Company Happy With 1st Airbus.

[delldude]

Ill say this ! Some of you guys are really walking a very fine line here. This is why the company has a policy that most of us dont like simply because of stuff like this. Your chopping your nose off despite YOUR OWN FACE. The fact that FAA doesn't have enough help can go both ways. 700 your making some horrible serious accusations which hurt your fellow workers. To those who are the flying public! I hope you understand the people making this accusations are Iam people for the most part with an agenda. Usairways planes are safe regardless of the people doing the work. We have some great iam people who know what they are doing and in every aspect know our aircraft. Please dont mistake "an agenda" with the real truth. I apologize for my fellow co workers for their misinterpretation of the facts. The fact is we want our iam people in house to do the work. This is not how to accomplish that. There are many who take offense to this slander and moderators please watch carefully simply because these comments are bordering on slander and potential damaging propaganda to our company as well as the hard working people of US!

Ill say this ! Some of you guys are really walking a very fine line here. This is why the company has a policy that most of us dont like simply because of stuff like this.[/ font]
get out your book and call the [ " RAT LINE"
Your chopping your nose off despite YOUR OWN FACE. ITS "TO SPITE YOUR OWN FACE "
The fact that FAA doesn't have enough help can go both ways. if you do it right the first time and everytime FAA isn't an issue.
horrible serious accusations truth isn't an accusation.
Usairways planes are safe regardless of the people doing the work. safe planes do not make emergency landings right out of heavy checks.these " incidents " have been duly noted both by the FAA [/color ] and news media all over the east coast.
[ font] Please dont mistake "an agenda" with the real truth. agenda's don't make emergency landings.
The fact is we want our iam people in house to do the work. [/ color , thank you....tell it to dave , please.
There are many who take offense to this slander and moderators please watch carefully simply because these comments are bordering on slander and potential damaging propaganda to our company
the documented truth is no slander

 

[700UW]

These "facts" you talk about are rumor untill i see it in writing. The last few post meet to a "t" the definition of rumor and slander. With all of that said, Ill assume what you say is correct 100%...... IS THIS THE FORUM TO AIR YOUR LAUNDRY? There are non employees on this site. To "air" dirty laundry about safety of our airline knocks your nose off despite your face. It hurts your fellow employees in the long run when people who fly our airline stop flying because our maint. "inhouse" says we have shotty maint from an outside source. If You have a problem and can back all of these "facts" up why is it that the iam hasnt brought this to court and said it in the media to force the company? WHY you ask? Because it prob has a hard time backing it up! The heads of iam doesnt want their jobs to be further eroded by running passengers away . Finally i dont want to get into an argument with you. Im sure youre a great mech and appreciate what you guys do . I for one want our guys to do the work. There is a line however i wont cross. Respectfully !

Those are the cold, hard facts.

Have you read the newspapers? Everytime 700 made an emergency landing it made the papers.

If you don't believe me about the planes call Maintenance record, or Quality Assurance or go ask a mechanic on your next plane to show you the A/C history in Maxi-Merlin, all the FACTS are there.

And the log pages are sent to PIT records, go visit them and read it yourself.

And the IAM did not bring it to court because it was not relevant, we are arguing contract language, not who did what to what plane, and the TRO was issued before A/C 700UW had been finished by foriegn owned ST MAE@BFM.

I for one don't post false information, what happened to those planes is the 100% truth, something you and your Capt buddy have no idea about.

I posted facts, planes and incidents, you have posted nothing to dispute it and you have still not posted any FACTS on your allegation that the same incidents occurred on planes overhauled by our great trustworthy mechanics at US Airways.

Come on we want you to post your facts, I am calling you out.

I guess you just want to be like A320Capt, another fabricator of the facts.

We are waiting!

 

[usfliboi]

Those are the cold, hard facts.

Have you read the newspapers? Everytime 700 made an emergency landing it made the papers.

If you don't believe me about the planes call Maintenance record, or Quality Assurance or go ask a mechanic on your next plane to show you the A/C history in Maxi-Merlin, all the FACTS are there.

