I haven't posted for a while...I've got to get back into it.
Working in the airline industry, the following story is sad and puzzling.
Puzzling for us in the business because safety is paramount and when aircraft simply disappear off the radar it is concerning to say the least.
There is an urgent need to find the root cause of this terrible incident.
The below is from The Australian.
AF447 debris spotted in Atlantic
Publication: The Australian
Date: 3 June 2009
BRAZIL has confirmed that a five kilometre swath of debris floating in the Atlantic marked the spot where an Air France flight carrying 228 people came down in mysterious circumstances.
Brazilian Defense Minister Nelson Jobim told reporters "there are no doubts'' the items - including a seat, cables, plane components and jet fuel slicks - belonged to the Air France Airbus A330 that had been flying to Paris from Rio de Janeiro when it disappeared Monday.
The evidence extinguished any lingering hopes of finding survivors and confirmed the worst civil aviation accident since 2001, when an American Airlines jet crashed in New York killing all 260 people on board.
Jobim said Brazilian navy ships would start arriving at the debris zone nearly 1,000 kilometres off Brazil's northeastern coast to begin recovering the floating items.
Three merchant vessels, two Dutch-flagged and one French, were already at the scene, he said.
At the same time, the search for bodies would continue, the minister said.
If any were found they would be taken by ship to the nearest airport, on Brazil's Fernando de Noronha archipelago 460 kilometres away, where they would be flown out on air force aircraft.
More than half of those traveling in the full plane were either French or Brazilian. The others came from 30 countries, mostly in Europe.
The 216 passengers included 126 men, 82 women, seven children and a baby. The crew comprised 11 French nationals and one Brazilian.
The French captain, whose name has yet to be released, was 58 and an Air France pilot since 1988 with a great deal of experience, the airline said.
The plane vanished Monday four hours into its 11-hour flight, as it was beyond the reach of radar midway over the Atlantic between South America and Africa, in an area known for its tropical storms.
The last communication from the aircraft were automatic data signals warning of multiple electric and pressurization failures on board. The pilot did not send any mayday distress calls.
Air France suggested the four-year-old plane could have been struck by lightning - a fairly common hazard that by itself should not knock out a modern airliner, but coupled with other problems such as violent turbulence it could be dangerous.
Other theories advanced by experts include pilot error, mechanical defects or even the remote possibility of terrorism.
"No hypothesis is being favored at the moment,'' French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said Tuesday.
"Our only certainty is that there was no distress call sent by the plane, but regular automatic alerts sent over three minutes indicated the failure of all systems,'' he said.
Air France chief executive Pierre-Henry Gourgeon said Monday the succession of data messages was a "totally unprecedented situation'' and that it was "probable" the plane crashed into the ocean shortly afterwards.
Given the enigma of what caused the plane to fall, finding its black boxes has become of paramount importance.
A French ship was on its way, carrying two mini-submarines capable of operating at depths of 6,000 metres, which is also the limit aircraft black boxes can survive and roughly the depth of the Atlantic in the crash area.
But any recovery would be extremely tricky, not only because of the depth, but also because of powerful currents and storms in the zone.
"To find the plane, you'll need ships equipped with a special sonar, and possibly also rescue submarines - it's an enormous undertaking,'' Commander Ronaldo Jenkins, safety coordinator for Brazil's airline association, told AFP.
AFP
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Volunteers
Many will be shocked to find,
When the day of judgement nears,
That there's a special place in Heaven
Set aside for volunteers.
Furnished with big recliners,
Satin Couches and footstools,
Where ther are no committee chairmen,
Nor yard sale or rest area coffee to serve.
No library duty or bulletin assembly,
There will be nothing to print and staple.
Not one thing to fold and mail,
Telephone lists will be outlawed.
But a finger snap will bring
Cool drinks and gourmet dinners
And rare treats fit for a king.
You ask,
"Who'll serve these privileged few
And work for all the're worth?"
