Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

American cuts more flights; fliers fume
AP via Yahoo! ^ | 4/11/07 | HARRY R. WEBER

Posted on 04/11/2008 8:09:26 AM PDT by Santa Fe_Conservative

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last
Will they ever fly again...? ;)
1 posted on 04/11/2008 8:09:26 AM PDT by Santa Fe_Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Santa Fe_Conservative

I agree its poor management, not within the airlines but within the government who is supposed to be monitoring this.

no surprise that the govt is poorly run though.


2 posted on 04/11/2008 8:11:26 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Santa Fe_Conservative
"Poor management," he said bluntly.

He's got that right. Suddenly the FAA is not taking "no" for an answer, and now we have a crisis. Planes are not going to fall out the sky, or anything. But they aren't going to fly, either, unless everything is according-to-Hoyle...

3 posted on 04/11/2008 8:13:15 AM PDT by gridlock (Proud McCain Supporter since February 8, 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Both... the Gov’t is supposed to check up on the airlines, but cannot (for any number of reasons, primarily ineptitude), and the airlines took advantage of it by skipping out on the various inspections, basically gambling with the lives of their pilots and passengers to save more $$.


4 posted on 04/11/2008 8:14:55 AM PDT by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Santa Fe_Conservative

The Feds, embarassed by the SW Airlines debacle, over reacts and disrupts air travel world-wide.


5 posted on 04/11/2008 8:20:16 AM PDT by Eurale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Santa Fe_Conservative
If the airlines had 18 months to comply, they could have inspected one plane every day or every few days and there would have been no crisis.

They could have had an inspector standing by at a hub airport, just waiting for an MD-80 to pull in so it can be crossed off the list.

6 posted on 04/11/2008 8:21:44 AM PDT by Sender (Stop Islamisation. Defend our freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Santa Fe_Conservative
These fliers should be tickled pink.... oh what a relief from those carbon tracks. Algore lost out big-time and maybe this is just the way liberals can celebrate the upcoming feast of liberals ‘earth day’. We surely ought to be able to show a spike in climate's reaction. (partial sarcasm)
7 posted on 04/11/2008 8:27:27 AM PDT by Just mythoughts (Isa.3:4 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Santa Fe_Conservative

I’m from the government and I’m here to help...


8 posted on 04/11/2008 8:33:39 AM PDT by NCjim (The more I use Windows, the more I love UNIX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theDentist

“and the airlines took advantage of it by skipping out on the various inspections, basically gambling with the lives of their pilots and passengers to save more $$.”

I trust the airlines much more than I trust the government to watch out for my safety. If the airlines have a plane go down its a huge issue for them.


9 posted on 04/11/2008 8:57:05 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sender

“They could have had an inspector standing by at a hub airport, just waiting for an MD-80 to pull in so it can be crossed off the list.”

Most likely it can’t be done that way. Otherwise they would have done that in the current inspection process. Instead didnt they move the planes to where the inspectors were? They probably need tons of union mandated equipment. A simple ruler wouldn’t justify the enormous rates they charge.


10 posted on 04/11/2008 8:59:09 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: theDentist

But the reported inspections are not safety issues.

So if a problem is discovered .... IT AIN’T SAFETY RELATED.

Therefore, I doubt that planes would be falling out of the air - therefore the airlines weren’t gambling with the lives of passengers. They were gambling with the profitability airlines - could they do the work in a manner that would satisfy the FAA without hurting their bottom line. The apparent answer is NO - the FAA will mandate these changes, insist that they be done, regardless of cost or impact on the flying public, even if it is not safety related. (And of course - these costs will eventually be borne by the flying public in higher ticket prices.)


11 posted on 04/11/2008 9:18:38 AM PDT by Vineyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Santa Fe_Conservative

Why would one expect a nation that can’t even pull off an election is capable of sustaining an airline industry. As we degenerate towards socialism (and eventually protoplasm) I expect to see a return to outdoor toilets.


12 posted on 04/11/2008 9:18:39 AM PDT by The Duke (I have met the enemy, and he is named 'Apathy'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Duke

“As we degenerate towards socialism (and eventually protoplasm) I expect to see a return to outdoor toilets.”

I think you’re over reacting here. Everyone knows the best socialist states always have an indoor toilet for everyone. Of course theres just ONE so the line can get kinda long.


13 posted on 04/11/2008 9:54:46 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Santa Fe_Conservative
"If somebody's got a choice between being in a plane crash and being late, is there a choice?"

A choice between a .000001% chance of a plane crash and a 100% chance of being late is indeed a very real choice, which should be honestly evaluated.

14 posted on 04/11/2008 10:04:27 AM PDT by Notary Sojac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vineyard

I find it interesting that the airlines failed to perform the inspections within the 18 month window they were given, and somehow that’s the FAA’s fault.

What a novel take on responsibility.


15 posted on 04/11/2008 10:08:52 AM PDT by MortMan (Those who stand for nothing fall for anything. - Alexander Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sender
Ummmmm - the airline didn't think they were dealing with a infinitely powerful group of insane Obsessive-Compulsive nutballs who would pull a stunt like this just to show everyone that they can.

Oops!

16 posted on 04/11/2008 7:17:58 PM PDT by an amused spectator (Spitzer would have used the Mann Act against an enemy in a New York minute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
Who are you trying to kid, MM?

The government has responsibility for nothing - unless it's stealing more money from us through taxes, "fees" and inflation...

17 posted on 04/11/2008 7:23:19 PM PDT by an amused spectator (Spitzer would have used the Mann Act against an enemy in a New York minute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator

Actually, my point is that the airline failed to live up to its obligations. The FAA found out and is holding the airline’s proverbial feet to the fire.

The airline is responsible. They new the rules, and failed to satisfy them.


18 posted on 04/11/2008 9:11:08 PM PDT by MortMan (Those who stand for nothing fall for anything. - Alexander Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

aaaaaarrrrghhh...

“new” should be “knew”

(k?)


19 posted on 04/11/2008 9:12:02 PM PDT by MortMan (Those who stand for nothing fall for anything. - Alexander Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
Ummmmm - the airline didn't think they were dealing with a infinitely powerful group of insane Obsessive-Compulsive nutballs who would pull a stunt like this just to show everyone that they can.

Ummmmmm... Nope. The airline figured they could bull their way through the argument and force the FAA to accept or defer the airline's requirement to perform the checks correctly.

The stunt is the airline's failure to perform the checks within the specified period.

They are called "Instructions for Continued Airworthiness" for a reason, and compliance to them is required under the code of federal regulations (CFR) title 14. Or does the law no longer mean anything?

20 posted on 04/11/2008 9:16:21 PM PDT by MortMan (Those who stand for nothing fall for anything. - Alexander Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson