KIRO news is reporting that an MD-80 on a flight from SEA-BUR had a hole open up in the fuselage about the size of a sheet of paper. They also said the ground crew has been questioned and they admitted to knocking a piece of equipment into the fuselage and not reporting it.

From the KIRO website:

http://www.kirotv.com/news/5680634/detail.html

3DD

Quoting 3DoorsDown (Thread starter): They also said the ground crew has been questioned and they admitted to knocking a piece of equipment into the fuselage and not reporting it.

D'oooh that's bad news.

Glad to hear everyone is ok!!!!
I think we should get that hole checked out pretty soon!!


Tommy

Hmm sounds silly not to report damage by the ground crew. Good thing everyone is safe.

Sounds like a whiz quiz is in order for those rampers

Just a thought... but when a union who is in dispute with an airline about non-union labor suddenly reports immediately after an accident that it was the non-union guys fault... umm... grain of salt time?

Never good to play with the lives of passengers. Not good at all - shame on them.

This is an awful story. My first thought was, wouldn't the pilots notice such a hole during their pre-departure walk around? At any rate, maybe this happened after that and if that's the case, shame on those who didn't report what happened. They should be charged as criminals.

Quoting MiCorazonAzul (Reply 10): They should be charged as criminals.

i agree --- it was a mistake when it happened, it became criminal when the plane pushed back from the gate and nothing was said

Years ago when I catered for Dobbs at IAH, I had my truck positioned to meet a Braniff ORD-IAH flight that was about to terminate for the night. When the 727-200 blocked-in, Braniff personnel would not let me approach the aircraft, and a bunch of suit-types started gathering around the F/O's wingtip and looking up.

Turns out that another catering truck had hit the wingtip at ORD, damaging the trailing edge white position light, which we could see all mangled up as the aircraft rolled in. They hadn't told anyone until the aircraft was almost at IAH. Neither Braniff nor the FAA were exceptionally happy about this.

We were always taught that if you had the misfortune to hit an aircraft, stop and tell someone about it, and take your lumps right then and there. The alternative of keeping one's yap shut in the hopes that the aircraft would get out of town and be someone else's problem downline was not only stupid, but potentially dangerous. What should have been common sense for someone obviously overtasked their ability to think.

Shortly afterwards, Braniff put out an edict that mandated that all 727-200 aft galleys would henceforth be catered from the CAPTAIN'S side of the aircraft. Approaching, as well as backing away from a 727-200 aft galley was much easier from this side, since the driver always had a better view of the wing's trailing edge--much more so than having that wing on the other side of the truck. Problem was that both Braniff and United had their galleys on the F/O's side, and this new edict meant having to lug all the catering containers across 3 seats and an aisle to get to the galley.

Major pain in the butt....but I digress.

The contract ramp folks should have said something at the time the damage occurred...

Glad everyone is safe!!!
AS doesn't seem to have very good luck with their MD80s... I wonder if they put them on another Mad Dog?  

Should the pilots not have seen this on a walk around. This is why airlines have multiple levels of checks and redundancies.

Now this is serious and real news, not the "Oprah's jet struck a bird" whine! Glad everyone is OK, I would not want to be in the skin of the poor dude responsible for the hole in the plane.

Quoting Dc10s4ever (Reply 4): Sounds like a whiz quiz is in order for those rampers

At the very least!

Quoting MiCorazonAzul (Reply 10): They should be charged as criminals.

Quite agree . . .

Now here's a can of worms opening up: Does anyone think this would have occured had AS used AS rampers - someone with some ownership in the carrier - rather than the flunkies employed there now?   

IMO - when you have ownership in something it's much harder to let it get screwed up than if you're just an outsider looking in.

A couple of replies are asking why the hole wasn't caught during the FO's walk around prior to departure. The Captain or FO MUST preform a walk around inspection of key points on the aircraft prior to departure - basically anytime while the a/c is on the ground. He must've completed it before the incident occurred.

Also, the ground personnell are supposed to do a walk around inspection of the aircraft prior to pushback to ensure all doors, hatches and panels have been securely closed before taxi. I'm sure they would have seen a gaping hole in the fuselage.

Complacency in following procedures and irresponsibility on the part of the ramp crew would be my guess.

FL1TPA

Quote from article in the link above ...

It wasn't immediately clear what caused the 12- by 6-inch hole near the cargo door on the plane's left side, but a union official told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News that a non-union baggage handler operating a conveyor machine knocked the hole in the jet.

...

Near cargo door on the plane's LEFT side?

[Edited 2005-12-28 04:14:53]

Quoting September11 (Reply 18): Cargo door on the plane's left side?

Maybe he was trying to make a hole for a cargo door on that side with the belt loader...  

Quoting FL1TPA (Reply 17): A couple of replies are asking why the hole wasn't caught during the FO's walk around prior to departure. The Captain or FO MUST preform a walk around inspection of key points on the aircraft prior to departure - basically anytime while the a/c is on the ground. He must've completed it before the incident occurred. Also, the ground personnell are supposed to do a walk around inspection of the aircraft prior to pushback to ensure all doors, hatches and panels have been securely closed before taxi. I'm sure they would have seen a gaping hole in the fuselage.

I'm not sure about the policies at AS, but WN has an agreement with the FAA that allows the pre-flight walkaround to be done by the ground personel. The only time the F/O does a walkaround is at the beginning of the day, end of the day, or any flight they take over during a crew change.

This ramper is in some serious $!@# if the reports are true. You cannot expect that just because an aircraft is out of your hands and on its way to another city, that you are clean of any responsibility. It will always trace back to you. The NTSB and the FAA will surely be knocking on this guy's door if they haven't already.

I can't and won't go into detail, but I was involved in a slight mishap during pushback recently. While everything turned out alright and the flight continued on without incident I followed procedure and wrote up a report just in case something did happen and I had someone knocking at my door. It really is scary and things out on that ramp need to be taken very seriously.

Again, IF TRUE, this guy is in some serious trouble along with everyone else that saw this, or was aware of it happening without reporting it.

I thought that AS had outsourced the groundhandling at SEA?

Quoting OOer (Reply 21): I thought that AS had outsourced the groundhandling at SEA?

They sure did...Menzies does it...

