Super80Fan wrote:

Maurice J Gallagher Jr (Current CEO of Allegiant) needs to be banned from running an airline for his stint in the downing of ValuJet flight 592.

Allegiant is fine if you want to fly to Middle of Nowhere USA on a Tuesday or Saturday morning. Otherwise NK or F9 are your best bet.

That being said, here is a list of major air carriers with no hull losses/fatalities here in the US: ...

Interesting. Very rational.

So I'm confused. Are the people in Middle of Nowhere worse off because they have air service that they wouldn't otherwise have, at a good price?

And kindly explain what Gallagher's "stint" was in the "downing of ValuJet 592". Did he tell the idiots at SabreTech (which actually had a good reputation as an MRO prior to this, given that they were a subsidiary of an aircraft Manufacturer) to send oxygen candles by COMAT back to Atlanta?

And should the head of Delta have been banned from running an airline when they intentionally did the same thing with oxygen candles, sending them across the country to ATL on not one, but two MD80-type aircraft, whereupon the boxes caught fire on the ramp at ATL? ValuJet could just as easily have been Delta.

But I'm sure facts don't matter...

Union hit piece over firing a pilot that's evolving into a hit piece on the FAA for the first segment.

Briefly and quickly blew through mentioning that the MadDogs where the bulk of the problems and we're being phased out.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Union hit piece over firing a pilot.

Ohhhhhhhhh. THAT GUY. I thought they were done with him. I'm pretty confident that he's the kind of guy that nobody would have wanted to fly with.

Is this the one where he popped the slides and evac'd on the runway, putting passengers at risk, without ever confirming that there was anything actually wrong? (In a slide evac, passengers are always always always gonna be hurt; usually broken bones and stuff but sometimes much worse, like spinal injuries.)

I thought we were going to get through the piece without the Valujet connection...but oh well.

WAIT....did he say Valujet didn't recover after the 1996 crash?......UUUUMMMMMM

wjcandee wrote:

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Union hit piece over firing a pilot.

Ohhhhhhhhh. THAT GUY. I thought they were done with him. I'm pretty confident that he's the kind of guy that nobody would have wanted to fly with.

Is this the one where he popped the slides and evac'd on the runway, putting passengers at risk, without ever confirming that there was anything actually wrong? (In a slide evac, passengers are always always always gonna be hurt; usually broken bones and stuff but sometimes much worse, like spinal injuries.)

Yep.

I supposed the question is now is what the former FAA lawyer's current job is for some context on why she's so unhappy with the FAA's new enforcement focus that doesn't include large fines.

They made sure to get in Value Jet at the very end.

cbphoto wrote:

Bingo!! Not to mention it’s somewhat known it was his actions and attitude after the evacuation that got him canned, not the actual evac itself!

It's not known to me...so care to elaborate?

wjcandee wrote:

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Union hit piece over firing a pilot.

Ohhhhhhhhh. THAT GUY. I thought they were done with him. I'm pretty confident that he's the kind of guy that nobody would have wanted to fly with.

Is this the one where he popped the slides and evac'd on the runway, putting passengers at risk, without ever confirming that there was anything actually wrong? (In a slide evac, passengers are always always always gonna be hurt; usually broken bones and stuff but sometimes much worse, like spinal injuries.)

Bingo!! Not to mention it’s somewhat known it was his actions and attitude after the evacuation that got him canned, not the actual evac itself!

Some of Allegiant's troubles got attenuated because the old MD-80s are being retired. The same corporate philosophy is probably still in place. The report broke no new ground but is far from the witch hunt than some of the anti-media mob might claim.

Got to say it's surprising that so many here seem to be brushing this off as no big deal.

KATL2 wrote:

Got to say it's surprising that so many here seem to be brushing this off as no big deal.

The story or what it reports? I didn't see anything new, and the Skydrol haze incident that they're making such a big deal about is a not-uncommon occurrence.

But I don't think a completely-biased hit piece on 60 Minutes is no big deal. I agree that this will now probably be used by some group to make the FAA watch Allegiant more closely. Hopefully it will have the balls to be evenhanded. The Tampa Times tried to bring down the airline and failed: after they managed to get the FAA to do a white-glove on it, they came out pretty-much smelling like a rose. With any luck, they'll weather the storm. Again.

