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

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.

Sorry, I'll let someone else post copyrighted material. You can still view the complete article without signing up if you Google this article title:

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

Hey, thanks for the advice on how to see the full copy. It works....

I think it's a well written and timely.

Link to Google search, click the first article: http://www.google.com/search?q=WSJ+C...L_enUS290US291
No subscription needed.

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.

Two things
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).

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..................

Why is the article "damaging"? It points out what has been going on in this industry for far to long and how greedy companies exploit pilots. I guarantee you that if you asked the average "joe" what kind of experience he would like to see in the cockpit, the answer wouldn't surprise you. Ask yourself the same question. Just some thoughts from someone who has been in the business for far to long. Peace out.

"I suggest we all email them with our remarks."

I already did mention my opinion. Can you tell me again what you find negative. I found your post rather non-specific.