Recent orders
History Of Continental Airlines
History Of Continental Airlines
Contents
TOC o “1-3” h z u HYPERLINK l “_Toc377209396” Introduction PAGEREF _Toc377209396 h 1
HYPERLINK l “_Toc377209397” History of Continental Airlines PAGEREF _Toc377209397 h 1
HYPERLINK l “_Toc377209398” Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc377209398 h 8
HYPERLINK l “_Toc377209399” Works Cited PAGEREF _Toc377209399 h 8
IntroductionContinental Airlines, an American airline company has its headquarters in Continental Center 1 in Downtown, Houston, Texas. Based on 2001 revenue passenger miles (RPMs), Continental Airlines is the fifth leading United States airline that transports passengers, mail and cargo all over the world. The company provides its services to more than two hundred international airports in the U. S., Canada, Europe, Latin America, and the Asia- Pacific regions. Most of these international airports are situated in the United States, and has widespread service in Latin America. Its principal flight services are operated in its four business hubs at George Bush International Airport, Hopkins International Airport, Newark Liberty International Airport and Antonio B. Won Pat International Airport in Guam.
History of Continental AirlinesThe history of Continental airlines dates back to 1934, when Walter Varney and Louis Mueller founded an airline company they named Varney Speed Lines. This was their fourth airline; the first having been bought by Boeing’s United Aircraft, and the other two having failed. The Varney Speed Lines operated out of El Paso, Texas and extended through Pueblo, Colorado, Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Las Vegas and New Mexico. The airline started operation with the Lockheed Vega, a plane operating on one engine and carried four passengers. Later the airline operated with other Lockheed planes such as the Lockheed Electra Junior, Lockheed Model 9 Orion and the Lockheed Lodestar.
In 1934, the Roosevelt administration cancelled all domestic airmail contracts but the Southwest Division of Varney Speed Lines won the Pueblo-El Paso route. However the airline lacked sufficient funds to handle its newly won Pueblo-El Paso route. Robert Foreman Six came to their rescue when he bought into the airline with US$90,000 representing forty percent of the company shares. On July 5th 1936, Robert F. Six became the general manager and renamed the carrier to Continental Air Lines on July 8th 1937 and three months later transferred the headquarters of the airline to Denver Union Airport in Denver, Colorado. Robert F. Six’s desire to have the airline fly all over the United States was manifested in his changing of the airline’s name to “Continental”. When he was appointed the president of the Continental Airlines, Six embarked on the expansion plan. Having inadequate funds to buy the then, most popular, durable, and practical plane, the DC-3, he decided to buy several L-14 Lodestars from Lockheed and hired twelve Lockheed stewardesses to staff the acquired planes. Robert Foreman Six was reputed as an aggressive and risk taking executive who forcefully supervised the airline for more than forty years. The other pioneers of the United States airline industry include: William A. Patterson, C. R. Smith, Juan Trippe, Eddie Rickenbacker and Jack Frye.
During the World War II period, the Continental airlines’ maintenance facilities in Denver became a conversion hub. The airline transformed B-17s, B-29s and P-51s for the United States Army Air Force. The military transportation together with aircraft conversion availed adequate profits to the Continental Airlines. This facilitated the expansion plan of the airline. The Continental airline purchased new types of aircrafts which were now accessible in the ensuing war. Among the aircrafts bought included: the DC-3, Convair 240 and the Convair 340. Several DC-3s were purchased as additional military airplane subsequent to World War II. The very first pressurized aircrafts to be operated by the Continental airlines were the Convairs.
During the Second World War, Continental airlines managed to add several routes to its network. Among the new routes were, the route from Albuquerque and Denver traversing Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. By the year, 1946, the airline had extended innovative routes, among them being, from Denver to Tulsa, Kansas City, and to Oklahoma City. The other route was from Albuquerque and El Paso to San Antonio. Both routes incorporated in-between stops in a number of the twenty two smaller cities. The 1953 merger with Pioneer Airlines was the first main expansion breakthrough as it enabled the airline to access sixteen extra cities in Texas and New Mexico. The smooth integration of the new routes with the airlines’ post World War II routes prompted the industry regulator, Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), to consequently streamline Continental’s routes from Denver to the main traffic points in New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. The problem of limited regional operation disturbed Robert Six a great deal. This made him to enthusiastically petition the Civil Aeronautics Board for longer haul routes to bigger cities. At the same time, he was silently conversing with Boeing to allow his airline to be among the pioneer operators of the soon-to-be-launched 707 jet aircraft which would justify the new routes and vice versa.
The late 1950s saw Robert Six’s strategy succeed and in 1957, Continental airlines flew nonstop and through Denver, from Chicago to Los Angeles. The airline was also able to fly nonstop from Denver and Los Angeles to Kansas City. The permission by CAB to stop operation at various smaller cities on the system enabled the airlines’ innovative aircrafts to operate inexpensively amid points with longer lengths of haul. Before the introduction of its Boeing 707 jets, Continental purchased the admired DC-7s to serve the nonstop routes from Los Angeles to Chicago, from Denver to Los Angeles and from Chicago to Kansas City. In 1960 Continental tripled its passenger-miles than what it had four years earlier. In 1962, Robert six introduced the economy fare principle which seemed to solve the airline industry’s troubles. The principle brought air travel to many individuals who in other terms could have afforded it.
As per Robert Six’s plan, Continental was among the first airlines to operate the Boeing 707. On June 8th 1959, Continental operated its first of five Boeing 707 and Boeing 124 jets that flew from Chicago to Los Angeles nonstop (Norwood and Wegg 62). The introduction of the progressive maintenance program allowed the carrier to fly its Boeing 707 fleet, sixteen hours a day for seven days in a week. This enabled Continental to attain the biggest aircraft utilization compared to all other jet aircraft operators in the industry. Robert also introduced special improvements and luxe gastronomy with his Boeing 707 service which earned the company praise from the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune as the finest and most luxurious carriers. The early 1960s saw Continental acquire extra routes among them being the nonstop flight from Chicago to Houston with service stops in Phoenix, El Paso, Austin Tucson and San Antonio. The other new service was launched from Denver to Seattle, New Orleans, Portland and Houston with service stops in Oklahoma City, Wichita and Tulsa. The Continental Airline headquarters were transferred from Denver to Los Angeles 1963. In the same period, the Company substituted the Viscount fleet with the more reliable DC-9s from Douglas Aircraft and commenced the insistent purchase of the Boeing 727 aircraft. The two types of aircrafts were utilized by the company for the following twenty years. The company was granted new routes to New Zealand and Australia, in the Transpacific Case, but the Nixon Administration cancelled them later.
During the Vietnam War, the company provided service in cargo and troop shipping for the United State Army and the Marine Corps military to Asia and the Pacific bases. The experience gathered in the Pacific operations helped the company to form a subsidiary Air Micronesia in May 1968. This led to the launching of island hopping routes amid Saipan, Yap, Guam, Majuro, Rota and Honolulu. “Air Mike” as it was called worked with Boeing 727-100 plane which was en suite with open ocean survival gear, a hefty balance of spare parts, a senior mechanic and a doppler radar. Air Micronesia serviced as a supplementary Continental Micronesia up to the year 2010. The company’s major goal of operating from Los Angeles to Honolulu and Hilo was achieved in September 1969. The subsequent year, the company was awarded more routes from San Francisco to Albuquerque and Dallas together with the routes from Seattle and Portland to Hollywood Burbank Airport, San Jose and Ontario, California. All these were the fast growing airline markets.
Continental Airlines, in partnership with the Pan Am and the Trans World Airlines initiated the initial flight of the Boeing 747 aircraft. On June 26th 1970, Continental managed to employ the Boeing 747 in the United States domestic service. Its first class lounge and the main deck won global awards for the best cabin interior and the best meal services in the midst of all airlines. In fact, the company’s Boeing 747 operations from Denver and Chicago to Los Angeles and Honolulu were used to set standard for service delivery in the western United States. The company introduced the wide-body DC-10 service on June 1st 1972 and Robert Six placed a large order for the aircrafts from the manufacturer McDonnell Douglas. These aircrafts operated in the big inter-city markets mainly from Los Angeles to Denver, Chicago, Houston and Honolulu and from Denver to Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Seattle. The Boeing 747s concentrated on the Chicago to Los Angeles to Honolulu routes with one round trip to Denver daily. The DC-9 and the Boeing 727 types dominated the remaining routes and sometimes added to the DC-10 markets. The DC-10 helped the company to get the most out of the mushrooming traffic in western U.S. markets.
