Consumer Reports raises concerns about outsourced airline maintenance
- Thread starter B737NG
- Start date
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #2
What was primarily a difference between the "been around forever" carriers and the "upstarts" has evolved into a decision where cost is too often both the primary motivator as well as criteria.
Take WN as the first "upstart" low cost carrier. With a handful of planes the expense of building/leasing the facilities and equiping them to do everything up to and including heavy maintenance is cost prohibitive, so they start out outsourcing most of what most airlines call base maintenance. As they grow, with bigger fleets, the cost of having base maintenance grows too - more facility space with associated equipment is required for the bigger fleet.
The legacies, on the other hand, started out in the recip days when planes were much simpler and every airline did most of it's own maintenance. They might outsource engine overhaul or avionics or instrument repairs but the actual maintenance on the plane was done in-house. As they grew, they just added facility space and equipment as necessary, so it was incremental growth and the cost grew incrementally as well.
Then comes 911, recession, fuel price increases, another recession - the legacies started looking under every rock for ways to save money. By this time the hangers were leased so easy to get rid of (especially in bankruptcy), equipment could be sold off, etc and there was a network of MRO's eager and willing to take the business. So a lot of base maintenance went out to those MRO's.
So how to stuff the genie back in the bottle? As much as I'd love to see everything brought back in-house - maintenance, flying, ramp, CSA, res, etc - I'm not sure it's possible at this point.
So what to do about the safety and quality of the outsourced work? It's up to the carrier doing the outsourcing. It starts with selecting MRO's for quality instead of cost and having adequate oversight of whoever is chosen - the carrier's people on the ground at the MRO's checking their work every hour of every day. NOT like it is all too often now - "They're FAA approved so they must be doing a good job" while depending on the FAA to do quality control.
Jim
Take WN as the first "upstart" low cost carrier. With a handful of planes the expense of building/leasing the facilities and equiping them to do everything up to and including heavy maintenance is cost prohibitive, so they start out outsourcing most of what most airlines call base maintenance. As they grow, with bigger fleets, the cost of having base maintenance grows too - more facility space with associated equipment is required for the bigger fleet.
The legacies, on the other hand, started out in the recip days when planes were much simpler and every airline did most of it's own maintenance. They might outsource engine overhaul or avionics or instrument repairs but the actual maintenance on the plane was done in-house. As they grew, they just added facility space and equipment as necessary, so it was incremental growth and the cost grew incrementally as well.
Then comes 911, recession, fuel price increases, another recession - the legacies started looking under every rock for ways to save money. By this time the hangers were leased so easy to get rid of (especially in bankruptcy), equipment could be sold off, etc and there was a network of MRO's eager and willing to take the business. So a lot of base maintenance went out to those MRO's.
So how to stuff the genie back in the bottle? As much as I'd love to see everything brought back in-house - maintenance, flying, ramp, CSA, res, etc - I'm not sure it's possible at this point.
So what to do about the safety and quality of the outsourced work? It's up to the carrier doing the outsourcing. It starts with selecting MRO's for quality instead of cost and having adequate oversight of whoever is chosen - the carrier's people on the ground at the MRO's checking their work every hour of every day. NOT like it is all too often now - "They're FAA approved so they must be doing a good job" while depending on the FAA to do quality control.
Jim
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #3
well said, Jim.
Ultimately, it is the AIRLINE that bears responsibility for its own maintenance. Contractors might be sued but you can look back at the Valujet crask to see that the cost to the airline is far greater than it is to the contractor. Airlines have EVERY reason to ensure that contractors do their job right.
Despite all the attempts to say that outsourced maintenance is less safe, there is NO EVIDENCE to support the notion in aggregate. Yes, you can all cite incidents where contractors have screwed up but there are at least as many if not more cases where airline employees themselves have made costly errors.
The Consumer Reports article as well as the various attempts in Washington to cut out outsourced maintenance have failed and will continue to fail until there is sufficient evidence to show that they are 1. significantly less safe than in-house maintenance and 2. that there is no possibility that the safety level of outsourced maintenance can be raised.
Ultimately, it is the AIRLINE that bears responsibility for its own maintenance. Contractors might be sued but you can look back at the Valujet crask to see that the cost to the airline is far greater than it is to the contractor. Airlines have EVERY reason to ensure that contractors do their job right.
Despite all the attempts to say that outsourced maintenance is less safe, there is NO EVIDENCE to support the notion in aggregate. Yes, you can all cite incidents where contractors have screwed up but there are at least as many if not more cases where airline employees themselves have made costly errors.
The Consumer Reports article as well as the various attempts in Washington to cut out outsourced maintenance have failed and will continue to fail until there is sufficient evidence to show that they are 1. significantly less safe than in-house maintenance and 2. that there is no possibility that the safety level of outsourced maintenance can be raised.
