spacecadet wrote:

JackMeahoff wrote:

How could anyone say with a straight face this wasn't a hit piece on Allegiant?

Because it was based on facts.

Four times more incidents than other airlines. Something is not right.

It makes no sense to defend this.

"facts" are funny things.

I'm going to leave this here:

http://visualapproach.io/is-allegiant-a-safe-airline-using-data-to-review-60-minutes-conclusions/

Others have posted it, but it's worth a reminder. The more I looked into the claims, the more ridiculous it got. The best way to sell commercials is to scare people.

wjcandee wrote:

KATL2 wrote:

Got to say it's surprising that so many here seem to be brushing this off as no big deal.

The story or what it reports? I didn't see anything new, and the Skydrol haze incident that they're making such a big deal about is a not-uncommon occurrence.

But I don't think a completely-biased hit piece on 60 Minutes is no big deal. I agree that this will now probably be used by some group to make the FAA watch Allegiant more closely. Hopefully it will have the balls to be evenhanded. The Tampa Times tried to bring down the airline and failed: after they managed to get the FAA to do a white-glove on it, they came out pretty-much smelling like a rose. With any luck, they'll weather the storm. Again.

I read all these comments before I finally got to watch the piece yesterday. From my limited knowledge of the internal workings of Allegiant I would say it was accurate reflection of Allegiant, FAA oversight of Allegiant as well as airline oversight in general. The facts are facts and I don't see much if any spin by 60 minutes. It is naive to dismiss this as a hit piece. The simple fact that Allegiant pressured the FAA to not release FOIA SDR'setc speaks volumes. Especially considering legacy carriers did release the same information. 60 minutes presented an accurate unbiased representation of events at Allegiant. It is the public's right to dismiss or not. Hopefully It won't be another "told you so"

dashdrvr wrote:

I read all these comments before I finally got to watch the piece yesterday. From my limited knowledge of the internal workings of Allegiant I would say it was accurate reflection of Allegiant, FAA oversight of Allegiant as well as airline oversight in general. The facts are facts and I don't see much if any spin by 60 minutes. It is naive to dismiss this as a hit piece. The simple fact that Allegiant pressured the FAA to not release FOIA SDR'setc speaks volumes. Especially considering legacy carriers did release the same information. 60 minutes presented an accurate unbiased representation of events at Allegiant. It is the public's right to dismiss or not. Hopefully It won't be another "told you so"

Well, we will have to agree to disagree, then.

To me, it was a classic case of how to lie with statistics: select the comparison set, subject metric, and date range of the stats to give false context. (See this: https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go ... 20Appraoch )

As an economist, this is something with which I am very familiar. Hey, the facts are what they are, right? Or are they?

And it's all about characterization to achieve a result. Allegiant didn't pressure anyone. The FAA has to ask before releasing in response to a FOIA request (which seems pretty dumb given that the stuff is online). Allegiant said "No" initially. Why would they want to approve a data set designed to mislead? In any event, all this stuff is available online if you know where to look. It just sounds better for 60 Minutes to say it took seven months to get. The guys that did the study above found the exact same data set online in four minutes.

Go on APC and read what the actual Allegiant pilots say about all this. Here, I'll help: They say that not once have they ever been pressured, ever, not to write something up. They write up in outstations as well at maintenance base, which is an important fact. With respect to the A320, they write up every single squawk, and are constantly reminded to do so, and have been for a couple of years. You are in trouble if you don't. So, they say that the bit about maintenance write ups is total BS. And the relationship between air returns and some general concept of "safety" is also silly and misleading.

To say that it's an "accurate unbiased representation of events at Allegiant" is, I think, a bridge too far.

And this is coming from someone who was highly-critical -- several years ago -- of what was going on in the Florida maintenance operation, which was plainly being misrepresented to upper management. All those people, including higher-ups, were fired and replaced.

In my view, it's a total hit piece. And one based on old data at that. What I can't figure out is who brought it to 60 Minutes and why.

cbphoto wrote:

Pellegrine wrote:

MSPSXMFLIER wrote:

I re-watched the 60 Minutes story online and I still feel that it was a well done piece that brought to light very serious incidents with the airline and a culture of hushing things up and intimidation by airline management. I really do hope that the fired pilot, Jason Kinzer, wins his lawsuit against Allegiant. There's just nothing about his actions that should've prompted his firing.

