Harry Krause wrote:
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:04:54 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

I doubt an 18 passenger 1946 seaplane is an Al Qaida target. Radio
reported a witness said the wing was on fire and then fell off.
===================

I agree, probably a blown engine.

....and that's exactly why I rarely set foot in an airplane any more. I
know
that the mechanic who works on my truck is obsessive about details. As
far
as aircraft, I have to assume that the mechanics have intravenous
heroin
drips in their arms. Actually, "assume" is wrong. I was on a USAir
commuter
prop plane last year which had bald tires. That's all I need to know.
Bald tires are good. More rubber in contact with the runway. The
brake control software and antiskid will make sure hydroplaning doesn't
happen.

Look at the tires on a drag racing car.

Yeah OK.

Meanwhile, lots of the aircraft are severely old, and the airlines are
bankrupt.
And a number of airlines have contracted out maintenance to third-world
depots.

You saying those 3rd world people are stupid and incompetant?



I would say that third-world airline plane mechanics are more likely to
sign off on maintenance and repair than a US mechanic would, are more
likely to be working for a company whose licensing and record-keeping
requirements are looser than a US company's, are less likely to have the
same level of training and experience as US mechanic, et cetera.
Therefore, they are less competent. No, I don't think they are stupid.

Those third world depots are owned and operated by US or european
maintenance contractors. Lufthansa Technick usually runs all of the
depots handling airbus planes, and I don't know the name of the
american company that handles boeing planes. In addition,
Pratt&Whitney has third-world maintenance depots to keep their engines
running, as do most of the companies that make the various
subassemblies in an airplane. If any of those planes fly to the US,
the FAA reviews their maintenace record. It is the contractor's best
interest to make sure they are maintaining the hardware to the
standards set forth by the FAA, Airbus and Boeing. If they dont, the
two airframers and/or the airlines will happily contract someone else
to do the work.

Having these depots in the US and/or Europe will mean the labor would
be extremely high (thanks to unions). The labor is cheap in the third
world. Gotta be an idiot not to take advantage of it.