Very few of Allegiant's target market watched that or will ever be aware of it.

Based on known incidents that gave been corraberated, I'm not seeing anything sensationalist.

osupoke07 wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

stl07 wrote:

Now, let's look up which of the few airlines have a perfect safety record to see what airlines one should fly. Oh wait - Allegiant is the first result. Now let's scroll down to the Ds - wait what- no DL,, no UA, NO AA!!! hmmmmm.....

It’s been so long since any of those airlines had a mainline accident that wasn’t terrorism, I can’t even remember. AA was the A300 in 2001. Maybe DL was the MD-80 fan blade incident in PNS. UA was probably COS. Those were what, 1990s?

Per Wiki and Airfleets.com, the last write off incident from the major 4 carriers are-

AA overran the runway in Jamaica on 12/29/2009. Plane written off, no fatalities
SW had the hard landing at LGA collapsing the gear on 7/22/2013. Plane written off, no fatalities
DL had the runway incursion at LGA in the snow on 5/5/2015. Plane written off, no fatalities
UA doesn't appear to have had an incident at all since the 2001 attacks.

Something interesting, the Delta MD-88 that was written off from the LGA incident is only the second aircraft they've lost due to accident. The other being the L-1011 that crashed at DFW in 1985.

Southwest has only written off two planes, the one above, and one that overran the runway at Burbank in 2000.

I thought Southwest also wrote off a 733 that had a nose gear collapse at the gate at BWI.

EvanWSFO wrote:

Based on known incidents that have been corroborated, I'm not seeing anything sensationalist.

I thought it was a pretty good piece and didn't see it as sensationalist either. They reported on known incidents that most of the public probably didn't know about. They mentioned couple times that most incidents were MD-80s and that they were being phased out for newer Airbuses. The point they made wasn't that no other airlines have incidents like Allegiant it was that Allegiant has they far more often in proportion than other airlines.

I personally have had the feeling they have been cleaning it up somewhat lately (which also was mentioned) but I don't think anything said in the piece was incorrect.

gwrudolph wrote:

SWApilotfarmer wrote:

And for AA I would image the 763 that had the uncontained engine failure at ORD Oct 2016 was written off. Can’t say that for a fact but after the fire was put out there wasn’t much left of the right wing.

Yes I would say so. A year and a half later, It is still sitting at ORD with a big green tarp over the mid section. I’m guessing it is waiting to be taken apart?

Airfleets.net reports that N345AN, the AA 767 right engine fire at ORD, was indeed written off. http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-b767-33084.htm

Jshank83 wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

Based on known incidents that have been corroborated, I'm not seeing anything sensationalist.

I thought it was a pretty good piece and didn't see it as sensationalist either. They reported on known incidents that most of the public probably didn't know about. They mentioned couple times that most incidents were MD-80s and that they were being phased out for newer Airbuses. The point they made wasn't that no other airlines have incidents like Allegiant it was that Allegiant has they far more often in proportion than other airlines.

I personally have had the feeling they have been cleaning it up somewhat lately (which also was mentioned) but I don't think anything said in the piece was incorrect.

Just because it is technically correct, doesn't mean it isn't misleading.....

For those that haven't seen it, I watched it all the way through. 60 minutes brings up the incidents and problems from 2015 and 2016 with G4s MD88s and B757s that most a.netters know about but the general public might not know about, however the story only allocates about 10 seconds to explaining that all the MD88s are being retired by 2019 and all the B757s have already been retired. I didn't count how long they spent, but I would estimate they had about 5 minutes worth of the segment dedicated to interviewees talking about how they never fly Allegiant and how they advise their family and friends not to as well.

It definitely seemed like a hit piece to me, especially since part of the story was dedicated to a disgruntled terminated G4 pilot. Again, it would be one thing if they published this story 1-2 years ago, but today G4 is in the processes of retiring or has already retired its incident prone fleet (MD88s and B757s) and increased its spending on MX and training which they failed to adequately mention.

