Consumer Reports raises concerns about outsourced airline maintenance

[WorldTraveler]

let me say that I believed everyone word of your story to be true even before you wrote it....
I know full well that it wasn't the individual line mechanics that "screwed up"... it was AA engineering who studies and rewrites FAA ADs to AA's standards....
In this vein, "maintenance" is a generic term for the entire group of people who have responsibility for aircrraft maintenance and I know full well that process doesn't start w/ individual AMTs.
.
Yes, I also know that AA tried many times to defuse responsibility for what occurred instead of admitting they made an error. As a basis for comparison, WN had similar management lapses in its huge FAA fine... but they admitted the problem, some management folks fell for not doing their job right, and so far as we know, WN has managed to stay off of the FAA's "list" by not doing what was alleged before. You might also remember the Tylenol scare decades ago. It has frequently been cited as a case study for how to overcome something that you as a company didn't cause... but if you respond wrong, it can cost you dearly. Johnson and Johnson did everything right w/ the Tylenol case including pulling its product and APOLOGIZING to the public, even though it was a VICTIM. When AA clearly made mistakes, their response was to throw the "little people" under the bus and deflected any company responsibility for what was going on.
.
And while AA grounded some of the MD80 fleet, isn't it also true that the FAA grounded some planes themselves?
.
The connection with the ability to read and follow directions is that those who argue that not having foreign shops who have people who can't read English (word of people here although I'm not sure it is really as true as you say it is) is not a whole lot different from AA engineering (maintenance in the collective sense) not being able to follow FAA directions or read an AD. Whether that stems from not being able to read or believing you know better than the regulator or because AA became the "poster child" in the FAA's campaign of "just do what is written to the letter" isn't known - maybe it will be some day.
.

I still think it is hypocritical to argue that AA's internal maintenance is flawless because they can read directions but maintenance shops in other countries apparently have not had the problems w/ the FAA that you say they do.
.
And I still have yet to see anyone provide evidence that other carriers simply accept incorrect work being done from foreign contractors and allow that unsafe work to be used to fly passengers. I know for a fact that several large US airlines, DL included, have replaced foreign MROs with others, including DL. I don't know the reasons for those replacements but I suspect just like deciding that India call centers would work, there is some business sense that says that the lowest bidder sometimes can't get the job done. When it comes to safety (unlike res), it is a matter of right or wrong... not just an inconvenience to the customer.
In that case, from a customer and safety standpoint, then the "error" of an airline is to accept poor quality outsourced maintenance than that a foreign shop did it. Obviously, US unions aren't going to accept even that foreign shops can do safe maintenance... but that is precisely why I say that those who argue that ALL outsourced maintenance - whether foreign or US - is unsafe and wrong because clearly not all are unsafe and much of it is done to FAA and airline standards.
.
The battle for AA maintenance is then convincing management and Wall Street that there is value in using in-house labor, not that everyone else (or even anyone else) is wrong and we are right because even that characterization is not accurate. There are problems with some US maintenance and with some foreign maintenance.

 

[Hopeful]

WT, what you need to to realize is that the FAA came down on AA only AFTER their cozy relations with airlines, namely Southwest and AA, were brought to light. The FAA got caught with their pants down and made an example of AA, the then largest carrier.

We are talking a fraction of an inch in wire tie spacing....maybe the thickness of a dime...
This is laughable.
Prior to the FAA being exposed, this would have NEVER been an issue.
So guess what? Since AA put blame squarely on the mechanics, don't complain and criticize when mechanics preach GO BY THE BOOK!!!!!!!!

THIS IS THE ENVIRONMENT AA CREATED, NOT THE MECHANICS!

The age old relationship between airlines and the FAA has always been a "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" one.
This is what happens when you have the same agency enforcing air regulations AND promoting the US aviation industry.
The airlines have successfully petitioned the FAA for decades to EASE any air regulation because "WAAAA, THIS AND THAT ARE JUST GOING TO COST US TOO MUCH MONEY....WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

 

[WorldTraveler]

completely agree Hopeful. And I suspect AA mgmt found that it would have been cheaper to have just followed the FAA's AD from the beginning. I suspect that part of the FAA's ire was precisely because it took multiple times for AA to get the message that the FAA wanted it done "this way and no other way". I won't pretend to know what actually took place in those conversations but I suspect that if AA had made the changes the FAA wanted even on the first review (one time after the AD was first issued), we wouldn't be talking about this today.
Again, it isn't the individual AMTs that were at fault and yes you are right, there is no room for individual interpretation in maintenance... do what is required and no less. that standard should apply to every other US airline and MRO operation, foreign or not as well. And if for some reason someone doesn't get it right, the first person who finds the error should get it fixed and don't fly the plane in revenue service until it is fixed - at least not with your name on it.