Quoting Dc10s4ever (Reply 4): Sounds like a whiz quiz is in order for those rampers

You know, I've never worked on a ramp (or in any capacity for an airline -- but I have the utmost respect for those who do), but I would imagine that the "whiz quiz" would be administered if the person(s) responsible pointed out the accident prior to departure... I would imagine that by failing to mention the 'small' hole and letting the plane push as if nothing had happened could be considered 'gross misconduct' and immediate termination... Loss of pressurization is, I imagine, a quite significant incident as far as those things go, and the results could have been deadly.

Quoting September11 (Reply 18): Near cargo door on the plane's LEFT side?

Depends on which end you're looking at it from  

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 19): Maybe he was trying to make a hole for a cargo door on that side with the belt loader...

"Gosh darn it, they forgot the left cargo door on this one... We can fix that [bang] [bang] [bang], darn, still not quite big enough, but this will work."

"Uh, how do we close it?"

"Don't worry about that"

Lincoln

Quoting Rage323machine (Reply 5): About 20 minutes into the flight at 26,000 feet, a loss of cabin pressurization caused the oxygen masks to deploy. The crew immediately put on their oxygen masks and instructed the 140 passengers to do the same.

A LOSS of pressurization? I don't see how the hell it could ever get pressurized with a hole that size in it to begin with. Looks to me that they should have known there was a problem by the time they were up to about 8,000 - 12,000 ft!

Oh well, nothing a couple of good strips of Duct Tape wouldn't fix!   

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 24): A LOSS of pressurization? I don't see how the hell it could ever get pressurized with a hole that size in it to begin with. Looks to me that they should have known there was a problem by the time they were up to about 8,000 - 12,000 ft!

From the way the incident reads, I'm thinking that when the aircraft was struck with the ground machinery that the hull integrity was compromised. As the aircraft was approaching cruise speed and altitude that portion of the fuselage gave way under stress leading to the depressurization. Surely the aircraft could not have pressurized with that size of a hole in it to begin with.

Just my $0.02

Bryan

There is also more than one layer of 'skin' between the passengers and the outer fuselage. That had to be one hell of a ding.

BTW, stuff like this happens much more often than you would think. Union airline employees do it too. Labor tensions are the only reason you heard about this one. People make mistakes, and given the shear number of flights and equipment running around means that stuff like this happens much more often than you'd think.

[quote=DeltaMD11,reply=25]Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 24):
A LOSS of pressurization? I don't see how the hell it could ever get pressurized with a hole that size in it to begin with. Looks to me that they should have known there was a problem by the time they were up to about 8,000 - 12,000 ft!

From the way the incident reads, I'm thinking that when the aircraft was struck with the ground machinery that the hull integrity was compromised. As the aircraft was approaching cruise speed and altitude that portion of the fuselage gave way under stress leading to the depressurization. Surely the aircraft could not have pressurized with that size of a hole in it to begin with.[/quote

I'm thinking this also.

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 26): There is also more than one layer of 'skin' between the passengers and the outer fuselage. That had to be one hell of a ding.

Not sure what other skin you are referring to unless you are talking the insulation blankets and the sidewall panels. Neither of these would keep the plane from depressurizing. My guess is the ding was small-ish and as the plane pressurized it stressed the ding and she blew. That might be what the pop was that was reported.

3DD

Doesn't AS management have any suspicion that these incidents with AS aircraft is fall out from getting rid of AS rampers to outsourcing them? It's pretty obvious something is wrong when the number of incidents in 2003 and 2004 were 17 and 11, respectively...then, you have over 70 ramp incidents in 2005. I think the problem lies not just in training and learning curve.

Alaska management...wake up and smell the coffee. You guys need to look deeper in these ramp problems past just safety and operations training! You guys don't need another airplane in the drink.

Quoting September11 (Reply 18): It wasn't immediately clear what caused the 12- by 6-inch hole near the cargo door on the plane's left side, but a union official told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News that a non-union baggage handler operating a conveyor machine knocked the hole in the jet.

That's kinda odd... Why would they make the point that a UNION official made a statement that a NON-UNION baggage handler caused this? Which union is this? The IAM that got kicked off the ramp and is suing the company? maybe the sheet metal union?

Accidents happen and the fact that this wasn't reported should cost the causing agent their job and make Menzies financialy responsible for the damage and resulting cancellation. I just don't know how this union cancer always manages to get into the picture, as if no damage or accident were ever caused by a represented employee. Bullsh**.

Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 5): Does this happen with the outsourced help at NWA, UAL, Jet Blue, and all the other US airlines that outsource?

More often than you'd think. Less quality workers = more accidents. Simple.

DeltaGuy

Quoting LegendDC9 (Reply 30): as if no damage or accident were ever caused by a represented employee. Bullsh**.

A union employee would report it because they would have the security of knowing that there would be a fair investigation and due discipline proceedures would be followed.

Quoting AASuper80 (Reply 12): wonder if they put them on another Mad Dog?

The passengers went to BUR on a 737-400.
That was the only available aircraft and crew to substitute.

has happened before when Worldwide did Alaska's ramp, not a s bad, but they hit a B737-400 with a Belt Loader and put a dent in it, it wasn't reported and found in LAX, apparently most of the crew got fired as they all knew and covered it up.

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 23): A LOSS of pressurization? I don't see how the hell it could ever get pressurized with a hole that size in it to begin with. Looks to me that they should have known there was a problem by the time they were up to about 8,000 - 12,000 ft!

I'm no structural mechanic. My read on it is a stress blow-out prior to 26,000 feet, at which point the flight turned around and headed back to SEATAC. I understand the flight was twenty minutes out.

The press report reads it took an hour and a few minutes from take off to get the flight back at SEA. Twenty out, at least twenty back, and I guess the remainder for ATC to clear the airspace.

On another board I read the SEATAC police are treating this as a criminal hit and run.

Aircraft skins aren't all that thick. Plastic deformation (dents) weakens the material significantly locally. Therefore, that portion of skin could not handle the same pressure loads as the rest...hence, the blowout.

Did AS replace that section of skin? The dimensions of the blowout seems to be too large to simply patch it.

