DeltaAir From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1094 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (15 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1567 times:
It seems that new developments have come up with the FAA investigation. The same plane that crashed was known to have the problem, but when reinspected the part was magically fine, but never replaced. This is the same for a few others in the fleet as well.
Charles802 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 380 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (15 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1562 times:
I wrote a thread about that a little ways down "The Plot thickens in the AS investigation"
Honestly...if the same test was repeated 5 times, and the results were all within tolerance, than I would think the plane is safe. What is unfortunate about this crash, is that Alaska probably has the safest planes in the air right now of any airline, but people are still looking at what MAY have happened 14-18 months ago.
Hypermike From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1001 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (15 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1540 times:
What has saved AS so far has been that they've handled the press very well. In other crashes, the media have attacked the airlines because of their lack of information. Alaska has been very cooperative with everything and everyone.
OnTheFly From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (15 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1522 times:
I think the short- and long- term survival of the airline depends on public perception. Is the airline perceived as a party interested in doing all they can for the families and assisting investigators in any way possible? Or are they perceived as more interested in shifting blame, and denying any culpability before all the facts are in. It's a tough balancing act, especially in the "instant news cycle" media environment we live in. With so many news organizations chasing so few "facts" the truth tends to get distorted. How many inspections occurred, what were the findings, what are the relevant FAA regulations? Media "experts" rarely get these details right. It's in the airline's interest to set the record straight on a factual basis but without seeming insensitive or overly defensive. I think they've been very effective at striking this balance, particularly through their web site, where they can help fill the information vacuum without having to call a press conference and respond to unnecessarily provocative and misleading questions from reporters. So far, I give them high marks for how they've handled this terrible situation.