From http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/990503/bj.html

Monday May 3, 2:40 am Eastern Time

Star Alliance says all systems are go for 2000

SYDNEY, May 3 (Reuters) - The Star Alliance grouping of airlines said on Monday that systems testing ahead of the year 2000 had shown nothing that would compromise safety.

``We are taking safety very, very seriously,'' Deutsche Lufthansa AG chairman Juergen Weber told a news conference.

``We are taking Y2K very, very seriously,'' he said.

``Up to now, we have not identified any problem which would compromise safety of operation of our aircraft.''

He said all Star airlines were active in their respective international safety bodies.

``The airlines of Star Alliance declare that, after thorough investigations and tests of their systems, including flight tests, conducted both by the manufacturers and themselves, no year 2000 airline-related issues have been identified that could compromise the safety or operation of aircraft used by Star Alliance carriers,'' they said in a statement.

``The linkages between the carriers' information systems have also been subjected to integrated tests, and passed,'' they said.

The millennium bug, or Y2K, problem arises because many older computers record dates using only the last two digits of the year. If left uncorrected, systems could read the year as 1900, rather than 2000, generating errors or computer crashes.

Star links Lufthansa (quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: LHAG.F), United Airlines (UAL - news), Scandanavian Airlines System , Air Canada (AC.TO - news), Brazilian carrier Varig , Thai Airways , Air New Zealand and its half-owned Ansett Australia.

All Nippon Airways president Kichisaburo Nomura told the news conference ANA will join Star on October 19.

Singapore Airlines has said it planned to join the grouping later this year, and Thai Airways president Thamnoon Wanglee said SIA will announce its membership in October in Tokyo.

The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore told the International Air Transport Association a week ago that more needed to be done regarding Asia-Pacific disclosure of Y2K readiness.

In mid-April, a group of U.S. airlines, including United, took part in testing air traffic control computers.

They said no problems were identified.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 03, 1999

Answers

Hoff,

Why are VIRGIN grounding ALL flights worldwide?

Branson knows.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 03, 1999.

Do you have any PROOF Andy that what these airline have said is incorrect?

Have you scrutinised their remediation or testing methods and discovered flaws?

Do you possess FACTS that can prove they are lying, or

...are ya just blowin' more doomer smoke?

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), May 03, 1999.

PD,

Answer the Virgin question - if you dare.

Branson is no fool.

You are.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 03, 1999.

Of course, Andy, I could reply with what Virgin actually said.

But we all know it's just a cover-up, right?

Thank God for you, Andy, to give us the real scoop.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 03, 1999.

Hoff,

Have you ever known ANY airline, EVER, to cancel ALL flights, over a New Years Eve?

As we get nearer the time, expect more and more airlines to declare the same.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 03, 1999.

No, and don't remember any airlines that cancel all flights on Christmas, either.

But apparently Virgin does:

Link

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 03, 1999.

Dodgy link.

You "guys" haven't explained why Virgin are cancelling. I'm a brit. I know Branson. I know why.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 04, 1999.

Andy, the link I gave contained the statement, from Virgin:

Virgin Atlantic Airways said Friday that it will ground its 25-plane fleet on New Year's Eve to give its employees a special night off, not because of concern that computers will malfunction because of Y2K problems.

It also contains:

Virgin Atlantic is known for non-conformity in the image of its founder, British tycoon and thrill-seeker Richard Branson. It has offered in-flight massages, passenger pajamas and private limousines for its business-class customers. It traditionally does not fly on Christmas.

And let me get this straight. On another thread, you claimed Branson was "me old mate". Here you claim you "know Branson. I know why.".

Do we truly have an insider here? Can you divulge the actual reasons Branson gave? This would make a great story! Where's Drew? Declan?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 04, 1999.

New Year's Eve is NOT Christmas - dolt.

Hoff - you routinely regurgitate fluff PR pieces.

Why?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 04, 1999.

Good point, Andy. What is the real reason for Virgin's decision, and what is your source for this information? Your argument would be so much stronger if you had any validation whatsoever, you know?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 04, 1999.

Ethically I cannot divulge my sources Flint - wait for more Airlines to announce same. Sooner rather than later. Reservations you know.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 04, 1999.

Actually, Andy, I try not to.

The stuff I do post usually has some real news, at least as far as I can tell. Like testing completed, systems done, etc.

As for Virgin, yes, this New Year's will not be the same as others. From the surveys I've seen, I expect Air travel to be down significantly.

By the way, this anonymous sources BS is pretty old.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 04, 1999.

Hoff and Flint.

You are both hypocrites.

Would either of you fly on rolloever?

Come on - tell us all, we're all ears.

