Rise In Outside Repairs Raises Questions

[mweiss]

The predisposition of the media, and of the average American, is anti-union because of the negative stereotypes of unions and union members that have been ingrained into them.

These weren't created out of whole cloth.

Yet they have not been able to craft a message you would describe any other way, even when they do EXACTLY what you said they should.

Because they haven't done exactly what I said they should.

That reporters are lazy is proven by their handling of the USAirways holiday debacle, as is their tendency to an anti-union bias.

Laziness, yes. Bias, only insofar as they didn't do the research insofar as they were lazy. In a news story, the headline isn't the denial of the accusation; it's the accusation. The subhead can be (and was) the rebuttal of the accusation. That's not bias; that's how news stories are written. Accusations are "man bites dog." Denials of accusations are "dog bites man." The denials are only headlines if the story is of sufficient magnitude to support several days of headlines (think Monica Lewinsky).

The ultimate 'dog-bites-man angle', and one that I'm rapidly coming to believe is the only thing that will wake people up and overcome the objections of 'job protectionism', is to point at the dead bodies of the next wreck caused by outsourcing.

That is the ultimate "man bites dog" angle.

I had thought that the USAirways Express crash in 2003 was sufficient, yet the public seems to not care.

The main reason is that the public already feels that the turboprops are less safe. To them, that was a "dog bites man" story. No point in reading past the headline; it's just another one of those unsafe prop planes. It takes a jet (and not a Barbie DreamJet, either...something at least as big as a 737) to get the public's attention.

I'm saying that the only hope the unions ever have of getting people to listen to them on the subject of air safety is to be honest with them and that if they attempt to hide their own interests either through omission or misdirection, they risk what little credibility they may ever hope to achieve.

The bottom line here is that the mechanics' unions cannot serve both roles effectively. They have to choose, which is something of which I'm sure they're aware...and they've made their choice.

To the airlines it is.

No airline will live or die on five hundredths of a cent in CASM. At least four times that amount is necessary to realistically even consider it.

However, when you take into account public statements like that from AS at the time they closed their last maintenance hangar in OAK that the savings they expected to realize annually was in the neighborhood of $12-$13 million and compare that with their annual costs, the miniscule nature of the savings becomes apparent.

That's because you're making the wrong comparison. The OAK hangar handled MD-80 maintenance. Any savings attributed to the closure of OAK has to be amortized over not all ASMs, but only MD-80 ASMs. That increases the CASM savings to a level worth talking about.

If they were the airlines obvious vested interest in justifying the conventional wisdom would allow their motives to be called into question as well.

In those rare instances where the airlines have disagreed with the FAA publicly, their statements are seen with the same degree of skepticism as the unions'. That hasn't happened with outsourced maintenance, because (surprise!) the FAA hasn't spoken out against it.

Only for those willing to ignore the FAAs past track record of seeking to justify the status quo until the body count or political pressure for them to act.

Ignore it? They don't even know it. You've got to look at this through the eyes of the people who ultimately pay you. They don't understand the difference between the FAA and the NTSB. They don't know that the FAA had dual, conflicting roles throughout most of the 20th century. They don't know that it changed (officially, anyway) in the last decade. Remember, these are the same people blissfully munching their hamburgers, despite no change in the feeding practices that led to mad cow disease (and CJD) in the UK. Personally, I'd be far happier dying in a plane crash than dying of CJD...but that's just me.

 

[mweiss]

They certainly were held to be so by those who sought to justify deregulation.

[post="260510"][/post]​

"Lower fares" is a much easier metric than "better value." I don't know if Alfred Kahn was unable to see the difference (though from what I know of him I'm sure he wasn't that naïve), but I am certain that Elizabeth Bailey recognized that "lower fares" was being used as shorthand for "better value."

Are any of them large enough to justify the expense of targeting them specifically?

Yes, but unfortunately not for the legacy carriers (due to the bowl-shaped supply curve).

Yet the only ones currently successful are those that appeal to those interested in price above other considerations.

