Apology

[EdAtTheAirport]

For someone who describes themselves as a "Reagan Conservative," you sure got the Karl Marx going on pretty well. A Reagan Conservative would realize that there are NO pilots in this country who have to live on below-poverty level pay, but rather many who choose to.

As a Conservative, I am somewhat put off by you referring to our customers as "tightwads." They, not you, are who make the airplanes fly. (No bucks no Buck Rogers.) Would you rather that they not have a choice about how much they are willing to pay for our services, Mr. Reagan Guy???

Lastly, you say that the passengers "haven't the mental ability to grasp... a situation like this." That is as arrogant as anything I've heard from any left wing suede-patch-on-the-elbow college professor. <b>This is a service industry!</b> You are in the wrong line of work if you have that much condescension for your customers.

Some of you need to get over yourselves. (I'm not referring just to this thread.) We're not entertainers; we're pilots. We don't have an audience who pays to watch our brilliant performance. They're back there because they need to get to Omaha, forgoodnesssakes. We earn what they're willing to pay. Take it or leave it, or find a better job. In fact, why don't YOU start a company paying pilots the high wages that you seem to demand, then give us all a job? Go ahead and pay $150K for 20 hrs/month in the right seat of a 787. You guys get it going. I'll be first on line and I'll do a great job for you.

You need to reconsider your position. You might be God-fearing, hetero, pro-life, and all that, but you are NOT a Conservative.

 

[av8er2]

Pay is an issue. When an FO or Captain can't pay the bills or have to work a second job that creates stress.

There is a big difference in flying 70 hours a month and having to fly 95 to pay the bills.

 

[acaTerry]

For someone who describes themselves as a "Reagan Conservative," you sure got the Karl Marx going on pretty well. A Reagan Conservative would realize that there are NO pilots in this country who have to live on below-poverty level pay, but rather many who choose to.

As a Conservative, I am somewhat put off by you referring to our customers as "tightwads." They, not you, are who make the airplanes fly. (No bucks no Buck Rogers.) Would you rather that they not have a choice about how much they are willing to pay for our services, Mr. Reagan Guy???

Lastly, you say that the passengers "haven't the mental ability to grasp... a situation like this." That is as arrogant as anything I've heard from any left wing suede-patch-on-the-elbow college professor. <b>This is a service industry!</b> You are in the wrong line of work if you have that much condescension for your customers.

Some of you need to get over yourselves. (I'm not referring just to this thread.) We're not entertainers; we're pilots. We don't have an audience who pays to watch our brilliant performance. They're back there because they need to get to Omaha, forgoodnesssakes. We earn what they're willing to pay. Take it or leave it, or find a better job. In fact, why don't YOU start a company paying pilots the high wages that you seem to demand, then give us all a job? Go ahead and pay $150K for 20 hrs/month in the right seat of a 787. You guys get it going. I'll be first on line and I'll do a great job for you.

You need to reconsider your position. You might be God-fearing, hetero, pro-life, and all that, but you are NOT a Conservative.

No, you are not a conservative...you are an elitist. And after 21 years in aviation (my profile details are not current), my observations of aviation, its members, and yes, customers are well founded.
By the way, I DID leave the airlines...went to a frac. But I still appreciate the hardships of regional pilots (and major airline pilots too these days). Perhaps, Mr. Golden Spoon, one day you will suffer and work hard enough to appreciate their situation.

 

[acaTerry]

Pay is an issue. When an FO or Captain can't pay the bills or have to work a second job that creates stress.

There is a big difference in flying 70 hours a month and having to fly 95 to pay the bills.

...and still not having enough $$$ to do so....

 

[XPOO]

It has been proven that the CA had 28 in LEX before his flight out that morning. It has also been stated by his widow that she last talked to him before she went to bed at 10pm. Now, if the CA choose to be up until 10pm for a 6am dept then that was his decision. His widow also stated that he had flown out of that airport numerous times in his career with Comair. As for the FO, no real confirmation on how much rest the FO got the night before. The FO may have been the one at the helm, but shouldn't the CA have realized he was on the wrong runway? Did he not taxi the aircraft out there? When they realized their runway had no lighting but the one they crossed over did, shouldn't a bulb have went off inside someone's head? As more details come out, it sure hasn't made the crew look any rosier. But it's my opinion, and I'm not bashing yours. If you feel you are unfit to fly, don't fly.

