Company Happy With 1st Airbus.

[700UW]

Sorry fliboi, our pilots test the plane before it leaves heavy, we don't release the plane with a major problem.

And the company is ruining itself, sorry if the truth hurts.

Whos truth would that be? Regardless of testing the FACT emains it happens everywhere . Sorry Facts only here! No emotion just the facts please!

Ok gimme facts,

Flights, A/C #s and what mechanical problems the planes had when released from heavy maintenance after our own pilots test flight them.


The Facts remain, emergency landings of a/c just overhauled DOES NOT HAPPEN all the time.

Don't be the next Fabricator of the Facts.

 

[700UW]

New Company spokesman for US Airways praising Singapore Technologies Mobile Aerospace Engingeering Work!

There is nothing wrong with our planes!

 

[Mike W]

Bob.....My Man!!!

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Here is another company that's real pleased with ST Mobile Aerospace's quality of work , it's a little known "Air Charter" company called Southeast Airmotive.

Southeast Airmotive was contracted on three consecutive nights to chase 700UW with parts and CLT based IAM mechanics to correct the series of problems that 700UW developed after it's return to revenued service.

Should U try to continue using ST Mobile Aerospace? Southeast Airmotive is just liable to become a publically traded enterprise in place of U itself.

Folks....sure as the sun will come up in the morning , Acft are going to break in some fashion...nonbody but nobodies acft are immune from this fact...yet Mobile's first step to the plate has been proven to be less than satisfactory by any reasonable standards.

3 consecutive days of being chased for added repairs is not common at all....3 additional days of work after three failed days and three worked on nights in the field is not acceptable either.

Then lets look at the fact that many of our Airbus spare parts were being sent to Mobile Al. , and keeping them out of reach for the active fleet needs that develope. I know of at least two circumstances where line/active fleet aircraft were delayed for repairs due to the single fact that the parts were located away from the center of our daily operations. This would not be true if the work was performed in CLT or PIT as the contract indicates it should

Having had the chance to speak with counterparts with our codeshare partner UA , whom also divides part of their outsourcing with ST Mobile Aerospace...they reported a number of Acft diversions after departing Mobile while attempting to re-join the Active fleet. UA has also had expierience with ST Mobile Aerospace being reluctant and difficult when UA requested a return shipment of parts to repair active line Aircraft as well. Remember that these items are owned by the respective airline , NOT ST Mobile Aerospace !!

ST Mobile Aerospace also does not handle logistics as we would enternally...they still need the direct support from the parent airline in which the aircraft came. This I know for certain from having dealt with 700UW....having sold or loaned parts to Air Jamaica (JM) or UA while their Acft were in actual work there.

To act like ST Mobile aerospace is some great bargain when all aspects of this situation is taken into account....it's clearly a "Bean Counters" on paper victory...at the expense of logic ,convienience, quality and most possibly safety?

The last concern is directed at quality itself. During the cock-pit door modifications on all our Airbus acft...and certainly during lessor phase checks on both the narrow body fleet and the A330-300's...corrosion has been discovered in the Forward Lav area...the Seat Tracks and a few other areas...least of all the Main Landing Gear.

We in CLT know how long that took to correct on the A330's....so 13 days in Mobile is not adequate time to address the issues that may have developed on our oldest active Airbus in the entire fleet (700UW)

Issues of corrosion are not new to U's primary market area. During Easterns decline the "Eastern Shuttle" was sold to Donald Trump as many know....Trump was eager to get his name and paint scheme on those B727-200's...in doing so , many were discovered to have massive amounts of corrosion on them...and this lead to 1 in 3 being removed from service and scrapped due to being beyond economical repair. ..this was done in MIA.

Left un-addressed , Over-Looked or even "pencil-whipped"..an alike scenario could easily come to pass down the road with our Acft. :down:


Take this lightly if you choose?...but the issues of today are about the concerns of long-term staying power...if we are to survive as a company?, we will need Acft achieving the longest possible life-span as well....achieving full value out of every dollar needs to be the one and only concern here.

The company wants productivity changes from the employees , right? They want maximum value from us...so why in logical terms should we sell the primary reason for being short either? , That being our aircraft !!!!..they are in fact what we use to hopefully make money with...and as we know replacing them sooner than we need to , or should have too? does not build in long term value or pro-longed viability for the organization as a whole.

Debate if you will?....but think about value and safety as you apply your version of logic and reason to this problem. h34r:

 

[AP Tech]

13 days to do an S check.......It can be done if nothing else is noted on the found descrepency list. Now tell me folks you are following the paperwork, step one pull up the carpet and remove the floorboard, step two inspect the required area, of course this is all done by licensed mechanics at STS. find some corrosion what do we do? (a) fix it properly per the SRM or (B) prime and paint as required. I am willing to bet "B" will be the choice as STS will be under heavy penalities if they miss the ETR. U's onsite QA may catch some problems but how much will slip through? Anybody who really thinks all descrepencys found during the inspection will be addressed are dreaming. I think the term coined by the FAA is "Pencil Whipping" h34r:

 

[700UW]

AP.

Not all of them are licensed AMTs, remember MROs do not employee all licensed mechanics.

Just judge the paintwork that was done in ARA and the numerous problems with 700UW when it came back from BFM.

I saw the logbook and it had MELs still on the plane, never seen one of our planes released from overhaul with MELs.

