Originally Posted by
CONF iture
Why would they have if it can help them to avoid a latent unsafe condition ?
Also, my understanding is, and people with knowledge will correct me, an AD is on the manufacturer’s arms, but a SB is for the airline … ?
I presume that barb is directed at me, which is a bit of a shame - because I try not to insult you directly, even if I do think your choice of heroes is misguided.
The question is not one of who is paying for the repairs - though it could be a factor in the decision. The problem is this - even if an AD did make Airbus pay for the repairs as opposed to the airlines,
the airlines still lose money because an aircraft on the ground is not generating revenue. Airbus are, I'm sure, business-savvy enough to factor in a budget for unscheduled repairs and in the grand scheme of things it would be a cost of a few million dollars to a multi billion-dollar company - one that was in relatively rude health in 2008 and 2009.
With airlines it is less clear-cut and some have more of a margin available to them than others - however even a major flag-carrier like AF will not have the margins available to them that Airbus do. I'd like someone who knows to confirm, but at a guess I'd say that AF stood to lose more in revenue from the aircraft being on the ground in MX than the cost of the repairs to their fleet.
To my mind the issue of pitot replacement will be a factor in the findings and Airbus will have to take their share of the knocks there. What bothers me though is that AF's procedures allowed for two members of a crew who had little to no experience in manually handling the aircraft at high altitude to occupy the LH and RH seats at a time when the whole industry knew that frozen pitot tubes could lead to the aircraft being handed back to the crew at cruise level.