Originally Posted by
NoSidNoStar
Technically speaking yes. But that was ironical.
Anyway, I was referring more to the statistical chances of something happening in corporate aviation versus major airlines. After all, one school book definition of safety is something not happening.
And if I had to bet who would have a fatal accident first between NJA and a legacy, I would bet against the former. Sorry.
In any case, sounds like the guy won't move to a legacy base, and he is convinced that the resulting QOL will be better than the one in a legacy. To the point that it justifies the millions of dollars differences in career gains and retirements plans. Yes, millions.
Somebody else suggested the airlines are doomed to economics down turns, as NJA would be immune to such. NJA still has furloughed.
He took the decision, so no more reason to argue. Peace
It seems like you are the type who believes that if a person makes a different decision than the one you would make then they are simply justifying their poor decision making - - then you end with an attempt to not sound like a know-it-all. Peace
You seem destined to chase the dollars. I hope it works out for you.
Btw - SAFETY is NEVER something not happening. I'd like to know what 'school book' you got that idea from
Every safety school or safety presentation I've ever attended (civilian and military) make a point that the absence of an event/incident/mishap is not an indicator of an effective safety program or culture.