Why, all those who reaped the benifits,
And not once volunteered on Earth.
Anon., source unknown
When the day of judgement nears,
That there's a special place in Heaven
Set aside for volunteers.
Furnished with big recliners,
Satin Couches and footstools,
Where ther are no committee chairmen,
Nor yard sale or rest area coffee to serve.
No library duty or bulletin assembly,
There will be nothing to print and staple.
Not one thing to fold and mail,
Telephone lists will be outlawed.
But a finger snap will bring
Cool drinks and gourmet dinners
And rare treats fit for a king.
You ask,
"Who'll serve these privileged few
And work for all the're worth?"
Why, all those who reaped the benifits,
And not once volunteered on Earth.
Anon., source unknown
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
When complaining, do it well.
We often find good cause for complaint however, there are ways to complain which will see the complaint noticed.
The following was very original and obviously well thought out. It caught the attention of a very senior person.
VIRGIN boss Sir Richard Branson has thanked the author of a 1000-word tirade - complete with embarrassing photos - that slates food onboard a Virgin airlines flight as a "culinary journey of hell".
The anonymous email - which has whipped around the internet - is described by the UK Telegraph as one of the best airline complaints in the world.
Opening the lid of the main meal was like being given a "dead hamster as a Christmas present", it says.
The disgruntled passenger fired off the missive to Sir Richard after a disastrous flight from Mumbai to Heathrow on December 7 last year.
“Imagine being a 12-year-old boy Richard," the email says.
"Now imagine it’s Christmas morning and you’re sat their with your final present to open. It’s a big one, and you know what it is. It’s that Goodmans stereo you picked out the catalogue and wrote to Santa about.
“Only you open the present and it’s not in there. It’s your hamster Richard. It’s your hamster in the box and it’s not breathing. That’s how I felt when I peeled back the foil and saw this (see image 1).
The complaint continues: “…It’s mustard Richard. MUSTARD. More mustard than any man could consume in a month. On the left we have a piece of broccoli and some peppers in a brown glue-like oil and on the right the chef had prepared some mashed potato. The potato masher had obviously broken and so it was decided the next best thing would be to pass the potatoes through the digestive tract of a bird."
The passenger also complained about the size and “baffling presentation” of the "criminal" cookie he was served (see image 2).
“It appears to be in an evidence bag from the scene of a crime. A CRIME AGAINST BLOODY COOKING. Either that or some sort of backstreet underground cookie, purchased off a gun-toting maniac high on his own supply of yeast."
The dessert was just as bad, with the passenger asking: "What sort of animal would serve a desert (sic) with peas in (see image 3)?"
“I know it looks like a baaji but it’s in custard Richard, custard," the passenger wrote.
"It must be the pudding. Well you’ll be fascinated to hear that it wasn't custard. It was a sour gel with a clear oil on top. It’s only redeeming feature was that it managed to be so alien to my palette that it took away the taste of the curry emanating from our miscellaneous central cuboid of beige matter."
The onboard entertainment also copped a pasting thanks to a “flickering” television screen (see image 4).
The angry passenger then turns on the Virgin boss's eating habits.
“How can you live like this? I can’t imagine what dinner round your house is like, it must be like something out of a nature documentary.”
Sir Richard Branson telephoned the author of the letter and thanked him for his “constructive if tongue-in-cheek” email, according to London's Telegraph newspaper.
Paul Charles, Virgin’s Director of Corporate Communications, said Virgin was sorry the passenger had not liked the “award-winning” in-flight meals which he said was “very popular on our Indian routes”.
Author: Kate Schneider
Source: www.news.com.au
Date: 27 January 2009
The following was very original and obviously well thought out. It caught the attention of a very senior person.
VIRGIN boss Sir Richard Branson has thanked the author of a 1000-word tirade - complete with embarrassing photos - that slates food onboard a Virgin airlines flight as a "culinary journey of hell".
