Aviation Update

It's not surprising the 787 saga has been a second page story with all the other huge stories going on (Manti and Beyonce), but some strange things have happened.  Here's the Trans Secretary on January 11:

Despite the incidents, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood declared, “I believe this plane is safe, and I would have absolutely no reservations about boarding one of these planes and taking a flight.” Administrator Michael Huerta of the Federal Aviation Administration said his agency has seen no data suggesting the plane isn’t safe but wanted the review to find out why safety-related incidents were occurring.

Here he is on January 18 after an All Nippon 787 had to make an emergency landing:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood vowed Friday that Boeing's 787 Dreamliner wouldn't take to the air again until regulators are absolutely certain it's safe. "Those planes aren't going to fly until we are 1,000% sure that they are safe to fly," LaHood said outside a meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors here.

Such a flip-flop might become a big scandal during a GOP administration, especially with the added components of safety, Big Aviation, and unions.  But apparently we're in a new era of trust.

This new era included a rigorous certification process of the 787 culminating in certification in mid 2011, followed by thousands of daily scheduled flights from late 2011 through most of 2012 without any serious incidents.

During this same time period Boeing was embroiled in labor problems.  The 787 is a new kind of airplane for them and the production and supply chain represents a new way of making planes that apparently some in the old guard found upsetting.  But new airplanes always have bugs. 

But suddenly the bugs began piling up.   On January 11th the feds announced a comprehensive review of the "safe" aircraft, triggered mainly by the publicity of a battery fire on the ground in Boston.  A very short time later Boeing offered a pay increase to some of the very same engineers who were to be integrally involved in the upcoming review process.  Just months prior Boeing management had been threatening to move engineering work away from their Seattle HQ due to the high cost of doing business in Washington State. 

Of course everyone remembers the brouhaha after they announced moving part of the production to South Carolina and how that triggered a review by the NLRB (ie, Obama administration), which ended in a contract offer to Seattle personnel and a dropping of the complaint.  So there's more than enough fodder for speculation or conspiracy.

Not only that, but everyone knows batteries on airplanes are no laughing matter.  Commercial carriers are already restricted as to the transport of lithium-ion batteries as cargo; the 787 uses a massive version to power its electrical system.   According to some reports the UPS 747 that crashed in Dubai in 2010 was doomed by a fire emanating amongst a shipment of such batteries in the main cargo hold (nobody has explained what started the fire but this cause has apparently been ruled out).  Supposedly Boeing prepared for the contingency of a possible battery fire in the 787 by designing a fireproof compartment that wouldn't allow a fire to spread, which was part of the certification signoff.

Now they've got a mess.  Whether any of that mess was unavoidable, avoidable, or inflamed by shady operations is beyond the knowledge of the average person at this point.  Clearly there's a lot at stake. 

Ironically, another fire aboard an aircraft was blamed on a crash that killed 230 people in 1996. Unlike the 787 battery fires it did not trigger a world-wide grounding of the 747 despite what appeared to be a horrible flaw, possible wiring issues in the fuel tanks. There were circulars and such but the 'fix'--a nitrogen interting system in the fuel tank to neutralize vapors--didn't arrive for almost a decade.  This fix has been mandated on newer aircraft and calls for retrofitting certain older aircraft but for some reason excludes cargo aircraft, as if they are somehow immune from middair explosions.

By the way, other causes were studied, including whether EMI from electronic devices might have triggered the spark, but the main focus seemed to be operating the fuel system on warm days.  Why this was suddenly a problem despite no recorded in-flight crashes caused by overheated fuel tanks in commercial aviation history remains a mystery.  

Regular readers know this crash has long been a source of skepticism here, mainly due to how it was handled in the press and by the Clinton administration, including certain theories provided by various agencies that don't usually get involved in domestic aviation investigations.  Jack Cashill was an early skeptic and his book "First Strike" initiated the interest, but his conclusion of a small terror plane never made much sense. Over the years he has kept an open mind and indeed his latest column suggests that former Kennedy family friend Pierre Salinger may have been onto something.

Not sure, but perhaps the biggest clue something might be amiss comes from the memoirs of those who should know.  Cashill points out that people like Hillary, Bill, George Stephanopoulis and George Tenet hardly mention this event at all in their tomes, quite odd for something Richard Clarke claimed almost triggered a war with Iran. That's pretty sensational stuff to omit from a book especially since the official cause is now something more random and mechanical.

But it's not just the prime players who ignore it.  The more recent book "Threat Matrix" by Garrett Graff is an exhaustive overview of the FBI starting with J. Edgar and moving to the Robert Mueller era.  The book tapped many sources and discusses various high-profile crimes and terror attacks along the timeline, yet is largely silent on two huge FBI cases--the anthrax letters and TWA 800.  Graff devoted far more pages to another TWA flight--847.

It's hard to say whether such omissions are deliberate, out of ignorance, or  whether some people just don't want to talk about certain things anymore, which is quite understandable with so much at stake. But the silence remains the most compelling evidence to date.  Which isn't much.

Portland Shooting and other Crazy Things

Welcome to upside down world.

So there's a random shooting at a mall--during Christmas shopping season--by this guy...

By the way, is that a keffiyeh he's wearing?  And yet, there no mention of possible terrorism.  The media scratches its collective head and says, "we may never know the motive".  Well hell, other than some kind of insane crazyperson justice there are a few other possibilities.  Perhaps he just saw the Mohammed video. 

Apparently we've reached a point where the media doesn't even bother quoting an FBI guy ensuring it wasn't connected to terrorism before an investigation has even begun anymore.   Now the media is perplexed because he had no apparent connection to the victims.  Yeah--just like the 9/11 hijackers, Major Hasan, Abdulmuttalab, Abdulhakim, Shehzad and almost all jihadists or highway serial killers.  But don't worry, evidently Barney and Andy up there in the Clackamas PD will be handling it.

MORE..  Jawa says "crazy guy".  Yessir, he's crazy regardless of whether he's a lone nut, lone sudden jihadist, lone wolf, lone hockey mask killer, lone mall killer, etc.   That fact has never been in question.  During the Clackamas Sheriff press conference the spokesman did address the terrorism angle--adamantly dismissing a report that the FBI had taken the lead on the case as a terrorism investigation. 

Other items--his birth name was not Roberts, he was raised by a woman named Roberts, no mentions of his father or background in the press reports so far.  Questions remaining would be who he reportedly stole the gun from and his ancestry.  It's looking like loser snap syndrome.  Not sure which is worse to consider for the future--sudden jihadists or nuts who for some reason can't just kill themselves in a stairwell without first trying to take out scores of others.     
------

Here's a headline for you...

"Tea Party protesters punch Democrat, tear down Center for American Progress tent".

Or how about this one...

"Andrew Breitbart declares a coming 'civil war'".

Yet we have the Crowder punchout and Hoffa, Jr. stories being covered a little differently.  You remember Hoffa, who once appeared at an Obama rally and said they had to 'take these son-of-a-bitches out' referring to the violent, gun-toting "Tea Baggers".     


-----

Finally, Senator Robert Menendez allegedly had an illegal alien sex offender working for him in his office.   The stuff is now hitting the fan--perhaps delayed intentionally until after the election, which he won.  The illegal is in the process of being deported. 

Contrast that to Meg Whitman, who employed an illegal maid through an employment service.  The maid, possibly coerced by the Brown campaign into coming out in return for something, splashed herself all over the media and was likely instrumental in taking out Whitman's bid to become the California governor.  As far as is known that Maid, Nicky Diaz, is still in the country.   She was even honored at a 'gala'.  

Railroad Strike Threatened, No News?

News flash, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen have threatened to walk off the job at midnight tonight, possibly paralyzing the nation's railroads if the Obama administration doesn't appoint a Presidential Emergency Board to stop it. There is almost zero national coverage.

Yeah, the explanation is that the administration probably will send it to a board, but isn't it still newsworthy? If airline pilots were in the same boat would the press ignore it?

Obama spent the day demonizing bankers and tacitly approving the quasi-Marxist protesters occupying Wall St. He even had a "rare" presser today but the baby bird media didn't have a chance to ask about it, even if they desired, due to his use of the filibuster in answering about six questions over an hour. Better to spend the time with the usual litany of blame shifting towards the Tea Party, Europe, Arab protesters, weather events and Bush.

