Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Contract Carriers  
User currently offlineFRA_to_usa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (16 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 689 times:

Having recently left the military, I am so glad that the days of flying on contract airlines are over.

How do airlines like Tower and Rich stay in business? I remember a Rich Intl flight in 1994 that was so bad I would rather have walked home. I think they are out of business now though. Tower is just waiting for a crash. Hopefully guys like these will be shut down or have financial difficulties before a plane load of military members and their families are lost.

Incidentally, I flew on a Tower flight where the pilot was making jokes about the Valuejet crash in front of passengers not more than 3 weeks after it happened. The 747 shut down two engines over the North Atlantic, and the flight was met by fire trucks at the airport. No explanation was ever made.

We here on the forum complain about service from Delta and US Airways, etc..., but THESE ARE YOUR TAX DOLLARS AND YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS being flown on disasters waiting to happen.

2 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineJETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (16 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 689 times:

What tax dolars. These are private companies.

Rich was shut down by the FAA and is long gone.

Tower has good maintenance. The planes do however look like they are falling apart. But I believe they're safe. I fly them all the time between NY and Miami.

Why should anyone care more about military personnel or their families more than civilians people or families?

As bad as these airlines apear to be. They are still part of the safest aviation system in the world.

User currently offlineDC-10MAN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (16 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 689 times:

FYI It's a lot cheaper for the military to contract companies rather than purchase and operate their own "Military Airline". Tower and Rich aren't the only airlines that fly the military, ATA, ATI, World, DAL and a few others also fly for them. Each airline authorized to fly for the govt. goes through a strict and thurough evaluation before they can carry one GI or dependant; proving runs are performed, the maintainance program and history is evaluated, just to cite a couple of examples. If anyone is at fault for authorizing a sub-standard carrier to fly troops, then its the govt who authorized them in the first place.ADIOS

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Which Legacy Carriers Have Become Successful LCCs? posted Sun Jun 28 2009 21:49:05 by OP3000
Stand-Alone Commuter Carriers posted Sat Jun 27 2009 23:57:04 by Wedgetail737
Sukhoi Superjet And US Carriers posted Thu Jun 25 2009 07:30:47 by Golftango
SIN-MNL Sees Upped Frequencies By Three Carriers! posted Mon Jun 22 2009 20:14:43 by CityAirline
New Carriers In SkyTeam posted Sun Jun 14 2009 11:24:03 by DeltaHolland
US Flagged Carriers Coding To KEF/Iceland? posted Wed Jun 10 2009 13:53:07 by Joelfreak
Southwest Pilots Reject New Contract posted Wed Jun 3 2009 13:49:33 by PHLJJS
Small European Carriers W/ Transatlantic Svc. posted Sun May 31 2009 11:11:09 by LHCVG
Do Charter Airlines Help Or Bust Legacy Carriers? posted Fri May 29 2009 09:02:35 by Docpepz
JetBlue Against Other Low Cost Carriers posted Wed May 27 2009 17:13:50 by FuturePilot16