I would have much rather seen a piece that went after the customer service incidents and problems from G4, F9, UA, and the like.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Very few of Allegiant's target market watched that or will ever be aware of it.

Smartest comment of this entire thread..I totally agree, plus 60 minutes viewership is half of what it was in their glory days decades ago..

Midwestindy wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

Based on known incidents that have been corroborated, I'm not seeing anything sensationalist.

I thought it was a pretty good piece and didn't see it as sensationalist either. They reported on known incidents that most of the public probably didn't know about. They mentioned couple times that most incidents were MD-80s and that they were being phased out for newer Airbuses. The point they made wasn't that no other airlines have incidents like Allegiant it was that Allegiant has they far more often in proportion than other airlines.

I personally have had the feeling they have been cleaning it up somewhat lately (which also was mentioned) but I don't think anything said in the piece was incorrect.

Just because it is technically correct, doesn't mean it isn't misleading.....

For those that haven't seen it, I watched it all the way through. 60 minutes brings up the incidents and problems from 2015 and 2016 with G4s MD88s and B757s that most a.netters know about but the general public might not know about, however the story only allocates about 10 seconds to explaining that all the MD88s are being retired by 2019 and all the B757s have already been retired. I didn't count how long they spent, but I would estimate they had about 5 minutes worth of the segment dedicated to interviewees talking about how they never fly Allegiant and how they advise their family and friends not to as well.

It definitely seemed like a hit piece to me, especially since part of the story was dedicated to a disgruntled terminated G4 pilot. Again, it would be one thing if they published this story 1-2 years ago, but today G4 is in the processes of retiring or has already retired its incident prone fleet (MD88s and B757s) and increased its spending on MX and training which they failed to adequately mention.

I would have much rather seen a piece that went after the customer service incidents and problems from G4, F9, UA, and the like.

The main point of the story to me still was that Allegiant has a higher rate of mechanical issues (engine failure, etc) than other US airlines on a per flight basis. Which is my understanding that it is true. If it isn't, then I will gladly admit I am wrong.

We can say well if you just don't count the mds it isn't as bad, but until they quit flying them they still matter for the people who are flying on them. If this story was run after they were retired then I would have more issue with it.

I doubt it really changes a whole lot for Allegiant anyways. I wouldn't have booked a flight on one of there mds (more for flight reliability reasons than safety reasons) before now and I still don't have an issue booking one on one of their airbusses.

I agree with being more interested in customer service things though.

crownvic wrote:

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Very few of Allegiant's target market watched that or will ever be aware of it.

Smartest comment of this entire thread..I totally agree, plus 60 minutes viewership is half of what it was in their glory days decades ago..

That would be incorrect.

And down $14.20 in after hours trading. This will be a fun Monday.

Save to say Mo Gallagher's days are probably numbered!

It's a hit piece. And the issue as always is context. You can line up a bunch of incidents, but absent context they don't tell much, and these were lined up to make it seem like Allegiant are a bunch of yahoos unconcerned about "safety". Looking at the current SDRs is a legitimate exercise, but the fact that stuff is breaking more often at G4 than other places has a lot to do with age, which, as noted, is being addressed. And sheer numbers of things breaking might tell you something about travel time reliability, but very little about safety.

Did they note that G4 had wanted to continue to use AA for all its MD80 maintenance, despite the cost? No. Did they say that after AA stopped servicing them, they went to AMR, one of the largest US-based MROs, which is used extensively by, among others, Delta? No.

And most importantly, did they differentiate between "in air breakdowns" that are an immediate safety threat from those that are going to be fixed at the next station? No. Nor do they mention that a lot of SDRs relate to things replaced during maintenance overhauls, of which there will be more on older planes (e.g. "Stringer 54 corroded, replaced as per mm").

stlgph wrote:

And down $14.20 in after hours trading. This will be a fun Monday.

like I said after the kneejerk reaction...buy, buy, buy.
Best deal to be had in aviation since Bombardier was under a buck Canadian.

stlgph wrote:

And down $14.20 in after hours trading. This will be a fun Monday.

Perfect time to buy and buy big.

