U.S. Airways/American suing FAA

Seggy said:
The last six fatal airline accidents in the United States were outsourced 'regional' airlines.
Click to expand...

I have two points to respond to this:

1. Regional airlines fly more segments, and thus have more exposure to risk. ExpressJet operated 731,000 flights last year. All of Delta Air Lines operated 728,000.

If the regionals were flying 10% of the flights, but getting 90% of the accidents, I might agree with your premise, but that's not the case.

2. The majors have had a few incidents in the last decade that could have been, or should have been fatal. USAir on the Hudson, Continental in Denver, American in Jamaica, just to name a few.

Luck was on their side then, but it won't always be.


http://www.transtats.bts.gov/carriers.asp?pn=1
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
2. The majors have had a few incidents in the last decade that could have been, or should have been fatal. USAir on the Hudson, Continental in Denver, American in Jamaica, just to name a few.
Click to expand...

But American wasn't IN the US (and let's not forget about FedEx in Tokyo). You have to be selective with your stats when you're trying to make a pointless argument...
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
But American wasn't IN the US (and let's not forget about FedEx in Tokyo). You have to be selective with your stats when you're trying to make a pointless argument...
Click to expand...

You do understand, along with PhilosopherPilot, that the high rate of accidents at regionals caused the NTSB to hold a public hearing concerning that correlation. Right? The NTSB doesn't just hold hearings for poos and giggles.
 
wheelsup said:
Great so we can safely outsource from 13 on down then, right?

I don't really know how much FAA ATC's make but from what I read online contract guys make around $60k with a few bucks an hour extra for benefits (retirement and medical). Seems to me a significant savings over the FAA guys in comparable facilities.

If you guys are on par on a cost level basis than forget everything I wrote, but personally if we can get more bang for the same buck let's do it.
Click to expand...
Ornstein, is that you?
 
z987k said:
And to prove my above point, look at the pile of pure horse crap FSS has become after is was contracted to Lockheed Martin.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more. Back before Lockheed Martin, they were competent and efficient. Now, I avoid them as much as possible. When I have to use them (such as teaching students to open a VFR flight plan), I've gotten used to just hanging up on them once I hear my flight plan is open. Otherwise it will be an endless exchange like:

FSS: I have your flight plan open at 1300.
Me: Thank you, good day.
FSS: Do you need NOTAMS for your destination airport?
Me: No thanks, good day.
FSS: OK, please call us back with any pilot reports.
Me: OK, will do.
FSS: Can you verify that you have AIRMET sierra for mountain obscuration along your route of flight? (AIRMET is 100 NM east of our position)
Me: No, but will decline.
FSS: OK, be advised that VFR flight is not recommended due to mountain obscuration and occasional ceilings and/or visibilities below 3000' and/or 5 sm.
Me: Roger, good day.
FSS: Be sure to contact FSS on 122.2 or flight watch on 122.0 for the latest weather on route. Is there anything else I can help you with?
Me: Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

Then I land at my destination airport, call to cancel, and find that they didn't have the details of the flight plan correct and were expecting me a few states over.

I understand liability and the need for CYA, but gosh, they've just become useless.
 
wheelsup said:
I think it's relevant. Despite cutting of costs, safety has remained high and only gotten better. Regardless of reason, a lack of guaranteed profit hasn't made flying less safe.
Click to expand...


The reason airline safety records have improved is in part because aviation is still the most regulated, "deregulated" industry in the world. There is no other reason aside from regulation. I firmly believe that if airlines could cut any more corners to cut costs and increase stock prices they would, fortunately they can't. However because of this, and deregulation causing a market where starter airlines can enter the market with insanely low prices before going bankrupt, established airlines must fins other ways to put more money in the shareholders pockets, while keeping ticket prices low. The do this by taking from their employees, more and more each year, and even go as far as manipulating employees to fight against each other. Take for example the move United is taking with its express carriers and the ability to nonrev, or even list for a flight for that matter. In the past the system has worked much like Delta's system, which works great BTW, $50 a year per person enrolled on an employees benefits to a cap of $200. United sent out letters to all of their express carriers last month saying that they needed more money so now they are going to charge $20 just to list as a nonrev, and its payroll deducted. Good luck getting that back. That $20 is for each leg on a domestic flight, its $40 for international, and United reserves the right to charge any additional fees as they see fit. Just to put that in perspective, that will cost the avg regional pilot $2000 a year just to commute to work, $4000 if they have a two leg commute. I guarantee you that if they could find a way to charge for the jumpseat they would do that too. DEREGULATION SUCKS.
 
