Corrective Action Tracking: Fill & Download for Free

As an Energy Manager, I was once tasked with creating an “all-inclusive” (not really possible) List of Energy Manager responsibilities.A redacted version is pasted below. I apologize in advance for the obscure acronyms but you can infer the gist of it. There are 15 Bold Types you can read to just get a shorthand version.Enjoy!1.Energy Policy & Strategya.Develops, co-ordinates and recommends energy policy with respect to consumption.1.a.i.Identifies scope and boundaries of energy policy as it pertains to Real Estate Services.1.a.ii.Communicates policy to affected service lines.1.a.iii.Ensures that measures recommended in policy are aligned to Company Name objectives and that energy reduction targets are established.1.a.iv.Ensures energy performance is goals are integrated into long term (3-year rolling) energy strategy.1.a.v.Establishes methods for M&V and the reporting conducted at determined intervals.b.Conducts and documents energy planning process. Energy planning will be consistent with energy policy and lead to activities, Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs), and operational behaviors that continually improve energy performance.c.Develops documented energy review.1.c.i.Analyzes energy use evaluating past and present energy consumption.1.c.ii.Identifies target facilities and areas of significant energy use.1.c.iii.Determines energy performance of facilities and systems related to identified significant energy users.1.c.iv.Estimates future energy use and consumption.d.Identifies, prioritizes, and records opportunities for improving energy performance.2.Electric Rate Structure and Utility Reviewa.Reviews utility billing quarterly and ad hoc to ensure accuracy and to identify anomalies.2.a.i.Analyzes energy billing and use, normalizing for weather and other variables as relevant on year-over-year basis and provides determination for variants.2.a.ii.Identifies opportunities as discovered in utility review improving energy efficiency and/or conservation.b.Identifies through review favorable rate structures.2.b.i.Determines availability of preferable tariff rate based upon current use profile2.b.ii.Reviews minimum demand and/or demand ratchet charges align with actual facility demandsc.Identifies availability of special schedules.2.c.i.Cell net metering and time-of-use schedules.2.c.ii.Demand response programs.2.c.iii.Interruptable service.3.Utility Rebate and Energy Program Incentivesa.Develops utility rebate participation program.3.a.i.Establishes database for incentive program tied to property ID’s for Facility Management and Energy Team use.3.a.ii.Develops ECM discovery program utilizing incentive availability as a leading criterion.3.a.iii.Manages rebate participation process start to finish for customer.3.a.iv.Recalculates payback and project viability based upon incentives available.b.Monitors applicability of non-utility rebate programs (Epact, State and Local incentives, etc.) and grant availability.4.Auditing and Commissioninga.Assist in and/or performs auditing functions with regard to target facilities.4.a.i.Reviews viability of recommended Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) resulting from audits.4.a.ii.Calculates simple and life-cycle net present value for recommended ECMs.4.a.iii.Tracks, measures and verifies actual energy performance of implemented ECMs.b.Assist in and/or performs re-commissioning at systems level on ad hoc basis as identified.4.b.i.Utilizes Building Automated Control System (BACS) to identify underperforming systems or equipment and makes recommendation for corrective action.4.b.ii.Identifies operational irregularities and improper system staging through metering interval data load profiling analysis.c.Reviews facility or system power quality as indicated by load analysis.4.c.i.Reviews facility power factor and determines need for correction.4.c.ii.Determines harmonic distortion and level of power degradation and recommends corrective action as needed.d.Assists in development and provides feedback on Auditing Applications for FM Energy Management Platform Team.5.Lighting Subject Matter Expertisea.Provides expertise for Standards development for lighting design specification and maintenance of current technologies.b.Apprises customer of new and developing technologies in lighting and recommends viability of reformatting to newer product types as is practical.c.Provides