First, I appreciate the feedback. On the whole, even the hate mail from Slate readers is more thoughtful than the typical hate mail I got at Gawker or DealBreaker, which was invariably, no matter what the topic, "O YEH, WELL, UR A BIG SLUT!!" For those of you who agree with me, I don't have anything to add.

For those who don't, and who seem to exist in startlingly greater proportions in the Fray than in my inbox, a few clarifications:

- To be clear, I am smug(ish) about my initial assessment of the airline (and even then, only in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, which is to say, not in any serious sense), my experience with which was much worse than the small bit I recounted here. I am not smug about the deaths of 200 people. Only a sociopath would be, whatever the reason. It might have been bad syntax on my part, but the notion that I'm gleefully celebrating a horrible disaster is absurd on the face of it.

- My primary contention that TAM's ineptitude is a product of Brazil's infrastructure deficiencies is not a uniquely minority or uniquely American viewpoint. The first people to point to the infrastructure problems when we were there were friends who live in Rio and Sao Paulo and have had trouble traveling domestically. If you're just flying in and out of one city internationally, it's less of a problem. If you want to fly from one Brazilian city to another, particularly over spotty parts of the Amazon, it's more difficult. If you read the Brazilian press, you'll note that these problems are widely and heavily discussed, and that Brazilians by and large are not happy with the Luis government's complacency. (As to the bizarre but most amusing assertion here that I gratuitously inserted my boyfriend, just to demonstrate that I have one--though I'll admit I find that fact just as surprising as you do-- i did so because as I specifically mentioned, he's travel writer, and he's logged more international flight hours than even the most frequent business travelers I know, often in war-torn areas where the pilots of national carriers brag about the number of crashes they've survived. So I consider him a fair and credible judge of what constitutes a truly ridiculous air travel experience. He was more incensed than I was, and since nationality seems to matter in terms of credibility of one's criticism here, he's not American. But to the person who complained about it, I shall dutifully refer to him impersonally and asexually as "my traveling companion" if it comes up again, lest anyone be offended by the notion that I have personal relationships.) As for the poster who's insinuating that this article wouldn't have been posted were it about American airlines: are you kidding? That would have been even better. I never insinuated that American carriers were anything less than horrendous. The difference is that American domestic travelers don't have to worry about military radar systems failing en route to LA (or wherever.) And when there are problems with national infrastructure, it doesn't generally affect *every single airport in the country*.

- re: my personal experience vs. the larger story - if I were to rewrite the piece, I'd move the last four paragraphs to the front, as people seem to be overly focused on the couple of paragraphs about my TAM experiences (which were consistent over 6 flights and three domestic airports, not just Sao Paulo) and maybe cut them entirely. But I'm surprised that's the case, as i only used them to illustrate what's happening on the ground in a concrete fashion and didn't think they were that provocative. If that were the entire point of the piece, there are plenty of outlets for me to talk about a bad travel experience without bringing Wednesday's accident, Brazilian infrastructure problems, etc., into it at all. In fact, it would be easier to do so. But I think the larger problems are serious and sometimes talking about the symptoms is the best way to get people interested in the disease. I suppose we could have titled the piece Why Militarized Air Traffic Control in Brazil is a Bad Thing and How It Affects National Carriers, but it's more relevant to the average frequent flyer to talk about why specific domestic air travel in Brazil is infuriating and then examine potential underlying causes.

- As to whether the timing of the piece was insensitive--the "too soon" argument--if I had a friend or relative involved in the crash, the FIRST thing I would want on the public's agenda is some debate about why the accident happened and whether it could have been prevented, if only so that it doesn't happen again. The Brazilian press hasn't refrained from talking about it. The victims' families haven't refrained from talking about it. I don't think we should, either. So I'm not inclined to spend the piece talking about how horrible the accident was, because that's self-evident and indisputable. No one needs me--or anyone--to tell them that what happened was a tragedy and that it was unspeakably painful for the friends and families of the victims. Everyone understands that.

