Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Depends. I mean that.
AS feeds a lot of our Asian flying. Lose that, and these flights which are already under stress due to low loads, might just get a death nail put in em.
The fact is that if AS does not stay independent, whoever does not nab them, will be putting capacity against them, and the RASM on these routes will fall though the floor. It is kind of a lose-lose scenario.
AS feeds a lot of our Asian flying. Lose that, and these flights which are already under stress due to low loads, might just get a death nail put in em.
The fact is that if AS does not stay independent, whoever does not nab them, will be putting capacity against them, and the RASM on these routes will fall though the floor. It is kind of a lose-lose scenario.
![scambo1 is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/clear.gif)
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 282
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The short of it is Republic Airways Holdings operates with 5 operating certificates right now.
Chatauqua, call sign Chatauqua
Republic, call sign Brickyard
Shuttle America, call sign Mercury
Lynx, call sign Lynx
Frontier, call sign Frontier
The 1st three operate as DCI operating 50-76 seaters. The other two operate Frontier flying. Pilots are not allowed to jump from certificate to certificate, the only exception being when an FO upgrades to CA. But once you are on a certificate, you are stuck there.
So you see, the 3 that operate as DCI do so independently in the eyes of the court. They are 3 separate carriers under one holdings company. Therefore, there is no scope violation.
Now, if it's determined that they are a Single Carrier, then we have an issue with Scope.
Chatauqua, call sign Chatauqua
Republic, call sign Brickyard
Shuttle America, call sign Mercury
Lynx, call sign Lynx
Frontier, call sign Frontier
The 1st three operate as DCI operating 50-76 seaters. The other two operate Frontier flying. Pilots are not allowed to jump from certificate to certificate, the only exception being when an FO upgrades to CA. But once you are on a certificate, you are stuck there.
So you see, the 3 that operate as DCI do so independently in the eyes of the court. They are 3 separate carriers under one holdings company. Therefore, there is no scope violation.
Now, if it's determined that they are a Single Carrier, then we have an issue with Scope.
![n9810f is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
What makes you think the DOJ would approve it? Sure seems like they ain't doing anything other than inhibiting our desires to do business.. Maybe if we get the fixes in Bubbatown changed to RAYYY LAHUD SUXXX he would get the point
![tsquare is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
TSA Admits Bungling of Airport Body-Scanner Radiation Tests
* By David Kravets Email Author
* March 15, 2011 |
* 6:10 pm |
* Categories: 'nude' airport body scanners, Surveillance
*
The Transportation Security Administration is re-analyzing the radiation levels of X-ray body scanners installed in airports nationwide, after testing produced dramatically higher-than-expected results.
The TSA, which has deployed at least 500 body scanners to at least 78 airports, said Tuesday the machines meet all safety standards and would remain in operation despite a “calculation error” in safety studies. The flawed results showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected.
At least one flier group, the Association for Airline Passenger Rights, is urging the government to stop using the $180,000 machines that produce a virtual-nude image of the body until new tests are concluded in May.
“Airline passengers have enough concerns about flying — including numerous ones about how TSA conducts its haphazard security screenings — so it is TSA’s responsibility to ensure passengers are not being exposed to unhealthy amounts of radiation,” Brandon Macsata, executive director of the group, said in a statement.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center has been a loud voice opposing the machines. Last week, it urged a federal appeals court to stop using them until further health studies were conducted. Marc Rotenberg, EPIC’s executive director, is expected to tell the same thing to a congressional panel Wednesday.
“The agency should have conducted a public rule-making so that these risks could have been more carefully assessed,” (.pdf) according to a transcript of his expected testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Still, the government said the results proved the safety of the devices.
“It would appear that the emissions are 10 times higher. We understand it as a calculation error,” TSA spokesman Sarah Horowitz said in a telephone interview.
The snafu involves tests conducted on the roughly 250 backscatter X-ray machines produced by Rapiscan of Los Angeles, which has a contract to deliver another 250 machines at a cost of about $180,000 each. About 250 millimeter-wave technology machines produced by L-3 Communications of New York were not part of the bungled results.
Rapiscan technicians in the field are required to test radiation levels 10 times in a row, and divide by 10 to produce an average radiation measurement. Often, the testers failed to divide results by 10, Horowitz said.
“Certainly, the errors are not acceptable. It’s not every report. We believe the technology is safe,” she said. ”We’ve done extensive, independent testing. It doesn’t raise alarms in terms of safety.”
Rapiscan, in a letter to the TSA, admitted the mistake and is “redesigning the form” used by its “field service engineers” when surveying the Rapiscan Secure 1000 that is deployed to 38 airports.
“Oftentimes, the FSE will bypass the step of dividing by 10. While the resulting entry, at a pragmatic level, is understandable on its face and usable for monitoring purposes, the value, if read literally by persons unfamiliar with our system and the survey process, would imply energy outputs that are unachievable by the Secure 1000 Single Pose,” (.pdf) Rapiscan wrote.
A recent Wired.com three-part series examined the constitutionality, effectiveness and health concerns of the scanners, which the TSA mandated as the preferred airport screening method in February 2009. Among other things, the Wired.com series concluded that there was discord among the scientific community about the scanners’ health risks to humans, and that they were not tested with mice or other biological samples before being deployed.
The government, however, maintains a thousand screenings equal the amount of radiation of one standard medical chest X-ray.
A federal appeals court hearing EPIC’s lawsuit suggested last week it was not likely to halt the scanners’ use.
* By David Kravets Email Author
* March 15, 2011 |
* 6:10 pm |
* Categories: 'nude' airport body scanners, Surveillance
*
The Transportation Security Administration is re-analyzing the radiation levels of X-ray body scanners installed in airports nationwide, after testing produced dramatically higher-than-expected results.
