Consumer Reports raises concerns about outsourced airline maintenance

[WorldTraveler]

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.

yes, I have read many, many assessments of AA employee assessments about the M80 wiring incident.
I agree that it should have never become what it did - but for AA it did become one of AA's biggest operational meltdowns ever.
And no, it wasn't just Arpey that grounded the M80 fleet - the FAA was involved. No other carrier that I know of had the FAA impose fines or ground aircraft over the incident.
The question still has to be asked why AA couldn't get the AD right but other airlines could, esp. given that AA managed to get it right on insourced aircraft on whcih it did the work.
.
The point remains that AA's in-house maintenance, just like other carriers, has some blemishes. To argue that everyone else is doing it wrong while not recognizing the problems that exist in your own backyard is the defintion of hypocrisy.
.
Do I think that other carriers or contractors have it all right? not by any means. But to argue that AA's largely in-house maintenance is flawless and therefore what everyone is doing is wrong when they clearly haven't experienced the same level of maintenance problems.
.
If you and others want to argue that AA should remain in-house, I'm fine for you to do so. To argue that others are doing it wrong and that contract maintenance is all bad - whether in the US or overseas - when other carriers that are doing it that way don't seem to have had the same problems - is simply not an accurate assessment of reality.

 

[chris perry]

yes, I have read many, many assessments of AA employee assessments about the M80 wiring incident.
I agree that it should have never become what it did - but for AA it did become one of AA's biggest operational meltdowns ever.
And no, it wasn't just Arpey that grounded the M80 fleet - the FAA was involved. No other carrier that I know of had the FAA impose fines or ground aircraft over the incident.
The question still has to be asked why AA couldn't get the AD right but other airlines could, esp. given that AA managed to get it right on insourced aircraft on whcih it did the work.
.
The point remains that AA's in-house maintenance, just like other carriers, has some blemishes. To argue that everyone else is doing it wrong while not recognizing the problems that exist in your own backyard is the defintion of hypocrisy.
.
Do I think that other carriers or contractors have it all right? not by any means. But to argue that AA's largely in-house maintenance is flawless and therefore what everyone is doing is wrong when they clearly haven't experienced the same level of maintenance problems.
.
If you and others want to argue that AA should remain in-house, I'm fine for you to do so. To argue that others are doing it wrong and that contract maintenance is all bad - whether in the US or overseas - when other carriers that are doing it that way don't seem to have had the same problems - is simply not an accurate assessment of reality.

 

[chris perry]

It all remains to be seen safety is being lessened at every level ,contact maint MRO just happens to lesson the profession.
I see even Quantas is using prison labor to clean their airplanes,just google the TWU in Austrailia its almost scary to see the corruption in that union.I ask myself is this the same TWU,it sounds all familiar......Its not but might as well be.

 

[WorldTraveler]

It all remains to be seen safety is being lessened at every level ,contact maint MRO just happens to lesson the profession.
I see even Quantas is using prison labor to clean their airplanes,just google the TWU in Austrailia its almost scary to see the corruption in that union.I ask myself is this the same TWU,it sounds all familiar......Its not but might as well be.

Chris,
I COMPLETELY agree with you that contract maintenance and performance of work by non-mechanics IS cheapening the profession.
The issue is whether there is a resulting decrease in safety. I do not believe the evidence is there to prove that - partly because AA at least in the US does not have a sterling track record regarding maintenance and partly because other carriers haven't had the catastrophes that would force a true top to bottom review of maintenance practices. Even then, there has to be pretty convincing evidence that maintenance outsourcing is not safe across the board - and I don't think that will be found to be true. There are maintenance lapses at contractors and there are maintenance lapses at airlines. But there is a lot of contract maintenance that is being done to acceptable levels of safety - and if it isn't being done the first time, airlines are catching it before the FAA gets a look and implements the fines that would force change.
.
The reason why the Consumer Reports article hasn't really gained any traction is because there is no more evidence in that article than we have heard on this forum for a long time.