Read Allegiant’s full response.
Attribution to Captain Eric Gust, Vice President of Operations

“It is unfortunate and disappointing that CBS 60 Minutes has chosen to air a false narrative about Allegiant and the FAA. This unoriginal and outdated story bears no resemblance to Allegiant’s operations today, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of FAA compliance practice and history. It focused primarily on events of several years past, prior to the FAA’s most recent comprehensive audit of Allegiant Air, which revealed no systemic or regulatory deficiencies.

“It has come to our attention that the story was instigated by a terminated employee, currently engaged in a lawsuit seeking monetary damages from the company. The story features cherry-picked interviews with people involved in the lawsuit, including featured comments from John Goglia, a paid plaintiff’s witness presented by CBS as an unbiased industry expert. This one-sided presentation falls far short of responsible journalistic standards expected from reputable outlets, including 60 Minutes.

“The FAA is recognized around the world as the gold standard with regard to transportation safety, and as a result the airline industry in the U.S. has never been safer.

“The FAA exercises rigorous oversight of Allegiant, as they do all airlines operating in the United States. Allegiant complies with all FAA requirements and participates in numerous voluntary safety programs to ensure we operate to the highest standards. Additionally, we expect our team members to follow all company policies and practice strict adherence to FAA regulations and guidelines. Several anonymous, non-disciplinary reporting systems are available through Allegiant as well as through the FAA for team members to report safety concerns. Interestingly, none of the concerns allegedly expressed by Allegiant team members during the 60 Minutes episode were found to have been reported through any of these appropriate channels.

“Allegiant’s workforce is made up of more than 4,000 dedicated and hard-working people who wake up every day thinking about how to move our customers safely from one place to another. Our team members safely operate thousands of flights each week, which will transport more than 14 million passengers this year. We have safely carried nearly 90 million passengers since beginning operations in 2001.

“If 60 Minutes had been interested in current information, they would have reported that today, according to just-released Department of Transportation data, Allegiant is a leader in reliability, with the second-lowest cancelation rate among all US airlines.

“Not only do we expect our team members to adhere to all company procedures and policies, but many positions are subject to statutory and regulatory obligations, the violation of which would not only trigger punitive action from the company, but could also result in enforcement action from regulatory agencies, loss of a certification, and even criminal charges. To suggest that Allegiant would engage in the practice of asking team members to violate company and regulatory obligations is offensive and defamatory.

Watched with interest and here's some observations:
- You get what you pay for. $70 R/T from CVG-LAS, and despite anyone's station in life, that's not worth the risk if you read up on an airline's safety record. Reality is when you fly with an airlines you're putting your faith in trust in senior management.
- The FAA official in the glasses is corrupt and provided non-answers.
- Why the controversy with Captain Kinzer? WHY was he fired, for not protecting assets of company? Something smells.
- The airlines head of ops (Gust?) provided canned response as a response (or non-response).

So...90 million passengers transported over 17 years without a fatal accident.

But it's the "most dangerous" airline (CBS teaser).

As I expected, the piece conflates maintenance incidents (your car won't start, or the water pump goes out and you have to pull over) with things that are dangerous (your brakes fail and you either hit something or almost hit something, which in my view are the same thing, because your brakes failed). Allegiant has had one near-fatal incident caused by a mistake at AAR that will never happen again and would never fail to be caught by Allegiant's post-maintenance inspections now if it did. That was Very Bad, and it should -- and I believe did -- wake everybody up.

And as I also expected, the piece was generated by the lawyers for the plaintiff in a lawsuit against Allegiant -- that gutless jerk who apparently got fired for being a gutless jerk instead of what he is saying he got fired for. The guy who executed a diversion that the airline approved of, then blew the slides on the runway for no reason and against what ARFF was telling him, apparently, which they criticized him for but didn't fire him for. What they fired him for apparently related to the personality that we've seen on every interview with the guy.

The piece then uses paid witnesses in the lawsuit and characterizes them as "safety experts". Goglia. Then, they quote Dan Wells and say he is the "head of Allegiant's pilots union", implying that he works there, which he doesn't. In fact, he's the head of the National union, one of the most militant.

