8 ms·

> Delta would not say if the engines with the fraudulently documented parts had been on planes while they were in service. If they weren't, Delta would say so,

> Delta would not say if the engines with the fraudulently documented parts had been on planes while they were in service. If they weren't, Delta would say so, since it makes them look better. That they won't say means the parts were used in service. > None of Delta’s aircraft are currently flying with unapproved parts, and the discovery hasn’t affected flight operations How do they know? Even these fake parts were not detected by Delta but "were detected during engine work by an unnamed third party."

tjoff 3y ago
> That they won't say means the parts were used in service. Or they don't know.
- RockRobotRock 3y ago
  Feel like the traceability of those things would be really good. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit.
  - fransje26 3y ago
    It is really good. That's how they found out.
    - rbanffy 3y ago
      I worked in one, and currently work in another, company that makes such tracking tools and I can say that we keep track of a lot of things, from tobacco to the screws that hold the turbine blades. Everything is tracked.
      - mulmen 3y ago
        Why and how do you track tobacco? Is that a typo?
        imp0cat 3y ago
        https://health.ec.europa.eu/tobacco/product-regulation/systems-tobacco-traceability-and-security-features_en https://health.ec.europa.eu/tobacco/product-regulation/syste... > to address the issue of illicit trade
        mulmen 3y ago
        Oh I was only thinking in an aerospace context. That makes sense.
        rbanffy 3y ago
        In the context of space travel, or spaced out travel, that's not tobacco you'd need.
        hef19898 3y ago
        Never worked on stuff getting into peoples boddies, but the reason propably is that yes, people inhale it. Hence the tracking, after all chips have lot numbers printed on the packaging.
        sumtechguy 3y ago
        For food items it is usually in case something is wrong with it making people sick they can issue a recall.
    - onion2k 3y ago
      Or it's barely working and they found the 21 easiest-to-find examples out of an unknown quantity.
      - fransje26 3y ago
        The time-on-wing before overhaul advertised for the CFM56 is 10'000 hours. Now, take your car, drive it for that long at 50 kph, and you come out at 500'000 km (or 312'500 miles, if that's how you tick.) before major components need inspecting and/or changing. That's how good the parts are, and how well the traceability of those parts is working.
  - ChrisRR 3y ago
    Traceability always has its blind spots. Even in my experience in medical devices there's been issues with manufacturers who swap components out for what they considered to be equivalent components, and sensor manufacturers that change their components without informing the customers because they considered the functionality to be identical (spoilers, it wasn't)
- yellow_lead 3y ago
  Maybe. Also concerning
- irjustin 3y ago
  They know. This isn't like a car. Everything is traced.
  - meragrin_ 3y ago
    Just because they have the information does not mean it is readily available in a form which will answer a question. Parts currently in service is probably something they have regular use for and is easy to access. Figuring out the complete history of a part probably takes quite a bit longer and is not a frequent use. Throw in several parts and I can believe they aren't ready to commit to an answer.
  - j16sdiz 3y ago
    everything is traced. ...but we are talking about forged documents. How can we sure the trace records are not forged? Cross checking take time
- tremon 3y ago
  It seems AOG Technics operated by falsifying part manifests using the names of accredited suppliers: https://fortune.com/2023/09/22/why-so-many-flights-canceled-delayed-aog-technics-fake-parts-american-airlines/ https://fortune.com/2023/09/22/why-so-many-flights-canceled-... CFM, the engine manufacturer, became aware of the issues in June when a Portuguese repair shop alerted it to the existence of allegedly forged documents bearing its name So presumably, all (?) they had to do was trace the paperwork from all parts supplied through AOG Technics, and contact the suppliers in those documents to verify the documents/parts were real.
MarkMarine 3y ago
They probably had to trace all the certs for every certified part in their engines, and found 21 where the paperwork was suspect.
bagels 3y ago
They might know who supplied them and when.
- worthless-trash 3y ago
  They absolutely know who supplied them and when, there is certificates for all hardware on these planes.
  - rbanffy 3y ago
    That, and tracking goes all the way to the original manufacturer. To make an undetectable forgery would require faking all documentation right up to the original manufacturer.
woopsn 3y ago
Baseless speculation.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  It's not baseless, it's logical. There is a huge incentive for Delta to state "customers can rest assured they were never installed on planes". There is no possibility that they don't know since they're required by law to document use and location of all parts and tools they use for maintenance.
  - tankenmate 3y ago
    The OP's assertion lacks foundation, and hence can correctly be classified as "baseless". If the OP has proof then they should come forward with it; if the OP lacks proof then ipso facto it is "baseless".
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      The foundation is the information in the article. Saying it has no foundation, ipso facto it is baseless, is just laundering your subjective opinion to make it sound objective.
    - Pyramus 3y ago
      You are confusing "no base" with "no evidence". A basis can also be logical support. And OP has outlined the logical (decision theoretical) foundations of their reasoning pretty clearly.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
tankenmate 3y ago
