Aircraft Upkeep

[to much time to quit]

The main reason for the worn out appearance is manpower. In Clt alone where we used to perform heavy maintenance on 737's they laid off over 800 mechanics alone. Since then all are 737 work has been transferred to Pit. (soon to be returned) Management will not allow time or money to be spent on making any non-airworthy appearance items better. The foreman just sign the job cards off for paint upgrade and other (APPEARANCE) items as non airworthy. Its wrong but theres little that me or anyone else can do. Thats all there is to the mystery, ignorance at its best. :down:

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

Yes..indeed scary.

3rd party maintenance deficiencies are well documented. It killed a 21 people in January of '03 in Charlotte.

LOTS of well-written articles came out as a result.

Too many people have forgotten, but the main reason nothing was really done about it is that it was a commuter aircraft. How about a A321 with 150 people on board? That would sadly garner many more and longer lasting headlines. Believe me, I'm in no way hoping anything like this happens.

When some of the bigger airplanes start falling out of the sky (all airlines apply) then you will see a ground swell by the public and the government (NTSB and FAA) to make some major changes regarding 3rd party maintenance.

And of course no mechanic would knowingly produce an unairworthy aircraft, but that's my point...there are lots of people (in Alabama) working on airplanes who are not licenced by the FAA and I would not trust to work on my bicycle! THEY WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT IS AIRWORTHY AND WHAT IS NOT.

Hate to say but at Piedmont and Usairways there were plenty unlicensed mechanics working on aircraft in the past and isn't all of southwests heavy maintenance farmed out?

You brought up one example of 3rd party tragedy due to faulty 3rd party maintenance. DELETED BY ME
I am not defending 3rd party maintenance or unlicensed mechanics in any way or form just trying to be fair and honest. Do I think work should be farmed out? Not at all. Does there need to be more oversight of 3rd party maintenance? Absolutely

 

[mweiss]

I am not defending 3rd party maintenance or unlicensed mechanics in any way or form just trying to be fair and honest.

Heh. Last time I tried that same argument I got blasted to kingdom come by pitguy, tmttq, and cav.

You're right, of course, but in their eyes if a mechanic works for an airline, all work must by definition be perfect, and if you don't, all work must by definition be crap.

 

[NYPD]

Heh. Last time I tried that same argument I got blasted to kingdom come by pitguy, tmttq, and cav.

You're right, of course, but in their eyes if a mechanic works for an airline, all work must by definition be perfect, and if you don't, all work must by definition be crap.

In a word: YES.

The argument I have against the "Piedmont and US Air had plenty of unlicensed mechanics doing heavy maintenance work" is that under those two maintenance organizations (notice I use the word "organization") the ratio of unlicensed to licensed was small. At many of the 3rd party maintenance outfits around the country these days, that ratio is turned upside-down.

Piedmont and US Air were also working on their own aircraft. There was an extra level of pride and self preservation. Do you think <insert foreign name here> cares whose logo is painted on the side of the aircraft that he is getting paid $10/hour to work on? For that matter, can he even read it?

As far as SW farming out their HM...remember what I said about the built-in redundancies. If you fail to see this as fact, you are turning a blind eye to the situation. That is EXACTLY what will eventually kill hundreds. "Oops, we're sorry, we thought...." "Next time we'll have to do it this way...."

I pity the inocent victims. And it's all in the name of greed.

 

[firstamendment]

Did somebody read my post? I got on two a/c on my trip (737-400) that didn't have sticky carpet. Naw...couldn't be...or could it? h34r:

 

[legacy-to-LCC]

this is an important conversation!
i remember quite well in stewardess school being indoctrinated with the notion that "customer perception is everything." thus we were to were the navy polyester with unwavering pride...and, to enforce this committment to appearance we were randomly subjected to ghost-riders and observation flights! appearance compliance failures were dealt with in the supervisor's office...
anyway, my much belated point, i am embarrassed by the conversations i consistently hear among passengers at the gate as they gaze, startled and anxious, at the disheveled vehicle that will be taking them to their destination. management should be held to the same appearance standards with our fleet! shame on them for ignoring the shoddy appearance of most of our 767s and 737s...i am sorry, i don't care how many star alliance symbols you paste on them! i am surprised that the star alliance would even put up with condition of some of our equipment??? :angry:

 

[USAirBoyA330]

This company couldn't care less about what our aircraft look like. If they could get away with having passengers sit with the prior flights trash in the seat they would.
Has anyone noticed the gate areas of Philly International? YIKES! The carpets are gross, paint peeling off the walls and the jetways have dust bunnies bigger than I am flying around in them. I hear comments all the time about how gross the gates are in Philly. All the gates look like they are falling apart.

 

[ktflyhome]

All the jetways in PHL look like pigpens. What is even more sickening it the fact that they look like this on the first flight out in the morning.

It is embarrasing to give service and ask the customer to brink down their tray.....YIKES.....you don't know what you might find. :down:

 

[wench]

sad isnt it?

Went to the mall unfortunately on my way home..quickly removed my ID tags,left my name tag on..
Got it and out....

looking over my shoulder to see if anyone was looking to break my eardrums about thier trips..

 

[Fixed Wing]

Yes..indeed scary.

3rd party maintenance deficiencies are well documented. It killed a 21 people in January of '03 in Charlotte.......

And of course no mechanic would knowingly produce an unairworthy aircraft, but that's my point...there are lots of people (in Alabama) working on airplanes who are not licenced by the FAA and I would not trust to work on my bicycle! THEY WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT IS AIRWORTHY AND WHAT IS NOT.

I'm not defending 3rd party maintenance, however I must say that in general, maintenance deficiencies have been well documented in both 3rd party and major carriers. ie: Alaska MD-80 loss of horz. control....American DC-10...loss of engine resulting in left wing slat retraction.

I will however defend the professional trade of aircraft mechanics. Before you make a general statement about shabby maintenance you must realize that many 3rd party maintenance contractors now hire the skilled mechanic that was layed-off from the majors.

below is factual information from the NTSB investigation on the accident you refered to. This guy was an A&P mechanic.

1.2.2 Maintenance Technician
The Maintenance Technician, age 30, was employed by SMART. He was
assigned to the HTS base on November 18, 2002. He earned an A&P certificate at the
Pittsburgh Institute of Aeronautics from 1991 to 1993. From 1994 to 2000 he held a job
not associated with aviation maintenance. From January 2000 to October 2000, he
worked line maintenance with Piedmont Airlines in Philadelphia on DHC-8 airplanes.
From October 2000 to January 2002 he worked heavy maintenance with US Airways in
Pittsburgh on B737 and F100 airplanes. He then worked at Stambaugh Air Service in
Harrisburg from October 8, 2002 to November 15, 2002. He had no previous
experience working on BE1900 airplanes. The RALLC Site Manager described the
technician as capable and said he had received positive reports about him from
foremen and inspectors at the HTS base. The Air Midwest Regional Site Manager
described the technician as a good mechanic with a lot of common sense.

here's the link if you want to investigate further

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2003/AM5481/default.htm

 

[pitguy]

Heh. Last time I tried that same argument I got blasted to kingdom come by pitguy, tmttq, and cav.

You're right, of course, but in their eyes if a mechanic works for an airline, all work must by definition be perfect, and if you don't, all work must by definition be crap.

My stance is of the following. U agreed to contractually have U Mechanics do their heavy maintenance work. The U Mechanics agreed to accept low wages to keep such language in their contract. U deceived their own employees and vendored work to a substandard operator that used low talent workers to do said work. Some third party vendors do great work. U choose not to use one of them. The work contractually belongs to U Mechanics and they were lied to by U management.


--Now they have hell to pay for their evil ways! h34r:

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

I'm not defending 3rd party maintenance, however I must say that in general, maintenance deficiencies have been well documented in both 3rd party and major carriers. ie: Alaska MD-80 loss of horz. control....American DC-10...loss of engine resulting in left wing slat retraction.

Actually I had mentioned both those crashes in a previous post but deleted them upon further review.

Alaska Airlines MD83 crash,

The thread failure was caused by excessive wear resulting from Alaska Airlines’ insufficient lubrication of the jackscrew assembly.
Contributing to the accident were Alaska Airlines’ extended lubrication interval and the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) approval of that extension, which increased the likelihood that a missed or inadequate lubrication would result in excessive wear of the acme nut threads, and Alaska Airlines’ extended end play check interval and the FAA’s approval of that extension, which allowed the excessive wear of the acme nut threads to progress to failure without the opportunity for detection. Also contributing to the accident was the absence on the McDonnell Douglas MD-80 of a fail-safe mechanism to prevent the catastrophic effects of total acme nut thread loss.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/AAR0201.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

American Airlines DC-10 crash

Read this link for more info

http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/archive/general...cs/aacrash.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would be hard to fault just maintenance in both these cases. Just like faulting just Maintenance for the Clt Air Midwest accident.

 

[firstamendment]

Get back on topic!!!

 

[sentrido]

From January 2000 to October 2000, he
worked line maintenance with Piedmont Airlines in Philadelphia on DHC-8 airplanes.

I dont remember Piedmont having line maint in PHL in 2000. I could be wrong.

 

[Fixed Wing]

I dont remember Piedmont having line maint in PHL in 2000. I could be wrong.

I believe it was US Airways commuter Piedmont Airlines at PHL.