So there you have it. A classic example of how to lie with true facts. How to fit facts to a preconceived agenda. How to pretend to be "balanced" while telling only one side of the story.

We call that: A hit piece.

Allegiant looks bad. I don't know how you argue otherwise, especially with bush-league decision to hide behind some letter from the C.P.

That said, the FAA also gets a big target on itself with its operational decision to move from enforcement to being daycare. I thought CBS could've done a better job explaining why that change was made.

I don’t know who came away looking worse; Allegiant, or the FAA.

EA CO AS wrote:

I don’t know who came away looking worse; Allegiant, or the FAA.

From the sound of things: CBS and 60 Minutes.

How could anyone say with a straight face this wasn't a hit piece on Allegiant?

Allegent didn’t even have the balls to defend themselves in the segment. Also they had the actual data compared to other airlines. Hate to break it to you but AA and DL had MD fleets during that period and all the majors have 757s and don’t have nearly as many issues. The thing about aviation people not letting their families fly allegiant is fairly accurate.

JackMeahoff wrote:

How could anyone say with a straight face this wasn't a hit piece on Allegiant?

Because it was based on facts.

Four times more incidents than other airlines. Something is not right.

It makes no sense to defend this.

cbphoto wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

stl07 wrote:

Now, let's look up which of the few airlines have a perfect safety record to see what airlines one should fly. Oh wait - Allegiant is the first result. Now let's scroll down to the Ds - wait what- no DL,, no UA, NO AA!!! hmmmmm.....

It’s been so long since any of those airlines had a mainline accident that wasn’t terrorism, I can’t even remember. AA was the A300 in 2001. Maybe DL was the MD-80 fan blade incident in PNS. UA was probably COS. Those were what, 1990s?

Well, AA overran the runway in 2009 in Jamaica, Delta in LGA as others have pointed out. Then of course Southwest has had a few mishaps, including the collapsed nose gear due to a horrible landing. In comparison, Allegiant has a stellar safety record, as they haven’t lost a hull or had a fatality since they were founded. I’m not counting the MD80 that was hit by a tug and was written off due to ground handling errors.

Writing off a plane counts weather it's on the ground or not. It's still listed as a lost hull. Being hit by a tug is an accident that caused a write off. Unlike Hawaiian and 89 years with no hull loss or passenger fatality.

Very interesting to see what actual G4 pilots are saying over at APC. They are pretty-uniform. Examples:

"I wonder if the unexpected resignation our union chairman has any relation to this. Especially after 1224 [the national union] sends out an email nearly taking credit for the story because of the **** they stirred up during our contract fight. Wasn't CB closely involved in all that?"

"I didn’t read it as trying to take credit. It seems to be an attempt to mitigate anger directed at the local for employing this TAMC [Teamster Aircraft Mechanics Coalition] tactic. [Referring to a report commissioned by the Teamsters 3 years ago to flog the airline by calling it unsafe during contract negotiations.] Many were uneasy with this when it was happening and are going to be pretty upset if this torpedo turns around and hits us 18 months after the battle ended."

[A union press release at the time said the following, for example: "“In conversations with some of the pilots, it became evident that they are forced to fly aircraft that barely passes acceptable safety standards,” the report concludes. “This situation creates a troubling norm where the ‘just move the metal’ culture could be a precursor to a serious accident.”]

"I think the G4 union should condemn him [Dan Wells, the head of the national union] in a statement. Total misrepresentation of our MX control and how they interact with pilots....
Maybe an exemption could have happened but definitely not the rule!
Our union leaders should not be throwing gas on the fire with inaccurate statements to the press.
He should resign immediately."

"I agree. Back in the day, we used to say you never play the safety card except as the last resort. Because once you play it, you can't pick it back up. [...] But yes, I too was uneasy with it then, and now it looks like it's going to bite us in the ass. What has me scratching my head is why 3 years later."

"I second that motion. Who the hell is he to speak on behalf of Allegiant pilots? He flies for a different airline."

