Post

Conversation

Matthew Yglesias
@mattyglesias
A couple of additional cites on the safety issue. The main thing I’d like everyone to see about Stoller, though, is how belligerent he is about technical questions while professing to be baffled by the idea that airfares would be lower if we had more pilots and more flights.
Quote
Matt Stoller
@matthewstoller
Replying to @matthewstoller
Shame on me for assuming people knew that Yglesias was just doing corporate lobbying for the airline industry. I generally thought readers understood that he's a liar, and not to take anything he says seriously. I guess not. So here's an explanation. In terms of safety, the 1500
Image
20K
Views
View quotes
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

Steven Anderson
@S_McAnderson
Kinda feel like he got you on this one. Arguing the industry talking points under the guise of low prices without acknowledging the ability and desire for industry to pay lower wages gives away your game.
779
Matthew Yglesias
@mattyglesias
My “game,” quite explicitly, is that with voters screaming for more political action to address high prices our leaders should consider genuinely prioritizing low prices.
686
Byrne Hobart
@ByrneHobart
Also his 99.8% number counts a period before the rule was implemented, and it has a cutoff before some recent disasters (it's now 94.4%). And, do you really look at this chart and say "dang, I wonder what happened in 2013"? I don't.
Image
464
Jeffery Mace
@sagechan1
Stoller is mostly wrong here, and it's not a safety issue. But, absent airline bankruptcy contracts returning, it's not going to help much on the costs now. Pilots have made a killing in recent negotiations hurting less trained work groups and returns.
218
Manual
@manual421
As someone specially involved in this, I don’t think either of these are that relevant.Likely half of ATPs are granted below 1500 hours. More importantly, most airlines now and historically aren’t hiring sub 1500 hour pilots. The cost are often in general aviation manufacturing
517
Edward Herman
@edward_her40214
To me the most egregious thing is that he assumes that it is not possible to look at the same evidence and have a different cost benefit analysis. It is utterly disgusting that he has to resort to ad-hominem. You must be getting paid!!!
7