The anonymous email - which has whipped around the internet - is described by the UK Telegraph as one of the best airline complaints in the world.
Opening the lid of the main meal was like being given a "dead hamster as a Christmas present", it says.
The disgruntled passenger fired off the missive to Sir Richard after a disastrous flight from Mumbai to Heathrow on December 7 last year.
“Imagine being a 12-year-old boy Richard," the email says.
"Now imagine it’s Christmas morning and you’re sat their with your final present to open. It’s a big one, and you know what it is. It’s that Goodmans stereo you picked out the catalogue and wrote to Santa about.
“Only you open the present and it’s not in there. It’s your hamster Richard. It’s your hamster in the box and it’s not breathing. That’s how I felt when I peeled back the foil and saw this (see image 1).
The complaint continues: “…It’s mustard Richard. MUSTARD. More mustard than any man could consume in a month. On the left we have a piece of broccoli and some peppers in a brown glue-like oil and on the right the chef had prepared some mashed potato. The potato masher had obviously broken and so it was decided the next best thing would be to pass the potatoes through the digestive tract of a bird."
The passenger also complained about the size and “baffling presentation” of the "criminal" cookie he was served (see image 2).
“It appears to be in an evidence bag from the scene of a crime. A CRIME AGAINST BLOODY COOKING. Either that or some sort of backstreet underground cookie, purchased off a gun-toting maniac high on his own supply of yeast."
The dessert was just as bad, with the passenger asking: "What sort of animal would serve a desert (sic) with peas in (see image 3)?"
“I know it looks like a baaji but it’s in custard Richard, custard," the passenger wrote.
"It must be the pudding. Well you’ll be fascinated to hear that it wasn't custard. It was a sour gel with a clear oil on top. It’s only redeeming feature was that it managed to be so alien to my palette that it took away the taste of the curry emanating from our miscellaneous central cuboid of beige matter."
The onboard entertainment also copped a pasting thanks to a “flickering” television screen (see image 4).
The angry passenger then turns on the Virgin boss's eating habits.
“How can you live like this? I can’t imagine what dinner round your house is like, it must be like something out of a nature documentary.”
Sir Richard Branson telephoned the author of the letter and thanked him for his “constructive if tongue-in-cheek” email, according to London's Telegraph newspaper.
Paul Charles, Virgin’s Director of Corporate Communications, said Virgin was sorry the passenger had not liked the “award-winning” in-flight meals which he said was “very popular on our Indian routes”.
Author: Kate Schneider
Source: www.news.com.au
Date: 27 January 2009
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Marriage Assassin or Economy Assassin.
In his book, Right People, Right Place, Right Plan, Jentezen Franklin exposes things which can destroy a marriage.
He lists number 8 as Economic Pressure.
"Arguing about money can destroy a marriage. The thing that bought you together didn't have anything to do with money. When you were first married, life was all about being together. It's so easy to lose sight of that.
For many marriages, I highly recommend plastic surgery. That's when you cut up those plastic credit cards that are charging you 18% interest. Put yourself on a budget. Don't try to keep with the Joneses, because by the time you've finally caught up, they will have refinanced."
Good, simple advice.
It's interesting that the Western economy is teetering on the brink of recession largely bought about by people like you and me wanting more and more, so that we may keep up with the Joneses.
Banks and other lender have been more than happy to supply money to people like us because they were charging us ludicrous interest rates and, for quite some time, we were paying.
Then suddenly, well some would say not so suddenly as a fall had been predicted by those bold enough to say it up to 2 years prior, people could no longer afford to pay.
The Sub Prime fiascio hit the U.S.
This quickly spread across the world as the lenders in the States started revealing the depth of their exposure and the amount of their losses.
Banks in other countries slowly began to state possible losses because they too had exposure to the Sub Prime market. They too had been pouring money into, what had seemed, great cash producer.