"Much of that hit piece was outdated, inaccurate or misleading. Our Airbus fleet is newer than United or Delta’s. They gave an inaccurate fleet count of Airbus vs MD80’s. The mention of aborted takeoffs and unscheduled landings needs to be put in context. Neither one is necessarily dangerous. I would argue that a low speed abort can frequently be the safest course of actions. This is just another lame attempt by the media to generate ratings by scaring the crap out of the public. I have never felt unsafe flying an Allegiant aircraft and I routinely put my family and friends on us."

"I’ve never had an emergency in 4 years here. I never had any fuel emergencies either. I’m assuming your referencing the Fargo incindent. Weak dude, really weak. Major issues are rare here."

"Many of us came from the regionals. They are way worse. Anyone remember the Expressjet plane that sat on the ramp all night in Rochester MN with a plane full of passengers? The crew was too stupid to deplane and Continental ops botched that whole situation. I seem to recall Colgan taking a brand new plane and planting it in someone’s back yard. PSA did their best to try to run off the side of a mountain in Charleston WV. I can keep going but I won’t. Regionals are way more dangerous than Allegiant. Enjoy your 4 day with your FO who has 1000 hours and was at UND 3 months ago."

"All this outrage and panic created by this 60 Minutes story (which I haven't and probably will not watch) really does not phase me. I know my company is VERY different from what it was back when this investigation was going on. With that said, I'll just wait fpr the stock to drop (as I imagine it will) to about $120-130 and buy as much as I can. People have always had short term memory and, regardless of what the segment said, will eventually come back due to competitive ticket prices. That's just my 2 cents."

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/alle ... -turn.html (Some of the first few pages was dealing with a nasty troll that has infected APC.)

Watched it. Minimal substance, blatant hit piece.

Dating myself, but do we remember 60 Minutes and their hit piece on Audi, principal information provided by plaintiffs' lawyers? Or the report about Chevy truck gas tanks in which, because repeated efforts at getting a truck to catch fire failed, they rigged Estes rocket motors as ignitors?

It isn't journalism.

It’s easy to right the segment off as a hit piece if you don’t like what they have to say. Facts are facts though. At one point Allegiant had major maintenance issues but things have gotten a lot better.

I’m just surprised so many people think an engine failure is no big deal. Being in the industry I’ve actually encouraged my family to avoid Allegiant because of their maintenance history.

Oh and the fact that Allegiant refused to provide mechanical interruption information when all other airlines were willing to looks pretty bad on their part.

I'm under 50 and I like 60 Minutes and watch it whenever I can and watched the show yesterday. I'm also on this site and was not aware that things were that bad at Allegiant, mostly because I'm in Boston and they're just not an airline that is relevant in this market so I don't pay much attention to them. You can call it sensationalist if you want but some of the things that happened are appalling to say the least. I'm glad I don't have to fly with them.

Morning roundup from CNBC

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/16/allegia ... tices.html

While the piece clearly takes shots at Allegiant, it also roasts the FAA as well.

I don't know about what else was said, but this was a complete and total lie.

"The business strategy which has produced 60 straight quarters of profits...requires the airline to keep costs down, and push the metal, keep the planes flying as often as possible"

Average daily aircraft utilization among active aircraft in the fleet, YE 3Q2017 DOT Form 41.
AA 9.94 Hours
B6 11.84
DL 10.18
F9 12.67
G4 6.44
NK 11.61
UA 10.36

G4's planes routinely don't fly at all two days per week, so that comment is laughably inaccurate and was not researched at all.

Also, a lie. Allegiant doesn't have as many mechanics as other airlines.
"Q-Is there anything that separates the maintenance systems at Allegiant from those at the larger carriers?"
"A-...they don't have the number of mechanics, and we have seen problems with some of the contractors that they have used, we are seeing problems that require feet on the ground, people looking at the airplanes."

2016 Form 41 (most recent for employee classes)
Block Hours per Maintenance Employee (Higher is poorer)
AA 14971 Maintenance ; 231 Block Hours per Maintenance Employee
B6 757 ; 1276
DL 9,428 ; 325 (Includes Delta Techops who do work for other airlines as a contractor)
F9 185; 1502
G4 416; 447
NK 370; 1044
UA 7239; 376

The real answer is that G4 is very close to the Big 3, closer than any of the LCCs and if you remove DL Tech Ops probably better than DL.

spacecadet wrote:

JackMeahoff wrote:

How could anyone say with a straight face this wasn't a hit piece on Allegiant?