Many years ago (1976), when I was throwing bags for Air California at SNA, we were told by management that if we bumped an airplane with a piece of equipment, and it left noticible damage, that was grounds for dismissal. Whether that would have really happened or not, I'd bet good money that those idiots today are in the un-employment line tomorrow.
Jerry

While I worked for DAL at OAK for two summers, I was told the same thing. Replacing structure on an aircraft is NOT a cheap repair and structural damage carries a lot of liability.

Indeed it happened at 26,000 feet. The oxygen masks came down and on local LA tv a pax showed pics he took on his phone of everyone wearing them and the flight attendants in the aisles helping people.

Turns out there was no physical hole persay but some kind of cosmetic damage that led to this.

NBC4 in LA further reports that last year AS outsourced to some firm called Mezlie? (Sp?) Before outsourcing when AS had it in house AS had on average 15 minor mishaps between ground crews and a/c a year. In the first full year of outsourcing in 2005 the # of incidents is up over 72.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 19): I'm not sure about the policies at AS, but WN has an agreement with the FAA that allows the pre-flight walkaround to be done by the ground personel. The only time the F/O does a walkaround is at the beginning of the day, end of the day, or any flight they take over during a crew change.

YGBSM!!! I can't believe some of the things SWA gets away with. I would never want to fly a plane that a qualified person hadn't done a pre-flight check on, and no, a ramper is not a qualified person. This is total BS, but with Southwest and the FAA, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This is definitely NOT the policy at UA. A PILOT does the walkaround each and every leg.

Quoting Dc10s4ever (Reply 4): Sounds like a whiz quiz is in order for those rampers

I don't even think those rampers deserve to take a whiz quiz. I'd understand giving them one if they admitted it before the plane left the ground (and delayed the flight), but well after the flight is gone? They should be walked right out the door with a size 11 work boot shoved in their @$$ sideways for that stunt.

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 32): A union employee would report it because they would have the security of knowing that there would be a fair investigation and due discipline proceedures would be followed.

You mean the comfort that the union would fight even for the most incompetent of employees to keep their jobs after causing major damage? A poor employee is a poor employee regardless of representation. The fact is that someone hit the aircraft, did not notify anyone and allowed the flight to leave. I am not arguing for/against your own employees, my original post had to do with why the fact that a KIRO mentioned that a union spokesperson made the comment that a non-union handler caused this, which to me just sounds a bit strange.

Ding ding ding!, We have a winner, at FX, it's the company policy, to terminate any employee that does not report an a/c strike immediately. There are cameras all over those ramps, why the hell would some genius try and get away with it?!?!?

Glad all passengers and crew were allright, but this was laughable to read about!

 

[Edited 2005-12-28 09:02:20]

My friend was one of the flight attendants on this flight. She said it was crazy.

Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 5): Does this happen with the outsourced help at NWA, UAL, Jet Blue, and all the other US airlines that outsource?

What the hell is that? Who said it was outsourced? And if so - does that mean that all outsourced help bangs into airplanes without reporting it?

You sound like a bitter AMFA loser. Get off the picket line, and go apply for work at your local McDonalds or Burger King. Perhaps you can rally up some anti-outsourcing talk over there.

RE: f/o walkarounds-

The first officer's walkaround won't catch damage from loading equipment because its done prior to loading.

There are some news reports with pictures from the MD-80 in flight with the masks deployed and some videos of one passenger. Take a look at:

www.king5.com
www.kirotv.com
www.komotv.com

I think King5 requires you to register.

Another thought... A person from Menzies had mentioned that even though the belt loader hit the airplane, they didn't think that the "damage" was significant in a "driving rain." What gives Menzies people the authority to make that judgement call??? Yes...they should have contacted someone!

Do you think that all these incidents (which each incident costs lots of money, I'm sure) is worth the outsourcing. 70 incidents in 9 months, versus 11 in 2003 and 17 2004 doesn't sound too cost effective to me.

How much do you think that guy got for selling the picture of himself with the O2 mask?

Here is a more complete story

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technol...tle/index.html?source=r_technology

Quoting Tozairport (Reply 40): YGBSM!!! I can't believe some of the things SWA gets away with. I would never want to fly a plane that a qualified person hadn't done a pre-flight check on, and no, a ramper is not a qualified person

but you have engineers on the ramp who are qualified!
i reckon you'll find that an engineer is much likely to spot anything out of the ordinary than a pilot!

Quoting 3DoorsDown (Thread starter): They also said the ground crew has been questioned and they admitted to knocking a piece of equipment into the fuselage and not reporting it.

Quoting AmericanAirFan (Reply 3): Hmm sounds silly not to report damage by the ground crew. Good thing everyone is safe.

Not silly - criminal. They should be charged for gross negligence andof course, fired. If the union decides to defend them, then the airline should sue the union for damages, including the costs involved in having the plane depart and return, finding a replacement aircraft, and any costs involved with transfering passengers to other flights or overnight stays that it had to pay for.

Make it a warning for everyone: You do NOT want to cover up your mistakes. Admit a mistake, and you might get a slap on the wrist. Cover it up, and your life will be ruined.

Quoting Tozairport (Reply 40): YGBSM!!! I can't believe some of the things SWA gets away with. I would never want to fly a plane that a qualified person hadn't done a pre-flight check on, and no, a ramper is not a qualified person. This is total BS, but with Southwest and the FAA, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This is definitely NOT the policy at UA. A PILOT does the walkaround each and every leg.

Good for UA....

What doesn't make us rampers qualified? We are trained in this you know...and we do find things and point them out to the crew.

For example, the other say I spotted some ice forming under the wing. This was during a turn in which a crew change occurred. This means the F/O did a walk-around and missed the ice. I could have let it go and assumed the F/O saw it and just let it go. But I did not. I pointed it out and we ended up de-icing the aircraft. So don't tell me we aren't qualified. As far as I'm concerned, we have a good relationship with our pilots and it's things like this that gives them reason to trust us out there.

Quoting Tozairport (Reply 40): This is definitely NOT the policy at UA. A PILOT does the walkaround each and every leg.

Maybe the pilot should do the C/D checks also?

Making the pilot do it is not out of safety but tradition.

