Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
11-02-2011, 05:00 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Agreed. In the end they will have no choice but to sumbit to either massive, immediate austerity measures to the welfare/warfare machines that the left and the right will never do, or to simply print the money. They are printing it now anyway, but they are finding buyers for it. When that ends we will all eat a huge load of stagflation lasting years. Before they wise up, they will print more money trying to "stimulate" their way out of it, making things worse in the process, making the already bad even worse before it finally gets better.
The talking heads will pimp their "market cycle" theory and keynsean fraudnomics 24/7 for years without challenge from the elites in the media and academia, and the pension mongers in congress will rubber stamp whatever comes their way.
The American people have already been directly threatened with martial law (despite the fact that it does not legally exist) by Berkane and Geithner if we don't automatically pass whatever 5000 page bill du jour nobody's read that suddenly appeared on everyone's desk for a morning vote the next day, and we've fallen for it every time.
We've seen the biggest poitical shift in congress in 70 years last year over the out of control spending, yet nothing has changed. Both sides squabble over a fraction of one percent, then settle on even less.
So yes, we are going to absolutely feast on inflation. The definiton of inflation has been modified over the years to hide the true cost to the people and its about to be modified again to further hide its effects.
I was just being sarcastic with the "raise over the life of" nonsense that ALPA and the company constantly try to sell us on. Double digit inflation for a few years could mean we get 50% raises over the life of a typical 4 or 5 year contract and still lose buying power. No one knows this better than RA with his work on the ATL fed board of governors. He even specifically mentioned stagflation as both a general economic threat as well as a specific industry issue in a very recent letter to the employees.
Whatever happens with C2012, I will not sit idly by and let a malevolent management and/or an incompetent union leadership sell their "raise over the life of" snake oil propaganda without making sure at least reasonable, average to expected inflation, compounded yearly, is 100% backed out of any and all claims of "raise over the life of". Its time we own how this debate is framed.
If we as a group settle for less, then we settle for less. Shame on us to be sure, but there is no way we are going to allow us to settle for anything while calling it more than it is.
In any case, getting back to the timeline, I'm not sure when its really going to start picking up, as it depends on many factors that haven't fully played out yet. The core causes of inflation are happening right now, so its acceleration is a certainty. The only question is when. Our dollar bubble and debt bubbles will really start popping when we are no longer able to monetize the debt to foreign creditors and they stop buying it. By then we will be in the 15-20 trillion range (not even including long term unfunded obligations) and the interest alone to service what we have, even assuming a permantly balanced budget at that point [yeah right, as if!] will exceed the Reagan defense budgets on a yearly basis. We are seeing inflation now, but the talking heads are denying it because they are hiding behind revamped economic sophistry imbibed definitions, but we will really be dealing with it in the near future. That's why I said in a couple years, but I agree we're not doing ourselves any favors right now either.
The talking heads will pimp their "market cycle" theory and keynsean fraudnomics 24/7 for years without challenge from the elites in the media and academia, and the pension mongers in congress will rubber stamp whatever comes their way.
The American people have already been directly threatened with martial law (despite the fact that it does not legally exist) by Berkane and Geithner if we don't automatically pass whatever 5000 page bill du jour nobody's read that suddenly appeared on everyone's desk for a morning vote the next day, and we've fallen for it every time.
We've seen the biggest poitical shift in congress in 70 years last year over the out of control spending, yet nothing has changed. Both sides squabble over a fraction of one percent, then settle on even less.
So yes, we are going to absolutely feast on inflation. The definiton of inflation has been modified over the years to hide the true cost to the people and its about to be modified again to further hide its effects.
I was just being sarcastic with the "raise over the life of" nonsense that ALPA and the company constantly try to sell us on. Double digit inflation for a few years could mean we get 50% raises over the life of a typical 4 or 5 year contract and still lose buying power. No one knows this better than RA with his work on the ATL fed board of governors. He even specifically mentioned stagflation as both a general economic threat as well as a specific industry issue in a very recent letter to the employees.
Whatever happens with C2012, I will not sit idly by and let a malevolent management and/or an incompetent union leadership sell their "raise over the life of" snake oil propaganda without making sure at least reasonable, average to expected inflation, compounded yearly, is 100% backed out of any and all claims of "raise over the life of". Its time we own how this debate is framed.
If we as a group settle for less, then we settle for less. Shame on us to be sure, but there is no way we are going to allow us to settle for anything while calling it more than it is.
In any case, getting back to the timeline, I'm not sure when its really going to start picking up, as it depends on many factors that haven't fully played out yet. The core causes of inflation are happening right now, so its acceleration is a certainty. The only question is when. Our dollar bubble and debt bubbles will really start popping when we are no longer able to monetize the debt to foreign creditors and they stop buying it. By then we will be in the 15-20 trillion range (not even including long term unfunded obligations) and the interest alone to service what we have, even assuming a permantly balanced budget at that point [yeah right, as if!] will exceed the Reagan defense budgets on a yearly basis. We are seeing inflation now, but the talking heads are denying it because they are hiding behind revamped economic sophistry imbibed definitions, but we will really be dealing with it in the near future. That's why I said in a couple years, but I agree we're not doing ourselves any favors right now either.
