HeloDude

I’m not sure how I can be much clearer with my argument, but I’ll try…even though you actually kind of summarized it later in your post? If the mishap rate is nearly the same (if not the same?) for regionals as the legacies over the last 10 years then why pay pilots more on legacies than regionals under the argument of safety? If your argument is that regionals are much riskier wrt safety, then where are all the mishaps? As for you never flying on a regional, that’s impressive as many destinations are only served by regionals. Additionally, if regionals are more dangerous then why would the legacies want to be associated with them?—if an Envoy plane were to God forbid crash tonight, do you think people aren’t going to put any of the blame on AA? They bought the ticket from AA, not Envoy. Good discussion btw—I appreciate it.

Specifically why did the AA guy/gal leave after 4 years and go to UAL? Was it for domicile reasons?

Sure, but I never said the risk about anything is zero. I said the rate is extremely close to one another. The risk of a mishap is not zero for regionals and is also not zero for the legacies. However, I would argue the risk over the last 10 years isn’t that far different wrt pilot error causing a mishap (and when I say mishap, I’m referring to something resulting in mass casualties). How many of us don’t fly on regionals because we know the experience of the crew is most likely less than that of a legacy?

This is mostly nonsense when you look at the stats. What’s the mishap rate of airlines on low cost carriers and regionals over the last 10 years?—my guess is it’s extremely close to the legacies. Also, how many times do people fly on a regional when they buy a legacy ticket?—seems pretty often for a sizable portion of the population. If regional pilots are that less safe than legacy pilots then why would legacy airline management want to tie their business to the regionals?

But if it’s rare, then it’s outside the norm and not very relevant to the overall argument. You’ll always be able to find random one offs in just about anything in life. So again, what incentives does management at the legacies have to increase pay since they know they’ll always have a stream of qualified applicants and virtually none of their pilots with any seniority will leave for another carrier?

I guess in the last several years I have yet to hear of a pilot who had more than 1-2 years at a legacy leave to go to another. What kind of numbers are we talking about who would fit that criteria?

If that were the case, all the airlines, including regionals and low car carriers, would pay more/less the same…but they don’t.

Which begs the question: Why should airline pilots demand crazy pay when management knows they won’t/can’t strike? It’s not like Delta pilots would have left in droves to go work for other airlines. And it’s not like Frontier or Spirt pilots are crashing all the time either, yet they’re not making the same pay.

But nearly half the country supports this type of nonsense…even several guys on this site.

Actually it does. It shows that laws don’t stop certain things from happening…whether these are laws against using drugs or laws against putting a pool in your backyard with only a 4’ fence and not a 5’ fence. It’s all selective enforcement…so all you’re doing is screwing over a certain segment of the population for a victimless crime, regardless of whether it’s a local, state, or federal law. Try calling the cops in NYC for your neighbor playing their music too loud and see if the cops care enough to stop by…I doubt it many cases it will happen. So saying we need laws for people to put up/not put their fences, put up/not put solar panels, etc is straight up stupid.

I’d say it’s more of an “ideological” sport vs team sport. Case in point: Joe Biden in 2024 and Trump in 2020. If you’re left of center you’re going to vote for Biden in 2024 because he’s much more likely to support your ideology than his opponent, and a primary only weaker the Dem party/ideological cause. Just as in 2020, you might have not been able to stand Trump personally, but if you’re right of center you were going to vote for Trump over Biden. Very little of the vote (percentage wise) is truly up for grabs…though in swing states/tight races it definitely can affect the outcome. So in reality, it’s mostly about turn out, and with going further and further away from needing to stand in line on Election Day to pull the lever, it’s only gotten easier to vote (even though progressives want us to think it’s the 1950s again wrt keeping minorities from voting). So if only around 30% of country are truly a MAGA/love Trump type person and around 30% are vote for the progressive candidate (in this case Biden) no matter what…that leaves the rest down to motivating your side to vote and turning as much as the other side sour against their candidate as possible. BL: Very little of the vote is up for grab regardless of the candidate, and ideology is ruling the day. Hence why the two parties have only gone further left and further right. And if you look at the way the country has been moving culturally the last 10-20 years, it’s not favoring the GOP. Not saying it’s a good thing, it’s just the truth.

But he’s the smartest guy Joe Biden knows?

Well it’s good to know we don’t have drugs being illegally made, trafficked, sold, consumed, etc…you know, because the government prevents it.

And here I thought the left said they wanted the government out of the bedroom?

You beat me to it. Nsplayr did one of his usual plays (no pun intended)—he tweaks his response just enough to suggest you’re wrong, but keeps it close enough that to the untrained eye it looks legit.

“Now I don’t know what this really is” he says…but right before he says it seems like an assault on federal officers. What a 🤡

Let me know when progressives start moving away in droves from expensive coastal cities, you know, because they’re afraid of the effects of “climate change”. Judge people by their personal actions, not their rhetoric.

Funny, I’ve been saying this for quite a while on here: No American administration is going to war with China to protect Taiwan. And likewise, no sizable amount of the American population is going to refuse to purchase products made in China if/when China goes into Taiwan.

Are you suggesting the wealth should be equal amongst every person in the country? The world?

I can’t disagree with you there. But the electoral college and “unencumbered gun rights” has zero to do with one party/segment of the population forcing its will on another. Unless you’re suggesting that the left doesn’t support the Constitution?

Wait…you’re against the electoral college? And why are “unencumbered gun rights” a bad thing?

You tell me—the DOJ only appears to want to go after one major political leader. I wonder why that is.

So it’s a “maybe” for Hillary and her crimes…but not a “maybe” for Trump and his? What I’m saying is that when it comes to charging the leader of each majority political party, you apply the laws in the same way. It’s scary that you and nearly half the country don’t share this same desire. And then you’re surprised when nearly half the country doesn’t believe we have a non-political DOJ/FBI.

Wait, you’re ok with Trump being indicted and saying “maybe” Hillary should have been indicted? I’m suggesting that if you go after one of the top politicians from one party and not one from another party, then the appearance for favoritism, corruption, etc is strong. And I’m sorry, “truly repentant” shouldn’t matter when breaking the law. Because who gets determine if someone is “truly repentant” and not someone else?