Reefs.org Forums

[Agu]

Hmmm, maybe the link I posted is invisible,

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/reg/2002/pd122002d.html


And just in case you couldn't find Marys website to read those links,


http://www.reefsource.com/CurrentCampaign.htm

If we're wrong, and we were proactive we'll never know. But if we assume it's not a problem until the fecal matter hits the air motion unit it'll be too late. So it takes 10 minutes to read the info and submit comments, is that too much to ask??

Agu

[Kalkbreath]

I still need to know what an incident is? This new rule is for when an incident occurs? And we all know that you cant "PET " our animals they are under water ....so they are not pets by definition! My sources thinks that this is an attempted to have a discovery of what has actually died in the box,when paying out an insurance claim. Such as when a shipment is bumped and the thirty six hour time window has overrun... seems that anytime an "INCIDENT" such as this happens....... that there are quite a few total losses occuring on that thirtysixth hour! How does the airline know if all the animals in the box expired or not?
_________________
grand daddy purple pics
_________________
Mercedes Benz 230

[dizzy]

Kalk,

What planet are your sources on? I use Southwest Rush. If the fish are late they eat the freight. In 18-years I have only had one order that was so late that almost all the fish were dead. If you are trying to transship fish to the middle of the country you are part of the problem. Land em and rest em in LA and your loses will be much less. BTW some of my angels do let me pet them when I feed.

MG

[Kalkbreath]

Your telling me you have never heard of someone suing the airlines over fish loss? { Not international}, Im referring to domestic air cargo. The airlines are liable if they do not provide for the welfare of the animals, as stated in their agreement. Many times this agreement does not happen, smaller markets can easily get bumped and the next flight is outsde the thirtysix hour agreement. Any fish death can be blamed on the carrier. And the airlines lose in court many times .......But without a true fact finding inspection process, what protection does the airline have to keep artificial losses from being claimed? " Oh those five conspicutum Angles were all DOA because your flight was one hour over the thirtysix agreement. " Some think the airlines want to understand why so many fish are claimed to be DOA on flights that run just slightly over. A flight which has taken longer then the agreed time, can under this new law be termed an" incident" Therefore it would be the airlines which would determine what fish loss has occurred from this "incident" ?
_________________
Loratab Rehab Forum
_________________
Honda Dax

[Kalkbreath]

Also, my airport is the most active in the USA , so my fish land quite well..... But trying to get fish from LAX to the small airports {and 75% of the LFS in the US are small markets ......is exactly why there is a problem now isnt it? 90% of the islands in the Indo Pacific CANT ship fish or corals at all,because the is not an airplane arriving consistantly to pick up the cargo. Problem is the domestic airline are forced to make promises to deliver boxes to locations which they may or may not be able to make good on....
_________________
Honda CB450DX-K
_________________
Mercedes M Class

[dizzy]

[quote="Kalkbreath"]Your telling me you have never heard of someone suing the airlines over fish loss? { Not international}, Im referring to domestic air cargo. ]

Kalk,

All I know is in 18 years I have never sued the airlines. My supplier and I co-ate the losses on the one really bad shipment. Southwest airlines does a really outstanding job of handling fish. The guys and gals in the Nashville office really do a good job. The fish are brought in out of harsh weather and they call and inform you they are there. I suspect it would pay all lfs owners to try and develop a good relationship with their carrier. It also pays to have a charge account and to use at least a mid-level priority service like Rush. There may be areas where the air service is so poor that bringing in fish from LA does not make sense. Those stores should probably buy from a regional wholesaler and pass on the cost.

Back to the main point. This is an FAA regulation. Late time I checked the FAA made the rules to govern air traffic not the airlines. I think it would make more sense for airlines to stop shipping fish to certain cities that have continual problems than to disrupt service to all areas. I would imagine that in the vast majority of the country air freight service is pretty decent.

Also if the flights are so good into Atlanta, why is the Atlanta wholesaler so high on saltwater fish? They lose a lot of business to LA, and it seems like they could do a lot more if they were a bit cheaper.

One more thing: Merry Christmas to all.

MG

[Agu]

Hey everybody, Kalkbreath is OK with these regulations, it's not an issue as long as he's going to be fine. After all, he lives close to a busy airport, do you?

Lets all go back to burying our heads in the sand.

Or maybe we could spend 5 minutes to fill out Mary's form.

Which makes more sense to you?

Agu

[SciGuy2]

Hello all:

Please note that MASNA comments regarding this issue have been posted to the DOT Docket management system.

http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=209851&docketid=13378

John Brandt, MASNA legal affairs rep., has alerted me of something of great interest: Northwest Airlines has posted comments and they are supportive to our hobby.

http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=209873&docketid=13378


Sincerely,
Lee Morey
MASNA - Director of Membership and P.R.

[reefann]

I agree just take the 5 minutes as i did. Even if you do not think this will go anywere 5 minutes of your life is not to much to ensure it wont go anywere!
JJ
_________________
what is recession

[JennM]

I did not get on the docket personally (missed the deadline) BUT I my opinions were expressed under MASNA's umbrella AND I forwarded a message from Kent Marine concering the impending legislation to 100 + members of the Atlanta Reef Club, and hopefully some of the members were able to get on the docket too. Kept my head out of the sand

I think there was enough of an outrcy that the wording will be clarified and thus not become a hinderance to the hobby.

Hopefully, however, conditions for shipping our "animals" will be improved by any legislation that comes out of this. What's good for the cats and dogs (for the most part) will be good for the fishes too.

OH and I live close to that *same* busy airport

Jenn

[Snailman]

Jenn,

That's exactly what we're trying to do- get a clarification as to the wording so it pertains to dogs and cats and not fish. Legislation saying "Animal" could pertain to any living creature, no matter what the intent of the bill is. We aren't trying to stop the legislation, just change the vague parts. It would help if you'd read the info BEFORE you post .

Hopefully they are like Ebay and dont consider Corals and Fish living animals.

Paul: Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention.