Alexander Lundeen

In a world where air travel is so important to our daily lives, it seems as though air safety is paramount to a continuing level of satisfaction when flying. While this rule seems to have its bearings in supplement parts for use on Airbus jets in operation within the country today, limiting the scope of part selection to Airbus seems to be too narrow in extent. Market share analysis points to the fact that Airbus has close to 50% of the worldwide commercial jet market; Boeing has most of the rest of the market share. While it is well known that Boeing is an American company and Airbus operates from the European Union, it is also well known that both accuse the other of receiving unfair state aid from home governments. I cannot look past the fact that this is not only an Airbus issue but rather an issue for all jets carrying commercial passengers. While I agree mostly that supporting home companies is of primary concern overall, the safety of travelers supersedes all when weighing these options. There is no mention of Boeing airworthiness anywhere in support for this rule. Thus, there is no support for the theory that this is only an Airbus problem. While this is a mechanical issue of inspecting for cracked or missing nuts, the last fifteen years of air travel indicate that there is no measure that can go far enough to accomplish the overall goal of safety in the skies. Therefore, I cannot argue with the ultimate premise but I respectfully disagree with the overall scope of the proposed rule.