economic evaluation of lighting improvements.d.Evaluates emerging lighting control technologies.5.d.i.Determines viability of controls vs. more efficient lighting and/or project stacking viability.5.d.ii.Considers lighting control strategies (daylighting, occupancy, dimming, scheduling, etc.) as applicable to overall facility usage.6.Intelligent Portfolio Systemsa.Provides expertise for system consideration and determination necessary system criteria.b.Assists in cross-functional analysis of system interface with existing BAS, Lighting Controls, and other fault detection.7.Alternative Investmentsa.Provides Economic Analysis of alternative Energy Efficiency Measures7.a.i.Compares competing projects based on life of equipment, simple/ life-cycle payback and ease of implementation/ installation.7.a.i.1.Present and Future Value Analysis7.a.i.2.Cost and Benefit Analysis7.a.ii.Reviews case study and known investment reliability of competing projects.8.Alternative Renewable Energy Sourcinga.Reviews and assists in alternative energy viability, on and offsite.b.Maintains up to date knowledge of advantages and hurdles of various Energy sources.8.b.i.Onsite Solar8.b.ii.Solar Farm8.b.iii.Wind Farm8.b.iv.Renewable Energy Contract procurement9.Energy Procurementa.Assist customer on ad hoc basis for review of energy procurement alternatives and consult as needed.10.Carbon Emission Tracking and CDP Reportinga.Provides quarterly review of utility use and carbon footprintb.Provides annual review of carbon emissions for the Carbon Disclosure Project10.b.i.Compares utility use to carbon emissions10.b.ii.Aligns reduction in carbon emission to facilities Energy Efficiency Measures11.ISO 50001 and Energy Management Process Developmenta.Develops process for energy management workflow11.a.i.Process flowchart creation for ECMs11.a.ii.Energy Project Workbook creation11.a.iii.Continuous Improvement developmentb.Develops and integrates ISO 50001 into current energy management process12.Energy Efficiency and Engineering Standards Reviewa.Ensures development of standards for systems design include adequate inclusion of and adherence to efficiency standards.12.a.i.FEMP Federal Energy Management Program12.a.ii.ASHRAE (62, 15, 3, 90.1)12.a.iii.ASME, IEEE, and others12.a.iv.Federal Legislation and National Energy Policy Act of 2005b.Assists in determining project applicability to energy standards with regard to mandates versus recommendations where incremental costs approach life of project.13.Energy Management Controls Subject Matter Expertisea.Provide SME services to Facility Management for following areas of Energy Control:13.a.i.Optimum Start/Stop Strategies13.a.ii.Night Set Back13.a.iii.Enthalpy Controlled Economization13.a.iv.Temperature and Static Pressure Reset13.a.v.Proportional, Integral and Derivative (PID) Control Logichttp://redacted.Direct Digital Control14.Energy Star and Green Buildingsa.Energy Star Portfolio Manager14.a.i.Develop Portfolio of Facilities for inclusion in Energy Star’s Portfolio Manager (ESPM).14.a.i.1.Commercial14.a.i.2.Retail14.a.i.3.Labs14.a.ii.Establish ESPM as preferred Energy Conservation Tracking System14.a.iii.Replace ASG Targeted Building Report with ESPM For benchmarking and tracking continued performance of customer’s portfolio14.a.iv.Integrate ESPM with other quantitative software systems such as Utility Insight, Performance IQ, and others for automated data uploadb.Energy Star Rated Buildings14.b.i.Provides and preliminarily determines site qualification for Energy Star recognition by generating Statement of Energy Performance (SEP)14.b.ii.Applies for recognition of Energy Star Rating for Facilities as determine by SEP14.b.ii.1.Six sites currently under review by Energy Platform Teamc.Energy Star Partner14.c.i.Pursues inclusion of customer as Energy Star Partner of the Year14.c.i.1.Determine facilities to participate in EPA National Building Competition14.c.i.2.Investigates criteria for Energy Star Partner Application processd.Green Buildings14.d.i.Provides SME on energy and atmosphere, indoor environment quality and water efficiency15.Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Systemsa.Provides Subject Matter Expertize as it pertains to operational efficiency15.a.i.New technologies in HVAC and associated systems15.a.ii.Air Conditioning Loads and Coefficient of Performance15.a.iii.Load Shifting and Thermal Storage15.a.iv.Staging and Peak Demand AnalysisCongrats!