- it has been suggested that as a "moneybox" piece, the article would have been better served by more economic analysis, stats, etc. I think that's a valid point. But i didn't think of it as a business piece when I pitched it. That said, if I were going to do it again, I'd include those things, because even if it's not a business piece, it doesn't hurt my argument.



- RE: the use of WORST in the headline. - This is obviously subjective and hyperbolic, as the declaration of "worst" things. And arguably, it's not what the article is really about, given the conclusion. Does TAM have the worst safety record? No. But there are several factors that can make for a bad airline experience, and that's just one of them. There are also differing opinions on what constitutes a bad experience. It's my personal opinion, which brings me to the following:

- As to prevalence of opinion in the piece - Slate is a magazine of commentary. This means that not only am I allowed to have opinions (however wrongheaded they may possibly seem to some of you), I'm encouraged to have them, and in fact, required to have them. Horrifying, I know, but there it is. And you are encouraged to disagree with me, which I don't mind or I wouldn't have put my opinion in a public forum in the first place. To the person who reprinted my already-very-public-email-whic​h-I-put-on-my-very-public-webs​ ite-myself-so that-people-could-use-it: thanks. I know from your tone that you meant it as an incitement for people to barrage me with hate mail, but my byline is on the piece for a reason and I welcome any rebuttals, particularly if they address my actual argument and show me some evidence that TAM is in fact a quite good airline and that Brazilian infrastructure is adequate, an argument I am willing to entertain. I would like to believe it is, but I don't think it's the case and my experience doesn't bear that out either. For anyone who missed it the first time, you can reach me at espiers AT earthlink DOT net. Ignore the spam filter. I check that folder regularly and pick out the real emails from the offers to enlarge my penis.

- Elizabeth Spiers (espiers AT earthlink DOT net)

Hmmmm, this doesn't even come to close to a "I'm sorry but ..... blah blah blah, I had to write it." However, without the "I'm sorry" it does, in fact proceed on to blah, blah, blah, I had to write it because my opinion is important to Slate.

Your response did not clarify any of the points that most posters seem upset with - that you stated that almost 200 people were incinerated and you were smugly vindicated. Whether your first paragraph is at the beginning or at the end of the article, whether you titled your piece in some other way, whether you called your boyfriend “your traveling companion – regardless of those after-the-fact changes, "incinerated" and "smug" are just beyond insensitive when people have lost their lives and parents, siblings, children, relatives, and friends have lost a loved one. But you don't seem to get that at all, do you?

Lost luggage, delayed flights, line-standing and all the other horrible things that happened to you but you're not even mentioning are not even closely proximate. Isn't that understandable?

As many Brazilians mentioned - your not going back to their country is not a hardship. You have done a disservice to them and to those of us living in the United States. Again, shame on you.

And you still have the audacity to include little jokes on your reply? And throw in there that your experiences were "much worse than the small bit I recounted here"?

Yes, you are definitely entitled to your opinion, but don't try to pass it to the world as fact.

I have to believe that none of our replies has sunk in, because no person in their right mind would insist on defending such writing.

Ksmith - I really have no response to people who presume to understand more about my personal motivations than I do. If you want to read something ludicrous and implausibly evil into what I said, I can't stop you, nor am I inclined to. You don't know me, and even if you did, you wouldn't be in a position to assert that you somehow know better than I do what I "really" meant by it.

I don't apologize for my actual position, which you seem to have wildly misinterpreted as inexplicable happiness that people have died, despite the fact that nothing in the piece discusses or supports that thesis. If you want to talk about my actual argument, i'm open to discussion. If you just want to attack me personally, you can certainly do that, but it doesn't undermine my theory that TAM is a bad airline and that the Brazilian state has made it that way. It merely illustrates that you have no informed rebuttal to what I said.

1)wow, i too am surprised you refuse to apologize 2) and where in your article do you distinguish what makes TAM so bad, beyond delays and cancellations, which is practically routine in the US? 3)i'm not saying there aren't major problems and issues in Brazil. its just that you fail to capture that in your article

Wow and wow and wow!

