has Iceland's tourist bubble burst?

A couple of weeks ago, an Iceland-based budget carrier suddenly ceased operations, stranding thousands of travelers:

In an unfortunate turn of events, low-cost Icelandic airline PLAY ceased operations without warning on Monday, September 29, 2025, leaving nearly 1,750 passengers stranded across Europe and North America. The airline, known for its budget-friendly transatlantic routes, issued a brief but jarring message on their website:

“Dear passenger, Fly PLAY hf. has ceased operations, and all flights have been cancelled. We kindly advise you to check flights with other airlines. Some carriers may offer special ‘rescue fares’ considering the circumstances.”

For travelers caught mid-itinerary, the announcement was both confusing and infuriating. With no prior warning, flights bound for cities like Baltimore, Barcelona, Lisbon, Paris, London, and Copenhagen were canceled, and inbound planes to Reykjavik never took off. Many travelers were left scrambling for last-minute alternatives at their own expense.

This isn't the first time an ultra-low-cost carrier based out of Iceland has folded without warning: WOW Air collapsed in 2019. Both WOW and PLAY were centered around a similar business model: connecting budget travelers in Europe and North America through Icelandic capital of Reykjavik, effectively making that city's airport a transatlantic hub. However, as both the demise of WOW and PLAY indicate, this business model is fraught with risk.

PLAY’s shutdown is a reminder of the fragility of ultra-low-cost carriers, especially in smaller markets like Iceland where operational margins are razor-thin. For travelers, it’s also a cautionary tale about the risks of booking with new or financially unstable airlines.

The Telegraph claims that PLAY's demise is proof that Iceland's tourist bubble has burst:

While Iceland’s tourism numbers boomed in the 2010s, things have slowed significantly in recent years. The country’s tourism bureau says international visitors have dropped 6 per cent in the last year. And it wasn’t like they were thriving before then: visitor numbers in 2023 were still lower than they were before the pandemic.

As for what’s causing the slump, analysts point to a drop-off in demand from Iceland’s two largest tourism markets, namely visitors from Britain and the United States. The two English-speaking countries usually account for almost half of all international visitors to Iceland – but it looks like travellers are increasingly getting cold feet.

The data doesn’t shine any light on what might be causing that reticence. But it seems sensible to assume that the ongoing cost-of-living squeeze – particularly on this side of the pond – may have played a part. After all, Iceland is frequently named as one of the world’s most expensive destinations, with a pint of beer often costing well over £10 in Reykjavík.

The Telegraph's claim drew the ire of Icelandic media, which claims that "data from the Icelandic Tourist Board shows that the number of visitors rose by 2.2% in 2024 compared with 2023, with further growth forecast this year." Left uncontested is the observation that fewer visitors are visiting Iceland than before the pandemic, or the likelihood that the sudden collapse of PLAY will have at least some negative effect on tourism to (and through) the country. 

From a purely anecdotal standpoint, I'm no longer being flooded with advertisements for Iceland like I was back in 2018, when the volcanic island was at the peak of its tourist popularity. It's also worth noting that some airlines that were flying to Iceland during that boom, such as American Airlines, are no longer doing so.

For those who still want to travel to Iceland, Icelandair remains operational and serves multiple North American and European destinations from Keflavik Airport. It also offers stopover packages for travelers who want to spend a few days exploring on their way between continents. As for me, my attitude regarding using Iceland as a stopover to Europe remains the same as it was in 2018: until there are direct flights between Houston and Reykjavik, there's no point in me doing so.

Another unique Houston air connection comes to an end

I always hate to see Houston lose direct connections to interesting international cities as well as service from flagship foreign carriers, but this doesn't surprise me: 

Singapore Airlines announced this week it will suspend its service between Houston's Bush Intercontinental Airport and Manchester, England, in April 2025.

The route is the lone service from Singapore Airlines in the Houston market. The decision was made "in line with its capacity adjustments," according to a news release.

Manchester is the only airport with direct flights and from IAH via Singapore Airlines. 

As the article notes, Singapore Airlines has been serving Houston since 2008. Originally, the flights operated with a stopover at Domodedovo Airport in Moscow; however, in 2016 the stopover shifted from Moscow to Manchester.

The Houston-Manchester flights are considered fifth freedom flights. A fifth freedom flight is when a plane departs and lands in two different countries, neither of which is the home country for the airline. They are allowed when the flight will have originated or will end at an airport in the airline's home base.

In the case of the Houston-to-Manchester flight, the plane continues to Singapore following its landing in Manchester. The flight starts in Singapore when going in reverse.

After the service change in 2025, Singapore Airlines will still fly to Manchester; it simply will not continue on to Houston anymore. 

It was an interesting service, but it always seemed sort of odd because there doesn't seem to be a lot of economic or social ties between Houston and Manchester.  Ben Shlappig at One Mile at at Time seems to agree, suggesting a couple of reasons for the discontinuation:

• For those traveling between Houston and Singapore, the travel time from Houston to Singapore is comparable via Los Angeles or San Francisco (compared to via Manchester)
• I can’t imagine the Houston to Manchester market is that huge, especially on a year-round basis; if it had significant demand, you’d think it’s a route that United would operate, and United has a huge advantage, given its transatlantic joint venture and loyal customer base in the area

So my assumption has been that the route is just performing okay(ish), with a moderate amount of demand between Houston and Manchester, plus substantial demand between Houston and Singapore. Furthermore, obviously Singapore Airlines is committed to the Manchester to Singapore market.

Some of the commenters on Schlappig's post seem to think the reason is because Singapore's premium product isn't as good as other carriers flying between Houston and Asia, such as Qatar Airways, rendering it less competitive for high-end local travelers.

Singapore doubtlessly operated this service because it wanted to tap into to fellow Star Alliance member United's hub at IAH. In that regard, Simple Flying seems to wonder why Singapore didn't choose to operate the flight via another Star Alliance hub in Europe, such as Brussels or Zürich, in order to provide better connectivity to the alliance's network. (Nonstop flights from Houston to Switzerland would have been awesome!)

To be sure, Shlappig notes that Singapore Airlines is officially "suspending" the service, rather than cutting it entirely. But I'd be surprised to see it ever resume.

