User talk:EditorASC/SB3

Frontline Program
A PBS program Frontline, used this accident as a backdrop during its attempt to show that "outsourcing" presented a safety risk to airline travel. However, the program's producers did not present any objective statistical studies to support such an allegation. Instead, they interviewed interested parties who had various kinds of relationships to Colgan Air. Miles O'Brien, a news correspondent, stated early on in the program that “the investigation has also put the spotlight onto the operations of Colgan and raised questions about pilot qualifications, training and pay. The NTSB found that Captain Renslow had failed five performance tests, or check rides, some of which Colgan had failed to discover."

John Prater, President of Air Line Pilots Association, commented that "The major airlines created the regional industry as a way of lowering costs. They don't want to pay employees, and I don't' care whether it's pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, ground help. They wanted to find a way of getting rid of experience. They wanted to find a way of getting rid of that expensive employee." However, Mr. Prater did not offer statistics to show any correlation between pilot pay and airline safety. In fact, 2009 proved to be one of the safer years for airline passengers.

Another person, who also had a financial incentive to oppose outsourcing, was Mary Shiavo, an attorney for some of the plaintiffs who are litigating this accident. According to Shiavo, the feeder service contract between Continental and Colgan Air helped to lower Continental's costs, while also providing a standard indemnification clause to protect Continental in instances of negligence by Colgan Air. That clause has been upheld in court, affirmed Shiavo: "What people think is because- in the case of the Buffalo crash, because 'Continental' is painted on the door of the plane, they think that Continental is responsible. In fact, their contract with their code share carriers say that the code share carrier, the- the contracting carrier, the Colgan of the world, is absolutely completely and totally responsible for the safety of the operation of that flight. And by the way, if something goes wrong with that flight, Colgan has to indemnify Continental."

Gordon Bethune (Former CEO of Continental Airlines) stated that Continental airlines, and other large carriers, have developed regional airlines to help lower costs "And so you let that operate as it's an independent business because other people are in that business, but you can't afford to have a lot of excess cost and still win a contract. So it makes the management be cost-effective."

Roger Cohen, President of the Regional Airline Association, pointed out that "The average salary for a regional airline captain is $73,000. The average salary for a first officer at a regional airline is about $32,000, $33,000 a year."

In spite of the comments of some of the persons interviewed for the Frontline program, the NTSB did not cite pilot pay or fatigue as contributing factors in its Probable Cause finding (see above). In fact, the NTSB found that the pilots acted contrary to their training:


 * "The flight crewmembers’ performance during the flight, including the captain’s deviations from standard operating procedures and the first officer’s failure to challenge these deviations, was not consistent with the crew resource management (CRM) training that they had received or the concepts in the Federal Aviation Administration’s CRM guidance."

A PBS program Frontline investigated the safety issues associated with outsourcing: "the investigation has also put the spotlight on operations of regional airlines like Colgan Air, where the first officer on 3407 had made less than $16,000 the previous year and the captain had failed five flight tests and received inadequate training on a critical safety system involved in the crash."

In the episode, Gordon Bethune (Former CEO of Continental Airlines) stated that Continental airlines, and other large carriers, have developed regional airlines to help lower costs "And so you let that operate as it's an independent business because other people are in that business, but you can't afford to have a lot of excess cost and still win a contract. So it makes the management be cost-effective." John Prater, President of Air Line Pilots Association added "The major airlines created the regional industry as a way of lowering costs. They don't want to pay employees, and I don't' care whether it's pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, ground help. They wanted to find a way of getting rid of experience. They wanted to find a way of getting rid of that expensive employee." However, Mr. Prater did not offer any statistics to show any correlation between pilot pay and airline safety. In fact, 2009 proved to be one of the safer years for airline passengers.

Roger Cohen, President of the Regional Airline Association, pointed out that "The average salary for a regional airline captain is $73,000. The average salary for a first officer at a regional airline is about $32,000, $33,000 a year."

While the feeder service contract between Continental and Colgan Air helped to lower Continental's costs, it also provided a standard indemnification clause to protect Continental in instances of negligence by Colgan Air. That clause has been upheld in court, according to Mary Shiavo, who is now an attorney for some of the plaintiff's who are litigating this accident. Mary Shiavo also said, during that Frontline program:

"What people think is because- in the case of the Buffalo crash, because "Continental" is painted on the door of the plane, they think that Continental is responsible. In fact, their contract with their code share carriers say that the code share carrier, the- the contracting carrier, the Colgan of the world, is absolutely completely and totally responsible for the safety of the operation of that flight. And by the way, if something goes wrong with that flight, Colgan has to indemnify Continental."

In spite of the comments of some of the persons interviewed for the Frontline program, the NTSB did not cite pilot pay or fatigue as contributing factors in its Probable Cause finding (see above). In fact the NTSB found that the pilots acted contrary to their training:


 * "The flight crewmembers’ performance during the flight, including the captain’s deviations from standard operating procedures and the first officer’s failure to challenge these deviations, was not consistent with the crew resource management (CRM) training that they had received or the concepts in the Federal Aviation Administration’s CRM guidance."

