Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
910A wrote:Why is someone bringing a non-native species to an area?
airbazar wrote:910A wrote:Why is someone bringing a non-native species to an area?
Maybe you should not be allowed to leave your country eitherNot all non-native species are bad.
WayexTDI wrote:airbazar wrote:910A wrote:Why is someone bringing a non-native species to an area?
Maybe you should not be allowed to leave your country eitherNot all non-native species are bad.
No, but most are: a lot of non-native species have no natural predators, ensuring an explosion of their population and they, in turn, turn into predators for native species.
910A wrote:Why is someone bringing a non-native species to an area?
MKIAZ wrote:910A wrote:Why is someone bringing a non-native species to an area?
To pollinate. Bees are moved around *alot*. In the lower 48 it is often done by truck. Also keep in mind, she's in Alaska. She was probably only renting the bees for the pollination season. Whoever owned them, likely has insurance for this type of loss.
Still sucks every time bees die
Strato2 wrote:Terrible news. Bees keep us all alive through pollinating and losing millions is awful.
MKIAZ wrote:Still sucks every time bees die
vaughanparry wrote:Should've flown Flybe...
travaz wrote:Should have used AS. Why were they routed thru ATL?
AC4500 wrote:travaz wrote:Should have used AS. Why were they routed thru ATL?
My guess is that the cargo ULD containers couldn't fit on the Embraer E175 planes used on SMF-SEA, so they had to use a larger plane (737..?), thus, re-routed through ATL. So in other words, very poor planning by Delta.
DL should have just swapped the aircraft for the SMF-SEA flight to a 737, although the OO crew obviously can't be used for mainline flights, so DL would have had to find reserve/standby crew for that flight. DL didn't want all of that hassle, so they just re-routed the shipment instead.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/28/us/h ... laska.html
travaz wrote:Should have used AS. Why were they routed thru ATL?
AC4500 wrote:travaz wrote:Should have used AS. Why were they routed thru ATL?
My guess is that the cargo ULD containers couldn't fit on the Embraer E175 planes used on SMF-SEA, so they had to use a larger plane (737..?), thus, re-routed through ATL. So in other words, very poor planning by Delta.
DL should have just swapped the aircraft for the SMF-SEA flight to a 737, although the OO crew obviously can't be used for mainline flights, so DL would have had to find reserve/standby crew for that flight. DL didn't want all of that hassle, so they just re-routed the shipment instead.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/28/us/h ... laska.html
32andBelow wrote:I think everyone is missing a part of the story.
The bees were in the fridge like they were supposed to be but some may have gotten out so delta moved them outside and the heat killed them.
USAirKid wrote:32andBelow wrote:I think everyone is missing a part of the story.
The bees were in the fridge like they were supposed to be but some may have gotten out so delta moved them outside and the heat killed them.
And there is a question if bees actually got out, or if the pheromones of the shipped bees just attracted local bees and made it look like they got out. It really seems like Delta needed to call in a bit more expertise when handling these bees.
basspaul wrote:To all the logistics people and airline cargo dispatchers out there:
Shouldn't have this cargo be labeled highly perishable to reduce the risk of a situation like this?
Sounds like a communications error to me. If Delta was not made aware of the nature of the cargo, they shouldn't be blamed too hard.
Atlwarrior wrote:Well, that's what insurance is used for. I'm sure they will be compensated well.
MIflyer12 wrote:One really can't expect any carrier to be expert in the handling of live (whatevers) -- except humans! DL does need to recognize the fragility of certain cargo (just as it has high temp embargos for pets) and specify a routing that can be acceptable to the customer while meeting ops constraints (aircraft type, packaging requirements, forecasted temps).
bchandl wrote:bchandl wrote:bchandl wrote:
bchandl wrote:These bees cannot survive the Alaskan winter and as such they're being rented for a short time in the growing season for Alaska and then would head back to California (or on to another farm location).
So they're all removed and any left untransported with the hive would die. There's no risk of invasive species here.
B777LRF wrote:[*]MIflyer12 wrote:One really can't expect any carrier to be expert in the handling of live (whatevers) -- except humans! DL does need to recognize the fragility of certain cargo (just as it has high temp embargos for pets) and specify a routing that can be acceptable to the customer while meeting ops constraints (aircraft type, packaging requirements, forecasted temps).
One very much can, and should, expect a carrier accepting live animals (AVI) to be an expert on the subject. Down to every little minute detail, including being able to quote the IATA LAR ad verbatim.
Chaostheory wrote:Drop in the ocean compared to what is lost through colony collapse etc
lat41 wrote:But it wasn't.Chaostheory wrote:Drop in the ocean compared to what is lost through colony collapse etc
What if it was a shipment of time or temperature sensitive medication? Could we be just as nonchalant?
N212R wrote:Bees CAN survive the Alaska winter (and I believe more and more "amateur hive" keepers are attempting to do so) given the correct care and procedures. It's by now means a sure thing, with geographic location playing a big part, but it is done and more frequently than you might surmise.
MIflyer12 wrote:B777LRF wrote:[*]MIflyer12 wrote:One really can't expect any carrier to be expert in the handling of live (whatevers) -- except humans! DL does need to recognize the fragility of certain cargo (just as it has high temp embargos for pets) and specify a routing that can be acceptable to the customer while meeting ops constraints (aircraft type, packaging requirements, forecasted temps).
One very much can, and should, expect a carrier accepting live animals (AVI) to be an expert on the subject. Down to every little minute detail, including being able to quote the IATA LAR ad verbatim.
Uh huh. Would you please cite for us the relevant IATA Live Animal Regulation on bee transport? Show us how much of an expert that would make freight handlers in the subject.
Cactusjuba wrote:The loss sure does sting. If DL has wax in their ears and just drones on, they could bumble this up again. Repeated again, it'd cause such a buzz, they'd risk stiring up the nest and getting swarmed by the angry hive-minded mob out there. I'm sure the worker bees will gather and comb through all the details so this nectar happens again.
chunhimlai wrote:How crazy the bee farmer is?
Why not transit via east coast city or simply fly directly from SFO
N212R wrote:bchandl wrote:These bees cannot survive the Alaskan winter and as such they're being rented for a short time in the growing season for Alaska and then would head back to California (or on to another farm location).
So they're all removed and any left untransported with the hive would die. There's no risk of invasive species here.
Bees CAN survive the Alaska winter (and I believe more and more "amateur hive" keepers are attempting to do so) given the correct care and procedures. It's by now means a sure thing, with geographic location playing a big part, but it is done and more frequently than you might surmise.
ThePointblank wrote:It's likely a freight forwarder arranged the original flights and the schedule.
It is being claimed that Delta instead of putting on the direct flight to Alaska from Sacramento, put the shipment on a connecting flight via Atlanta. Then, once on the ground at Atlanta, things went south very quickly.