There's no requirement that an FAA Approved and Licensed mechanic is a US citizen or works for a US company. (And if anything, many foreign countries adopt local standards that match or exceed FAA standards.) But this bizarre business escalates from there. If an airline wishes to maintain FAA Category 1 service, and essentially fly into the US to the limit of any country-to-country treaty (like US/Canada's or US/UK's free skies agreement), it may not even code share with airlines based on countries that don't maintain Category 1 ratings by the FAA (i.e. their own country aviation oversight meeting US standards.) This means that Air Canada (domiciled in a sovereign country; i.e. Canada) cannot code-share with say BWIA (domiciled in a separate sovereign country; i.e. Trinidad and Tobago) if Air Canada wishes to fly to the USA as they please. There's nothing more egregious that the US' attitude than this. US policy, in absence of any international agreement, imposing their 'standards' on sovereign nations and sovereign operating companies... just because they fly to a US airport. Matthew --- http://www.redMac.ca - Your Macintosh homepage in Canada On 25-Oct-05, at 9:20 AM, Allan9 wrote: > Question > Even though the maintainance is outsourced doesn't the work > completed be > signed off by an FAA Approved and licensed mechanic.? > Al > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alireza Alivandivafa" <DEmocrat2n@xxxxxxx> > To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:42 AM > Subject: Re: outsourcing > > > >> (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. >> > >