No, the department of defense's issues with Eastern, whatever, they may be, did not "get ETOPS killed."

There's no need to connect dots, as it's irrelevant. Presently, a third party report exists regarding the FAA decision to curtail the ETOPS certification program for Eastern. Specifics are not given.

Connect the dots, you say. You provided the dots. Lima, Peru: a dot. Old Aircraft: a dot. ETOPS "killed" (certification program discontinued): a dot. You make straw man connections between the DoD and the FAA, and ETOPS, and neither you nor I know the reason that the ETOPS certification was discontinued, nor have we been provided with the reason for DoD cancellation (though without the ability to move personnel or freight, it's hard to maintain a contract).

Clearly one cannot infer the reason for ETOPS certification discontinuance based on maintenance done in Kansas City, Lima Peru, or anywhere else. There are numerous operators that get maintenance done around the world; it's common to send an airplane to Shanghai, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, or any number of other locations to get work done. How does this "dot" infer in any way that maintenance is poor, or point to a reason for discontinuance of the ETOPS certification, or loss of a DoD contract?

You've jumped on the age bandwagon: another of your "dots." Given that numerous other carriers operate a number of same-age aircraft under ETOPS and on international routes for DoD (et al), age is irrelevant. Kalitta operates numerous older aircraft on DoD contracts, as does Atlas. WGA does DoD charter; its aircraft are no spring chickens. Omni does the majority of it's flying with older aircraft on DoD operations, and maintains a stellar relationship with the DoD, and a 3 hour ETOPS capability, and polar capability. Age as a "dot" is a rather ignorant, irrelevant talking point

Your previous comment is correct: bad maintenance is unacceptable, regardless of the operator, or operation. Age, however, is not evidence of bad maintenance. Use of Lima, Peru is not evidence of bad maintenance. Loss of a DoD contract is not evidence of bad maintenance. Suspension of ETOPS is not evidence of bad maintenance. There are numerous reasons for any one of those. It's entirely possible that Eastern does have bad maintenance, though their Director of Maintenance is the prior DoM for Skywest, and Mesaba.

I do not assume. It's clear that you do.

Introduction of entirely irrelevant issues, such as age, or the use of a repair facility in Lima (or anywhere else) is an attempt to muddy whatever waters you happen to be stirring: you are seeking to cloud the issue. The statement has been made that ETOPS certification has been, for the present, suspended. The rationale for this has not been given. You've assumed the reason, and thrown in "dots" in an effort to support your assumption. I don't know why ETOPS certification was suspended. I don't assume.

When one throws mindless, ignorant statements up to see what sticks, such as operating 30 year old aircraft equates to an unsafe or unreliable operation (clearly not true), or infers that the age of the aircraft is the reason or part of the reason for either halting ETOPS certification, or for DoD contract stoppage, one is speaking from one's backside. The poster to whom I replied initially engaged is this ridiculousness; you've seconded it. Again, a curiosity. A lover of guesswork, apparently, and an embracer of assumption. So be it.

I'm not angry in the least. Amused, perhaps, but hardly angry. I don't give either of you enough credence for anger. Passing entertainment, perhaps, but not anger. You've mistaken laughing at you, for discontent.