4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

"There is no question that every major application we have would have failed. Absolutely no question about it." Those are the words of Northwest Airlines' Robert Dufek, the airline's eight-year Y2K veteran.

But $45 million dollars later, Dufek is confident Northwest will make it. They're not there yet, of course. Perhaps Northwest will make it. They sure seem to be more confident than other airlines right now.

Story at:

Detroit Free Press

This report isn't about Northwest Airlines, though. It's about Dufek's experience and how it applies to other organizations. Thumbs up to Northwest both for their apparent progress and for being willing to go on the record with a statement like this. Thumbs down to other organizations that are still shuffling systems into the "non- mission-critical" category so they can claim a higher completion of the "really important" systems.

NO QUESTION ABOUT IT

Dufek says, "...every major application we have would have failed. Absolutely no question about it." That's a powerful statement. And this, from a Y2K project coordinator who started in 1991 and has spent nearly twice the original dollar estimate renovating non- compliant systems.

Latch onto this for a second: these folks started in 1991. That's six years ahead of the start date for most organizations. And they expect to be finished by late Summer or Fall. That's right: an eight-year project that's still not complete.

IS NORTHWEST REALLY SLOW? WE DON'T THINK SO...

Faced with these facts, and based on the reasonable assumption that Northwest is not populated with extraordinarily slow people, you have to conclude that other organizations of similar size and complexity that are claiming to have finished Y2K renovation in just a few months are, simply put, lying. Even those that started in 1996 or 1997 would need to pull off a miracle to catch up with the Northwest Airlines effort. But a miracle is exactly what's being claimed these days -- not a religious miracle, mind you, but a technological one.

We believe Northwest Airlines has a good chance of getting compliant. But this organization's experience tells us most other organizations have no such chance. If they are similar in size and complexity -- yet started in 1996 or 1997 -- they're obviously way behind the curve.

DON'T FORGET SOCIAL SECURITY

The Social Security Administration began Y2K repairs in 1989. They expect to be end-to-end compliant (and tested) sometime this Summer. Do the math: that's a ten-year project. Northwest took eight years and isn't finished. This is strong evidence that a large-scale Y2K repair project takes years, not months. Yet now, we're seeing some organizations actually shooting for a September, 1999 completion date for the renovation, leaving a sleepless three months for testing.

You can bet Northwest Airlines has been testing systems for a year or two. SSA has probably been testing at least as long. Yet other organizations are reserving a mere 90 days for testing.

DOES 'MAJOR' MEAN 'MISSION-CRITICAL?'

Back to Dufek and the Northwest story, here's another important point: Dufek says, "...ever major application... would have failed." Take a closer look at this. What is "Major?" We're not told. But it's notable that Dufek didn't use the phrase, "Mission-critical."

Here's the issue: if Mission-Critical is a smaller set than Major, and Dufek says that every "Major" system would have failed, then every organization out there fixing only the Mission-Critical systems is ignoring a portion of the systems that are sure to fail.

That's the problem with the so-called "mission-critical" Y2K strategy: it puts important systems on the back burner where they might never be repaired. Y2K, in the eyes of too many organizational leaders, has become a public relations battle, not a compliance battle. In fact, that's exactly how they describe it. Banks, for example, don't talk about their need to be compliant; they talk about the need for "customer communication."

In ignoring the broken code and taking important systems off the "fix it list," these organizations are setting themselves up for a "business continuity disruption." Also known, in non-Doublespeak terms, as a crisis. (For those who think the word, "crisis" is alarmist, you can calmly use the phrase, "business continuity disruption.")

OLD IBM COMPUTERS

The story mentions something interesting about IBM computers: "The automated roster system, a computer program that keeps track of the airline's more than 50,000 workers, had to be replaced, too. The program that kept the roster ran in a so-called old IBM computer that dates all the way back to 1990 -- ancient history in Y2K time."

That's referring to a nine-year-old mainframe computer. And it's called "ancient history" in this story. The FAA is running mainframes from the 1970's. If the 1990 IBM mainframe is ancient history, these FAA mainframes are prehistoric.

Yet the FAA insists they will either work or they will be replaced by newer systems. There are two problems with this: the newer systems are slower as revealed in a recent report, and secondly, IBM already warned the FAA (in 1998) that the mainframes would fail. The FAA disagreed with IBM's assessment (the manufacturer!) and claimed they would make the mainframes work.

MUST BE A TYPO

This Detroit Free Press story goes on to report, "Webster estimates that Northwest is about 80-percent complete with its inventory of its own equipment. It should be finished by late summer or fall."

