That isn't always true. Many Govt professions a restructured that if you go do the same job, but in a different city, you go back to square one pay wise and seniority wise.

 

Well spoken by the me generation. Good job. Rest assured there will be an endless uplly of people to do your job for less.

 

Really? I went here ---> NTSB - Aviation
and then here ---->NTSB - Accidents Involving Passenger Fatalities - U.S. Airlines (Part 121)

and I found this:

Fatals

09/11/01 SHANKSVILLE, PA UNITED AIRLINES BOEING 757
11/12/01 BELLE HARBOR, NY AMERICAN AIRLINES AIRBUS A300
01/08/03 CHARLOTTE, NC US AIRWAYS EXPRESS Beech 1900
10/19/04 KIRKSVILLE, MO CORPORATE AIRLINES BA Jetstream 32
12/19/05 MIAMI, FL CHALKS OCEAN AIRWAYS Grumman G-37
08/27/06 LEXINGTON, KY MAIR Bombardier CRJ-100
02/12/09 CLARENCE, NY COLGAN AIR Bombardier DHC-8

It doesn't include the non-fatals, and if you do that, you get 7 of the last 8 were regionals. Slip in the USAir on the Hudson and one other one that slips my noodle right now and poof 7 of 8. Period, end of story.

Remember NTSB is going to list any major damage regardless of if it involved an incident or acident. A fuel truck smahing into the plane at the gate will get reported... we're talking about accidents, not expensive mishaps that require reporting under NTSB 830.

 

Since we're both cross-posting.

This would be a more accurate survey of the accidents (all fatalities, not just passenger):

Aviation Accident Database Query

Dates: 1/1/2004 - 9/20/2009
Investigation Type: Accident
Injury Severity: Fatal (or All, whichever you'd like)
Operation: Part 121:Air Carrier

Submit. Very different results.

 

Yes, fatal AND non-fatal it's very different.
a Jetblue A320 - severe inflight turbulance - no damage to aircraft
a USAir - preflight inspection found damage from unknown cause
a AirTran 717 with inflight turbulence and an FA and pax got hurt
a Continental 76 - inflight turbulence - pax injured, no aircraft damage
blah blah blah.... take the time to read them.

then do just the fatals....
when you see the list with a bunch of 737's on it, notice how they are all "1" fatality... these are all ground crew personnel accidents.... then compair them to the Comair, Colgan and other regional accidents where crew and passengers are being killed.

 

That's a terribly weak argument, and I think you know it. Here are the non-regional accidents between 1/1/2004 and 9/20/2009:

FedEx MD11 - Totaled on landing. Only 2 people aboard were killed, but I'd imagine if there were passengers there would be more than (2) listed.

Kalitta 747 - No idea yet, but again, the little (2) doesn't matter as it was a cargo bird.

USA Jet DC9 - Destroyed during approach. Again, cargo. Very few fatalities.

Sky King 737 and CAL 737 in ELP - Yep, ground handling. Got me there. Republic's ground handling fatality is also listed on that page.

Southwest 737 - Wrecked off the end in MDW.



So there ya have it. Those were not all ground handling accidents as you're trying to make them out to be. Also not listed is the CAL 737 in DEN that, somehow, did not result in fatalities.

The point that I made in the other thread remains the same: Nobody is immune from accidents. If it gives you the warm fuzzies to avoid all regionals that's fine, but realize that it's not based in any fact.

 

Tell me you are not including foreign carriers and accidents in foreign lands.... can we agree to compare US regionals with US Majors in the US? I guess the list I ran was different than the list YOU ran. I selected UNITED STATES. By the way, the Southwest accident was people on the ground killed, not crew or pax.

and I NEVER said anybody was immune from accidents. What I said was the regionals have a worse safety record and kill people far more often. So, if we use your numbers Majors/Cargo is what 10... maybe 15.... while regionals are what..... lets see...
Comair 50
Colgan 49
Beech 1900 19 (forgot who operated that one)
so, 118 to less than 20 just since 2003. Yep, you make your arguement well.

We can go back more and talk about other ones where regional pilots only killed themselves, like the colgan guys in the 1900 going out of HYA, or the CRJ guys flaming out both engines...

Look, if there were NOT a problem, the US Congress would not be looking to regulate increased minimum hours for new hires, better rest and duty hours... if there were NOT a problem, they could care less how much sleep you got, when you commuted to work, how much time you had when hired. The fact is YOUR job is about to be regulated from the highest levels of the US Govt; that doesn't happen when things are just peachy.

 

I agree. The airlines love the fact that pilots can't use their experience to move to a growing airline with pay guarantees.

A thought....

The FAA could improve safety by having Class A, B, C airline transport certificates just like commercial trucking. Example...

1500 min flight time for FO
5000 min flight time for a Class C license (eg. 100,000 lbs max) for PIC
10000 min flight time for a Class B license (eg. 200,000 lbs max) for PIC
15000 min flight time for Class A license (eg. over 200,000 lbs) for PIC

It would act like a national (experience) seniority list.

 

This argument makes my head hurt.

Select United States, that's fine, but there were no foreign airlines listed. There were, however, three US carriers that had accidents in foreign countries. That fact doesn't nullify my point.

By the way, the number of fatalities isn't a valid metric. The number of fatal accidents certainly is. Don't confuse the two.

P.S.: The B1900 above was an accident caused by maintenance, not crew competency.

 

I never said there wasn't a problem. I full agree with the increase and don't think 300 hour pilots belong in regional cockpits. Hell, I've flown with 200 hour FOs here at my company and more often than not it's downright awful. They don't have the experience to be a good resource in the cockpit. We agree 100% there.

I am taking quite a bit of offense to the idea that you won't set foot on regional aircraft, period. That's extremely short-sighted in my mind. The vast majority of regional pilots are safe and competent at their jobs.