Approval != safe. Some authentic parts break, some inauthentic parts don't. There is probably a correlation, but it's not immediately clear what it is in most let alone all circumstances. The aero parts business is supposed to be a chain of trust, similar to the chain of custody you'd have for court evidence. It's there so you can ascertain provenance of parts in case something goes wrong. Inspections are there to "prove" that parts are safe to fly, or at least as close as you can get vs the cost to inspect, overhaul, replace etc. Any level of certainty has a cost attached to it. The fact that they found these parts and that investigations are ongoing is certain level of proof that the system works. The other, more drastic, form of proof is that the number of crashes per year due to faulty parts is kept low. As to "fake" parts, we don't know the whole situation yet; they may be genuine parts but just may lack certification. This is what the investigation is for.
- mywacaday 3y ago
  Authentic parts are appropriately tested, have known tested failure modes and well understood lifespans that are built into maintenance schedules. If a fake part fails outside of the known failure scenarios there is a cost in investigating that issue and resolving it even if the failure is not catastrophic.
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  This is a bad take. “Real” parts are known. Real parts are tested, and their failure modes are understood in relation to each other. Yea you can get lucky on a fake or a bad apple on a real one but that’s just luck. The story surely would be “delta accidentally has been buying a superior part” if the parts were more reliable. > As to "fake" parts, we don't know the whole situation yet; they may be genuine parts but just may lack certification If this was the case it wouldn’t have forged certification. The only way this would be true is if delta was buying genuine parts from sketchy resellers and distributors which doesn’t make them look much better. The damning evidence to all this is the forgery. If you buy “off brand” generic parts, you should know that you are. To forge a document is a deliberate, non accidental, action to lie and deceive. Why would anyone do that unless the part was inferior?
dspillett 3y ago
> If they weren't, Delta would say so, since it makes them look better. That they won't say means the parts were used in service. I tend to take that sort of cynical view too, though there is a more generous explanation that could be¹ possible: they haven't absolutely finished checking yet, and don't want to say something that they later need to correct. That could look worse than being vague to start with. -- [1] caveat: I know little of their parts tracking systems, I don't know how likely it is that a more definitive answer cannot be given that quickly.
- DSingularity 3y ago
  So your lack of cynicism here is because you have knowledge of their internal processes and not because you are logically concluding companies would prefer to be vague over risking the need to backtrack later. I say this because I have 0 faith in corporations. I believe corporate decision making is guided by (a) what they can get away with and (b) what minimizes their downside.
  - dspillett 3y ago
    I don't lack the cynicism. I just temper it with the knowledge that it is possible, however unlikely, that they aren't being completely disingenuous arseholes 100% of the time. Accepting a more generous explanation could be true doesn't mean I'm going to believe it actually is without further evidence!
    - registeredcorn 3y ago
      I'm pretty much on the same page as you with this! When it comes to aviation related issues, I tend to assume corporate reasoning to go something like: They make somewhat of a better effort to be sincere, not because they are somehow more trustworthy than in other fields, but rather because of the fear they have if they were caught in a lie. With something like software, it might suck, but they could generally pay a fine, or testify in front of congress and move on with their life. With something involving aviation, they could be culpable for the loss of human life, or have a permanent mark of being unsafe ala TWA. This isn't even to say that I would necessarily believe that the executives of these companies would care about the loss of human life, but merely that the risks associated with getting caught are so much higher that, even someone with an inability to feel empathy would understand how damaging it would be to their career - it would be in their best interest to pretend to have integrity.
amelius 3y ago
That they don't say makes them look worse.
- martin-t 3y ago
  In the minds of smart people, yes. But most people don't think that way - they don't go through the possibilities to realize this.
INTPenis 3y ago
I don't think it's possible to say. All we know is that fake parts are in circulation. We can assume some aircraft have fake parts out there, or there wouldn't be a market for them. But it must be hard to trace fake parts.
- Mandatum 3y ago
  The best way to be sure is to fly in planes used by the US military. They don’t fuck around with their supply chains. But then again, they also buy direct from factory and keep parts on hand for decades.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    No ide how it is in the US military, but the military supply chains I know face the risk of having obsolete parts, parts not being compatible with certain aircraft configurations, reused parts, used and damaged spare parts... And, in case of civilian hardware (e.g. AWACS engines, Poseidon aircraft...) also counterfeits.
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    and also pay insane rates for otherwise basic, market-rate parts. and most of them probably don't need to be ultra high grade.
  - supermatt 3y ago
    Counterfeit parts are everywhere, including US military. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2022/09/13/an-f-16-pilot-died-when-his-ejection-seat-failed-was-it-counterfeit/ https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2022/09/13...
ChrisRR 3y ago