We think this must be a typo. If Northwest isn't yet finished with its inventory, it has no chance for repairs and testing. But clearly, the repairs and testing are well underway. We think the story should have said Northwest was 80% complete with its repairs.

Y2K AND AIRPLANES

According to this story, very little Y2K renovation was needed in the airplanes. The only problem? A cockpit airplane status computer that would have inadvertently flashed error messages to the pilots.

Even though the story describes these as "nuisance messages," this is not a small deal. In fact, false indicators are such a big deal that pilots undergo intense training just learning how to interpret and deal with them. A single false indicator can jeopardize the lives of the passengers and crew.

This seems to indicate that safety may be compromised at airlines that don't achieve full compliance for their planes. The likelihood of a Y2K-induced air accident somewhere on the planet now seems higher when faced with this information. After all, you can call a false fuel indicator a "nuisance" if you like, but when a pilot believes the indicator and crash-lands his airplane on a highway because he thinks he only has three minutes of fuel remaining, it's a lot more than a mere nuisance to the two-dozen civilians whose automobiles were flattened.

DUFEK NAMES MORE NON-COMPLIANT SYSTEMS

Some of the items mentioned by Dufek as failing outright included bomb detection machines and de-icing machines. It doesn't take a genius to put these pieces together: if other airlines are further behind Northwest, will their bomb detection machines work properly? And if not, how might terrorists take advantage of this lapse in security?

Furthermore, if the de-icing machines failed for Northwest, certainly they would also fail for other airlines. Is everybody else getting these machines repaired? And if not, how much of a danger will this pose to passengers flying in January? Combine an ice storm with failed de-icing machines and you've got an instant shut down of the entire airport.

WILL SAFETY BE COMPROMISED?

Many Y2K optimists describe how they will fly on 1/1/2000, no problems. Yet we continue to see remarkable discoveries like the fact that bomb detection equipment and de-icing machines are sure to fail if they don't get repaired. The question remains: if flights continue on January 1, will they be at a sufficient level of safety?

Or, worse yet, will organization leaders put their egos before the safety of passengers and order flights to continue, knowing safety might be threatened? You've got to wonder about Jane Garvey. She's invested so much in the FAA's readiness claim... it might be a lot safer if she were replaced by a person who could look at the situation more objectively. After all, when facing potentially life- endangering scenarios, you want the "go, no-go" decision to be made by someone who isn't up to their ears in promises. You don't want a gung-ho personality putting civilians' lives on the line just to prove they were right.

WHY IS VIRGIN AIRWAYS GROUNDING THEIR PLANES?

According to the London Daily Telegraph, Virgin Atlantic Airways won't fly on January 1, 2000. They've grounded their entire fleet. However, company owner Richard Branson denies it's due to Y2K. He explains, "...both passengers and staff are telling us that they would like the opportunity to fly to be with friends and family, but that they want to celebrate the day itself in peace.''

It sounds like he's giving the entire company the day off so they can be with their families. We wonder: will he do the same next year? Why didn't he give the entire airline the day off last year? What's so special about this year?

Y2K, that's what. For Branson to insist that the airline grounding isn't due to Y2K is yet another example of ridiculous, unbelievable spin by the head honcho of a large organization. Only a complete fool can't figure out the connection here: the Year 2000 problem and the grounding of flights on December 31, 1999, for the first time in the airline's history.

Clearly, Virgin is grounding its airplanes as a Year 2000 precaution. It doesn't want to lose planes and passengers on January 1. "Let those other airlines test the system," Branson is probably thinking. If everything works, fine, he'll restart the flights on January 2nd.

Branson can't admit it's really Y2K just like everybody else can't admit they won't make it. Nobody is willing to acknowledge the truth in the airline industry. Almost nobody, that is, except Dufek from Northwest, who has painted a grim picture for those airlines that didn't start in 1991.

BOTTOM LINE

Think back to what's being said here today. "There is no question that every major application we have would have failed. Absolutely no question about it." Simply put, this would have meant disaster. Northwest claims to have avoided that disaster, but will other airlines have such a successful story? And even if all the airlines get 100% compliant, what about the FAA? What about the airports?

Ask yourself: do you want to be the guinea pig on 1/1/2000? If not, don't fly. Let the Y2K naysayers test the system. They've often said, "Planes won't fall from the sky." Now let's see them bet their lives on it."

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.

Really, Andy, you should give credit to LoserWire when you directly cut and paste their crap here.

Do you really want me to go through the hype and BS in this story? Crash-landing planes on highways? Where did anything state anything about fuel gauges?

BTW, yes, if an airline is flying and I need to fly, I'd have no qualms about flying over the New Year. Other than my usual white-knuckles on take-off and landing.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 05, 1999.