[post="260527"][/post]​

The evolution of a deregulated airline industry is continuing. JetBlue and Midwest have scratched the surface of some of the variations that we're likely to see in the next decade or two. It takes some serious outside-the-box thinking to get there, though, and that's not something we've seen much of from the legacy carriers...except for AA in the first decade of deregulation.

 

[NWA/AMT]

No, but the fact that the message confusion makes "safety" sound like a euphamism for "job protection" is. I agree that it's a dessert topping and a floor wax, but I'm not the person you need to convince.

[post="260564"][/post]​

If "safety" sounds like a euphemism for job protection perhaps it is because every time the unions say "safety" the airlines say "job protectionism" and the FAA says "the system is safe".

Well, then, if that's the case, you're doomed.

I don't think so at all. I think the public is smart enough to remember who has been warning them all along when the inevitable happens.

"One" would only need to have read a couple of days ago, where I pointed out that it's time to change the message.

Yet when a union leader does exactly that which you recommended, he fails to meet your standard. "One" stands in amazement of that fact.

As I pointed out, however, it won't happen...because the union's primary role is job protection.

And as I pointed out, that isn't the only reason, or even the main reason.

There's nothing wrong with that; it just means that they're not credible to the general public when safety coincides with job protection.

Not yet anyway.

It's not "the" reason. It's "a" reason. There's nobody else countering the reasons, either.

Yet they are, the media just doesn't carry their message as it carries that of their employers.

Of course, it helped that the people calling attention to the prejudice weren't simultaneously reinforcing the stereotypes that led to the prejudice in the first place...

You speak of the American worker trying to protect their jobs as if it is a crime in need of punishment or at least censure. Based on your statements to date, it would appear that the fact that the unions attempt to bring the issue to the public's attention is the ONLY such effort currently under way is a strike against them rather than a credit to them.

You were responding to my statement regarding convicted felons.

No, I was responding to your broader point about CEO accountability, as anyone who read my response could determine.

The number of convicted felons joining the BOD of other companies is zero.

Thanks for responding to the question you wished that I had asked rather than the one I asked.

I didn't realize that ValuJet went bankrupt. I was under the impression that they were still flying, albeit under a different name

Yet no one said that they had. However, their CEO and President DID make decisions that directly led to the deaths of quite a few people through a causal chain only a few steps long, and remain unindicted and quite comfortable.

 

[NWA/AMT]

I don't know. How about taking a poll?

[post="260564"][/post]​

Seemed like the only way I might get you to give an answer there for a while. You'd established your opinion that it could be more than currently but less than the annual auto fatalities. Quite a broad point spread to cover there.

Just based on my observations of past events, I'd say that it would take around 250-300 fatalities per year to cause enough public concern to result in moderate changes. Probably twice that for major, wholesale changes.

Well, that should be easy enough for them to achieve, particularly once the vendors get hold of the A380.

As do I. Your error of omission was curious, that's all.

It was not an error, I intentionally omitted irrelevant data in order to expedite the discussion, a wasted effort obviously.

It's not just a workplace privacy motive, though that's an element. It's also a job protection motive.

At what level does the pilots opposing enhanced reporting get construed as job protection? Considering that they already have the NASA safety reporting system to protect their jobs in such incidents on a personal level, or are already subject to sanction in such incidents if personal negligence can be proven, I'd be interested to hear how they're protecting their jobs by opposing this.

At least be honest and admit both.

I would if I were convinced, and Saturday Night Live bits aren't getting us there.

These weren't created out of whole cloth.

Yet because something was once considered valid doesn't mean it was or that it remains so.

Because they haven't done exactly what I said they should.

The drum must be incessant and consistent, focusing on safety and nothing else. If it's coming out of the union leadership's mouth, it needs to include phrases like "we aren't opposed to outsourcing per se," and "if the airlines can get quality maintenance for less, we applaud and support them." But that's not going to happen.

[post="259962"][/post]​

Yet that's exactly what did happen. While acknowledging NWA's contractual right to outsource up to 38% of their mechanics work, Ted Ludwig pointed out specific safety concerns at one vendor.