Gloopy; I agree totally with your assesment. Way better said than I could do. Last debt auction only sold 60% to foreign bidders (that has been a trend for about 1.5 years now). An unnamed buyer (the fed ?) bought 40% of the debt they (themselves) were selling. This is a very dangerous and potentially damaging game they are playing economically.
11-02-2011, 05:01 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 737A
Posts: 1,890
11-02-2011, 05:04 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
Yes, A loss of the center system causes a loss of a critical etops component the HMG. It also presents all kinds of other issues from fumes to fire to what happens if you had to divert for another reason such as a additional mechanical or medical. The FAA is going to have a lot of questions. The good news is the positive press will help the crew.
11-02-2011, 05:24 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Right on the money Sailingfun. To continue to destination if only an hour and a half in flight would be a very bad decision. Again, I suspect the other articles that said four hours into their flight is more accurate. At least I hope for their sake anyway. I aso hope we get a real answer as to the cause, because their current explanation doesn't meet muster.
Sept. 24, 2006
Just nine seconds after taking off on Feb. 20, 2005, there was trouble on British Airways Flight 268.
On its flight from Los Angeles to London, one of the 747's four engines malfunctioned and burst into flames.
"It appears we have flames coming out, number one or number two engines. … We're shutting it down," the flight's pilots told Los Angeles Air Traffic Control.
The fire was extinguished, but the engine was knocked out of commission. But instead of turning back, the pilot decided to continue on to England, 5,000 miles away.
"We just decided we want to set off on our flight plan route and get as far as we can," the pilot told the air traffic controllers. "So we'd like clearance to continue as planned."
"The tower controller, who had seen the fire, asked the departure controller, 'Is he going?' " said Scott McCartney, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal who covered the story. "And he said, 'Yes, he's going,' and then a bit later he said, 'If you saw what we saw you would be amazed by that.' "
Plane Flies Despite Engine Failure Watch Video
U.S. regulations are very clear about what a pilot should do if an engine goes out.
"If you lose one engine you land at the nearest suitable airport," said John Nance, an ABC News aviation consultant, "and you could lose your license."
But British regulations allow the pilot to decide if it's safe to go on. The pilot consulted with British Airways officials in England. They decided to keep flying.
The incident raised questions about whether the decision involving flight 268 was influenced by economic factors. After all, dumping fuel to return to Los Angeles International Airport and compensating passengers could have cost more than $300,000.
British Airways said economics played no role.
"The Air Accident Safety Investigation Board, Britain's version of the NTSB, found that the aircraft had sufficient fuel and performance to continue the flight safely," the airline said.
Flight 268 did make it to England, although the plane landed in Manchester, not London, because it was running low on fuel.
A year and a half later, questions remain: Did the airline put the passengers and crew at risk?
"That's what happened here," Nance told ABC News. "They reduced the margins of safety. And some statement was made by somebody in Britain that well, it's almost an infinitesimal possibility that they might lose another engine. … That just isn't an operable statement."
The case was not isolated. The Wall Street Journal reported that a total of 15 British Airways 747s in the last five years have lost one engine and kept going to their destination.
Just nine seconds after taking off on Feb. 20, 2005, there was trouble on British Airways Flight 268.
On its flight from Los Angeles to London, one of the 747's four engines malfunctioned and burst into flames.
"It appears we have flames coming out, number one or number two engines. … We're shutting it down," the flight's pilots told Los Angeles Air Traffic Control.
The fire was extinguished, but the engine was knocked out of commission. But instead of turning back, the pilot decided to continue on to England, 5,000 miles away.
"We just decided we want to set off on our flight plan route and get as far as we can," the pilot told the air traffic controllers. "So we'd like clearance to continue as planned."
"The tower controller, who had seen the fire, asked the departure controller, 'Is he going?' " said Scott McCartney, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal who covered the story. "And he said, 'Yes, he's going,' and then a bit later he said, 'If you saw what we saw you would be amazed by that.' "
Plane Flies Despite Engine Failure Watch Video
U.S. regulations are very clear about what a pilot should do if an engine goes out.
"If you lose one engine you land at the nearest suitable airport," said John Nance, an ABC News aviation consultant, "and you could lose your license."
But British regulations allow the pilot to decide if it's safe to go on. The pilot consulted with British Airways officials in England. They decided to keep flying.
The incident raised questions about whether the decision involving flight 268 was influenced by economic factors. After all, dumping fuel to return to Los Angeles International Airport and compensating passengers could have cost more than $300,000.
British Airways said economics played no role.
"The Air Accident Safety Investigation Board, Britain's version of the NTSB, found that the aircraft had sufficient fuel and performance to continue the flight safely," the airline said.
Flight 268 did make it to England, although the plane landed in Manchester, not London, because it was running low on fuel.
A year and a half later, questions remain: Did the airline put the passengers and crew at risk?
