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).
See post #80.
"Saving Lives" ?
I wouldn't go that far either.
But I would say that it is important not to accept a plane that doesn't give me the tools to get folks SAFELY to their INTENDED destination.
Again, legal to dispatch does not mean the plane is suitable for all routings.
Often pilots will refuse an aircraft and then it will be swapped and flown by someone else, on a more suitable routing.
This does not imply that the initial refusal was not legitimate.
Routers have good reasons why they want planes on particular routings.
Sometimes this is not operationally feasible.
We make the call for our particular flight then routers decide how they want to handle it.
Sometimes this entails a cancellation or delay.
That's the company's call not ours.