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

Date:         18 Mar 97 03:14:49 
From:         mreg@panix.com (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"@videotron.ca 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, mreg@panix.com
"Knowledge is Good."