Exactly like you said he should.

Laziness, yes. Bias, only insofar as they didn't do the research insofar as they were lazy. In a news story, the headline isn't the denial of the accusation; it's the accusation. The subhead can be (and was) the rebuttal of the accusation. That's not bias; that's how news stories are written. Accusations are "man bites dog." Denials of accusations are "dog bites man." The denials are only headlines if the story is of sufficient magnitude to support several days of headlines (think Monica Lewinsky).

A stronger indictment of sensationalist journalism I've never read. At least Joseph Pulitzer had the honesty to be embarrassed and found a prize for GOOD journalism.

That is the ultimate "man bites dog" angle.

Then that's what we're reduced to; attrition.

 

[NWA/AMT]

The bottom line here is that the mechanics' unions cannot serve both roles effectively. They have to choose, which is something of which I'm sure they're aware...and they've made their choice.

[post="260573"][/post]​

Yet the PAMA, a professional organization not affiliated with any union, one that has been around for years, also has no credibility with the media or, through them, the public. Somehow when the reporters are rounding up the usual 'spokesperson' suspects, the forget to return PAMA's calls.

No airline will live or die on five hundredths of a cent in CASM. At least four times that amount is necessary to realistically even consider it.

Yet that is exactly the savings they testified was their intent. Considering that some airlines are eliminating pillows from their aircraft not for the cost of the pillows but for the cost of the (disposable) pillowcases, I think you underestimate their focus.

That's because you're making the wrong comparison. The OAK hangar handled MD-80 maintenance. Any savings attributed to the closure of OAK has to be amortized over not all ASMs, but only MD-80 ASMs. That increases the CASM savings to a level worth talking about.

Yet the AS OAK hangar hadn't handled MD-80 heavy maintenance for several years, except on an ad hoc basis. The AS hangar in OAK maintained their 737 aircraft, both -400 and NG, a much larger portion of the overall AS fleet, and supported operations for their whole fleet.

Ignore it? They don't even know it. You've got to look at this through the eyes of the people who ultimately pay you. They don't understand the difference between the FAA and the NTSB. They don't know that the FAA had dual, conflicting roles throughout most of the 20th century. They don't know that it changed (officially, anyway) in the last decade.

They don't know because they don't care, in the end. As long as it doesn't happen to them or someone they love. Enough people have tried to tell them over the years, and been ignored, to prove that.

"Lower fares" is a much easier metric than "better value." I don't know if Alfred Kahn was unable to see the difference (though from what I know of him I'm sure he wasn't that naïve), but I am certain that Elizabeth Bailey recognized that "lower fares" was being used as shorthand for "better value."

That was not the case they made to Congress, or the public, at the time. The tighter seats, fewer amenities and the thousand little inconveniences that have become air travel weren't mentioned either, but anyone with a brain saw them as part of the inevitable outcome.

Yes, but unfortunately not for the legacy carriers (due to the bowl-shaped supply curve).

Or even for carriers that seek to serve them. What was the name of that airline for smokers.....?

The evolution of a deregulated airline industry is continuing. JetBlue and Midwest have scratched the surface of some of the variations that we're likely to see in the next decade or two. It takes some serious outside-the-box thinking to get there, though, and that's not something we've seen much of from the legacy carriers...except for AA in the first decade of deregulation.

Air Florida and Valujet were once industry darlings as well, until they killed some folks and the FAA was forced to suddenly look aghast and pretend they didn't know what had been happening, although the paper trail says otherwise in both cases.

As for the new guys, HP was the only new entrant carrier to survive round one of the deregulation follies and Airtran, nee Valujet, was the only one to survive round two. I've worked on A320s long enough to know that JetBlue's toughest days are ahead of them, not behind them, but I bet they'll be around to see round four.

The only thing that has changed is the level of safety. One thing about airplanes is that they are remarkably resistent to hubris and management school buzzwords. It won't be too long before 'thinking out of the box' puts them outside their aerodynamic operating envelope.

