Does anyone know why the Air France 772 has been inside the UAL maintenance hangar at SFO for the past several days.
It looks very bright, possibly having just been painted.
Cheers.

Went tech on last Thursday.

Qantas59 wrote:

Does anyone know why the Air France 772 has been inside the UAL maintenance hangar at SFO for the past several days.
It looks very bright, possibly having just been painted.
Cheers.

Air France plane? "It looks very bright, possibly having just been painted."

Qantas59 wrote:

It looks very bright, possibly having just been painted.

I think that should say "It looks very bright, possibly having just been washed for the first time since new."

I walked by it today. United is doing some work on it. That is all I can say.

KVH68 wrote:

I walked by it today. United is doing some work on it. That is all I can say.

UA was the best they could do?

lol I'm sure you are only being funny..I would assume that not many options for maint at SFO. And a clean AF aircraft?? haha

jumbojet wrote:

KVH68 wrote:

I walked by it today. United is doing some work on it. That is all I can say.

UA was the best they could do?

I think you'll find that most airline rivalries exist predominately on spreadsheets, and message boards.

In this case, UA might very well be the only ones fully capable of handling whatever the aircraft needs done. Sure they'll charge plenty for the work, but they take care of each other.

You never want to have a plane go tech somewhere down the line, and have the only option for help be the company you kicked out of your hangar a month ago.

jumbojet wrote:

KVH68 wrote:

I walked by it today. United is doing some work on it. That is all I can say.

UA was the best they could do?

Surely you joke....I know you are not UAs biggest fan but their technical capabilities are beyond question. SFO is one of the largest maintenance bases on the planet....

jumbojet wrote:

UA was the best they could do?

United has an excellent maintenance base at SFO. Most major airlines operate top notch maintenance divisions, like Lufthansa Technik or Delta TechOps, but United is absolutely no exception to this. They are more than capable of performing any maintenance or repair on a 777.

jumbojet wrote:

KVH68 wrote:

I walked by it today. United is doing some work on it. That is all I can say.

UA was the best they could do?

Would you rather have swissport, or jet tech, or some other shade tree mechanic contractor working on it?

Sometimes certain technical issues can only be resolved by the best. And UA is one of the best

Depending on the amount of maintenance they needed, UA may be the only ones capable of performing a task like that. Not to mention their experience with 777's

Did the plane go tech while it was there or was it flown there for maintenance? I though AF flew the 77W on the SFO route unless it was a sub...

GCT64 wrote:

Qantas59 wrote:

It looks very bright, possibly having just been painted.

I think that should say "It looks very bright, possibly having just been washed for the first time since new."

Perhaps UA washed it before they would let it in their hanger?
Sorry AF, couldn't resist

jumbojet wrote:

KVH68 wrote:

I walked by it today. United is doing some work on it. That is all I can say.

UA was the best they could do?

pmUAs greatest assets before the merger were the hub network, and a very close second was the techops. In fact, when the certificates were officially merged, they used COs operating certificate and UAs maintenance certificate going forward. pmUA had a very good maintenance program and even very good pilot training. That legacy carries on today.

iahcsr wrote:

GCT64 wrote:

Qantas59 wrote:

It looks very bright, possibly having just been painted.

I think that should say "It looks very bright, possibly having just been washed for the first time since new."

Perhaps UA washed it before they would let it in their hanger?
Sorry AF, couldn't resist

Curious what happened to the bird, but regarding UA techops they don't have the known rep that Lufthansa Technik, or DL TechOps, but that's because those are larger and often do maintenance for other operators besides their own fleet. UA only does their own fleet, thus I bet a lot of people don't know about their rep. Plus, they are a lot of smaller and often contract out maintenance and work to INT, RFD, XMN, and HKG.

iahcsr wrote:

Perhaps UA washed it before they would let it in their hanger?
Sorry AF, couldn't resist

I hope not, that will make AF really mad. Have you seen their final B747 water salute. Not even water vapors touched the plane.

nikeson13 wrote:

Curious what happened to the bird, but regarding UA techops they don't have the known rep that Lufthansa Technik, or DL TechOps, but that's because those are larger and often do maintenance for other operators besides their own fleet. UA only does their own fleet, thus I bet a lot of people don't know about their rep. Plus, they are a lot of smaller and often contract out maintenance and work to INT, RFD, XMN, and HKG.

