|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3491404)
Safety is expensive. Infinitive safety has infinite cost, the regulators can only mandate so much before the whole enterprise fails.
For political reasons, they have to make the airlines very safe. That doesn't apply to niche and private operations, they basically set a floor and allow the customers to choose... some operations are very bit as safe as airlines, and quite expensive too. If you expect .gov to extend airline safety to charter/fracs, why stop there? What about generic 91? What about private pilots? Shouldn't they have two pilots with ATP's, two engines, and the ability to climb out after a V1 cut too? And a dispatcher, etc? ASEL should clearly be illegal. Airline safety is set for very specific reasons (including international conventions). Those reasons don't apply to other segments. The argument "but safety!" is meaningless out of context. |
Yup, well aware of the trickle down effect safety could deal out. We could go round and round on this topic while exposing differences of opinions.
Money and public perception will continue to be a huge driving factor. I will stand by my previous statements when it comes to 135/91K having same forced retirement age as 121. |
Originally Posted by Sidewinder27
(Post 3494573)
Yup, well aware of the trickle down effect safety could deal out. We could go round and round on this topic while exposing differences of opinions.
Money and public perception will continue to be a huge driving factor. I will stand by my previous statements when it comes to 135/91K having same forced retirement age as 121. |
Late September Update:
GOVTRACK website just changed the "chances of passing" from 4% to 3% probability https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s4607 hope nobody was counting on "working to 67 to get caught up on some bills" :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by hercretired
(Post 3501758)
Late September Update:
GOVTRACK website just changed the "chances of passing" from 4% to 3% probability https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s4607 hope nobody was counting on "working to 67 to get caught up on some bills" :rolleyes: |
|
Originally Posted by aeroengineer
(Post 3503752)
Please Bro. Please retire now. I really want to move up in seniority NOW. If I could just move up and make more money and get a better QOL I could dump this boat anchor around my neck and marry a hot bimbo from Russia who's leaving her soon to be drafted significant other and I could buy a boat and the world would be great. Life is all about one's personal perspective.
Also I really don’t care about any of that stuff I just don’t want to fly with 66/67 year olds. Happy with my current seniority. |
November 2 Update
Still 3% chance of being passed. Has not advanced to any additional stages or committees either. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s4607 |
Be interesting to see if there's any kind of shift after mid terms.
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3525291)
Be interesting to see if there's any kind of shift after mid terms.
So it would delay some hiring / allow catch up to take place for a year. The massive retirement numbers over the next decade will not be wiped out. They will still require massive hiring. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:24 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands