Mae

[FLYAWAY]

Just a response to 700UW on the Airbus Maint.

700UW said
"According to Maxi-merlin and the base tracks they are averaging 18 days."

Actually the tracks are 14 days, however thanks to the IAM the a/c currently comming out of MAE have not flown a revenue flight since Oct. 2003. They "dropped dead" because of the 5 year S check requirement.


700UW said
"And please explain to me how an in-house S-check took 30 days to accomplish since it has never been done in-house?"

My point exactly. They have not been done in house since it was estimated that it would have taken over twice the amount of time to complete. Also, having NEVER done an S check on the Airbus, what makes you qualified to even comment on MAE's work?

700UW said
"700, three emergency landing-flap problems, 706 one emergency landing flap problems."

This one ya gotta love. I'll bet you know all about the alignment pin issue with the flap rigging. I'll assume that you understand that it's purpose is to check for all flaps at the "0" or up position by sliding this pin through alignment holes to verify flap position. Now, I'll also bet you know that the job cards provided to MAE by USAirways and Airbus were WRONG. I'm sure you've know this with your twisted IAM protective plot. Now, who do you think was able to unravel the mystery of the flap problem? IAM? Airbus? Nope...MAE. I'm sure that you can find one of the old job cards while you're sitting there at the USAirways computer "working". What's missing from the job card? How about a/c not on the jacks and a/c fueled in order to get the proper wing bend. Oh. I'll bet you also know that after this problem was corrected and MAE began to check flap rigging of the arriving a/c PRIOR to the S check. They found that the a/c were arriving at MAE with mis-rigged flap(improper flap alignment).


700UW said
"Call QA and the FAA about the rest as I am not at work and do not have access to the rest of the information I need."

Not at work, huh. As opposed to at work and on this forum. Enough said of the IAM "work" ethic.

 

[700UW]

You could not be more wrong in your entire post and I wonder why you started a new thread when everything I posted all ready proved you are posting false information.

First of all US IAM represented mechanics do all the required C-Checks on the airbus, there are 11 separate checks C1 thru C11, and an S-check is all the C-checks combined, so please explain to me if our IAM mechanics are performing EVERY single part of an S-check that they are not capable of doing them all at once like an S-check is?

Second our IAM represented mechanics have also overhauled EVERY NEW type of airplane we have ever flown since 1949.

737/200/300/400, DC-9, MD-80, F28, F100, 757, 767 and A330 were all once NEW types of planes and we have overhauled EVERYONE of them. So you are reaching when you say we have never done overhaul on new types of planes.

Third, if the flaps were sent to MAE mis-rigged it would have caused flight problems for years that the pilots and our mechanics would have detected long ago, that is a blatant outright FALSE Fact. And if as you say they were found arriving at MAE with mis-rigged flaps why did they leave with mis-rigged flaps and why on A/C 700 it was just more then mis-rigged flaps it was also Hydraulic System problems! So keep reaching and trying to dream up more wrong information!

And I was not talking about the planes sitting with NO ONE performing maintenance, I was talking and stating a fact (Something you choose to ignore) that MAE is averaging over 18 days a S-check, that has nothing to do with a plane sitting untouched that is a plane in work. And I have not even factored in all the extra downtime to fix the SHODDY work that MAE has performed with their overwhelming majority of UNLICENSED Mechanics.

From the FAA:
http://av-info.faa.gov/repairstation.asp?certno=MZAR013L

ST Mobile Aerospace
Personnel
Certificated Mechanics: 532
Repairmen: 74
Non-Certificated Mechanics: 1173
Total Employees: 1776

And sorry I don't have Internet Access at work, when I am at work I work, so take your BS work ethic and stick it.

And another false fact only several out of the 12 planes were ever parked for storage since October of 2003, 700, 701, 702, were parked in 10/03, 101 was parked at a later time and 706 and 707 were lease return planes that the leases were abrogated in chapter 11

I am curious as why you post false information and start a new thread when you have all ready been proved wrong!

 

[AP Tech]

Actually the tracks are 14 days, however thanks to the IAM the a/c currently comming out of MAE have not flown a revenue flight since Oct. 2003. They "dropped dead" because of the 5 year S check requirement.


?"

You sound like an angry person.......Explain to me and some others on the board on how it is the IAM's fault the A/C in question dropped dead? Let us think for a moment we have had this A/C for 5 yrs and all that time to settle the issue. Could it be poor planning? How about blamming it on the court system since they issued the injuction. If you receive your credit card statement the end of the month and there is a charge you did not make....do you dispute it or pay? IAM and company are disputing who should perform the mtc on the A/C, so don't blame the IAM on the A/C drop dead issue. And beleive me I am not a fan of the IAM.

 

[700UW]

Hey FLYAWAY, here is the real scoop from a fellow poster who was directly involved, hope you are hungry!

AOG-N-IT Posted on: Mar 9 2004, 07:34 AM

Replies: 178
Views: 8,037 Let me settle this debate with facts...and put an end to any and all rumors on this subject. Especially for the fools here uttering rediculous words like sabotage and raisng inuendo of under-handed shinanigans by the dedicated employees of U.

707UW remained in MSY yesterday..as opposed to being maintenance ferried to CLT for added work as origionally planned in the aftermath of this "Hard Failure"

ST Mobile Aerospace was contacted regarding this problem with 707UW..and they made the claim that the "Job Cards" in this phase of the S-1 Check regarding "Clocking the drives" of the flap system or Indexing them were vague. Keep in mind my first impressions as to what may have led to this happening again in my initial post. God I hate being right.

As opposed to seeking clarification on what was to be done and how from a higher authority , in this case Airbus Tech and Engineering support..they simply muttled through the work with un-certainty looming on the subject.

I find this approach highly suspect and objectionable in light of what took place with our previous Acft intrusted to them....this was a golden opprotunity for them to shine or make good on a previous mistake as a lesson learned and corrected...yet the same approach was used again...and un-certainty remains a shadow in the minds of many.

ST Mobile Aerospace dispatched mechanics to MSY to correct the problems as opposed to ferrying the Acft to BFM or CLT as origionally planned. The repairs have been made..and 707UW will again "Repo-Ferry" in a Non-Revenued state from MSY to CLT later today. Should all go well with the on site repairs and the results of the ferry flight proove acceptable? , 707UW will again re-join the fleet in a revenued fashion.

Many IAM'ers will ask why a road trip was not inititated to repair a "Line Aircraft" that is supposed to be released back to our future care as opposed to Mobile being called out to MSY? This I know raises the question of grievences being filed for yet another violation of our CBA...whether I or anyone else agrees or not? The call was made by the powers that be..that this was in their opinion a "Warranty Issue" Be it or not be it? The next question will likely be..if 707UW was a warranty job ?...why wasn't 700UW in RIC or IAH handled this way before?

Frankly if I had the answers to all those possibilities and scenarios...I would not be wasting a moment of my time trying to set the record straight here on what has taken place...and touching on as to why it took place to begin with.

Here are the facts from a state of being right , non-speculative and forthright.

707UW did in fact have alike rigging (Clocking) issues that mirrored some of the previous problems that 700UW had prior...the only thing missing element this time was hard hydraulic systems problems on top of the rigging concerns.

Fact...ST Mobile Aerospace admitted to parties in the know , that they had questions regarding the procedures on this phase of the work..yet elected to not persue those questions to the highest source for such answers ( Airbus in this particular case)..or did not act on any advise they may have sought?

Fact...707 will have lost 1.5 to 2.0 days of revenued availability due to mis-understandings of the task at hand...and not seeking resolve from those with the ability to raise the fog for them on the issue at hand. This is nothing new in aviation...If clarity is not Omni-Present...you do not go forward until it is !

Fact..When an FAR , Repair Manual or Task card seems vague of ambiguous? A responsible Technician or FAA Repair Facility seeks hard and fast answers to the problem they are faced with..then submits suggstions to seek changes or clarification in the repair data..Revisions to the data become the order of the day. This would be the act of a reponsible and knowledgable person in this trade...any dispute there?

I hope you folks have fun with the facts of the matter..Cuz frankly , some of you naysayers and corporate sell-outs are not worth the time it takes to even set you straight...and you know whom you are when I say that.

To those seeking the truth..and appreciating hearing the truth of the matter..I bid you a safe , pleasant and productive day. Keep Flying...and doing it by the book as always.

Forum: US Airways · Post Preview: #118469

AOG-N-IT Posted on: Mar 8 2004, 07:06 AM

Replies: 178
Views: 8,037 Aircraft 707UW was released from an S-1 Heavy Maintenance visit with ST Mobile Aerospace yesterday. The aircraft flew non-revenued from BFM to CLT where it re-joined the active fleet that day.

700UW made One (1) revenued flight from CLT to MSY (New Orleans La.) where emergency landing procedures were taken due to a drop in hydraulic pressure followed by only a partial extension of the flap system on appraoch to MSY.

700UW will be maintenance ferried out of MSY to CLT..where it will remain out of service until repairs can once again be performed by skilled maintenance technicians of the USAirways , IAM represented labor force.

Lets see here Naysayers....ST Mobile Aerospace is O for 2 on returning safe revenue ready aircraft to USAirways....how much have we saved now? What's wrong here? Has ST Mobile Aerospace been exposed enough as being sub-standard in their practices to suit all the outsource fans of this board?

Where's the FAA on this subject??? ...I think if I were Doc Bronner and Dave , I would really be taking another look on how and where I elect to spend my money (and the employees concessionary funds , I might add)...a bargain is not a bargain unless full value and safety are acheived in the same manner as was achieved by the previous maintenance provider...and the subsequent correcter of all thier flawed work in Alabama.

Lets review for the slow witted and stubborn of the group. 707UW has had the same failure as it's previous outsourced sister ship 700UW had months before , has ST Mobile Aerospace learned or improved from their previous mistakes and flawed maintenance practices? Clearly NOT !!

Yes folks..the results are clearly the same...2nd rate pay , nets second rate work and lack luster end results...it's time to return the work back to the rightfull and contractural owners of all USAirways Aircraft work...and that would be the IAM represented Mechanic and Related of USAirways...not Doc Bronners Singapore shadetree yahoo's in BFM.

In closing....WE Have Told You So Before.
Forum: US Airways · Post Preview: #118122

AOG-N-IT Posted on: Feb 6 2004, 06:26 PM
I only wish the ALPA represented Pilots whom flew that plane during those 3 days were posters here..I do believe that would set the record straight , and remove any stigma of these facts being an IAM "agenda" in nature...nothing could be farther from the truth.

The simple facts are this. 700UW departed revenued service for it required S-Check in a very safe and reliable state of being. Upon it's return to U and revenued service..it had three consecutive days of flawed function , some which led to declared emergency landings...multiple Air Taxi's (3) with parts and mechanics to get the aircraft into a safe and reliable operating configuration....and lastly it took 3 added days in CLT in a non-profit generating state to be "De-Bugged " of ST Mobile Aerospaces so-called handy work.

I defy anyone to show any degree of proof to the contrary. Thousands in CLT know exactly where that plane was..and what was taking place with it. The leaders of the local IAM even made a special trip to the CLT "Line Hangar" to pause and laugh about this....sadly when it comes to profit making , it's not a laughing matter....and again , Safety and Profits are supposed to be what WE as a company are all about....not Profits at the expense of Safety.

700UW is now as safe an aircraft as money can buy..thanks to the efforts of the IAM represented mechanics in CLT and RIC respectively. I salute all of those whom were involved in rectifying this problem....and I frown on those whom desire to ignore the truth of what took place during those 6 days of negative yield contributions.

We need to insure that the words "I will be sure always" becomes the mantra...not "anything to save a buck". "Anything" is a very far reaching word that opens Pandora's Box for more of the same....That is , if it's not stopped before it can be started again?
Forum: US Airways · Post Preview: #107311

AOG-N-IT Posted on: Feb 5 2004, 07:06 PM

Replies: 154
Views: 6,622 Here is another company that's real pleased with ST Mobile Aerospace's quality of work , it's a little known "Air Charter" company called Southeast Airmotive.

Southeast Airmotive was contracted on three consecutive nights to chase 700UW with parts and CLT based IAM mechanics to correct the series of problems that 700UW developed after it's return to revenued service.

Should U try to continue using ST Mobile Aerospace? Southeast Airmotive is just liable to become a publically traded enterprise in place of U itself.

Folks....sure as the sun will come up in the morning , Acft are going to break in some fashion...nonbody but nobodies acft are immune from this fact...yet Mobile's first step to the plate has been proven to be less than satisfactory by any reasonable standards.

3 consecutive days of being chased for added repairs is not common at all....3 additional days of work after three failed days and three worked on nights in the field is not acceptable either.

Then lets look at the fact that many of our Airbus spare parts were being sent to Mobile Al. , and keeping them out of reach for the active fleet needs that develope. I know of at least two circumstances where line/active fleet aircraft were delayed for repairs due to the single fact that the parts were located away from the center of our daily operations. This would not be true if the work was performed in CLT or PIT as the contract indicates it should

Having had the chance to speak with counterparts with our codeshare partner UA , whom also divides part of their outsourcing with ST Mobile Aerospace...they reported a number of Acft diversions after departing Mobile while attempting to re-join the Active fleet. UA has also had expierience with ST Mobile Aerospace being reluctant and difficult when UA requested a return shipment of parts to repair active line Aircraft as well. Remember that these items are owned by the respective airline , NOT ST Mobile Aerospace !!

ST Mobile Aerospace also does not handle logistics as we would enternally...they still need the direct support from the parent airline in which the aircraft came. This I know for certain from having dealt with 700UW....having sold or loaned parts to Air Jamaica (JM) or UA while their Acft were in actual work there.