Investors became nervous and started selling stocks and they kept on selling. The oil price rose and kept going and base metal prices started going south. The stock market is now a shell of its former self. Investors have lost millions and many Superannuation funds are a shadow of their former glory.
Would it be too bold of me to suggest that the state of our world economy today has been bought about by our need to over use that piece of plastic that we have secreted away in our wallet.
The world economy consists of a whole lot of smaller economies and they consist of smaller and so on, right down to us and our household economy.
How well do you manage your economy?
He lists number 8 as Economic Pressure.
"Arguing about money can destroy a marriage. The thing that bought you together didn't have anything to do with money. When you were first married, life was all about being together. It's so easy to lose sight of that.
For many marriages, I highly recommend plastic surgery. That's when you cut up those plastic credit cards that are charging you 18% interest. Put yourself on a budget. Don't try to keep with the Joneses, because by the time you've finally caught up, they will have refinanced."
Good, simple advice.
It's interesting that the Western economy is teetering on the brink of recession largely bought about by people like you and me wanting more and more, so that we may keep up with the Joneses.
Banks and other lender have been more than happy to supply money to people like us because they were charging us ludicrous interest rates and, for quite some time, we were paying.
Then suddenly, well some would say not so suddenly as a fall had been predicted by those bold enough to say it up to 2 years prior, people could no longer afford to pay.
The Sub Prime fiascio hit the U.S.
This quickly spread across the world as the lenders in the States started revealing the depth of their exposure and the amount of their losses.
Banks in other countries slowly began to state possible losses because they too had exposure to the Sub Prime market. They too had been pouring money into, what had seemed, great cash producer.
Investors became nervous and started selling stocks and they kept on selling. The oil price rose and kept going and base metal prices started going south. The stock market is now a shell of its former self. Investors have lost millions and many Superannuation funds are a shadow of their former glory.
Would it be too bold of me to suggest that the state of our world economy today has been bought about by our need to over use that piece of plastic that we have secreted away in our wallet.
The world economy consists of a whole lot of smaller economies and they consist of smaller and so on, right down to us and our household economy.
How well do you manage your economy?
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The blame game.
Can you get drunk on a flight and then sue the airline for giving you the booze?
A Florida couple is suing United Airlines for "negligently" over-serving alcohol during a flight from Osaka, Japan, to San Francisco.
They say the carrier's drinks fuelled the domestic violence that enmeshed the two soon after their plane landed.
Fortified with burgundy allegedly supplied at 20-minute intervals by crew members during the December 2006 trip, Yoichi Shimamoto became so inebriated "that he could not manage himself", according to a lawsuit filed with a District Court in Tampa, Florida.
He was arrested for disorderly conduct and battery after he struck his wife, Ayisha, six times, injuring her face and upper lip as the pair were heading through Customs.
The case will likely hinge on whether United, in effect, operated a flying bar that's subject to the same legal liabilities as earth-bound drinking establishments, legal experts said.
Mr Shimamoto faced criminal charges and was sentenced to 18 months probation.
Source: www.news.com.au/heraldsun
Date: 18 December 2008
Whatever happened to responsibility and accountability?
Perhaps the airline shouldn't have kept serving this guy.
Perhaps this guy should've controlled himself and not kept ordering the drinks.
Perhaps he should just grow up and be responsible for his own actions and stop blaming others for his own lack of control.
What sort of culture are we creating when we can do stupid things and expect, and often get, others to take the responsibility for our actions?
A Florida couple is suing United Airlines for "negligently" over-serving alcohol during a flight from Osaka, Japan, to San Francisco.
They say the carrier's drinks fuelled the domestic violence that enmeshed the two soon after their plane landed.
Fortified with burgundy allegedly supplied at 20-minute intervals by crew members during the December 2006 trip, Yoichi Shimamoto became so inebriated "that he could not manage himself", according to a lawsuit filed with a District Court in Tampa, Florida.