=
======================

>

OK, here is my answer to your latest comments:

First of all, your statement that “So for instance, citing a statistic that air travel is safer than any other time in history is your comment that a) needs a citation, and b) needs to be connected to the Frontline investigation by a reliable source (see WP:RS).” is not accurate. In fact I said “2009 proved to be one of the safer years for airline passengers. Please don't do the straw man argument bit on me. If you want to refute something I said, then be sure you are accurately quoting what I said.

That statistic is relevant and valid, after your POV sources have tried to make a case that outsourcing operates in derogation of airline safety. What has actually happened, during the years in which outsourcing has increased, is highly relevant. The statement was factual, and it was supported with two WP:RS. The stats from the NTSB have always been among the very highest of WP:RS. Don't remove that again. If you do, then the entire FP comments will have to be taken back to the one-sentence statement about that program, which was all that was required to allow it to be in the list of reactions to the crash.

It is one of those facts that is obvious to all, that any attorney that is using public media, while acting as an attorney for plaintiffs in a lawsuit, is only going to present opinions which would be likely to help the case they are being paid to process. It isn't necessary to prove the obvious. Any lawyer which would speaks publicly against the best interests of his clients, while getting paid to represent them, would be laying himself open for disbarment. The fact that she is a lawyer, representing plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Colgan, makes anything she says highly suspect. That makes it valid to point out the likely bias of the source, so long as you insist upon it being there. Of course, if you would prefer to remove her comments entirely, then that would solve the problem.


 * To begin with, I didn't think it proper that the Frontline Program (FP) be included in the article at all. For the same reason that PPRune and other such pilot forums are not recognized as WP:RS:  They contain a lot of political agenda opinions about airline safety, accidents and incidents.  In other words, most of those writing in such forums have strong axes to grind and that makes such sources unacceptable as WP:RS, for the purposes of accident articles like this.  FP has the same kind of a problem:  It has long been a political agenda program.  It sets out to convince the public that certain opinions of certain selected parties, support its particular views on a given issue.  In this particular FP, it sets out to “prove” that airline safety is and has been sacrificed by the process of “outsourcing,” which in the context of that program, means that big airlines contract out to smaller airlines, to supply them with passengers on the smaller route structures.

But, you insisted that a discussion about the FP had to be part of the article. So, in an effort to compromise, I began to work with you on allowing it in, in a way that would not grossly violate the usual Wiki POV, RS and other relevant standards. From the beginning, the way you first inserted the FP commentary, had very real problems.

The first reference to the FP, showed up as a one sentence reference, [| here], as part of a list in the “Reactions” secton. “The PBS program Frontline, examined the crash and the safety record of Colgan Air in its segment titled, Flying Cheap[1]“ That was OK, for the purpose of adding it to the list of reactions to that accident.

Then, you began to expand on that one-liner [| here]. “The PBS program Frontline, examined the crash and the safety record of Colgan Air in its segment titled, Flying Cheap. The news show noted that Continental airlines, and other large carriers, have developed regional airlines to help lower costs by reducing experience requirements of their employees. While lowering costs, the major airlines have also indemnified themselves from the legal risks associated with mechanical safety and pilot training. [1]“ And, that phrasing introduced your first POV: Namely that you referred to the FP as a “News Show.”

To the contrary, it was an editorial show, designed to convince the public of its particular view of the Colgan accident, as well its view of the “issue” of “outsourcing.” It was no more proper to refer to the FP as a “news” show, than it would be to refer to an editorial from the WSJ, as a “news” piece. In addition, the statement of “to help lower costs by reducing experience requirements of their employees” is not a fact statement, but a typical union propaganda statement, which ignores the fact that the FAA sets the minimum required experience and training requirements for all Part 121 airline pilots, and that in fact, how far the experience level goes above those minimum requirements, is a function of the supply and demand of pilots, at any given time in history.

Anyone who knows the history of airline pilot experience at the time of hire, knows that market supply and demand is a major factor as to the experience level of new-hire pilots. In other words, to prove that the major airlines wanted to reduce the experience level of new-hire pilots, needs to either be supported by a proper in-line citation, or made clear that the statement is coming from one who is grinding a political ax, with a vested financial interest. Such a person deliberately ignores the kind of historical fact that the major (Legacy) airlines actually hired persons who had never flown planes at all, during the 1964-67 period (before Deregulation), because that would reveal that the actual experience level of new-hire pilots, is dependent upon market supply and demand, and not the result of any airline WANTING to have the least experienced pilots possible.