Update, January 2021FAA vs International Civil Aviation Authorizations. This year, the rectified version of the 737 Max is cleared for service in the US. That means that domestic airlines would be the primary users, since landing in another country requires air-worthiness certificates that are no longer automatically granted if the FAA does (Thank you for the naked political interference of the Trump Administration in what had been reputedly independent regulatory agencies like the CDC, the NIH, the FDA, the EPA etc.) So, approval for international flights would take more time, if ever.Re-entry of Mothballed Max’s. Another factor is that hundreds of 737 Max’s have been “mothballed” for over a year, and have to be scrupulously re-validated for service. Do you prefer to fly in an aircraft that has been regularly used and maintained, or one out of service for a long period with no fundamental structural changes that had caused fatal accidents?Studies of COVID-19 Spread in Cabin. One source is from the Harvard Public Health Initiative Aviation Public Health Initiative (APHI).The actual recorded rate of transmission in cabin is much lower than on the ground in closed environments. Recirculated cabin air is passed through two HEPA filters that filter out 0.1–0.3 microns particles, whereas COVID-19 measures some 0.14 microns across - and microdroplets. So, if the choice is by bus, train or air, the shorter exposure time and greater control of airborne spread favors air travel for a given distance.Past studies of airflow dissemination (not specific to Max or Neo) indicated that particles can spread for a few rows around a seat, although the most of the air streams from overhead air inlet vents to ground floor extraction vents in the same row closer to the wings. In other words, your separation from your lateral neighbor is more important than the separation between rows. See visualization of dispersion in a cabin: Pierre-Antoine Rizk on TwitterCOVID-19 Lateral Separation in Cabin. At present, all airlines but stingy American Airlines offer 1 seat separation on domestic flights. So, single aisles would be less risky than single aisle planes, and the 737 Max’ narrower seats will mean 1.5–2 inches less separation than the Neo’s, while much but since millions of viruses can fit on the point of a pin, is potentially significant.So, in domestic economy seating, I would choose the Neo (e.g. Jetblue and Delta flights) over the 737 Max (Southwest, American…), or even the A220 (Delta and soon JetBlue) that has even more seat width than the Neo.In all cases, prefer single-aisle to dual aisle jets since more seats in a row means more sources of infection per row.I would also prefer 2 x 2 seating over 3 x 3, since the first could mean 2 seats and 1 aisle of separation, if the two passengers in the row both sit on the wings. Even the A220 2x3 seating would mean that the person in the two-person side of the aisle would have the separation of 1 seat + 1 aisle.The wing seats, where the extraction vents are located, could mean more exposure risk than aisle seating - in theory. However, in practice, the use of the aisle by staff and passengers may negate any theoretical difference in risk between aisle and wing locations.COVID-19 Row Separation in Cabin. Most particles spread laterally in the same row, but a significant portion reaches the adjacent rows. So airlines that have more seat pitch (row separation) would have less risk (e.g. prefer JetBlue’s 32–34 inches seat pitch to Spirit Air’s 28 inches)Update, August, 2020Since my last update, COVID-19 has fallen upon earth and the entire aviation sector has suffered. Boeing has had hundreds of order cancellations, across the board, as client airlines either face bankruptcy or faith has been lost for specifically the 737 Max that had zero orders until this month from a Polish charter airline for TWO firm orders. It’s backlog has fallen to a still impressive 4,500 orders (about).The Max software update will soon be tested (September) in a number of countries. Talk is that Boeing will retire the “Max” name, and the latest model variants have been referred to as “737–8”. I assume that until the world’s economy recovers - assuming that discretionary air travel ever returns to previous peaks - Boeing may put off creating the 797.In the meantime, even the A320 neo will suffer from reduced demand by an ailing airline sector. However, they will have an advantage over Boeing’s discredited Max that may be “sold” at bargain basement prices (aka “dumping”).Although another model segment, the A220 will probably soar as airlines reconfigure for lower traffic frequency, and smaller passenger loads per flight; the A220 may also cause retrenchment of the very expensive, finely orchestrated “hub and spoke” paradigm. The spacing of seats is also a bit more generous, favoring “personal distancing”.Update, January, 2020Since last month, finally, the waffling CEO has resigned, with a multi-million dollar severance package. It’s