 

[acaTerry]

Now, if the CA choose to be up until 10pm for a 6am dept then that was his decision.

Oh, you forgot the 0140 arrival beforehand...circadian rythmm had nothing to do with adjusting over one day of rest...

But it's my opinion, and I'm not bashing yours. If you feel you are unfit to fly, don't fly.

See how long you keep your job at a regional if you call in sick / fatigued too much...but look at how often they screw with your body clock.

Red ink for clarity of my replies...not for anger

 

[PCL_128]

It has been proven that the CA had 28 in LEX before his flight out that morning. It has also been stated by his widow that she last talked to him before she went to bed at 10pm. Now, if the CA choose to be up until 10pm for a 6am dept then that was his decision. His widow also stated that he had flown out of that airport numerous times in his career with Comair. As for the FO, no real confirmation on how much rest the FO got the night before. The FO may have been the one at the helm, but shouldn't the CA have realized he was on the wrong runway? Did he not taxi the aircraft out there? When they realized their runway had no lighting but the one they crossed over did, shouldn't a bulb have went off inside someone's head? As more details come out, it sure hasn't made the crew look any rosier. But it's my opinion, and I'm not bashing yours. If you feel you are unfit to fly, don't fly.

1. The crew did not taxi over a lit runway to get to an unlit runway as you suggest. Apparently your vast dispatch experience and skills haven't taught you how to read a simple taxi diagram. Runway 26 (the accident runway) is the first runway you come to on the taxi out. To make matters worse, the usual taxi route to runway 22 was blocked and rerouted, possibly causing further confusion.

2. You obviously have no understanding of circadian rhythm research. It doesn't matter if a crew had 28 hours of off-duty time. What matters is what their entire schedule looks like. If your first day includes a late evening arrival, followed by a late start the next day with only one leg to a long overnight, followed by a 4am wake up call on the 3rd day, then your entire system is a mess. The human body is not designed to deal with such randomness and chaos. A consistent schedule is necessary to provide adequate rest and performance. Do a little research.

3. You're a %#$%ing d0uche-bag.

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

No, you are not a conservative...you are an elitist. And after 21 years in aviation (my profile details are not current), my observations of aviation, its members, and yes, customers are well founded.

29 years for me, and neither are mine.

It is YOU who condescends the customers, even to the point of saying it's "well founded"; that makes YOU the elitist.

 

[rausda27]

1st flight of the day checks with a very short taxi, it is easy to see how they may of become distracted.

 

[climbhappy]

ACATerry :
could you clarify the poit that said,
"As for the traveling public, if they want such high safety, then they need to pay for it."

Terry,

this struck a cord with me. Forget what happened and who did it and how. Little cindy lou gets on board with her 12 month old. she knows nothing about airplanes and was on her way to see grandma. Or substitute anyone who has no clue about airline pilot pay. they buy a ticket and somehow they shouldn't expect to live throught the flight and arrive safely? what high level of safety are talking about? The safety that comes from being able to taxi a "fricckin airplane to the correct runway . the one with the lights on. A captain that passed a stressful type ride and has done this thousands of times. Is that a high level of safety?
There was fifty /fifty chance he was going to screw it up if you look at the odds. There were two runways right? And what about being a good FO. Looking at the airport diagram?

Somehow using safety and adding to it different levels or degrees when living is the only level you can ascribe and I'll bet you'll want to rethink that comment. That comment was as disrespectful to those 49 souls and my bantering about who and what the poor chap did in the left seat and allowed to take place on his watch. what about calling in sick?

I say this only to debate the merits of your point about customers paying more iin order to live or be allowed to live for paying more. "Sir , I want to live through this , so I'll take the premium quality ticket. "