NEW AMERICAN HANGARS

[Traymark]

Wrong NAFTA came about way after Elizabeth Dole who was Reagan's Secretary of Transportation who changed FAR 145 to permit US owned and based airplanes to be overhauled at foreign MROs.
 
Years before NAFTA was ever thought of.

  

So why Doesn't Obama and his appointees to the DOT and FAA stop it while he is still el presidente?

Metal, you won't get an answer, it doesn't fit the narrative: "it's all Reagan and Bush's fault"
Even though we had 8 yrs of Clinton ( did nothing to reverse the MRO issue).

And we have now had the most liberal , far left , union loving POTUS in our lifetimes for the last 7 yrs and he also did nothing to reverse the MRO issue.

But keep supporting them AFL-CIO because they are going to make life better for all of us.

 

[700UW]

Actually we tried in the 90s to get it reversed and the right blocked it.

 

[700UW]

I found this AA.MRO.com/fileassets/documents click on international locations  

Link doesnt work.

 

[eolesen]

Let's pretend AA really is building a hangar in MEX, and staffing it with AA employees.

That it isn't outsourcing. It's probably considered offshoring, but if it's an AA facility, it has to be run to the same standards that TUL or DFW are.

Isn't the different standard what you guys have been screaming and howling about over MRO's for all these years? Building and staffing with AA employees offshore would certainly be an interesting compromise.

AA already has offshore line mechanics, and I don't recall how that gets counted in the % allowable. I'm assuming it's in the same bucket as any other work not done by TWU members, but please stop calling it outsourcing when it is AA employees doing the work.

 

[1AA]

We have AA AMT'S in London and Buenos Aires. I'm sure there are more AA AMT'S throughout the system. They are non union and are on the AA payroll. This has been discussed within the company at various levels. Nothing we can do but accept it and move on. It's not outsourcing in the definition but yes work is going to these stations that we did or have done in the past here in the states. You need certain work to be done but assigning extra non required work like ECO's and interior mods and so on is hurting us. The union has either done nothing or not enough to stop this practice. Maybe they can't because AA is within their right to send work to these places.

 

[700UW]

There is nothing on AA's maintenance page about it.

 

[Traymark]

Actually we tried in the 90s to get it reversed and the right blocked it.

And there it is, the Drive By Post.
No evidence or link to back it up, just, "because we say so".

Who is "we"? And where is the proof that "we" tried to get it reversed?
The Clintons were running things in the 90's are they part of the "we"?
If they are, show me proof that they tried to do ANYTHING.


So, for clarity, once and for all show how relevant, or not , you really are.
Post a link proving "we" ( whoever that is) tried to get it reversed, and then
Post a link showing the evil right stopped it.

 

[700UW]

All airline unions got together and made a big legislative push to try and get it changed.
 
Many of us went to DC to lobby, the IAM held special events during the legislative conference in DC to push for a change in FAR 145, as did the IBT and the TWU.
 
Dont believe me, go ask some of the old timers who were reps.
 
The TWU even produced a nice informational article about airline outsourcing.
 
I found some stuff about the push.
 
http://www.library.unt.edu/gpo/NCARC/safetestimony/statement.htm
 

Foreign Aircraft Repair Stations - FAR 145
 
One of the main legislative priorities of TTD is legislation that will change Federal Aviation Regulation Part 145 (FAR 145) that currently allows unneeded and possibly substandard foreign aircraft repair stations to get certified by the FAA, thereby making the use of fraudulent parts more likely and difficult to police. In 1988, the FAA changed the criteria it uses to determine whether it is appropriate to certify foreign stations to work on U.S. aircraft. Before these changes took place, a foreign station could only get certified if it could demonstrate that there was a legitimate need to service aircraft engaged in international travel. Once it received its certification, a station could only work on aircraft that were actually engaged in international travel or perform emergency repair work on any airplane. This system allowed stations to be certified that were essential to support our network of international flights, but limited these stations so that the FAA was not overwhelmed with oversight problems. In addition, FAR 145 ensured that to the extent possible, U.S. registered aircraft were repaired by mechanics meeting the highest standards in aviation safety.
 
But today, a foreign station can get certified even if there is little or no international travel expected in the area and can work on any aircraft for any reason. This means that an aircraft that flies between Washington, D.C. and Chicago can find its way down to Mexico, Brazil, or Costa Rica to receive regularly scheduled maintenance and overhaul work. The results of this regulatory change are predictable - since 1988 the number of foreign stations has increased 150 percent as these facilities compete for lucrative U.S. repair work.
 
The problem is that the FAA does not require these foreign stations to meet the same safety standards that domestic stations must follow. For example, while U.S. mechanics must undergo drug and alcohol testing, no such comparable requirement exists in foreign countries in which U.S. certified stations do business. In addition, at a domestic station, supervisory and inspection personnel must be certified by the FAA, yet a foreign station can operate without a single certified mechanic. These double-standards are contrary to sound aviation safety policy. If it is determined that safety is enhanced by instituting drug and alcohol testing and to insist on mechanic certification, then why shouldn't these requirements be applied to all stations regardless of their location? Both foreign and domestic stations certified under FAR 145 can do the exact same type of maintenance and therefore should be held to the exact same standards.
 
The problems created by allowing two different sets of standards is further complicated by the fact that with the dramatic rise in the number of foreign stations, the ability of the FAA to adequately oversee and supervise these facilities is being called into question. In the wake of last year's ValuJet accident many questioned the effect that contracting-out maintenance work was having on our ability to maintain the highest level of aviation safety. In fact, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that one of the probable causes of the crash was the "failure of ValuJet to properly oversee its contract maintenance program...." The NTSB also concluded that "contributing to the accident was the failure of the FAA to adequately monitor ValuJet's heavy maintenance program and responsibilities...." With the challenges facing the FAA regarding its responsibilities to oversee domestic facilities, it makes no sense to exacerbate this problem by allowing a regulatory scheme that permits the unnecessary certification of facilities that by their very nature need additional oversight.
 
Even more troubling is the fact that while FAA inspectors charged with overseeing foreign repair facilities are dedicated professionals, they face a number of challenges outside of their control that does not allow them to inspect stations to the same degree as their domestic counterparts. For example, most foreign stations only receive a visit from a U.S. inspector once a year for the purpose of re-certification. This visit is usually announced well in advance giving the repair station time to prepare and to take steps to ensure that the FAA inspector will only see a station that is in top form. There is little guarantee that a foreign station will maintain this high-level of preparedness and there is every opportunity for station resources to be diverted to other facilities or simply not maintained to the high level that the FAA inspector encounters during his or her yearly visit. U.S. stations on the other hand are not subject to yearly re-certification visits - the FAA inspector assigned to that area can and does simply stop by, sometimes unannounced, to ensure that FAA standards are being maintained.
 
With foreign stations using the relaxed FAR 145 regulations to open up shop all over the world and the FAA's inspection resources already stretched, the possibility that a foreign facility can utilize fraudulent parts without detection only increases. A partial solution to this problem is to limit the number of foreign stations that can get certified to those that are genuinely needed and to ensure that when a station is discovered using substandard or bogus parts, that the response of the FAA will be swift and sure. Fortunately, Representatives Robert Borski (D-PA), Christopher Shays (R-CT), and Phil English (R-PA) and Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Wendell Ford (D-KY) have introduced The Foreign Aircraft Repair Station Safety Act (H.R. 145/S. 1089) which will meet these objectives. Specifically, the Borski/Specter bill will:

• repeal the 1988 regulatory changes to FAR 145 and restore FAA policy to the days when facilities that were certified could only be used by U.S. carriers for legitimate international purposes;
• level the playing field by requiring all FAA-certified facilities to meet the same operating and surveillance standards as those imposed on U.S. facilities and their employees; and
• require the revocation of any facility's certification if it "knowingly" uses substandard or bogus parts.

As the Commission makes its assessment of the FAA's ability to protect the public from the use of fraudulent parts and to offer suggestions on how to address this problem, we urge it to support the passage of this commonsense legislation. It has the support of over 158 U.S. Representatives and Senators, American Airlines, and the thousands of mechanics, flight attendants, pilots, and inspectors that TTD represents. While the Gore Commission called for a review of the "FAA's certification and oversight of any and all companies performing aviation safety functions, including repair stations certified by the FAA but located outside the United States," (Section 1.3) the agency has taken no positive action on this recommendation. If we are serious about stopping the use of fraudulent parts and making sure our aircraft are repaired and maintained by qualified, supervised mechanics, then we must quickly pass H.R. 145/S. 1089. We urge the Commission to join us in pursuing this objective.

 
Happy now?

 

[Traymark]

Solid post ,
Now I have some take aways.

First, the Republicans listed are the most RINO of RINOS, and, there are also Dems that were involved in stopping it, so your initial claim is False.

Second,
Why did they stop trying?
Why hasn't this been re introduced on Obamas FIRST DAY IN OFFICE?

 

[jimntx]

I found this AA.MRO.com/fileassets/documents click on international locations  

I tried this URL.  Came back as no such Web address???

 

[700UW]

You have cosponsors on both sides, the Rs on the bill have large maintenance operations in their areas.
 
We pushed for two years, and couldnt get it passed.
 
You will have to ask the unions and TTD about why it hasnt been tried again.
 
Probably 9/11 and Chapter 11s have been the reasons why it hasnt.

 

[Traymark]

9/11?

That was ancient history when O took office, weak, weak sauce dude.
The facts are, the union's have been played by the all the politicians they have supported and yet, they continue to throw good money after bad.

 

[700UW]

All the chapter 11s stopped momentum to change, as if the airlines are in bankruptcy and need to lower costs, how are you going to stop them from lowering costs but allowing outsourcing.

 

[Traymark]

And now that AA is into YEAR 3 of multi Billion dollar profits?

 

[700UW]

Explain to me how would you get this passed in a Republican controlled Congress?