outrageous that the US is so blinded by bucks that they allow employees to earn millions, even when they wreck the firm. The bad news keeps coming. From the failure, in extremis, of a software workaround to the aerodynamic instability caused by rushed design, to uncovering of a decades-old tendency of wires routed too close for safety, to leaked memos of deliberate overriding of experienced in-house engineers by bean-counters, and subcontracting out highly-complex manufacturing to untested suppliers with insufficient technical monitoring systems, the brand of Boeing has gone downhill with risk of thousands of employees and the hundreds of suppliers to Boeing. As I noted, knowledgeable insiders over a year ago, indicated that flight simulation training WOULD be needed, demolishing Boeing’s sales pitch that it was just an “ugrade” to the 737; Captain Sullenberger testified so before Congress that he “struggled” to regain control of a test flight simulator.Now, released e-mails of conflicts between engineers and financial managers show that many indicated that they would avoid the Max.Update in December, 2019. Boeing has now admitted that it has little expectation of a definitive date for “re-entry” of the Max into service and plans to cease production in 2020. It’s finally sinking in that the core issue is not a mere “software glitch” but a core flaw in design that gave rise to even the NEED for a software workaround to the inherent tendency to crash during the most crucial phase of flight. Software is ALWAYS going to be less than 100% effective, and so, no matter what “solution” is proposed, the flying public has lost faith not only in Boeing’s management but in that of the FAA, that has been defunded by US Administration and pressured to favor airlines.Boeing may have to eat humble pie, clear out all bean-counting enabling managers of this fiasco and their direct reports and reorganize to return the engineering priority of the company’s direction. However, unless the military division is not made independent of the civilian aircraft, I doubt that the profit vs safety paradigm would change much.Since Boeing is a strategic firm to the US, and the major single source of foreign currency intake, it’s unlikely that the US government would let it fail. Perhaps, it’s time for a US government bailout for the billions that Boeing is on the hook for from existing clients and victims and to restore adequate funding of the FAA. Timaero, the major Irish aircraft leasing firm, has filed a $750k lawsuit against Boeing, and that’s the tip of the iceberg. Boeing would do well to now design and build a brand new aircraft, without trying to cut corners and yield, for a time, to Airbus in the long-and-thin segment. It should also scale back outsourcing until it will have put in place adequate quality control systems and management resources.The Airbus A320 Neo is now without competition in its capacity and range segment at high efficiency, pending technical and criminal investigation into the development and certification procedures of the 737 Max.The other segment of even thinner but slight less long planes is now the A220, that may spell the end of the inevitability of “economies of scale” of the hub and spoke flight orientation of legacy carriers, enabling secondary airports to be linked non-stop, bypassing overcapacity hubs, in a viable economic model. David Neeleman (founder of JetBlue, Azul and major partner in Westjet and now CEO of a renovated TAP) plans a new airline based on the A220 code named “Moxy airlines”.Boeing has no entries in this small jet segment and has acquired the marketing rights to small Embraer jets - but those jets are a generation behind the A220 in some respects.I. Design Comparison - History of Development of the Airbus Neo that spurred hasty development of the 737 MaxThe A320 was designed more than a decade after the 737 and has a larger fuselage section and greater height beneath the wings.Airbus first developed the high-efficiency engine version, the A320 neo, while Boeing rested on its laurels with the 737, focusing on developing the 787, moving its HQ to Chicago and establishing non-union factories in other States from Washington. As Neo sales took off, Boeing was under pressure to quickly come up with a competitor. The strategy they decided to use was to “upgrade” the 737 instead of a brand new design.The elements were:By keeping the same 1960’s origin fuselage but extending it, development would be shorter and cheaper, since manufacturing the fuselage would need minimal retooling.By keeping the model name as “737”, they would market the 737 Max as not requiring expensive flight simulator training for pilots already certified on prior 737 versions. A tablet-based training was all Boeing indicated as necessary for such pilots. This alone undercuts the neo solution by hundreds of millions of dollars for a large airline like AA.In the quest for greater fuel efficiency, everything but the fuselage was to be new (wings, engines, tail, nose, landing gear, flight control systems). It was essentially a new plane with an obsolete fuselage design that was too small and too close to the ground for aerodynamic optimization.The low height off the ground of the 737 fuselage meant retrofitting much larger high-efficiency engines at a higher position to the wing, affecting handling characteristics. The new configuration would be inherently unstable at takeoff with a tendency to push the nose up.In the effort to keep pilot certification cheap (i.e. no flight simulators), the 737 Max, despite having computerized digital control systems, was forcibly designed to reflect the dated 737 instrument display and control layout.All those factors, plus the under investigation “fast track” approval, are now suspected as making the 737 Max abnormally prone to nose-diving after takeoff. It was a case of a commercial development shortcut and a “fast track” FAA certification system that did not exhaustively address the MCAS system, given the lack of flight simulator training obligation.II. Comparison - Passenger vs Airline viewpointsA. Tall or voluminous Passengers (most affected by personal space): A321 Neo width better than 737 Max in coach. Travelers are not very concerned about which plane is more efficient; I only care about my comfort as a passenger.The cabin of the 737 is 4″ narrower than the A320 series.The 737 Max is the most laterally cramped in its category (16.5–17″).The A320 neo provides a wider seat (18″)While leg room is determined by the airline, at least on the Neo an exit row or bulkhead seat with fixed armrests won’t be as narrow as the Max (16.5″ for Max exit row seat vs. 17.5″ for neo’s exit row seats).B. Airline operational and purchasing managers are most concerned with upfront and operational cost/seat/mile. A321 neo equivalent to 737 Max. From the operators’ viewpoint, its a bit “six of one, half a dozen of the other” in terms of performance and economy for the airlines;On paper, the A321neo is somewhat better than the 737Max except in top speed.However, it will take real-life data collection to see if the differences on paper translate to actual differences.The Max may have a lower “purchase price” and suggest that training pilots would be cheaper due to “commonality” with non-Max 737’s; however, in reality, the grounding of the Max and liability issues of the 100% fatal crashes tear asunder any theoretical cost advantage of the Max over the neo.C. Shareholders and financial managers want predictable costs and reliable mechanics. neo is now much better than the Max. The US airlines using the neo (Delta, JetBlue) are seeing their fortunes continue upward whereas those with Maxes are in for a rough ride (SouthWest). In Europe, Ryanair and Norwegian are now facing higher costs, cancelled routes because of the Max grounding; it may be the coup de grace for Norwegian.The other issue to be borne out over time is that unscheduled downtime (unreliability) will dramatically affect running costs as well. The cost of worldwide grounding of the 737 Max in March 2019 would far outweigh any fuel cost advantage supposedly by Boeing’s aircraft, or even higher purchase price.Boeing’s 787 and now 737 Max models, the most recent ones, have had design defects that have been very expensive to airlines who must reroute and redeploy to accommodate passengers.The 787 has been particularly troublesome in the first few years with exploding lithium-ion batteries and defective engines that had to be replaced. Although the airlines had options on engines, it was Boeing’s responsibility to verify that the options were safe and fully integrated with an aircraft’s systems; quality assurance over suppliers is the price one pays for outsourcing.The 737 Max is grounded and under investigation for defective design or imperfect safety verification.One airline that is composed of Boeing 787’s and 737 Max’, Norwegian Air Shuttle, the world’s biggest low-cost long-haul airline, has been particularly affected by Boeing’s defects. It’s 787s had to be grounded for engine replacements. One of its 737’s had to make emergency landing in Tehran, where it was stuck largely due to the US embargo and banking restriction vis a vis Iran - a costly side-effect of using US-built aircraft in the Trump era.With hindsight, it would have been more cost effective to have chosen the A320 neo, even at a higher price or later delivery, as the downtime costs of the Boeing models far outweigh the lower prices of purchase or earlier introduction.D. Marketing/PR managers. Public Reputation: Safety - and Corporate Responsibility. Prior to the Max, Boeing had a longer, more established good reputation/brand. Due to its benefits, even the 787’s problems (lithium batteries, defective engines) were being rectified and NOT 100% fatal. Boeing at risk of destroying its excellent brand reputation.The 737 series is the most common single-aisle narrow body in history, since it was first on the market much before