Here's the Brotherhood:

“It is unfortunate that, in this time of record industry profits, the carriers insist upon attempting to take advantage of a weakened general economy to further line its corporate pockets at the expense of the railroad workers whose labor generates those profits,” Pierce said. “And it is shameful that the carriers have chosen to specifically target those railroad workers who are most vulnerable — older workers and the sick and injured — to shoulder a disproportionate share of the demanded givebacks.”

That's right up Obama's alley! Well, except for the fact these guys already have jobs and are wanting more. So he'll likely be forced to create the emergency board to in effect shut down their strike because a railroad stoppage during the peak shipping season and during a down economy would be devastating to Recovery Summer (which has suddenly become Crisis Autumn, or pass this damn bill now you wingnuts--or we'll turn more hipster protesters loose on capitalism).

MORE 10/7/11

Not that this story and it's predictable conclusion should have been big news, but the only coverage seems local from one Kansas City paper. Threatened transportation strikes used to garner at least a few national headlines. Can't decide whether that had something to do with railroads being almost invisible in this country anymore or that the big media didn't want to embarrass the president for having to shut down a union strike, or report that the BLE members were not satisfied with a 17 percent raise proposal.

GM Deal

The NY Times has a thin-on-background article today about the first union-management deal (tentative) between GM and the UAW since the bankruptcy. A few choice excerpts:

The deal will help G.M.’s 48,500 union workers share in the company’s turnaround and should give them more job security, two top priorities for the U.A.W., though the tenuous nature of the economic recovery will continue to inject some uncertainty.

Wha? The economy may actually affect job security? It didn't during the greatest recession since the great depression caused exclusively by Bush, so why would it going forward? Of course like all evil management fascists, GM wanted job security tied to making better products, although one has to wonder if either considers ignoring warranties on cars purchased under the "old GM" as a good way to gain consumer trust. Oh well, in just a few years they would have been void anyway!

The union said in a statement that it had successfully fought G.M.’s proposals to weaken retirement benefits and obtain major concessions to health benefits.

Two same two areas are killing the post office, another large union entity backed by the government (difference being that GM has a fairly sustainable business model while the USPS is on par with the pony express). At least this agreement seems to maintain some kind of profit-sharing productivity/quality incentive, something gleaned from reading between the lines as it wasn't part of King's talking points.

Not to bash every union auto worker--they need their jobs like everyone else and many are surely working hard to turn around their companies and save their futures--but the union leadership needs to get real about who turned around' GM, a company that would currently be out of business if they weren't so large and connected and essential, like the evil AIG.

Anyway, with a GM agreement in hand they move on to the other two..

In its tradition of pattern bargaining, the union is expected to seek similar terms from Chrysler and Ford. But it is likely to have more difficulty doing so than in the past, given the disparate conditions of the three companies. The union is expected to focus on achieving a deal at Chrysler before turning to Ford.

Ford (quality is job one) is going to be the real challenge since they didn't take the bailout-bankruptcy route and just recently made a commercial mocking that very thing...



Wonder, were those fighting words? Both GM and Chrysler workers agreed not to strike through 2015 but Ford workers are not bound to such an agreement.

Unsurprisingly the Times made no mention of the UAW's stake in GM through the VEBA health care trust, which seems to own over 12 percent of the company. Of course, the AP didn't either, but they did mention comments from King about the goal of organizing the non-union auto plants across the country at some point.

No shocker--that's what unions do--but the question is how they'll do it in a new political environment where the president seems OK with union leaders threatening to 'take out' their adversaries--even if those adversaries are fed-up taxpayers who bailed out their companies. King is demanding direct UAW board representation at the big three, including Ford, so it should be interesting to watch.

Bailout Bamboozle?

As Barack Obama came into office the US auto industry was in miserable shape. President Bush had already loaned GM and Chrysler money and that was quickly running out. Many saw the move to save two of the big three automakers as another necessary evil in a world of companies 'too big to fail'.

But stepping in to save the day was one thing (as Carter did with Chrysler in 1979); hoodwinking the public over the payback and profit potential of these companies is another.

First GM tried last year to snooker the taxpayers by trumpeting that it had paid back all its debt to the government early--which was a deception the mainstream media largely ignored (they were probably chasing down a Palin rumor). CEO Ed Whitacre, who presented the partial falsehood on TV and was named the permanent CEO in early 2010, eventually resigned shortly before the company's September IPO.

