Discussion:
Alaska Airlines still doesn't care about safety
(too old to reply)
JohnT
2012-08-09 12:05:03 UTC
Permalink
You'd think that losing an entire aircraft with 88 people aboard due to
greed
and inadequate maintenance would have taught Alaska Airlines something,
but it
http://us.cnn.com/2012/08/08/travel/alaska-airlines-wing-damage-note/index.html
But the FAA said it was safe to fly. And you haven't been outside Paris for
the past 10 years so how does it give you a problem?
--
JohnT
Mxsmanic
2012-08-09 16:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnT
But the FAA said it was safe to fly.
The FAA approved the maintenance delays back in 2000, too. And look where that
led. Just because the FAA doesn't forbid something doesn't make it a good
idea. Alaska Airlines elected to cut corners out of a total lack of concern
for safety and pure greed, and apparently they are still doing it today.
Post by JohnT
And you haven't been outside Paris for the past 10 years so how does
it give you a problem?
Aviation safety is one of my interests. I don't limit my interest in safety to
situations that affect me personally; I worry about the safety of others as
well. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of people like that (especially in
management at Alaska Airlines).
Bert
2012-08-09 17:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
The FAA approved the maintenance delays back in 2000, too. And look
where that led. Just because the FAA doesn't forbid something doesn't
make it a good idea.
But it's from The Government, so it must be good.
--
***@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
Mxsmanic
2012-08-09 19:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert
But it's from The Government, so it must be good.
I think that was essentially what Alaska Airlines has claimed in both cases,
but the argument rings a bit hollow, especially to next of kin.
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2012-08-09 22:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by JohnT
But the FAA said it was safe to fly.
The FAA approved the maintenance delays back in 2000, too. And look where that
led.
And just where was that, exactly?
Post by Mxsmanic
Just because the FAA doesn't forbid something doesn't make it a good
idea.
Nor does it make it a bad idea.
Post by Mxsmanic
Alaska Airlines elected to cut corners out of a total lack of concern
for safety and pure greed, and apparently they are still doing it today.
And you know this how?
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by JohnT
And you haven't been outside Paris for the past 10 years so how does
it give you a problem?
Aviation safety is one of my interests. I don't limit my interest in safety to
situations that affect me personally; I worry about the safety of others as
well. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of people like that (especially in
management at Alaska Airlines).
Essentially you have libeled Alaska Airlines; what do you have to back
up these accusations?
Mxsmanic
2012-08-09 23:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
And just where was that, exactly?
If you've read all the reports, as I have, you know that the constant
extensions of maintenance intervals ultimately resulted in the interval for a
jackscrew to extend beyond safe limits. This was compounded by incompetent
mechanics doing maintenance on the jackscrew improperly.
Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
And you know this how?
Because I read all the reports. It's an accident that I studied quite a bit.
If you had read all the reports, you'd know this.
Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Essentially you have libeled Alaska Airlines; what do you have to back
up these accusations?
The reports that I read, and you didn't. They're welcome to try, but they'll
lose (and it'll be a PR fiasco for them, too, which might not be such a bad
idea).
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2012-08-09 23:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
And just where was that, exactly?
If you've read all the reports, as I have, you know that the constant
extensions of maintenance intervals ultimately resulted in the interval for a
jackscrew to extend beyond safe limits. This was compounded by incompetent
mechanics doing maintenance on the jackscrew improperly.
Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
And you know this how?
Because I read all the reports. It's an accident that I studied quite a bit.
If you had read all the reports, you'd know this.
Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Essentially you have libeled Alaska Airlines; what do you have to back
up these accusations?
The reports that I read, and you didn't. They're welcome to try, but they'll
lose (and it'll be a PR fiasco for them, too, which might not be such a bad
idea).
I notice you keep talking about "reports" that are neither named nor
quoted.
Mxsmanic
2012-08-10 00:02:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
I notice you keep talking about "reports" that are neither named nor
quoted.
Google is your friend. They are all available online, and they are quite
interesting if you like the topic of aviation safety.
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2012-08-10 02:08:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
I notice you keep talking about "reports" that are neither named nor
quoted.
Google is your friend. They are all available online, and they are quite
interesting if you like the topic of aviation safety.
Arm waving response with zero content as expected.
Mxsmanic
2012-08-10 03:36:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Arm waving response with zero content as expected.
If you can't stop talking about me, join my fan club. This isn't the place for
it.

If you have something substantive to contribute on topic, let's hear it.
j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
2012-08-10 04:36:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Arm waving response with zero content as expected.
If you can't stop talking about me, join my fan club. This isn't the place for
it.
I wasn't talking about you, I was talking to you; two different things.
Post by Mxsmanic
If you have something substantive to contribute on topic, let's hear it.
You just did but let me rephrase for you; for all your puffery you have
no substance.

Bill
2012-08-10 00:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Post by Mxsmanic
Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
And just where was that, exactly?
If you've read all the reports, as I have, you know that the constant
extensions of maintenance intervals ultimately resulted in the interval for a
jackscrew to extend beyond safe limits. This was compounded by incompetent
mechanics doing maintenance on the jackscrew improperly.
Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
And you know this how?
Because I read all the reports. It's an accident that I studied quite a bit.
If you had read all the reports, you'd know this.
Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Essentially you have libeled Alaska Airlines; what do you have to back
up these accusations?
The reports that I read, and you didn't. They're welcome to try, but they'll
lose (and it'll be a PR fiasco for them, too, which might not be such a bad
idea).
I notice you keep talking about "reports" that are neither named nor
quoted.
And they won't be.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...