rival Airbus. When it was time to renew and upgrade, Boeing decided to keep the “brand” of the “737” instead of a new model name like 7A7.However, the newer model, the 737 “Max”, is almost a brand new design apart from the fuselage section and an inherited control system configuration - but changed almost everything else.As one may have noticed that two unexplained nose dive/uncontrolled descent crashes in good weather in the minutes after takeoff have occurred with experienced pilots. One theory is there was a systematic design flaw of its MCAS software and the fix is to disable the software that had been installed for safety reasons!The next issue is that it may have been wrong to market the 737 Max as simply an extension of the 737 series. The plane is longer and has different handling characteristics. The engines were bigger than the previous, contributing to an inherently different center of gravity relative to the engine position. This “cost savings” feature of not requiring retraining for pilots already certified on the previous 737’s may well turn out to be false economy.The issue is not that the 737 Max is very unsafe; it’s just not adequate to have “only” 2 in 50,000 or 100,000 flights end in 100% fatality; the standard is 1 in over a million flights! It’s not even some risk but 100% fatal due to uncontrolled nose-diving to the earth.III. Solutions and Corrective Actions SuggestedThe FAA and US government have lost face that may translate as durable problems in plane exports and accession to FAA decision. Boeing may have a commercial disaster on its hands if it doesn’t address the issue upfrontA. FAA actions. The FAA’s brand has been severely damaged. It’s budget and personnel needs to be improved and its mandate expressly made independent of both partisan government and industry lobbies. Even now, foreign aviation regulators indicate that they want to conduct their own evaluation of Boeing’s “solutions”, regardless of what the FAA indicates. Hopefully, once Mr. Trump goes, no future President would irresponsibly weigh in on topics outside of his capacity.B. Boeing Senior Management StepsInstead of the CEO indicating, without any basis for reassurance, that the aircraft is airworthy BUT we should await the analyses of the two crashes, he should have said that until he had proof that no software or design was a factor, the plane should be grounded.The grounding should at least be until they finish and deploy the “software fix” that had been has been “planned” on a increasingly more distant target date.Require certification of pilots as if this were a new model on a flight simulator, not rely upon a computerized training model. Captain Sullenberger testified as such to Congress, after he struggled in a flight simulator with the same conditions as the crashed flights despite having been trained of the issue!The CEO and his immediate reports should indicate contrition and, ideally, a gesture such as foregoing his “golden parachute” in favor of victims’ families. He should basically shut up and let the engineers do their job.C. Unless Boeing has adequate insurance, the US Government may step in to keep a strategic supplier operational.Huge liability, penalty and other costs for Boeing. Grounding the 737 Max planes represents a huge unscheduled cost to the airlines, as Boeing isn’t going to fully compensate them for loss of use. If Boeing doesn’t admit that it is unsure if there is a design issue and it had been a mistake to not require specific pilot certification for the 737Max, the aircraft may go the way of the MD10, that eventually doomed McDonnell Douglas, well after the design flaws had been addressed; the flying public refused to board MD10’s and airlines faced the risk of liability exposure.IV. The loss of the Max slows but doesn’t stop a revolutionary transformation of Commercial AviationA. The end of the concentration of carriers, Jumbo jets and Huge airport hubs as the only or desired business model. The end of the Jumbo era is already in progress. The 747 and A380 are no longer being produced and will be phased out. While there may be a theoretical lower cost per seat mile, the reality is that very few routes can reliably fill a jet with nearly 600 seats.Until recently, jumbo planes, jumbo hubs, jumbo carriers were the result of market forces of the hub-and-spoke economics. It was based on the premise that bigger planes a) had lower per seat costs and b) “feeder” smaller planes would connect mega-hubs with smaller markets.The combination of reaching the limit of the “hub and spoke” efficiency in terms of congestion and infrastructure, and a technological change that produces that smaller jets nearly as efficient over long distances as larger ones, marks the end of “bigger is better” in commercial aviation.B. Larger airlines, smaller seats, weather-related chain reaction unscheduled delays and larger hubs - people hate them.Witness the 11 sub-terminals of CDG2 where you must be fit to get around the miles of