Re: Is the 747-100 really "too" old ?

Date:         18 Mar 97 03:14:49 
From: (Mitchell Regenbogen)
Organization: PANIX
References:   1 2 3
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1997.633@ohare.Chicago.COM>, "[nospam]jfmezei" wrote:
>Ken wrote:
>> As a pilot for a major airline
>> flying the 747 I can tell you there is absolute NO truth in that
>> statement whatsoever.
>Well, I am in no way disputing the safety of 747-100s. However, since
>lawyers had been involved in that public statement by the plaintif and
>stated that TWA was operating planes after they should have been retired
>(or whatever exact wording had been used) I was thinking that they had
>found some sort of loophole that allowed them to make such a statement.

I'm a lawyer, and I can tell you that no "loophole" is necessary for lawyers
to talk.

> If it
>were not true, then the media should not have reported that part of the
>newstory with the plaintif saying that TWA was operating planes that
>were past their "deadline".

The media was simply reporting the statement.  It is not the media's
job to filter what the public should hear, although a good news story
will include its own investigation in addition to the statement.

>The fact that TWA has retired its 747-100s from what I heard does not
>help the argument that it is a perfectly fine plane. (hey, this
>retirement may have been purely economic, but in the context of TWA800,
>the public cannot help but put safety connotations into it as well).

If the "public" has concerns, it hasn't manifested by passengers
refusing to fly the aircraft.

Mitch Regenbogen,  Brooklyn, New York,
"Knowledge is Good."