The outsourced maintenance that I have seen is less safe, you people that dont work on aircraft should not commit on something you dont know about.
I seen first hand what you get when you outsource maintenance , and your right about one thing , the management are the ones in control of weather it gets done right or not.
I have worked on aircraft for another carrier and management for that carrier would get mad if you found damage etc that needed fixed.
They warned you not to look for damage.
They also dont clean their A/C right , because when you clean the area all the damage shows up, and they dont want to fix it because it cost money , but scew safety.
I have seen this on about every carrier that we worked on.
I have seen bearings frozen on flight controls cracks in structure , corrosion so bad we had to replace a 8'x5 section of skin, and lack of routine maintenance.
This is why I will fly only on American Airlines, because we do it right!!!!!!
I seen and heard from friends that worked at mro's on what goes on and I dont want my family flying on those carriers.
The only reason we havent seen more accidents is the A/C are engneered very well.
Thats why the Southwest plane with the convertable roof didnt fall out of the sky, but its because of the lack of proper maintence and inspection that it happened.
Southwest had this problem come up a while back with cracks in the skins they should have been on top of this, there is no excuse except for not properly maintaining their A/C.
Its all about cost and one of the days the damage will overwhelm the design and we will have a smoking hole!!
The FAA does not have the resources to inspect all the mro's especially the ones outside the US.
The AMT's are the ones that knows whats up with airline maintenance , and they are the ones that the goverment should look to for guidence.
I seen first hand what you get when you outsource maintenance , and your right about one thing , the management are the ones in control of weather it gets done right or not.
I have worked on aircraft for another carrier and management for that carrier would get mad if you found damage etc that needed fixed.
They warned you not to look for damage.
They also dont clean their A/C right , because when you clean the area all the damage shows up, and they dont want to fix it because it cost money , but scew safety.
I have seen this on about every carrier that we worked on.
I have seen bearings frozen on flight controls cracks in structure , corrosion so bad we had to replace a 8'x5 section of skin, and lack of routine maintenance.
This is why I will fly only on American Airlines, because we do it right!!!!!!
I seen and heard from friends that worked at mro's on what goes on and I dont want my family flying on those carriers.
The only reason we havent seen more accidents is the A/C are engneered very well.
Thats why the Southwest plane with the convertable roof didnt fall out of the sky, but its because of the lack of proper maintence and inspection that it happened.
Southwest had this problem come up a while back with cracks in the skins they should have been on top of this, there is no excuse except for not properly maintaining their A/C.
Its all about cost and one of the days the damage will overwhelm the design and we will have a smoking hole!!
The FAA does not have the resources to inspect all the mro's especially the ones outside the US.
The AMT's are the ones that knows whats up with airline maintenance , and they are the ones that the goverment should look to for guidence.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #6
Once again, thiis is YOUR ANECDOTAL evidence and nothing more. Despite what you want to believe, there is no STATISTICAL evidence to support the notion that either in-house or outsouced maintenance is safer. If there were, you can believe it would have been released. You can't produce it because there is on evidence to support the notion that outsourced maintenance is safer.
.
What is public is that AA has faced larger FAA fines for maintenance related violations than any other airline in the US. AA also has had more accidents and incidents than any other US carrier, some of which are related to maintenance and some are not... but to a passenger who is interested in getting to his/her destination safely, there are reasons to doubt the claims you make about AA, for people who even rank safety as a purchase driver which is a VERY SMALL number of people to begin with.
.
While many of you want to argue that AA's record "doesn't count" for one reason or the other, the simple fact is that AA's record isn't as flawless as you would like it to be.
.
When AA's record is flawless, then you can talk to the rest of the world about how why what they are doing is wrong. For now, it would seem that the greatest strategy to convince the rest of the world of your point of view is to get your own house in order. Until then, your cries about how "unsafe" other carriers are and how "safe" AA is don't really amount to much in the eyes of most people.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #7
WT,
The one mistake you seem to make is seeing outsourced maintenance as some monolithic entity - all the same. It isn't and likely never will be. DL and AA are providers of outsourced maintenance, as are most airlines for at least on-call maintenance. Then there are the low bidders in third world countries.
Jim
The one mistake you seem to make is seeing outsourced maintenance as some monolithic entity - all the same. It isn't and likely never will be. DL and AA are providers of outsourced maintenance, as are most airlines for at least on-call maintenance. Then there are the low bidders in third world countries.
Jim
OK
AA is an easy target because the FAA has easy access, they dont have the same access to to foreign facilities so they focus on whats easy.
AA has had more accidents and incidents than any other carrier? Do you have sources to back that up?