maze-like corridors. That is strong incentive to seek point-to-point flights and avoid Paris as a transit airport.Since 9–11, the airport experience has become unpleasant requiring at least an extra 1 hour compared to the 20th Century experience. Lining up for security, being treated like criminals by CBP. No matter how many shops or “amenities” are in airports, it remains an inherently unpleasant place.Concentration of transporters to only three legacy carriers in the US has led to net increase in fares, if one incorporates the myriad “discretionary” fees to the base fare.The hub system is subject to system-wide disruption if there is a failure in any part of the network. So, a storm in Miami can lead to missed flights in Seattle! The system is not robust and few airlines would have redundancy in the form of spare planes sitting around.C. The future - multiple smaller carriers, smaller airports directly linked by longer-range, highly-efficient single-aisle planes.A vision shared by David Neeleman (founder of Westjet, JetBlue, Azul airlines and current CEO of a revitalized TAP) with his planned Moxy Airlines for 2020 and all A220 fleet connecting regional US airports.The A320 series neo XLR, the Max or its replacement, the 787, the A350, the A330 neo and, possibly, an A220 XLR and a Boeing 797 will mean thatroutes like DUB-Milwaukee or Sacramento-Tampa would be feasible. Unfortunately, Norwegian’s DUB-YHM or DUB-PVD have been curtailed or cancelled due to the grounding of the Max.increased frequency even from major airports (e.g. instead of three days a week between BOS and Warsaw, daily flights with smaller planes could become feasible).A decrease in traffic via hubs would reduce stress on air-traffic control and lower “landing slot” pressure and costs.Bad weather or mechanical incidents won’t “contaminate” a national network of an airline, improving robustness of air transport.More direct flights from Dublin, where there is a local CBP pre-Clearance facility, to smaller US airports that lack CBP staffing. Other European airports may also host local CPB facilities to access smaller US airports lacking international passenger ability.

I will answer how everyone else has been answering: Because every gun law that has tried to restrict certain aspects of a firearm has ultimately failed to do its job right because of political ignorance over things like gun designations or what actually constitutes a high-capacity magazine.But the gun experts take this as evidence that any politician who advocates gun control is inept, so we shouldn’t even listen to the liberal spin on guns. What follows will be a perfect example of how education and political action irrevocably conflict on this particular issue…When you have capitalism as opposed to communism, you find that there is more variety than you would ever keep track of in most products, including guns. There are government bodies that regulate the safety and standards of most of these products. DMV for our cars, FDA for our food, NHS for our healthcare, etc. Thanks to their work of regulating what can and can’t be sold or used, we don’t have to educate ourselves enough to worry about misuse or commerce that is not in the best interests of the people.But since any gun ownership falls under the 2nd Amendment, there is a large barrier, both legal and popular, to developing a body that is committed to being familiar with gun production standards and can reliably make sure there are actually standards to manufacturing, selling, and owning guns. Sure we have what might qualify as a regulatory body, but as the points made by previous gun experts state, our firearms research and education (or lack thereof) is so terrible that even our gun control lawmakers can’t even tell that the AR in AR-15 doesn’t stand for Assault Rifle, let alone the dozens of other subtle distinctions between all firearms that make a comprehensive “halfway ban” very ineffectual.But here’s the big Catch-22: Most gun-experts-by-choice will not be interested in getting into political office, let alone an office that regulates their favorite God-given right (unless their aim is to gut it like Pruitt with the EPA). So we are stuck with “politicians trying to regulate something they know nothing about” because there is such a social buffer between politicians who want to know more about guns (so they can regulate them better)-and experts who want to indulge them in as little about their business as possible (so they can’t regulate in a direct way that would hurt their business). Many “experts” will provide just the right amount of condescending explanations to what the voters got wrong about a gun and then dismiss the possibility of further corrections in the law they voted for, unless it’s to repeal and never replace it.So until a large number of liberal gun experts directly contribute to the formation of a “gun control task force”, good luck finding the right people to correctly head what little gun-control progress we have.