AF447?

 

I'd throw "current" in with "experience," not just with AF447 but also OZ214. It's tough for longhair pilots to maintain currency and experience with "stick and rudder" situations when 95% of the flight is spent at cruise with Otto on the controls.

There's another aspect of this that no one has mentioned - the fact that the major airlines market regional flights under their own names (e.g. "Continental Express"), implying that they're responsible for the safe operation of the flight and that it meets their standards, while at the same time shifting liability to their code-share partners.  Short version - people who got on Colgan 3407 thought they were boarding a Continental flight but they weren't.

 

If the majors were held liable for the safety of operations on their regional flights, as has been proposed many times, safety would likely improve.  

 

Here's a very thorough paper on the subject, from the May 2014 issue of Southwestern Law Review.  

 

Some people like to talk about capitalism as though it's some kind of free-for-all with no limits placed on any of the actors.  It isn't and never has been.  Even Adam Smith recognized the need for restraint in market behavior, though no one seems to remember that today.  Laws and regulations, as well as practices like liability, exist to restore balance - to restore power to people who don't have it, like airline passengers vis-a-vis airlines.  Without it, corporations would have almost unlimited power.  Liability is a fairly recent invention.  In 1912, the White Star Line and its corporate parent, International Mercantile Marine, were able to largely escape liability for the way they operated the Titanic.  They were even able to sue the families of dead crew members to recover the costs of their uniforms.  That wouldn't happen today.  But there's still room for progress.  

 

Holding airlines accountable for all their operations would move safety a bit higher up on their radar.

There's another aspect of this that no one has mentioned - the fact that the major airlines market regional flights under their own names (e.g. "Continental Express"), implying that they're responsible for the safe operation of the flight and that it meets their standards, while at the same time shifting liability to their code-share partners.  Short version - people who got on Colgan 3407 thought they were boarding a Continental flight but they weren't.

 

If the majors were held liable for the safety of operations on their regional flights, as has been proposed many times, safety would likely improve.  

 

 

As mentioned earlier in this thread, 'Continental Express' was actually a regional that was wholly owned by Continental and operated according to methods and standards established by Continental.  After 9-11 and a management change at Continental, it was decided that the costs of this type of quality was too expensive, and the flying was then shifted to the likes of Colgan operating as a 'Continental Connection', who were cheaper because they paid less and trained less.

 

At Colgan, their rapid expansion from Continental's aggressive shift to lower cost feed, forced them to produce people even quicker and keep people who should have been washed out.  Such was the case of Marvin Renslow, the captain of the Q400 that crashed.  Since his private pilot training, he had failed almost every checkride he took.  He failed not for small nitpick items, but rather for wholesale failures, such as inability to perform takeoffs, landings and go-arounds, as exemplified on one particular pink slip.  There were checkairmen at Colgan who had recommended that he be dequalified, but were overruled by management who needed Renslow online as one more warm body to fill a seat in order to fulfill their increasing obligations to Continental.  He should have never been in that cockpit.  But because of Colgan's rapid expansion, that is where he was that night and that is why those 50+ people paid for the low fares with their lives.

 

For one, the larger airlines use their power to make subcontractors compete fiercely for contracts by underbidding eachother.

That's how the market works. As a passenger, I use my power to get airlines to compete fiercely for for my flights my underbid by underbidding each other..

 

Good for you!  

 

And Colgan underbid so far that they crashed a plane, killed 50 people and ceased operating.  You two might applaud the underbidding, but I bet you're glad you weren't passengers on that plane being flown by the lowest bidder.

 

 

Here's a very thorough paper on the subject, from the May 2014 issue of.

 

Not really. It's based solely on the Continental Connection Flight 3407 with no other evidence cited and  written by a student of the Southwestern Law School

'Continental Express' was actually a regional that was wholly owned by Continental

 

Yes, thanks for the correction - I misspoke (well, mistyped).  Continental Connection was the name given to the Colgan Air operation, not Continental Express.  The bigger point stands, though - passengers felt assured they were on a flight operated by Continental when in fact they weren't.

 

 

Not really. It's based solely on the Continental Connection Flight 3407 with no other evidence cited and  written by a student of the Southwestern Law School

 

Fair enough.  But there's other commentary from more established sources (see the note on page 1 from the president of the Flight Safety Foundation in this 2010 issue of Aero Safety World, again a response to Colgan).

 

And it seems that some of these issues have been out there for quite some time.  

I was an A&P mechanic for Colgan for 5 1/2 years,and witnessed all the shenanigans,I am sorry to say things have not changed from a regulatory standpoint. Why they didn't have more fatigue related crashes is beyond me,Luck I guess.They did have some great pilots tho.

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w205/B1900Mech/tshirt2.jpg

 

And Colgan underbid so far that they crashed a plane, killed 50 people and ceased operating.  You two might applaud the underbidding, but I bet you're glad you weren't passengers on that plane being flown by the lowest bidder.

 

How on earth did you extract from that that I in any way applaud the underbidding. I hate low fare airlines and never travel with them. I like to be pampered when I travel, not treated like cattle.

I'd throw "current" in with "experience," not just with AF447 but also OZ214. It's tough for longhair pilots to maintain currency and experience with "stick and rudder" situations when 95% of the flight is spent at cruise with Otto on the controls.

 

Yep, and many airlines restrict stick and rudder use because they want the flights to be as fuel efficient as possible. Landing by hand is a big no no in many airlines, and a go around might put you on their "black list".

 

 

How on earth did you extract from that that...

 

Because some posters have their own agenda which is based on this single indident, and in which the NTSB determined the probable cause was :

 

"...the captain's inappropriate response to the activation of the stick shaker, which led to an aerodynamic stall from which the airplane did not recover."

 

and went to state

 

"The pilots were properly certificated and qualified in accordance with applicable Federal regulations. The airplane was  properly certified, equipped, and ma intained in accordance with Federal regulations. The recovered components showed no evidence of any preimpact structural, engine, or system failures, including no indications of any problems with the airplane’s ice protection system "

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/aar1001.pdf

How on earth did you extract from that that I in any way applaud the underbidding. I hate low fare airlines and never travel with them. I like to be pampered when I travel, not treated like cattle.

.

Did you not say 'good for you' to mgh's 'i as a passenger want airlines to underbid fiercely for my business'?

 

The episode was not about low fare airlines. It was about the regional airline industry. The regionals are a part of the business model of legacy network carriers. How 'discount' and 'low fare' crept into this discussion I do not know. Most low fare airlines don't subcontract out their business to regionals like the legacies do. They do all their own flying. The documentary was pointing out the declining levels of safety in the network carriers due to their aggressive squeezing of costs out of their regional supply.

Because some posters have their own agenda which is based on this single indident, and in which the NTSB determined the probable cause was :

 

"...the captain's inappropriate response to the activation of the stick shaker, which led to an aerodynamic stall from which the airplane did not recover."

 

and went to state

 

"The pilots were properly certificated and qualified in accordance with applicable Federal regulations. The airplane was properly certified, equipped, and ma intained in accordance with Federal regulations. The recovered components showed no evidence of any preimpact structural, engine, or system failures, including no indications of any problems with the airplane’s ice protection system "

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/aar1001.pdf

And the reason he failed to apply the appropriate control inputs was because he was a lousy pilot who should have been washed out of training but yet placed in that cockpit that night to satisfy Continental's aggressive shift of flying to Colgan.

 

That pilot was 'certificated' because the checkairmen who wanted to decertify him were overruled by management who needed every body they could get their hands on to staff their bock hours.

 

It also was not an isolated incident since Colgan had another Q400 stall on approach into Burlington just prior to this accident. Luckily, they managed to recover just prior to hitting the ground.

I'm afraid your agenda is still showing.

Of course. I was there. I was a part of that industry. I saw it coming. We all knew they were an accident waiting to happen. Two nights before the crash, a friend mentioned that she was putting her niece on a flight somewhere on one of those Dash 8s. I replied with 'why would you put her on one of those deathtraps?' That friend was also in Buffalo the night of the crash and witnessed the aftermath and consequences of this kind of carelessness. Some of you may think we need to see more plane crashes, but plane crashes are really quite painful for thiose on the plane and those left behind and no amount of extra discount or profit is worth causing even just one more plane crash.

"Good for you" doesn't mean "good for me". It was a slightly sarcastic remark.

 

Low fare airlines are part of the reason why the major airlines and regional airlines have had to make massive changes to their business model over the last 20 years or so. It's all very much connected.

Still, it is hard to draw crystal clear conclusions regarding airline economy and safety. There are so many variables leading to an accident, and there are so few of them, that statistically and scientifically clear patterns are hard to find.

 

Statistically I would rather put my children in an aircraft than a car for transportation. The odds would be very much in their favour. But of course, in the real world I would take many more  variables into consideration, but generally, flying is very safe still. But that doesn't mean it can't change.

I am glad to hear you clarify that you meant that comment in a sarcastic manner. I hope your comments about there being not enough crashes were sarcastic as well.

 

The Colgan crash has been one of the most expected crashes and most clearly linked crashes to economic factors. A pilot who should have never been placed in a passenger airline cockpit is put there by a company desperate for employees because of more flying than they could handle. One way or another, there was going to be a crash at Colgan during that period. People in the industry knew it.

The title of this thread is "Dangers of Discount and Regional Airlines : Frontline Documentary on Flying Cheap"

Some posters seem to think that discount and regional airlines are dangerous when they are not.

Some posters seem to think that discount and regional airlines are dangerous when they are not.

 

 

Some are, some aren't. I think in the end it's a lot about government regulation or lack of it. More regulation tends to have a positive impact on safety, less regulation allows airlines to cut corners where they shouldn't.