Carona Ally Feigned Authority in Airline Dispute, Sources Say

An O.C. sheriff's volunteer allegedly misrepresented himself and said he could have a baggage attendant fired.

By Christine Hanley, Times Staff Writer
May 10, 2006

An Orange County businessman and political ally of Sheriff Michael S. Carona allegedly misrepresented himself as a deputy sheriff to an airline employee during a dispute that began after he returned from a hunting trip and found his baggage — including his guns and game meat — were missing.

Stephen Mensinger, who has no police powers but is authorized to carry a badge as a civilian volunteer reserve, allegedly referred to the Alaska Airline attendant as a "dumb blond," snapped pictures of her with his cellphone and said he could have her fired.

The incident at John Wayne Airport was detailed by sources inside the Sheriff's Department familiar with official records. They spoke only on the condition of anonymity, fearing retaliation.

The confrontation came at a time when Carona was weathering a series of scandals within his reserve program, including the misuse of credentials. In one case, his personal martial-arts instructor was arrested for allegedly flashing his badge and gun at a group of golfers he thought were playing too slowly. In another, the owner of an upscale restaurant resigned in the midst of an internal affairs investigation into allegations he flashed his badge during a parking lot dispute.

The California attorney general's office is reviewing law-enforcement agencies' practice of issuing honorary badges to civilians who have little or no police training.

Mensinger, an executive for developer George Argyros, did not respond to requests for interviews.

Without elaborating, Alaska Airlines spokeswoman Caroline Boren confirmed that an incident occurred and that the attendant ultimately filed a report with the Sheriff's Department.

The Sheriff's Department, which has a policy of not speaking to The Times beyond details of breaking crime news, also declined to comment. The department denied access to or blacked out records related to the incident, citing exemptions under the California Public Records Act.

Mensinger is president and chief operations officer of Arnel Management Co., one of Southern California's largest apartment owners. The company is owned by Argyros, an Orange County developer and former U.S. ambassador to Spain who has contributed thousands of dollars to Republican candidates and committees.

Mensinger is a member of the sheriff's advisory council and Professional Services Division, a group of about 330 business executives and other professionals who have no police powers but are issued badges, sheriff's identification cards and, in some cases, permits to carry concealed weapons.

Mensinger was issued a gun permit in 2002 and applied for a renewal last year.

Like many professional services reserve deputies, Mensinger is a Carona political donor. He contributed $150 to the sheriff's inaugural 1998 campaign and $1,500 to the current campaign. Arnel Development Co., the parent of the management company, gave $1,000 to this year's campaign.

In September, sheriff's sources said, Mensinger walked into a small, secluded Alaska Airlines office adjacent to John Wayne Airport's baggage carousel to find out what happened to his luggage. The baggage attendant, who was in the middle of taking a claim from another passenger, suggested he double-check the carousel and fill out a claim, the sources said.

Mensinger seemed agitated and became so loud and insulting that one of her supervisors, whom she was talking to on the phone in an effort to find his baggage, asked "Who is that [expletive]?" the sources said.

The attendant responded with a sarcastic remark about hunters.

"I'm a sheriff!" he yelled, according to sources, who said he also suggested he could have her fired.

Typically, airline employees are trained to summon police if they feel threatened, an airline spokeswoman said. But, the Sheriff's Department sources said, the attendant feared that that would be of no use, since she was under the impression that Mensinger was with the Sheriff's Department, which patrols the airport.

An airline supervisor showed up and took Mensinger's claim; later that day, his luggage arrived.

The attendant called the Sheriff's Department and asked for Mensinger's badge number and learned he was an honorary reserve, sources said.

The department would not discuss Mensinger's status. His name was on a list of professional reserves in good standing released to The Times in late February.

 

Original Article 

CITY COUNCIL MAY LAND NEW AIRLINE LEASE AGREEMENT

The Tyler City Council is expected to decide Wednesday whether to grant a new airline lease agreement with Colgan Airlines, which contracts with Continental Airlines to provide service from Tyler to Houston.

Council discussions on rates charged for carrier lease space are scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. in the city council chambers at City Hall, 212 N. Bonner Ave.

Airport manager Davis Dickson said airport leases are renewed periodically.

Colgan has been operating most recently on a month-to-month basis, pending changes in service and availability, Dickson said.

In March, American Eagle chose to reduce the number of daily flights from seven to four. The flights were reduced last month to combat proposed changes to the Wright Amendment, airline officials said.

