Outsourcing Facts

[AOG-N-IT]

Gang,

Upper managment along with certain people with a speacial fanny to save have created some very false indications of how U can be saved via outsourcing the Airbus Heavy Maintenance. Here are some facts on the subject.

(1) Aviation Maintenance Technician magazine , an independent monthy conducted a survey on cost savings via outsourcing....keep in mind AMT magazine is a periodical that caters to AMT's throughout the spectrum of aviation...not just the commercial side or airline mechanics specifically.

(2) AMT's finding are that under ideal conditions a meager 2% profit/cost advantage can be realized via subbing out in-house heavy maintenance. 2 % is the margin for safety and internal control of our Aircraft , how sad is that???

Ideal conditions would invoke a need for ideal logistical support in a seperate state regarding the active flying fleet and that of the vendor providing said outsourced work.

U facts...U has never had anything the mirrors ideal in regards to having adequate spare parts for it's still very diverse fleet....any AMT or Stores person can support these facts.

U has itself created a less than ideal scenario in regards to spare parts allocations , physical distribution of said assets...and continued stalling of persuing purchases or processing of vendor repaired rotable parts.

Allocation reports within the system routinely expose these weaknesses that lead to delays and or cancellations of revenued flights on a daily basis.

(3) U codeshare partner UA of Elk Grove Il. has been very upfront with me on their findings and results since outsourcing heavy maintenance some months ago..to say that the operational side has been somewhat hampered would be accurate.

I can relay the context of a conversation had between myself and my UA counterpart last week for example.

Last week I was contacted by UA's AOG Desk in SFO regarding an A320 of theirs that had an escape slide blown in MCI. UA nor U stock parts of any real degree in MCI...this is indeed the turf of AA/TWA that does not even fly the Airbus.

UA's quandry was obtain a loan to get their acft flying again. I offered our assistance from either CLT , PIT , PHL or DCA...whichever would help a friend in need the most?

UA's response was this...I appreciate the offer...but I have my own in Mobile AL. with some company called ST Aerospace...I would like to use my own , but Hazmat issues (Oxidizer) coupled to ST Aerospaces un-willingness to allow us access to our own property may force us to borrow from U/you.

MY UA AOG counterpart also expanded his/her comments to include simular situations happening with out-sourced maintenance facilities they happen to use in Goodyear Az. , Lake Charles La. , Victorville Ca. and of course Mobile Al. itself.


Airbus support and Engineering support differs very little as opposed to past dealings with the now bankrupt Fokker Industries...with that said , the call is to often rob out of service Acft from our own heavy maintenance in either CLT or PIT..this holds true for Airbus Acft. and Boeings alike...U is not prejudiced when it comes to being tight-wads on parts procurement.

Fact..in calender year 2001 with a fleet exceeding 400 Acft..U robbed heavy maintenance Acft in CLT or PIT 3200+ times to keep a line aircraft aloft and making money for us.

Fact..in calender year 2003 with a fleet cut to 279 Acft...and void of the infamous Fokker's and aging DC-9's/MD-80's...U has robbed heavy maintenance Acft in CLT and PIT in excess of 4050+ times to keep a line acft aloft and making money for us...please keep in mind and keep it in perspective , We have 2 months remaining in this calender year for these figures to continue to climb in an un-favorable way.


This brings us to current issues with all the above in mind. We currently have 2 Airbus Acft sitting in Mobile Al...with only one in actual work due to a judges binding ruling...yet we have 4+ Trailer loads of airbus spare parts languishing there...as active Aircraft deferals mount up while these items sit dormant

Acft 711 has 4 deferals for passenger seat power point jacks being inoperative...and a station by station check of allocations which is numerous yielded only 1 in the entire system...yet 3 sit in Mobile Al. with no authorization to move them back to mainstream U...who suffers? The very people that pay our salaries is whom.

Many will ask...why not just buy them on the open market? No soap kids !! We have purchase orders with the airbus vendor that can't be filled for another 30 plus days. Is this the vendors fault? Yes and No...The vendor and produces what the market dictates...the issue is our own failure to maintain allocated stocking levels at line stations...as well as insuring Heavy , either In-House or Vendored has adequate materials to turn out a perfect product on time.

With the above examples provided we can easliy conclude the down side of allowing our work to escape our physical control...and it's easy to see where a 2% cost benefit can be destroyed via the same shortcomings we face from an in-house scenario...It boils down to time , distance and adequate support from the top.

BY and large...U is under the control of "Bean Counters"..and people whom are more interested in using figures and projections Vs. fact and common sense to run this company.

YOU and I however are what keeps U from making a profit according to Mr Siegel and Crew....to the contrary , We are what keeps U a safe place to work and fly with...not a 3rd party in Mobile Al.

YOU and I are what cares about how things are done...and how our passengers feel about their expierences when flying us.

Folks...Do not let threats or fear mongers keep you from doing whats right...in time our issues will find a meaningfull resolve...and hopefully some leadership with strategic vision and concern for both its passengers and employees. This is my greatest hope at the end of each day.

Thank you for your time.