 

[Flying Titan]

Very disappointed to see this comment. As a passenger, I hope this work ultimately comes back in house. After seeing all the things that went wrong with the first plane, it gives me pause about where U is headed. This is a bad move. Good luck to the IAM in its efforts to get this work done in house where there will be the highest level of quality control.

On most issues, I would say that labor may have to meet management more than halfway to get the airline out of this mess - but on this one - stand your ground.

 

[2BorNot2B]

Someone who is QUALIFIED please respond ... clarify something!

Does the FAA not monitor and inspect the work of this company to insure the safety of the traveling public. The FAA are always on the "backs" of the Airlines' maint., yet the inferrence on this forum is that they ignore the likes of Singapore!

Somehow I find that difficult to believe!

Anyone have some thoughts about this? perhaps the "accusers" should be addressing the FAA for failure to enforce standards, and proper procedures. That would shut down their maint. facility in short order! Bingo! Problem solved!

2B

 

[700UW]

FAA does not have enough inspectors to check all the MROs and each airline has one PMI assigned to it and get yearly DOD audits if they are part of the CRAF fleet.

Just look the FAA has to monitor MROs ALL OVER the WORLD.

Valujet had an engine explode on take off, it was found that they had the engine overhauled in Turkey, FAA had not done an onsite inspection in several years.

After the incident caused the whole plane to be a loss, they went to the MRO and found contamination in the engine overhaul area, ie sand.

 

[pitguy]

I am sickened at the thought that the company could be risking passengers and crews.


--You all are in my prayers (even Chip).

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Someone who is QUALIFIED please respond ... clarify something!

Does the FAA not monitor and inspect the work of this company to insure the safety of the traveling public. The FAA are always on the "backs" of the Airlines' maint., yet the inferrence on this forum is that they ignore the likes of Singapore!

Somehow I find that difficult to believe!

Anyone have some thoughts about this? perhaps the "accusers" should be addressing the FAA for failure to enforce standards, and proper procedures. That would shut down their maint. facility in short order! Bingo! Problem solved!

2B

2B,

Sadly the FAA cannot be everywhere at all times. Yes, things do slip through the cracks. The B1900 crash in CLT is one example of this happening...but the B737 that we had damaged by another 3rd party vendor (Aircraft Exteriors Inc.) of New Iberia La. , was a shining example of an FAA Inspector being Johnny on the spot and catching them at the use of improper tooling and methods to remove paint.

Removng paint is one thing...but damaging an Aircrafts Skin and gouging out compounded joints in doing so , is beyond un-acceptable. Had this taken place under U's own control?..the offendng party would not be around to tell the tale.

Let's also keep in mind that the FAA's Charter is built around the promotion of aviation...and in kind it's ability to to police the industry gets somewhat bogged down at times. The FAA is often slow on some issues...and often depends on the individual companies to be doing things in a correct and ethical manner. The nick-name of "The Tombstone Agency" that is often applied to the FAA by critics is sometimes just. They only react harshly when major accidents take place...and heaven become packed with fresh souls.

IMHO....The FAA needs to be more involved , better staffed and less mindfull of the promoting aviation....and omni-focused on the day to day monitoring of safety related issues in a more direct fashion. I also do not believe in the same FAA Inspectors and auditors being assigned to a particular airline , charter service or any aviation organization that makes its living via Aircraft. Scenarios where a given person tends to homestead with a given company tends to breed corruption ,complacent attitudes that lead to over-sights.

In summation..The FAA as it's organized and operated in both past and present terms , is not the end all answer to safety....and that is magnified by the lack of available numbers of Inspectors...and qualified Inspectors Vs. the vast amount of aircraft in operation within the US and from outside the US. Just like a Cop can't be everywhere in our daily lives

 

[700UW]

Here is an interesting book for your reading:

Flying Blind, Flying Safe: The Former Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation Tells You Everything You Need to Know to Travel Safer by Air
by Mary Schiavo

 

[pitguy]

I have been in this field for over 20 years and can count on one hand the number of times I have "seen" (not spoken too) an FAA inspector. But remember I tend not to be one that hacks stuff up.

--It is foolish to risk lives for profits.

--In my mind it is always safety first then I worry about the schedule of the airline.

 

[2BorNot2B]

Sadly the FAA cannot be everywhere at all times.

Incredible Post ... and I indeed thank you for taking the time to respond in such a knowledgeable fashion. I believe that such wisdom needs to be expressed to the traveling public and the Federal Government. The FAA's accountability is, IMHO, at the center of this dispute. USAir's maintenance is, once again, IMHO, the best in the industry. It is not the "shop around the corner" .. it is performed by folks who not only earn their living from USAir, but entrust the safety of themselves and their loved ones to fly on the very aircraft they maintain. Does not get any better than that!

The IAM should pursue this issue along this line. Rather than ALWAYS projecting a defient, financial platform ...... perhaps explaining other concerns, as you have, should take precedence.

I am sure that approach would be well receive by the Press, as compared to the "The Concession Stand Is Closed" retoric.

2b

 

[AP Tech]

700UW:
I was just kidding about the licensed mechanics working at STS. I agree with you 100%, anyone who has ever been around contract maintenance especially overhaul facilites knows that the majority of mechanics are NOT licensed but their work is bought off buy a licensed mechanic. In many cases if the licensed mechanic is not willing to buy off the work of the unlicensed mechanic, the contractor finds one who will!!! I have been unable to locate the exact percentage of licensed mechanics STS has one the property..........I wonder why the company does not release that info???????