Ksmith - I really have no response to people who presume to understand more about my personal motivations than I do. Where did I imply that I "understand more about [your] personal motivations better than [you] do?" If you want to read something ludicrous and implausibly evil into what I said, I can't stop you, nor am I inclined to. How did you extrapolate that I "read something ludicrous and implausibly evil into what [you] said?" You don't know me, and even if you did, you wouldn't be in a position to assert that you somehow know better than I do what I "really" meant by it. I don't know you, correct. I did not assert that I somehow know better than you what you "really" meant by your article. I think you need to take a deep breath, step back and re-read what I wrote.

I don't apologize for my actual position, which you seem to have wildly misinterpreted as inexplicable happiness that people have died, despite the fact that nothing in the piece discusses or supports that thesis. I'm now wondering how you became a 'writer.' I never "wildly misinterpreted" your statements "as inexplicable happiness that people have died." Could you please clarify where in my post that I implied that? What I wrote was: "Your response did not clarify any of the points that most posters seem upset with - that you stated that almost 200 people were incinerated and you were smugly vindicated." I went back to re-read your article to see if I had misread, misinterpreted or misstated what I wrote. In fact, I did. You wrote: "...incinerating nearly 200 people, I felt angrily (and OK, smugly) justified in my condemnation." My mistake was that I used the word vindicated rather than justified. I guess for me they imply the same feeling. If you want to talk about my actual argument, i'm open to discussion. If you just want to attack me personally, you can certainly do that, but it doesn't undermine my theory that TAM is a bad airline Now see? Here you say "... that TAM is a bad airline." That's a much better phrase to use than: "The World's Worst Airline." Was it that difficult to use a much-less provocative word? That's the point I was trying to make and which was grossly misinterpreted by you. That your use of “incinerating nearly 200 people” and feeling “smugly justified” were very confrontational words/statements. and that the Brazilian state has made it that way. It merely illustrates that you have no informed rebuttal to what I said. I’m not sure how you can assert that I “have no informed rebuttal to what [you] said” after this response to my response. Perhaps you can explain to me how your response/rebuttal is informed? I’m assuming that you now feel a bit battered by the ‘justifiable’ (before you get your panties bunched – that’s solely my opinion) posts to your article But I’m thinking that beating up (on me with fictitious declarations) and doing that blame-shifting thing isn’t going to work. BTW – if you “really have no response to people who presume…. ” then why did you respond?

Actually, there is ample opportunity to introduce an economic perspective. This is, overall, a demonstration of the agonies which befall a country which was recently in the third world and is rushing headlong toward recognition as a first world country without pausing for the requisite acclimatization in the second world. It is too bad that the populations and governments, and most of all the businesses, of these countries are so eager to reach the vaunted first world placement. It is like those here who participate in a headlong rush from childhood to adulthood without lingering in some developmental middle ground.

I replied to your post (see reply above) before I read your reply to my email in which you added the following:

Your even more implausible extrapolition from the already implausible assertion (that i was happy people died) Where is that "implausible extrapolition (sic) from the already implausible assertion (that [you] were happy people died?) I still cannot fathom where I implied that you were "happy." that i somehow equate lost luggage with getting killed (are you serious?!)--now you're just bending over backwards. I never implied that you equate lost luggage with people getting killed. Not at all. I find that your statements would be much better suited coming from a spoiled rich girl's mouth. Perhaps it's your method of writing, but I just don't feel that your article has shown much pathos for the airline tragedy, the ‘situation’ in Brazil, or for the people in that country. What I took from your article is that you and your boyfriend were very upset with your travel experiences. Inasmuch as the article is about the accident at all-- which is not very much, other than to suggest that it was symptomatic of larger problems in Brazil and could happen again--the entire conclusion is that if those problems didn't exist, accidents like that one could potentially be avoided. At this point, I'm not even sure you read past the first two paragraphs. It certainly doesn't look like it. You still aren't getting it. Accidents happen. This accident may or may not have happened because of larger problems in Brazil. And ‘inasmuch’ as your article starts with a very confrontational and insulting paragraph, it is unfair of you to now state that the article isn’t about the accident at all. BTW – perhaps you’ll notice that you wrote: “Inasmuch as the article is about the accident at all - ” which some might say is actually a Freudian slippage sort of thing. I am not a writer. But I seem to recall that when one is putting together a critique/commentary/editorial, the gist of that piece is in the first paragraph. Did I miss something then?

