Comments for Wee Choo Keong |
- Comment on DCA failed to withdraw the AOC of FAX / AirAsia X in 2007 (Part 1) by Yen
- Comment on DCA failed to withdraw the AOC of FAX / AirAsia X in 2007 (Part 1) by Now Everyone Can Laugh Loud
- Comment on DCA failed to withdraw the AOC of FAX / AirAsia X in 2007 (Part 1) by Anonymous
- Comment on DCA failed to withdraw the AOC of FAX / AirAsia X in 2007 (Part 1) by Now Everyone Can Fly and Die
- Comment on DCA failed to withdraw the AOC of FAX / AirAsia X in 2007 (Part 1) by A Double Con Job
- Comment on DCA failed to withdraw the AOC of FAX / AirAsia X in 2007 (Part 1) by Now Everyone Cannot Bullshit
- Comment on DCA failed to withdraw the AOC of FAX / AirAsia X in 2007 (Part 1) by Anonymous
- Comment on DCA failed to withdraw the AOC of FAX / AirAsia X in 2007 (Part 1) by Anonymous
- Comment on DCA failed to withdraw the AOC of FAX / AirAsia X in 2007 (Part 1) by Lim
| Comment on DCA failed to withdraw the AOC of FAX / AirAsia X in 2007 (Part 1) by Yen Posted: 24 Dec 2012 03:51 AM PST Now Everyone Can Con! |
| Posted: 24 Dec 2012 03:00 AM PST Would love to hear what that pariah had to say about RAS aircraft have been cannibalized for spare parts. Now Everyone Can Laugh Loud! Ka! Ka! Ka! Ka! Cannot wait to read the part 2. |
| Comment on DCA failed to withdraw the AOC of FAX / AirAsia X in 2007 (Part 1) by Anonymous Posted: 23 Dec 2012 10:50 PM PST Unless, the DCA and the Administration was in on it. It was all a scam by all the parties related to this, to give the long haul division to AA, its own AOC and a whole bag of cash to boot. |
| Posted: 23 Dec 2012 09:42 PM PST AirAsia’s AOC valid for only 6 months due to non-compliance with safety regulations.That speaks volumes. Actions should have been taken during the RAS day. But DCA didn’t may be it was during the Sleepy Head times. That was the time when the 4th Floor was running high. Whatever the 4th Floor wanted they will get it. Nevertheless the government should take actions against the officer because safety was an issue here. DCA is the authority on aviation safety. This was a case of Harapkan pagar, pagar makan padi! Now Everyone Can Fly and Die. |
| Comment on DCA failed to withdraw the AOC of FAX / AirAsia X in 2007 (Part 1) by A Double Con Job Posted: 23 Dec 2012 09:12 PM PST The facts of the case clearly showed that FAX aka AirAsia X never had the intention to operate the RAS from the word go. It was just a scheme to get what they wanted. How could air services be sub-contracted why the sub-contractor, FAX had no experience. How could DCA grant the AOC under such circumstances? Why AOC was not withdrawn when it was discovered that so many aircraft were cannibalized for spare parts and no replacement. If one or two parts were cannibalized for emergency whilst they were on order then we can understand. In the case of FAX there was no intention to replace. Action should be taken against the DCA officer that who approved the AOC for FAX and thereafter approved it to be used for AirAsia X. Now Everyone Can Take The Sleepy Head For A Ride! |
| Posted: 23 Dec 2012 08:37 PM PST Merry Christmas Tony. Now Everyone Know Your Business Model! Never knew that a company like FAX/AirAsia X which was not an air operator was given an AOC just like that. Bloody scam. DCA officer must be brought to book for its failure to act when those aircraft were cannibalized. |
| Comment on DCA failed to withdraw the AOC of FAX / AirAsia X in 2007 (Part 1) by Anonymous Posted: 23 Dec 2012 10:27 AM PST @Hisham, It is quite common practise with all airlines to take serviceable parts from one aircraft or major assembly and fit it to another in order to keep it flying. This process is call cannibalization and is quite safe for so log as there are sufficient processes to track the act and the safety of the aircraft is not impacted. If the cannibalized aircraft were required for service, then this act is temporary in nature and the cannibalized part replaced. Sometimes this is done in AOG situation until the ordered part arrive. In fact if this is done even more for fleets that are due to be retired/replaced. It is also done when the number of aircraft exceeds the requirements. The issue here is that the F50 was neither being replaced nor retired nor was the number of aircraft even meeting the capacity requirement. Hence the situation where FAX have had to cancel services due to lack of aircraft. FAX had never intended to invest in a new fleet like MASWings. They stopped replacing the cannibalized parts when they had decided on exiting the services. I think it would be safe to conclude the following: Another wheeling and dealing by TF within full view of sleepy head. |
| Comment on DCA failed to withdraw the AOC of FAX / AirAsia X in 2007 (Part 1) by Anonymous Posted: 23 Dec 2012 10:23 AM PST A real con job. DCA what the hell are the officers doing in 2007? Sleeping or doing something else? |
| Comment on DCA failed to withdraw the AOC of FAX / AirAsia X in 2007 (Part 1) by Lim Posted: 23 Dec 2012 09:34 AM PST Ho Ho Ho! Christmas came a bit early for TF. Now Someone Cannot Talk Any More! |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Comments for Wee Choo Keong To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan