> Some will argue that it’s unfair to gerrymander statistics in this fashion, separating airlines into categories of convenience. However, it’s necessary. Regional carriers, for instance, can have substantially different cultural and operational environments than their legacy carrier affiliates. It’s the majors that set the standard, and it’s only fair that we measure from there.
Yes. It is gerrymandering, and no you can't wash your hands of the regional carriers' crashes and deaths after you've stamped your 'trusted' name and brand on their flights.
I am appalled at how they callously dismissed those plane crashes since 2001 like this.
> To be clear, there have been a handful of tragedies involving regional carriers and freighters... in which dozens died.
Really? 'dozens died' is ok, but 100s died is not? Are we cattle?
> Really? 'dozens died' is ok, but 100s died is not? Are we cattle?
Yes. Some people are choosing to pay less for a little more risk. The market should allow for that in the fringes. The vast majority of flying happens on the major carriers, so having stricter standards for the majority of your flying passengers is the right way to approach safety.
Yes. It is gerrymandering, and no you can't wash your hands of the regional carriers' crashes and deaths after you've stamped your 'trusted' name and brand on their flights.
I am appalled at how they callously dismissed those plane crashes since 2001 like this.
> To be clear, there have been a handful of tragedies involving regional carriers and freighters... in which dozens died.
Really? 'dozens died' is ok, but 100s died is not? Are we cattle?