UA does quite a lot of work for other airlines and actually employees more people in TechOps than DL does. UAs "rep" when it comes to maintenance is quite well known...

DL (AA and WN for that matter) also contracts out lots of work on their own fleet to places like HKG....

jumbojet wrote:

KVH68 wrote:

I walked by it today. United is doing some work on it. That is all I can say.

UA was the best they could do?

UA has one of the better MROs in the world as far as quality goes.......

United1 wrote:

UA does quite a lot of work for other airlines and actually employees more people in TechOps than DL does. UAs "rep" when it comes to maintenance is quite well known...

DL (AA and WN for that matter) also contracts out lots of work on their own fleet to places like HKG....

FWIW judging by employee numbers isn't a good way to look at size for an MRO.

DL has always had fewer mechanics per plane than the other US legacies (even in the days of DL/AA/UA/NW sending less then 10% of their maintenance out of house). This is due to union vs non-union. Its also that efficiency that allows DL to pay its mechanics comparable to AA/UA but be a larger MRO. (lower costs)
Also you have to look at the type of work the MRO does. DL is more into components and engines. About the only airframe work left is DOD/Mil and HA/VS. Components and engines don't take as many people as airframe work does. (and DL loves to use contractors on the hangar floor)

nikeson13 wrote:

Curious what happened to the bird, but regarding UA techops they don't have the known rep that Lufthansa Technik, or DL TechOps, but that's because those are larger and often do maintenance for other operators besides their own fleet. UA only does their own fleet, thus I bet a lot of people don't know about their rep. Plus, they are a lot of smaller and often contract out maintenance and work to INT, RFD, XMN, and HKG.

no they don't.
UA has a pretty large 3rd party revenue base for maintenance and has one of the best Pratt & Whitney engine shops in the world. They are one of very few who do the big fan PW4000 engine. Pretty sure they are still doing PW2000s(F117) for the USAF even though the engine is basically out of the fleet for UA.

Also had one of the best CFM56 shops out there before it was shut down. Frankly I'm still shocked they haven't started doing the CFM56-7 in house.

Also, UA and DL send out a pretty comparable percentage of work. DL just PR spins it like they do more work in-house. Matter of fact of the big 4 US airlines, DL is the only one not to do a single heavy check in-house. All go to vendors. UA does the 32S in-house, AA does the 737 and 32S (and I think so 330s) in-house, WN does some 737s in-house
DL and UA both do about 50% of their own work in-house. DL just does more component and engine work while sending out more airframe work, while UA does more airframe work and sends out a lot of component and engines. (especially on the ex-CO aircraft)

B737900ER wrote:

sadly some here think crap vendors like that are better than MROs like UA.
Just look at all the love for HAECO or Aeroman

deltal1011man wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

KVH68 wrote:

I walked by it today. United is doing some work on it. That is all I can say.

UA was the best they could do?

UA has one of the better MROs in the world as far as quality goes.......

United1 wrote:

UA does quite a lot of work for other airlines and actually employees more people in TechOps than DL does. UAs "rep" when it comes to maintenance is quite well known...

DL (AA and WN for that matter) also contracts out lots of work on their own fleet to places like HKG....

FWIW judging by employee numbers isn't a good way to look at size for an MRO.

DL has always had fewer mechanics per plane than the other US legacies (even in the days of DL/AA/UA/NW sending less then 10% of their maintenance out of house). This is due to union vs non-union. Its also that efficiency that allows DL to pay its mechanics comparable to AA/UA but be a larger MRO. (lower costs)
Also you have to look at the type of work the MRO does. DL is more into components and engines. About the only airframe work left is DOD/Mil and HA/VS. Components and engines don't take as many people as airframe work does. (and DL loves to use contractors on the hangar floor)

True there are better metrics to use....I was in a rush and pulled out that particular factoid.

I never considered the union factor when it comes to why DL employs less...make sense however. That's an interesting perspective....

B737900ER wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

KVH68 wrote:

I walked by it today. United is doing some work on it. That is all I can say.

UA was the best they could do?

Would you rather have swissport, or jet tech, or some other shade tree mechanic contractor working on it?

Sometimes certain technical issues can only be resolved by the best. And UA is one of the best

The main reason I said what I said is because UA planes seem to go tech more than any other airline. Its not uncommon to see a plethora of cancelled (aircraft maintenance) UA flights lighting up the flightaware webpage with a good majority of them being widebodies. Nothing personal against UA, just saying that from a observational standpoint, AF would want to chose a more reliable entity to fix their planes.

jumbojet wrote:

B737900ER wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

UA was the best they could do?

