Most people that worship money above all will take the higher pay option.
So, you see no problem with this? Yet you fly those jets for a living. Sure, you might be missing door plugs on some jets, but the profits!
You're forgetting one thing that some folks hold on to very tightly, integrity. On their death bed whether an inspector worked for either of your boogeymen the money won't matter, but if they bent to anything that hurt their integrity that'll sting.
You sure about that? Holidays off, job security, not being pressured to do sketchy things that are unsafe because of profits. Regardless, kind of insane a 737MAX pilot at the door blow out carrier thinks Boeing being allowed to self regulate with their asinine track record is not only OK but the logical solution.
If you all want RFD flying there’s plenty of it and ramp space. Controllers and employees are great! If I could never see that place again it would still be too soon.
This little tidbit is going to be interesting post peak. With the accident happening within a week or two of being able to use contractors they didn’t need to pull that card. If these inspections go tits up that’ll be the next card they’ll pull. Anyone at the bottom of the list better pack their patience if this goes on for a while.
The more things change the more they stay the same. The stories I’ve heard about incidents that happened even while there was a push against TCAS are jaw dropping and I would’ve thought they were lies if I hadn’t heard them from multiple people. Maybe @DE727UPS will get this right but it damn near took an airplane running into AF1 to finally get TCAS.
You might get lucky and have a few of your EWR's cancel. Last peak there was a company bird and a WGA or Atlas (i cant remember) scheduled for EWR evening turns. Most of the time only one went.
On the other side of the freight ramp you have pilots advocating to not go 117.
One of your colleagues told me to sit down and shut up about it once, in fact.
Yup. Passenger airlines do it too, though they tend not to do it in revenue operations (ask me sometime about how the regiOOnal wanted me to fly with stab trim channel 2 inoperative on a ferry).
See above, sadly. (as just one example of regulatory insanity) The NTSB had repeatedly pointed out as far back as the early 1990s that reduced rest overnights as a matter of scheduling (as opposed to being a tool for recovery when things go sideways) failed to meet the level of intended safety under Part 121. The fact that it took until the Colgan crash to get rid of these things (and then some time after that) is boggling.
sigh.
Basically, yeah.
Basically, yeah.
I don't dismiss productivity-related stuff out of hand, but having flown some really interesting, 117-compliant backside of the clock stuff myself I'm likely to go...
What is their reasoning?