ATA requests FAA not change the rules.
 

ATW Daily News

"In a sharply worded statement, the trade group called the proposal "logistically impossible to implement" and said it "seems to abandon the advancements in pilot training programs that have been instrumental in improving airline safety." ATA President and CEO James May said in a statement, "While we appreciate the FAA's desire to quickly adopt new training rules, we believe that the rule as proposed could set the safety clock back by more than a decade."

Only a decade? Than they should still do it... these rules are 5 decades old.

I think the CFO's from each major just ran the numbers for how much more manpower, training, and time this will cost the company at our expense.. and as a result they came up with this letter.

Not really a surprise. It always comes down to money. Right now the number of dead bodies due to planes falling out of the sky is small enough that it is cheaper to pay off those families instead of increase training/duty/rest rule requirements. Once enough dead bodies start falling from the skies and the payoff amount passes the new training/duty/rest cost ATA will come out with a new letter saying that new training/duty/rest rules must be established for "safety".

This is where ALPA needs to step in and lobby the FAA as well.

As they say, ALPA can pay the role as the “conscience of the airline industry.”

To pilots, being on the risky end of the burning stick has a $ price as well.

I agree, I think ALPA has been doing good so far (even though I am not a big fan of ALPA) but more can be done. I am also glad to know I am not the only one writing to my representatives. The more we have on board with this the better everyone will be off down the road.

Good point, just look at the pilots from the Blink 182 crash. Everyone is getting sued there.

I talked to a guy a few years back who actually said he keeps everything in his wife's name incase something happens to him. He doesn't want his family to loose everything..

This reminds me of Fight Club. ok ok, bear with me here for a sec. The main characters job is to investigate accidents for the car companies and see if its cheaper to settle out of court or do a recall on the vehicle. If they find sufficient evidence that its cheaper to pay off the victims rather than do a recall then they just keep the unsafe vehicles on the road. Sounds pretty similar to me.

P.S. I just woke up. Groggy. Thinking warped.

Now that guy is a real sucker.....LOL!

I think this is what you are looking for:

"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

I hope it is a solid marriage.

Maybe things need to get reset to zero...like project mayhem in fight club. Get rid of the ATA, RAA, etc...and bring back real regulation...since we're pretty much there anyhow, minus government subsidy. Since we haven't raised prices in almost 30 years (to keep up with inflation at least)...Uncle Sam can raise the price of a ticket across the board...also solving the problem of passengers in sweatpants *****ing about missing a 45 minute international connection....or those same sweatpant in public wearing heroes that complain when their crew times out and they can't get to <insert dirty upstate newyork town here> You're right, twenty something with "Pink" written on her sweatpant ass, I should be willing to be on duty longer than 16 hours, I apologize on behalf of my feeble body.

Hmmm. I think the risk of divorce is much, much higher than the risk of crashing for most pilots.

Also, while this might work in a non-community property state, it would not help you in Cali and many others. Setting up a trust might be a safer route if you have assets.