The Texas Air Corporation run by U.S. aviation industrialist Frank Lorenzo purchased Continental Airlines when the company was experiencing financial difficulties. Lorenzo initiated wage reductions and layoffs to keep the company running (Bamber, Gittell, Kochan and von Nordenflytch 26). The company’s president A. L. Feldman committed suicide in 1981 in his office. Lorenzo became the chairman and CEO of the company and in October 1982, the airline merged with Texas International but retained the name, identity and the brand. In September 1983 Lorenzo took the company into chapter 11 bankruptcy after failing to confer a reduced pay rate with labor unions. This initiative helped Continental from being liquidated although it came with considerable reorganization that was effected immediately. The bankruptcy issue worked well for the company since it recorded a $50 million profit by the end of 1984. In June 1986 the company emerged from the Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Delaney 58). In April 1985 Continental managed to open new routes to Europe with flights from Newark and Houston to London, Paris, Madrid, Munich and Frankfurt. In February 1987, several commuter carriers among them People Express, New York Air and Frontier merged into Continental Airlines ending up with the third biggest U.S. airline.
In December 1990, Continental Airlines filed for its second bankruptcy with the main reason being the escalating jet fuel prices attributed to Gulf War. However, in 1993, Air Canada, Texas Pacific Group and Air Partners invested $450 million in the Continental which saw the company being elevated from bankruptcy. Gordon Bethune became the company’s president in 1994 and ensured a positive transformation project. During the same year Continental began receiving first of ninety two new Boeing 737,757,767 and 777 aircrafts. This was facilitated by Bethune’s “Go Forward Plan”. Continental embarked on expansion program in 1998 and launched operations to Ireland and Scotland. In October the same year, the company acquired its first Boeing 777-200ER aircraft which enabled nonstop flights from Houston and Newark to Tokyo, Japan and another flight from Newark to Tel Aviv, Israel (Bethune 47). In the same year Continental inaugurated partnerships with Northwest Airlines, Avant Airlines, Transbrasil, Copa Airlines and Cape Air. This facilitated the additional interline electronic ticketing, WebTV and Windows CE functionality. In 2001, Continental initiated the nonstop operation from Newark to Hong Kong via North circumpolar route. This was the first nonstop flight for duration of more than 16 hours.
On May 2nd 2010, the directors of Continental and United airlines came up with a deal to merge the two airlines. The new carrier will take on the United Airline name and will be based in Chicago. It will be controlled by the Continental’s CEO, Jeff Smisek and UAL’s CEO, Glenn Tilton as a non-executive chairman (Smith). The two carriers intend to commence merging operations in 2011, and are expected to operate on a single certificate by 2012. The new United will operate on aircrafts such as: Airbus A319s, Airbus A350s, Airbus A320s, Boeing 737s, Boeing 747s, Boeing 757s, Boeing 767s, Boeing 777s and Boeing 787s. The merger will form the second biggest airline in terms of fleet size, second to Delta Airlines.
Continental Airlines, like other flight companies, has also had its share of accidents through time. On May 22nd 1962, an aircraft from Chicago, destined for Kansas City exploded killing all the 45 aboard. January 29 1963, a flight from Midland, Texas crashed and burst into flames. On August 15th 1975, a flight bound for Wichita Kansas, crashed although the passengers and crew were safely evacuated. March 1st 1978, flight 603 from Los Angeles to Honolulu had a tire explosion which resulted to a fire engulfing the plane. The plane was a total loss. November 15th 1987, a flight en route to Boise Idaho crashed during a snowstorm at Stapleton International Airport. July 25th 2000, flight 55 caused Air France Concorde Flight 4590 to crash in Paris. Continental was fined 200,000 Euros and paid Air France a sum of 1 million Euros (USA Today). December 20th 2008, flight1404 ran off the runway during takeoff at Denver International Airport. In this accident, 38 passengers sustained injuries while two of the crew members including the pilot sustained serious injuries.