So, if you have a desire to fly nonstop from Houston to Manchester or direct to Singapore, you have until April of next year to do so.

Houston to Guyana, nonstop

This new air connection looks interesting:

United Airlines began offering direct flights from Houston to Guyana Monday as the oil-rich South American nation becomes a key growth area for Houston’s oil industry. 

The nonstop route flies four times a week from Bush Intercontinental Airport into Georgetown, Guyana’s capital. Flights ranged roughly between $1,100 and $1,700 roundtrip as of Monday. 

Guyana has been among the world’s most prolific oil-producing regions since the resource was first discovered there in 2015 by a group led by Spring-based Exxon Mobil. The region accounts for roughly 10% of the 4 million barrels per day that Exxon produces globally. It plans to expand Guyanese production to 1 million barrels per day by the end of the decade. 

Guyana is on the northern coast of South America and is that continent's only English-seaking country. It is, unfortunately, probably best known as the location of Jonestown and its mass suicide in 1978.

The rest of the article goes into the oil discovery and ensuring frictions between rival oil companies as well as territorial threats from neighboring Venezuela and its thug dictator, Nicolás Maduro. However, it also should be mentioned that aside from oil, Guyana is also an emerging tourist destination. Much of the country is covered by undisturbed Amazonian rainforest, giving it one of the highest levels of biodiversity in the world. The country is also home to spectacular landmarks like Kaieteur Falls and Mount Roraima. 

This flight, therefore, is likely to carry an interesting combination of oil workers and eco-tourists.

Simple flying has more.

An airplane-free 2023

2023 is coming to an end, and it's been a bit of an anomalous year for me in that I went the entire year without stepping foot on an airplane. This is the first time since 1992 - over 30 years ago! - that I did not fly for any purpose.

Sure, it's a bit weird for an aviation geek like me to go an entire calendar year without flying, but that's just how things worked out: the only big, long-distance trip I took this past year was a road trip with my family, and I had no other events, be they personal or work-related, that required me to fly. So I didn't.

And I didn't really miss it, either. Between long security and check-in lines, flight delays, fees for checked baggage and other services that airlines used to provide for free, rude employees both in the terminal and in the skies, small and uncomfortable seats on the plane itself, and unruly, disruptive passengers, commercial air travel has become a real pain in the ass. Unless you have the financial means and/or frequent flier miles to fly business or first class, and can avail yourself to perks like TSA PreCheck, priority boarding, and airline lounges, there's really nothing glamorous or enjoyable about traveling by air.  

This isn't to say I'll never fly again, of course; commercial aviation, for all its headaches, is a necessary form of travel (and in many cases, the only practical one). So I'm sure I'll be flying again at some point. Like I said, 2023 was something of an anomaly; it was just nice to go an entire year without standing in line at the check-in counter, or taking off my shoes to pass through security, or sitting in a cramped seat with no elbow room, or being jostled by turbulence, or fighting through the hordes of people at baggage claim to retrieve my luggage.

Regardless of whether you plan to fly in the coming year or not, I wish anybody who may be reading this a safe, happy and prosperous 2024!

Boeing delivers the final 747

I've been following the gradual demise of four-engined commercial aircraft on this blog, so I knew this news was coming. Still, it's a bit sad:

More than half a century since the original jumbo jet ushered in a glamorous new jet age, helping bring affordable air travel to millions of passengers, the last-ever Boeing 747 was delivered on Tuesday, marking the start of the final chapter for the much-loved airplane.

In a ceremony that was broadcast live online, the aircraft was handed over to its new owner, US air cargo operator Atlas Air, at Boeing’s plant in Everett, Washington.

In a dramatic opening of the hangar’s sliding doors, Atlas Air’s new plane was revealed behind flags bearing the liveries of every carrier that’s ever taken delivery of a 747. The company has 56 of the aircraft in its fleet.

Going back to the iconic aircraft's first delivery in early 1969, a total of 1,574 "Jumbo Jets" have come off Boeing's assembly line in Everett, Washington. The last 747 intended for passenger service was delivered to Korean Air in 2017; deliveries for freight carriers continued for a few additional years, culminating in this final delivery to Atlas Air.

While the final 747 won’t be carrying paying passengers, its delivery is another milestone for the distinctive double-decker “Queen of the Skies,” which revolutionized intercontinental travel while also appearing in James Bond films and even giving piggyback rides to the Space Shuttle.

With the last passenger 747 having entered service more than five years ago, the end of the 747’s enduring career now moves even closer, hastened by airlines switching their preferences to smaller and more economical aircraft.

Sine entering production in 1968, the 747 and its many variants (including the shorter, longer-range 747SP) managed to outlast its three- and four-engined widebody rivals, including the Lockheed L-1011 (manufactured from 1968 through 1984), the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and MD-11 (1970-2000), the Airbus A340 (1991-2012), and its only double-decker competitor, the Airbus A380 (2003-2021):

It was the introduction of the European double-decker plane in the early 2000s that prompted Boeing to announce, in 2005, one last version of the 747 design that by that time was already starting to show its age.

The B747-8I (or B747-8 Intercontinental), as this last variant of the venerable jumbo jet is called, proved to be a swan song for large four-engined airliners.

Even though the A380 is currently enjoying a revival, with airlines rushing to bring stored aircraft back to service in response to the post-Covid air traffic recovery, these giants of the skies struggle to compete with the operational flexibility and fuel economies of smaller twin-engined jets.

As of December 2022, there are only 44 passenger versions of the 747 still in service, according to aviation analytics firm Cirium. That total is down from more than 130 in service as passenger jets at the end of 2019, just before the pandemic crippled demand for air travel, especially on international routes on which the 747 and other widebody jets were primarily used. Most of those passenger versions of the jets were grounded during the early months of the pandemic and never returned to service.

Lufthansa remains the largest operator of the passenger version of the B747-8, with 19 in its current fleet and potential commitments to keep the jumbo flying passengers for years, possibly decades, to come.

