saluki9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,032
Who is talking about pensions? Listen, there are tons of forums for people who don't like capitalism, I'm sure they would love to have you.
Why didn't the airlines act without FAA prodding?
- Thread starter dumpster56
- Start date
Who is talking about pensions? Listen, there are tons of forums for people who don't like capitalism, I'm sure they would love to have you.
Chinaco,
Well, as you'll appreciate, the situation isn't black and white (safe/unsafe planes). You've certainly flown in or work on planes with numerous "delayed discrepancies," and these were deemed "safe enough" at least for limited profiles.
There's no perfectly safe airplane, and designers make a lot of trade-offs in the design process. Making one system safer can lead to the overall aircraft becoming less safe. Also, as an extension of clifp's comment, the reduced cost of airline tickets (compared to the days of airline regulation by the feds) has undoubtedly saved thousands of lives. When tickets are less expensive, people will fly rather than drive, and this saves lives. Efficient maintenance schedules (read "cutting mx to minimum safe level") is part of the equation in keeping ticket prices low. Yes, I'm totally in favor of a strong FAA that enforces regulations and keeps the airlines safe.
But the question you pose ("which airplane would you take") brings up another option: Make the safety issue a more explicit factor in the overall consumer decision process. Crashes and accidents probably wouldn't be a good metric (too infrequent, and the airlines serve different areas, some with inherently riskier airfields/weather). At least as far as fleet safety goes, maybe the FAA could publish a "grade" that lets people know how healthy a particular airline's fleet is. Heck, maybe the FAA could follow with some type of aircrew competency metric based on no-notice FAA checkrides/emergency procedure simulator checkrides. This might result in the airlines hiring guys with a few more hours under their belt, rather than the cheapest pilots they can get. Maybe folks would be willing to pay more to be on an airline that puts aircrew and maintenance excellence high on their list--and in today's environment, airlines would do anything to give themselves a competitive advantage.
Meeting today's min standard= "D". Going above and beyond to increase crew proficiency, upgrade the fleet to more modern/safer jets, investing in pro-active inspections ahead of schedule, flying with fewer delayed discrepancies= higher grades.
If they could get $25 extra per ticket from passengers convinced they were getting on a first-rate airline, some of these carriers would now be in the black. Right now, consumers have no way to know which crews and fleets are in the best shape.
Well, as you'll appreciate, the situation isn't black and white (safe/unsafe planes). You've certainly flown in or work on planes with numerous "delayed discrepancies," and these were deemed "safe enough" at least for limited profiles.
There's no perfectly safe airplane, and designers make a lot of trade-offs in the design process. Making one system safer can lead to the overall aircraft becoming less safe. Also, as an extension of clifp's comment, the reduced cost of airline tickets (compared to the days of airline regulation by the feds) has undoubtedly saved thousands of lives. When tickets are less expensive, people will fly rather than drive, and this saves lives. Efficient maintenance schedules (read "cutting mx to minimum safe level") is part of the equation in keeping ticket prices low. Yes, I'm totally in favor of a strong FAA that enforces regulations and keeps the airlines safe.
But the question you pose ("which airplane would you take") brings up another option: Make the safety issue a more explicit factor in the overall consumer decision process. Crashes and accidents probably wouldn't be a good metric (too infrequent, and the airlines serve different areas, some with inherently riskier airfields/weather). At least as far as fleet safety goes, maybe the FAA could publish a "grade" that lets people know how healthy a particular airline's fleet is. Heck, maybe the FAA could follow with some type of aircrew competency metric based on no-notice FAA checkrides/emergency procedure simulator checkrides. This might result in the airlines hiring guys with a few more hours under their belt, rather than the cheapest pilots they can get. Maybe folks would be willing to pay more to be on an airline that puts aircrew and maintenance excellence high on their list--and in today's environment, airlines would do anything to give themselves a competitive advantage.
Meeting today's min standard= "D". Going above and beyond to increase crew proficiency, upgrade the fleet to more modern/safer jets, investing in pro-active inspections ahead of schedule, flying with fewer delayed discrepancies= higher grades.
If they could get $25 extra per ticket from passengers convinced they were getting on a first-rate airline, some of these carriers would now be in the black. Right now, consumers have no way to know which crews and fleets are in the best shape.
Last edited:
HFWR
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Regarding the OP, maybe they just like being prodded... 