Quoting Tozairport (Reply 40): YGBSM!!! I can't believe some of the things SWA gets away with. I would never want to fly a plane that a qualified person hadn't done a pre-flight check on, and no, a ramper is not a qualified person. This is total BS, but with Southwest and the FAA, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This is definitely NOT the policy at UA. A PILOT does the walkaround each and every leg.

I find it funny that you think it is unsafe. You really think and airline so focused on safety would just tell a ramp agent to "look around for anything strange, good luck". I don't think so. There is training involved and they take it very seriously. I have had rampers find hydraulic leaks, oil leaks (I'm talking about 1 drop every 10 seconds) bald spots on tires. Many things that an untrained eye would not notice. In fact one of the leaks was pooling up in the bottom of the engine and dripping just a little but the ramp agent new it was unusual so he reported it. After maintenance was called it turned out that it was from the CSD, which would have seized if gone unreported.

Justin

ABC showed the video on "Good Morning America" this morning and also interviewed the couple. Amazing.

This involved AS flight 536, SEA-BUR, on Monday, Dec. 26th. Take off was about 3:50 pm, the emergency occurred at 26,000 ft. about 4:10 pm. There was an emergency decompression. There was a tear of about 1 foot long by 6 inches wide in the fuselage (30 cm x 15 cm).
Blame is currently being placed on the contracted ground company people, whom has a much higher rate of damage incidents than when this was under AS employees for the same time periods. One has to wonder if AS is being penny wise and pound foolish with the safety of it's pax and its business by outsourcing critical operations.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 51): If the union decides to defend them, then the airline should...

These were NON-UNION employees. The union employees were fired on May 13, 2005 at 3:00 AM.

The bump created a crease in the plane's aluminum skin, which opened up into a 12- by 6-inch gash as the plane came under increased pressure at 26,000 feet, Struhsaker said.


I think this answers the question as to why the hole wasn't spotted on the ramp!

There are some bloody stupid people on this planet, and in some places they can have other people lifes in their hands...

It was likely more of a gouge than a crease. Dents don’t generally lead to much loss of strength unless the skin is badly yielded. Creases result in a decrease in fatigue properties, but are unlikely to result in a big problem during one pressurization cycle. They are to be avoided none the less. A gouge results in material removal and a loss of static strength. In general, an MD-80 has 0.063” Clad 2024-T3 skins. To an untrained eye an 0.050” deep gouge, especially if it is in a dent, wouldn’t look like much, but would result in a pretty significant strength loss. Some removal of thickness, usually 10%-15% is allowed per the SRM.

Best wishes,
F86sabre

[Edited 2005-12-28 16:18:21]

[Edited 2005-12-28 16:19:31]

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 25): There is also more than one layer of 'skin' between the passengers and the outer fuselage.

There is?

I believe there was a thread about 2 months back about Menzies not reporting accidents at SEA.
I don't have time right now to do a search maybe someone can pull it up and link it.

Okie

Well, once the aircraft is repaired and the lawsuits from all the passengers are settled it should be interesting to see how much AS has "saved" by outsourcing it's workers.

Their experience with outsourcing is about par with what my company has experienced.

Quoting Lincoln (Reply 20): I would imagine that by failing to mention the 'small' hole and letting the plane push as if nothing had happened could be considered 'gross misconduct' and immediate termination.

...and with the rates that Menzies pays it won't be a big step backwards to a job that requires that you ask "do you want fries with that?"

Tod

Quoting Starrion (Reply 61): Well, once the aircraft is repaired and the lawsuits from all the passengers are settled it should be interesting to see how much AS has "saved" by outsourcing it's workers.

These costs are the same regardless of in house or outsourcing. Believe it or not, some union/in house guys make mistakes and are dishonest, too. Alaska has insurance for these type of law suits and repairs will be made.

Whether in house union or outsourced, not reporting aircraft damage is unacceptable. People should be fired/prosecuted.

Everyone stating that Union workers working safer than no-Unionized should
get a reality check!!!

This incident should not have happened but it did and I hope the crew in charge will be prosecuted..........

I know working on the ramp is always considered cheap work, however properly trained ramp employees are professionals and remember no ac would not be able to leave the gate without these guys.

Cheers,

"but a union official told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News that a non-union baggage handler operating a conveyor machine knocked the hole in the jet."

Shall we compile a list of all union incidents?

The Seattle Times quotes a passenger as saying:

Quote: "An "acrid" odor of burning plastic overwhelmed the cabin."

Would this be the oxygen generators heating up as they produced oxygen for the passengers?

MaverickM11,
You are right, the list would be endless

Cheers,

Quoting N234NW (Reply 66): Would this be the oxygen generators heating up as they produced oxygen for the passengers?

Sounds like a good guess to me...  

Quoting LegendDC9 (Reply 40): The fact is that someone hit the aircraft, did not notify anyone and allowed the flight to leave

Yes which is criminal. That someone was a contracted non-union worker too worried about saving his own ignorant hide to report this incident.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 65): Shall we compile a list of all union incidents?

There are union incidents aplenty. Human beings make mistakes and accidents will happen no matter how careful you are. However the statistics show non-union contract workers have more of them (see above posts). The important difference is you are more likely to report these incidents in a timely manner if you know that the appropriate disciplinary channels will be followed and you won't be fired summarily. The problem isn't that there was a collision on the ramp but that the ramper didn't report it and put a planeload of passengers in danger.

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 23): BTW, stuff like this happens much more often than you would think. Union airline employees do it too. Labor tensions are the only reason you heard about this one. People make mistakes, and given the shear number of flights and equipment running around means that stuff like this happens much more often than you'd think.

Take a look at the numbers and see who does this more often

Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 43): Perhaps you can rally up some anti-outsourcing talk over there.

There is no need to "rally up" anti-outsourcing talk. All you have to do is look at the numbers

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 65): Shall we compile a list of all union incidents?

And how about we compile it as a ratio to days served using advanced jet aircraft.

Where is EA CO AS to set these people straight?

Quoting Matt72033 (Reply 48): but you have engineers on the ramp who are qualified! i reckon you'll find that an engineer is much likely to spot anything out of the ordinary than a pilot!

By engineers I assume you mean mechanics. They are not at all stations, but at maintenance stations they too do a walk-around. The mechanics are highly trained and I would have no problem with them doing the preflight inspection, but this is not the case at SWA. I just can't understand lowering the safety level in the interest of cost or expediency.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 50): Maybe the pilot should do the C/D checks also?