ConclusionSince its inception, Continental Airlines has managed to maintain the lead in the airline industry despite the numerous challenges the company has had to confront. Its future however seems brighter than it past. On 1st October 2010, UAL Corporation, the parent company of the United Airlines, finalized the acquisition process of Continental airlines and almost immediately altered its name to United Continental Holdings, Inc. These airline companies are in the course of amalgamating their flight services under the name United Airlines (Vietor 64). During the assimilation period, the two airlines will, for a while, run individual operations but under a joint leadership team of the latest parent company headquartered in Chicago.
Works CitedBamber, G., Gitrell, J. Kochan, T and von Nordenflytch. Up in the Air: How Airlines CanImprove Performance by Engaging Their Employees. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress, 2009. Print.
Bethune, Gordon. From Worst to First: Behind the scenes of Continental’s remarkablecomeback. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1999. Print.
Delaney, Kevin. Strategic Bankruptcy: How Corporations and Creditors Use Chapter 11 toTheir Advantage. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1999. Print.
Norwood, Tom and Wegg, John. North American Airlines Handbook. Sandpoint, ID: AirwaysInternational, 2002. Print.
Smith, Aaron. “United and Continental to Merge.” CNN Money. 3 May, 2010. Web. 4 April,2011.<http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/03/news/companies/United_Continental_merge/index.htm?hpt=T3>.
USA TODAY. “Judge places Continental under investigation in Concorde crash.” 10 March,2005. Web. 4 April, 2011. <http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-03-10-continental-concorde_x.htm>.
Vietor, Richard. “Contrived Competition: Airline Regulation and Deregulation, 1925–1988.” TheBusiness History Review, 64.1 (1990): 61-108. Print.
Novel Food Processing Techniques
Novel Food Processing Techniques
Novel foods are type foods that do not have a significant degree of human consumption before. They are type of foods that are processed following novel food regulation. Novel foods and food ingredients should not cause danger to the one consuming them (Hester & Harrison, 2001). They also should not disorient the consumer. There must be no difference between the novel foods and food ingredient and the foods they are meant to replace where by they are of disadvantage to the one consuming (Barbosa-Canovas & Tapia, 2005). There are some novel food applications which include the foods that have organisms whose the genetic materials are altered through some technologies. They are foods that are meant to lower cholesterol in the human body. Their affordable costs have enabled the food industry to produce them more.
There are some technologies used in novel food processing. One of the technologies is high pressure processing (Ramaswa,y, 2005). This type of processing starts from a mature level considering both the food science and equipment developments focusing on pasteurisation processes. This processing begins with extending the current state of the art to an integrated modelling approach (Ahvenainen, 2003). This first step includes safety of the food, its quality and the packaging aspects used. Sterilisation process immediately follows where pasteurisation is also included.
The other technology used is pulsed electric field. This processing commences at semi-immature level where food science and equipments developments are included (Fellows P. 2003). Here food safety and quality are well understood. Food electrode reactions is among the things that should be well understood. There are several applications for PEF that are addressed in this technology. It also includes the cost-effectiveness and environmental impact of novel food.
Cold plasma treatment is another technology used novel food processing. This begins at immature level of food science basis. Effects on safety and quality are not known in this type of technology (Saravacos, 2002,). Cold plasma is used to decontaminate surfaces. This begins with the development of small scale equipments. These equipments are used to evaluate the effects on material properties.
Advanced heating technologies are also used in food processing. This includes ohmic heating, microwave and radio frequency technologies (Barrett, 2004). Here these kind of technologies are have a need to be researched and then demonstrated following the the sound act of the scientific base (Deak, 2004). This type of food processing technology focuses on full scale integration in processing lines. It includes the hygienic design of the food, eco-friendliness and the foods efficiency.