And the log pages are sent to PIT records, go visit them and read it yourself.

And the IAM did not bring it to court because it was not relevant, we are arguing contract language, not who did what to what plane, and the TRO was issued before A/C 700UW had been finished by foriegn owned ST MAE@BFM.

I for one don't post false information, what happened to those planes is the 100% truth, something you and your Capt buddy have no idea about.

I posted facts, planes and incidents, you have posted nothing to dispute it and you have still not posted any FACTS on your allegation that the same incidents occurred on planes overhauled by our great trustworthy mechanics at US Airways.

Come on we want you to post your facts, I am calling you out.

I guess you just want to be like A320Capt, another fabricator of the facts.

We are waiting!

Again what facts??????? The fact is you should not be posting on here those facts !!!! I havent seen a fact yet ... I here you saying it was this was that its here its there call there...... Again why is it not relevent if its a fact? Why is iam sitting on these "facts" if they arent relevent? Why are they relevent here where it can only do damage, but not relevent where IAM and the company are concerned? Again im not going to debate you. The motives for these "facts speak for themselves" I see no facts other than youre stating its a fact. At any rate good luck with your fight!

 

[delldude]

hey guy...these facts are and were in the media for all to see.you seem to want to ignore them....do you need links or hard copy?
THOSE WHO REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE TRUTH FAIL TO LEARN THE TRUTH

 

[700UW]

I gave you all the information and where to find it, if you can't comprehend that, that is your problem.

I am still waiting for you facts to dispute it and your facts about our own planes overhauled by our mechanics?

By the way are you related to A320Capt?

Seems you avoid answering and providing facts when you are asked to back up your allegations?

 

[Colby]

Have you read the newspapers? Everytime 700 made an emergency landing it made the papers.

If you don't believe me about the planes call Maintenance record, or Quality Assurance or go ask a mechanic on your next plane to show you the A/C history in Maxi-Merlin, all the FACTS are there.

And the log pages are sent to PIT records, go visit them and read it yourself.

FliBoi,

I just recently heard about this from A mechanic.... 700 is telling the TRUTH... All you need to do is Speak with ANY Mechanic and they will verify what this Aircraft was like afterwards!!!!

 

[ClueByFour]

These "facts" you talk about are rumor untill i see it in writing. The last few post meet to a "t" the definition of rumor and slander. With all of that said, Ill assume what you say is correct 100%...... IS THIS THE FORUM TO AIR YOUR LAUNDRY? There are non employees on this site. To "air" dirty laundry about safety of our airline knocks your nose off despite your face. It hurts your fellow employees in the long run when people who fly our airline stop flying because our maint. "inhouse" says we have shotty maint from an outside source. If You have a problem and can back all of these "facts" up why is it that the iam hasnt brought this to court and said it in the media to force the company? WHY you ask? Because it prob has a hard time backing it up! The heads of iam doesnt want their jobs to be further eroded by running passengers away . Finally i dont want to get into an argument with you. Im sure youre a great mech and appreciate what you guys do . I for one want our guys to do the work. There is a line however i wont cross. Respectfully !

I applaud the IAM-M members for making the public aware of the truth.

There are two things that bother me about U's program with S&T:

1. Any QC oversight is meaningless. This is not like LUV outsourcing heavy checks, where they have draconian oversight and can get away with it because the threat is always there to move the business. S&T knows, by virtue of Bronner (Alabama) and the US financial situation that the work is basically theirs, up until the point where a A319/20/21 takes a header from FL29 and augers in.

2. The fact that they very first aircraft they worked on had a no-flaps landing less than a week later tells me tons about their work. In any business engagement, the company providing the service tries to impress on the first "Date" so to speak. This aircraft had to make a no-flaps landing. Not very impressive.