I bet WN would have the rampers do that too, if they could.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 50): We are trained in this you know...and we do find things and point them out to the crew.

Quoting SWAOPSusafATC (Reply 52): I find it funny that you think it is unsafe.

OK, tell me this. What did your training consist of. Was it a video, a systems class, a walk-thru with a trainer? How long was it. I am not being sarcastic, I am really curious. Thanks for replying.

Quoting AJRfromSYR (Reply 46): How much do you think that guy got for selling the picture of himself with the O2 mask?

Hopefully enough to learn that they are called Flight Attendats not Stewardesses. Sorry a little pet peeve.

My firend was telling me the same thing that he said about it being hard to breath and being notifyed by passengers of this she said no sooner did she turn around to call the flightdeck that she felt this rush of cold air and knew what it was.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...&SECTION=NATIONAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

http://jeremyhermanns.org/me/alaska-...ssurization-and-panic-at-30k-feet/

this guy happened to be on the flight...pictures included.

Quoting Okie (Reply 60): I believe there was a thread about 2 months back about Menzies not reporting accidents at SEA. I don't have time right now to do a search maybe someone can pull it up and link it.

Short thread here: Menzies, Ugh! (by Cessna172RG Aug 21 2005 in Civil Aviation)#ID2284348

Another shortie with some Menzies mention:
RE: Alaska Airlines The Worst (by 717-200 Aug 5 2005 in Civil Aviation)#ID2257287

One last quickie:
Rumor - AS May Call Back SEA Rampers? (by EA CO AS Jun 8 2005 in Civil Aviation)#ID2159003

There may be some more relevant and lengthy threads out there concerning Menzies. My search was just a quick one on their name alone. I didn't search regarding the specific topic about non-reporting of accidents, but there were a lot of threads about them it seems.

[Edited 2005-12-28 22:43:28]

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 65): Shall we compile a list of all union incidents?

Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 45): 70 incidents in 9 months, versus 11 in 2003 and 17 2004 doesn't sound too cost effective to me.

There you go.....there is the count.... There is no way to defend AS's getting rid of the union rampers..... someone is going to get hurt/killed before these airlines are forced to have their own employees... outsourcing does not work.... the P/R from this event is going to cost AS even more than just the cost of this repair...

Quoting Tozairport (Reply 71): By engineers I assume you mean mechanics

you may call them mechanics out there, over here there engineers!
who signs off your aircraft to fly, someone must sign the CRS?
that person would be more than qualified to do a walkaround!

over here we do a walkaround as soon as the aircraft taxies to the gate
flight crew will do a very basic walkaround, they may tell us that they dont like the look of a particular tyre, we tell them the aircrafts on layover tomorrow, we're changing it then!

right before push we do another walkaround, checking all doors and hatches are removed! gear pins removed etc etc.

theres no reason why the groundstaff cannot do the walk around of the flight crew!

Quoting FlyMeToTheMoon (Reply 12): I would not want to be in the skin of the poor dude responsible for the hole in the plane.

He can always get a job at McDonald's. They probably pay better anyway... You get free burgers. My friends who work for AS can't afford to buy food anymore.

[Edited 2005-12-28 23:05:34]

Quoting Matt72033 (Reply 78): right before push we do another walkaround, checking all doors and hatches are removed!

Ahhhhh..., wouldn't that create a slight problem?

are there any pictures of the actual hole on the md-83 once it got back to sea? my friend that works at bur said this caused quite a scare in the terminal, because as posted the dreaded "see agent" on its arrival screen in bur, and arriving friends/family were frantic when they read that

Quoting FlyMeToTheMoon (Reply 12): Glad everyone is OK, I would not want to be in the skin of the poor dude responsible for the hole in the plane.

My experience has been if you come clean right away you will probably get to keep your job. Unless of course you were doing something that was blatantly negligent. Now you will still get to take the old "wizz" quiz along with some days off. However if a company is smart that will not fire you. If they do they send the message that even if you do come clean your job is in jeopardy. What will result from this is people either trying to cover it up or lying about it.

IMO, cheaper doesn't necessarily mean better. The concept was a good one, if Menzies was able to provide a lower cost product. But aren't the Menzies employees mostly new employees?

Also, are you sure there isn't any sabotage going on here also?

The report on channel 5 in SEA was comical. First they showed footage of an MD80 taking off, then a 737 taxiing, neither time mentioning what type of aircraft was involved in the actual incident. Then they had an animation with a map detailing where the plane left from and where it turned around. The plane in the animation had 4 engines!! Didn't know AS had any of their 707's still in the fleet. Typical of the mainsteam media when it comes to covering aviation stories.
They did have a chart showing the # of incidents reported when AS handled ramp ops in house versus when outsourced to Menzies. Certainly gave AS a black eye in the PR dept. Whether the actual # of incidents is more or just the number of REPORTED incidents is higher is pretty immaterial now. The story's out there in public now and the PR damage is done.

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 80): Ahhhhh..., wouldn't that create a slight problem?

oops! my bad! that should read closed! lol

wats this whiz quiz everyones on about?

[Edited 2005-12-29 01:12:07]

Quoting Matt72033 (Reply 85): wats this whiz quiz everyones on about?

Post-accident drug/alcohol testing....

Glad to hear everyone is OK!
Somewhat reminiscent of the 1960's movie "Airport" where a man blows a hole in the side of a 707 but everything turns out alright
cheers,
worldjet777

The news media indeed did reveal that the airplane involved was a MD-80. The fact that news media showed other airplanes Alaska flies other than the MD-80 is irrelevant. They weren't addressing the fact that it was an MD-80 but Alaska Airlines itself. Also, the graphic showing a 4-engined airplane is irrelevant as well. You're just getting to particular. Are you saying that Flight Tracker shows 2-engine, wing-mounted airplanes, are all 2-engine, wing-mounted airplanes...and that they misrepresent the aircraft type? Flight Tracker just shows the location of an airplane in the sky...the graphic does not represent the type of airplane.

It sounds like you need to look at the report as the big picture. Otherwise, you've missed the boat.

You know, I had forgotten about AS letting all of their grounds crew go and contracting it out.

