I do agree with most of your statement when it pertains to something missing here or there as there is not a single tracking system that is perfect. However, if you look at the numbers, this isn't a random event or series of events. These are big numbers, this is a company not complying with AD's and required inspections on multiple aircraft, there's simply no excuse for that. Management is responsible for regulatory compliance, and in this case the better question is how much did Bedford save by looking the other way?

You guys can try paint this anyway you want, but at the end of the day, when you go years on multiple frames without complying with basic functions of safety such as inspections, then that says that this company is putting MONEY way ahead of safety, and make no mistake about it, management knew about this. You're welcome to provide evidence proving otherwise, however, I don't think the administrator sees it the way you do.

As a member of the traveling public (when I deadhead or travel for leisure) who's sat in the back of those airplanes I'm angry, because RAH management decided to gamble with my life to save a few bucks. If I was a CHQ pilot, I would be enraged about this as the risk is greater flying these things in and out all day long.