Hazardous fumes and smoke filling up the cabin and it takes the captain overriding ARFF and 12-15 minutes to commence deplaning from the rear stairs - making sure to take your carry-on so it doesn't look like an evac - what? I hope Kinzer gets a fat settlement or wins his suit too.

Those of us in the know have known about G4 for a long time, and I'm with those who won't fly them.

Some of you airline/aviation nut yahoos are really loony on this thread re. all this "hit piece" crap. I assume some of you are employed by them or your love of aviation is clouding your view.

And let me guess, you would happily walk on a Southwest flight, right? Never mind they have had two uncontained engine failures, one tragic, a cultural issue with some of its pilots (La Guardia comes to mind) as well fatigue holes, overruns and landing at wrong airports? Buts that’s all ok, right?

Every airline has its issues, and it’s pretty clear your views are clouded by mainstream media with their horribly inaccurate reporting.

Eh I'm good. I don't care for the mad, desperate rush for a seat, and I generally like to sit in domestic F on AA (formerly UA). I like my elite miles.

fly4ever78 wrote:

They keep beating a dead horse because the FAA isn't doing their job!!! This isn't a case of an airline with old planes. It's a case of an airline not doing the required maintenance on said old airplanes. Do you not see the difference here? They have had several "incidents" that very nearly resulted in hundreds of deaths, that's a problem. No one is accusing them for operating a bottom feeder airline, they are pointing out it's not a safe airline. There is a difference.

Clearly the FAA is doing their job as they cleared G4 of any type of maintenance issue! You say "nearly" resulted in hundreds of deaths, but looking at DL, AA, UA, they have had incidents that DID result in hundreds of deaths, but you aren't clawing at their door? G4 uses aged aircraft. Aged aircraft have issues after awhile. They are replacing their older aircraft with newer A319/20s. The Federal Aviation Administration cleared them. The terrible thing is that you are one of those people that are eagerly waiting for the day that a G4 aircraft crashes, just so you can hop on here and say "I TOLD YOU SO! I TOLD YOU SO! I TOLD YOU SO!"

aviationjunky wrote:

fly4ever78 wrote:

They keep beating a dead horse because the FAA isn't doing their job!!! This isn't a case of an airline with old planes. It's a case of an airline not doing the required maintenance on said old airplanes. Do you not see the difference here? They have had several "incidents" that very nearly resulted in hundreds of deaths, that's a problem. No one is accusing them for operating a bottom feeder airline, they are pointing out it's not a safe airline. There is a difference.

Clearly the FAA is doing their job as they cleared G4 of any type of maintenance issue! You say "nearly" resulted in hundreds of deaths, but looking at DL, AA, UA, they have had incidents that DID result in hundreds of deaths, but you aren't clawing at their door? G4 uses aged aircraft. Aged aircraft have issues after awhile. They are replacing their older aircraft with newer A319/20s. The Federal Aviation Administration cleared them. The terrible thing is that you are one of those people that are eagerly waiting for the day that a G4 aircraft crashes, just so you can hop on here and say "I TOLD YOU SO! I TOLD YOU SO! I TOLD YOU SO!"

I am NOT waiting for an accident, I'm waiting for a regulator to to their job and properly oversee one of their airlines. And your insulting my character is not appreciated by the way. All three airlines you mentioned have been in operation for almost a century (many of those decades you might know included the beginning of modern air travel in this country). Surely you are not trying to compare that to an airline (G4) that began operation in 1998??!! The last fatal accident that killed "hundreds" of people like you state was AA A300 in NYC in 2001 and the only other on any of them was in the late 80's. I would say your comparison is flawed. All three major airlines operate 800+ mainline airplanes each and the scale of that comparison is laughable. The point is, when there are that many maintenance irregularities in a single year, it raises eyebrows, plain and simple. I'm not saying your airline is the worst, I'm saying the FAA needs to take maintenance compliance seriously and not just trust anything an airline tells them, (that applies to other airlines as well).