Would you rather have swissport, or jet tech, or some other shade tree mechanic contractor working on it?

Sometimes certain technical issues can only be resolved by the best. And UA is one of the best

The main reason I said what I said is because UA planes seem to go tech more than any other airline. Its not uncommon to see a plethora of cancelled (aircraft maintenance) UA flights lighting up the flightaware webpage with a good majority of them being widebodies. Nothing personal against UA, just saying that from a observational standpoint, AF would want to chose a more reliable entity to fix their planes.

They are second in completion factor to DL.

ual777 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

B737900ER wrote:

Would you rather have swissport, or jet tech, or some other shade tree mechanic contractor working on it?

Sometimes certain technical issues can only be resolved by the best. And UA is one of the best

The main reason I said what I said is because UA planes seem to go tech more than any other airline. Its not uncommon to see a plethora of cancelled (aircraft maintenance) UA flights lighting up the flightaware webpage with a good majority of them being widebodies. Nothing personal against UA, just saying that from a observational standpoint, AF would want to chose a more reliable entity to fix their planes.

They are second in completion factor to DL.

how is that possible, not even a year ago, weren't they like dead last or close to it? What about their A14 rating?

Even though I fly Delta or its tier 1 partners 100% of the time, there was a time I used to fly Continental but the past several years, mainly due to UA being dead last in just about every customer service oriented category, I wouldn't even consider them regardless of convenience or price. While UA was doing its tailspin, DL kept upping its own game and really hasn't looked back. I used to love to take the Continental non-stops from EWR to the Caribbean but sadly, very poor costumer service, ratty planes, delays and cancellations forced me to quit CO/UA.

deltal1011man wrote:

UA has one of the better MROs in the world as far as quality goes.......
:

if that's the case, then why so many international cancellations? All one has to do is reference the appropriate flyertalk thread on UA international cancellations and you can see countless 747s going out due to MX, and the same for the 777 fleet. It sure has heck doesn't appear that the UA MRO is top notch to me, not with all the planes that get cancelled for maintenance

General MRO trend

Engines - In-house (unless some China/SE Asia provider offers Buy One Get One Free )
WB heavy mx - China/SE Asia
NB - Ecuador/US.

RJs are the trouble makers for bean counters. If Chinese find a way to ship them to China and bring them back at a competitive price than in-house/US MRO, that work also will go.

So what is (or was) the work being done on this AF bird?

jumbojet wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

UA has one of the better MROs in the world as far as quality goes.......
:

if that's the case, then why so many international cancellations? All one has to do is reference the appropriate flyertalk thread on UA international cancellations and you can see countless 747s going out due to MX, and the same for the 777 fleet. It sure has heck doesn't appear that the UA MRO is top notch to me, not with all the planes that get cancelled for maintenance

Flyertalk is never a good source....problems are always blown way out of proportion.

Looking at BTS stats:

2016 (Jan-Dec) Completion Factor
DL 99.55%
UA 99%
AA 98.81%
WN 98.78%

2016 (Jan-Dec) Ontime
DL 86.48%
UA 81.71%
WN 80.8%
AA 78.38%

United1 wrote:

[
Flyertalk is never a good source....problems are always blown way out of proportion.

Looking at BTS stats:

2016 (Jan-Dec) Completion Factor
DL 99.55%
UA 99%
AA 98.81%
WN 98.78%

2016 (Jan-Dec) Ontime
DL 86.48%
UA 81.71%
WN 80.8%
AA 78.38%

Not sure if I am allowed to put the flyertalk '2016 United International Cancellations' thread in here but its all factual cancellations. Sure, FT is not the best source for factual information but all the info in that thread comes from UA.com and flightaware. The 777, 747 and to a lesser extent, the 787 cancellations are quite numerous. I'm curious, why isn't B6 listed in the stats you posted above? I'd like to see how they rank amongst its peers.

jumbojet wrote:

United1 wrote:

[
Flyertalk is never a good source....problems are always blown way out of proportion.

