Re: UA/SFO Reliability?

From:         inc@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Benson)
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date:         05 May 93 14:14:52 PDT
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1993.390@ohareChicago.COM> kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes:

 . . . after the 1972 DC-10 cargo
>door incident over Windsor, Ontario, United was the first to complete
>implementation of the modifications called for by MD's service bulletin
>on their entire fleet.  In fact, despite having the largest DC-10 fleet
>at the time (15 of the 39 in service), United was nearly done before
>anyone else started -- a single National DC-10 was completed just one
>week before the last of United's.

It seems that many factors could account for this. Perhaps as the larger
airline, United has more direct access to mods, update packages, parts.
Maybe in fact, they were automatically sent them in accord with a prior
agreement, while little National had to first learn of it, order the parts,
(go get them?) or whatnot.

Just stating the facts makes United sound like an eager-beaver go-getter and
National like a foot-dragging sloth; in fact, for United the whole thing
might have been SOP while National, try as they might, could have been
simply unable to get the parts.

Does anyone have any particulars? Or is United really swell and National
just so-so when it comes to these matters?

Gary Benson   -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-inc@sisu.fluke.com_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pedantic and that's just as good.  -D. Gary Grady