 

[eolesen]

WT, I think the point you keep missing is that the FAA had no idea what they were doing.

It wasn't a matter of "AA not getting the message the first time"

Three different FAA inspectors would have three different interpretations. A plane that got signed off the previous days would suddenly be out of compliance when the FAA changed their guidance.

I saw the same lack of coordination when we were implementing the post-9/11 security standards and watchlist checks. At least then, there was good cause for confusion because everything was a moving target. But there's no excuse for how the FAA handled the MD80 issue, and it's been awfully quiet since then. I think even they realize they went overboard.

I'm sure you have lots of front line operational experience dealing with the FAA. So how the **** do you expect it to be carried out "to the letter" when the FAA guys didn't know how it was supposed to be carried out?.....

This debacle was like "Wag The Dog".... POTUS gets caught in a scandal, so the military gets told to go bomb Jihaadistan, and the media forgets entirely about the scandal....

This was no different, and everyone in the tech ops community knew it. You might as well try to stop trying to explain it otherwise.

 

[Hopeful]

WT, I think the point you keep missing is that the FAA had no idea what they were doing.

It wasn't a matter of "AA not getting the message the first time"

Three different inspectors would have three different interpretations. A plane that got signed off the previous day would suddenly be out of compliance.

How the **** do you expect it to be carried out "to the letter" when the FAA guys didn't know how it was supposed to be carried out?.....

This debacle was like "Wag The Dog".... POTUS gets caught in a scandal, so the military gets told to go bomb Jihaadistan, and the media forgets entirely about the scandal....

This was no different.

Good point and fact!
Yes, rules are rules and we all are required by law to follow the book to the letter..I am not disputing that.
My point is that the decades old relationship between FAA and airline has created the environment where "minor" deviations were allowed and mechanic judgement COULD come into play.

But at the end of the day, we are all responsible. .From that moment on, the company preached VERBATIM. We therefore need to follow that directive!

As for any ourtsourced facility??????????? I doubt very much the mechanics at those facilities would face the scorn and scrutiny we did at AA over this episode!

 

[strikeforce]

And while AA grounded some of the MD80 fleet, isn't it also true that the FAA grounded some planes themselves?

I still think it is hypocritical to argue that AA's internal maintenance is flawless because they can read directions but maintenance shops in other countries apparently have not had the problems w/ the FAA that you say they do.

The battle for AA maintenance is then convincing management and Wall Street that there is value in using in-house labor, not that everyone else (or even anyone else) is wrong and we are right because even that characterization is not accurate. There are problems with some US maintenance and with some foreign maintenance.

The FAA grounded some planes themselves........

I've said this before, the FAA will let airlines run their own maintenance program, and as long as AA follows the guidelines of the maintenance program, the FAA doesn't get involved. It's when the FAA conducts these spot checks or inspections where they find that AA has skirted and deviated from the program. The wiring fiasco just ballooned out of control because there were multiple times where the FAA caught AA in not following the AD, and yes, the FAA wouldn't release some aircraft back to service because they were done wrong numerous times. The FAA became agitated and furious with management, and especially engineering, not the mechanics.

AA's maintenance program is far from flawless, and that's because AA has inexperienced managers running the show. You will be amazed that most supervisors and managers within AA have very little floor time as mechanics. Our managing director in ORD, the second largest line station for AA, has been in the aviation industry, and aircraft maintenance for under 10 years, total. She is under 30 years of age. Are you getting a sense of the problems here?

There are many advantages to doing in-house maintenance over farm outs. Control is the number one reason. Oversight thru quality assurance is another. Remember, In-house maintenance is only as good as the people running the program. In AA's case, there are people in management positions that are not qualified to be in those positions. They're there because they either know someone at the top or other more qualified people didn't apply for the job. There are many reasons why extremely talented AMT's don't go into management. Pay, Pay, and Pay!!!!!! The other is trust. Mechanics just don't trust management. Matter of fact, soups and managers don't trust the people above them. It's really a joke!!!!

When you have 20 and 30 year AA employees say that management doesn't have a clue.......believe them! AA is a management train wreck, and AA might just have to go BK in order to rid itself of these inept managers. You will not believe it until you see it first hand. So, between engineering and management, and a parts debackle, to say AA is in deep trouble is an understatement!