Packaging also exists among the novel food processing techniques (Singh, 2004). This entails the integration of basic and applied issues that belongs to the area of material science, with concepts of bioactive. They can also be integrated in the concept of smart, biodegradable and eco-friendly packaging (Barrett, 2004). Coatings are also done for one to understand and know the interactions that occur in between the materials, products and the processes used.
The novel food processing has some people participating in this project. These participants have groups that they belong to. One of the groups is known as consortium. This group consists of people who belong to NovelQ and have signed a consortium agreement. These partners carry out a research as a joint. NovelQ comprises of experts on novel processing schemes. 30 partners in this group come from all over Europe an addition of one Argentina and the other from South Africa. All these partners are engaged in nationality funded projects where they enjoy the synergistic benefits (Dan-Wen Sun, 2005). These benefits are in association to working at national and regional levels.
Another widely known group is Industry advisory platform (EBSCO, 2007). This is a group that is established to transfer knowledge to potential consumers and technology providers. NovelQ has a characteristic of combining food manufacturers and equipment suppliers. This is known as cross-sectional approach. This has a side effect where the spending of two sectors is multiplied. Many companies have registered with Industry Advisory Platform where the current number is more 45. This group is known for exploiting and promoting results (Wilson, 2006). It also helps to identify the bottlenecks which are presented in the project to be examined. The companies in this group has a role to play where some are food manufacturers, suppliers of the food machinery equipments and others are packaging firms (Bengtsson, 2002). There is room for the new parties that are willing to join and are willing to participate in IAP of NovelQ.
Scientific Advisory Board is a group that consists of few senior scientists who are registered in NovelQ consortium. They are entitled to monitor and maintain high quality research. They also reviews the draft publications and try to keep contact with the experts that comes from other European research projects and organisation (Martin, 2006). They then extend their work in coaching and training young scientists who are in NovelQ.
There is also a group that is called Training and Career Development Network. All the organisations need someone who is well trained and has high skills of work. This group helps in creating enthusiasm and self confidence in the young scientists in NovelQ. It also passes knowledge to them (Tucker, 2006). There is an advantage of having young scientists in the project for they have an opportunity to acquire knowledge from the experts who are outside their working environment (Mattsson, 2003). All the young scientists within the consortium have a passion to share their skills with organisations outside the NovelQ consortium. Sometimes the scientists spend their time in the laboratories of other partners so that they can get joint results.
The main objective of the projects is to come up with a strategic solution for technical and basic research hurdles (Anon, 2000). This brings about development and successful demonstration of novel processing schemes. The novel processing characteristics improves the quality of the food and also facilitates its innovation. It then increases the added value of the EU food sector through many ways. One of them is substantially extending shelf-life fresh foods of plant origin. This is done without compromising the safety of the food. It is the limiting factor that is used to maintain the shelf-life of prepared whole meal (Teich, 2003). If this problem is solved then the value of the regional recipes is maintained.
The other way is through responding to the demands of the end users who prefer foods with characteristics that are related to those of raw materials (Wichers, 2006). The increment of the added value of the EU food sector is got through responding to the consumers demand for the foods that are meant to their health and well-being. These foods helps to reduce diet related diseases and associated health. It is also got through enhancement of eco-friendly innovative processing which results to reduction of current wastage of fresh produce through extended shelf-life. It also results to reduction of energy inputs which is done through low temperature and low energy processing. Chemical and water usage is also reduced (Richard, 2004). This done through new hygiene approaches being applied. Problems of migration and packaging materials are also reduced.
References
Ramaswa,y H.S. 2005, Food Processing, CRC press, London.
Barbosa-Canovas G.V. & Tapia S.M. 2005, Novel Food Processing, Boston.
Fellows P. 2003, Food Processing Technology, Woodhead Publishing, Oxford.
Saravacos D. G. 2002, Handbook for Food Processing Technology, Kluwer Plenum, York.
Deak T. 2004, Novel Processes and Technologies in Food Industry, IOS press, Cambridge.
Singh K.R. 2004, Food Process Design, CRC press, London.