Indeed, even though the newest 747s, including this final freighter, will likely be flying for decades, the 747 is already obsolete. Two-engined aircraft might not be as iconic or as interesting as the Jumbo Jet, but they are significantly more fuel efficient, and the evolution of ETOPS regulations means that twin-engined aircraft can fly on just about any long-haul route in the world. While some 747s, A340s and A380s are currently being reactivated to handle post-COVID premium-seat demand, routes once flown by these four-engined aircraft will be increasingly turned over to twin-engined widebodies such as the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus A350.

I flew on a 787 to Europe and back last November. It was perfectly fine. But it just wasn't as "cool" as flying a 747.

 NPR and CBS News and The Points Guy have more on the 747's final delivery. Simple Flying considers how the 747 changed aviation forever and lists the commercial routes still using the aircraft (including Houston-Frankfurt on Lufthansa later this year). Boeing workers reflect on the 747 to The Seattle Times.

The Great Southwest Airlines Meltdown of Christmas 2022

My brother and his wife made what they thought was going to be a short trip to town for Christmas. However, when they went to Hobby Airport to try to return to Denver last Monday, they found themselves to be just two of thousands of victims of the Great Southwest Airlines Meltdown of 2022:

A massive storm has blanketed much of the U.S. with snow, slowing air travel during a peak season and causing tens of thousands of flight cancellations. The holiday meltdown at Southwest Airlines, however, has far eclipsed its competitors.

By Wednesday afternoon, the company had canceled more than 2,500 flights planned for the day, which amounted to 62% of the day's total, according to the flight tracking website FlightAware.

By contrast, as of Wednesday afternoon, United Airlines had canceled just 11 flights scheduled for the day; while American Airlines had canceled 23, FlightAware said. Each figure accounted for less than 1% of the respective company's total flights.

In an interview with ABC News' Byron Pitts, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg on Tuesday described the wave of flight cancellations at Southwest Airlines as a "shocking and unacceptable level of disruption." Meanwhile Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., the chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, said the problems at Southwest Airlines "go beyond weather."

While the snowstorm grounded flights in and out of key airports in Southwest's network, the historic scale of cancellations stems from the company's uniquely complex flight coordination model and its antiquated internal scheduling systems, according to flight experts, Southwest Airlines officials and union leaders.

Southwest's meltdown was the result of multiple factors, including bad weather, high holiday travel volumes, the carrier's unique point-to-point route network (as opposed to the hub-and-spoke system of most other carriers) and, most notably, an antiquated dispatching system:

In addition to its complicated model for assigning flights, Southwest Airlines also suffers from an antiquated internal system used for managing and staffing those trips, company officials, union leaders and experts said.

"They've had IT-related issues in terms of tracking their crews and scheduling," said [industry observer Ross] Feinstein, formerly of American Airlines. "Issues with what they use to monitor aircraft locations, crew, flight attendants, all of the above."

Casey Murray, the president of the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association, said in a statement on Tuesday that the technology used internally to oversee staffing and scheduling has faced difficulties stretching back at least a decade.

"We all know that the company has had its head buried in the sand when it comes to its operational processes and IT," Murray said. "We aren't undermanned. We're undermanaged."

A vice president of the same union went into further detail regarding Southwest's stunningly inadequate scheduling platform:

Captain Mike Santoro, vice president of the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SWAPA), told Insider on Tuesday that while the winter storm was a "catalyst" for the disruptions, the company's "outdated" scheduling software created the snowball.

He explained the system tracks the company's pilots and flight attendants' whereabouts, but it got so overloaded that it could not keep up.

"When we get out of position, it's a tough task for our schedulers to put it back together, and right now they're having to do it by hand," he explained. "The problem is the software just doesn't keep track of us."

For example, he explained one flight had two pilots and three flight attendants assigned to a flight but needed one more flight attendant for the plane to legally fly.

There were several deadheading flight attendants onboard, meaning they were being flown to another city for an assignment but were "ready, willing, and able to work" that flight as well.

But, because the system didn't know they were on that aircraft and the flight attendants couldn't get in contact with crew scheduling, the company canceled the flight when it didn't need to. 

"Even though we had a crew available, [scheduling] had no idea those flight attendants were in the back of the airplane."

It turns out that even though they were warned about the need to upgrade critical corporate infrastructure, Southwest's C-suite has been more focused in making its investors rich through dividends and stock buybacks. The resulting situation, which Southwest staff predicted in internal memos, has created catastrophic conditions for tens of thousands of travelers, who have scrambled to complete their trip by any means available. Many travelers don't even know where their luggage is. Hotels around Hobby Airport, which is dominated by Southwest, bore the effects of the chaos:

Many passengers found new routes with different airlines through George Bush Intercontinental airport, others caught buses, booked rental cars or had family members drive long distance to pick them up, said Britney Moreno, front desk manager at Courtyard by Marriott Houston Hobby Airport, which has seen a wave of Southwest passengers. 

“I’ve had people drive to Waco or New Mexico; they’re getting rental cars and leaving but even then, there’s a wait time because there aren’t many rental places with availability,” Moreno said.

The 150-room Courtyard hotel hit about 50 percent occupancy on Monday night, when they hotel had been planning for much lower occupancy, she said.

“We were actually hoping it would be very slow since it was a holiday, but the whole weather situation happened and from there it got busy,” Moreno said. By late Tuesday afternoon, much of the initial rush was dissipating as customers rearranged their plans, she added.

Other hotels were planning for a slow weekend too. Miya Ball, front officer manager at Hilton Garden Inn Houston Hobby Airport, said the 136-room hotel had expected to achieve about 30 percent occupancy over the weekend. Instead, its occupancy climbed to 90 percent Monday night as disheveled passengers and flight attendants filled the hotel.

“It’s bringing in that extra revenue we weren’t expecting, but we’ve had a lot of guests coming in who are very frustrated,” Ball said. “It’s been very chaotic; however we have the availably to help.”

Southwest even resorted to putting passengers on buses to reach their final destinations, thus defeating the purpose of air travel entirely:

This is all happening as ABC13 saw Southwest passengers arriving to Hobby not by plane, but by bus. Overnight, one bus drove 24 hours from La Guardia Airport in New York and arrived at Hobby Airport.

"It was so hard and in spite of it, Southwest looked out for us to get a bus to come here," one of the passengers onboard the bus said. 

