|
|
|
|
|
|
by roughly
908 days ago
|
|
|
Yeah, no part of the rest of this story suggests the charitable interpretation is the right one. I can see a case for being more aggressive about ensuring large machines get serviced before they can do harm, but I don’t actually think that’s what this company was doing. |
|
|
When original issues were big in media, they made PR campaign good other workshops were incompetent.
To compare in aviation terms, it was like plane manufacturer claiming Part 145 certified MRO with the necessary type certificates weren't good enough and you should only service at manufacturer - despite having outright bought the machine in total (no leasing)