Eastern is hiring
02-23-2022, 12:56 PM
#261
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,025
Originally Posted by ObadiahDogberry
Wait, are we now limited by which posts we can comment on now? Can we only respond to posts directed at us? Is this a new rule? Thanks for letting me know.
Make sure when you pick my post apart, that I'm wrong. In this case, you failed.
This post is directed at you. Feel free to respond. Apparently this is very important to you.
Do you feel that you're limited "by which posts we can comment on?" I said no such thing. You did. You've labled it a "rule." This is you, not me.
Your defense of his incorrect statement, however, does remain a curiosity. Perhaps you feel that two people who are wrong, somehow makes it right. Who knows?
02-23-2022, 01:06 PM
#262
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2020
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
You feel free to comment on whatever you like, Obadiah, as will I.
Make sure when you pick my post apart, that I'm wrong. In this case, you failed.
This post is directed at you. Feel free to respond. Apparently this is very important to you.
Do you feel that you're limited "by which posts we can comment on?" I said no such thing. You did. You've labled it a "rule." This is you, not me.
Your defense of his incorrect statement, however, does remain a curiosity. Perhaps you feel that two people who are wrong, somehow makes it right. Who knows?
Make sure when you pick my post apart, that I'm wrong. In this case, you failed.
This post is directed at you. Feel free to respond. Apparently this is very important to you.
Do you feel that you're limited "by which posts we can comment on?" I said no such thing. You did. You've labled it a "rule." This is you, not me.
Your defense of his incorrect statement, however, does remain a curiosity. Perhaps you feel that two people who are wrong, somehow makes it right. Who knows?
You seem quite easily offended and quick to anger.
02-23-2022, 03:51 PM
#263
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,025
Originally Posted by ObadiahDogberry
Man, I don’t know what your issue is. The FAA does have problems with Eastern’s MX program. The DoD has issues with Eastern’s reliability. This is why ETOPS got killed, and why the DoD cancelled Eastern’s international flying. Eastern does outsource maintenance of the aircraft in Peru, although in Lima, not in a jungle. Eastern does operate very old aircraft that break down a lot. Connect the dots here.
You seem quite easily offended and quick to anger.
You seem quite easily offended and quick to anger.
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.
02-23-2022, 04:14 PM
#264
In a land of unicorns
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Whale FO
Posts: 6,469
Originally Posted by ObadiahDogberry
Man, I don’t know what your issue is. The FAA does have problems with Eastern’s MX program. The DoD has issues with Eastern’s reliability. This is why ETOPS got killed, and why the DoD cancelled Eastern’s international flying. Eastern does outsource maintenance of the aircraft in Peru, although in Lima, not in a jungle. Eastern does operate very old aircraft that break down a lot. Connect the dots here.
You seem quite easily offended and quick to anger.
You seem quite easily offended and quick to anger.
02-23-2022, 06:12 PM
#265
At your mom's house
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: cpt 737
Posts: 2,661
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
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.
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.
02-24-2022, 01:38 AM
#266
On Reserve
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 16
JohnBurke, I did reply to you, and you have failed to even acknowledge that.
You claimed I "rambled and whined" in my three sentence post, but then responded with a four paragraph rambling dissertation that completely missed what I thought to be an obvious point, that cutting corners on maintenance with old aircraft is not a good combination for running a reliable operation. I am truly sorry that the words "maintained in the remote jungles of Peru by the lowest possible bidder" somehow eluded your ability to see I was also referencing maintenance issues. Please let me know how I can be more clear so you can have better comprehension in the future.
You claimed I "rambled and whined" in my three sentence post, but then responded with a four paragraph rambling dissertation that completely missed what I thought to be an obvious point, that cutting corners on maintenance with old aircraft is not a good combination for running a reliable operation. I am truly sorry that the words "maintained in the remote jungles of Peru by the lowest possible bidder" somehow eluded your ability to see I was also referencing maintenance issues. Please let me know how I can be more clear so you can have better comprehension in the future.
02-24-2022, 02:07 AM
#268
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2021
Posts: 319
Originally Posted by pilatusguy
Just for the record, I completely agree that well maintained older aircraft are perfectly fine and safe.
02-24-2022, 05:07 AM
#270
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: B737 CA
Posts: 307
Perhaps John works for Eastern and has rose colored glasses on. The base in Peru they use for mx is notorious for sending planes out with open MEL's and often with more broken than they went in with, I know this for a fact. When management gets upset because mx is spending too much money clearing MEL's early, you have a problem. Eastern and their ilk are famous for maximizing profits at all costs, ultimately the FAA and DoD recognize this and act accordingly
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