Wichers H.J. 2006, Technologies of Food Processing, Springer, Carlisle.
Richard S.P. 2004, Processing of Foods, Woodhead Publishing, London.
Teich H.A 2003, Novel Processing Methods, William Andrew Inc. Hereford.
Anon C. 2000,Food Processing, CRC press, London.
Mattsson B. 2003, Novel Food Packaging Techniques, Woodhead Publishing, London.
Martin L. 2006, Handbook of Food Processing, CRC press, London.
Ahvenainen R. 2003, Novel Food Packaging Techniques, Woodhead publishing, London.
Barrett M. D. 2004, Food Processing Techniques, CRC Press, London.
Dan-Wen Sun 2005, Technologies for Food Processing, Academic Press, Brighton.
Tucker G.A. 2006, Novel Food, Springer, Carlisle.
Bengtsson N. 2002, Processing Technologies in the Food Industry, Woodhead Publishing, London.
EBSCO, 2007, Projects of NovelQ, EBSCO publishing, Cardiff.
Wilson H.W. 2006, Food Technologies, Wilson Company, Bristol.
Hester E. R. & Harrison M.R. 2001, Food Safety and Quality, Royal Society of Chemistry.
Notably, the provisions on extradition of the 1961 single convention on narcotic drugs
Activity 4
Notably, the provisions on extradition of the 1961 single convention on narcotic drugs and the 1971 convention on psychotropic substances are largely similar. Remarkably, some of the provisions on extradition of the 1988 United Nations convention on illicit traffic of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances also are similar to those of the two conventions mentioned. To start with, both article 36 (2) of the 1961 convention, (UK Cannabis Internet Activist, 1972) and article 22 (2) of the 1971 convention, (UK Cannabis Internet Activist, 1971) stipulates that serious offences as described in those conventions are to are to be prosecuted either by the country in which the offence has taken place or by the party in whose territory the offender is found if extradition is not acceptable. To that extent, the two conventions are similar to article 6 (5) of the 1988 convention, (United Nations, 2003). Also, article 36 (2) of the 1961 convention, (UK Cannabis Internet Activist, 1972) and article 22 (2) of the 1971, (UK Cannabis Internet Activist, 1971) convention are similar to articles 6 (1) to 6 (5) of the 1988 convention, (United Nations, 2003). Generally, these articles establish principles relating to the extradition of offenders, including making the offences stipulated under those conventions extraditable offences as between countries which already have extraditable treaties.
At the same time, the provisions on extradition of the 1961 convention and the 1971 convention have significant differences from some of the provisions on extradition of the 1988 convention. Most significant, the articles of the 1988 convention are more detailed compared to those of the other two conventions. Articles 6 (6) to 6 (12) of the 1988 convention, (United Nations, 2003) provides basis to which an offender may or may not be extradited. Remarkably, they provide formal requirements for extradition if a requested party does not regard the offence to be serious. In addition, those provisions require requested parties to formally enhance prosecution of the offenders of the offences described in the convention, in accordance with the convention if extradition is not acceptable, (United Nations, 2003). Finally, those provisions require parties to make agreements and to provide each other with assistance in extradition and prosecution of offenders as stipulated under the convention. As such, some of those obligations are absent while others are not given sufficient enclosure in both the 1961 and 1971 conventions. In summary, given that the 1988 convention establishes formal grounds for extradition and also provides for mutual legal assistance in prosecution of the offenders which are not given sufficient exposure under the other two conventions, the provisions on extradition of this convention are expected to be more effective.
References
UK Cannabis Internet Activist, Single Convention on Narcotic Drug, 1961
<http://www.ukcia.org/pollaw/lawlibrary/singleconventiononnarcoticdrugs1961.php>
UK Cannabis Internet Activist, the convention on psychotropic substances, 1971
1971, Viewed, 17, April 2011 <http://www.ukcia.org/pollaw/lawlibrary/conventiononpsychotropicsubstances1971.php>
United Nations, The United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances, 1988, 2003, Viewed, 17, April 2011 <http://www.incb.org/pdf/e/conv/1988_convention_en.pdf>