As is clearly illustrated by the visualapproach.io piece, Allegiant basically had a 3 year stretch where they had more reported problems than the airlines CBS chose to compare them to. Even then, they were still far from the worst. Those are the years CBS chose to focus on.

Even with that, After incidents peaked from 2013-14, Allegiant markedly improved their performance to the point where, for over a year, they have been on par with the benchmark airlines.

So instead of CBS noting that they had a bad stretch and seemed to have gotten their act together, they imply that Allegiant always had, and still has, the worst safety record of any US airline.

Facts show, that just ain't so. By cherry picking their data points and interview subjects, CBS has indeed betrayed that instead of presenting an even handed story, they chose to sensationalize and misrepresent the information to, presumably, sell airtime.

Not so much fake news, as tabloid journalism.

wjcandee wrote:

dashdrvr wrote:

I read all these comments before I finally got to watch the piece yesterday. From my limited knowledge of the internal workings of Allegiant I would say it was accurate reflection of Allegiant, FAA oversight of Allegiant as well as airline oversight in general. The facts are facts and I don't see much if any spin by 60 minutes. It is naive to dismiss this as a hit piece. The simple fact that Allegiant pressured the FAA to not release FOIA SDR'setc speaks volumes. Especially considering legacy carriers did release the same information. 60 minutes presented an accurate unbiased representation of events at Allegiant. It is the public's right to dismiss or not. Hopefully It won't be another "told you so"

Well, we will have to agree to disagree, then.

To me, it was a classic case of how to lie with statistics: select the comparison set, subject metric, and date range of the stats to give false context. (See this: https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go ... 20Appraoch )

As an economist, this is something with which I am very familiar. Hey, the facts are what they are, right? Or are they?

And it's all about characterization to achieve a result. Allegiant didn't pressure anyone. The FAA has to ask before releasing in response to a FOIA request (which seems pretty dumb given that the stuff is online). Allegiant said "No" initially. Why would they want to approve a data set designed to mislead? In any event, all this stuff is available online if you know where to look. It just sounds better for 60 Minutes to say it took seven months to get. The guys that did the study above found the exact same data set online in four minutes.

Go on APC and read what the actual Allegiant pilots say about all this. Here, I'll help: They say that not once have they ever been pressured, ever, not to write something up. They write up in outstations as well at maintenance base, which is an important fact. With respect to the A320, they write up every single squawk, and are constantly reminded to do so, and have been for a couple of years. You are in trouble if you don't. So, they say that the bit about maintenance write ups is total BS. And the relationship between air returns and some general concept of "safety" is also silly and misleading.

To say that it's an "accurate unbiased representation of events at Allegiant" is, I think, a bridge too far.

And this is coming from someone who was highly-critical -- several years ago -- of what was going on in the Florida maintenance operation, which was plainly being misrepresented to upper management. All those people, including higher-ups, were fired and replaced.

In my view, it's a total hit piece. And one based on old data at that. What I can't figure out is who brought it to 60 Minutes and why.

Two things:
I can produce 10 times more pilots that can validate the pilot pushing. APC is a micro sampling. One cannot even verify those are actual pilots. Anyone can represent anything on APC. I know my company upper management regularly trolls APC.
It is undeniable Maury Gallagher was the COE of ValJet and has 110 people's blood on his hands. He is at the helm of Allegiant. Tigers don't change their stripes. In my 35 years in the airlines have I ever see a CEO all of sudden "get religion".

Just as a coda, so interesting to see that, according to Travel + Leisure in a study published a couple of days ago, Allegiant has customer satisfaction scores sufficient to place it as the Number 3-highest customer-satisfaction airline.

Number 3.
http://www.travelandleisure.com/travel- ... e-rankings

Guess the people who actually fly it like it.

Allegiant reporting bookings near normal:

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/ne ... ccounter=1

I do not watch TV news as it is done to produce anxiety to retain viewers. It ceased being an information so urgency a decade ago.

There is some new squirrel for everyone.

dashdrvr wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

dashdrvr wrote:

I read all these comments before I finally got to watch the piece yesterday. From my limited knowledge of the internal workings of Allegiant I would say it was accurate reflection of Allegiant, FAA oversight of Allegiant as well as airline oversight in general. The facts are facts and I don't see much if any spin by 60 minutes. It is naive to dismiss this as a hit piece. The simple fact that Allegiant pressured the FAA to not release FOIA SDR'setc speaks volumes. Especially considering legacy carriers did release the same information. 60 minutes presented an accurate unbiased representation of events at Allegiant. It is the public's right to dismiss or not. Hopefully It won't be another "told you so"

Well, we will have to agree to disagree, then.

To me, it was a classic case of how to lie with statistics: select the comparison set, subject metric, and date range of the stats to give false context. (See this: https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go ... 20Appraoch )

As an economist, this is something with which I am very familiar. Hey, the facts are what they are, right? Or are they?

And it's all about characterization to achieve a result. Allegiant didn't pressure anyone. The FAA has to ask before releasing in response to a FOIA request (which seems pretty dumb given that the stuff is online). Allegiant said "No" initially. Why would they want to approve a data set designed to mislead? In any event, all this stuff is available online if you know where to look. It just sounds better for 60 Minutes to say it took seven months to get. The guys that did the study above found the exact same data set online in four minutes.

Go on APC and read what the actual Allegiant pilots say about all this. Here, I'll help: They say that not once have they ever been pressured, ever, not to write something up. They write up in outstations as well at maintenance base, which is an important fact. With respect to the A320, they write up every single squawk, and are constantly reminded to do so, and have been for a couple of years. You are in trouble if you don't. So, they say that the bit about maintenance write ups is total BS. And the relationship between air returns and some general concept of "safety" is also silly and misleading.

To say that it's an "accurate unbiased representation of events at Allegiant" is, I think, a bridge too far.

And this is coming from someone who was highly-critical -- several years ago -- of what was going on in the Florida maintenance operation, which was plainly being misrepresented to upper management. All those people, including higher-ups, were fired and replaced.

In my view, it's a total hit piece. And one based on old data at that. What I can't figure out is who brought it to 60 Minutes and why.

Two things:
I can produce 10 times more pilots that can validate the pilot pushing. APC is a micro sampling. One cannot even verify those are actual pilots. Anyone can represent anything on APC. I know my company upper management regularly trolls APC.
It is undeniable Maury Gallagher was the COE of ValJet and has 110 people's blood on his hands. He is at the helm of Allegiant. Tigers don't change their stripes. In my 35 years in the airlines have I ever see a CEO all of sudden "get religion".

If Maury Gallagher has blood on his hands for this incident, why had the justice system consistently gone after the mechanic who ILLEGALLY packaged and loaded the oxygen generators on the aircraft? That MRO was used by other major airlines as well. This could have just as easily happened to UA, DL etc....

It DID happen to DL. It's just that when DL shipped oxy generators across country on an MD80, stopping along the way, and they ended up catching fire, they did so after they had been unloaded from the aircraft, so they went up on the ramp. The difference is that DL INTENDED to ship them, whereas ValuJet did not. As you point out, it was some nitwit at Sabretech that was trying to clear out the hangar before a new customer visit that boxed them up and ordered them delivered to the ValuJet ramp, addressed to Atlanta and labeled as COMAT and labeled as "empty". Nobody at ValuJet knew this was happening or that they were coming. You had a trusted vendor who abused its trust in order to clean its hangar. Yeah, yeah, it's ValuJet's obligation to supervise the MRO, blah, blah, but this is a case of individuals, people-to-people, doing something wrong that causes a huge problem, not a company "skimping on maintenance".