To act like ST Mobile aerospace is some great bargain when all aspects of this situation is taken into account....it's clearly a "Bean Counters" on paper victory...at the expense of logic ,convienience, quality and most possibly safety?

The last concern is directed at quality itself. During the cock-pit door modifications on all our Airbus acft...and certainly during lessor phase checks on both the narrow body fleet and the A330-300's...corrosion has been discovered in the Forward Lav area...the Seat Tracks and a few other areas...least of all the Main Landing Gear.

We in CLT know how long that took to correct on the A330's....so 13 days in Mobile is not adequate time to address the issues that may have developed on our oldest active Airbus in the entire fleet (700UW)

Issues of corrosion are not new to U's primary market area. During Easterns decline the "Eastern Shuttle" was sold to Donald Trump as many know....Trump was eager to get his name and paint scheme on those B727-200's...in doing so , many were discovered to have massive amounts of corrosion on them...and this lead to 1 in 3 being removed from service and scrapped due to being beyond economical repair. ..this was done in MIA.

Left un-addressed , Over-Looked or even "pencil-whipped"..an alike scenario could easily come to pass down the road with our Acft.

Take this lightly if you choose?...but the issues of today are about the concerns of long-term staying power...if we are to survive as a company?, we will need Acft achieving the longest possible life-span as well....achieving full value out of every dollar needs to be the one and only concern here.

The company wants productivity changes from the employees , right? They want maximum value from us...so why in logical terms should we sell the primary reason for being short either? , That being our aircraft !!!!..they are in fact what we use to hopefully make money with...and as we know replacing them sooner than we need to , or should have too? does not build in long term value or pro-longed viability for the organization as a whole.

Debate if you will?....but think about value and safety as you apply your version of logic and reason to this problem.
Forum: US Airways · Post Preview: #106847

AOG-N-IT Posted on: Feb 4 2004, 01:49 AM
The issues with 700UW was NOT about departing Heavy Maintenance with just simple MEL's !! The issue was with an Acft departing an HMV (Heavy Maintenance Visit) ..and not being able to complete a single revenued day without a major problem that lead to the Acft in question being chased with King Air 90 "Air Charters" with parts and mechanics on board on three consecutive nights and still ending up being repaired in CLT after 3 added days of "Down Time" to be corrected to operational and safe levels.

My biggest hope is people like USA320pilot and Itrade have to endure on a routine basis what ST Mobile Aerospace happens to provide them between now and when an arbitraition can be resolved, Just maybe when they find thier safety and convienience jeopardized enough..they just might shut thier collective Pie holes about cost benefits over doing it right to begin with? We can only hope !!

628AU...before you try to mediate or smooth things over between different sides of the spectrum...at least consult those whom have dealt with the FACTS of the circumstance first.

Simply put...700UW was a "basket case" that cost U plenty to correct...and paying outside the contract for labor for second rate work is not a cost effective answer..if 700UW would have taken a few days longer in PIT or CLT in the first place ?..at least it would have been available as rob-bait....in Mobile it was nothing more than a liability inching toward becoming a ticking bomb !!

Weigh your views in much broader and informed terms hince forth.
Forum: US Airways · Post Preview: #106096

AOG-N-IT Posted on: Jan 21 2004, 06:29 PM
Hmmmm,

OK Einstien....it took ST Mobile Aerospace considerably longer than 13 days to DO Acft 700UW....and DOing It is the operative phrase on what took place there.

Acft 700UW broke on three consecutive days upon its return to revenued flight. The lost flights that had to be covered by working IAM supported Acft to cover it's absence. How much did that cost UAIR ????.....Care to take a guess?

Acft 700UW had to be chased to IAH , RIC and one other city to be worked....I can assure you this , The King Air 90 and the parts and maintenance people involved did not come free, or even cheap....Care to place a value on that?

Acft 700UW finally had to spend an additional 3 days out of revenued service while CLT (IAM) Maintenance UN-Phugged this Aircraft from ST Mobile Aerospaces handy work.....How much did three added lost days of service cost....and what was the loss in revenue generating potential for almost 30 hours of lost utilization ?

Lastly....I will bet you any amount of money you care to lose? That 700UW will be in far worse shape than it's sister ship 701UW will be , when the next S-Check comes due.

701UW will be worked by U / IAM Labor...and all the issues with corrosion that these Buses develope will be properly addressed....un-like what "Shake and Bake" Technologies over-looked or pencil whipped to mearly make a timeline for Idiots like yourself to rave about incorrectly.