Today Obama was at an auto plant in Toledo heralding his gutsy auto call that saved the US manufacturing sector and made the following remark:

"Chrysler has repaid every dime and more it owes the American taxpayer," Obama said in his speech. "And, by the way, you paid it six years ahead of schedule."

Yet in the preceding paragraph of this CNN story the reporter stated:

The Treasury will sell its 6% stake, of 98,461 shares, to Fiat for $500 million. While the repayment closes the book on the bailout, taxpayers are still about $1.4 billion short of recouping all the money given to Chrysler in 2009 to keep it afloat during bankruptcy.

So, if we're still out 1.4 billion (or some figure) how are we repaid every penny and more? What about this--was it included in the 7+ billion payback? Or is the president simply rehearsing for the next episode of the Flim-flam Man? Maybe next he'll be throwing in some ginsu knives.

Meanwhile according to this Fiat now owns more than a 50 percent stake in the company. Doesn't that technically make Chrysler a foreign car company? Hopefully they won't start outsourcing.

But OK libs, Chrysler is still there, GM is still there, the union jobs and pensions were saved, and the trickle down disaster was averted. Fiat will start pushing tiny Euro-cars on the public here. There just wasn't much choice at the time--even Bush might have gone all socialist on it. But can we really say "mission accomplished" with such lackluster stock performances and generous union contract concessions that will need to be renegotiated?

And what if? History doesn't allow alternate versions so we'll never know what would have happened had they allowed Chrysler to go through a standard bankruptcy in 2009. Cars might now be rolling off the line under Fiat or another label coming from Chrysler factories purchased and re-tooled from a bankruptcy sale. They might be better. Or many of us might be in soup lines, hard to say.

Of course had the company gone belly up the unions would have been largely cut out of the deals. Under that scenario it's doubtful anyone would have been granted as much access as the big boss, who is now squawking that he didn't get enough, just like those whiny evil rich guys.

Maybe This....

...is what democracy really looks like...

Meanwhile, the Wisconsin state Senate approved a resolution that would hold absentee Democratic lawmakers "in contempt of the Senate" should they not return to the Capitol by late afternoon.

The measure would allow state law enforcement to issue a warrant in an effort to detain them and return the lawmakers to Wisconsin, according to Senate Majority Leader spokesman Andrew Welhouse.

By the way, CNN readers have to dig really deep on their web page to get that story. Wonder if it has something to do with all the ammo found lying around the statehouse?

Connecting Dots

This is the Noodles video (HT Debbie) where Wisconsin protesters advocate a socialist revolution ending capitalism in its present form, including this confused young man..



And this is Bill Ayers, talking about capitalism..



Ayers most likely knew about Obama much earlier than advertised (despite Obama's handlers); likely sponsored his first political candidacy; and perhaps even ghost-wrote the book that got that career started. Rashid Khalidi, the Palestinian 'spokesman' who also lived in Obama's neighborhood along with Ayers, had no trouble admitting in his book that he shared his coffee table with the washed-up terrorist.

And Obama, talking about Wisconsin, recently said there was 'an assault on unions'. The same guy mocked Tea Party protesters and told Joe the Plumber he wanted to spread the wealth around. Since his shellacking last November he's allowed himself to be called the next Reagan.

What more needs to be said?

Using the Quorum Call

The scurrilous Democrats who ran off to an Illinois resort to stop Scott Walker may seem to be opening a new frontier of political game-playing but really, they haven't. Pulling stunts is not unusual for a minority party, something ironically confirmed by Don Rumsfeld's new memoir "Known and Unknown":

So before the debate legislation came up for a vote, one of us would ask for a quorum call and the rest of us would work to ensure there were never enough members present on the House floor for debate or votes to continue.

That was from page 117. He was operating in the Republican minority in the late 60s towards the end of the Johnson administration, using the quorum call to delay a vote.

Rummy goes on to say that Speaker of the House John McCormack threatened to send out the Capitol Police to physically round up members and lock them in the chamber, which was largely a bluff.

Maybe this is why the Wisconsin Repubs promised not to drop the hammer on their absentee colleagues--behind the scenes they know politics is politics. The real action begins this week as all the Dem delay options are exhausted, the crowds thin, and Governor Walker and company get to decide whether they want to try a few stunts of their own (knowing how the national media will spin things).

Meanwhile, here are some more facts to digest about recent Badger political history.

