In a recent plane crash in Kentucky 49 people died, The plane attempted to take off on the wrong runway. One that was half the length of the runway that was suppose to used. It turns out that against FAA rules, their was only one air traffic controller on duty at the time. An expert on CNN this morning said that most major airports are operating with understaffed control towers, and that about one quarter of the controllers are eligible to retire next year. He also stated that problems with lack of control in airport towers can be traced all the way back to President Regan who fired striking controllers and weakened incentive for anyone to enter the career path. I find it quite striking that in a time those in charge claim to be so focused on fighting terrorism and making flying safe for the public, that they can let the most basic safety system...control towers, go understaffed. Again we have an issue of not covering the basics. Of course actually having enough air traffic controllers isn't as macho as “taking the fight to the enemy”.
Plane crash could have been avoided
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Time : 10:17 AM
Time : 10:17 AM
[ back home ]
Comments for Plane crash could have been avoided
Gotta cut back somewhere to pay for this war. Where would you rather be safer? On a runway, or downtown Baghdad? Bush has made them both equally unsafe. That's democracy.
- Posted at 5:03 PM | By
Lew Scannon
They will probably outsource the air traffic controllers to Arab countries, just like our port security. Why not go all the way with it and outsource the President.
- Posted at 5:07 PM | By Peacechick Mary
I thought of Reagan right away when I heard there was only one controller. The downfall of the profession certainly started there.
I couldn't believe it was legal even at slow time.
I couldn't believe it was legal even at slow time.
- Posted at 12:57 AM | By
Podvizhnik- I address this to you, because you need some attention here.
I dont think the point is to blame Reagan directly and absolutely, but if you go study Labor Law you will see that IN GENERAL union negotiations were impacted by that strike episode as it undermined the power of unions and upheld the authority to intervene if a case can be made for public good. It was widely regarded as a dangerous use of authority to interfere- something I'm SHOCKED you favor. Feeling a bit commie today?
A decrease in any viable leverage has an impact on labor relations in general. Can we specifically throw Reagan out as the only cause? No. But we can trace a decline in union membership,strength, and the gains in contracts to that time period. Again, there are other factors but THAT stands out. Even my conservative professors lectured on this relationship- if you want to email me I can send you a stack of citations. We'll spare Shill though.
Moving on, I think we all are capable of realizing that "trends" and their movements can never be attributed to a singular impetus. Can we trace deinstitutionalization to Geraldo? NO. Things change when many factors in a conducive configuration make a change more likely.
The problem is that to cut costs,struggling airlines reduce staff to austerity levels just as they often do in hospitals. I'm guessing you never had a job with mandatory overtime! This is a labor issue because work expectations increase and often safety becomes an issue. less sleep, longer hours.Etc.
Hate to tell you but work standards are often a union issue. The public would be safer if they were staffed better, with more breaks. Thats common sense. In the grand scheme of things, its a small expense for safety. But they cheap out on safety, with permissive regulations that favor industry instead of the public. Why are you essentially blaming the public for a safety matter anyway??? Because Americans are fat, they deserve to die because of inept airlines? Thats wacked.
Lastly,, because your comment was so ridiculous- I would like to point out that there is NO RELATIONSHIP between airline safety and American laziness nor does use of other travel arrangements i.e. trains relate to this post at all. Most air traffic is business,thats lazy? Sitting on a train is less lazy, taking five times longer to reach a destination? HUH? Self righteous tangent?
People cannot spend eight days travelling to a business meeting. Your remark should be retracted.
And flying less just reduces airline revenues and who bails them out? We do, and we loosen safety even more to help them cut costs.
But tickets dont seem cheaper given the public subsidy do they? Go laugh about that, Podvizhnik.
I dont think the point is to blame Reagan directly and absolutely, but if you go study Labor Law you will see that IN GENERAL union negotiations were impacted by that strike episode as it undermined the power of unions and upheld the authority to intervene if a case can be made for public good. It was widely regarded as a dangerous use of authority to interfere- something I'm SHOCKED you favor. Feeling a bit commie today?
A decrease in any viable leverage has an impact on labor relations in general. Can we specifically throw Reagan out as the only cause? No. But we can trace a decline in union membership,strength, and the gains in contracts to that time period. Again, there are other factors but THAT stands out. Even my conservative professors lectured on this relationship- if you want to email me I can send you a stack of citations. We'll spare Shill though.
Moving on, I think we all are capable of realizing that "trends" and their movements can never be attributed to a singular impetus. Can we trace deinstitutionalization to Geraldo? NO. Things change when many factors in a conducive configuration make a change more likely.
The problem is that to cut costs,struggling airlines reduce staff to austerity levels just as they often do in hospitals. I'm guessing you never had a job with mandatory overtime! This is a labor issue because work expectations increase and often safety becomes an issue. less sleep, longer hours.Etc.
