Thanks Al ----- Original Message ----- From: "David MR" <damiross3@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 5:06 PM Subject: Re: Outsourcing our Safety (JetBlue's Maintenance) > 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