> If they weren't, Delta would say so, since it makes them look better. That they won't say means the parts were used in service. It's more likely that they haven't checked every single plane yet to be able to say either way.
- Pasorrijer 3y ago
  This is incorrect. As soon as one incident was found, they would have had to ground the fleet until they had checked all the rest of the planes. It's not a should, could, maybe, it's a your fleet is not flying if you find a problem like this and haven't checked.
  - pc86 3y ago
    This is very obviously not the case. The odds of all 21 parts being found and them knowing same-business-day that the same part of the same supplier isn't on any of their other planes is approximately zero. The odds of even finding all of these 21 occurrences is slim although not zero. Just logistically there were likely several days or even weeks where they knew there were fraudulent parts in the wild and didn't know whether or not any in-service planes were affected. You're not required to ground your fleet on a hunch, you are allowed to investigate to see if there is actually an issue before bankrupting your legacy airline. I'm not aware of Delta grounding its entire fleet anytime in recent history, so clearly your statement is false.
  - JackFr 3y ago
    Which is why they were able to assert that no planes were currently flying with them. But have any of the fleet ever flown with them in the past? Much harder question which likely will take some time to correlate.
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    Delta has not grounded their fleet, and if it had this would have been widely reported. I don't understand why you would state that so confidently.
  - ChrisRR 3y ago
baryphonic 3y ago
It's possible they don't know yet. The blowback might be intense if they categorically denied having the undocumented parts on an operating aircraft and then had to walk that back, especially in an industry like air travel which is hyper-competitive and depends on customer trust.
belter 3y ago
Message to Delta...Before maintenance on your airplanes..Check your suppliers Google Maps reviews... https://www.google.com/maps/place/AOG+Technics/@51.497673,-0.1456923,17z/data=!4m8!3m7!1s0x48760520fe046099:0xea4b0be5f559308b!8m2!3d51.497673!4d-0.1431174!9m1!1b1!16s%2Fg%2F11qls7xyn7?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/place/AOG+Technics/@51.497673,-0...
- hirundo 3y ago
  I suspect that some of the reviews may not be completely accurate. "I asked for a flux capacitor but received a food processor instead. But it does make good guacamole."
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    It’s more credible than ordering a food processor and getting a flux capacitor?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  That supplier appears to have had zero reviews on Google prior to this making the news; they're all either clear trolls or clearly referencing the fake parts scandal. Checking wouldn't have revealed the issue.
  - belter 3y ago
    Most are trolling, but Delta spokesperson confirmed it last Monday according to article. Article is from Tuesday. Looks like there is at least one review from 4 weeks ago saying... "Famous purveyor of counterfeit parts."
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      If you read the article, you'll notice this: > American Airlines Group Inc., United Airlines Holdings Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co. previously disclosed finding parts from AOG Technics Ltd. on aircraft engines. Southwest confirmed having flown bad parts about a month ago. https://fortune.com/2023/09/08/southwest-air-engine-suspect-parts/ https://fortune.com/2023/09/08/southwest-air-engine-suspect-... First news about the supplier appears to be Aug 31: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-31/fake-spare-parts-were-supplied-to-fix-top-selling-jet-engines https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-31/fake-spar...
brahbrah 3y ago
> If they weren't, Delta would say so, since it makes them look better. That they won't say means the parts were used in service. More likely they would just never comment whether it makes them look better or not, because otherwise for the reason you stated you could always gather the information they didn’t want you to have in the negative case.
brookst 3y ago
Regarding the second, I don’t think we need every company statement to be even more littered with weasely “to the best of our knowledge” and “as far as we know” language. Anything they say should be assumed to be good faith, best of knowledge, and with the understanding that it’s always possible for new information to come to light.
Fatnino 3y ago
A fraudulently approved part is still an approved part until it's detected. All Delta is saying is that they aren't flying any of the bad parts they found. Just a bunch of PR fluff, nothing of substance.
filoleg 3y ago
> If they weren't, Delta would say so, since it makes them look better. That they won't say means the parts were used in service. If that ends up being their final answer, with no future update either affirming or denying that the engines with the fraudulently documented parts had been on planes, I will agree with you. But of now, seems like they are in a state of “we haven’t any fraudulently documented parts in use, but we haven’t checked everything 100% yet to claim so without running a risk of being wrong and having to backtrack later.” However, as these news just now came out, I think it is fair for them to say “we cannot confirm” at the moment (as long as a more concrete update is coming in the future). It is way less problematic to say “we cannot confirm” and update later with “everything is clear, all is good” or “we found fraudulently documented parts to be in use”, rather than claim one now before all the information is available, and then backtrack. And as others have pointed out already - Delta said they were sure none of the aircraft currently operating use fraudulently documented parts, but obviously it takes more time to make sure that none of the aircraft had used fraudulently documented parts before.