Ends Justify Means in Madison

Is there any better example of the difference between liberals and conservatives--doctors at the protest rally writing notes for striking "sick" state workers in Madison? Nothing exemplifies 'ends justify means' any better...hey--screw the rules when they apply to me!

Long gone are the days when civil servants had a humble spirit of service, knowing their jobs existed at the whim of the elected officials and taxpayers who pay their salaries and pensions.

OK, that's never been the case.

Which is part of the problem. Protesters were actually on the street yelling through bullhorns for higher taxes, in other words, solve the problem by stealing more money from the successful private sector workers (to be fair not all teachers feel this way).

None of this is to say workers don't need protection--they do, and even in the public sector--but the inmates cannot be allowed to run the institution. Having a system where workers can put pressure on elected officials to raise taxes in order to fulfill contracts despite having so much protection it damn near takes killing someone to get fired is not 'what democracy looks like'. It's what failure looks like.

Walker may not have intended to do so but he's jettisoned himself into the history books in only a few short months as Wisconsin has become the epicenter of the great debate between small and big, rich and poor. In many ways it has also become ground zero for Obama's presidency and the future of America. What happens over the next week could affect the strategy of politicians in DC as they prepare for a federal showdown on March the 4th.

To that end, the protesters have exercised their freedom and have redressed their government over a grievance. Here's hoping the true spirit of America takes hold and everyone goes back to their jobs and lets the republic function as it was designed.

Counting on the Unions

It's a given that Obama, Pelosi and Reid are beholden to powerful labor unions for their survival. Such a postulate is easily proven by looking at the Stimulus, health care bill, auto bailout, cash for clunkers, recent state aid bill and the proposed infrastructure stimulus--all had significant perks for unions, including restrictions on some that forbade non-union companies from competing. And of course Joe Biden, who probably wouldn't have been chosen had he not appealed to 'the working man'.

So it's interesting to see this headline in the New York Times today about union influence:

Unions Find Members Slow to Rally Behind Democrats

The column hits mainly on the disappointment union members are feeling after devoting so much time and effort into getting a Democrat super majority. Here's a comment that might sum up the entire mid-term political situation:

For the union brass, turning around voters like Mike DeGasperis, a steelworker from Martins Ferry, Ohio, could prove difficult; two years ago he was motivated by his “anti-Bush” feelings.

“We heard everything was going to change, but there hasn’t been much change and the unemployment is still bad and the area we live in is still really depressed,” said Mr. DeGasperis, who was laid off for 10 months last year.

He said he had not decided whom to back in the House, Senate and governor’s races — all key in Ohio, a pivotal swing state. “I’m going to keep my options open.”

Guess it wasn't "change that mattered" for him. Notice also the motivation--'anti Bush feelings', which is quite strange since Bush wasn't running. He was clearly energized by a combination of the left's successful demonization of Iraq and by the last minute collapse of the housing market in 2008, which was also blamed on exclusively on Bush. He voted to get rid of a marketed culture of evil and failure.

So what does his recent change of heart mean, exactly? It's hard to say for sure, but it could be interpreted to mean there's a better way to create jobs aside from demonizing Republicans, printing money or confiscating it from those who create the jobs. Regardless, it points out how difficult it's going to be for the Dems to run on an economy they completely own--the GOP voted against every one of the socialized programs.

That's not all, though. The story wanders into an area many Democrat and union bosses are loathe to go--loyalty in the booth. Many rank and file union members simply have a hard time pulling the lever for someone like Pelosi. According to the story 37 percent of union members voted for McCain. Many union men and women are patriotic down to earth Americans who don't like the country being run down, or the perception thereof.

So it'll be interesting to see if the Dem party leaders and various union spokesflacks like Richard Trumka can convince people like Mr. DeGasperis to vote against Bush one more time. It's really all they've got. Perhaps the bigger question might be how far they are willing to go to get it done--the stakes are ridiculously high.

MORE 9/19/10

Here's an interesting take on GM's former Delphi unit and the pension debacle that developed as GM began to teeter towards bankruptcy itself. Seems the UAW workers got the gold mine while their white collar salaried employees got the shaft. The WaPo asks if it was politics or crisis management... gee, if it was any other president aside from the one who told the plumber he wanted to "spread the wealth around" that might be a tough question to answer.