Another bus carrying 52 passengers drove 16 hours from Denver and arrived at about 5 a.m. Wednesday.

"We took bathroom breaks, got food, did what we could to make them comfortable," Eric Miller, who drove 21 hours from Denver, said.

My brother and his wife were relatively lucky; they simply had to return to my parents' house to spend an extra couple of days there, and were able to fly back to Denver today via United Airlines out of Bush Intercontinental. The same can't be said for so many other people who are still trying to find a way to get home.

Southwest founder Herb Kelleher must be spinning in his grave right now. 

Simple Flying, One Mile at a Time, and the Houston Press have more.

NOLA at night

My Southwest flight from Miami to Houston a couple of weeks ago made a stop in New Orleans, and our final approach into MSY took up over the heart of the Big Easy.

This picture would have been better had it not been for the reflection from inside the cabin, and there was no way I could take it without also getting the front of the airplane's engine. But I took it anyway, because I normally don't approach MSY from this direction and the clear evening provided a great view of the city:

The circular building on the far left is the Superdome, and Canal Street runs vertically through the left of the picture. The French Quarter is in the lower center, bounded by Canal to the left, Rampart to the top, and the Mississippi River at the bottom. Tremé is in the dead center of the photo, and Marginy is the neighborhood closest to the engine. You can even see the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway at the top of the photo.

SOFIA flies off into the sunset

Last month, a unique flying observatory made its final flight:

NASA’s one-of-a-kind 747 SOFIA flying telescope flew its final mission on Sep 28, wrapping up a career revealing mysteries of the universe that will keep astronomers busy for years to come.

SOFIA (Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy) was a unique airborne observatory operated by NASA in partnership with the German Aerospace Center (DLR). It was a Boeing 747SP aircraft modified to carry an embedded telescope, and was able to fly into the stratosphere at altitudes of up to 45,000 feet. That put the flying observatory above 99 percent of Earth’s infrared-blocking atmosphere, allowing astronomers to study space in ways not possible with ground-based telescopes.

Engineers modified a Boeing 747SP to carry the DLR’s 38,000-pound, 100-inch reflective telescope. They also developed a “garage door” on the plane that rolled up to let the telescope work, as the plane flies above clouds and water vapor. SOFIA was also equipped with interchangeable instruments, to help the telescope make the right type of observations for a given mission.

It was one of the largest open ports ever flown on an aircraft, and the largest certified to fly at all altitudes and speeds with the door open. Pilots couldn’t even feel when the door was open. The stability of the telescope itself was equivalent to keeping a laser pointer steady on a penny from 10 miles away.

SOFIA was fully operational for 8 years, and logged 732 nights of observing. It helped astronomers worldwide study a wide range of cosmic events and objects invisible to other telescopes.

SOFIA was based out of Palmdale, California for most of the year, but would occasionally fly missions out of Christchurch, New Zealand to scan the skies over the southern hemisphere as well (here's a map of all 732 of its flights). The long-range, high-altitude 747SP, aircraft, previously in service with Pan Am and United, was ideally suited for this purpose.

NASA deemed the flying observatory as too expensive to operate past its 2021 fiscal year, which is why its mission ended at the end of September. It's a bit sad, but just another instance of the obsolescence of four-engined aircraft such as the 747SP. 

NASA inventories the ways in which "SOFIA changed our understanding of the universe," including the detection of the first type of molecule to ever form in the universe and insights into star formation.   accomplished by SOFIA during its mission. Sumeet Kulkarni details some of the instruments used and discoveries made by by the flying telescope. Simple Flying hopes the aircraft will end up at a museum once it is fully decommissioned; the National Air and Space Museum's Udvar-Hazy complex at Dulles Airport outside of Washington, DC and Space Center Houston are possibilities.

Austin skyscraper to be tallest building in Texas

Houston has claimed possession Texas's tallest building for the past forty years. Looks like that's about to change:

Since its completion in 1982, the 75-story JPMorgan Chase Tower on Travis Street in downtown Houston has stood as the tallest building in Texas—an honor that will soon be taken from the Bayou City thanks to a new skyscraper currently under construction in downtown Austin.

As first reported by the Austin American-Statesman's Shonda Novak, Lincoln Development Company and Kairoi Residential announced new details on Tuesday about its partnership on the project. The structure will be called Waterline, according to Novak, and will reach 1,022 feet in the sky by the time of its projected completion in late 2026—placing its peak a mere 20 feet higher than Chase Tower, which measures 1,002 feet.

Downtown Austin's skyline has certainly changed quite a bit since I lived there in the late 90s; as the city has grown, so has its number of tall buildings:

Waterline will join a menagerie of high-rises currently under construction in downtown Austin, which has seen a dramatic boom in population in recent years. According to the Austin Chamber of Commerce, the city's metro area saw a 33 percent population increase between January 2010 and July 2020. More than six percent of its population reported having lived somewhere other than Austin prior to 2019, the country's second-highest rate of recent transplants, per the Austin Chamber.

That growth, unfortunately, has also made Austin one of the least affordable cities for the middle class in the nation, and I doubt the high-end residences planned for this mixed-use tower (it will also have a hotel and office space) are going to make things any more affordable. But that's a topic for another day.

Houston's not likely to wrest back the distinction of being home to Texas' tallest tower. Construction of any building over 200 feet in Houston requires consultation from the Federal Aviation Administration, which has previously raised concerns with downtown building plans in excess of 75 stories, citing the importance of safeguarding air space for flights in and out of nearby William P. Hobby Airport. The Chase Tower, originally known as the Texas Commerce Tower, was initially intended to stand 80 stories tall before an FAA analysis prompted the City of Houston to ask for its design to be shaved down to 75 stories. The city has not approved any design exceeding this benchmark.

Downtown's proximity to the approach path to Hobby Airport is, in fact, one of the reasons why another tower planned for Houston in the early 1980s - a 1,400-foot, 82-story, Helmut Jahn-designed project that would have been the second tallest building in the United States at the time (see rendering here) - was never built, either. Of course, the oil bust had a role to play in its cancelation as well.