Looking at BTS stats:

2016 (Jan-Dec) Completion Factor
DL 99.55%
UA 99%
AA 98.81%
WN 98.78%

2016 (Jan-Dec) Ontime
DL 86.48%
UA 81.71%
WN 80.8%
AA 78.38%

Not sure if I am allowed to put the flyertalk '2016 United International Cancellations' thread in here but its all factual cancellations. Sure, FT is not the best source for factual information but all the info in that thread comes from UA.com and flightaware. The 777, 747 and to a lesser extent, the 787 cancellations are quite numerous. I'm curious, why isn't B6 listed in the stats you posted above? I'd like to see how they rank amongst its peers.

So you'll weigh a thread only about UA cancellations with random users posting cancellations over actual published data? Airlines do cancel flights. Just because you're only looking at one of them doesn't mean they have the most.

Nothing wrong with either BTS data or FT perception. Shear number of flights US carriers operate makes the difference.

Eg., DL and its subs operate 1,971,000(5400x365) flights a year. 0.45% is 8869 flights.

Couldn't find UA daily flights number.

jumbojet wrote:

United1 wrote:

[
Flyertalk is never a good source....problems are always blown way out of proportion.

Looking at BTS stats:

2016 (Jan-Dec) Completion Factor
DL 99.55%
UA 99%
AA 98.81%
WN 98.78%

2016 (Jan-Dec) Ontime
DL 86.48%
UA 81.71%
WN 80.8%
AA 78.38%

I'm curious, why isn't B6 listed in the stats you posted above? I'd like to see how they rank amongst its peers.

B6 isn't really one of UAs peers (they are no where near the size of UA) but as you asked.

Looking at BTS stats:

2016 (Jan-Dec) Completion Factor
DL 99.55%
UA 99%
AA 98.81%
WN 98.78%
B6 98.66%

2016 (Jan-Dec) Ontime
DL 86.48%
UA 81.71%
WN 80.8%
AA 78.38%
B6 75.01%

UA runs a very solid operation and has for quite some time....UA TechOps doing what they do best is a part of that.

The issue must be serious (F-GSQD) to have remain at SFO now for a week.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Nothing wrong with either BTS data or FT perception. Shear number of flights US carriers operate makes the difference.

Eg., DL and its subs operate 1,971,000(5400x365) flights a year. 0.45% is 8869 flights.

Couldn't find UA daily flights number.

DL mainline canceled 4116 flights last year (out of 922,746)
UA 5470 (out of 545,067)
AA 10867 (out of 914,495)
WN 15866 (out of 1,299,444)
B6 3797 (out of 282,473)

jumbojet wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

UA has one of the better MROs in the world as far as quality goes.......
:

if that's the case, then why so many international cancellations? All one has to do is reference the appropriate flyertalk thread on UA international cancellations and you can see countless 747s going out due to MX, and the same for the 777 fleet. It sure has heck doesn't appear that the UA MRO is top notch to me, not with all the planes that get cancelled for maintenance

Read what I said about vendors like HAECO and Aeroman.

UA, DL and AA all send their international fleets to garbage water vendors for heavy checks and reliability has gone down. Its also why UA has decided to bring the Airbus overhauls back in-house.

But that has nothing to do with the airlines maintenance departments. Their hands are tied in the issue.

deltal1011man wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

UA has one of the better MROs in the world as far as quality goes.......
:

if that's the case, then why so many international cancellations? All one has to do is reference the appropriate flyertalk thread on UA international cancellations and you can see countless 747s going out due to MX, and the same for the 777 fleet. It sure has heck doesn't appear that the UA MRO is top notch to me, not with all the planes that get cancelled for maintenance

Read what I said about vendors like HAECO and Aeroman.

UA, DL and AA all send their international fleets to garbage water vendors for heavy checks and reliability has gone down. Its also why UA has decided to bring the Airbus overhauls back in-house.

But that has nothing to do with the airlines maintenance departments. Their hands are tied in the issue.

And after UA brought them in house reliability skyrocketed on the Airbus fleet. Imagine that.

As for UA maintenance cancellations, there were only 30 last month out of some 90,000 or so flights. Beware of the FT agenda.

I was under the impression that the poor reliability on UA, whether perceived or real, wasn't necessarily the fault of maintenance but had more to do with dispatching and overextending the fleet, especially in the summers of 2014 and 2015 when it seemed like a 767 went tech over the Atlantic about once a week.

B737900ER wrote:

Would you rather have swissport, or jet tech, or some other shade tree mechanic contractor working on it?

Depending on the vendor... I agree. However, as a slobbering non-union A&P working for a contracted vendor, I've followed behind some of the airlines maintenance people and wondered just how they got their A&Ps.

