I work for Kalitta. I've been to they're maintenance base in Oscoda Michigan many times. As of late they have been taking a lot of tails of of thier old 74's just aft of the pressure bulkhead to do an inspection on the pressure bulkhead. These clowns were hoisting a tail back onto one of the planes and actually dropped the whole thing on the ground when the hoist they were using turned out to be too small and tipped over. About 3 years ago they actually had an engine fall off of a plane and go into Lake Michigan, around that same time period a tail jackscrew assembly let go on a 727 and the crew was very nearly killed before regaining control. When Kalitta was called American international airways a DC8 crashe a Guantanamo Bay and the cause was actually attributed to crew fatigue. What I'm saying is when you work for a good airline and you hear a bang after V1 you take it into the air knowing the odds are very good you'll make it back around. When you work for an airline that doesn't have good maintenance and you hear a loud bang you don't know if the tail is actually coming off the airplane because the maintenance isn't done properly. Let's not second guess the crew; we have no idea what may have been going through thier mind when you have to make a split second decision. I hope none of you ever have to work for a place as shady as this.
You're apparently not familiar with the company memo directing you to keep your mouth shut...at least until the facts come out.
You don't know why the takeoff was rejected or what went on, but are immediately on a soapbox condemning the company.
You've introduced the guantanamo DC8 mishap, as if that has anything at all to do with this mishap. Are you suggesting that the crew was fatigued and that's the reason this occured? If not, then there's no relationship between the two incidents, and you're merely throwing up smoke to cloud the issue. Hardly a credible act.
The engine separation was fully investigated, is fully reported, and resulted in a new engine being delivered to the company; it resulted from a failed internal wheel, and has no relationship nor bearing upon what's occured here. Again, throwing out the irrelevant to cloud the issue. Do you have some credible information that ties the two together, or are you simply talking out your backside?
You invoke a jackscrew failure or malfunction on an entirely different type of aircraft to prove exactly what in this case?
Find us an airline which hasn't had mishaps, failures, or mechanical problems, and you'll have found us an airline with a) doesn't exist, and b) never flies.
You equate yourself with the company in the first person ("I work for Kalitta.") but then refer to the company as detached, in the third person ("these clowns.). Non sequitor and doesn't help your credibility much. By association then, that makes you a "clown." Perhaps you simply misspoke.
Your description of the events and actions in Oscoda is in error, but it's entirely irrelevant to the mishap in Brussels, too. Again, foolishness and any effort to connect the two hardly passes the smell test.
Perhaps you should refrain from posting further until useful information is available regarding this event.