People continued to fly, but they increasingly chose Continental, which recently beefed up service in Tyler with bigger planes and one additional daily flight, for a total of six, said Mayor Joey Seeber.

The Wright Amendment dates to the early 1970s when the city of Dallas began taking steps to close Love Field to avoid taking business from the then-new Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport.

The Wright Amendment restricts the airline's service to limited points in Texas and neighboring states in an effort to protect DFW.

The dispute between the air carriers now is whether there is enough business in the Dallas-Fort Worth area to support two airports.

In other council agenda items, the panel is expected Wednesday to honor retiring labor pool manager Tommy Cornstubble.

Also slated for recognition: library circulation manager Judy Curtis, a 25-year library employee; and police officer Randall Vaught, a 20-year department veteran, for their years of service.

In the consent agenda, the council is expected to consider the following:

 

Purchase of electronic ticket books.

Design services for improvements to Black Fork Creek Tributary.

Review of tax abatements for Brookshire Grocery, Carrier Corporation 2001, Carrier Corporation 2004, CB&I Howe-Baker and Cox Communications.

Original Article

Surprise profit causes airline’s stock to leap 9%

Shares of US Airways Group Inc. surged more than 9 per cent yesterday after the airline posted a first-quarter profit, surprising analysts who expected a loss for the quarter.

The Arizona-based airline, created in September by the combination of bankrupt US Airways and America West Airlines, reported quarterly earnings of $65 million (U.S.), or 76 cents per share, compared with a loss of $174 million, or $6.58 per share, a year ago. Excluding special items, the company posted a profit of $5 million, or 5 cents per share, versus a loss of $16 million, or $1.09 per share, in the year-earlier quarter. Analysts expected a loss of about 16 cents per share, according to Thomson Financial.

Original Article 

Airline Lufthansa’s losses triple

Shares in Lufthansa slipped after it revealed operating losses tripled in the first three months of 2006 to 75m euros ($95.3m, £51.5m). But the German airline's sales took off, hitting 4.4bn euros compared with 3.9bn euros in the same 2005 spell.

It said operating losses were bigger as they now included its budget airline Germanwings and other new operations.

Net losses at the group narrowed to 98m euros from 116m euros, but missed analysts' expectations of 80m euros.

Lufthansa shares dipped more than 2% when the announcement was made, but later recovered to stand down by just 0.9% at 15 euros.

A detailed analysis of its performance from January to March will be released on Thursday.

In March, Lufthansa said it expected its operating profit for 2006 to at least equal last year's 577m euros.

That was despite expectations that fuel costs would rise by 22% over the year.

The carrier is targeting operating profit of 1 billion euros by 2008.

It is in the process of expansion as it fights the threat from rivals in Europe such as Ryanair.

