Except that the technicians used at the major overhaul base in China - by which I presume they mean the AMECO Beijing venture co-owned by Lufthansa Technik, a division of the well known major airline - are relatively unlikely to have FAA certifications not because they're incredibly lax, but because they're substantially more likely to have been certified by EASA (the European standards body) instead. Which has absolutely nothing to with language standards and absolutely everything to do with European companies not considering the FAA standards to be any more exacting or relevant than their own, and their US clients generally agreeing.
Their affiliated training centre presently has a capacity for 550 people - equivalent to 10% of their workforce - at any one time on EASA (not FAA) accredited Part 66 training courses, plus a further 400 people on type-specific training. They've been training their own staff based on an EASA approved German-designed training scheme since 1996, so its not like the desire for certified engineers or their adherence to European training standards is a new thing either.
Does the FAA have an equivalency rule in place for certifications? The crux of this article is not whether or not the EASA is just as good as FAA certification. Its about how the FAA has little to no oversight over maintenance in other countries.
FAA rules and EASA rules are largely the same. The crux of the article is not EASA vs FAA it's more about places outside of both FAA and EASA jurisdiction.
Assuming they actually have that certification. That's the kicker. I am happy with certification by a reputable organization (FAA or EASS,) however we're assuming those certifications. Just because Lufthansa co-owns the venture doesn't mean they spent the money to send all of those mechanics to an accredited certification program. The Lufthansa CEO is known for being cheap -- he's on record complaining about (and initially refusing to install) full flat business class seats in the new A380s because of the lost revenue from the extra space they would have required. I fly Lufthansa about a dozen times per year and generally feel confident about maintanence, however if the reason for this is cost savings, there's a real danger of even minor communications issues becoming deadly.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suppose that not sending many staff to the massive training facility they also own next door to ensure smooth operation of part of their $4bn per annum third party MRO business probably isn't on Lufthansa's cost- cutting list, and the airlines signing multimillion dollar contracts with them might be a little more informed and thorough in their due diligence on certifications and staffing than travel photographers trying their hand at journalism...
I would expect that this is not their choice to make, but maybe I'm wrong. What are the FAA's rules with regard to major aircraft maintenance for US domestic airlines like Southwest?