"That's what happened here," Nance told ABC News. "They reduced the margins of safety. And some statement was made by somebody in Britain that well, it's almost an infinitesimal possibility that they might lose another engine. … That just isn't an operable statement."
The case was not isolated. The Wall Street Journal reported that a total of 15 British Airways 747s in the last five years have lost one engine and kept going to their destination.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 11-02-2011 at 05:37 PM.
11-02-2011, 05:25 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Posts: 272
This is true. Orders to active duty AF under Title 10 U.S.C. 12301(d) have been "categorically exempted" from the 5 year USERRA limitations by the asst Sec of the Air Force. This is how most were returned to AD Air Force after the 9/11 attacks.
This will allow many on our list to serve beyond 5 years. I'm looking forward to a safe return of each and every one of them.
This will allow many on our list to serve beyond 5 years. I'm looking forward to a safe return of each and every one of them.
The current letter in place does allow for the 12301(d) USERRA 5 year exemption, but the order is specifically required to have the statement in support of contingency operations (I don't have the exact verbiage with me) but to give it some perspective of the 2000+ AGR sets of orders out there very few have the contingency statement. Also, the vast majority of the return to active duty orders are 12301(d) type orders but do not have the contingency statement. Any title 10 order generally has the 12301(d) but many lack the contingency statement. There is a new letter that will be out shortly that further limits the 5 year exemption.
Delta is well aware of all of these issues, if you have question contact the CPSC and ask for the military Liaison. He is a great dude and will not lead you wrong. Good luck, make sure you know the law. The simple statement 12301(d) definitely is not exempted from the 5 years if the order was cut after March 2007 or extended past March 2007.
11-02-2011, 05:35 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 109
To anybody relying in this statement please refer to the Assistant Secretary of Defense's letter regarding this policy dated March 2007 which superseded the 2002 Assistant Secretary of Defenses letter establishing the 12301(d) exemption.
The current letter in place does allow for the 12301(d) USERRA 5 year exemption, but the order is specifically required to have the statement in support of contingency operations (I don't have the exact verbiage with me) but to give it some perspective of the 2000+ AGR sets of orders out there very few have the contingency statement. Also, the vast majority of the return to active duty orders are 12301(d) type orders but do not have the contingency statement. Any title 10 order generally has the 12301(d) but many lack the contingency statement. There is a new letter that will be out shortly that further limits the 5 year exemption.
Delta is well aware of all of these issues, if you have question contact the CPSC and ask for the military Liaison. He is a great dude and will not lead you wrong. Good luck, make sure you know the law. The simple statement 12301(d) definitely is not exempted from the 5 years if the order was cut after March 2007 or extended past March 2007.
The current letter in place does allow for the 12301(d) USERRA 5 year exemption, but the order is specifically required to have the statement in support of contingency operations (I don't have the exact verbiage with me) but to give it some perspective of the 2000+ AGR sets of orders out there very few have the contingency statement. Also, the vast majority of the return to active duty orders are 12301(d) type orders but do not have the contingency statement. Any title 10 order generally has the 12301(d) but many lack the contingency statement. There is a new letter that will be out shortly that further limits the 5 year exemption.
Delta is well aware of all of these issues, if you have question contact the CPSC and ask for the military Liaison. He is a great dude and will not lead you wrong. Good luck, make sure you know the law. The simple statement 12301(d) definitely is not exempted from the 5 years if the order was cut after March 2007 or extended past March 2007.
USERRA and DODI 1205.12 provide authority for the Secretary of the Air Force to designate certain other periods of service as exempt from the five-year limit. This memorandum will address designated exemptions given under my authority, acting on the behalf for the Secretary of the Air Force.
I categorically approve the following exemption from the five-year limit:
Periods of service performed by an ARC member ordered to or retained on active duty under 10U.S.C. §12301(d) on or after September 14,2001, for the purpose of providing direct or indirect support of missions and operations associated with the National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks, declared by Presidential Proclamation 7463, dated September 14,2001.
There is more for other types of orders, but not sure how this doesn't exempt orders under 12301(d) unless you had nothing to do with the war fighting effort. Everyone is either directly or indirectly supporting the mission and ops unless they are really well hidden. Is there something I'm missing?
11-02-2011, 05:38 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I wonder how well the crew rested on that flight? 
11-02-2011, 05:43 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 1,231
IMHO, we dump gas and return to the airport way too often. With a single engine failure on a four engine aircrat, I would not cross an ocean, but I certainly think pressing on to NYC or someplace like that is fine.
11-02-2011, 05:48 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
Yeah, Air China actually had an engine problem on one of it's 747's so they just took a whole bunch of seat belt extensions and secured the fan blades. Then they took off full of pax from the Orient to Franfurt. The Germans grounded the aircraft and made then replace two engines before returning home. The first stage fan blades were just shredded.
11-02-2011, 05:48 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
On a 3 or 4 engine out per the regs you have the option of continuing to destination if in the captain's opinion it is at least as safe as returning.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