The mystery of SAETA flight 232

A civilian airliner crashed in Ecuador in 1976. It took 26 years to find the wreckage:

Aviation’s history books are full of mysteries, some of which are solved and others yet to be figured out. Sometimes, we hear of those cases where aircraft have disappeared and were only found many years later. Such is the case with SAETA Flight 232, which involved a 26-year search and frustrated stakeholders. 

SAETA was a privately-owned Ecuadorian airline which competed on a handful of domestic and international routes with government-owned carriers Ecuatoriana and TAME. I flew SAETA from Miami to Quito and back during my summer 1990 stay in Ecuador. The airline's selling point was that all passengers "flew first class." It wasn't completely true - nobody got nice first-class seats, for example - but the service was attentive and the multi-course meals, which were served with real (i.e. not plastic) silverware and dishware, were definitely an upgrade from normal economy-class fare. SAETA actually underwent a significant expansion in the 1990s, at one point becoming Ecuador's dominant airline. It met its end as a result of Ecuador's financial crisis at the end of the decade.

On August 15, 1976, a Viscount operating as SAETA Flight 232 departed Quito at 08:06 hours bound for Cuenca. There were 55 passengers and four crew onboard the turboprop with a planned flight route over mountainous terrain. All seemed normal until air traffic control lost radio contact with the flight at 08:27 when the crew reported flying over the city of Ambato at 18,000 feet.

Ambato is located in the central Andean valley of Ecuador and sits beneath several tall mountains. It is the capital of the province of Tungurahua, at an elevation of 8,455 feet (2,577 meters) above sea level.

Realizing that the aircraft failed to arrive at Cuenca, emergency search operations began. One more plausible suspicion was that the plane had crashed somewhere in a nearby mountain range. So, a massive search was conducted by air and land throughout the Amazon and all along the flight-planned route. Despite an intensive search, the wreckage was not found for several years. Twenty-six long years to be precise.

It turned out that the wreckage had become embedded within a glacier over 17 thousand feet above sea level on the side of Chimborazo, which is Ecuador's highest mountain* and which is 20 miles southwest of Ambato.

In October 2002, Pablo Chíquiza and Flavio Armas, two members of the Nuevos Horizontes mountaineering club, helped mark the exact crash site after fellow mountaineer Miguel Cazar had previously come across it. The rest of the story involves accusations of government officials dragging their feet and overlooking the location during previous searches. Several parties pointed fingers at each other, while the families of those lost in the crash experienced a bittersweet moment of reliving the pain of a tragic loss while also receiving some closure after the discovery of their loved ones’ remains.

If anything, stories like SAETA 232's might give the loved ones of victims of other unsolved plane disappearances (Malaysian Airlines 370 easily comes to mind) some hope that, eventually, the mystery will be solved and they will at least experience closure. 

This accident would be eerily similar to another SAETA crash involving a Vickers Viscount only a few years later.

Another SAETA Viscount crashed while flying between Quito and Cuenca. On April 23, 1979, an aircraft registered as HC-AVP crashed in the Pastaza Province, killing all 57 people onboard. The wreckage of this aircraft also took several years to locate. The flight was considered missing until 1984, when the debris was discovered.

Due at least in part to to its mountainous terrain, SAETA 232 is just one of several commercial aviation tragedies Ecuador has unfortunately experienced. 

*In addition to being Ecuador's highest peak, Chimborazo's peak is also the furthest from the center of the earth. the Mount Everest is the world's tallest mountain as measured from mean sea level, but because the earth is not perfectly round (i.e. it is slightly fatter at its equator), there is more distance from the earth's center to Chimborazo than to Everest.

Why don't commercial aircraft have parachutes?

It's a legitimate question. Airplane crashes are terrifying: oftentimes a single crash claims the lives of hundreds of people. If passenger airplanes are equipped with a host of other equipment meant to save lives in event of catastrophe - inflatable rafts and flotation devices for water landings, oxygen masks for cabin depressurization events - then why aren't parachutes available for passengers to safely jump from doomed aircraft as well?

The answer is simply that parachutes on commercial aircraft are hopelessly impractical. The high altitudes and speed at which commercial aircraft fly make jumping dangerous. There are tremendous logistical issues associated with storing and periodically inspecting enough parachutes to accommodate an aircraft's passenger capacity. Parachutes require training to use (there's a reason why a beginning skydiver's first few jumps are tandem jumps) that the typical civilian passenger doesn't possess. The organization required to get hundreds of passengers to strap on parachutes and exit the aircraft before it crashes is, to say the least, mind-boggling. 

Furthermore, instances were parachutes could make a difference are vanishingly small. While there may be examples of flights that were doomed but which remained airborne long enough for them to conceivably be evacuated, if such an option were available - Japan Air Lines Flight 123, United Airlines Flight 232, and the hijacked aircraft of 9/11 come to mind - the vast majority of plane crashes occur during initial take-off or final descent and landing. These are situations where parachutes would not be usable due to the plane's altitude, and where the reaction times needed to get passengers to don parachutes and exit the aircraft simply do not exist. 

Aside from being impractical, parachutes on commercial aircraft really aren't necessary: 

There are many technical reasons for airlines not offering their passengers a parachute in the event of an emergency bailout. However, one significant reason airline passengers don't have access to parachutes is commercial air travel is our safest mode of transportation. The statistics have supported this conclusion for many years, and it's essential to keep it in mind before 'jumping' to conclusions about the need for parachuting passengers.

It's worth remembering that commercial air travel is remarkably safe; so much so that you are eight times more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the airport than you are on the flight itself. The United States, at least, hasn't experienced a commercial aviation disaster claiming over 100 lives in over two decades. And in the rare event that an incident does occur on your flight, the National Transportation Safety board estimates that you have over a 95% chance of survival.

So enjoy your flight. 

Frontier resumes services from Hobby Airport

Frontier Airlines just can't seem to make up its mind when it comes to serving Houston. They began operations to Bush Intercontinental sometime in the aughts, but in 2010 shifted operations to Hobby. Then, less than two years later, they moved their operations back to IAH. Fast forward a decade, and now the Denver-based "ultra low cost carrier" has apparently decided that two airports are better than one:

Houstonians in search of a low-cost option to jet away for vacation or a long weekend now have a new option. Low-fare carrier Frontier Airlines has just announced three nonstop routes from William P. Hobby Airport to Cancun, Las Vegas, and Orlando, Florida with fares starting at $39.