 

[xUT]

At this juncture, one smoking hole "attributable to outsourced maintenance" will not be enough as it will be deemed correctable with increased oversight. I doubt even after several smoking holes "attributable to outsourced maintenance" there will be any change in HM outsourcing.
The deed is done and they are not turning back.
JMHO, B) xUT

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

This is a story that the media just doesn't cover enough. With events like the Southwest 737 metal fatigue, why isn't the media or the FAA asking about the root cause of these problems?

My opinion is that without ending offshore maintenance, or at least a lot more oversight, we will see more accidents.

 

[xUT]

This is a story that the media just doesn't cover enough. With events like the Southwest 737 metal fatigue, why isn't the media or the FAA asking about the root cause of these problems?

My opinion is that without ending offshore maintenance, or at least a lot more oversight, we will see more accidents.

Right now, it is considered a manufacturing defect.
More than likely, that will not change wither it is or it isn't.
B) xUT

 

[Birdman]

Chris,
I COMPLETELY agree with you that contract maintenance and performance of work by non-mechanics IS cheapening the profession.
The issue is whether there is a resulting decrease in safety. I do not believe the evidence is there to prove that - partly because AA at least in the US does not have a sterling track record regarding maintenance and partly because other carriers haven't had the catastrophes that would force a true top to bottom review of maintenance practices. Even then, there has to be pretty convincing evidence that maintenance outsourcing is not safe across the board - and I don't think that will be found to be true. There are maintenance lapses at contractors and there are maintenance lapses at airlines. But there is a lot of contract maintenance that is being done to acceptable levels of safety - and if it isn't being done the first time, airlines are catching it before the FAA gets a look and implements the fines that would force change.
.
The reason why the Consumer Reports article hasn't really gained any traction is because there is no more evidence in that article than we have heard on this forum for a long time.

Just because an airline has not had many incidents doesn't mean their safe. Let me clarify. Large a/c are very forgiving. You can have pitted control cables, corroded or cracked floor beams/frames/skin, worn bearings/flap tracks/jackscrews, excessive engine wear, delaminated windows, miscalibrated or inoperative avionics systems and many other unattended defects that won't prevent the a/c from making revenue flights. Do these flaws increase the possibility that an incident will occur? Certainly, but many airlines may throw fate in the wind, and most often will win, ignoring known defects in order to save money. AA does not operate that way and often overinspects on light checks. What you call an acceptable level may be a level that is out of manual tolerance due to negligence, but will not result in a catastrophe. Airlines can delay costs for years and then "catch" a worn out part before the FAA gets involved, saving millions of dollars. Who knows if airlines doing maintenance on the cheap hasn't weighed the cost of more responsible upkeep against fines and decided to take their chances with fines if caught.

 

[tech2101]

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.

+2

 

[tech2101]

This is a story that the media just doesn't cover enough. With events like the Southwest 737 metal fatigue, why isn't the media or the FAA asking about the root cause of these problems?

What makes you think that the FAA is not looking at the root cause of these problems? You are misinformed and perpetuating a stereotypical myth if you think that is the case.

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< ------- Hey Paul! You want someone who can't even speak, yet alone read, English, look for something like this? http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/12/news/companies/boeing_southwest_737_damage.fortune/index.htm?iid=EAL Wasn't Southwest one of those Airlines that was seen at that sweat shop in El Salvador?

 

[Bob Owens]

As I read these reports and then the replies from all the pro-management folks about how "there's no evidence that outsourced maintenance is less safe" it really shows how little most outsiders know about air safety. Yes the planes are designed and built well, however maintenance is also key.

The recent SWA incident was an unexpected failure and the causes are still being looked at. One possible explanation being thrown out there is that it was not built properly in the first place, and it was built by Spirit, a former Boeing plant thats been sold off and now is a 3P provider to Boeing, I'll make the assumption that Spirit has to be the lowest bidder to get the work. It took 15 years for the defect to show up. Recently damage was found on another 737 fuselage requiring that a whole section of crown skin to be replaced on a 737 being built for AA.

