WSJ Article on "Commuter" Safety
#1
WSJ Article on "Commuter" Safety
It's on the WSJ Online Subscription Service but you can just Google the article title for the complete article in free trial version:
Commuter Airlines: Questions of Safety
Commuter Airlines: Questions of Safety
Last edited by winglet; 11-30-2009 at 06:03 PM.
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,948
Perhaps someone with a subscription would care to post the content?
I sorta have the feeling that reporters use this site to fish for content. Not that anything is wrong with that, but it sucks when the users who are being pumped for info can't even read the end product.
I sorta have the feeling that reporters use this site to fish for content. Not that anything is wrong with that, but it sucks when the users who are being pumped for info can't even read the end product.
#3
Commuter Airlines: Questions of Safety
The complete version will be viewable. After that they want you to sign up for a subscription. I believe after a time they archive articles and then they are also available without subscription.
I usually only post links to non subscription sites. With these subscription sites you just have to use the trial version. This may be in tomorrow's paper.
winglet
Last edited by winglet; 11-30-2009 at 06:33 PM.
#5
Link to Google search, click the first article: http://www.google.com/search?q=WSJ+C...L_enUS290US291
No subscription needed.
No subscription needed.
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Position: Captain CR7/CR9
Posts: 104
Another worthless but damaging article by writers who do not do their research. No surprise there. Regional airlines are not commuter airlines. These are, in my opinion, two different things. If I were flying a Navajo in a scheduled 135 operation, then I would be a commuter airline pilot. I am not criticizing the commuter guys and gals. But what this article refers to is 121 operators and we operate on the same rules. The statistics they provide are useless as they are of too small a scale to be useful. These people have no clue. They addresses for the writers are at the end of the article. I suggest we all email them with our remarks.
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 224
Another worthless but damaging article by writers who do not do their research. No surprise there. Regional airlines are not commuter airlines. These are, in my opinion, two different things. If I were flying a Navajo in a scheduled 135 operation, then I would be a commuter airline pilot. I am not criticizing the commuter guys and gals. But what this article refers to is 121 operators and we operate on the same rules. The statistics they provide are useless as they are of too small a scale to be useful. These people have no clue. They addresses for the writers are at the end of the article. I suggest we all email them with our remarks.
1) I get a commuter pay check.
2) A pilot helped her with the articles(there is 4-5 coming out in the next few days).
#8
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Scheduled regional carriers should have Airline Transport rated pilots in both seats. 1500 hours of basic experience isn't too much to ask. Back in the 80's to be competitive for a Metroliner, BE-1900 or SF-340, you had to have 2500 TT and 1000 multi, but many did get in with 1500-2000 TT and 200-500 multi.
Now, if a young pilot isn't getting into a 70 passenger jet airliner with 500 TT and a handful of multi, they're angry.
Times are a changin' again..................
Now, if a young pilot isn't getting into a 70 passenger jet airliner with 500 TT and a handful of multi, they're angry.
Times are a changin' again..................
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Airbus 319/320 Captain
Posts: 880
Another worthless but damaging article by writers who do not do their research. No surprise there. Regional airlines are not commuter airlines. These are, in my opinion, two different things. If I were flying a Navajo in a scheduled 135 operation, then I would be a commuter airline pilot. I am not criticizing the commuter guys and gals. But what this article refers to is 121 operators and we operate on the same rules. The statistics they provide are useless as they are of too small a scale to be useful. These people have no clue. They addresses for the writers are at the end of the article. I suggest we all email them with our remarks.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post