 

[mweiss]

If "safety" sounds like a euphemism for job protection perhaps it is because every time the unions say "safety" the airlines say "job protectionism" and the FAA says "the system is safe".

Or perhaps it's something much simpler. People have been trained to recognize that the "talking heads" have ulterior motives, and expect to read between the lines. It sounds like political job protection, exactly as it sounds like profits over safety when airline management disputes the FAA's findings.

I think the public is smart enough to remember who has been warning them all along when the inevitable happens.

Yet at that point, by your own admission, it's too late.

Yet when a union leader does exactly that which you recommended

You said that he has, but your description of the events says that he hasn't.

And as I pointed out, that isn't the only reason, or even the main reason.

Yes, you made that claim. You didn't mention the main reason then or now. So, what's the main reason?

Yet they are

OK, I'll bite. Who's countering the message? Everyone you mentioned thus far has a job protection conflict of interest.

You speak of the American worker trying to protect their jobs as if it is a crime in need of punishment or at least censure.

Not at all. I speak of it as a factor that undermines credibility as it applies to a claim that just happens to coincide with job protection. There's nothing wrong with job protection in and of itself. There's something wrong with job protection masquerading as altruism. Or, in this case, the conflict virtually guarantees that the claimants will be Cassandras.

No, I was responding to your broader point about CEO accountability, as anyone who read my response could determine.

Let's revisit the thread, shall we? I said that you wouldn't find Ken Lay's felonious conviction and served prison time as sufficient. You responded:

it probably won't be good enough and certainly will not qualify as the onerous accountability you would have us believe it is.

To which I replied

At that level of the organization, being denied a seat on the Board of Directors is as significant as a mechanic losing his license.

To which you replied

How many airline executives have been denied a seat on the BOD at one company and not gone on to at least an equal position at another company, usually an airline or to a comfortable retirement of their own choosing?

So, who was changing the subject?

I hate to drop out in mid-topic like this, as it's really not my style...but my job has sapped the free time I had left for this board...I'm going to have to take a breather.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Or perhaps it's something much simpler. People have been trained to recognize that the "talking heads" have ulterior motives, and expect to read between the lines.

[post="260661"][/post]​

That would be plausible if they did not accept the positions of the airlines and the FAA, those in 'authority', on so many subjects without question.

It sounds like political job protection, exactly as it sounds like profits over safety when airline management disputes the FAA's findings.

Yet airline managements don't do that, because they don't need to. As we have seen with the multiple delays in the FAA Airworthiness Directive on cabin insulation, the FAA is only too happy to accomodate the wishes of the airlines.

Yet at that point, by your own admission, it's too late.

No. As I have pointed out already, this discussion has led me to the conclusion that the only thing that will get the public's attention for this issue is body count, so how could that be too late?

You said that he has, but your description of the events says that he hasn't.

I've already pointed out one of your statements that Ted Ludwig unwittingly complied with almost verbatim, but apparently another is in order:

You said:

The message must be about how a particular maintenance facility is performing shoddy work, couched with the statement that outsourcing is not inherently going to lead to bad maintenance. The message has to be all about quality. It won't happen, though.

[post="259956"][/post]​

Ted did:

While acknowledging NWA's contractual right to outsource up to 38% of their mechanics work, Ted Ludwig pointed out specific safety concerns at one vendor.

[post="260593"][/post]​

Exactly like you said he should. What's the problem?

There's nothing wrong with job protection in and of itself. There's something wrong with job protection masquerading as altruism.

Yet if you acknowledge in advance that you have an interest but still make a credible argument against outsourcing, the "masquerade[]" is no such thing. Because we have an interest does not make outsourcing safe.

Let's revisit the thread, shall we? I said that you wouldn't find Ken Lay's felonious conviction and served prison time as sufficient. You responded:

Lets, but let's use the full quote rather than attempting to take it out of context:

Perhaps it's many decades of seeing such people convicted but never serve a day or, if they do serve, do their time in a minimum security resort. Even Martha, that exception that is supposed to prove the rule, served less time than someone who had committed misdemeanor theft. So, no, it probably won't be good enough and certainly will not qualify as the onerous accountability you would have us believe it is.

