A big difference in my opinion. I have recently flown on a few A319’s that have come out of US Airways heavy maintenance and what a difference from Alabama’s work. They come out looking brand new again. The galley doors close properly, the latches work, the carpeting and seat covers fit nice and many other little things I pick up on. The Alabama work was obviously done in a hurry, like painting over something without cleaning or stripping it first. Some of them already look 5 years worn again. But the in house work is done so much better. Thanks for the great work you do!
There is a difference!
- Thread starter busman
- Start date
AIRWOMAN
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Messages
- 3,440
- Reaction score
- 0
I believe everyone notices that. One is more inclined to "take care in greater detail" one of your own.
EricLv2Fish
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
- Messages
- 1,171
- Reaction score
- 5
Great post Bob. It could be done, however I haven't seen enough brain power from the IAM or Teamsters to move a french fry one inch. Perhaps when it's decided which union will represent the mechanics they can focus their attention on solutions instead of name calling, finger pointing, blaming management for all their problems and accusing people of wearing rose colored glass.
Dog Wonder
Veteran
How far could your brain power move a french fry?
EricLv2Fish
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
- Messages
- 1,171
- Reaction score
- 5
Figure of speech...first thing that came to mind while I was wolfing down some Mickey D's. Honestly, I haven't seen any proposed solutions from either side. Sad because there is obviously talent on both sides. That being said I should rephrase my statement to something like...they should use their brain power for problem solving instead of tearing each other down.sharkstooth
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2005
- Messages
- 64
- Reaction score
- 0
You have made yourself very clear that you have no idea what drives labor/management interactions and, since you have decided that management is nearly always right, I'd like to add a little perspective to the above.
The reason there exists the concept of "negotiation" is for both (or more) sides to reach their respective "point of indifference", a position where a side is comfortable with the position, even should it change slightly.
To say the challenge belongs to the unions is to completely misunderstand what negotiations are all about.
It is up to all parties, in this case, both MTC _and_ management, to sit down and parlay a deal. If management cannot get inhouse MTC cost to a point where they feel they can live, then "outsourcing" gets thrown on the table. This is not a one-way concession. This can be a win-win for all sides.
It will be a lose-lose if it is treated as you suggest, that is, only one side make changes.
You did say that preceived (assumed by you, I think) costs only need to be close to alternatives. Can you qualify that? Are you suggesting that the quality of work is a negotiable item (subject to valuation)? If so, I commend you. You have made progress.
A former Exec stated several times that to consider "outsourcing" meant that management had lost control and that a _temporary_ revision to control (outsource) might be needed. He also made the point (in many different ways) that it is always cheaper to accomplish tasks in-house, presuming a competant management.
sharkstooth
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2005
- Messages
- 64
- Reaction score
- 0
Oh God. The Judith "run amok" Miller excuse.
Surely you can do better than that!!!!
Perhaps you can rise above the neocon freaks and actually name sources? Name someone? Did you just rely on only one "source"?
Thanks for apologizing for screwing over the company.
If you think that someone presenting a different point of view is "attacking you", i.e. quote [ I'd like to add a little perspective to the above. } unquote, perhaps a much needed vacation is in order for yourself.
Singleflyer
Senior
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2003
- Messages
- 466
- Reaction score
- 6
In Piney Bobs post of Dec 27th he speaks of hard costs, he like many other forget about Overhead. It costs the company alot of money for these facilities, and that needs to be factored into the Hard Cost theat Bob speaks about. The problem is with a shrinking fleet you have less aircraft to spread those costs over on, thus the overhead cost per aircraft is more, driving up the cost per airplane, thus making keeping it in-house over outsourcing. Why do you think stsrt-ups outsource, it is to keep their overhead low. Unfortunatly all of the legacy carries are high overhead operations. Also, Overheadf is a FIXED COST, and business try to make costs variable, because they only have a cost when a service is required. One of my favorite quotes on high fixed costs of an airline is from Richard Branson. If you can lease it over buying it; leaee it, if you can rent it over leasing it; rent it, if you can borrow it over renting it borrow it. Therefore when the airlines are sheading these MTC facilities they are reducing their fixed expense, thus lowering their break even point.
