Irish Drifter wrote:
I have no argument with any of that Pacifica55.
However, all that is equally true whether the airframe is 12 years old or 5 years old or 9 months old which was the basis of my post.
All I wanted to point out that fleet age is not necessarily a indicator of safety but more a marketing tool. A commitment by executive management to maintenance and training, regardless of cost, is the best tool to ensure the safest operation possible.
I think we are on the same page amigo.
Correcto, ID. Age in airframes is not the determining factor in airworthiness. We worked DC3s out of PDX until a few years ago hauling boxes. These aircraft had been used extensively to haul salmon in Alaska. When they were first acquired, you could hardly stay in the airplane for the smell. After a complete reconditioning they were returned to the fleet and paid their way for several years.
My point was that everything you mentioned was required to ensure that older airframes were still reliable and airworthy. The current cost cutting and contracting scenario has gone a long way towards removing those safeguards. We need more oversight and independent investigation before someone pays with their lives, IMHO.
Some other points I agree with: The A300 is apiece of crap. I'll take anything Boeing ever made over the latest French offering and be happy. The B727 bought the current fleet of aircraft. Those old birds kept flying long after the bank note that bought them was repaid. Too bad that they were so noisy or they would still be leaving black trails across America.
_________________
"Your love gives me such a thrill
but your love don't pay my bills,
I NEED THE MONEY!" - John Lee Hooker
Disclaimer: The above is merely the opinion of the author unless specific scientific data is included.
Your mileage may vary.
https://costaricaticas.com/phpBB2/viewto ... 978#206978