So that you are aware, some of your customers are worried about such things not because of what they might see and hear on the news, but because of the actual implications of what they have heard. I don't fly transport aircraft, but I am an SEL pilot (instrument), and I don't make it a habit of flying aircraft repaired by people for whom cost is the overriding factor. My firm's fleet of Lears has the heavy checks outsourced, and in the first 3 cases, our inhouse A&Ps have spent weeks and weeks working on the things. In short, unless you do things the way that somebody like LUV does it, you are asking for problems.

Hiding this from your customers just moves the fiscal hurt from folks not buying tickets to the post-crash lawsuit, god-forbid it comes to that.

 

[ua767fo]

ClueByFour,
As a side bar to your comments: Every airline has its "hanger queens", aircraft that just can't seem to be fixed, or have chronic problems that keep them out of service. Generally speaking, with a nice long runway, a partial flap landing is not a big deal. Typically its nothing major, a flap position (asymetry sensing) switch out of rig or something similar. Flap motors, hydraulic or electric generally never fail. But....from time to time, you see something unusual, such as a flap depart in flight. As you know, flying is a funny business. Nothing happens for weeks or months, then it all happens.

Keep your instrument scan fresh,
DENVER, CO

 

[700UW]

700 in its 5 year history before it was sent to ST MAE@BFM, 700 never had an emergency landing, yet not at least three.

After their work it had three emergency landings and extensive downtime for our own mechanics to fix it.

 

[Harry Callahan]

"""A subsidiary of the Singapo re-based Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd., Mobile Aerospace employs about 1,200. No one with the company returned a message seeking comment Tuesday.

US Air spokesman David Castelveter said the airline was pleased with the quality of the repair work done by Mobile Aerospace on the first aircraft.

"The plane is back in service, and we were more than satisfied," Castelveter said. """



This is scary!!!!! I can not believe they feel that way when everyone knows how bad that plane was when it came back.



See http://www.al.com/search/index.ssf?/base/n...leregister?nmet to read the whole story.

WOW, I just pray that no one dies over this.

 

[delldude]

Those are the cold, hard facts.

Have you read the newspapers? Everytime 700 made an emergency landing it made the papers.

If you don't believe me about the planes call Maintenance record, or Quality Assurance or go ask a mechanic on your next plane to show you the A/C history in Maxi-Merlin, all the FACTS are there.

And the log pages are sent to PIT records, go visit them and read it yourself.

And the IAM did not bring it to court because it was not relevant, we are arguing contract language, not who did what to what plane, and the TRO was issued before A/C 700UW had been finished by foriegn owned ST MAE@BFM.

I for one don't post false information, what happened to those planes is the 100% truth, something you and your Capt buddy have no idea about.

I posted facts, planes and incidents, you have posted nothing to dispute it and you have still not posted any FACTS on your allegation that the same incidents occurred on planes overhauled by our great trustworthy mechanics at US Airways.

Come on we want you to post your facts, I am calling you out.

I guess you just want to be like A320Capt, another fabricator of the facts.

We are waiting!

Again what facts??????? The fact is you should not be posting on here those facts !!!! I havent seen a fact yet ... I here you saying it was this was that its here its there call there...... Again why is it not relevent if its a fact? Why is iam sitting on these "facts" if they arent relevent? Why are they relevent here where it can only do damage, but not relevent where IAM and the company are concerned? Again im not going to debate you. The motives for these "facts speak for themselves" I see no facts other than youre stating its a fact. At any rate good luck with your fight!

here from a previous thread...more lies












--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on Wed, Nov. 12, 2003

US Airways plane makes emergency landing

The Carolinas


US Airways plane makes emergency landing

AIRLINES

US Airways Airbus A319 made an emergency landing in Richmond, Va., Monday after a cockpit light showed a hydraulic system to be low on fluid. The plane was the first to be maintained by a third-party contractor under an arrangement that has been challenged by the airline's unionized mechanics. The plane underwent heavy maintenance by Mobile Aerospace Engineering in Mobile, Ala., and returned to service Saturday. It made nine flights before the landing. Mechanics found a small leak in a hydraulic system valve that operates the landing gear.A federal judge in Pittsburgh has temporarily blocked US Airways from contracting out heavy maintenance on its Airbus jets because of language in its contract with the International Association of Machinists. But he allowed completion of work already started on the single plane.

