Originally Posted by baseball

As a former CAL pilot I too was scratching my head on aircraft refusals during and shortly after the merger. However, I get it. I really do. I would like to change the culture on aircraft refusals too. I want MX to be told to get the aircraft in top shape. A MX guy told me the reason so many APU's are inop, is because they don't have the time to check the oil in the APU. So, allot of auto-shutdowns due to low oil and no time to check them on the line.

So, by refusing aircraft we are helping MX get their act together. But, I think the bigger picture is this: I wouldn't take an AC down to Lima, Sao Paulo, or Santiago with an inop APU. And, if the forecast had a reasonable chance to shoot a CAT 3, Land 3 approach I would want the APU up as it says in the book. Anything over the mountains in South America at night should simply require an APU, not just state "desirable" or "recommended" in the book. And, by bringing a jet down to SA with an inop APU you sure are tying the hands of the outbound Captain.

So, how do we change the culture of aircraft refusals? Hold MX accountable and raise the bar. Not a pilot problem. I think if we are refusing 2 per day, that's a high number, 14 per week, etc. But, how is it per fleet? I would argue the newer aircraft are likely easier to maintain. We parked the 747 due to reliability issues. The older the jet, the more touch-time MX needs to keep 'em flying. The 767-300 is a MX sensitive aircraft. So do allot of the 757's. They need some more MX touch time to maintain the same reliability rates as newer aircraft.