Seggy said:
The last six fatal airline accidents in the United States were outsourced 'regional' airlines.
Click to expand...

That's accurate. However, it's also a bit simplistic. There have been several 'mainline' accidents where a tremendous amount of luck prevented fatalities. Of course skill also played a roll, but there's no way any of those preventions were skill alone.
 
If you're going to regulate airlines on the basis of improving employee pay and morale and continuance of service, why stop at airlines. Would any of you be happy if instead of buying say a Toyota/BMW/Hyundai/Subaru the government mandated everyone who lives on the East Coast must buy a Ford, and those that live on the West Coast must buy a Chevy, and those who live in the Midwest must buy a Chrysler.

Not to mention that once unions get established and going, prices would spiral out of control because you are creating a defacto monopoly.

It would be in my (semi) best interests to go back to the old way of dividing up the business and setting prices (assuming the lost business did not push me out of a job) but inherently I just can't get behind the idea of a government created monopoly of anything besides core essential duties like security.
 
Pilotforhire587 said:
The reason airline safety records have improved is in part because aviation is still the most regulated, "deregulated" industry in the world. There is no other reason aside from regulation. I firmly believe that if airlines could cut any more corners to cut costs and increase stock prices they would, fortunately they can't. However because of this, and deregulation causing a market where starter airlines can enter the market with insanely low prices before going bankrupt, established airlines must fins other ways to put more money in the shareholders pockets, while keeping ticket prices low. The do this by taking from their employees, more and more each year, and even go as far as manipulating employees to fight against each other. Take for example the move United is taking with its express carriers and the ability to nonrev, or even list for a flight for that matter. In the past the system has worked much like Delta's system, which works great BTW, $50 a year per person enrolled on an employees benefits to a cap of $200. United sent out letters to all of their express carriers last month saying that they needed more money so now they are going to charge $20 just to list as a nonrev, and its payroll deducted. Good luck getting that back. That $20 is for each leg on a domestic flight, its $40 for international, and United reserves the right to charge any additional fees as they see fit. Just to put that in perspective, that will cost the avg regional pilot $2000 a year just to commute to work, $4000 if they have a two leg commute. I guarantee you that if they could find a way to charge for the jumpseat they would do that too. DEREGULATION SUCKS.
Click to expand...


I can't snip and paste, but are they charging for regional pilots to commute to work now? Even if they are a part of the regional that feeds them? I though jumpseating was basically free if you were headed to work?
 
mshunter said:
I can't snip and paste, but are they charging for regional pilots to commute to work now? Even if they are a part of the regional that feeds them? I though jumpseating was basically free if you were headed to work?
Click to expand...

A few things.

It's not now, it's been a policy at many carriers for years, possibly decades.

And it's not just regional pilots, it's mainline pilots also sometimes.

Yes, the jumpseat is USUALLY free, but with American, if there are seats in the back you MUST sit in the back if you're an online jumpseater, and you will be charged the non rev fee. If you're offline, they don't charge you.

None of this is new. The American policy was explained to me when I interviewed with Beagle in 2007. When I was hired at my current company, it was $12.50 a leg to non rev.
 
wheelsup said:
If you're going to regulate airlines on the basis of improving employee pay and morale and continuance of service, why stop at airlines. Would any of you be happy if instead of buying say a Toyota/BMW/Hyundai/Subaru the government mandated everyone who lives on the East Coast must buy a Ford, and those that live on the West Coast must buy a Chevy, and those who live in the Midwest must buy a Chrysler.

Not to mention that once unions get established and going, prices would spiral out of control because you are creating a defacto monopoly.

It would be in my (semi) best interests to go back to the old way of dividing up the business and setting prices (assuming the lost business did not push me out of a job) but inherently I just can't get behind the idea of a government created monopoly of anything besides core essential duties like security.
Click to expand...

You're arguing against something that never existed. There was never a monopoly under the CAB. Carriers competed for route authority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top