Originally Posted by
mitchmu
Has anyone thought to consider that rejecting a faulty aircraft that needs maintenance might actually be saving lives?
That sounds to me like a red herring. My question was simply whether UAL pilots are imposing a tougher fly/no-fly standard than they did a year ago. Even if they are, I doubt this tighter standard is "saving lives" -- since I doubt that UAL pilots were accepting aircraft that were truly not airworthy a year ago, even if their standards were looser then than they are today (which I don't know -- that was my original question).