[post="260072"][/post]​

So, who was changing the subject?

Since I stayed on the original, broader, subject of overall accountability, rather than being distracted by your attempted example of someone who did not work for an airline (and as yet remains unpunished), and you appeared to come back to the original subject with your statement regarding being denied a seat on the BOD, the answer is easy: You tried to change the subject and failed.

 

[NWA/AMT]

I hate to drop out in mid-topic like this, as it's really not my style...but my job has sapped the free time I had left for this board...I'm going to have to take a breather.

[post="260661"][/post]​

That's OK, it's apparent we're done here. Considering the high level of participation in this board you have maintained for an impressive 3300+ posts, I'd say you've earned a breather.

While we have been having this discussion, (a mechanic), an employee of (an airline), has worked on two aircraft that had recently come from heavy maintenance at the same vendor. In both cases (a mechanic) was the first mechanic to perform a line check after the vendor produced the aircraft, and in both cases (a mechanic) found defects that should be subject to FAA fines, but somehow I doubt that will happen. It would require the airline to report to the FAA that it had not conformed to the FARs, an admission that outsourcing is not equal to in-house maintenance.

On both aircraft (a mechanic) found several emergency light exit identifiers, those small electric signs mounted about knee high at each exit that are there to guide passengers from a smoke-filled aircraft to safety, to have been removed not by removing the lens and then removing the attach screws, but by having been forcibly pried from their mountings with a screwdriver. Rather than being replaced by the vendor, they were reassembled with glue and stuck to their mounting points with RTV, and were so badly damaged that they were completely inoperative. Someone at the vendor signed for removing them, someone signed for installing them, someone signed for inspecting them and someone signed for their ops check, an ops check they could not have passed.

You are allowed to have some of these signs inoperative on most aircraft types according to the manufacturer's FAA-approved specifications, but it limits the number of passengers you are allowed to carry because the exit must be considered completely inoperative as well. No such limitation was in effect, because the vendor had said that the emergency light system was working. The planes had been in revenue passenger service for several days.

Because (an airline) did not have enough spare parts to replace all the damaged signs and because the planes were oversold, (an airline) took significant delays in both cases until the parts could be shipped in. Despite the fact that he was quite aware that (a mechanic's) assigned task required (a mechanic) to check these lights, (an mechanic's) supervisor implied that (a mechanic) had found them intentionally as part of some mythical union job action. He might have attempted to intimidate (a mechanic) into signing them off, unrepaired, if it weren't that (a mechanic) had a union interested in air safety and willing to protect it's members jobs.

The lesson here? Because (a mechanic) found the problem and fixed it, (a mechanic) is the bad guy. Because the vendor created the problem and then ignored it, but got the plane out on time and on budget, (regardless of the fact it was not legal for passenger operations), they're the good guy. The analysts get more data to back up their (upcoming) contention that in-house line maintenance is really the problem after all, the spokespersons stand ready to contribute to future messenger shootings and the pundits get to opine about how inefficient union labor is compared to the vendors. The passengers continue to serve as the unwitting canaries in the outsourcing coal mine, the airline shoots at the messenger, and misses for a change, and the FAA remains exactly where they want to be - blissfully unaware.

The system works.

For the moment.

 

[AA-MCI]

Yes, you made that claim. You didn't mention the main reason then or now. So, what's the main reason?

[post="260661"][/post]​

Yes he did, pretty clearly:

No, it's not - but not for the reason you imply.

It won't happen because the problem is not with one particular vendor, or even one subset of vendors. The problem is that the nature of outsourcing, and the competitive nature of the MRO market that has arisen, means that the pressure on each vendor to cut costs is incredible. Since they have already cut wages to the point that they are unable to hire people, quality suffers and the decline is happening rapidly.

Yet even when the problems of one specific vendor are addressed, as they were by L33 President Ted Ludwig, you pan the effort as job protectionism. Maybe it's not our efforts but your preconceptions that are at the core of your dissatisfaction with the way the unions present their message.