This is new service from Hobby — Frontier currently offers flights from George Bush Intercontinental Airport — and thus gives Houstonians more warm-weather destination choices.

Dubbed “Low Fares Done Right,” the promotion offers:

• Cancun (CUN); three times weekly; service starts May 26: fares start at $79
• Las Vegas (LAS); four times weekly; service starts May 27: fares start at $59
• Orlando (MCO); four times weekly; service starts at May 27; fares start at $39 

This particular fare promotion ends January 24th, but given that they are directly competing with Southwest on all three of these leisure destination routes, one can probably expect Frontier's standard fares to be competitive as well. It's interesting to note that, as of right now, Frontier is not going head-to-head with Southwest on the Hobby-Denver route, as they did between 2010 and 2012. They will continue their service to Denver and a handful of other airports out of IAH:

Currently, Frontier offers regular flights to Atlanta, Denver, Las Vegas, Orlando, and Philadelphia from Bush.

“We’re excited to expand in Houston and add William P. Hobby Airport to our route map with three nonstop routes beginning this May,” said Josh Flyr, vice president of network and operational design, in a statement. “We look forward to launching service at HOU and bringing increased air service competition to the market.”

Game on. The Points Guy and Simple Flying have more.

The great secret of Denver International Airport

I discovered it after a short trip to visit my brother last weekend, and it has nothing to do with spooky murals, underground bunkers, the New World Order, or any of the other myriad conspiracy theories associated with the airport.

Instead, it has to do with the quickest way to get through the airport's notoriously-long security lines.

If you're familiar with Denver International Airport, you'll know that in the terminal itself there are two TSA security checkpoints: north and south. The south checkpoint is usually the busier of the two, since it's on the side of the terminal facing the RTD's commuter rail station, but during peak periods both are inundated by passengers and wait times can be lengthy.

However, there is also a third, lesser-known security checkpoint at the bridge linking the terminal to Concourse A. It's located on the north side of the terminal in the level above the north and south checkpoints, and it's not well-signed. This is perhaps purposeful, because the checkpoint is comparatively small and probably can't handle a large group of passengers.

But this is also why it's so easy to get through: relatively few people know about it, so there's very little wait. This comes in handy if you're late for your flight or (like me) you just don't like standing in long TSA lines. 

After you pass through the checkpoint and walk across the bridge, you can either take one of two passageways to Concourse A, or take the elevator down to the inter-terminal train to get to Concourses B and C.

You're welcome!

Cool fact: Corinne's father was the airport's original architect.

Is United bringing back supersonic flight?

Maybe, but I won't believe it until it happens:

United Airlines has announced it will purchase up to 50 Boom Overture supersonic jets for commercial use by 2029, heralding the return of supersonic passenger flights nearly 20 years after the Concorde was decommissioned.

Supersonic planes halve the time it takes to fly from New York to London, from seven hours down to 3.5 hours, but such airliners were abandoned following Concorde's final flight in 2003. Concorde had become financially unworkable after a high-profile crash in 2000, combined with excessive ticket prices, high fuel consumption, and increasingly high maintenance costs.

If Boom's supersonic aircraft (pictured above) is to succeed, it will depend on overcoming these issues that derailed Concorde. So can it be done?

While it is intriguing to see a major airline like United give support to the idea of supersonic flight through this purchase order,   right now it amounts to little more than a publicity stunt. A lot has to happen between now and 2029 for these airplanes to begin carrying passengers. While Boom has built a prototype aircraft and expects to begin testing it this year, there's a lot of work yet to be done if this effort is to succeed where the Concorde failed.

The Concorde's demise was the result of a variety of factors; among them, the the noise it created (e.g. screaming afterburners and sonic booms), the vast amounts of fuel it burned, and (most importantly) its cost. While technology has advanced since the Concorde's time such that these factors might be mitigated, supersonic flight is still unlikely to be cheap:

Boom will be optimistic that it can overcome fuel efficiency challenges by the time its aircraft begins carrying fare-paying passengers in 2029. Those fares look set to be high, with Boom anticipating a £3,500 ($4,930) price tag per seat. In 1996, British Airways charged around £5,350 -- £8,800 in today's prices -- for round-trip tickets from New York to London.

This means that, like Concorde before it, the Boom Overture looks aimed at the luxury market -- beyond the reach of even business class passengers. It is likely to be frequented only by those who currently travel via private jet, who may be enticed by Boom's claims to be a sustainable aircraft manufacturer.

Therein lies the biggest obstacle for supersonic flight: the market for this type of service is extremely limited. Generally speaking, people don’t really want to pay that much just to save some time on their flight. This is especially true nowadays, considering all the amenities a private jet or luxury class seat currently provides - lie-flat seats, in-flight wifi - that make the "time" factor less onerous than it was in the Concorde's day. 

In order for this service to be successful, Boom and United are not just going to have to overcome the technical challenges that doomed the original Concorde; they're also going to have to make the case to an extremely small and wealthy set of people that the time savings provided by these airplanes is worth it.

Ben at OMMAT is also intrigued, but also skeptical.

Southwest returning to IAH

Southwest plans to expand its presence in Chicago and Houston by flying out of both airports in both cities, starting in 2021:

Chicago O'Hare International Airport 

Work is underway to add new service from Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD), alongside existing service from the carrier's longtime Chicago home, Midway International Airport (MDW). Midway remains one of the busiest airports in Southwest's network. Since first arriving in Chicago in 1985, Southwest has grown into one of the city's largest employers with more than 4,800 Chicago-based Employees.

George Bush Intercontinental Airport 

As Southwest approaches a commemoration of 50 years of flying, the carrier intends to return to Houston George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH), complementing its substantial operation at Houston Hobby (HOU). Intercontinental served as one of three airports where Southwest operated on its first day in operation, June 18, 1971. The carrier moved to Hobby Airport shortly thereafter though it operated service from both airports between 1980 and 2005. Southwest remains a key employer in the City of Houston, providing nearly 4,000 jobs.