He was arrested for disorderly conduct and battery after he struck his wife, Ayisha, six times, injuring her face and upper lip as the pair were heading through Customs.
The case will likely hinge on whether United, in effect, operated a flying bar that's subject to the same legal liabilities as earth-bound drinking establishments, legal experts said.
Mr Shimamoto faced criminal charges and was sentenced to 18 months probation.
Source: www.news.com.au/heraldsun
Date: 18 December 2008
Whatever happened to responsibility and accountability?
Perhaps the airline shouldn't have kept serving this guy.
Perhaps this guy should've controlled himself and not kept ordering the drinks.
Perhaps he should just grow up and be responsible for his own actions and stop blaming others for his own lack of control.
What sort of culture are we creating when we can do stupid things and expect, and often get, others to take the responsibility for our actions?
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Mergers are for Suckers.
Author: Michael Pascoe
Publication: Sydney Morning Herald
Date: 9 December 2008
Most people think they are better-than-average drivers, which, by definition, most people can't be. Call it a mass delusion.
Takeovers and mergers are generally like that too - a source of delusion for the key players.
Various studies over the years have found most big corporate takeovers/mergers are failures as far as the acquiring shareholders are concerned - but that doesn't stop the moving and shaking boards, CEOs and fee-hungry advisers all proclaiming that their takeover is different.
But there is one player who never loses in a big takeover - the CEO of the taker or takee. The quickest and easiest way to receive a multimillion payout (without the slight opprobrium of being sacked for incompetence) is to be taken over. Next best is to do the takeover, which enables the CEO's remuneration consultant to argue for a pay rise on the basis of greater responsibility.
Then there are the great urgers of modern capitalism, the investment bankers and advisors whose very existence is fed by doing the deal, not the long-term outcome. Corporate Australia is littered with the skeletons of takeover mistakes that nonetheless made an army of urgers rich.
And therein lies one of the under-examined aspects of M&A mania - the moral hazard whereby key players in the process make vast profits even if shareholders lose.
There are occasional exceptions - Vince Gauci's brave and wise fight against Xstrata's bargain basement takeover of MIM - but most CEOs happily stay in step with their boards, take the money and move on to the next game. Some seem serially successful at being corporate prey.
And it's not as if the CEO class is unaware of the dangers of moral hazard. For example, in the middle of the rescue of AMP, the then CEO, Andrew Mohl, stuck out his hand for a few million more as compensation for the fact that AMP would be smaller and, therefore, his pay packet less huge. Well, you wouldn't want him to be tempted to not sell assets that needed to be sold.
The urgers are another problem again. CEOs and chairman are constantly duchessed and propositioned by very personable investment bankers who profess to want nothing more than to find ways to add shareholder value. Or something like that.
And CEOs and chairmen are forever on the lookout for some bright "company making'' deal i.e. they are willing buyers of the urgers' wares. Never mind that the urgers only real concern is to keep the fee flood flowing.
Which brings us to the brouhaha de jour, the bemusing Qantas-BA merger talks. There's been plenty written about this dubious proposal, so much that there was little surprise in seeing Alan Joyce backpedalling yesterday.
But there's been little more than a passing wry observation about the role of the fee suckers, UBS and Macquarie. Yes, it is bemusing that Macquarie has gone so quickly from being Allco's Qantas raiding partner last year to sleeping inside the tent as Qantas' adviser on the BA deal, while UBS has switched from the Qantas camp to the BA side at the same time.
It's a lot more than bemusing though - it's outrageous. It raises doubts about the competency of the Qantas board and management that they would wear such nonsense - unless, of course, that the Qantas hierarchy is so culturally attuned to the merger that they would sleep with anyone to achieve it.
Let's pause to remember that one of the early signs that Macquarie's love of money wasn't quite healthy was the way it jumped camps from being Email's trusted advisor to advising Email's hostile raiders in 2000 - and doing it with a no-holds-barred vengeance at that, complete with serving dawn writs at Email directors' homes.
