Originally Posted by Sunfish
The problem of maintenance in industry is thorny for one very good reason:- defects accumulate very quietly over time. Catastrophic failures are rare. It is often almost impossible to see or categorise a defect at all. Like measurement tolerances, defects always accumulate, they never cancel each other out.
So yes, quality is often invisible, you can take your aircraft to an Asian MRO and it will be fixed "legally" but the quality of workmanship may be another matter and that may not become apparent for Ten years.
So all those 10 year old aircraft owned by SIA and serviced by SIAEC, they're clearly falling out of the sky. All over the place I assume. It that the case and there is a global media conspiracy to cover up the losses?
Or is it that, just maybe, SIAEC keep the SIA aircraft flying reliably and safely. Just the same as QANTAS.
Originally Posted by sunfish
Meanwhile our bean counter manager has made his savings, received his bonuses and has been promoted sufficiently far away from the ticking time bomb his penny pinching created.
Again with this obsession regarding bonuses...
Originally Posted by Aeromedic
Sunfish,
Pretty much to the point. It only has to happen once to lay the groundwork of a latent defect that emerges at the worst possible time.
And these Asian MROs are doing this how often? Perhaps you blame them for, say, Air France 447?
Seriously, if you have a genuine complaint against Asian MROs then let's examine the evidence rather than just smearing them.
Originally Posted by aeromedic
The only upside is the forgiving nature of the design features of today's modern wide bodied aircraft, for without that, today's jet travel would be far less safe.
Thanks Alan, yes the new generation of aircraft like the 787 require less maintenance...