Re: Alaska Airlines still doesn't care about safety

[JohnT[_4_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> 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
> hasn't. Look at this latest example of ignoring safety:
>
> 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]

JohnT writes:

> 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.

> 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[_2_]]

In Mxsmanic
> wrote:

> 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.

--
St. Paul, MN

[Mxsmanic]

Bert writes:

> 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.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> JohnT writes:
>
>> 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?

> Just because the FAA doesn't forbid something doesn't make it a good
> idea.

Nor does it make it a bad 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.

And you know this how?

>> 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]

writes:

> 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.

> 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.

> 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).

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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]

writes:

> 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.

[bill]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 23:50:11 -0000, wrote:

>In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>> 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.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> 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]

writes:

> 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.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> 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.

> 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.