 

[eolesen]

Well, Carmine, to be fair, do you think AA wants to be hiring people into those positions when they have less than ten years of industry experience?

I know most of you guys like what you do, and are content where you are.

But if you're going to complain about the quality of the line supervisors, you need to ask why there aren't more people willing to take the job.

I don't think it's just because going into management amounts to a pay cut at first, nor do I think it has to do with the amount of grief you have to take from both sides.

I think it's simply because the position has requirements which artificially make the pool of candidates shallower than it has to be. Not sure if AA is to blame for that, or if it's a matter of the FAA being inflexible.

I've questioned this before --- management is supposed to budget, manage and allocate resources, not perform the actual work.

If you have qualified people in the departments where knowing the specifics of performing the job is important (e.g. training, QA), I don't know that it is as critical to require supervisors and managers to be licensed. If anything, I think you're at a disadvantage by having former mechanics as managers and supervisors, because they might take the attitude that "I used to do this, so I don't need to listen to you" when trying to do something that's clearly not practical... e.g. Carmine Romano and windows...

A guy who managed the ramp for 25 years and started as a fleet service clerk or a furloughed pilot is probably going to be a better leader/manager than a relative newbie with their A&P and two degrees. They're going to be forced to listen to what the crew chiefs and AMTs are telling them because they don't have that first-hand experience.

Yet those guys are ineligible for consideration because of the requirement for a ticket.

 

[strikeforce]

Well, Carmine, to be fair, do you think AA wants to be hiring people into those positions when they have less than ten years of industry experience?

But if you're going to complain about the quality of the line supervisors, you need to ask why there aren't more people willing to take the job.

I've questioned this before --- management is supposed to budget, manage and allocate resources, not perform the actual work.

If you have qualified people in the departments where knowing the specifics of performing the job is important (e.g. training, QA), I don't know that it is as critical to require supervisors and managers to be licensed. If anything, I think you're at a disadvantage by having former mechanics as managers and supervisors, because they might take the attitude that "I used to do this, so I don't need to listen to you" when trying to do something that's clearly not practical... e.g. Carmine Romano and windows...

I think it has lots to do with inexperience, so the company doesn't have to pay high wages for a new supervisor. Let's just say I wanted to become a soup......AA would have to pay me an extra 10 to 20% above my current wages.....let's say $100K, or they can hire a newbie for $60K.
Plus, the saying "don't hire someone smarter than you because one day he will be your boss" comes into play, especially at AA.

When it comes to attitudes......you think it's just former mechanics that bring attitudes? I mean we're in this mess and debackle because management thinks they know everything, right?

You're right, management is supposed to provide the crew chief and crew with all available resources in order to do the job. It's not the manager's job to tell you how to do your job, that's called Micro-managing.....is it not? The company loves to micro-manage, and that's the primary reason we fail, as a business! There's a chain of command in management, and too many times the higher ups in this chain of command are doing the supervisors job. It's not rocket science, Eric.

 

[WorldTraveler]

WT, I think the point you keep missing is that the FAA had no idea what they were doing.

It wasn't a matter of "AA not getting the message the first time"

Three different FAA inspectors would have three different interpretations. A plane that got signed off the previous days would suddenly be out of compliance when the FAA changed their guidance.

I saw the same lack of coordination when we were implementing the post-9/11 security standards and watchlist checks. At least then, there was good cause for confusion because everything was a moving target. But there's no excuse for how the FAA handled the MD80 issue, and it's been awfully quiet since then. I think even they realize they went overboard.

Good point and fact!
Yes, rules are rules and we all are required by law to follow the book to the letter..I am not disputing that.
My point is that the decades old relationship between FAA and airline has created the environment where "minor" deviations were allowed and mechanic judgement COULD come into play.

But at the end of the day, we are all responsible. .From that moment on, the company preached VERBATIM. We therefore need to follow that directive!

As for any ourtsourced facility??????????? I doubt very much the mechanics at those facilities would face the scorn and scrutiny we did at AA over this episode!