Even the airlines have some idiots rolling tool boxes around the hangars.

aircraft damaged at the gate was the reason it was at UAL maint base.

twincommander wrote:

B737900ER wrote:

Would you rather have swissport, or jet tech, or some other shade tree mechanic contractor working on it?

Depending on the vendor... I agree. However, as a slobbering non-union A&P working for a contracted vendor, I've followed behind some of the airlines maintenance people and wondered just how they got their A&Ps.

Even the airlines have some idiots rolling tool boxes around the hangars.

Truer words... In previous lives, I've worked both sides of that fence, and the only validity to that sentiment I've observed is that one's opinion depends primarily upon where one's paycheck is signed.

In my more general experience, large MRO bases are much more resource heavy (both in tooling and manpower); hence why AF would make the somewhat obvious choice of using UA TechOps at SFO. I'd be shocked if they'd spent more than 20 minutes making that decision.

On the other side of the table (not sure who you work for or what they have in this regard), but a lot of vendors handle downline AOG profoundly better than just about any airline would. They'll be a lot cheaper, have a pool of much more varietal experience available, and won't balk at things like working in rather, erm exotic locales, 20 hour days, they won't know what terms like "rocking chair money" mean etc.

As for who's innately better, more professional, etc...

Swissport gave me a world of line experience, GenFams, and practical troubleshooting knowledge. I also had my arm broken in three places by some jackass who wasn't paying attention to a very obvious task...

USAirways gave me a lot of really useful experience into what Heavy/Letter Checks are reasonably supposed to accomplish, as well as a chance to work QC & do a lot of RII. I also got a first class education of what a bunch dickbags people can be as the whole east/west thing started heating up. Everything from passive/aggressive malingering to vehicular vandalism to outright fistfights (off property in the case of the last).

I think there are great things everywhere, & I think there is shit everywhere, and what we choose to see where is what it is. If somebody's telling you you have an ugly baby, don't take it too hard. They've probably an ax to grind...


As all that pertains to this thread... Like I said, in this specific case, UA was the right choice. They have the Airframe and PP Exp for AF's 77Es, the hangar and manpower, but most importantly... They're there. AF was actually very lucky to go down that hard in a place like SFO.

deltal1011man wrote:

... Its also why UA has decided to bring the Airbus overhauls back in-house. ...

That is a positive development. How are the US based MRO facilities owned by Chinese/SE Asia operators in terms of quality?

jumbojet wrote:

KVH68 wrote:

I walked by it today. United is doing some work on it. That is all I can say.

UA was the best they could do?

well? Exactly whom would you consider BETTER at fixing it? And if SO? Then, tell them to take it there?? I'm Sure they'll take YOUR word for it!!

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

twincommander wrote:

B737900ER wrote:

Would you rather have swissport, or jet tech, or some other shade tree mechanic contractor working on it?

Depending on the vendor... I agree. However, as a slobbering non-union A&P working for a contracted vendor, I've followed behind some of the airlines maintenance people and wondered just how they got their A&Ps.

Even the airlines have some idiots rolling tool boxes around the hangars.

Truer words... In previous lives, I've worked both sides of that fence, and the only validity to that sentiment I've observed is that one's opinion depends primarily upon where one's paycheck is signed.

In my more general experience, large MRO bases are much more resource heavy (both in tooling and manpower); hence why AF would make the somewhat obvious choice of using UA TechOps at SFO. I'd be shocked if they'd spent more than 20 minutes making that decision.

On the other side of the table (not sure who you work for or what they have in this regard), but a lot of vendors handle downline AOG profoundly better than just about any airline would. They'll be a lot cheaper, have a pool of much more varietal experience available, and won't balk at things like working in rather, erm exotic locales, 20 hour days, they won't know what terms like "rocking chair money" mean etc.

As for who's innately better, more professional, etc...

Swissport gave me a world of line experience, GenFams, and practical troubleshooting knowledge. I also had my arm broken in three places by some jackass who wasn't paying attention to a very obvious task...

USAirways gave me a lot of really useful experience into what Heavy/Letter Checks are reasonably supposed to accomplish, as well as a chance to work QC & do a lot of RII. I also got a first class education of what a bunch dickbags people can be as the whole east/west thing started heating up. Everything from passive/aggressive malingering to vehicular vandalism to outright fistfights (off property in the case of the last).

I think there are great things everywhere, & I think there is shit everywhere, and what we choose to see where is what it is. If somebody's telling you you have an ugly baby, don't take it too hard. They've probably an ax to grind...


As all that pertains to this thread... Like I said, in this specific case, UA was the right choice. They have the Airframe and PP Exp for AF's 77Es, the hangar and manpower, but most importantly... They're there. AF was actually very lucky to go down that hard in a place like SFO.

When it comes to an individual mechanic it can be a wash sometimes. But when comparing the resources that UA and their entire maintenance department can provide, vs a contractor with his truck, there's no comparison.

Quote: "When it comes to an individual mechanic it can be a wash sometimes"

Especially true when it involves AF aircraft!

With so many comments on internet about washing this plane, AF may send its own security guards to protect it from any such atrocity.

I know a few people already drove this point home, but SFO is UA's largest MX base and they do a ton of heavy maintenance. They also have the most 777s of any U.S. airline, so AF are in good hands.

intotheair wrote:

I was under the impression that the poor reliability on UA, whether perceived or real, wasn't necessarily the fault of maintenance but had more to do with dispatching and overextending the fleet, especially in the summers of 2014 and 2015 when it seemed like a 767 went tech over the Atlantic about once a week.

I believe most of the reliability improvements have been due to new aircraft routings and padding the schedules. Compared to DL hubs, I think UA has more weather issues they need to deal with at ORD, SFO, and IAH. But going off of their performance last summer, they're doing a great job. I think I read somewhere that they'll be tightening the schedules but perhaps they are waiting (or have waited) for other parts of the operation to get up to speed.

[quote="DarkSnowyNight"][/quote]

I worked Corp MRO and for Seaport, then who I'm with now. (Will not be named)

Corp MRO was painful. I started there as a non-licensed mechanic, and was often performing repeat work after the "25 year veteran" fixed it. Was nearly killed on a test flight because of a veterans incompetence.

Seaport is self explanatory. They cut corners as much as possible. I was grilled as to why i found a major part out of tolerance and why we needed to do the repair procedure.

The company I'm with now had teething issues when i joined them, but have been cutting the fat for awhile. I agree though, the need for logistics is sometimes needed or required. Example: I had to change a windshield on a 747 in the rain, with a crane and boom lift.

US Airways is one of our examples on how to do work...

I was told that BA provided down the line maintenance support to VS at certain USA/Caribbean outstations so I guess cooperation behind the scenes does exist for the good of the aviation industry on the whole so there's really nothing untoward about another airlines aircraft being in the hanger of another's engineering facilities.

If you are around SFO enough, you will see Virgin America airplanes in the United hangar--with United technicians doing the maintenance. In the past year, I have seen at least 4 Virgin America planes at the SFO United maintenance base.

dtw2hyd wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

... Its also why UA has decided to bring the Airbus overhauls back in-house. ...

That is a positive development. How are the US based MRO facilities owned by Chinese/SE Asia operators in terms of quality?

Garbage.

Of course the US owned shops (looking at you AAR) are also crap.

twincommander wrote:

B737900ER wrote:

Would you rather have swissport, or jet tech, or some other shade tree mechanic contractor working on it?

Depending on the vendor... I agree. However, as a slobbering non-union A&P working for a contracted vendor, I've followed behind some of the airlines maintenance people and wondered just how they got their A&Ps.

Even the airlines have some idiots rolling tool boxes around the hangars.

Its not the mechanics that are the issue.

its the vendor themselves.
One the treat employees like dogs and work them like something worse.
but two the culture is completely different. They don't want mechanics looking for problems just fixing whatever is in the work package. "Finding" issues isn't a good thing at vendors, where it is a good thing at the airlines.


and God help you if you make a mistake and screw up even in the smallest amount.

910A wrote:

The issue must be serious (F-GSQD) to have remain at SFO now for a week.

Are you sure? QD was seen at Saigon today, Delhi yesterday, Santiago (SCL) the day before yesterday... and in SFO on 2/24.

Does it have an evil twin?

https://www.flightradar24.com/reg/f-gsqd

dcajet wrote:

910A wrote:

The issue must be serious (F-GSQD) to have remain at SFO now for a week.

Are you sure? QD was seen at Saigon today, Delhi yesterday, Santiago (SCL) the day before yesterday... and in SFO on 2/24.

Does it have an evil twin?

https://www.flightradar24.com/reg/f-gsqd

The aircraft is F-GSPQ