I guess this is what happens when you award to the lowest bidder!

This apparently isn't an isolated incident either....

"The report by the airline came after an investigation by KING/5, which said it found Alaska Airlines had 17 ramp incidents in 2003, 15 in 2004 and 72 in the first nine months of this year."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...s/253673_alaska28.html?source=mypi

I don't know, but that sounds pretty excessive. I'm sure the AS pilots can't be very happy right now.

GreatChecko

Quoting Tozairport (Reply 72): OK, tell me this. What did your training consist of. Was it a video, a systems class, a walk-thru with a trainer? How long was it. I am not being sarcastic, I am really curious. Thanks for replying.

I am operations so I didn't go through it. I did see a ramp class being shown the walk around and what to look for with there trainer. I do know that its obvious it wouldn't be allowed if it were unsafe or untrained.

Operations agents and supervisors are trained to "ride the brakes" which includes cold and dark to APU start up and hydraulics online, knowing how to use the COM panel, talk to ATC, and APU fire procedures. Then shut down to cold and dark again. Once again training in DAL in the sim with a sim instructor or a on site training course. Is this unbelievable to?

Justin

Quoting Tozairport (Reply 72): Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 50): Maybe the pilot should do the C/D checks also? I bet WN would have the rampers do that too, if they could.

Yay, I'm starting to think you may just be a SWA hater. You can't be serious?

[Edited 2005-12-29 02:44:17]

Quoting Tozairport (Reply 72): OK, tell me this. What did your training consist of. Was it a video, a systems class, a walk-thru with a trainer? How long was it. I am not being sarcastic, I am really curious. Thanks for replying.

Not being sarcastic? With all due respect, you slammed them with this:

Quoting Tozairport (Reply 72): I bet WN would have the rampers do that too, if they could.

in the same post. Why the venom? You make it sound like there is only one way of doing something, when maybe a different approach works just as well.

Unfortunate incident on AS, any way you cut it. The management team who made the decision to switch must be going nuts right now. The only thing worse than making a decision such as the one they made is having it blow up in your face.

-Dave

Quoting Tozairport (Reply 72): Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 50): Maybe the pilot should do the C/D checks also? I bet WN would have the rampers do that too, if they could.

First of all, I was not the one that said that.

Quoting Tozairport (Reply 72): OK, tell me this. What did your training consist of. Was it a video, a systems class, a walk-thru with a trainer? How long was it. I am not being sarcastic, I am really curious. Thanks for replying.

Yes we were shown a video in our classroom training at our local station. We were also given a packet with pictures and descriptions of the various parts of the 737. We were tested on this information twice...once at the local station and again in DAL. At both the local training, and training in DAL we were taken out to a real aircraft and did an in-depth review and full walk-around. My trainer at my local station had me do walk-arounds with him repeatedly throughout my training. It is much like the pre-flight walk-around I do as a student pilot on a Cessna 172. You are taught specific things to look for, and you are trained to be able to recognize when something is not right and we are told to ALWAYS point it out to the Captain. I have even heard of Supervisors setting booby-traps (purposely open panels etc...) to ensure we catch it by doing our job. WN even offers a 737 familiarization course in DAL for those who would like to become even more familiar with the aircraft they work around every day.

We are repeatedly told that if an aircraft is damaged and goes unnoticed and the aircraft departs, we are responsible. Even if someone did not cause the damage, if it was their turn to do the walk-around and either missed it, or neglected to do the walk-around altogether they are in big trouble. It seems to be very effective. If it was not effective, or was found to be unsafe, DUH!, we wouldn't be allowed to do it! You must have missed the part where I said WN has an agreement with the FAA that allows us to do this. If the company could not demonstrate that having ground crews complete the walk-around was safe and effective, the FAA simply wouldn't allow it.


As I said, we do find things out there. When you look at a 737 as often as we do out there, it's not hard to spot the slightest abnormality. 99.999% of the time when we point something out to the Captain, the Captain already knows about it, or assures us it's normal, O.K., etc after taking a look. But he is always very appreciative of the fact that we did our job and mentioned it to him in the first place. Again, there is an element of trust.


It's probably a lot easier for WN to allow this because we work around one aircraft type. It would be a lot more complicated for an airline like UA that has many different types of aircraft.

Quoting SWAOPSusafATC (Reply 90): Operations agents and supervisors are trained to "ride the brakes" which includes cold and dark to APU start up and hydraulics online, knowing how to use the COM panel, talk to ATC, and APU fire procedures. Then shut down to cold and dark again. Once again training in DAL in the sim with a sim instructor or a on site training course. Is this unbelievable to?

Nope. I did the same thing when I was a ramper at UA. Totally different thing, though, to start up an APU and ride brakes to a gate versus preflight the exterior of an airplane for a revenue flight, IMHO.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 91): Not being sarcastic? With all due respect, you slammed them with this: Quoting Tozairport (Reply 72): I bet WN would have the rampers do that too, if they could.

Somehow that got misquoted. My apologies to Silver1SWA. The reply should have been a sarcastic one to AJRfromSYR, who made the innane remark.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 92): Yes we were shown a video in our classroom training at our local station. We were also given a packet with pictures and descriptions of the various parts of the 737. We were tested on this information twice...once at the local station and again in DAL.

Thank you for the response. I know we'll disagree about this, but the training is totally inadequate, IMHO. I am all for cutting cost and improving efficiency, something that UA still needs to learn more about. However, I think that WN doing this comprimises safety. When I do a pre-filght, I use all of my 15 years of experience and 10,000+ hours to do it. You can't tell me that that is the same as someone who has seen a slideshow and looked at some pictures. As for the FAA saying yes to it, they will say yes to almost anything with political pressure and prompting from the ATA. They don't really become concerned about something until someone dies or metal is bent. That's just the way it is.

It seems everyone is blaming this on the fact that the worker was non-union. I do not believe it has even a small inkling to do with union/non-union employees. BUT what I IMO believe is that it has to do with out-sourcing. If AS hired directly non-union ramp agents, I would venture to say the number of ground incidents would be significantly less. As someone posted earlier, when you work for something, you tend to take pride in it. Where as these out-sourced workers don't work for AS. So they don't really care about AS.