tjoff 3y ago

> That they won't say means the parts were used in service. Or they don't know.

RockRobotRock 3y ago
Feel like the traceability of those things would be really good. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit.
- fransje26 3y ago
  It is really good. That's how they found out.
  - rbanffy 3y ago
    I worked in one, and currently work in another, company that makes such tracking tools and I can say that we keep track of a lot of things, from tobacco to the screws that hold the turbine blades. Everything is tracked.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      Why and how do you track tobacco? Is that a typo?
      - imp0cat 3y ago
        https://health.ec.europa.eu/tobacco/product-regulation/systems-tobacco-traceability-and-security-features_en https://health.ec.europa.eu/tobacco/product-regulation/syste... > to address the issue of illicit trade
        mulmen 3y ago
        Oh I was only thinking in an aerospace context. That makes sense.
        rbanffy 3y ago
        In the context of space travel, or spaced out travel, that's not tobacco you'd need.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        Never worked on stuff getting into peoples boddies, but the reason propably is that yes, people inhale it. Hence the tracking, after all chips have lot numbers printed on the packaging.
        sumtechguy 3y ago
        For food items it is usually in case something is wrong with it making people sick they can issue a recall.
  - onion2k 3y ago
    Or it's barely working and they found the 21 easiest-to-find examples out of an unknown quantity.
    - fransje26 3y ago
      The time-on-wing before overhaul advertised for the CFM56 is 10'000 hours. Now, take your car, drive it for that long at 50 kph, and you come out at 500'000 km (or 312'500 miles, if that's how you tick.) before major components need inspecting and/or changing. That's how good the parts are, and how well the traceability of those parts is working.
- ChrisRR 3y ago
  Traceability always has its blind spots. Even in my experience in medical devices there's been issues with manufacturers who swap components out for what they considered to be equivalent components, and sensor manufacturers that change their components without informing the customers because they considered the functionality to be identical (spoilers, it wasn't)
yellow_lead 3y ago
Maybe. Also concerning
irjustin 3y ago
They know. This isn't like a car. Everything is traced.
- meragrin_ 3y ago
  Just because they have the information does not mean it is readily available in a form which will answer a question. Parts currently in service is probably something they have regular use for and is easy to access. Figuring out the complete history of a part probably takes quite a bit longer and is not a frequent use. Throw in several parts and I can believe they aren't ready to commit to an answer.
- j16sdiz 3y ago
  everything is traced. ...but we are talking about forged documents. How can we sure the trace records are not forged? Cross checking take time
tremon 3y ago
It seems AOG Technics operated by falsifying part manifests using the names of accredited suppliers: https://fortune.com/2023/09/22/why-so-many-flights-canceled-delayed-aog-technics-fake-parts-american-airlines/ https://fortune.com/2023/09/22/why-so-many-flights-canceled-... CFM, the engine manufacturer, became aware of the issues in June when a Portuguese repair shop alerted it to the existence of allegedly forged documents bearing its name So presumably, all (?) they had to do was trace the paperwork from all parts supplied through AOG Technics, and contact the suppliers in those documents to verify the documents/parts were real.

