Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 27 Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2096 times:
I suppose because its probably cheaper then to have to train and keep a force of 737 maintainers, its more cost effective to have current work centers do the work.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2061 times:
and why wouldn't they?
In the UK they're seriously considering outsourcing all pilot training up to type conversion and gunnery training to a commercial company.
Pilots would be trained by them all the way from primary trainers into the Hawk (or whatever is going to replace it maybe).
A little maintenance work on some VIP transports and crew trainers seems insignificant in comparison...
Flynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1934 times:
As the C-40 is a relatively new aircraft in the military's inventory, the knowledge and experience with the airframe is limited, compared to that of the C-9 fleet. I'll be flying transcon on a C-9 or a C-40 this weekend, and I'll see what information I can gather, as to the depth of the maintenance that the USN/USAF outsource to DL.