This is a perfect example of how out-sourcing is just not a good idea. You (you general, not YOU specific) loose that connection between employees and the product. In this case the aircraft in question.

Now imagine out-sourced F/As? It'd be like flying AA. (ok, sorry, easy stab at AA, I'm sure there are many 'nice' F/As at AA, but I have yet to experience one of them). What about out-sourcing pilots? Hum, now thats a disaster waiting to happen.

I'm glad everyone made it down safe and sound. And I have the utmost confidence that the proper authorities will take care of who did this. Hopefully AS and the rest of the airline industry world-wide will take a closer look at this, and realize in house help, union or non, is the best bet for everyone.

-Tony@PVD

Quoting Gift4tbone (Reply 94): As someone posted earlier, when you work for something, you tend to take pride in it. Where as these out-sourced workers don't work for AS. So they don't really care about AS. This is a perfect example of how out-sourcing is just not a good idea.

            

I think the Menzies experiment at AS has proven to be a dismal failure so far.

My $0.02 worth...

Quoting Gift4tbone (Reply 94): As someone posted earlier, when you work for something, you tend to take pride in it.

T'was I . . . .

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 95): I think the Menzies experiment at AS has proven to be a dismal failure so far.

Question is, how much longer will AS toss good $$$ after bad? And if they decide to can this experiment as a failure and re-hire AS employees how many of said employees will return, and of that number, how many will not resent the companies earlier actions and therefore be more prone to a negative attitude on the job?

Either way I think AS loses.

They should have kept the AS employees in the first place - but hindsight is 20/20

If the report is true.Then the Erring Employee should have reported it.
Surprisingly it was not detected by the crew during their Walkaround too, & Mx staff were not aware.
regds
MEL

Quoting Tozairport (Reply 93): When I do a pre-filght, I use all of my 15 years of experience and 10,000+ hours to do it.

Did you start doing walkarounds at this experience level? The reason I ask is that you imply that your experience level is a defining factor in you being qualified. I'm guessing you started doing these a long time ago, when you had much less experience.

I don't know the right answer to who should be qualified, and I'm certainly not qualified to make that judgment, but I have a lot of faith in WN's management team, and just because they do things different doesn't make it bad.

Just my opinion.

-Dave

Quoting Tozairport (Reply 93): Thank you for the response. I know we'll disagree about this, but the training is totally inadequate, IMHO. I am all for cutting cost and improving efficiency, something that UA still needs to learn more about. However, I think that WN doing this comprimises safety. When I do a pre-filght, I use all of my 15 years of experience and 10,000+ hours to do it. You can't tell me that that is the same as someone who has seen a slideshow and looked at some pictures. As for the FAA saying yes to it, they will say yes to almost anything with political pressure and prompting from the ATA. They don't really become concerned about something until someone dies or metal is bent. That's just the way it is.

Yes, we will agree to disagree I suppose. But I am curious about a couple things. First of all, how does choosing who can do a pre-flight walk-around have anything to do with cutting cost? Sure it's more efficient as it is one less thing the F/O has to worry about during a turn, but I can't see turn-times or costs being affected at WN if the policy was for the F/O to do it instead of the rampers.

Second question is, and I'm seriously curious, but what about a walk-around requires 15 years of experience and 10,000+ hours flying the aircraft? You learn the critical parts of the aircraft's exterior and how to spot abnormalities. I don't understand how it needs to be a whole lot more complicated. I'm not sure about UA, but even when a pilot is doing the walk-around at WN they are not combing over the aircraft with a microscope.

Quoting Tozairport (Reply 93): They don't really become concerned about something until someone dies or metal is bent. That's just the way it is.

And we haven't given them reason to be concerned have we?

Ok, I may have skipped ahead of some of the responses here, but I have a few things to mention...

First of all, because I work at SEA, I get to see Menzies in action. Menzies in Seattle is a totally unprofessional lot of slobs who sit around boom boxes or behind the D concourse and smoke all day long. They are uneducated, unprofessional able bodies hired on to replace the Alaska rampers almost 9 months ago as a cost saving measure. They do not perform sufficient background checks as other carriers do, and they have a special insurance policy when it comes to hitting airplanes.

I have seen Menzies agents...

-Leave the potable water hooked up to a jet for over an hour, resulting in the overflowing water to form a small lake on the ramp.

-Sit around a boom box at the C concourse and dance while a plane is waiting for a marshaller.

-Drive on the wrong side of the road.

-Hit a Horizon Dash 8-400 (N417QX) while using chewing tobacco.

Not only do they drive on the wrong side of the road, but I find that they frequently find themselves driving aimlessly on other parts of the ramp and seem to be playing "Chicken" until the last minute. I have to pretend that I am in England so I can prevent myself from crashing into them.

Alaska getting Menzies in Seattle...a big mistake. So you save money on labor. But your lost luggage ratings do down in the dumps and now you have this happen... If I were the CEO... I'd hire back the AS people in a heartbeat. They had the lost bags rating at the lowest level in the industry, right up there with Hawaiian. Now they are worse than United!!!

Don't know what Menzies is? Ok here's a brief picture...

Imagine an airport concourse that has big white planes with an eskimo on the tail. Imagine a bunch of Klingons dressed in dark blue fatigues. But not just normal Klingons. Imagine them after drinking a gallon of wine. And then driving those small tugs while using chewing tobacco.

Menzies. Drunk Klingons using Chewing Tobacco. Beware, MD-80's!!!

Quoting Tozairport (Reply 93): I use all of my 15 years of experience and 10,000+ hours to do it. You can't tell me that that is the same as someone who has seen a slideshow and looked at some pictures.

you have to start somewhere!

Quoting Cessna172RG (Reply 100): have seen Menzies agents

If they are 10% of what you described.Its high time they were shown the Door.Cost saving or Not.
regds
MEL

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 97): If the report is true.Then the Erring Employee should have reported it. Surprisingly it was not detected by the crew during their Walkaround too, & Mx staff were not aware

As stated before the walkaround is done first thing so the damage occured AFTER the walk around so it is not very surprising that the crew did not detect damage that had not yet occured.

