Best post of the thread. Oughtta close 'er down with that one! :)

I'll be the regional pilot who says that regional airlines are not as safe. We fly more legs on less rest than our counterparts. It's impossible for that to not impact safety.


Furthermore.... This ties in with compensation. Management will go to their grave claiming that there's "one level of safety," and that they'd never compromise on safety in order to save money. Oh, really? So either I'm just as safe and qualified as a mainline pilot and should therefore be compensated as such, or I'm less safe and less qualified which is why I get paid less. You can't have it both ways. As regional pilots, we should be beating the safety drum non-stop for eternity. Stop being offended for a minute, and think. What would happen if we could convince the general public that contracted carriers had significantly lower safety margins than mainline carriers?

DING! DING! DING!

ALPA should have blasted the public with the idea that regional pilots are not as experienced and are flown exhausted. But they didn't. I used to wonder why, but then the answer has become crustal clear--they have been selling us out.

The regionals were operated under part 135 then. In fact, the RDU crash in 94 (IIRC) was the final straw that prompted PRIA.

I remember when regional airlines changed from 135 to 121 in order to bring all the airlines under one standard of safety. Imagine my surprise when I learned that after the Colgan crash, something needed to be done to bring all the airlines under one stadard of safety.

Well played...