Ah, at last a subject rather close to my own heart...

Now as someone who has appeared in at least 7 of those documentaries, what makes you think that the story was entirely correct?

What makes you think that AS is any better/worse than the other 1W carriers?

What makes you think that AS is any better/worse than other US airlines in general?

Would you like to see documentaries which would lead you to the conclusion about never flying on AA, BA, US, UA, DL, CO, KL, QF, SK, LH and certainly never fly to JFK, ORD, EWR, HKG, SYD and so on.

AS did have maintenance failures. AS did spend less on maintenance, as they all have since 9-11.

AS operations in Alaska do have a much higher level of risk associated with them than an airline operating in lower 48. However, they do invest in a lot of technology and new procedures to try to mitigate the weather and mountain factors.

It is a general rule that after the accident, things get a lot better. If you want to avoid all these types of risks, do not fly in South America, except on LAN, do not fly in Central America on anybody, do not fly in Africa ever, forget the Gulf on local carriers (except perhaps Emirates and they had a crunch in JNB recently), ditch 90% of Asia and only ever fly on CX, visit Australia (but not Cairns) and Auckland in SWP, do not fly to any European country touching the Med, avoid former Eastern Europe and if you want to go to Scandinavia then you should avoid western Norway.

I still fly 300 times a year on commerical carriers and don't give a stuff about the risk level as it is so low as to be not worth bothering with. Hijacking, violent robbery, car crashes and other stuff are far more likely for me.

End of spottie rant. That's a wrap, OK let's go down the pub and let the lighting man join us later when he has packed up.