If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More
During the past year or two, me and my family are buying the cheapest
fares available, and so why am I not surprised by this write-up about Air Tran's success. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/22/bu...22airtran.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More
They have made a reasonable recovery from their disastrous management
performance ten years ago. When you change your name and hide eventually most folks forget what a disaster your company was. Robert Cohen wrote: During the past year or two, me and my family are buying the cheapest fares available, and so why am I not surprised by this write-up about Air Tran's success. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/22/bu...22airtran.html |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More
"Robert Cohen" wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/22/bu...22airtran.html Pretty funny quote: "Our airplanes are newer than most airline's snacks." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More
"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:
They have made a reasonable recovery from their disastrous management performance ten years ago. When you change your name and hide eventually most folks forget what a disaster your company was. What disasterous management performance? As near as I can tell, they were under a microscope at the time, since they were the first airline to extensively contract out maintenance. Something done in many other industries, I might add. There was an accident, which arguably wasn't the fault of the airline management, and were then considered as "unsafe". When they merged with AirTran, they used AirTran's operating license, and contracted their maintenance to that company. Otherwise, they are still building on the same model they used as ValuJet. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More
In article 42, James
Robinson wrote: ... they were the first airline to extensively contract out maintenance. Something done in many other industries, I might add. There was an accident, which arguably wasn't the fault of the airline management, and were then considered as "unsafe". Please. They contracted things out to SabreTech because they were CHEAPER, simple as that. Their subcontractor cut corners, and 110 people died as a result. ValuJet wasn't DIRECTLY responsible, no, but they were most certainly at fault for using a shady contractor. Further, the cabin-to-cockpit interphone had been deferred, meaning the cabin crew had no way to communicate the fire to the flight crew other than yelling through the cockpit door. So yes, Valujet shared a great deal of responsibility for the crash. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More
The DC-9s
By phasing-out those old planes and phasing-in the new 7117 (?), they've sorta overcome my resistance/reluctance/fear. Less than 10 years ago we flew ATL to MIDWAY/Chicago, a bargain fare of $59 (?) one way in a DC-9. We sat toward the rear, and some rackety noise of an old part(s) did worry me. Please tell me they're not cutting corners by using low bidders to maintain the 7117s too. I also now recall a post-crash expert commenting on National Public Radio (after a crash) about complex wiring being relatively difficult to repair in the old DC-9 (I think it was). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More
Clark W. Griswold, Jr. wrote: "Robert Cohen" wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/22/bu...22airtran.html Pretty funny quote: "Our airplanes are newer than most airline's snacks." When I read that I thought, "WHAT snacks!?"... -- Best Greg |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More
beavis wrote:
James Robinson wrote: ... they were the first airline to extensively contract out maintenance. Something done in many other industries, I might add. There was an accident, which arguably wasn't the fault of the airline management, and were then considered as "unsafe". Please. They contracted things out to SabreTech because they were CHEAPER, simple as that. Their subcontractor cut corners, and 110 people died as a result. ValuJet wasn't DIRECTLY responsible, no, but they were most certainly at fault for using a shady contractor. Are you implying that dealing with the lowest bidder is somehow wrong? It is the way business is done. Everything from computer programming to moon landers is awarded to the lowest qualified bidder as a normal contracting process. SabreTech was a licenced aircraft maintenance supplier. As far as SabreTech being "shady", they were properly licensed by the FAA to perform aircraft maintenance. It's not as though they were some back lot garage that repairs cars using stolen parts. Also, please describe how the accident was as a result of Sabretech "cutting corners". The airline prohibited the shipment of hazardous material, and weren't aware that the oxygen generators were aboard. The maintenance contractor made a mistake in not discharging the generators or applying safety caps. It was more a mistake than a deliberate act to save money. Blaming the airline, even partially, is like blaming Ford Explorer drivers for Firestone tire failures: They shouldn't have bought them, therefore they are at fault. Further, the cabin-to-cockpit interphone had been deferred, meaning the cabin crew had no way to communicate the fire to the flight crew other than yelling through the cockpit door. So yes, Valujet shared a great deal of responsibility for the crash. The lack of interphone communication was not cited in the NTSB report as either a cause of the accident or even aggravating the conditions. It was a side issue, and ValuJet was perfectly legal in flying the aircraft without the interphone according to the FAA-approved Minimum Equipment Lists. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More
