Consumer Reports raises concerns about outsourced airline maintenance

[chris perry]

I was just imformed by FAA they were here in DFW HANGER because they have no funding to inspect other stations in US.Now sell me on they inspect third world repair stations....regularly.The fact is they have no idea whats going on there.

 

[Frank Szabo]

I was just imformed by FAA they were here in DFW HANGER because they have no funding to inspect other stations in US.Now sell me on they inspect third world repair stations....regularly.The fact is they have no idea whats going on there.

That means simply there's no accounting of shoddiness for those who use the third-world "services". Even here in the states, the main issue is finding someone to sign of on repairs - right or wrong has really never been an issue.

If the desired "level" of maintenance involves "pencil-whipping", it's OK as long as the paper is correct.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I was just imformed by FAA they were here in DFW HANGER because they have no funding to inspect other stations in US.Now sell me on they inspect third world repair stations....regularly.The fact is they have no idea whats going on there.

I am sorry but if you think that the FAA can ONLY make it to DFW but not ATL, CLT, ORD, DEN, SFO, MSP, DTW, JFK.... you truly have a complex.

The FAA may well focus on airlines more than MROs but that just validates my point that the AIRLINES are responsible for the work they accept. Valujet taught the world that lesson.

If maintenance is done poorly, it needs to be found by the airlines BEFORE the FAA. If the FAA gets involved, it all of a sudden gets nasty.

So far as I know, CO, DL, UA, and US haven't had fines proposed in the tens of millions of dollars - and they all use outsourced maintenance.

The first place to start to convince everyone that in-house maintenance is the best is to be the best. When the track record for in-house maintenance is worse than outsourced maintenance - by any measure, then it gets pretty hard to convince anyone of your point.

BTW, TWA is dead.... should speak volumes about the quality of the ENTIRE operation they did. There were similar stories involving EA and TW... it is also why the FAA focuses a great deal of attention on financially weaker airlines because it is known that they cut corners on maintenance.

Do you suppose THAT might be why AA is receiving more visits from the FAA?

 

[eolesen]

I was just imformed by FAA they were here in DFW HANGER because they have no funding to inspect other stations in US.Now sell me on they inspect third world repair stations....regularly.The fact is they have no idea whats going on there.

Maybe you guys need to lobby to have the airline bear the cost of bringing in the FAA inspectors? It's not an unreasonable burden. And in a day & age where Congresscritters are squeezing blood from turnips, it would probably get support pretty quickly...

 

[Frank Szabo]

I am sorry but if you think that the FAA can ONLY make it to DFW but not ATL, CLT, ORD, DEN, SFO, MSP, DTW, JFK.... you truly have a complex.

... snip

Did you even bother to read the man's post?

He said the FAA TOLD HIM they were there because they didn't have the money to go elsewhere - he repeated what he was told for our benefit, according to his wording.

How does that become a "complex", even in your twisted world? Call him out for telling lies if you wish, but a "complex"?

Let's talk about your kind, hanging around a mechanic's board with your supposed "great knowledge" of the airline industry even though you admit you don't work in it.

In you're case, it's called Narcissistic - having fallen in love with your own reflection or in your particular instance, seeing your words on a monitor.

 

[FWAAA]

Did you even bother to read the man's post?

He said the FAA TOLD HIM they were there because they didn't have the money to go elsewhere - he repeated what he was told for our benefit, according to his wording.

How does that become a "complex", even in your twisted world? Call him out for telling lies if you wish, but a "complex"?

Let's talk about your kind, hanging around a mechanic's board with your supposed "great knowledge" of the airline industry even though you admit you don't work in it.

In you're case, it's called Narcissistic - having fallen in love with your own reflection or in your particular instance, seeing your words on a monitor.

While I agree with much of your post, I wasn't aware that www.airlineforums.com was "a mechanic's board." Learn something new every day.

 

[eolesen]

While I agree with much of your post, I wasn't aware that www.airlineforums.com was "a mechanic's board." Learn something new every day.

+1...

 

[sixty/4]

Yes this form is for everyone, but we prefer you know what your talking about.,
It is the airlines responsibility for maintenance, but the ceo's want cheap maintenance, so they send it to the lowest bidder, the mro's want to please them so they cut corners to keep cost down , including hiring unlicenced mechanics , the FAA doesnt have the ability to inspect all these places or whats being done, the shoddy work gets covered up and the unsafe aircraft rolls out and flys your loved ones home , while the ceo's are pocketing the money they saved for a bonus .