MarkMarine 3y ago

They probably had to trace all the certs for every certified part in their engines, and found 21 where the paperwork was suspect.

bagels 3y ago

They might know who supplied them and when.

worthless-trash 3y ago
They absolutely know who supplied them and when, there is certificates for all hardware on these planes.
- rbanffy 3y ago
  That, and tracking goes all the way to the original manufacturer. To make an undetectable forgery would require faking all documentation right up to the original manufacturer.

woopsn 3y ago

Baseless speculation.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
It's not baseless, it's logical. There is a huge incentive for Delta to state "customers can rest assured they were never installed on planes". There is no possibility that they don't know since they're required by law to document use and location of all parts and tools they use for maintenance.
- tankenmate 3y ago
  The OP's assertion lacks foundation, and hence can correctly be classified as "baseless". If the OP has proof then they should come forward with it; if the OP lacks proof then ipso facto it is "baseless".
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    The foundation is the information in the article. Saying it has no foundation, ipso facto it is baseless, is just laundering your subjective opinion to make it sound objective.
  - Pyramus 3y ago
    You are confusing "no base" with "no evidence". A basis can also be logical support. And OP has outlined the logical (decision theoretical) foundations of their reasoning pretty clearly.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

tankenmate 3y ago

Approval != safe. Some authentic parts break, some inauthentic parts don't. There is probably a correlation, but it's not immediately clear what it is in most let alone all circumstances. The aero parts business is supposed to be a chain of trust, similar to the chain of custody you'd have for court evidence. It's there so you can ascertain provenance of parts in case something goes wrong. Inspections are there to "prove" that parts are safe to fly, or at least as close as you can get vs the cost to inspect, overhaul, replace etc. Any level of certainty has a cost attached to it. The fact that they found these parts and that investigations are ongoing is certain level of proof that the system works. The other, more drastic, form of proof is that the number of crashes per year due to faulty parts is kept low. As to "fake" parts, we don't know the whole situation yet; they may be genuine parts but just may lack certification. This is what the investigation is for.

mywacaday 3y ago
Authentic parts are appropriately tested, have known tested failure modes and well understood lifespans that are built into maintenance schedules. If a fake part fails outside of the known failure scenarios there is a cost in investigating that issue and resolving it even if the failure is not catastrophic.
vineyardmike 3y ago
This is a bad take. “Real” parts are known. Real parts are tested, and their failure modes are understood in relation to each other. Yea you can get lucky on a fake or a bad apple on a real one but that’s just luck. The story surely would be “delta accidentally has been buying a superior part” if the parts were more reliable. > As to "fake" parts, we don't know the whole situation yet; they may be genuine parts but just may lack certification If this was the case it wouldn’t have forged certification. The only way this would be true is if delta was buying genuine parts from sketchy resellers and distributors which doesn’t make them look much better. The damning evidence to all this is the forgery. If you buy “off brand” generic parts, you should know that you are. To forge a document is a deliberate, non accidental, action to lie and deceive. Why would anyone do that unless the part was inferior?

