Alright, let me say something to that before this turns into a word-fight.
"Flying old junk planes"
Come on give me a break! Are we the only airline in the world operating a mixed fleet of NG:s and 300-500:s? The planes are well kept, from major airlines and really nice inside! Itīs true that two 300:s have been brought from storage in Arizona, but they had been there TWO months only! Ex United planes, like new inside.
Pounds system, yes, we double check the numbers all the time, whatīs the problem?
It was me who used the word "junk aircraft" and mentioned "worried pilots" and "Inexperienced crew". Not Bluebat_CZ.
I am a former SkyEurope-employee, who left without any hard feelings. The last thing I wish to do is to insult my former colleagues, so I'll explain those expressions.
The aircraft may be well maintained (I assume so if they come from United). They are very old as I know, but to me it wasn't clear that Bluebat actually never flew them. If Bluebat had been more careful with his description of the "discarded" aircraft, I wouldn't have used that term.
I understand the procedure of converting the ZWF on the loadsheet from KG to LBS, and having the 2nd pilot confirming the numbers before entering them into the CDU. However, this IS definitely a maintenance item, to change the software to work with Kilos. And I consider it to be an unsafe practice: Remember the tailstrike of Emirates in Melbourne? It happened after entering a wrong value into the FMC, resulting in false V-speeds. Nobody got hurt, they only wrecked the plane.
Operating a mixed fleet of classics and NGs is no problem, but with different SOPs applying for different planes?
It is not challenging the intelligence of pilots. I am sure that this kind of procedure would not be the case under normal circumstances, neither at SkyEurope nor any other respectable airline. In this case, management is responsible for an avoidable, potentially dangerous threat.
However, it doesn't qualify the aircraft to be referred to as "junk".
Worried pilots: I really do mean that. Is anyone of you not worried by now? Would you say that nobody arrives into the briefing room in the morning being worried, cynic, frustrated, absent-minded, nervous, unrested, angry or indifferent?
And doesn't this have any effect on individual performance? Answer for yourself:
When you arrive at the aircraft, what do you usually talk about to each other? How many times does the subject of your conversation come to personal company-related matters? How often nowadays do you worry more about your own problems, above anything else that the company might say to you?
What do you think to yourself in the morning, when you sit inside the cockpit, having your first cup of coffee?
I don't consider SkyEurope's pilots and aircraft to be unsafe. I have used them myself as a passenger a couple of times in the past, and would still do so today (well, at least it wouldn't be the safety standards I'd worry about, if I were to book a ticket in advance now).
But I would say that management is to blame for avoidable risks. Not due to negligence maybe, but because of financial meltdown.