But people keep beating the drum, without realizing that the real problem with ValuJet was that they were kicking everybody's asses, and were thus a target. Because of their leadership, they had put over a Billion dollars (with a B) in profits in the company bank account and had it for a rainy day when all this happened. That's the only reason they survived political efforts to kill them. This was also a good example of when there are no facts (it look like a week to find the CVR), the media will just hunt around for a story, and the one they settled on was how "poorly-maintained" ValuJet's aircraft were, despite not knowing what brought the aircraft down. Then the other airlines and interested parties (unions, etc.) chimed in to take out this competitor, usually anonymously. When it finally turned out that some nitwit put a firebomb on the plane, marking the canisters as "EMPTY", the storyline stuck anyway, and the now-committed storytelling individuals then tried to bend the actual facts to fit the storyline. It was the airline's "responsibility" to oversee SabreTech, so it was the airline's fault. Oh, okay. Let's ignore, for example, that the general thinking about cargo hold fires on DC9s was that because the hold was unpressurized, the fire would starve for oxygen at altitude; nobody considered what would happen if the very source of the fire was an oxygen generator. There were also tires in that hold, so you also basically had a tire fire aboard. An amazing lining up the holes in the swiss cheese for this ever to have happened.

lightsaber wrote:

Allegiant reporting bookings near normal:

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/ne ... ccounter=1

In the conference call, Allegiant reported also that cancellations stabilized after only a couple of days and there has been no significant increase in passenger no shows. Additionally, they said that April close-in bookings over the last 10 days are running higher year-over-year.

wjcandee wrote:

Just as a coda, so interesting to see that, according to Travel + Leisure in a study published a couple of days ago, Allegiant has customer satisfaction scores sufficient to place it as the Number 3-highest customer-satisfaction airline.

Number 3.
http://www.travelandleisure.com/travel- ... e-rankings

Guess the people who actually fly it like it.

I'm very sure the high customer satisfaction rates are due to the low cost, not the actual quality of the airline.

NYPECO wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

Just as a coda, so interesting to see that, according to Travel + Leisure in a study published a couple of days ago, Allegiant has customer satisfaction scores sufficient to place it as the Number 3-highest customer-satisfaction airline.

Number 3.
http://www.travelandleisure.com/travel- ... e-rankings

Guess the people who actually fly it like it.

I'm very sure the high customer satisfaction rates are due to the low cost, not the actual quality of the airline.

Interesting proposition. Did you compare the satisfaction rates at Spirit and Frontier? Do they help or hurt your thesis? (Hint: They're tied for last place.)

Geez. Look at everyone already making their determinations on a segment that hasn't even aired. Just wait until Sunday, watch, then make your predertermined comments.

I am certainly looking forward to a perspective on Allegiant that isn't from a.net.

This was aired weeks ago....it's not airing this Sunday.

LAXdenizen wrote:

Geez. Look at everyone already making their determinations on a segment that hasn't even aired. Just wait until Sunday, watch, then make your predertermined comments.

I am certainly looking forward to a perspective on Allegiant that isn't from a.net.

Be sure to watch carefully on Sunday and let us know what you think of the segment.

IPFreely wrote:

LAXdenizen wrote:

Geez. Look at everyone already making their determinations on a segment that hasn't even aired. Just wait until Sunday, watch, then make your predertermined comments.

I am certainly looking forward to a perspective on Allegiant that isn't from a.net.

Be sure to watch carefully on Sunday and let us know what you think of the segment.

D'oh! I was responding to the initial thread comments - didn't realize it was an old thread.

I'd write more, but there's a Geraldo show about opening up Capone's vault. Can't wait to see what he finds!

LAXdenizen wrote:

D'oh! I was responding to the initial thread comments - didn't realize it was an old thread.

I'd write more, but there's a Geraldo show about opening up Capone's vault. Can't wait to see what he finds!

Sounds interesting. I'd like to watch it but I'm not going to miss the final episode of M*A*S*H

FATFlyer wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Allegiant reporting bookings near normal:

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/ne ... ccounter=1

In the conference call, Allegiant reported also that cancellations stabilized after only a couple of days and there has been no significant increase in passenger no shows. Additionally, they said that April close-in bookings over the last 10 days are running higher year-over-year.

Wait ... More late fares, probably because people hesitated to buy. Probably more profitable for Allegiant.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

FATFlyer wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Allegiant reporting bookings near normal:

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/ne ... ccounter=1

In the conference call, Allegiant reported also that cancellations stabilized after only a couple of days and there has been no significant increase in passenger no shows. Additionally, they said that April close-in bookings over the last 10 days are running higher year-over-year.