Ben at One Mile at a Time is fascinated by Southwest's decision and wonders about the airline's rationale for this announcement:

• Are IAH and ORD significantly more convenient for large and lucrative customer bases?
• Or is there more to this? Is Southwest losing out on significant business because people are only searching to ORD and IAH rather than doing wider searches?

If I had to guess, I'd say it's more the former than the latter (in IAH's case; I can't speak for O'Hare). It's worth noting that Southwest's only destination out of Bush Intercontinental when it previously served that airport was Dallas Love Field. Even so, I recall some grumbling from frequent flyers at the time the service was discontinued because of IAH's convenience to Kingwood, The Woodlands and other communities on the north side of town; these communities have only grown (and added major employment centers, such as the ExxonMobil complex or the Generation Park development) since then. Southwest definitely sees an opportunity that they think makes it worthwhile to go head-to-head with United at IAH. 

We should know more about routes and schedules in the coming months; if I had to guess, Love Field will probably not be the only airport Southwest flies to when it re-establishes its presence at Bush Intercontinental.

Will Ecuatoriana arise from the dead?

If some Ecuadorean investors have their way, Latin America's most colorful airline will fly again:

The name sounds familiar, but it has nothing to do with one of South America’s best-known carriers, Ecuatoriana de Aviácion, Ecuador’s largest aviation company until it stopped flying in 2006.

An initiative of the country’s entrepreneurs, Ecuatoriana Airlines was registered with the National Civil Aviation Council (CNAC) of the South American country in late August and intends to launch services from the Mariscal Sucre International Airport, in Quito.

According to the application sent to CNAC, the new airline plans to serve the cities of Coca, Cuenca, Esmeraldas, Guayaquil, Loja, Macas, Manta, Quito, Santa Rosa and Tulcán. The fleet of the new Ecuatoriana is not defined, but the company is evaluating the ATR 42-500 and Dash 8-Q200 turboprops and the Airbus A319 and A220 jets and its competitor, the Boeing 737 in the 300, 400 or 500 variants.

Ecuatoriana’s share capital, however, is only $ 16,000, 99% of which belongs to a foreign investor, the Ecuadorian press revealed – the company’s partners are Eduardo Delgado and Ann Martillo.

A few thoughts here: 

• Given my (admittedly three-decades-old) experience with Ecuatoriana, my first thought was "Cool! Now a whole new generation of travelers to Ecuador will get to experience fearing for their lives in heavy turbulence and having their flights summarily canceled."

• The airline's proposed destination list indicates that the new Ecuatoriana will be entirely domestic and, interestingly, will not fly any routes to the Galápagos Islands, even though they are popular with tourists and are financially lucrative. 

• $16,000 in share capital isn't going to buy a lot of airplanes, but that may be a typo. This article (in Spanish) claims that the airline has lined up $15.84 billion in foreign capital and $160 million in domestic capital. 

This filing comes amidst an unsettled civil aviation situation in Ecuador:

The Ecuador market is up for grabs. In May, the Ecuador government put TAME Ecuador, the former State carrier, in liquidation. Two of the other airlines that operate in the country, LATAM and Avianca, started reorganization processes under Chapter 11 in the US. Therefore, there could be a void left by these carriers, and a new airline could develop it in the post-COVID world.

State-run TAME had been struggling for awhile; the Coronavirus pandemic was the 58-year old airline's death knell. This left Ecuador without a true a flag carrier, as Avianca Ecuador and LATAM Ecuador are both subsidiaries of parent airlines based in Colombia and Chile, respectively, and face uncertainty of their own. So it certainly makes sense to set up a new airline - if only on paper for now - to fill the gap left by TAME and to take potentially take advantage of problems at Avianca and LATAM.

Obviously, the new Ecuatoriana won't begin flying anytime soon; even if it were possible to do so, it would be foolish to start operating a new airline in the middle of the pandemic. And, it goes without saying that in order for the new Ecuatoriana to be successful, it will need to be run much better than its infamously unreliable state-owned predecessor.

But if Ecuatoriana 2.0 does ever (literally) get off the ground, they could do worse than to bring back the old color scheme.

The last days of Braniff

I recently came across this on YouTube and found it fascinating. It's an episode of Enterprise, a business documentary program shown on PBS in the early 1980s and hosted by the legendary Eric Severeid. This particular episode from 1983, entitled "Tailspin," documents the last days of Braniff International Airways, which, in spite of existing since 1930 and being the nation's eighth-largest carrier at the time, became the first major airline in the history of United States commercial aviation to declare bankruptcy in 1982. 

Prior to 1979, the US commercial airline industry was heavily regulated; the government determined which carriers could fly which routes and how much they could charge. Once deregulation occurred, many airlines, including Dallas-based Braniff, saw an opportunity to grow their business in ways previously unimaginable. The airline's leadership liberally added new routes and borrowed heavily to finance its expansion.

The results were disastrous, especially once the US economy entered recession. In late 1981, the over-leveraged, debt-laden, money-hemorrhaging airline hired Howard Putnam away from Southwest Airlines to try to rescue the company.

Putnam attempted to cut costs, soothe creditors and streamline operations, but Braniff's many internal problems, as well as fierce competition from larger, deeper-pocketed rivals such as American Airlines, made his job difficult. Attempts to attract more passengers, such as gimmicky fare promotions, cost Braniff the goodwill of travel agents (who issued most airline tickets back in those days and relied on commissions, as a percentage of fares, for revenue). An attempt to maintain liquidity by selling Braniff's Latin American network to Pan Am was briefly held up by the Civil Aeronautics Board (the network would eventually be acquired by Eastern), and proved to be too little, too late for the airline to survive. Braniff ceased operations at midnight on May 13, 1982. 

Seriously: if you have half an hour to spare, watch the whole thing. Film crews were given access to Putnam and Braniff's upper management as it struggled to stay afloat during its final days, which makes it especially fascinating.

As the documentary explains, Braniff was trying to survive in an environment when the US commercial aviation industry as a whole had too many seats and too few passengers. By the time he arrived, there was probably nothing Putnam could have done to save the company.

