Cobham the new Qantas?
Oh righteo then, whatever dude (......holy ****, spot the nerd, man! ) anyway, my point is the same, and that's the principal intent, however you care to serve it.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Launceston has Australia's most expensive freight shed. It was originally built by National Jet at the behest of Qantas to set up an overnight base for the 146's. The Hangar was built and fitted out with all the good gear, LAMEs employed and relocated at great expense, only to be told by Qantas management after about two months of operation "oh we don't need that now....". Nice one.
It was originally built by National Jet at the behest of Qantas to set up an overnight base for the 146's.
Just to be pedantic, it was not a freight shed but a maintenance hangar. Now being put to good use by Sharp Airlines.
I see QF uniforms have been issued for the cobham guys?
If you are referring to the cabin crew they have been wearing Qantas cabin crew outfits for quite some time.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mud Skipper,
"And if you purchased a Delta ticket to Atlanta it was operated as Comair 5191.
And if you purchased a Continental ticket to Buffalo it was operated as Colgan 3407 etc.
Your implication is not supported by evidence. Both CO and DL have a significant accident history with DL particularly being singled out by the FAA for very poor CRM and insufficient crew training. In fact DL came close to losing its certificate in the good old days back when the pilots were highly paid AND well rested.
Your assertion does not hold water.
"And if you purchased a Delta ticket to Atlanta it was operated as Comair 5191.
And if you purchased a Continental ticket to Buffalo it was operated as Colgan 3407 etc.
Your implication is not supported by evidence. Both CO and DL have a significant accident history with DL particularly being singled out by the FAA for very poor CRM and insufficient crew training. In fact DL came close to losing its certificate in the good old days back when the pilots were highly paid AND well rested.
Your assertion does not hold water.
What Muds wrote was one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point was it even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone here is now dumber for having read it.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Butts,
Ah, perhaps you might wish to read between the lines a little bit and you may become a little bit brighter than your last post suggests.
Just to kick you off.
Comair Flight 5191
Colgan Air Flight 3407
At no point was it even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone here is now dumber for having read it.
Just to kick you off.
Comair Flight 5191
Colgan Air Flight 3407
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Arctic Circle
Age: 76
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The professor might care to read the NTSB report of Colgan Air 3407, and may then come to the realisation that Mud Skipper's assertion does indeed hold water.
An identified causal factor in the accident was the crew's commuting induced fatigue. 68% of Newark based Colgan pilots, including the two involved in the accident, were commuters. The reason for such a high proportion of commuters: the high cost of residing in the Newark area combined with the low wages company pilots received.
An identified causal factor in the accident was the crew's commuting induced fatigue. 68% of Newark based Colgan pilots, including the two involved in the accident, were commuters. The reason for such a high proportion of commuters: the high cost of residing in the Newark area combined with the low wages company pilots received.
Over 30 years in the game, Muds, but good try
Look, I know it's not your fault..... When you join an Airline (let's say Qantas, AIr France or JAL at age 23 as a 747 SO ) they tell you that you are 'the best of the best' flying for the 'best and safest company in the world'. Pity it isn't strictly true though. If you go through life believing this hype, then that's sad.....but it's not your fault
In context, I was really hoping that you were not inferring that like the quoted US carriers, Cobham is unsafe and that you'd never put your family in their seats , and that only QF are worthy of owning 'our flying'.
I was really hoping you don't feel this way, but it's not your fault
Not that it matters, but no, I don't fly for Cobham
Look, I know it's not your fault..... When you join an Airline (let's say Qantas, AIr France or JAL at age 23 as a 747 SO ) they tell you that you are 'the best of the best' flying for the 'best and safest company in the world'. Pity it isn't strictly true though. If you go through life believing this hype, then that's sad.....but it's not your fault
In context, I was really hoping that you were not inferring that like the quoted US carriers, Cobham is unsafe and that you'd never put your family in their seats , and that only QF are worthy of owning 'our flying'.
I was really hoping you don't feel this way, but it's not your fault
Not that it matters, but no, I don't fly for Cobham
