Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Buffalo accident not expensive enough

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
This raises a valid question: If pilots choose pay over schedules when contract time comes around, are they giving tacit approval to FAR scheduling? Does this undermine the safety argument? Are pilots expecting congress to be their contract negotiators?
 
This raises a valid question: If pilots choose pay over schedules when contract time comes around, are they giving tacit approval to FAR scheduling? Does this undermine the safety argument? Are pilots expecting congress to be their contract negotiators?

What I don't understand is why pilots are so convinced that one could not be had with the other.
 
Well, that is GREAT for YOU. But there are others in this industry that are SCHEDULED 8 hours rest. You KNOW that results in about 6-6-1/2 hours of sleep.

Dont just think of yourself

I apologize for not knowing. Our old contract (1999-2011) had the same. I thought the 2007 ASA contract might have been a tad bit better on the rest rules, but I suppose not. Good luck on the negotiations, hopefully you guys can get something a little better.
 
How abot the fact that the report sights "continental 3407" as the flight in question. I didn't realize Continetal flew that flight???? How about the lack of experience going back on the front burner and call it what it is, a flight flown by a company that offered to do it for less and looks at the bottom line long before safety. "They met all the FAA requirements" is a joke of an excuse. The accident should never of happened, fatigue was certainly not the reason. for it.
 
call it what it is, a flight flown by a company that offered to do it for less and looks at the bottom line long before safety. "They met all the FAA requirements" is a joke of an excuse. The accident should never of happened, fatigue was certainly not the reason. for it.
+1

A huge part of the savings comes from having no liability for the accident, both the premiums before and the litigation after.

Returning this liability to the parent company would do a lot to lessen the cost advantage of outsourcing.
 
Last edited:
+1

A huge part of the savings comes from having no liability for the accident, both the premiums before and the litigation after.

Returning this liability to the parent company would do a lot to lessen the cost advantage of outsourcing.

What he said, it's ALL about liability=cost.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top