submitter: skimp of safety?

I dunno subby. Maybe skimp on, but of?

Could someone make more mistakes in a headline and still be considered to be speaking English?

"Okay, folks, show's over, nothing to see here, show's.. oh, my god! A horrible plane crash! Hey, everybody, get a load of this flaming wreckage. Come on crowd around."

" And by service, we mean delays."

I wonder how much the monies in saved fuel costs and now, fully-efficient, passenger-stuffed MD-80s, will pump up their bottom line?

No no! Let me on the poorly-wired aircraft NOW! I have to be in Seattle by sunset!

Damn you, gate agent! I know all you gate agents secretly RUN American Airlines. Feel my wrath as I spew my anger at you until you MAKE all the planes in the fleet get inspected to FAA specs instantly!

Now I have to go to Best Buy and yell at one of their staff for making the store run out of Wiis again!

I fly Jet Blue so i'm really getting a kick out of these replies!

Hey, I've got two flights on AA MD80s today. If something happens, make sure it's a good headline.

He said the company would hire a consultant to help it comply with FAA safety rules in the future

A good CEO would see that paying maybe $100k a year would be a good way to avoid $30M in delays later on. A poor one thinks that afterwards.

flew twice
once the plane smacked into the runway (30 foot drop or so)
the second was fine


So Im 50/50 n flying

I read that as M-80 and wondered why an airline had fireworks

and by the way, don't do a GIS for m-80 firecracker unless you want to see whats left of the idiots who got those banned in a lot of states

America Airlines?

American Airlines cancels 1000 flights: They're overreacting and causing headaches for everyone.

American Airlines doesn't cancel 1000 flights: They're skimping on safety.

Geez, even the airlines deserve a break once on awhile. (Except for US Air.)

American canceling flights had little do with safety and a lot to do with the FAA playing CYA at AAs expense while saying FU to the travelling public.

Link (new window)

aren't MD-80's over 25 years old?

i'll take an A320 please.

I don't think most airlines would skimp on safety. One crash costs a fortune in lost business, lawsuits, increased insurance, etc. The US hasn't had a maintenance-related crash in more years than I can remember. If airlines were putting us in flying death traps, we'd know about it.

"Skimp of safety": Lingerie, +2 against pervy Goblins?

There was no wiring problem. There was a terrorist threat and they needed to lighten the fleet so air marshals could be on every commercial flight. AA gets to write off all the money they lost and the government owes them a favor.

I don't actually believe this but this is a conspiracy theory from an in-law that I thought was cool.

PoderOmega
There was no wiring problem. There was a terrorist threat and they needed to lighten the fleet so air marshals could be on every commercial flight. AA gets to write off all the money they lost and the government owes them a favor.

I don't actually believe this but this is a conspiracy theory from an in-law that I thought was cool.

Hmm...that seems plausible.

/tinfoil hat in place
//flame on!

"Arpey said that neither American's mechanics nor the FAA were to blame for the groundings, and he said he took responsibility for the cancellations. He said the company would hire a consultant to help it comply with FAA safety rules in the future."

Yeah, American isn't to blame, other than that they falsified inspection reports after the first time they were asked to fix this.

I love how American is blaming the FAA for 'new' and stringent standards. "Oh, you mean people will actually CHECK now to see if we've done the work we said we would. Ooops!"

If you think your flight on an American carrier is safe, guess again.

Sudlow: American canceling flights had little do with safety and a lot to do with the FAA playing CYA at AAs expense while saying FU to the travelling public.

Link (new window)

Ah, yes, the WSJ op-ed page. A bastion of even-handedness.

An aging fleet needs extra inspections and maintenance. Just because the accident hadn't happened yet, did not mean it was not on its way. The kind of thinking that says, "Well, an accident hasn't happened, so it won't." is what leads to "tombstone technology".

I love conspiracy theories. Nothing's ever due to human sloth or incompetence or just plain bad luck, no, it's always an elaborate plot hatched by the Forces of Darkness to make more money or enhance their stranglehold on the levers of power. My favorite one was back in the '70s gasoline crisis, when people were reporting sightings of tanker trucks dumping gas out in the desert so as to decrease supply and drive up prices. And enough people bought into this idiocy that the California Highway Patrol was told to keep an eye out for the fleets of rogue tanker trucks. Amazing.

i like that conspiracy theory poderomega, it kind of sent a shiver down my spine. i mean i thought it did, turns out it was just the cold tinfoil on my head.

this is why i dont like the idea of flying on airlines that are in bankruptcy. they are being pressed to cut corners from all sides and this is the result. the fact of the matter is that this is more just a public humiliation thing than a safety issue. those planes can fly in practically any condition, some even if the engines cut in the air. the pilots are trained to deal with scenarios like that. remember that british airways flight that crash landed into heathrow?

/i flew ba a week later out of heathrow to rome
//we were on the runway for 2 hours because the pilot couldnt get either of the engines to start
///needless to say i was a little nervous

jjorsett: I love conspiracy theories. Nothing's ever due to human sloth or incompetence or just plain bad luck, no, it's always an elaborate plot hatched by the Forces of Darkness to make more money or enhance their stranglehold on the levers of power.

It's the jews! And the repitillian race that lives beneath the Earth! And the Arabs! And the US Government! They're all in it together to take us down!.

/Not a fan of conspiracies either

This is not a recent article, but the topic and what is discussed is still valid.

