Originally Posted by
sbm12
The plane has a "history," but the majority of it is with SAS, where a
bad valve is being blamed. That being said, the fact that it is only having issues really at one carrier makes it hard to believe that the bird is inherently unsafe.
Sure, but that the issues have only occurred at one carrier (which happens to be one of the longest-operating carriers of the type) does not imply that the plane is safe. This is especially true when the carrier in question has a very good safety record, and where one particular type of plane is the only one giving them any sort of consistent issues. Compounding this is the fact that the faulty valves were found on virtually every one of the carrier's aircraft. You can give the benefit of the doubt to an aircraft, but I really don't see why.
I guess the question is whether you would fly SK? If one believes it is the carrier that is unsafe, then this would seem the conclusion one should reach.
Painting CO on the tail doesn't make the plane any safer. And it certainly doesn't make it something worth getting excited about, as many have done here. I know that we have more than our share of homers here, but we have a plane with at least some questions about its safety, which is at least partly being introduced so that CO can get around its more expensive pilot contracts (how many times have I had to read how great CO is because they do right by their employees), and which doesn't seem to offer much improvement to the customer experience (actually degrading it for those routes, like DCA, where mainline capacity is being replaced). All of a sudden, it is high-fives all around and many seem convinced that this thing is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I just don't get it.