Wait ... More late fares, probably because people hesitated to buy. Probably more profitable for Allegiant.

Lightsaber

Considering the bitching about Allegiant's cancellation policy on their Facebook page, many decided the loss was too great

Noticed Southwest was giving double RR points on new bookings till the first week of June.

wjcandee wrote:

It DID happen to DL. It's just that when DL shipped oxy generators across country on an MD80, stopping along the way, and they ended up catching fire, they did so after they had been unloaded from the aircraft, so they went up on the ramp. The difference is that DL INTENDED to ship them, whereas ValuJet did not. As you point out, it was some nitwit at Sabretech that was trying to clear out the hangar before a new customer visit that boxed them up and ordered them delivered to the ValuJet ramp, addressed to Atlanta and labeled as COMAT and labeled as "empty". Nobody at ValuJet knew this was happening or that they were coming. You had a trusted vendor who abused its trust in order to clean its hangar. Yeah, yeah, it's ValuJet's obligation to supervise the MRO, blah, blah, but this is a case of individuals, people-to-people, doing something wrong that causes a huge problem, not a company "skimping on maintenance".

But people keep beating the drum, without realizing that the real problem with ValuJet was that they were kicking everybody's asses, and were thus a target. Because of their leadership, they had put over a Billion dollars (with a B) in profits in the company bank account and had it for a rainy day when all this happened. That's the only reason they survived political efforts to kill them. This was also a good example of when there are no facts (it look like a week to find the CVR), the media will just hunt around for a story, and the one they settled on was how "poorly-maintained" ValuJet's aircraft were, despite not knowing what brought the aircraft down. Then the other airlines and interested parties (unions, etc.) chimed in to take out this competitor, usually anonymously. When it finally turned out that some nitwit put a firebomb on the plane, marking the canisters as "EMPTY", the storyline stuck anyway, and the now-committed storytelling individuals then tried to bend the actual facts to fit the storyline. It was the airline's "responsibility" to oversee SabreTech, so it was the airline's fault. Oh, okay. Let's ignore, for example, that the general thinking about cargo hold fires on DC9s was that because the hold was unpressurized, the fire would starve for oxygen at altitude; nobody considered what would happen if the very source of the fire was an oxygen generator. There were also tires in that hold, so you also basically had a tire fire aboard. An amazing lining up the holes in the swiss cheese for this ever to have happened.

Every CEO is responsible for fostering, promoting and accountable for a safety culture starting at the top and all way to the bottom. Maury Gallagher is no exception. There is plenty of evidence as is in Value Jet and Allegiant safety is not the number one priority. Safety and reliably cost money. If person is wondering why the mechanic and not the CEO was responsible in ValueJet look no further than the non fiction book "The Chickenshit Club" by Jesse Eisinger.

dashdrvr wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

It DID happen to DL. It's just that when DL shipped oxy generators across country on an MD80, stopping along the way, and they ended up catching fire, they did so after they had been unloaded from the aircraft, so they went up on the ramp. The difference is that DL INTENDED to ship them, whereas ValuJet did not. As you point out, it was some nitwit at Sabretech that was trying to clear out the hangar before a new customer visit that boxed them up and ordered them delivered to the ValuJet ramp, addressed to Atlanta and labeled as COMAT and labeled as "empty". Nobody at ValuJet knew this was happening or that they were coming. You had a trusted vendor who abused its trust in order to clean its hangar. Yeah, yeah, it's ValuJet's obligation to supervise the MRO, blah, blah, but this is a case of individuals, people-to-people, doing something wrong that causes a huge problem, not a company "skimping on maintenance".