Lastly....Our Inventory was shipped by the truckload to Mobile...and now its trucked back to CLT and PIT. The inventory being out of position in Mobile hampered , delayed or caused outright cancellations of other revenued Airbus flights while trying to get our meager resources back in our hands where the emergency needs were. Care to assign a dollar value to that kind of stupidity?

JEZZZ USA320pilot.....you are either the stupidest arse in captivity....or the biggest falsehood amplifier I have ever encounterd? I'm sure you must have a hell of a case of facial cramps....but I'm sure CCY appreciates your efforts.

YOU MAKE ME SICK !!!!!!

 

[700UW]

A/C 704 info:

700UW Posted: May 14 2004, 02:05 PM
Veteran Member
Group: Veteran Member
Posts: 1,730
Member No.: 2,948
Joined: 11-November 03

The cause of the slide failing to arm has been found.

There are to catches on the floor of the airplane where the girt bar attatches to so when the door is opened the bar is triggered and the slide delploys.

Seems MAE failed to replace the catches and covered the holes up with PRC. When the old slide was removed it was also found to have been damaged like it was dragged across concrete and the slide mechanism in the door was not hooked up.

FAA has been notified about the lack of quality of work from MAE, that now makes seven airplanes that have had to be reworked due to failures of MAE.


--------------------

The concession stand is closed
I do not work for US Airways. YSMF

 

[E-TRONS]

Hey FLYAWAY....

Why don't you do just that.....FLY-AWAY!!!! Your ignorance of aircraft maintenance and 3rd party providers is legendary!! Take a bow now and get off the stage <_<

The IAM contract was willingly violated and the morons sending these aircraft to MAE think that they are doing good?? What they are creating is a fleet of aircraft that will have reliability issues in the future....but they sure are saving money right??

Speaking of saving money....you should be asking these questions:

How much money has UAIR WASTED in their attempt to break the collective bargaining agreement with the IAM?????

How much "precious" time has UAIR wasted fighting this farmout issue in court?????

How much money did UAIR waste sending all the Airbus TOOLING and PARTS to a newly created station HMV when they were only going to do 10 aircraft????

How much does it cost UAIR to have everyone standing around because the required parts are sitting at HMV in Alabama?????

How much rent is being wasted on under utilized maintenance facilites while our work goes to MAE???

What did it cost UAIR in employee LOYALTY and DEDICATION while all these labor friendly events transpired?????

When you consider all these valid points listed above, one begins to understand just how saavy our beloved management is indeed.

What they deserve is PRISON or better yet a FIRING SQUAD!!!!!

Now BUZZOFF!!!!!

 

[bikingjw]

Well said E-TRONS. Thanks!!
The company has just about blundered them selves out of business.
Just hope its not to late, if it is, guess who will take the blame....

 

[stoopidute442]

Not to drift off subject but where has AOG_N_IT been?

 

[N628AU]

This is going to sound like a stupid question, but since MAE was doing work on UA 320 aircraft as well, how could the job cards be "vague" or "incorrect". It is not like this is the first time this work has been done on this aircraft type by them, nor is it possible US has different S Check requirements than UA. It seems like a cop out by MAE to place blame at the foot of US on this. One would think someone there (there has to be someone licensed somewhere there per the FARs) would have detected this is not like the UA work and questioned it, seeking out clarification. MAE dropped the ball. If they are doing the work, they should be held accountable, good, bad, or indifferent.

 

[E-TRONS]

N628AU,

You certainly have a better grasp of the situation at MAE than you know.

Job cards with errors are not all that uncommon inhouse. But not to worry because the trained and experienced technician will catch it and get the ball rolling to amend it......not cover it up like it will go away.

That is where MAE system becomes suspect. The ratio of certificated airmen to those who are un-certificated at MAE is like 3 to 1.....lots of room for errors with that set up. Why people cannot get that thru their heads is beyond me!!

I will enjoy a cold beverage in your honor today astute sir B) .

Cheers !!

 

[TDR1502C]

N628AU, maybe MAE didn't retain the "Institutional Knowledge" from the UAL checks. Most sheds are not known for having folks stick around for long if they have any capability.

If you want fun, follow up on a avionics mod done at a shed. Makes you wonder what kind of talent they have when they pay less than a GA install shop and run wires like a residential electrician.

(I also hope AOG_N_IT checks in sometime. He and High Iron are my favorite posters. Maybe I should call for some A330 pool parts....)

 

[700UW]

Hey flyaway,

You scared?

Can't dispute the REAL TRUTH?

 

[cavalier]

Not to drift off subject but where has AOG_N_IT been?

He is a good guy and I hope he found a better future and decided this forum is no longer part of him.