The TSA, which has deployed at least 500 body scanners to at least 78 airports, said Tuesday the machines meet all safety standards and would remain in operation despite a “calculation error” in safety studies. The flawed results showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected.
At least one flier group, the Association for Airline Passenger Rights, is urging the government to stop using the $180,000 machines that produce a virtual-nude image of the body until new tests are concluded in May.
“Airline passengers have enough concerns about flying — including numerous ones about how TSA conducts its haphazard security screenings — so it is TSA’s responsibility to ensure passengers are not being exposed to unhealthy amounts of radiation,” Brandon Macsata, executive director of the group, said in a statement.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center has been a loud voice opposing the machines. Last week, it urged a federal appeals court to stop using them until further health studies were conducted. Marc Rotenberg, EPIC’s executive director, is expected to tell the same thing to a congressional panel Wednesday.
“The agency should have conducted a public rule-making so that these risks could have been more carefully assessed,” (.pdf) according to a transcript of his expected testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Still, the government said the results proved the safety of the devices.
“It would appear that the emissions are 10 times higher. We understand it as a calculation error,” TSA spokesman Sarah Horowitz said in a telephone interview.
The snafu involves tests conducted on the roughly 250 backscatter X-ray machines produced by Rapiscan of Los Angeles, which has a contract to deliver another 250 machines at a cost of about $180,000 each. About 250 millimeter-wave technology machines produced by L-3 Communications of New York were not part of the bungled results.
Rapiscan technicians in the field are required to test radiation levels 10 times in a row, and divide by 10 to produce an average radiation measurement. Often, the testers failed to divide results by 10, Horowitz said.
“Certainly, the errors are not acceptable. It’s not every report. We believe the technology is safe,” she said. ”We’ve done extensive, independent testing. It doesn’t raise alarms in terms of safety.”
Rapiscan, in a letter to the TSA, admitted the mistake and is “redesigning the form” used by its “field service engineers” when surveying the Rapiscan Secure 1000 that is deployed to 38 airports.
“Oftentimes, the FSE will bypass the step of dividing by 10. While the resulting entry, at a pragmatic level, is understandable on its face and usable for monitoring purposes, the value, if read literally by persons unfamiliar with our system and the survey process, would imply energy outputs that are unachievable by the Secure 1000 Single Pose,” (.pdf) Rapiscan wrote.
A recent Wired.com three-part series examined the constitutionality, effectiveness and health concerns of the scanners, which the TSA mandated as the preferred airport screening method in February 2009. Among other things, the Wired.com series concluded that there was discord among the scientific community about the scanners’ health risks to humans, and that they were not tested with mice or other biological samples before being deployed.
The government, however, maintains a thousand screenings equal the amount of radiation of one standard medical chest X-ray.
A federal appeals court hearing EPIC’s lawsuit suggested last week it was not likely to halt the scanners’ use.
![forgot to bid is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![acl65pilot is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
You never know with the DOJ, but having someone go after your feed is a good reason to approve something. If they opt not to, it is a great reason for a good fight.
![acl65pilot is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![scambo1 is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,538
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
My father-in-law is a directional drilling engineer and was working for a company about three years ago that was costing the shale oil that is very abundant in the U.S. With the technology they had then, it was going to cost them $110/bbl to extract the oil and the costs would go down over time as the technology improved. They anticipated they could get the costs down to under $80/bbl but it would take a few years of "working the process out".
There are two ways to get shale oil out both of which are very environmentally invasive and probably would not fly in the U.S. unless the world is going to end. You either strip mine the shale and cook it out like they do the oil sand in Canada or you pump a high pressure water/chemical solution into the ground that fractures the shale, seperates the oil, pump the solution back up, and refine the oil out. You can't simply drill a well and pump it out.....we've gotten all that oil out that can be found in the U.S.
I don't think we are "saving" it, it just isn't cost effective to get it out yet or the big oil guys would have already done it. Now ANWAR and sub-sea oil off the coasts is a different story......that we can get if the politicians and environmentalists would let us.
There are two ways to get shale oil out both of which are very environmentally invasive and probably would not fly in the U.S. unless the world is going to end. You either strip mine the shale and cook it out like they do the oil sand in Canada or you pump a high pressure water/chemical solution into the ground that fractures the shale, seperates the oil, pump the solution back up, and refine the oil out. You can't simply drill a well and pump it out.....we've gotten all that oil out that can be found in the U.S.
I don't think we are "saving" it, it just isn't cost effective to get it out yet or the big oil guys would have already done it. Now ANWAR and sub-sea oil off the coasts is a different story......that we can get if the politicians and environmentalists would let us.
However I do think we should allow limited extractions beyond whatever we are doing and like you said, drill for the cheaper, easier oil ASAMFP, which would be yesterday.
We also need more nuclear power, Japan notwithstanding. While a bit more costly, I'd be fine with upping the standards for reactors and containment. The old Mark 1 design is awesome, as long as nothing too too bad goes wrong. There are vastly superior designs however, so I'm hopeful that upping the standards can be a compromise that gets the political ball rolling. Probably not this year because of the fear mongering, but hopefuly soon.
![gloopy is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
This post of yours is the latest example of how you leave yourself wiggle room. If DALPA doesn't even try to fight it, you just say: "Hey, it was a BS violation and there was no chance of winning anyway." If DALPA does decide to fight it, you say: "See there...I told you DALPA would fight with vigor."
It's almost funny to see the way you carefully spin every word with the ultimate goal of leaving yourself an escape route. You are quite the young politician.
Carl
![Carl Spackler is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![buzzpat is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post