I feel that you have a difficult time admitting to your accountability regarding this article even though the responses have been remarkably in opposition to your position. But that wisdom may come with age.

Ms. Spiers,

I am the Captain to whom you refer... "As for the poster who's insinuating that this article wouldn't have been posted were it about American airlines: are you kidding? That would have been even better." Obviously you have no soul nor do you care for the great loss suffered and as such only divert the real issues. The point that almost everyone is making against you is you continue to scoff and justify your positions and still yet cannot even convey a simple heartfelt response to the loss. Are you bereft of compassion? Or is your world squarely focused on only you? In case you still don't understand Ms Spiers go and read the published fatality list and in place of the names put all those you know on there and then take your place again on your podium. You're a disgrace and it is my great pleasure and now my purpose to see to it that you will not escape unscathed from this. As I have to answer for my decisions you are no different although you hide behind your "media almighty rights".

Be prepared to answer to the Brazilian Gov't, CNN, and TAM just to name a few. Perhaps you think this an idle threat it is not. As I stated before " Welcome Aboard" better fasten your seatbelt I think the weather is quite inclement and you are the reason for it.

...still failed to see you say you were compassionate about the loss all you ever do is back peddle and protect yourself. I guess all the readers must be wrong. Tough being the only one right isn't it?

The golden rule of aviation reporting - never say an airline is unsafe.I would expect defamation proceedings to be initiated against Slate in a Brazilian court soon.

I have to come to Ms. Spier's defense. What is the outcry about? TAM is a notoriously crappy airline (as Varig was before it-- if you can think back about 15 years they had the dubious distinction of crashing more than any other airline of the era) Commercial aviation has not been, and is not, Brazil's strong point, and Ms. Spier's gripe about her service on TAM is an honest account of her multiple delays, etc. (she was there-- she doesn't need stats to confirm a first person experience).

A couple of years back I sat gripping the handrails on a flight out of Congohas as two passengers next to me casually discussed an earlier crash on the same runway (a Fokker-100, I believe). That there is a widespread problem is undeniable. As for her lede, I can certainly see how it may have struck some of you as callous. It was perhaps a mistake, but I hardly think she intended it that way.

However, plenty people have listed many valid problems with your "thesis", which you have yet to address. (Your personal experience, which is much more than just a couple small paragraphs, does not prove anything. That should have been obvious to the editors.)

You are pretending that people are just attacking you personally. Certainly, there is some of that, but people have also pointed out how you don't seem to know much about the airline industry, Brazil's airline industry, economics or Brazil in general. Indeed, you continue to use sloppy argument in your response. Your friends in Brazil bemoaning long lines does not explain why a particular plane crashed. It is true the Brazilian papers and people complain about airlines, long lines, etc., but this again does not say much about the accident. Much of the gripes are pretty much the same in the US. If you had made the point that the conditions for this accident could happen in the US, then you would have said something more interesting.

Also, in your reply, you continue to use simplistic formulations. If there is spotty service to the Amazon, it is probably because the majority of the population lives on the coast. It is like saying there is spotty service to Lubbock, TX.

Finally, I personally have had good experiences with TAM and travel in Brazil.

I do believe that you are not happy about the crash, but rather the smug issues is a simple reflection of utter incompetence.

Aynr, Varig's last fatal accident was in 1989. Its accident rate is lower than Singapore Airlines or Thai (check <link> You are obviously trolling, or perhaps you are the fabled Elizabeth's boyfriend.

The fact that you came off as a heartless cynic who was "smugly" pleased to be proved right by the horrible deaths of 200 other human beings seems to be completely lost on you. You had a bad trip, get over it. Hundreds of families are in mourning. Your self-satisfaction concerning this tragedy is disgusting, no matter how much you try to spin it. Shame on you.