Word is that the WN Convertible section that failed was outsourced to Spirit. There are also pictures of a yet to be delivered AA plane thats having a whole section that Spirit did being replaced by Boeing.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #9
No, I understand completely that there are good companies in every category whether they be MROs in China or MROs in the US or whether they be airlines that do their own maintenance in the US.
The reality is that it comes down to the quality of the work that is done and what each individual airline accepts.
Too many pro-US labor people want to make it out to be that ANY outsourced maintenance is poor quality esp. if it is done overseas and there is simply no data to support that.
I am all for US labor and all for making sure aviation is safe but I can't accept solely on the basis of the nationality of the shop or whether the members are unionized or not that the work is poor quality or not - but that is precisely the argument that too many here want to make.
When supporters here can justify that they really do a markedly better job than everyone else and demonstrate that those "other shops" really do poor quality work which is being detected, then they will gain traction in their arguments.
Of course AA is an easy target and so they are being picked on. Cry me a river, Bob.
If AA or any other company is doing high quality work, then there is nothing to worry about. Justifying that AA or anyone else is getting caught because they can easily be found is no way to argue that any other party is doing poor quality work.
Aircraft hull damage data is pretty easy to find... there is no argument that AA has had more incidents than other airlines. Again, relatively few of these have involved maintenance but the notion that AA is as safe as or safer than other carriers is just not supported by data.
I guess you just dont get it.
We as amt's have seen it first hand.
Tell me how bearings frozen up on flight controls is safe, or corrosion so bad that we had to remove an 8' section of skin that could of blown open at any time.
Like I said the design of the aircraft is forgiving
But at some point in time we are going to exceed that design because of the lack of maintence.
I have known amt's that worked at mro's here in the US and they told me about all the pencil whipping that goes on.
I talk to a amt at UAL ,
,when they first started to out source their maintenance ,the pilots refused to ferry the A/C back because they unfit to fly.
We work behind the scenes , we have friends at other airlines ,we know things that the public does not see , its a matter of time before something bad happens.
As for AA record the only accident that was caused by maintence was in Chicago in 1969, and that was not caused from the lack of maintenance.
We as amt's have seen it first hand.
Tell me how bearings frozen up on flight controls is safe, or corrosion so bad that we had to remove an 8' section of skin that could of blown open at any time.
Like I said the design of the aircraft is forgiving
But at some point in time we are going to exceed that design because of the lack of maintence.
I have known amt's that worked at mro's here in the US and they told me about all the pencil whipping that goes on.
I talk to a amt at UAL ,
,when they first started to out source their maintenance ,the pilots refused to ferry the A/C back because they unfit to fly.
We work behind the scenes , we have friends at other airlines ,we know things that the public does not see , its a matter of time before something bad happens.
As for AA record the only accident that was caused by maintence was in Chicago in 1969, and that was not caused from the lack of maintenance.
Hopeful
Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 5,998
- 347
Save your breath people.....WT will support anything that gives him a cheap ticket.
But in the even of an aircraft accident or disaster, he will be the first one to file a lawsuit demanding to know who, what, when , where and why his loved ones were killed.
That's the ONLY time people like him care....They enjoy the cheap fares until something happens.
But in the even of an aircraft accident or disaster, he will be the first one to file a lawsuit demanding to know who, what, when , where and why his loved ones were killed.
That's the ONLY time people like him care....They enjoy the cheap fares until something happens.
Frank Szabo
Veteran
That's why I put him and two other "gurus" on ignore. Eolesen actually has basis to speak so he's cool, but the other three are nothing more than wanna-be "experts".
Kev3188
Veteran
How do we know that? Josh is clearly a troll, but WT is not; he just posts things that knock a lot of us out of our comfort zone.
Anyway, back to the topic...
So my (honest) question you and everyone else is: What's the solution, then? We've all seen/heard/read stories about poor mtx. Those of us that were at NW lived it post-strike. I for one would like to see all mtx from a line check to a D check in house, but that's just not realistic. So now what?
Anyway, back to the topic...
So my (honest) question you and everyone else is: What's the solution, then? We've all seen/heard/read stories about poor mtx. Those of us that were at NW lived it post-strike. I for one would like to see all mtx from a line check to a D check in house, but that's just not realistic. So now what?
I could be fired if I take a picture, silly people, to prove how bad some MRO work is! Here a good one -TWA had to steal thier own 747 back from a MRO back in the late 80's early 90's. Landed in KC took us 4 weeks to get it back together, The best part is there was 2x4's in the cargo hole being used as repairs--more than 1 repair people!!!!!!!! I kid you not!!!!!!! Also remember the 747SP that got rebuild by a MRO anyone! TWA did the first check for you, we found - not one passager oxygen mask was working. 0, none--- your dead!!!!! We where a easy target, in KC the FAA was there all most everyday, Why because it was in thier back yard!
Similar threads
