That's what happens when a message is replied to without any quotation of the original message. That's why I'm not thrilled about AOL users. AOL is set up to not include the original message and so when a message is replied to, others reading it may not know what they are talking about. Here's the full header for my original e-mail: Outsourcing Our Safety By Harold Meyerson (Washington Post) Wednesday, September 28, 2005; Page A21 -----Original Message----- From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Allan9 Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 13:55 To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Outsourcing our Safety (JetBlue's Maintenance) Ok The posting I read I don't believe quoted the source (Washington Post). My only objection was the inference of being unsafe. Al ----- Original Message ----- From: "David MR" <damiross3@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 4:44 PM Subject: Re: Outsourcing our Safety (JetBlue's Maintenance) > Al, you said "It almost sounds like union rhetoric." You have to consider > the source. The article was from the Washington Post, not exactly a > conservative and unbiased newspaper. > I have to agree that there is nothing wrong with outsourcing maintenance. > In fact, it says something when it is actually cheaper to fly an aircraft > to > an airport for maintenance that is not only offline (in JetBlue's case) > but > is also in an entirely different country. > > David R > http://home.comcast.net/~damiross/books.html > www.sequoians.com > www.chanticleers.org > > -----Original Message----- > From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of > Allan9 > Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 13:41 > To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Outsourcing our Safety (JetBlue's Maintenance) > > > I have to completely agree. The other noteworthy thing is their > maintenance > program and how it is accomplished is inspected and approved by the FAA > Flight Safety Division. > While I am not defending their contract maintenance how many other US > Carriers use contract maintenance. Before Eastern did their swan dive the > were one of the largest maintenance providers in the world. They made > more > money off contract maintenance thatn anything else. > It almost sounds like union rhetoric. > Al > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alireza Alivandivafa" <DEmocrat2n@xxxxxxx> > To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 2:56 PM > Subject: Re: Outsourcing our Safety (JetBlue's Maintenance) > > >> You know, ordinarily I would be all over the fact that B6 contracts their >> heavy MX out, particularly to a place with low wages, but there are >> somethings >> that are not shown here. First, Aeroman (TACA's MX arm) is one of the >> best out >> their at performing heavy MX, and specializes in A320 family aircraft >> (most of >> the TACA fleet is A320 family). Additionally, the wages TACA does pay >> are >> well above the living wage in El Salvador and working conditions for >> their >> mechanics are quite good. They are fully certified by Airbus to work on >> the >> aircraft, just like Lufthansa Technik, United Services, Air Canada or any >> other >> airline. If this was an actual case of abuse or shoddy maintainance, >> that >> would >> be one thing, but it is not. In actuality, there have been several gear >> twisting incidents on A320 family aircraft, including at least 3 with >> United and 2 >> with jetBlue, so I am thinking this is more a design flaw than a >> maintainance >> issue