 

[boston]

I was just imformed by FAA they were here in DFW HANGER because they have no funding to inspect other stations in US.Now sell me on they inspect third world repair stations....regularly.The fact is they have no idea whats going on there.

Not to far fetched, Years ago when SJC was a vibrant hub, there were 3 FAA inspector's on the S-80, kicking around the seats, OH bin's ect. I asked them what are you doing" They said "looking for items to be fixed, your the only airline who has money" I've never forgot that.

I see airlines from all over the US in El Salvador, there all there, you name it.

 

[chris perry]

They were all standing around in HGR 3. They were buget restrained until congress approved more funds believe what you want.
The truth is they were there and thats what they said WT.

 

[chris perry]

Also you better read upon UA World traveler ,they had some of the shottiest Maint during the AMFA strike it was down right criminal...I guess you havent read about the whistleblower that was fired and vindicated later.All the allegations were true and the FAA stood quietly on the side knowing full well the situation....

 

[chris perry]

Here is the link WT http://www.aicapilot.org/news/AMFA_Attorney_Wins_Victory_for_Aircraft_Mechanic.pdf

 

[WorldTraveler]

Chris,
my point is that it is beyond believable to think that the FAA had enough funding to inspect AA but no other airilne anywhere in the US. Yes, I understand the budget constraints and the lack of oversight over the industry but to think that AA ALONE was facing the brunt of the FAA's inspection actions while everyone else got a pass is beyond reasonable.
.
I also don't have any doubt that there is bad maintenance going on. I also don't know the specifics of the case you cite but it is a union that is attempting to justify its existence that says the FAA doesn't care about employees who step forward w/ safety concerns.... again, I don't know the specifics of this case but the FAA has most definitely acted on employee whistleblower cases.
.
It doesn't say the safety system is broken because United violated it. It also doesn't say that they were charged with FAA wafety violations, only with labor law and employee protection violations.
.
I'm still not sure what yout point is though. First you (collectively) say that contract maintenance is bad. Now you say that in-house maintenance at other carriers is bad. What you and others still haven't admitted is that AA doesn't have its house in order or they wouldn't have been slapped with a multi-million dollar proposed fine for not being able to properly follow wiring bundle instructions on the MD80.
It is noteworthy that AA supposedly did contract work on the same issue for other carriers and got it right. And DL, the 2nd largest M80 operator in the US, managed to get the directive right; they voluntarily grounded their fleet for inspections to make sure they did it right and so far as I know did not have any aircraft grounded by the FAA or any fines.
Chris, the M80 wiring bundle issue was the biggest maintenance issue that affected the public in US aviation in the past 10 years and AA blew it. Trying to tell the world that everyone else is wrong when AA failed so badly at what should have been a fairly straightforward AD is beyond explanation.
.
My point once again is that when AA and every other in-house maintenance operation does what they are supposed to do flawlessly, then there is room to accuse others of doing their maintenance poorly. But you also have to have evidence that those carriers were negligent in their maintenance as well. Despite what you want to argue, CO, DL, UA, and US as well as most of the LFCs outsource significant amounts of their maintenance and have still managed to operate safely as well avoid the massive fines that have had AA. Yes, WN was also fined but the fines were for WN's maintenance controls - a company not a contract function. So, once again, everything I see says that airlines themselves are held responsible for the work done on their aircraft whether by contractors or in-house and the evidence is that other carriers - who still get inspected by the FAA - are getting done with maintenance what they are supposed to do.

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

FLY CHEAP, DIE CHEAP!!

Fly cheap and use the money you save on a nice looking casket. (Now THERE'S a commercial for you!)

 

[Birdman]

Chris, the M80 wiring bundle issue was the biggest maintenance issue that affected the public in US aviation in the past 10 years and AA blew it. Trying to tell the world that everyone else is wrong when AA failed so badly at what should have been a fairly straightforward AD is beyond explanation.

Your wording is a very poor assessment of what many of us know to be the truth. In reality what we had was the greatest overblown, much ado about nothing, nitpicked AD in the entire history of aviation. Arpey simply overreacted by grounding the fleet. The wiring was perfectly safe even though the string ties may have been a fraction of an inch off and a few clamps may have been slightly positioned contrary to the finite details of the AD. The FAA inspectors couldn't even agree on the AD, requiring many of the reworked harnesses to be reworked again at another station.