Original Article 

EU RENEWS PRESSURE ON U.S.OVER AIRLINE OWNERSHIP

Written by Diane M.Grassi

Tuesday, 09 May 2006

The United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and its Aviation Sub-Committee held a hearing on May 9, 2006 similar to that of the February 8, 2006 hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Aviation Sub-Committee. Both were in regard to the proposed Open Skies Agreement between the European Union and the U.S. This latest hearing comes on the heels of newly proposed language from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning the foreign ownership of and investment in U.S. airlines. What remains at issue is how much “actual control” a foreign airline could presume to have over a U.S. airline as part of the Open Skies Agreement, which the Bush administration had hoped to be ready for finalization by the end of 2006. But that now seems to be unrealistic. There will meetings held in Europe in June 2006 and John Byerly, a senior State Department official, and the head negotiator in the Open Skies talks, will be presenting the recent proposed changes in Brussels the week of May 8th. On May 11, 2006 the Senate in fact will include when voting on its budget bill, whether or not to delay on making a decision on the Open Skies Agreement, until further review. In question, in both the House and the Senate, has been expressed concern that allowing deregulation of airline traffic internationally must be a decision that the Congress alone decides and that the DOT does not have the unilateral power to revise transportation law which would include parts of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, followed by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, which created the Federal Aviation Administration, and later on the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. After the 9/11 attacks of 2001, the Aviation and Transportation Act of 2001 was enacted, creating the Transportation Security Administration, now under the Department of Homeland Security. As per the 1938 law, U.S. citizens must own or control at least 75% of the voting interest of U.S. airlines. In 1991, DOT proposed increasing foreign ownership interest to 49%, but it was not adopted by the Congress. In 2003, however, the Congress modified the phrase, “which is under the actual control of U.S. Citizens” in the Federal Aviation Act under 49 USC 40102(a)(15) to now read: “a corporation or association organized under the laws of the U.S. or a State, the District of Columbia or a territory or possession of the U.S., of which the president and at least two-thirds of  the Board of Directors and other managing officers are citizens of the U.S., which is under the actual control of citizens of the U.S., and in which at least 75% percent of the voting interest is owned or controlled by persons that are citizens of the U.S.” There appears to be plenty of legal precedent already on the books regarding airline ownership and the oversight requirements of the U.S. Congress. But the latest revision in the DOT’s proposal by Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, is an attempt to appease the EU and some lawmakers which looks like more redundancy. Regardless, the EU is not budging on its insistence that the U.S. must increase the percentage of foreign ownership of U.S. airlines, and threatening that without such will kill the deal. Initially, trade negotiations with the EU to loosen up regulations in ownership of U.S. airlines was seen as a tradeoff by the DOT in order for the U.S. to gain greater access to landing at London’s Heathrow Airport, for example, and to increase commerce between the 25 EU countries and the U.S. But long before the now infamous 2006 Dubai Ports World deal, lawmakers in both parties felt that this proposition transcended ‘free trade’ or globalization due to its direct impact on U.S. labor and national security. And the Committee on Foreign Investments in the U.S. (CFIUS) technically did have the law behind it in issuing its approval of the Dubai deal. But Secretary Mineta, in a statement in November 2005, said that the rule change would be an “historic opportunity to increase travel, reduce fares, expand commerce and bring two continents closer together than ever before. It provides new opportunities for U.S. and European airlines, healthier competition for a growing travel market and greater connection between cities and towns of all sizes on both sides of the Atlantic.” The supplemental proposal announced on May 3, 2006 makes clear that U.S. citizens as members of a U.S. airline’s Board of Directors or as the voting shareholders “must retain the authority to revoke decision-making authority that international investors may acquire.” For example, board members might decide to revoke international investors’ decision-making authority over scheduling and fleet composition if they felt that those decisions were not in their airlines’ best interests. And the revised proposal would supposedly give the U.S. full control over policies such as safety, security and national defense commitments, in the event of a national emergency. However, instead of the U.S. and the FAA dictating jurisdiction over key strategic U.S. assets, that being U.S. airlines, it would appear that such oversight by the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security would be relegated to that of a Chairman of the Board. According to Jeffery Smisek, President of Continental Airlines, Inc., who has been outspoken and against the Open Skies Agreement as now proposed, stated in the February 8th hearing that “the right to control U.S. airlines would be given away for rights of little to no value for U.S. combination airlines and the customers they serve. London’s Heathrow, Europe’s largest and most significant airport for U.S.-Europe travel, is closed to entry and would remain effectively closed to additional U.S. airlines, even if the multilateral Open Skies Agreement were signed. This is because absent the provision of competitive, economically viable slots and facilities at Heathrow for U.S. airlines, the greatest single impediment to free and fair U.S.-Europe competition will remain in place.” And the Government Accountability Office in its recent report agrees that airport capacity limitations at Heaththrow would not be corrected by such a deregulation agreement. Should the new rule be adopted, with exception of few areas, all airline operations, including prices, scheduling markets, fleet structure, marketing and alliances have the option of being controlled by foreign investors. Additionally, U.S. labor law protections would be endangered and employees could be replaced by foreign employees. Aviation safety could be jeopardized as foreign-controlled management need only meet minimum FAA standards and on a voluntary basis, falling far short of the programs and practices presently in place in the U.S. Surprisingly, the Department of Defense as well as the State Department have both agreed with the DOT. But for several Congressmen, it does not pass muster and especially as it concerns the Civilian Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) which is used to transport U.S. troops and officials in times of national emergencies when there are not enough military aircraft to move personnel. And although the agreement would provide for the U.S. retaining oversight of the CRAF, if the economic control of a U.S. carrier is controlled by an offshore airline, the foreign airlines’ business strategy or country’s allegiance could be in direct conflict with the national security needs of the U.S. According to Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR), “During the Gulf War a European Union member didn’t supply us with a type of carrier we needed when we ran out because they didn’t support the war.”  Given the present anti-American sentiment worldwide, it leaves the U.S. vulnerable.                                                                                                         Captain Duane Woerth, President of the Airlines Pilots Association, Intl., appearing in the February 8th hearing pointed out that “When two or more U.S. carriers are commonly controlled, employees of all of them are subject to the Railway Labor Act and therefore have the same collective bargaining rights and opportunities. This allows the employees on all the affiliated carriers to try to equalize their wages and working conditions. When one of the affiliated carriers is foreign and therefore not subject to the same labor law, employees of all the affiliates are placed at a severe disadvantage, facing the prospect of being bid against each other without effective recourse against the foreign entity allocating work.” The EU, however, has not concerned itself which such issues. The Council of EU Member States, comprised of 25 European countries, has stated that “improvements in the field of ownership and control of U.S. airlines would be an essential element for the deal to be completed.” This would require amending the law stating that the U.S. must maintain 75% ownership of its airlines. Other criteria they have demanded is the right to fly between every city in the EU and every city in the U.S. Presently the U.S. and the EU may take off from one destination and land at one destination only. The EU insists in operating without restriction on the number of flights, the aircraft used, or the routes chosen, including unlimited rights to fly beyond the EU and the U.S. to points in third countries. They would have the agreed upon control to set fares freely in accordance with market demand and to enter into co-operative agreements with other airlines, including leasing. But still very much unanswered by the U.S. government are legitimate questions of concern and the mechanisms which will ensure the continued safety and security of the U.S. and Americans. How will decisions be made pertaining to deal with Department of Defense issues? How will the U.S. retain a position in order to control decisions and activities relating to aviation security, now controlled by the TSA?  What controls and policies will be maintained to ensure carrier policies, safety inspections and maintenance? And how many more jobs must be lost and concessions be made by airline personnel in the interest of free trade? It would seem that instead of thorough disclosure before the Congress, policy makers rather than elected officials and the respective agencies presently presiding over U.S. airline carriers, have not been invited to the party. Instead, the words protectionism and sovereignty are echoed and stigmatized, in order to intimidate the Congress, the U.S. airlines, labor and American citizens. And as much as it is repeated that the “world has changed since 9/11,” proceeding more cautiously, given the obvious security and energy issues at stake, would make sense. Instead, mere appointees of the U.S. government are given unlimited power to wheel and deal with those in ivory towers. And once again the best interests of the American people are but a blip on the radar screen. DIANE M.GRASSI IS OUR WRITER ON TOPICS OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONIAL  IMPORTANCE.SHE IS BASED IN BALTIMORE WHERE.SHE HAS WRITTEN SEVERAL ARTICLES FOR TOP  MAGAZINES. AS THE AMHERSTTIMES.COM STARTS ITS 4 TH YEAR. WE WILL TRY TO BRING OTHER OUTSTANDING WRITERS TO OUR SITE TO WRITE ARTICLE CONCERNING OUR COUNTRY AND WORLD.THE PEOPLE OF AMHERST NEED TO READ THE DIFFERENT  SIDES TO A STORY FOR THEM TO MAKE A CHOICE.