 

[N628AU]

AOG,

Well said. Chip, Hawk, and the like would never let facts get in the way of spinning their own stories.

 

[repeet]

Right on AOG-N-IT.

We, the employees, have out-lasted almost a half dozen CEOs since the mergers. We're still waiting for one who wants to run an Airline.

We're not going to leave. We're going to persevere until we're allowed to do what we were hired to do! Eventually we'll have the safest and friendliest money making airline in the country. As soon as "they" let us.

 

[whatkindoffreshhell]

Your UA friend should have called the ST CEO at home if necessary.

Certainly there are other factors involved in a third-party release of property (i.e. security, hazmat, BK restrictions) however I don't doubt your story.

The airlines should have taken a page from the auto manufacturers: force the supplier (Airbus in this case) to shoulder the cost and responsibility of maintaining a parts depot and only delivering the requested part where it is needed when it is needed.

Many suppliers have distribution facilities in Memphis (Fedex main hub) for just this reason.

There must be something I'm missing here. Robbing aircraft in heavy check might solve the immediate problem but just doubles the work. Where is the value added?

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Your UA friend should have called the ST CEO at home if necessary.

Certainly there are other factors involved in a third-party release of property (i.e. security, hazmat, BK restrictions) however I don't doubt your story.

The airlines should have taken a page from the auto manufacturers: force the supplier (Airbus in this case) to shoulder the cost and responsibility of maintaining a parts depot and only delivering the requested part where it is needed when it is needed.

Many suppliers have distribution facilities in Memphis (Fedex main hub) for just this reason.

There must be something I'm missing here. Robbing aircraft in heavy check might solve the immediate problem but just doubles the work. Where is the value added?

what,
Robbing of heavy maintenence acft to keep a line aircraft going has no upside beyond satisfying an emergency need.

U , due to lack of foresight or funds , tends to use heavy maintenance Aircraft as a static parts bin..as opposed to keeping a balance on hand.

Robs absolutley create duplicate effort..and adds to the cost of labor Vs. doing whats right to begin with.

Imagine if you will....A hazmat item being required in SEA , such as an emergency escape slide...and WE are in an alike situation as UA was in MCI. A slide is a Hazmat due to it's "Oxidizer" that provides it's response function.

Lets say the only slide that matches our aircrafts effectivity code..as it often happens , is sitting in Moble Al.

(1) Lost time happens via the wrangling of getting Mobile to remove our part from our Acft.
(2) Lost times happens with dealing with Hazmat paperwork to even move the part.
(3) A bonded courier service has to move this part from Mobile to a larger airport where hazmats and items such as the size of a slide can be flown in the direction of SEA
(4) Premium charges are involved regarding this hazmat being moved...and likely another carrier will benefit from flying it to SEA...not U itself.

UA told me that it's not at all un-common to have to have a given item of theirs moved from Mobile Al to either ATL or MSY to get said item on a mainline aircraft of any type.

Keep in mind...U cannot move Hazmats on our own express affiliates...due to their lack of hazmat certifications. This also held true of Metrojet...and the USAir Shuttle before total intergration with USAirways mainline took place.

We also have carriers such as AWA that is not Hazmat certified at all...so issues in LAX , LAS and the alike ofetn cannot be assisted by AWA.

(5) The robbed part off any heavy maintence aircraft has to be replaced at some point in the venture. AOG purchases to replace this item usually add yet another 25% to the retail cost of this item....then we have the frieght forwarder or courier getting his share of the action...lets not forget customs issues and delays either , when said item is in route from Hamburg or Toulouse ...the bills really begin to stack up...plus said aircraft is delayed leaving heavy Maintenance...and a backlog of time occures for the next aircraft needing that same hangar space.

As you can see...the issues eclipse in-house Vs. out-source...it's all about the willingness to support something properly...or gambling by not supporting something correctly. Either way U is going to pay...how much? is to be determined by the circumstance.

 

[Hope777]

So Bottom Line is Costs, correct? Robbing parts from one aircraft to another increases costs doesn't it? Dave, if you want to get costs in line, STOP the pratice please !!!!

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Folks,

Thank you for seeing the logic on this subject...yet to respond to Hope777.

Hope, Robs are a necessary evil...and a viable tool if used properly?

No airline or transportation business could survive without some degree of this practice. A given company would be bankrupt if it attempted t stock every possible item for every type of equipment.

However U has exceeded the practices benefits by carrying it to a meteoric extreme...that instead of just solving the isolated emergency ,it's a matter of integrated functional necessity.

The military even uses a rob program for it's aircraft....their aircraft enjoy a dispatch reliabilty ranging from around 65% to 97% depending on the type and it's designed mission stresses. Thankfully U's aircraft perform at better levels than this by comparison..but then again , nothing we have operates at super sonic speeds or High-G enviroments....muchless combat roles.

The issue is not abolishing a needed practice completley..it's about keeping a usefull tool in check....and not blaiming in-house labor for it's abundance of preventable shortcomings.

The modern CEO sees every failure attributed directly to labor...as opposed to solving the root of the actual problem. The examples here are limitless.