dspillett 3y ago

> If they weren't, Delta would say so, since it makes them look better. That they won't say means the parts were used in service. I tend to take that sort of cynical view too, though there is a more generous explanation that could be¹ possible: they haven't absolutely finished checking yet, and don't want to say something that they later need to correct. That could look worse than being vague to start with. -- [1] caveat: I know little of their parts tracking systems, I don't know how likely it is that a more definitive answer cannot be given that quickly.

DSingularity 3y ago
So your lack of cynicism here is because you have knowledge of their internal processes and not because you are logically concluding companies would prefer to be vague over risking the need to backtrack later. I say this because I have 0 faith in corporations. I believe corporate decision making is guided by (a) what they can get away with and (b) what minimizes their downside.
- dspillett 3y ago
  I don't lack the cynicism. I just temper it with the knowledge that it is possible, however unlikely, that they aren't being completely disingenuous arseholes 100% of the time. Accepting a more generous explanation could be true doesn't mean I'm going to believe it actually is without further evidence!
  - registeredcorn 3y ago
    I'm pretty much on the same page as you with this! When it comes to aviation related issues, I tend to assume corporate reasoning to go something like: They make somewhat of a better effort to be sincere, not because they are somehow more trustworthy than in other fields, but rather because of the fear they have if they were caught in a lie. With something like software, it might suck, but they could generally pay a fine, or testify in front of congress and move on with their life. With something involving aviation, they could be culpable for the loss of human life, or have a permanent mark of being unsafe ala TWA. This isn't even to say that I would necessarily believe that the executives of these companies would care about the loss of human life, but merely that the risks associated with getting caught are so much higher that, even someone with an inability to feel empathy would understand how damaging it would be to their career - it would be in their best interest to pretend to have integrity.

amelius 3y ago

That they don't say makes them look worse.

martin-t 3y ago
In the minds of smart people, yes. But most people don't think that way - they don't go through the possibilities to realize this.

INTPenis 3y ago

I don't think it's possible to say. All we know is that fake parts are in circulation. We can assume some aircraft have fake parts out there, or there wouldn't be a market for them. But it must be hard to trace fake parts.

Mandatum 3y ago
The best way to be sure is to fly in planes used by the US military. They don’t fuck around with their supply chains. But then again, they also buy direct from factory and keep parts on hand for decades.
- hef19898 3y ago
  No ide how it is in the US military, but the military supply chains I know face the risk of having obsolete parts, parts not being compatible with certain aircraft configurations, reused parts, used and damaged spare parts... And, in case of civilian hardware (e.g. AWACS engines, Poseidon aircraft...) also counterfeits.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  and also pay insane rates for otherwise basic, market-rate parts. and most of them probably don't need to be ultra high grade.
- supermatt 3y ago
  Counterfeit parts are everywhere, including US military. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2022/09/13/an-f-16-pilot-died-when-his-ejection-seat-failed-was-it-counterfeit/ https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2022/09/13...

ChrisRR 3y ago

> If they weren't, Delta would say so, since it makes them look better. That they won't say means the parts were used in service. It's more likely that they haven't checked every single plane yet to be able to say either way.