There was a time when it was thought a gentleman didn't do that sort of thing, that the long-term relationship and honour mattered more than the quick killing.
Now nothing can be taken for granted, including the moral hazard of urgers and CEOs being fabulously rewarded when shareholders are not. Maybe that's what they mean by "win-win''.
End story.
Greed, greed, greed. That's all that I can add to this story.
Publication: Sydney Morning Herald
Date: 9 December 2008
Most people think they are better-than-average drivers, which, by definition, most people can't be. Call it a mass delusion.
Takeovers and mergers are generally like that too - a source of delusion for the key players.
Various studies over the years have found most big corporate takeovers/mergers are failures as far as the acquiring shareholders are concerned - but that doesn't stop the moving and shaking boards, CEOs and fee-hungry advisers all proclaiming that their takeover is different.
But there is one player who never loses in a big takeover - the CEO of the taker or takee. The quickest and easiest way to receive a multimillion payout (without the slight opprobrium of being sacked for incompetence) is to be taken over. Next best is to do the takeover, which enables the CEO's remuneration consultant to argue for a pay rise on the basis of greater responsibility.
Then there are the great urgers of modern capitalism, the investment bankers and advisors whose very existence is fed by doing the deal, not the long-term outcome. Corporate Australia is littered with the skeletons of takeover mistakes that nonetheless made an army of urgers rich.
And therein lies one of the under-examined aspects of M&A mania - the moral hazard whereby key players in the process make vast profits even if shareholders lose.
There are occasional exceptions - Vince Gauci's brave and wise fight against Xstrata's bargain basement takeover of MIM - but most CEOs happily stay in step with their boards, take the money and move on to the next game. Some seem serially successful at being corporate prey.
And it's not as if the CEO class is unaware of the dangers of moral hazard. For example, in the middle of the rescue of AMP, the then CEO, Andrew Mohl, stuck out his hand for a few million more as compensation for the fact that AMP would be smaller and, therefore, his pay packet less huge. Well, you wouldn't want him to be tempted to not sell assets that needed to be sold.
The urgers are another problem again. CEOs and chairman are constantly duchessed and propositioned by very personable investment bankers who profess to want nothing more than to find ways to add shareholder value. Or something like that.
And CEOs and chairmen are forever on the lookout for some bright "company making'' deal i.e. they are willing buyers of the urgers' wares. Never mind that the urgers only real concern is to keep the fee flood flowing.
Which brings us to the brouhaha de jour, the bemusing Qantas-BA merger talks. There's been plenty written about this dubious proposal, so much that there was little surprise in seeing Alan Joyce backpedalling yesterday.
But there's been little more than a passing wry observation about the role of the fee suckers, UBS and Macquarie. Yes, it is bemusing that Macquarie has gone so quickly from being Allco's Qantas raiding partner last year to sleeping inside the tent as Qantas' adviser on the BA deal, while UBS has switched from the Qantas camp to the BA side at the same time.
It's a lot more than bemusing though - it's outrageous. It raises doubts about the competency of the Qantas board and management that they would wear such nonsense - unless, of course, that the Qantas hierarchy is so culturally attuned to the merger that they would sleep with anyone to achieve it.
Let's pause to remember that one of the early signs that Macquarie's love of money wasn't quite healthy was the way it jumped camps from being Email's trusted advisor to advising Email's hostile raiders in 2000 - and doing it with a no-holds-barred vengeance at that, complete with serving dawn writs at Email directors' homes.
There was a time when it was thought a gentleman didn't do that sort of thing, that the long-term relationship and honour mattered more than the quick killing.
Now nothing can be taken for granted, including the moral hazard of urgers and CEOs being fabulously rewarded when shareholders are not. Maybe that's what they mean by "win-win''.
End story.
Greed, greed, greed. That's all that I can add to this story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
