![]() |
I agree with that in principle provided one can understand that there are always exceptions to the rule.
|
why does every thread practically on this website somehow end up in a "my d*cks bigger than yours" argument? I agree that nothing outweighs experience but what good does the old "when I got hired I had to walk 2 miles to work uphill in snow" really do. Just makes you seem old and bitter
|
Originally Posted by ML64711
(Post 479155)
I agree that nothing outweighs experience but what good does the old "when I got hired I had to walk 2 miles to work uphill in snow" really do.
I don't work for the airlines anymore, so it makes no difference to me. Just thought from a professional perspective you might be interested to know why I (a paying customer now) will not book my family on segments flown by regional jets. |
Point:
Originally Posted by ML64711
(Post 479155)
what good does the old "when I got hired I had to walk 2 miles to work uphill in snow" really do. Just makes you seem old and bitter
Originally Posted by ZapBrannigan
(Post 479157)
Just thought from a professional perspective you might be interested to know why I (a paying customer now) will not book my family on segments flown by regional jets.
|
fair enough. Re-reading the post now, the "you" was more collective than it was directed at your post, sorry if it came off that way. Just thinking about the whole picture here, we have livery cab drivers that cant speak english, train drivers that text while working and greyhound drivers that are drunk - so on the "low time rj logic" you apply its a wonder if you let your family get on anything except roller blades.
|
So by your argument I should ignore my better judgement and put my family in what I feel is a potentially unsafe operation since other methods of transportation (most of which I will never use) are equally unsafe?
Interesting. All things being equal -- and airfares generally are -- why would I not choose to put my family on an aircraft flown by two crewmembers who at the very LEAST have a few thousand hours and an ATP (even at the expense of a little schedule flexibility)? |
Originally Posted by ZapBrannigan
(Post 479204)
So by your argument I should ignore my better judgement and put my family in what I feel is a potentially unsafe operation since other methods of transportation (most of which I will never use) are equally unsafe?
Interesting. All things being equal -- and airfares generally are -- why would I not choose to put my family on an aircraft flown by two crewmembers who at the very LEAST have a few thousand hours and an ATP (even at the expense of a little schedule flexibility)? |
lol. That's a good point I suppose. Never thought about it.
I wouldn't let these low timers drive my car either. ;) I kid I kid! |
I have friends dropping bombs and flying supersonic with less than 300 hours so what is your point about low time. Be specific, because I have flown with some horrible thousand hour ATP pilots that scare me silly.
|
"I have friends dropping bombs and flying supersonic with less than 300 hours so what is your point about low time."
Point is, it's an apples to oranges comparasion. The military spends what, 2 mil?, to train a 300 hour guy to "drop bombs and fly supersonic". At allATP's, you spend 70K, and you take out the loan to cover it. Apples and oranges.... "I have flown with some horrible thousand hour ATP pilots that scare me silly." "You can't fix stupid". I think you said that in another thread.... |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:26 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands