Seeker

I agree. Consolidation is a good solution when each company has a different regional strength or a different market strength. In this case all the companies are the same and chasing the same market - none of them fill a blank in any of the other's operation so no reason to consolidate. Whichever has the weakest financials and the weakest marketing - not going to be with us for long.

Haha! I see your SR-71 and raise you one rocket: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_mail Rocket mail is the delivery of mail by rocket or missile. The rocket lands by deploying an internal parachute upon arrival. It has been attempted by various organizations in many different countries, with varying levels of success.

If the media was smart what they'd do is file a request to film everywhere on the airport every day at 8:00 AM - get approved and be ready to spring into action any time they want. Just assign the most junior staffer to complete the automated form to request access for the next day.

For either to completely replace the other would not be feasible but there might be some tasks that a pilot could be trained for. Example might be a tire change. Over the years I have done a lot of mechanical work on cars and trucks and even as far as internal engine work so it might be something I could handle depending on the aircraft and training.

Hi Kip. You're not the first to suggest this. I'm not really sure why this seems to bother people so much. I don't eat vegetarian but it doesn't bother me to see vegetarian items on the menu - I just ignore them. The same should go with internet forums - read the ones that interest you and ignore the rest. No? The non-aviation forum represents about 15% of the total posts on the site. There are a couple of active threads but most haven't seen any activity in weeks so it's not like we're being overrun. I'm somewhat reluctant to remove the "non-aviation" forums because some of the topics are kinda/sorta airline/aviation related; the Coronavirus, electrification of transport, the Emergency Measures Act. They all have some connection to aviation but spill over into politics - some OK, some not. The "solution" is to have a full-time moderator who reviews every post and decides: "OK" or "too political". Is that what we want? So, let's say we close the non-aviation forums and say "aviation topics only' but then our Transport Minister makes some change to legislation - well, here we are talking about politics. I know what you're saying; "yes, it's politics but it's politics about aviation, so that's OK." Sure but 3 or 4 posts into the discussion someone will compare the Liberal Transportation policy to the Conservative Transportation policy and then Liberals in general to Conservatives - at some point the moderator will need to step in and say; "now it's too political - shut it down". That requires a lot of effort, careful monitoring and, I've seen it on other forums, the personality of the moderator and his/her decisions become a point of contention that drives people away and squashes participation every bit as much as the mere exisitance of the forum or topic in the first place. More to the point, however, than anything I wrote above - I think you're looking at this with the wrong expectation. You're looking back at the glory days of the forum when everything was fresh and new - the forum was new because all forums were new. There was lots of interest in discussing things with new people and participating in it because it was the new thing. Now, it's all 25 years old. I've pretty much said everything I ever need to say on a forum. Back in the halcyon days of the early 2000s a visit to the forum might actually give you news or opinion that you couldn't find elsewhere but now there's thousands of sources and feeds and Youtube channels. I hate to say it but this website does not draw new members. It's been suggested that the reason for this is that prospective members get turned off by the existence of the non-aviation forum. I don't think that's it - just co-incidence. That and the fact that younger people tend to use Twitter, Telegram, Signal, Facebook groups etc more than a standard internet forum. Plus, they have more fractured lives and aren't interested in sitting down and composing something that takes 30 minutes to do. I'm coming up on retirement myself in a few years and I don't have the time to send on the forum that I used to; Netflix, Youtube, Tidal, ebooks, podcasts, games on the phone, games on the computer, it never ends. All that being said I will accept the recommendation of the majority. Send PMs with opinion, post here in the thread if that's your choice. I'll try to get a poll up and running. I'll be happy to pull the plug on the non-aviation forums if that's the majority sentiment (but don't think it will do anything to up the quality or quantity of posts in the aviation forums).

Wouldn't be a very good SOP if that was it. IAC, you can see in one part of the rollout that the FO is busy on the MCP panel too so neither of them are on the controls. No, I think it's just a case of a guy who's really comfortable and feels like he can deviate and take shortcuts. It's fine, until it isn't. Like a guy who feels he can do the logbook, brief an approach, drink coffee and joke with the FA simultaneously. He's a hero until he forgets or misses something.

The 787 has pretty light controls so normally it's fine - I get your point about wanting to have the extra freedom of movement should you need it and do the same thing - stow the armrests for hand-flying. What I find odd/distressing is that the second the nosewheel touches the ground he lets go of the controls and reaches back/down with his left hand to do something. Then a few seconds later he has his left hand on the glareshield and is doing something on the MCP with his right - isn't on the tiller, the yoke or the thrust levers! Probably dialing down the range on the nav display to be ready for the taxi-in but this need not be done while decelerating from 140 knots on the runway. Later, when he gets down to taxi speed, he burps the thrust levers to force the system to stow the speedbrakes. Not approved, AFAIK, I'd certainly argue against it from an airmanship POV anyway.

Yes, I given this topic lots of thought both before and after I took up the reins. This forum/website used to be quite vibrant and active with many posters from different companies and with different POVs and now, well, it isn't. Now it's devolved to a smaller number of the hard-core with well-known attitudes and personalities - tell me the name of a poster and I'll tell you the content of his/her post. I think what we're seeing is nothing more than the maturation and fragmentation of the internet through the lens of the AEF. Back when this website started in the 90s it was one of the first - if you wanted to talk about aviation/airplanes/airlines you really had few choices. The internet was new and exciting and everybody had lots of pent up energy to post/argue/complain. So, naturally the numbers of members were high and the number of posts were high. Add to this the fact that "anonymity" was a new and dramatic element. Now, we're all older. The internet is older. In the beginning I had about 6 websites I could go to on a regular basis - now there's millions. Facebook, Twitter, Ebay, Amazon, Youtube, Netflix, on and on. They each take a slice of a person's time and attention. Personally, I spend no time at all on Facebook/Twitter/Social media but I do spend time on Youtube/Netflix/podcasts and there's a motorcycle forum I visit and a firearm forum I visit. I just don't have the time (or motivation, if I'm honest) to sit down and write a long diatribe about something to post here. I suspect it's the same for others. It's been posited that the more overt political posts on the site are the cause of the downward trend in the quality and number of posts along with the reduction of participation. It's been suggested that I shut down all the political topics and then the aviation-minded posters will return. I don't think that's what happened at all. I think the number of people with time and energy to post have dropped. People have more places to visit, more entertainment to consume and, in general, the shine is off stogy old internet forums. Less people posting on aviation-themed topics makes the political posts stand out more. That's the way it seems to me. So, what can be done, what should be done? I would guess that the demographic on the AEF skews much older than other aviation forums - retired or almost retired. When I ask my younger (30-40 year old) co-workers about what forums they participate in the answer is almost always - none. The world has moved on. The new thing is Whatsapp, Signal or Telegram "groups". Nobody has time for an internet forum with threaded discussions on complicated topics. I can't even get my airline friends to signup and participate. That's sort of embarrassing to admit. (Yes, I have friends). I've shown the site to several of them in person, got them signed up, showed them the aviation topics, etc. When I ask them, gently, about why I don't see them logging in/participating - because they are too busy, got too many distractions and not because the site is too political or doesn't have enough aviation on it. Anyway, what do I know? I'm just some random dude who, in truth, knows little about what it takes to make a site successful. Please send your suggestions and opinions about what steps should be taken to ensure the longterm viability of the site.

The default for the forum software is that reaction icons; likes, etc are disabled on posts made by moderators and Admin. When I researched the reason for this I found it was to prevent people from "liking" everything the moderator (or Admin) would post as a bid to seek special treatment or favour. My first reaction was - "well, that's silly" but on further consideration decided just to leave it as is. I don't think it would be a problem but human nature is a curious thing. Maybe not a problem for me or for the person who clicked a "like" on my post but s-a-s someone will claim they see a pattern in who I'm allowing to post certain things based on how many likes the person gave me. Yeah, like I said - silly but who needs the headache.

Am I the only one who's annoyed by those artsy-fartsy safety videos? Just give the facts and let me get back to watching something I chose or listening to music I chose. I don't want to watch a 5 minute video from some wannabe Steven Spielberg. I don't want to watch a bunch of ratty kids learning about whatever myth or history or agenda of the day is popular. I am not enlightened, entertained or impressed - just feel like 5 minutes was stolen from me (I mean if I was forced to watch it on an airplane). PS - the latest AC safety briefing is just as bad.

Don't know if it's true or not but it's "effectively" true simply due to the flight restrictions - there are no seats available for fare-paying passengers so certainly no empty seats for non-revs.

I had a somewhat similar situation happen to me once. Landed firmly on a relatively short runway with a gusty crosswind. I say "firmly" but well within "normal" parameters. Afterward a FA complained that she was injured due to the "hard landing." I said, Well, it wasn't a hard landing - it was a normal landing. Eventually she discloses that she was leaning forward and trying to reach a piece of paper that had fallen on the floor right at the moment of touchdown (rearward facing seat, body turned). So, she writes an injury report saying; "Injured due to hard landing". and wants me to sign it. I wrote in the section for Capt's comments; " FA injured due to sitting incorrectly in seat during normal landing." "What? You contradicted me!" she says. "Yes, I did, have a nice day." There's more detail to the story, I'm just giving the Coles notes version. She was not injured. Of course, if she was I would have taken responsibility, called for medical assistance, etc.

Thanks! You work at Conair? Can you get me a ride in something? Or maybe an hour in the sim?

Started seeing this commercial lately and found the long version on Youtube. If someone made a 2 hour long movie with nothing but these sorts of shots in IMAX I'd pay big money to see it!

Yes, true, but I love this thread. What new title do you suggest?

Very cool - see-thru jet engine.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-61909617

I realize the distinction between "Aviation" and ""Non-aviation" topics and posts is somewhat nebulous but the last few posts in this thread veered over the median into overtly political and have been removed.

Both Perimeter and Bearskin operated Metros. Bearskin got their first sometime around 1993 and, in fact, is the only aircraft left in their fleet.

Thunder Airlines? I thought it was Bearskin.

I read something once that made the point about America being formed with the notion of independence and self-reliance. The idea was that without this base concept the process of expanding outward into the vast unknown territory of the west would not have been possible or wouldn't have been as successful anyways. I don't know how accurate that is or how it factors in today but there is some logic to the idea that a country formed with the philosophy of self-reliance would carry that ethos forward. Virtually all Americans I've talked to about it just want the government to step back and let them live their lives as they see fit. Of course I don't mix much with lefties or Liberals - I'm sure their POV would be different. As an aside, I would say that 90% of the American pilots and FAs I run into on my world travels are Republican in their political stance.

The fact that they tried for approval, were denied, and carried on with the stunt is the worst part. IMO, it's stupid thing to do in any case - just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. Especially, as it appears, it couldn't be done.

When I was young I always thought Andy Capp was one of the worst comics. Seems to have gotten more and more relatable over the years for some reason.