[post="260072"][/post]​

No wonder you took your ball and went home, Mike.

 

[NWA/AMT]

AA-MCI,

Thank you for making that point, and for the kind words.

However, I think it would be better if we try to limit ourselves to addressing the ideas and preconceptions of others, rather than them personally. Taunting others only serves to end debate, not convince.

Thanks,

NWA/AMT

 

[UAL_TECH]

AA-MCI,

Thank you for making that point, and for the kind words.

However, I think it would be better if we try to limit ourselves to addressing the ideas and preconceptions of others, rather than them personally. Taunting others only serves to end debate, not convince.

Thanks,

NWA/AMT

[post="261250"][/post]​

And I thank you “NWA/AMT†for your methodical and detailed posts in defense of the outsourcing issue. And I also thank mweiss for being meticulous in his retorts. He has made some good points but (JMHO - as prejudice as it is) you have made many yourself. Sometimes it is hard to see the truth and although I understand what is going on in the industry, I cannot articulate it as well as you.

JMHO, the bottom line is that the public will/has interpreted our concerns as a ‘job protection’ action and will not heed our warnings until it is too late to correct it. Once an item is outsourced, the tooling typically included in the deal (in UA’s case) and is removed from the property by either sending it to the OSV or scrapping it. To ‘re-tool’ an item is a costly venture and all ‘other’ methods will be explored rather than bringing it back in house. Once it is gone, it is gone forever!!!

Is this a necessarily a ‘bad idea’? Not in all cases. Speaking from an altruistic point of view, there has been many intangible and unquantifiable benefits to having work performed in-house –vs- OEM/OSV. I will speak of these advantages strictly from my UAL point of view (although I know of several instances of other airlines being involved).

Other than the simple ‘under my control’ theology, there have been numerous cases wherein our engineering staff and mechanics have resolved chronic problems and design irregularities that have saved our companies ‘millions’!!! ( if not only in costs of dollars, but in lives as well) As there is a big gap in ‘design’ and ‘application’ we have had the luxury of depending on the expertise of people whom actually do the work –vs- the design engineer whom cannot design for all contingencies.

So not only are we loosing control over our inventory, we are loosing control over our intellectual input to solve problems that could be significant in terms of life and revenue. As I muse over my 20+/- years here at the ‘Lazy U’ and 30+ years in aviation, I see the significance to these benefits on a daily basis and few others outside of my profession do.

It is also noteworthy that we ‘legacy carriers’ were the training ground for the FAA inspectors.

Where are they today?

JMHO & PO,

Take Care,
UAL_TECH

 

[NWA/AMT]

UAL TECH,

Thanks for your kind words.

You raise several good points, the most important of which regards the permanence of outsourcing once the decision is made. Once the ability to perform the maintenance in-house is dismantled, the airlines will never be able to afford to reassemble it due to the costs involved and today's pricing environment.

As several airlines have found after dismantling their in-house maintenance capabilities, not having the ability to perform at least some of their own maintenance has placed them at the mercy of the vendors in terms of the cost of their maintenance as well as the quality. Once the vendors have realized that an airline no longer has the capacity to do their own maintenance, the prices charged by the vendors have invariably escalated.

There is no reason for that trend to end, and, in fact, as the demand for vendor maintenance has begun to outstrip the supply we have already begun to see that same outcome on a larger scale. The inclusion of foreign repair stations in FAR 145 has served to dampen that effect to an extent, but even their prices have begun to escalate as they have realized their pricing power over the airlines.

Not having the ability, due to the high initial investment required, to recreate their in-house maintenance abilities and losing control of the cost of their own maintenance and it's quality, the airlines may find themselves in the position of having to decide whether to purchase the vendors to regain control of their own operations.

 

[AA-MCI]

However, I think it would be better if we try to limit ourselves to addressing the ideas and preconceptions of others, rather than them personally. Taunting others only serves to end debate, not convince.

[post="261250"][/post]​

I stand corrected. Sometimes its just too hard to resist.