No one doubts that there was a "wierd" relationship in the airline industry and that airlines and the FAA had the freedom to do things off the books w/ local FAA mgmt.
.
But no one here wants to admit that the environment changed, it changed very quickly, the FAA made it clear with its notices to AA about getting its revised wiring AD done the way the FAA wanted, and AA didn't recognize that it wasn't the same cozy relationship it once was.
Of course AA had dealt with thousands of ADs before and managed to successfully implement them to the FAA's satisfaction.
But "the cheese moved"... AA didn't figure it out and they got caught. How it all plays out long term remains to be seen (as far as the fine) but every parent and child, teacher and student knows when playtime is over and when the parent or teacher is exercising their authority. When they ask you something for the 3rd time, you best get serious and recognize they are the authority.
AA apparently lost sight of the fact that the FAA is THE aviation safety regulator. It doesn't matter what relationship AA had in the past; what does matter is that the environment changed and AA didn't pick that up while other carriers apparently did.

The FAA grounded some planes themselves........

I've said this before, the FAA will let airlines run their own maintenance program, and as long as AA follows the guidelines of the maintenance program, the FAA doesn't get involved. It's when the FAA conducts these spot checks or inspections where they find that AA has skirted and deviated from the program. The wiring fiasco just ballooned out of control because there were multiple times where the FAA caught AA in not following the AD, and yes, the FAA wouldn't release some aircraft back to service because they were done wrong numerous times. The FAA became agitated and furious with management, and especially engineering, not the mechanics.

AA's maintenance program is far from flawless, and that's because AA has inexperienced managers running the show. You will be amazed that most supervisors and managers within AA have very little floor time as mechanics. Our managing director in ORD, the second largest line station for AA, has been in the aviation industry, and aircraft maintenance for under 10 years, total. She is under 30 years of age. Are you getting a sense of the problems here?

There are many advantages to doing in-house maintenance over farm outs. Control is the number one reason. Oversight thru quality assurance is another. Remember, In-house maintenance is only as good as the people running the program. In AA's case, there are people in management positions that are not qualified to be in those positions. They're there because they either know someone at the top or other more qualified people didn't apply for the job. There are many reasons why extremely talented AMT's don't go into management. Pay, Pay, and Pay!!!!!! The other is trust. Mechanics just don't trust management. Matter of fact, soups and managers don't trust the people above them. It's really a joke!!!!

When you have 20 and 30 year AA employees say that management doesn't have a clue.......believe them! AA is a management train wreck, and AA might just have to go BK in order to rid itself of these inept managers. You will not believe it until you see it first hand. So, between engineering and management, and a parts debackle, to say AA is in deep trouble is an understatement!

your first full paragraph is completely accurate and precisely why I say AA could have avoided the problems they had if they got serious about what the FAA was asking for far earlier than they did. Just like with the PEK slot case, AA came out and blasted the government for what the government did wrong.
Guess what? The FAA turned around and fined AA. And in the PEK slot case, AA still has the same slots it had when they were awarded. In the meantime, DL managed to improve its SEA-PEK slot by several hours and is set to add DTW-PEK with an arrival in PEK 2 1/2 hours before AA's flight from ORD. Wanna guess how DL's better timed DTW-PEK flight will affect AA's ORD-PEK flight, esp. in a market where UA already has much more viable times as well.
DO you think there is a connection between AA's lambasting either government in the press and the treatment they received? Sure there is.
Sometimes the best course of action is to shut up, try to mend things privately, and then admit when you have made a mistake. In some cultures, such as China, admitting you made a mistake even if you really didn't might be enough to get you into good graces such that someone else will fix THEIR problem, even if they originally blamed YOU.

Well, Carmine, to be fair, do you think AA wants to be hiring people into those positions when they have less than ten years of industry experience?

I know most of you guys like what you do, and are content where you are.

But if you're going to complain about the quality of the line supervisors, you need to ask why there aren't more people willing to take the job.

I don't think it's just because going into management amounts to a pay cut at first, nor do I think it has to do with the amount of grief you have to take from both sides.

I think it's simply because the position has requirements which artificially make the pool of candidates shallower than it has to be. Not sure if AA is to blame for that, or if it's a matter of the FAA being inflexible.

I've questioned this before --- management is supposed to budget, manage and allocate resources, not perform the actual work.

If you have qualified people in the departments where knowing the specifics of performing the job is important (e.g. training, QA), I don't know that it is as critical to require supervisors and managers to be licensed. If anything, I think you're at a disadvantage by having former mechanics as managers and supervisors, because they might take the attitude that "I used to do this, so I don't need to listen to you" when trying to do something that's clearly not practical... e.g. Carmine Romano and windows...