Because it was based on facts.

Four times more incidents than other airlines. Something is not right.

It makes no sense to defend this.

Yup, it's also with the lowest fleet utilization in the business, where planes have long periods of time in Las Vegas to be serviced, sparing all from these avoidable incidents. There is something not right & it's not just the MD80's.

Triple7Lr wrote:

It’s easy to right the segment off as a hit piece if you don’t like what they have to say. Facts are facts though. At one point Allegiant had major maintenance issues but things have gotten a lot better.

I’m just surprised so many people think an engine failure is no big deal. Being in the industry I’ve actually encouraged my family to avoid Allegiant because of their maintenance history.

Oh and the fact that Allegiant refused to provide mechanical interruption information when all other airlines were willing to looks pretty bad on their part.

The carrier's record has improved likely more from the removal of the troublesome older MD80s as the Airbus 320s replace them and not really from any type of philosophical change at Allegiant. Remember the debacle with the 757s they used for Hawaii a few years back? If the FAA looks bad along with the airline maybe they should look bad. I wish CBS would have thrown in more recent information but all this predictable crying from the right about "media this and press that" is tiring.

RWA380 wrote:

spacecadet wrote:

JackMeahoff wrote:

How could anyone say with a straight face this wasn't a hit piece on Allegiant?

Because it was based on facts.

Four times more incidents than other airlines. Something is not right.

It makes no sense to defend this.

Yup, it's also with the lowest fleet utilization in the business, where planes have long periods of time in Las Vegas to be serviced, sparing all from these avoidable incidents. There is something not right & it's not just the MD80's.

That it was a tactic used in negoiations? Yeah, not right at all. The MDs were an issue but just how much was this pilots sticking it to management? It seems fairly certain this tactic was deployed just like sick outs and refusal of extra time at Spirit was used against them.

lat41 wrote:

Triple7Lr wrote:

It’s easy to right the segment off as a hit piece if you don’t like what they have to say. Facts are facts though. At one point Allegiant had major maintenance issues but things have gotten a lot better.

I’m just surprised so many people think an engine failure is no big deal. Being in the industry I’ve actually encouraged my family to avoid Allegiant because of their maintenance history.

Oh and the fact that Allegiant refused to provide mechanical interruption information when all other airlines were willing to looks pretty bad on their part.

The carrier's record has improved likely more from the removal of the troublesome older MD80s as the Airbus 320s replace them and not really from any type of philosophical change at Allegiant. Remember the debacle with the 757s they used for Hawaii a few years back? If the FAA looks bad along with the airline maybe they should look bad. I wish CBS would have thrown in more recent information but all this predictable crying from the right about "media this and press that" is tiring.

See Enrilia's post on why some of us have had it with the media, it has jack crap to do with politics just integrity and standards. It just so happens that the majority of folks in media leans left so that bias adds to the legit criticism of their lazy ways.

lat41 wrote:

The carrier's record has improved likely more from the removal of the troublesome older MD80s as the Airbus 320s replace them and not really from any type of philosophical change at Allegiant. Remember the debacle with the 757s they used for Hawaii a few years back?

Older airplanes are only "troublesome" if they don't get appropriate maintenance.

EA CO AS wrote:

I don’t know who came away looking worse; Allegiant, or the FAA.

Regardless of whether or not it was biased, it was definitely not a flattering piece for either organization! I agree. This PR might have been just as bad for the FAA as Allegiant

I have to say the one thing that did bother me about that piece was the incident with the smoke in the cabin. I too would have been very upset if they held me on the aircraft vs evacuating when there was visible smoke in the cabin. Not only would I have feared for my life, but also would be concerned about the discomfort and health effects of being subjected to smoke from a chemical for some 10-12 mins

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Very few of Allegiant's target market watched that or will ever be aware of it.

Not necessarily. I live in North Dakota and all local news facebook pages are shating this story. Many have over 100 comments, bot good and bad. There are 4 Allegiant stations in the state, so it is a relatively popular airline.