(You're welcome David) There are two things people are really missing here. First, jetBlue is not even 6 years old yet. While they have been profitable since taking to the skies, they are definately not in the cash position to be spending money on massive superbay hangars to perform D checks and the like. B6 did open 2 hangars this year (one smaller one at MCO to do light MX and for LiveTV, and one larger one at JFK) and is bringing their maintainance slowly in house (I believe they do up to B-checks right now) and they have their MX supervisors sign off on C-Checks. I am sure there will come a time where B6 does heavier maintainance, but they have not really had the time to invest in that kind of infrastructure with their record growth. My second point is one that people seem to keep missing. Aeroman IS a leader in A320 family maintainance and TACA is the largest carrier in Central America. They are all fully Airbus trained and could easily pass an FAA A&P course. B6 was having their work done by Air Canada (likely cheaper than United Services, Northwest or Lufthansa Technik) and determined that Aeroman would be cheaper and still maintain their planes to the highest level. Landing on a jacked gear on international television is bad enough press, and that seems to be an aircraft design flaw, they don't want to start having major issues with their aircraft and I seriously doubt they will be taking the risk of just that because of bad maintainance. In a message dated 10/25/2005 12:22:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, damiross3@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: (Thanks for quoting the original, Alireza) I cannot see how an airline with the fleet size of JetBlue can justify outsourcing to a foreign country the maintenance of its aircraft. It has the economy of scales to do its own maintenance, at least up to the C check. If the aircraft maintenance must be outsourced in a foreign country, it should be done either through the aircraft maintenance or a major company such as Lufthansa.