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).
Fair enough. And, my question is whether $mi$ek, with his ruthless focus on cost cutting, is also cutting the safety margin. He's cut absolutely every single thing that I can see. I can't see maintenance and safety but it's becoming increasingly hard for me to believe on faith that maintenance and safety hasn't also come under the knife so he can make more money faster. So, perhaps the planes are becoming less safe, and the pilot refusals are reflecting that. This hypothesis is not difficult for me to believe. And, it's a cause of great concern. If you don't believe that management greed and incompetence can kill people, just review the case of AK 261.