Quoting Cessna172RG (Reply 100): Imagine an airport concourse that has big white planes with an eskimo on the tail. Imagine a bunch of Klingons dressed in dark blue fatigues. But not just normal Klingons. Imagine them after drinking a gallon of wine. And then driving those small tugs while using chewing tobacco. Menzies. Drunk Klingons using Chewing Tobacco. Beware, MD-80's!!!

                    

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 103): As stated before the walkaround is done first thing so the damage occured AFTER the walk around so it is not very surprising that the crew did not detect damage that had not yet occured

but engineers do a walkaround right before pushback!

Quoting Matt72033 (Reply 105): but engineers do a walkaround right before pushback!

Irrespective of whomever did, or could do a walk-around, it's not all that hard to imagine that a crease on a light-colored fuselage with rain failling might tend to be missed, by anyone. The media keeps reporting it as a "hole" when that was only the post-decompression appearance, and not what it looked like on the ground, before pushback.

The key failure here, I think, was the employee's failure to notify anyone that he had made with the aircraft.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 96): They should have kept the AS employees in the first place - but hindsight is 20/20

Amen. BUT, and this is a big BUT, do the former AS employees want to come back to work? If it is was me, I wouldn't. Maybe they can hire brand new employees, of course non of these would have much experience, unless taken from other airlines. Maybe FLYi? Talk about relocating though.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 99): Quoting Tozairport (Reply 93): They don't really become concerned about something until someone dies or metal is bent. That's just the way it is. And we haven't given them reason to be concerned have we?

Haha, I agree with that one. The FAA/NTSB should be concerned about AS and the menzies. But definatly not WN.

-Tony@PVD

Quoting FlyMeToTheMoon (Reply 12): I would not want to be in the skin of the poor dude responsible for the hole in the plane.

Jungle drums indicate he's been suspended, and his ID badge returned to the Port of Seattle. Final disposition is pending the results of the NTSB investigation...

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 98): But I am curious about a couple things. First of all, how does choosing who can do a pre-flight walk-around have anything to do with cutting cost?

It's just another shortcut that allows for quicker turns. This saves dollars at the expense of safety, IMO.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 98): Second question is, and I'm seriously curious, but what about a walk-around requires 15 years of experience and 10,000+ hours flying the aircraft? You learn the critical parts of the aircraft's exterior and how to spot abnormalities. I don't understand how it needs to be a whole lot more complicated.

Like everything else, experience will alert you to subtle things that are wrong. For example, the other day on a walkaround I noticed several very subtle dents on the acoustic panels in the engine exhast. That brought me back to the fan section and I noticed some very fine scoring in the intake walls. I called over a mechanic who had a closer look and it turned out the engine had some serious internal FOD damage. I does have to be a bit more complicated than a picture and a video, and the simple fact that you don't understand this is what worries me.

Quoting Matt72033 (Reply 100): you have to start somewhere!

Yeah, like doing pre-flights on a 172 or a T-34, followed by pre-flights on light twins or F-16's, followed by pre-flights on a commuter aircraft, but NOT by looking at a video and pictures and doing a pre-flight on an airplane carrying 130+ people.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97): Did you start doing walkarounds at this experience level? The reason I ask is that you imply that your experience level is a defining factor in you being qualified. I'm guessing you started doing these a long time ago, when you had much less experience.

Please see my above response. Of course I didn't start at my current experience level, but I didn't start on 737's either!

Quoting Tozairport (Reply 108): It's just another shortcut that allows for quicker turns. This saves dollars at the expense of safety, IMO.

I'm not sure why, but you ignored my statement about how it really would not be a big deal as far as turn-times go. I don't know...I just don't see how you can keep making such a claim from an outside perspective.

Quoting Tozairport (Reply 108): Like everything else, experience will alert you to subtle things that are wrong. For example, the other day on a walkaround I noticed several very subtle dents on the acoustic panels in the engine exhast. That brought me back to the fan section and I noticed some very fine scoring in the intake walls. I called over a mechanic who had a closer look and it turned out the engine had some serious internal FOD damage. I does have to be a bit more complicated than a picture and a video, and the simple fact that you don't understand this is what worries me.

Thanks for the response. I understand it is more to it than a picture and a video. Remember, we are taken out to a real aircraft multiple times during our training.

It's not like a WN aircraft goes an entire day without a pilot doing a walk-around. On average, I'd say it has to be very close to every other leg the aircraft flies. It's not like cumulative wear and tear will go unnoticed for days, weeks, months at a time. It is our job on the ramp to ensure that in the few hours between pilot walk-arounds, nothing has happened to the aicraft. Yes that is a reasonable amount of time for something to happen but it is our job to report it to the captain so that he can use his 15+ years of experience and XX,XXX hours of flying to evaluate the seriousness of the situation. It's a system that works every day at WN.

Anyway, I think we have beaten this to death already. It's just an example of different companies running things in different ways.  

Quoting Matt72033 (Reply 104): but engineers do a walkaround right before pushback!

Not standard practice in the US. Engineer means something different here. If your definition of Engineer is equivalent to our Mechanic then it still isn't standard practice. One walk around is done by the flight crew usually the FO prior to him/her even boarding the a/c. Rampers do a quick check to make sure they closed all the doors not a full scale walk around.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 109): I'm not sure why, but you ignored my statement about how it really would not be a big deal as far as turn-times go. I don't know...I just don't see how you can keep making such a claim from an outside perspective.

I didn't mean to ignore your statement, I just didn't elaborate enough. A good walk-around takes 5-10 minutes on the 757. I can't imagine it is that much shorter on a 737. On a 15-20 minute turn, taking the F/O out of the cockpit for that long can slow things down. To put it another way, do you think that WN would spend the money and time to petition the FAA and train the rampers if it didn't save time or money? Again, I didn't mean to ignore your statment. My apologies.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 109): It's not like a WN aircraft goes an entire day without a pilot doing a walk-around. On average, I'd say it has to be very close to every other leg the aircraft flies.

A good point, but the simple fact that a pilot has to do the pre-flight at some times means that either WN management or the FAA thinks that the pre-flights the rampers do are not as good. This really isn't meant to be a slam on you or rampers in gerneral - I was one in a previous life. It's an experience issue, and I think WN is cutting a corner at the expense of safety.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 109): Anyway, I think we have beaten this to death already.

Probably true. Thanks for the discussion and a happy new year to you.