But people keep beating the drum, without realizing that the real problem with ValuJet was that they were kicking everybody's asses, and were thus a target. Because of their leadership, they had put over a Billion dollars (with a B) in profits in the company bank account and had it for a rainy day when all this happened. That's the only reason they survived political efforts to kill them. This was also a good example of when there are no facts (it look like a week to find the CVR), the media will just hunt around for a story, and the one they settled on was how "poorly-maintained" ValuJet's aircraft were, despite not knowing what brought the aircraft down. Then the other airlines and interested parties (unions, etc.) chimed in to take out this competitor, usually anonymously. When it finally turned out that some nitwit put a firebomb on the plane, marking the canisters as "EMPTY", the storyline stuck anyway, and the now-committed storytelling individuals then tried to bend the actual facts to fit the storyline. It was the airline's "responsibility" to oversee SabreTech, so it was the airline's fault. Oh, okay. Let's ignore, for example, that the general thinking about cargo hold fires on DC9s was that because the hold was unpressurized, the fire would starve for oxygen at altitude; nobody considered what would happen if the very source of the fire was an oxygen generator. There were also tires in that hold, so you also basically had a tire fire aboard. An amazing lining up the holes in the swiss cheese for this ever to have happened.

Every CEO is responsible for fostering, promoting and accountable for a safety culture starting at the top and all way to the bottom. Maury Gallagher is no exception. There is plenty of evidence as is in Value Jet and Allegiant safety is not the number one priority. Safety and reliably cost money. If person is wondering why the mechanic and not the CEO was responsible in ValueJet look no further than the non fiction book "The Chickenshit Club" by Jesse Eisinger.

Clearly you have been reading too much of “The Chickenshit Club” as your statement pretty much makes no sense at all. Maury did not personally put the O2 bottle onboard that flight, and wjcandee is spot on in regards to what happened with the Valujet crash. Everyone who continually tries to connect Valujet with Allegiant clearly has little knowledge of the aviation world today. Valujet happened in a completely different era of aviation and changes were made to airlines carrying hazmat.

I’m guessing all the neighsayers of Allegiant would happily get on a Southwest flight, never mind they have had how many FAA fines and issues in regards to Maintenance and culture? Or what about Asiana? Crashing a perfectly good 777 on a clear, beautiful morning because the ILS was out of service?

CrankyFlier did a bit of digging.

Sounds like this 60 Minutes episode was a paid advertorial, with some serious lack of disclosures.

Just backs 45's whole "Fake News"...

http://crankyflier.com/2018/04/30/quest ... ant-story/

usxguy wrote:

CrankyFlier did a bit of digging.

Sounds like this 60 Minutes episode was a paid advertorial, with some serious lack of disclosures.

Just backs 45's whole "Fake News"...

http://crankyflier.com/2018/04/30/quest ... ant-story/

Being a flight crew member in the airlines for 35+ years I found cranky flier piece interesting but overflowing with naivety. Most notable is the comments regarding the FSRB. Anyone in the industry knows a company FSRB or equivalent is nothing more than a bunch of company managers promoting the company line. A kangaroo court of sorts. I have sit in on enough of these to understand the true objective FSRB. Anyone who resorts to "Maury Gallagher didn't put it on the airplane" is grasping at straws to ignore the reality of what a true corporate safety culture is. Personally I won't buy or ride for free on Southwest or Allegiant. I have observed enough firsthand to realize some safety cultures are more transparent than others.

Still doesn't relieve 60 Minutes from telling everyone that "hey, our key person in this story happens to be a paid WITNESS in the lawsuit we're talking about.."

No one at Allegiant wants to die. The pilots, the flight attendants, and the mechanic. I'll get on them again, just as I got on Alaska after they murdered all those people in California from their maintenance problems (heck, I'm top tier with Alaska).

usxguy wrote:

Still doesn't relieve 60 Minutes from telling everyone that "hey, our key person in this story happens to be a paid WITNESS in the lawsuit we're talking about.."

No one at Allegiant wants to die. The pilots, the flight attendants, and the mechanic. I'll get on them again, just as I got on Alaska after they murdered all those people in California from their maintenance problems (heck, I'm top tier with Alaska).

I've been with Alaska since well before AS 261 and quite frankly never forgave them for their abject negligence. The FAA was complicit by signing off on the extended service life and not being aware of the "pencil whipping". I have zero tolerance for airlines that engage or have the appearance of similar behavior.
60 minutes would have appeared more transparent by providing the paid status of the commentator but don't think it dilutes their argument much. I actually half expect it as most news shows commentators are paid for their appearance.