Braniff's demise would be the first of many airline bankruptcies, mergers and acquisitions, as deregulation completely transformed the US commercial aviation industry. Today, two-thirds of all domestic passengers are carried by just four airlines: America, Delta, Southwest and United. 

Cool fact: Braniff, was along with Eastern, one of the two original airlines serving Houston's first purpose-built air terminal.

A small wedding and a socially-distant honeymoon

Well, we did it.

Corinne, myself, and the sunset over Lake Pontchartrain, just as we had planned.

On the evening of Saturday July 18, Corinne and I had our formal wedding ceremony at Lakefront Airport in New Orleans. We had about 35 people in attendance: mostly close friends and family, and less than half the number we were expecting for our originally-planned March ceremony, but still within the State of Louisiana's limit of 50 attendees for events such as these.

This was good, as it gave people a chance to spread out; we encouraged social distancing and mask-wearing as much as we could (although it gets hard for people to comply as food is served and champagne flows), and our awesome venue caterer was very good with their sanitation protocols. Over three weeks after the ceremony, we've gotten no reports of any of our attendees falling ill from COVID. We're thankful and relieved.

Our wedding occurred almost two years to the day from
when I proposed to Corinne in Kranjska Gora, Slovenia.
I celebrated by posting on that village's Facebook page
and received a wonderful response from them.

To be sure, the decision to go forward with the rescheduled ceremony was agonizing for both myself and Corinne. We knew that a lot of people wouldn't be able to attend and we knew that we could be putting ourselves and our loved ones at risk. As we watched the infection rate increase both in Texas and Louisiana, we even considered postponing again or canceling entirely (after all, we were already technically married). But in the end, for reasons both contractual and psychological, we decided to press ahead, to make the best of it while being as safe as possible, and to give our family, our friends and ourselves a small bit of enjoyment in the middle of this otherwise-interminable Coronavirus bleakness.

In retrospect, it was the right decision. The ceremony and reception were everything Corinne and I had planned (see here for some early pictures from our wonderful photographer). The food and cake were delicious. Our vendors were happy to be working a wedding again. Everybody in attendance had a good time. Nobody got sick. And it's all behind us now: no more stress of planning and preparing, no more agony of waiting.

We had our wedding, and it was good.

We stayed in New Orleans for a couple of days after the wedding, visiting with family and friends who remained. Then, on Tuesday July 21, Corinne and I got into a rented Chevy Impala and embarked upon a honeymoon roadtrip that we were probably looking more forward to than the wedding itself. After spending the night with friends in Knoxville, Tennessee, we made our way to Gatlinburg and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. We spent a few nights at a secluded cabin on the Tennessee side of the park before heading south and spending a couple more nights at another secluded cabin on the North Carolina side, and spent the time hiking, relaxing and enjoying the scenery. While there were lots of people in the park itself and mask-wearing was not universal, we were generally able to keep our distance as we hiked. Car-based excursions such as the Roaring Fork Motor Nature Trail and the Cades Cove Loop also allowed for social distancing. The only big crowds we encountered were at Clingmans Dome, and even those weren't horrible. I was also finally got to see what the view from the observation deck looks like when not completely obstructed by fog, although the walk up there brutally reminded me how fat and out of shape I am.

Th observation deck at Clingmans Dome without the fog

After spending several days in the Great Smoky Mountains, we spent a few more days driving the Blue Ridge Parkway. This was a much better experience for me than my first drive along the road eight years ago, as there was no fog to obscure visibility and the Impala handled the curves much better than my previous rental. However, it turned out that three days is still not enough to see all the sights and take all the hikes along the Parkway; it was also a bit disappointing that most of the visitor centers along the Parkway were closed due to the pandemic or that a particularly scenic section of the Parkway around Roanoke was closed due to mudslides. Nevertheless, we enjoyed what we were able to see; the Blue Ridge Parkway is fascinating in that you can learn about biology, geology, geography and history all at once as you drive along it, and the views (as long as they're not obscured by overgrown vegetation) are spectacular.

A view of the North Carolina countryside from the Blue Ridge Parkway

We ended our trip with a brief drive through Shenandoah National Park, and spent the last two nights of our honeymoon in Fairfax, Virginia. The original plan was to spend a day in Washington DC, as Corinne had never been there. However, after the Mayor of Washington issued a decree requiring anybody entering the city traveling from "high-risk" areas (such as Texas or Louisiana) to self-quarantine, we decided that entering the city would not be a good idea. Instead, we went to the National Air and Space Museum's Udvar-Hazy Center near Dulles Airport. I enjoyed it, since I hadn't been in over a dozen years and wanted to see some new items that had been added to the collection since then. Corinne enjoyed it, too, because she got to see the Space Shuttle Discovery and other NASA artifacts that greatly interested her. The Smithsonian limited crowds by requiring people to make reservations in advance and required visitors to wear masks at all time, so we felt very safe visiting.

A Concorde, among other aircraft at the Udvar-Hazy Center

The following day we drove up to Baltimore-Washington International Airport, dropped off the rental car, and flew back to Houston. While flying on an airplane may have been the riskiest part of our trip (or maybe not), Southwest is taking things seriously by limiting their boarding groups to ten people at a time, keeping middle seats open, requiring passengers to wear masks at all times, and reducing points of contact as much as possible. That meant, unfortunately, no beverages (other than water) and no working the crossword in the in-flight magazine. But the precautions appear to have worked in our case, because Corinne and I are showing no symptoms of any diseases a week and a half after the flight.

All in all, it was a wonderful and much-needed vacation. But now, unfortunately, the fun is over and it's time for me to get back to work. Due to the high infection rate here in Houston, my employer has abandoned the practice of allowing some of us to go into the office a couple of times a week on a rotating basis. This means I'll be working from home full-time for the foreseeable future, and I'm not excited about that. I did get my computer repaired (a failing hard drive was causing it to operate slowly), so I'll be able to be at least somewhat productive here at home. But it's just a matter of time before I start to go stir-crazy again, and it will only be worse if I don't have any college football to look forward to this fall.

Which begs the question: is it too early for Corinne and me to start planning our next roadtrip?