Original Article

Airline charges disabled pair for assistance

By Bianca Capazorio

Brothers Bradley and Warwick Muller, who have cerebral palsy, were shocked at being required to pay R1 300 for assistance to board a Nationwide Airlines flight from Port Elizabeth to Cape Town.

Like other disabled passengers not able to use stairs, they have to rely on a passenger aid unit (PAU), a vehicle with a hydraulic lift.

But while other airlines don't charge passengers for this service, Nationwide does. The Mullers refused to pay. They were ferried on a special wheelchair to the plane.
"I made it known, in no uncertain terms, that this was pathetic and unconstitutional, but my argument fell on deaf ears," Muller said. Nationwide Airlines customer care manager Jannie Claassen said: "Hiring costs of the PAU can range from R325 to R500 per use at each airport for each flight movement, and these costs are for the passenger's own account.

"Because of the few requests received by Nationwide Airlines from passengers who require this type of service, and due to the exceptionally high cost to purchase, maintain and staff these vehicles, it is not economically viable for Nationwide Airlines to purchase these vehicles."

Disabled People South Africa spokesperson Olwethu Situka said: "Disability is a human rights matter and this is infringing on those rights by failing to (provide) what disabled people need to function as a part of society."

SAA spokesperson Jacqui O'Sullivan said they provided a PAU, but did not charge.

Nor did Comair, which operates both British Airways and Kulula.com, said spokesperson Stuart Cochrane.

"There are some airports where we don't have the equipment and will hire it, but we won't charge," said Cochrane.

Nationwide, Comair and SAA hire PAUs from Equity Aviation.

Airports Company of SA spokesperson Colin Naidoo said it was up to an airline to ensure passengers were put on a plane "in the safest and most comfortable way possible".

Original Article