I award thee 7 on a scale of 10 for the troll, subbie

Yes subby, with all the plane crashes in the news lately, your point is a good one.

invisbob: flew twice
once the plane smacked into the runway (30 foot drop or so)
the second was fine

Your plane actually fell about 30,000 feet onto the runway in both cases. The last 30 feet were just a little faster in the first case.

Roger Arseways: aren't MD-80's over 25 years old?

i'll take an A320 please.

Makes sense.

Hey! This A320 was pretty new Link (new window)

jjorsett: I don't think most airlines would skimp on safety. One crash costs a fortune in lost business, lawsuits, increased insurance, etc. The US hasn't had a maintenance-related crash in more years than I can remember. If airlines were putting us in flying death traps, we'd know about it.

We currently are...

This little power play by bureaucrats to protect their jobs had nothing to do with airline safety, and everything to do with public posturing. There was absolutely no safety reason to pull all those planes out of service at one time. These repairs could have been handled in a completely non disruptive manner.

I bet Subby can't remember the last time a plane crashed. Guess those pesky airlines aren't skimping on safety after all?

American Airlines did a bang up job keeping those DC-10s in the air.

Solon Isonomia: American Airlines did a bang up job keeping those DC-10s in the air.

*Old News is So Exciting.gif*

1979?

I'm still pissed at the White Star Line about the Titanic.

The Gordie Howe Hat Trick:
Makes sense.

Hey! This A320 was pretty new Link (new window)

Doesn't TAM have a nasty safety record?

"Wondering how long before one of them...mmmmm... drops?"

...love conspiracy theories, but also subscribe to Hanlon's razor (new window = wikipedia)

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

unyon: "Arpey said that neither American's mechanics nor the FAA were to blame for the groundings, and he said he took responsibility for the cancellations. He said the company would hire a consultant to help it comply with FAA safety rules in the future."

Yeah, American isn't to blame, other than that they falsified inspection reports after the first time they were asked to fix this.

I love how American is blaming the FAA for 'new' and stringent standards. "Oh, you mean people will actually CHECK now to see if we've done the work we said we would. Ooops!"

If you think your flight on an American carrier is safe, guess again.

Didn't he specifically say that the mechanics (the bottom of the chain, boots on the ground workers) and the FAA were NOT responsible, and took full responsibility for the mess? It sounds like a strange case of an executive saying "It was my fault, the buck stops with me."

jjorsett: The US hasn't had a maintenance-related crash in more years than I can remember. If airlines were putting us in flying death traps, we'd know about it.

I don't suppose you believe that TWA 800 was shot down by the US Navy?

Roger Arseways: The Gordie Howe Hat Trick:
Makes sense.

Hey! This A320 was pretty new Link (new window)

Doesn't TAM have a nasty safety record?

TAM's recent record isn't great but it is hard to compare most foreign airlines with US carriers. It isn't just the airline itself, but the aviation infrastructure here in the US is second to none so it lends itself to safe operations.

I guess I'm saying that an older but well maintained aircraft is safer than a newer airplane in the hands of the wrong air carrier.

The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: *Old News is So Exciting.gif*

1979?

I'm still pissed at the White Star Line about the Titanic.

So the prior (and quite irresponsible) maintenance practices of the company which is the subject of the article is not a valid part of the conversation because said practices occurred the past?

Roger Arseways: aren't MD-80's over 25 years old?

i'll take an A320 please.

I'm a big fan of Boeing 777s because of their age and safety record, and I actually do tend to chose which flight to take based on the type of aircraft (assuming similar prices/convenience of route)

The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: I guess I'm saying that an older but well maintained aircraft is safer than a newer airplane in the hands of the wrong air carrier.

The horribly fatal crashes that you see on those air crash shows on TV always involve some crazy foreign airline. I'm still not keen on an MD-80 when I could go to a different US airline and be on an A320 or new 737/CRJ of some sort.

Sudlow: American canceling flights had little do with safety and a lot to do with the FAA playing CYA at AAs expense while saying FU to the travelling public.

Link (new window)

They had 18 months to fix those. Maybe they should have started sooner.

aerojockey: American Airlines cancels 1000 flights: They're overreacting and causing headaches for everyone.

American Airlines doesn't cancel 1000 flights: They're skimping on safety.

Geez, even the airlines deserve a break once on awhile. (Except for US Air.)

Alaska flight 261, in 2000, an MD83. Maintenance was skimped on as a cost cutting move, and some said the fundamental design of the plane is unsafe.

/ not submitter

Geez, even the airlines deserve a break once on awhile. (Except for US Air.)

Never got that comic, if you just go through the right door you're OK...

Solon Isonomia: The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: *Old News is So Exciting.gif*

1979?

I'm still pissed at the White Star Line about the Titanic.

So the prior (and quite irresponsible) maintenance practices of the company which is the subject of the article is not a valid part of the conversation because said practices occurred the past?

At some point, yeah, it should be wiped off the ledger. That was nearly 30 years ago, I'll bet 95% of the people who were at the airline at that time no longer work at American.

If it is any consolation, the maintenance supervisor in Tulsa (the shop responsible for the flawed maintenance procedure*) killed himself after the accident.



*McDonnell-Douglas also signed off on the modified procedure.

Solon Isonomia: The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: *Old News is So Exciting.gif*

1979?

I'm still pissed at the White Star Line about the Titanic.

So the prior (and quite irresponsible) maintenance practices of the company which is the subject of the article is not a valid part of the conversation because said practices occurred the past?

Let's condemn a company because of a single major accident. Good idea.