I’d bet that you misheard him, because even the most clueless nincompoop in a position that he’s in would not say that. It’s untrue, and none of his “coaches” would allow him, or anyone associated with the company, to say that.

If “reactive maintenance” was the only factor driving any maintenance, then in addition to being so illegal as to never make it past one single flight on any one plane, there would soon be all of UA’s airplanes parked on every ramp at every airport that UA flies to, and this is clearly not the case. The traditional big hook would have reached out from behind the curtain and snatched mister smisek from the stage within seconds of him saying something like that.

That's not to say that it wouldn’t be an entertaining sight, mind you.

All aircraft are maintained according to several different criteria. Of course, reactive maintenance is one, but they also require certain procedures to be carried out with reference to timespan, hours flown, takeoff/landing cycles, and more. It is, was, and always will be a means to keep a jet moving until it’s scheduled for one of the many required checks.

There is a Minimum Equipment List, aka MEL, of systems and components that dictates what may and what may not be deferred on any given flight, and many of those deferrals are driven by the flight conditions, such as day or might, geographical operating area, altitude, weather conditions, temperature…the list is long.

During BK, as a pilot at UA, I saw a higher rate of deferrals than I did before, or since. But I never was given a jet that wasn’t in complete compliance with the MEL, and very rare that I’d be given a jet that I refused to fly because I didn’t think it was safe and prudent while it still complied with the MEL.

FAB