Then at [| this point], you added this unsupported statement: “While lowering costs, the Continental also indemnified themselves from the legal risks associated with Colgan's deficient mechanical safety and pilot training. [66] That is a highly POV statement, which did not have any valid WP:RS source to support it. It amounted to a political agenda opinion of some who were interviewed in that program. If outsourcing was the cause of ALLEGED maintenance deficiencies at Colgan, then what was the cause of the FACTUAL maintenance deficiencies at AMR, which led to the crash of American Airlines Flight 191?

That is when I first intervened in a very limited way, by inserting the word “alleged.” [| here]

You then removed the “alleged” word, but without giving the Actual name of the person who said it, and why that particular person constituted a WP:RS. [| here]

You then responded [| here], by saying “In the episode, Gordon Bethune (Former CEO of Continental Airlines) stated that Continental airlines, and other large carriers, have developed regional airlines to help lower costs by reducing experience requirements of their employees. While lowering costs, Continental also indemnified itself from the legal risks associated with Colgan's deficient mechanical safety and pilot training. [66].

There was one problem with that: Bethune said no such thing. I don't know if you innocently screwed it up, or if the misquote was intentional, but in fact, he did not say that. That left me no choice but to remove the entire statement, since it was not a true characterization of what Bethune said. [| here]

Then, instead of you correcting your erroneous statement about what Bethune actually said, you just put it back in, [| here]

Then, [| here] you finally corrected the grossly distorted statement of what Bethune actually said. But, after quoting him accurately (finally!), you left in the unsourced statement about Colgan's alleged “deficient mechanical safety and pilot training.” Again, highly POV on your part. You don't have to make the statement yourself, for it to be unsupported POV. You can do it the way you did, simply by alleging that someone else said it, without even saying who, nor if they are a WP:RS.

[| Then], you inserted this: A lawyer on the show stated, "What people think is because- in the case of the Buffalo crash, because "Continental" is painted on the door of the plane, they think that Continental is responsible. In fact, their contract with their code share carriers say that the code share carrier, the- the contracting carrier, the Colgan of the world, is absolutely completely and totally responsible for the safety of the operation of that flight. And by the way, if something goes wrong with that flight, Colgan has to indemnify Continental."[69] But, no identification of who the attorney was, or that she was representing the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Colgan. Again, you left in the unsourced statement about Colgan's alleged “deficient mechanical safety and pilot training.”

Since you refused to correct that, it became necessary for me to use a lot of my time, to correct the record about who said what in that program, [| here].

You then proceeded to change the title to that section to “Frontline Expose”. Highly improper, for obvious reasons, [| here]. That forced me to remove that highly POV line title, [| here].

It then became necessary for me to remove more weasel word POV statements that were again, unsourced. I remind you that the FP did not say anything, as you alleged. Only individual persons, that were talking during the course of that program, said anything. If you want to use any of their statements, then you must identify them as well as assure that you quote them or summarize them ACCURATELY. And, if you insist upon putting in statements that amount to unsupported POV, they will have to either be removed, or balanced with additional information, so that the reader can surmise that it is opinion that is likely to be motivated by invested interest bias, instead of a statement of known fact, coming from an objective WP:RS source.[| here]

You then inserted a new title for the FP: “Frontline Investigation”, again to make it look like a legitimate source, instead of the POV editorial program that it really was. [| here]

You then went on to remove my counter balance statement to what Prater said. That was improper, because it was a statement of fact. Prater did not offer any valid evidence to back up his contention, and the year of that accident was one of the safer ones, is also documented fact by a WP:RS (the NTSB). Actual known safety stats are highly relevant to any arguments that the structure of airline outsourcing contracts acts in derogation of airline safety           [| here]. If you want the Prater POV in, then those counter balance FACTUAL statements will have to be in too, to achieve a neutral balance in the article. If you delete that again, then I will have to remove the Prater statement, because it is classic, unsupported, political agenda POV.

You then revised again, to say that “A PBS program Frontline investigated the safety issues associated with outsourcing.” here Again, POV. The way that is worded, makes it look like there are IN FACT “safety issues” generated by the process of “outsourcing.” What valid, objective, statistical studies can you cite to support such a contention? Some one on the FP saying that, does not automatically make it so. If the accident and fatality rate continues to decline, however slowly, over a period of years, then how can it be an objective statement that outsourcing acts in derogation of airline safety? If the accident rate was higher in years past (including the larger carriers), when there wasn't as much outsourcing, then on what basis is that allegation made? And, the issues that were examined by the NTSB (but not cited as contributory factors), were not also the same kind of issues found in other airline crashes, when outsourcing was not present? If you think that, then it is evident you haven't done your homework.

I am willing to work with you on how to improve specific statements in the FP part of the Reactions section. But, as I said before, POV from self-interested parties on that program must be balanced with information which provides a balanced, neutral point of view. That is official Wiki policy. If you continue to remove valid statements which accomplish that Wiki policy, then we will have to remove all by the original one-sentence statement. EditorASC (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)