Anqrka, usually 99% I agree with you, but not on this one. This isnt about salaries in the Harbour, agreed. However, do you think the move towards 3 man ULH is safety driven or dollar driven? Do you think introducing LH procedures that have 'stood the test of time' but have questionable relevance to SH, and a move away from manufacturer recommended SOPS is safety driven or dollar driven, and during the introduction of those procedures, do you think your situational awareness was increased or decreased? Now that the hangover of drinking from the fire hose of learning, we are seeing an improvement or drop in standards as the guys are just exhausted by 'change saturation'? On the engineering front do you think the move to allow mechanics to sign intransit checks, but not having to sign their name so that a paper trail no longer exists is a move towards safety, or driven by the dollar because we cant attract engineering staff?
Would it be fair to say that 'it cant happen to us because we are paid ok' relative to what other operators pay, that is to say we are most at risk, when we go around saying it cant happen to us. Its not our pay packets, its what is happening around us that should be waving red flags. Mass has a point, the industry as a whole 'IS' less safe when regulators sign off on commercial pressures. The industry is less safe when companies think they know better than the manufacturers on how to operate aircraft. The industry is 'less safe' when fatigue management is ignored, and the industry is 'less safe' when money is sapped from engineering to line the pockets of investors and managers in the short term, "this quarter results" style management.
Cheers.