In article 42, James
Robinson wrote: ... they were the first airline to extensively contract out maintenance. Something done in many other industries, I might add. There was an accident, which arguably wasn't the fault of the airline management... Please. They contracted things out to SabreTech because they were CHEAPER, simple as that. Their subcontractor cut corners, and 110 people died as a result. Are you implying that dealing with the lowest bidder is somehow wrong? Not at all. What I'm directly *saying* is that using a contractor to do work doesn't absolve the company of responsibility for the work done by that contractor. That's one of the risks a company takes when it relinquishes control of necessary work to an outside, third party. It is the way business is done... SabreTech was a licenced aircraft maintenance supplier. Of course they were. Just as the garage is where a friend always gets his New York state inspections "done" is a certified New York State Inspection Station. Still, for fifty bucks, he gets a sticker on a car that shouldn't be on the road. The certification means very little. Also, please describe how the accident was as a result of Sabretech "cutting corners". The airline prohibited the shipment of hazardous material, and weren't aware that the oxygen generators were aboard. Correct. SabreTech *mislabeled* the shipping containers as containing empty oxygen generators, because full ones cannot be transported in the cargo hold of passenger aircraft, and thus must be sent on cargo-only aircraft. That costs more money. That's what I mean by "cutting corners." Blaming the airline, even partially, is like blaming Ford Explorer drivers for Firestone tire failures: They shouldn't have bought them, therefore they are at fault. That's an excellent example, actually. But it's more analgous to blaming Ford for the Firestone tire failures. *Ford* sold the tires, *Ford* recommended that they be underinflated. Yes, it was Firestone that built the weak tire, but they were OEM tires -- Ford is the primarily repsonsible party, not Firestone. The lack of interphone communication was not cited in the NTSB report as either a cause of the accident or even aggravating the conditions. http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1997/aar9706.pdf Page 108: "Therefore, the Safety Board believes that the FAA should specify, in air carrier operations master MELs, that the cockpit-cabin portion of the service interphone system is required to be operating before an airplane can be dispatched. " Page 138: "As a result of the investigation of this accident, the National Transportation Safety Board made the following recommendations: to the Federal Aviation Administration: .... Specify, in air carrier operations master minimum equipment lists, that the cockpit-cabin portion of the service interphone system is required to be operating before an airplane can be dispatched. (A-97-57) " It was a side issue, and ValuJet was perfectly legal in flying the aircraft without the interphone according to the FAA-approved Minimum Equipment Lists. "Perfectly legal" doesn't necessary equal safe, in the aviation business or in any other. In New York, it's illegal for me to hold a phone up to my ear and talk, but "perfectly legal" to type a message out on a Blackberry. That doesn't make it safe; some common sense needs to come into play. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More
beavis wrote:
It is the way business is done... SabreTech was a licenced aircraft maintenance supplier. Of course they were. Just as the garage is where a friend always gets his New York state inspections "done" is a certified New York State Inspection Station. Still, for fifty bucks, he gets a sticker on a car that shouldn't be on the road. The certification means very little. Are you sayiing that SabreTech paid off the FAA inspectors? That's quite an accusation. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Drving times in the west | David & Barbara Schmidt | USA & Canada | 7 | May 5th, 2005 01:34 AM |
Times: Another danger of flying lies not in air but food | sufaud | Air travel | 3 | March 11th, 2005 10:12 PM |
S Times: If New York can tame them, so can we | Kuacou | Europe | 0 | December 5th, 2004 03:16 PM |
Times: Budapest's Jewish quarter fights a new invasion | Sufaud | Europe | 8 | November 10th, 2004 04:19 PM |
New Dining Times On Holland America | Peter Berlin | Cruises | 14 | March 27th, 2004 03:48 AM |