"It is not unusual for an airplane, regardless of where it was maintained, to have a minor maintenance problem after it comes out of its heavy checks," said US Airways spokesman David Castelveter. -- TED REED

 

[E-TRONS]

This entire farmout situation is the direct result of "Bean counters" running the company. It's all about the money. They know nothing about the real world of aircraft maintenance. :down:

It's not much different at any air carrier that believes farmout results in such great cost savings. Does it really?

A/C 700 had an unusually high amount of maintenance issues that repeatedly kept the aircraft out of service.....preventing the generation of revenue. This is NOT normal for an aircraft fresh out of a check. It required numerous un-scheduled maintenance visits to properly restore the multiple malfunctions into working order. And it only required 3x the amount of any monetary savings attained by sending it to Mobile in the first place. Heck of a business strategy eh?

Third party maintenance providers operate on the "Time is Money" philosophy. If they are late in returning plane to service then they pay a penalty for lost revenues, etc. This situation in no way can possibly nurture a quality orientated environment...no way in heck. It's not rocket science. Do the math and you can plainly see that the system is flawed.

Aircraft maintenance is very labor intensive by nature. Super sophisticated systems require super sophisticated attention to detail. 99.9% is not acceptable if you want the redundancy to operate as advertised. It must be 100% period!! That is why in house maintenance has difficulty releasing aircraft from a check as scheduled. We simply do not overlook anything that might arise last minute but rather repair it according to manufacturer specs. That's our responsibility as FAA Licensed Technicians. We have the authority to ground the aircraft and will not hesitate in doing so. But this is management's fault by not allowing additional time in the check for unexpected problems that routinely show up and interfere with the normal flow of work.

Management (Bean Counters) has a problem with this because they think we are dragging our feet when in fact we are upholding our federally mandated comittment to safety and quality. Re-read my opening statement on the top of this post. They will never understand.

The company can farmout all they want because we will be seeing those same aircraft soon after they return from their farmout visits.....just as with a/c 700. The downside to this is that the end product will exponentially expend any marginal savings that might be realized. Not to mention the reduced headcout that will ensue as an overall result of farmout.

Pray for us all.

 

[700UW]

Good Post E-trons

 

[N628AU]

usfliboi...

Just because you choose not to try to verify what has been said here does not make it rumor. What has been written about aircrafts 700 and 573 are true. Like you were told earlier, get up with a mechanic on your next shift, and have them show you the aircraft MACH history in Maxi-Merlin. It will show all this information.

As a matter of fact this information was discussed ad naseum when it first occured right here on these message boards. Do a history search, and you will find it. I find it very interesting not a single person challenged it then.

Maybe your motivation is that you hope the company can get their predicted 2004 cost savings through strictly maintenance outsourcing? Do not believe it!!! First the total cost savings are not there (AOG-N-IT can fill you in on the real cost savings that can theoretically occur), and two, this management will come after your contract as well. Do I believe employees can be more efficient here? Of course, but management has many tools at their disposal to do so now without signifcant contract changes.

As for why the IAM has not gone to public information campaign, there are many reasons. One is that they feel they have a very strong case either with a full appellate court review or via arbitration. Two is that it would create an unnecessary panic situation further excerbating UAIR's financial problems. The third is that the IAM International represents workers at some of the MRO's, and it would breach their fiduciary duty to them to go around bad mouthing them, no matter what the facts are. The third reason is perhaps why I have always been in favor of in house unions, which are the only true was to represent the interests of labor.

 

[pitguy]

Allot of people in the know refer to the FAA as a "paper tiger".


--Every now and then they take a good bite, but normally they are ineffective. Shame I think. Not the FAA Safety Inspectors fault, but just how the system is set up. Airlines are big business.