Pasorrijer 3y ago
This is incorrect. As soon as one incident was found, they would have had to ground the fleet until they had checked all the rest of the planes. It's not a should, could, maybe, it's a your fleet is not flying if you find a problem like this and haven't checked.
- pc86 3y ago
  This is very obviously not the case. The odds of all 21 parts being found and them knowing same-business-day that the same part of the same supplier isn't on any of their other planes is approximately zero. The odds of even finding all of these 21 occurrences is slim although not zero. Just logistically there were likely several days or even weeks where they knew there were fraudulent parts in the wild and didn't know whether or not any in-service planes were affected. You're not required to ground your fleet on a hunch, you are allowed to investigate to see if there is actually an issue before bankrupting your legacy airline. I'm not aware of Delta grounding its entire fleet anytime in recent history, so clearly your statement is false.
- JackFr 3y ago
  Which is why they were able to assert that no planes were currently flying with them. But have any of the fleet ever flown with them in the past? Much harder question which likely will take some time to correlate.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  Delta has not grounded their fleet, and if it had this would have been widely reported. I don't understand why you would state that so confidently.
- ChrisRR 3y ago

baryphonic 3y ago

It's possible they don't know yet. The blowback might be intense if they categorically denied having the undocumented parts on an operating aircraft and then had to walk that back, especially in an industry like air travel which is hyper-competitive and depends on customer trust.

belter 3y ago

Message to Delta...Before maintenance on your airplanes..Check your suppliers Google Maps reviews... https://www.google.com/maps/place/AOG+Technics/@51.497673,-0.1456923,17z/data=!4m8!3m7!1s0x48760520fe046099:0xea4b0be5f559308b!8m2!3d51.497673!4d-0.1431174!9m1!1b1!16s%2Fg%2F11qls7xyn7?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/place/AOG+Technics/@51.497673,-0...

hirundo 3y ago
I suspect that some of the reviews may not be completely accurate. "I asked for a flux capacitor but received a food processor instead. But it does make good guacamole."
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  It’s more credible than ordering a food processor and getting a flux capacitor?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 3y ago
That supplier appears to have had zero reviews on Google prior to this making the news; they're all either clear trolls or clearly referencing the fake parts scandal. Checking wouldn't have revealed the issue.
- belter 3y ago
  Most are trolling, but Delta spokesperson confirmed it last Monday according to article. Article is from Tuesday. Looks like there is at least one review from 4 weeks ago saying... "Famous purveyor of counterfeit parts."
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    If you read the article, you'll notice this: > American Airlines Group Inc., United Airlines Holdings Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co. previously disclosed finding parts from AOG Technics Ltd. on aircraft engines. Southwest confirmed having flown bad parts about a month ago. https://fortune.com/2023/09/08/southwest-air-engine-suspect-parts/ https://fortune.com/2023/09/08/southwest-air-engine-suspect-... First news about the supplier appears to be Aug 31: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-31/fake-spare-parts-were-supplied-to-fix-top-selling-jet-engines https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-31/fake-spar...

brahbrah 3y ago

> If they weren't, Delta would say so, since it makes them look better. That they won't say means the parts were used in service. More likely they would just never comment whether it makes them look better or not, because otherwise for the reason you stated you could always gather the information they didn’t want you to have in the negative case.

brookst 3y ago

Regarding the second, I don’t think we need every company statement to be even more littered with weasely “to the best of our knowledge” and “as far as we know” language. Anything they say should be assumed to be good faith, best of knowledge, and with the understanding that it’s always possible for new information to come to light.

Fatnino 3y ago

A fraudulently approved part is still an approved part until it's detected. All Delta is saying is that they aren't flying any of the bad parts they found. Just a bunch of PR fluff, nothing of substance.

filoleg 3y ago

> If they weren't, Delta would say so, since it makes them look better. That they won't say means the parts were used in service. If that ends up being their final answer, with no future update either affirming or denying that the engines with the fraudulently documented parts had been on planes, I will agree with you. But of now, seems like they are in a state of “we haven’t any fraudulently documented parts in use, but we haven’t checked everything 100% yet to claim so without running a risk of being wrong and having to backtrack later.” However, as these news just now came out, I think it is fair for them to say “we cannot confirm” at the moment (as long as a more concrete update is coming in the future). It is way less problematic to say “we cannot confirm” and update later with “everything is clear, all is good” or “we found fraudulently documented parts to be in use”, rather than claim one now before all the information is available, and then backtrack. And as others have pointed out already - Delta said they were sure none of the aircraft currently operating use fraudulently documented parts, but obviously it takes more time to make sure that none of the aircraft had used fraudulently documented parts before.