Hate to tell you but work standards are often a union issue. The public would be safer if they were staffed better, with more breaks. Thats common sense. In the grand scheme of things, its a small expense for safety. But they cheap out on safety, with permissive regulations that favor industry instead of the public. Why are you essentially blaming the public for a safety matter anyway??? Because Americans are fat, they deserve to die because of inept airlines? Thats wacked.
Lastly,, because your comment was so ridiculous- I would like to point out that there is NO RELATIONSHIP between airline safety and American laziness nor does use of other travel arrangements i.e. trains relate to this post at all. Most air traffic is business,thats lazy? Sitting on a train is less lazy, taking five times longer to reach a destination? HUH? Self righteous tangent?
People cannot spend eight days travelling to a business meeting. Your remark should be retracted.
And flying less just reduces airline revenues and who bails them out? We do, and we loosen safety even more to help them cut costs.
But tickets dont seem cheaper given the public subsidy do they? Go laugh about that, Podvizhnik.
Pod, the aviation expert on CNN said that. I do not have the expertise to make that evaluation.
okay this is totally off subject- but LOC I need your help...I usually go read GUGON off my blogroll- but I can't find him today....It is necroamerica right? oh, well if you know can you stop by watergatesummer and just let me know...so sad...went there to read Gloria- needed a laugh and it was gone...
- Posted at 11:58 AM | By enigma4ever
Maybe we could ask Iraq for a loan so we can fix some things here at home?
- Posted at 2:06 PM | By pissed off patricia
LOL! Patricia!! Good one.
- Posted at 5:03 PM | By
Hey now... in addition to having the good sense of declaring ketchup a vegetable for our public school kids' lunches, our most delusional and confused... err... greatest president ever Reagan kicked those damn pesky unions in the nuts. Jeeze... who needs a living wage, benefits, and working hours that do not cause dangerous situations for workers and those who are directly impacted by that worker such as AIRLINE PASSENGERS???? MMM... Kool-Aid is yummy...
Kool Aid with vodka maybe...
- Posted at 2:40 AM | By
It's bullshit that much attention and money is put into making airplanes safe. But of course all the attention is put into making airplanes safe because who uses them the most-rich white people. If you want to save lives ban SUV's/Trucks/Minivans. Or better yet stop the corporate terrorist bankers (and others) from starving and murdering innocent children and their parents too.
wait - um, were we not supposed to make homeland security a priority
oh yea, that means they have bug us and search our private records...but not keep us safe flying..
oh, i forgot, they did - we can't wash our hair on flights any more...lol
oh yea, that means they have bug us and search our private records...but not keep us safe flying..
oh, i forgot, they did - we can't wash our hair on flights any more...lol
Citisucks- Would you also ban large square foot homes, or restrict them to people based on family size? WOuld you restrict clear cuts? Would you restrict inefficient building designs> Using trucks for freight cross country?
SUVs are a problem but they are not the only problem, its a package. The consumptive lifestyle. The use of resources and the reliance on oil. People will never be forced to give up a suburban lifestyle.
SUVs are a problem but they are not the only problem, its a package. The consumptive lifestyle. The use of resources and the reliance on oil. People will never be forced to give up a suburban lifestyle.
- Posted at 1:47 AM | By
I have heard it said more than once that Reagan's evisceration of PATCO was the beginning of the end for organized labor in America. Though the AFL/CIO had, at that time become bloated and directly tied to the mob - unions in general have been a positive thing for America; and what the air traffic controllers were asking for 20-odd years ago was reasonable. This might come as a shock to you Podvizhnik - but not all management is altruistic toward workers. In fact - history shows just the opposite to be true. Safety and guaranteed retirement had to be forced down managements throats; so staying on the side of labor is usually walking with the angels. Now - I don't know if understaffing caused those peoples deaths; but I'd say it’s a safe bet it played a significant role. You live here too Podvizhnik. What kind of America do you want? Me - I'd like one with plentiful, TRAINED air traffic controllers please.
Yes, I would be for the restriction of the size of homes as well. Anyone who drives an SUV/TRuck/Minivan of any size for personal useis not a true liberal and progressive. Anyone who chooses to be a hypocrit by living their life one way but then just making statements about caring about others is scum, a hypocrit, a lier, and the reason that people don't take progressives seriously. People who drive SUVs are murders who don't care about others. If they did they would not, not only drive a vehicle that makes themselves unsafe, but that makes everyone else unsafe as well.
Driving a truck accross the country that is filled with items is different because it has a purpose and anyone with half a brain would know that.
Yes, it is the consumer lifestyle that is the problem.
Driving a truck accross the country that is filled with items is different because it has a purpose and anyone with half a brain would know that.
Yes, it is the consumer lifestyle that is the problem.
