Originally Posted by
thepaxman
i'm not sure what the article's point was but up until the last couple of paragraphs i think it's a pretty fair assessment that the general flying public have of flying on a regional - rightly or wrongly.
i fly on rj's because i have to. i'd prefer not too but that's me. the rj's are smaller. they are a little noisier (except for when you sit at the back of an md-80
). and to be honest i too have noticed, that on a couple of occasions, the co-pilots have been young. this is not a knock on them but just what i have noticed. most don't realize the training that these guys go through and just see the 22 yr old guy programming the autopilot when boarding the plane. hence the public perception.
1) Embraer has never had one of their jets written off. They currently have the safest record in commercial aviation.
2) Where are the "22 year olds programming the autopilot" going to get experience? At what point is it safe? Would you feel safer with a 40 year old who's only been flying for a year? or a 22 year old that has been flying for 5? Would you pay the high costs associated with flying a larger aircraft piloted by a mainline pilot into a larger airport? Where would this major airline pilot come from? Would you rather have one flight a day to your destination aboard a 737 or three aboard a 50 seater?
3) I'm sure if people had died in the Continental runoff at DEN or in the Hudson this would still come up, yet out of the last three commercial aviation accidents, 2 have involved major airlines with those "bigger, safer aircraft"
4) How many people have died on planes and trains in the three years where there were no fatalities aboard 121 aircraft?
5) Are you aware that United and others hired very low time pilots during the 60s and 70s as well?
Perception often does not follow reality.