Alfa75 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 612 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1311 times:
I was talking to a friend this weekend and was telling him of my upcoming trip on NW. My friend, being an aficionado of statistics, said that airlines going through bankruptcy proceedings are safer to fly because there are more stringent controls on maintenance and such.
Is this true? I find it hard to believe that the are two different standards of safety. Is there more technical oversight? What gives, or was my friend merely coming to a conclusion without merit?
I honestly don't feel any less safe whether they are going bankrupt or not.
Aogdesk From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 933 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1305 times:
My opinion:
You're right and wrong. There aren't two different standards of safety, theres quite a few actually. The "same" airworthiness standards that are to govern say AA's operations will in reality be much higher than those that govern Kalitta. You may assume that such carriers as Kalitta (freight) have lower standards due to the fact that they're not carrying pax, but its not supposed to be that way.
As far as NW and their increased oversight in bankruptcy (and in times of labor disputes), yes, the FAA is supposed to ramp up survelliance. But it remains to be seen as to whether the effect is bark or bite. The FAA just reassigned an FAA inspector that wrote alot of negative reports on NW's maintenance performance during the strike.
Again, in my opinion, any perceived increase in safety is quickly going to be negated by the fact that NW has a poorly trained, band-aid type mx workforce.
Alfa75 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 612 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1302 times:
Interesting, thanks for the reply.
I will admit that any fears that I have flying have to do with the mechanic using the in/lb torque wrench instead if the ft/lb one. (I actually know of a car mechanic assembling an engine with one!)
Amtrosie From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 274 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1152 times:
I have been through 3 chapter 11's (and 1 chap. 7). There is no difference what so ever! What may be different now is the fact that the FAA is stretched way too thin, but bankruptcy has nothing to do with that.
PlainSmart From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1117 times:
NO WAY. As airlines are pushed with cash issues there is less and less money and motivation for up dating and spending research money. Basically if the airlines are dirt poor the technology slows and progression slows. An example is getting Data Link into the airplanes today to get graphical weather. That would be nice but it costs money. So the airlines are stuck with older technology of relaying information to the flight crews. (Textual and Verbal)
PlainSmart From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1072 times:
Wow Insightful response. It would not hold true for an Airline like Southwest that does no spending on development, but I do not understand your statement.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 612 posts, 
From Belgium, joined May 1999, 649 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31228 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