The excellent safety record that we enjoy today is the result of not only good design and construction but good maintenance years ago, when either of these factors have been compromised, safety is as well. If you dont change your oil frequently its not like the car will all of a sudden just sieze up, but over time parts will fail prematurely.Those conditioned to see results between 8K reports or who trade in their cars after 2 years will say maintenance doesnt matter but airlines tend to keep aircraft a long time and failures often take years to materialize. The airlines started outsourcing on a large scale eight years ago. It does matter, the SWA skin failure was a wake up call, will the FAA hear it, or will they need more evidence?

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< ------ Bob, I feel everyone is missing the point here! Skin failures like that don't, normally, happen all at once! They progress from structural cracks to full failures over a period of time! There's a good chance someone missed this on inspection of the fuselage at the last major! ------ Done where? El Salvador?

 

[Bob Owens]

<_< ------ Bob, I feel everyone is missing the point here! Skin failures like that don't, normally, happen all at once! They progress from structural cracks to full failures over a period of time! There's a good chance someone missed this on inspection of the fuselage at the last major! ------ Done where? El Salvador?

It was built wrong and never caught. Both failures tied to outsourcing.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Bob,
since you all but quoted me, let me respond by saying the onus is on YOU and the unionized US workfoce to prove that maintenance at outsourced airlines is less safe. You can't prove it and neither could Consumer Reports so you and they simply resort to assumptions.
.
I have no doubt that maintenance is important and the safety record we have in aviation is because of what is happening today iN ADDITION to what happened years ago. To somehow think that unionized maintenance workers are the only ones who can learn from the mistakes of previous generations is mighty presumptious. And you still haven't dealt with the reality that airlines recognize that maintenance - regardless of who does it - is non-negotiable in the eyes of the public and that if it fails, the company is in deep doo-doo. One look at Valujet proves that. The company failed because they allowed contractors to put things on their planes w/o proper oversight - with results which the American public could not forgive. Despite being convinced that the bean counters make all the decisions w/o regard to safety, the fact that the Valujet incident has not been repeated shows that companies are smart enough to know that you can't cut to the point of risking damage to the company and that the company really is responsible for the work that is done on its planes.
.
From the minute the latest WN incident occurred, you and others rushed to judgment convinced that contrators were the source of the problem - and yet all that has been released so far was that it was a manufacturing error.
So you have turned your sights on contract manufacturing, as if you have just discovered some new reality. Newsflash, Bob. There are precious few products anywhere in the world that are manufactured solely by one company - which means there are contractors and suppliers involved. Again despite your attempt to rush to judgment, you can't provide any more evidence other than your anecdotal evidence that Boeing or anyone else doesn't make design and manufacturing errors that contractors just replicated. Do you really think that Boeing did not have oversight over whatever was being done on its planes, from design, to manufacturing, to acceptance of the finished components?
.
For you or anyone to think that I am pro-management belies the fact that I am as ruthless about AA mgmt's failures as anyone on the web. But I am also ruthless at pointing out your own failures, Bob. Because WT could just as easily mean the WHOLE TRUTH, something which you and a whole lot of the rest of people at AA seem unable to accept, esp. the part that might involve your own failings.
.

To be honest with you, Bob, the more you post, the more I realize why AA labor is in such deep trouble. You can't figure out how to do labor's part to get AA out of the mess it is in, instead choosing to blame everyone else and to believe that the world is all out to get you.
Get a life, Bob, and come up with a strategy to save the jobs of thousands of your members instead of continuing to live in some alternative world. Your inaction only will result in the obvious consequences, including the eventual failure of American Airlines at the hands of a bunch of people including management who sit by and play beautiful music while blaming others as the Titanic sinks.