A guy who managed the ramp for 25 years and started as a fleet service clerk or a furloughed pilot is probably going to be a better leader/manager than a relative newbie with their A&P and two degrees. They're going to be forced to listen to what the crew chiefs and AMTs are telling them because they don't have that first-hand experience.

Yet those guys are ineligible for consideration because of the requirement for a ticket.

The reality is that very few people at airlines want to move up into management because the pay difference isn't worth it, the increased responsibility esp. in key safety areas is very high, you lose your personal life because airlines operate 24X7 and they expect mgmt to do so as well, and then there are some people who just don't want to quit doing what they like to do - just as fix planes - in order to suck up to upper level mgmt, including throwing their previous co-workers under the bus.
.
It is possible that you could have high quality frontline mgmt move up from the ranks and then keep moving but it is a rare person who doesn't forget where they came from and still manage to be a good upper level manager. Not unheard of but not terribly common either.

 

[sixty/4]

Speaking on outsourced maintenance, look what happened to delta today.
Brakes on fire and a tail cone that wont work,

 

[WorldTraveler]

you~re just like Bob. Push your agenda first and then figure out later whether the facts actually support them. Apparently the answer on the DL forum wasn't enough that the tailcome is designed so that there may be a two step tailcone release process which you would think AA people would know given that they are still (IIRC) the largest M80/D9 operator in the world. The FA apparently decided it wasn't necessary to go down the catwalk to pull the other release since the flight had a fairly light load.
As for the brakes, let's wait for the facts but there were reports that it might have been a fast and hard landing... suppose the pilots were outsourced and he/she was doing his first M80 landing - or worse yet couldn't read English to know the correct landing speed?
facts do wonders to increase the credibility of the argument.... but the problem is you have to be willing to live with the consequences of those facts.

 

[Mr Red]

you~re just like Bob. Push your agenda first and then figure out later whether the facts actually support them. Apparently the answer on the DL forum wasn't enough that the tailcome is designed so that there may be a two step tailcone release process which you would think AA people would know given that they are still (IIRC) the largest M80/D9 operator in the world. The FA apparently decided it wasn't necessary to go down the catwalk to pull the other release since the flight had a fairly light load.
As for the brakes, let's wait for the facts but there were reports that it might have been a fast and hard landing... suppose the pilots were outsourced and he/she was doing his first M80 landing - or worse yet couldn't read English to know the correct landing speed?
facts do wonders to increase the credibility of the argument.... but the problem is you have to be willing to live with the consequences of those facts.

WRONG ....! Door ARMED , OPEN VAULT DOOR ,TAIL CONE DROPS !!! IF rigged correctly.

 

[WorldTraveler]

WRONG ....! Door ARMED , OPEN VAULT DOOR ,TAIL CONE DROPS !!! IF rigged correctly.

yet apparently McD D managed to put a second release lever on there. Maybe they knew from the design (which is as old as dirt) that there might be failures.
But we have yet to see that outsourced maintenance has anything to do with it at all.. when someone can show us evidence of that, then there is something to talk about.

 

[sixty/4]

yet apparently McD D managed to put a second release lever on there. Maybe they knew from the design (which is as old as dirt) that there might be failures.
But we have yet to see that outsourced maintenance has anything to do with it at all.. when someone can show us evidence of that, then there is something to talk about.

 

[sixty/4]

Wt I was just getting under your skin, I know we have to wait to see the facts, but I know the tail cone was not rigged properly by the way it deployed, we rig them on my dock all the time
The tail cone should have deployed as soon as the aft entry door opened, it has to be armed in flight in case a passenger has to use it for an emergency, yes there is a handle on the left side in the back of the aft accessory.
The video showed the tail cone hanging from the teather thats pulls the slide out and deploys it.
The tail cone should have fell to the left out of the way of the slide, not hang under the tail.
Conclusion not rigged properly. ,

you~re just like Bob. Push your agenda first and then figure out later whether the facts actually support them. Apparently the answer on the DL forum wasn't enough that the tailcome is designed so that there may be a two step tailcone release process which you would think AA people would know given that they are still (IIRC) the largest M80/D9 operator in the world. The FA apparently decided it wasn't necessary to go down the catwalk to pull the other release since the flight had a fairly light load.
As for the brakes, let's wait for the facts but there were reports that it might have been a fast and hard landing... suppose the pilots were outsourced and he/she was doing his first M80 landing - or worse yet couldn't read English to know the correct landing speed?
facts do wonders to increase the credibility of the argument.... but the problem is you have to be willing to live with the consequences of those facts.