FAA watching AA

[Mach85ER]

There wasn't any buyouts, they retired under the normal provisions of the contract, same as had been done for decades.

 

[Skymess]

I just wish we had a union that would do stuff like that for us instead of always taking the companys side. I like the one where the pilots at another carrier got sham divorces so they could take advantage of a life change provision and save themselves a few bucks too.

That was a beauty, wasn't it?

 

[Thomas Paine]

There wasn't any buyouts, they retired under the normal provisions of the contract, same as had been done for decades.

It was my understanding that you can opt for a lump sum or payments for the rest of your life. Thats why I said buyout, they pay once and they are done. They earned whatever you want to call them.

 

[Boomer]

The FAA has no authority to audit foreign MROs to the extent they do those physically in the USA, nor is the FAA likely to be given that authority with regard to its operations in a sovereign foreign country.

They cannot mandate drug testing, must give notice of their intent to audit (giving plenty of time to cook books), and have no authority to levy fines.

The fines levied on US companies go into the FAA's operation budget - why would they fool around with foreign repair stations when there's no authority to extract money from them?

Goose,
Flip the arguement 180.

The FAA can deny status if the prospective air carrier doesn't comply with all provisions conditioned on the issuance of a certificate.

Ergo, if an air carrier utilizes a foreign MRO that does not comply with the simple things such as background checks, drug and alchohol testing, certificated airmen, ...etc the FAA could refuse to issue or remove the certification required for domestic operations.

In short, any air carrier could contract with any MRO only if the MRO contractually agrees to comply with all of the requirements placed on domestic US suppliers.

The FAA is not, under this interpretation of the FARs', requiring anything of a foreign MRO. The domestic certificated air carrier is required to contractually guarauntee those provisions as a condition of maintaining their FAA certification when they contract to a non-US MRO.

The Unions and the Democrats all told us things would be different under their administration: they have yet to start living up to simple things such as the above.

 

[MERV]

FAA oversight is good. Everyone here knows that the FAR are written in blood. New regulation and policies get made during this type of oversight.
The FAA got caught in the airlines pockets that why all these crackdowns have happen past few months. You'll see more oversight on airline once it blows over business as usual.

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

Goose, I agree with Boomer's comments. Just as the TSA doesn't have authority at foreign airports, they can still say that those airports must comply with US standards or face a ban on direct flights.

FAA needs to be all over this issue before there is a tragedy. It's a little grating that they are in AA's face "watching" them when there are bigger fish to fry.

 

[eolesen]

FFCA, hate to say it, but the off-shoring of maintenance has been going on for decades. Major carriers like CO have sent planes to Australia, Hong Kong, & Europe as far back as the 1980's. Since airlines are ultimately liable and responsible for how their aircraft are maintained, I suspect most of them do provide a lot more oversight than the unionistas will have you believe.

Seriously, the events of the past three weeks have proven there's so much more that needs fixing in the airline industry than this...

Whether or not the MRO's follow the same window-dressing security, background checks, and drug testing that the US facilities have to follow is really of dubious value. Every one of those was knee-jerk-look-like-we're-doing-something-important rule making.

What's the point of patting down the pilot who can simply nose dive the aircraft into the ground? What's the point of checking employee ID's at the perimeter fence when they never even spot check inside the trunk or the back of a minivan, or what gets carried inside a backpack, suitcase, or lunchbox on the employee bus from the hangar to rampside?

The 9/11 hijackers, shoe bomber and the underwear bomber prove that 90% of the security mandates for airlines are nothing more than the illusion of control. Anyone determined enough is going to find a way to do what they want to do, whether the aircraft is in the US or abroad.

 

[Hopeful]

The 9/11 hijackers, shoe bomber and the underwear bomber prove that 90% of the security mandates for airlines are nothing more than the illusion of control. Anyone determined enough is going to find a way to do what they want to do, whether the aircraft is in the US or abroad.

I would say that a US based American Citizen employee goes through a more intense background check BECAUSE they are US Citizens. And yes any employee can wake up one morning and say they are going to blow up an airliner. But without the backing and planning of a major anti-US terrorist group, he or she will not get too far.

Now take that third world repair facility mechanic who makes $2.00 an hour maintaing and repairing US airliners. Where is his/her background check? You truly believe that these governments screen their near povery citizens to the same standards we do here?
You seem to have too much faith and confidence that the FAA demands and receives the same security standards in third world nations that they do here.

And as for your dream that airlines provide a lot more oversight than "unionistas," you are wrong.
A long time friend of mine is a manager for a domestic airline (I will not state the airline for obvious reasons) and he takes turns going to a foreign repair facility 2 to 3 weeks at a time depending on the check.
HE IS THE ONLY ONE THERE FOR A 12 HOUR SHIFT..If required they call him at the hotel.
If you think he is personally supervising each maintenance worker doing the thousands of tasks on that jet, think again. He is just making sure that each task is completed. that's it.
Non English speaking inspectors are "back checking" the work of non English speaking mechanics.

The oversight HERE is way more intense than over THERE!


Having been in this business for almost 40 years, I too know "people," Eric, including FAA inspectors.
You are not the only one with the END ALL to this debate.