I would give an example on one of the speciality shops. One of my "favoriate" the coffe pot shop. For example it costs $900.00 to repair an average coffee pot, and it takes one person one day to complete the repair. And there are 250 coffee pots per year to repair. At that point everbody is happy sine the shop is being fully utilized, and the shop is keeping up with the work. If you take the textbook costing of a service business 33% of the cost is labor ($300.00) 33% for parts ($300.00) and 33% for overhead ($300.00)
Now the airline has shrunk, and there are only 125 coffee pots to repair (50% of capicity) the cost of the repair will go up. You now have the same overhead to spread over fewer coffee pots so the the overhead is now $600.00 per coffee pot, you still have the same tech, and union contract states he can't do anything else, and he needs 40 hour per week so labor cost is $600.00 per coffee pot, the parts remain the same $300.00, so the total cost now is $1,500.00.
So when out sourcing costs $1,200.00 it is a deal for today's airline, but more expensive than in past years keeping it in-house.
So, the company choose to out-source. One other opition is what Air Canada did; improve the productivity of their shops to be competitive, and sell the excess capicity to other airlines so that the fixed costs are absorbed by maximum amout of repair possible.
Bob is also very correct about Supply Chain costs, and the cost of Inventory of spares. But that accounting 101 is for another day.
So if I follow Bob's post about ways to bring work back in-house, It is not only labor dollars, work rules that need to be looked at, how the company manages repairs, and controls the overhead if they are to be sucessful at utilizing the facilities at 90% plus of capicaty.
I would give an example on one of the speciality shops. One of my "favoriate" the coffe pot shop. For example it costs $900.00 to repair an average coffee pot, and it takes one person one day to complete the repair. And there are 250 coffee pots per year to repair. At that point everbody is happy sine the shop is being fully utilized, and the shop is keeping up with the work. If you take the textbook costing of a service business 33% of the cost is labor ($300.00) 33% for parts ($300.00) and 33% for overhead ($300.00)
Now the airline has shrunk, and there are only 125 coffee pots to repair (50% of capicity) the cost of the repair will go up. You now have the same overhead to spread over fewer coffee pots so the the overhead is now $600.00 per coffee pot, you still have the same tech, and union contract states he can't do anything else, and he needs 40 hour per week so labor cost is $600.00 per coffee pot, the parts remain the same $300.00, so the total cost now is $1,500.00.
So when out sourcing costs $1,200.00 it is a deal for today's airline, but more expensive than in past years keeping it in-house.
So, the company choose to out-source. One other opition is what Air Canada did; improve the productivity of their shops to be competitive, and sell the excess capicity to other airlines so that the fixed costs are absorbed by maximum amout of repair possible.
Bob is also very correct about Supply Chain costs, and the cost of Inventory of spares. But that accounting 101 is for another day.
So if I follow Bob's post about ways to bring work back in-house, It is not only labor dollars, work rules that need to be looked at, how the company manages repairs, and controls the overhead if they are to be sucessful at utilizing the facilities at 90% plus of capicaty.
Hate to break this to you but there was never a "coffee pot shop"! There was an electric shop where coffee pots along with many "other" items were repaired. We also had a slide shop, now when a slide is deployed, you check and find the slide is NIS and currently at the vendor....what do we do...beg,borrow,lease until ours is returned from the vendor, then it has to be changed out again and that equals manhours.
Singleflyer
Senior
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2003
- Messages
- 466
- Reaction score
- 6
AP tech, you are right, that is a problem, when the supply chain is not managed well. That can happen in-house as well when a part required to complete a repair is out of stock, and none available for weeks. Therefore this is a management problem with the supply chain. Compainies that practice Just in Time (JIT) inventory management have the best supply chain management maybe US needs to look in that direction.
SO with the airline smaller than before, what needs to be done so that US can sell MTC services like AC, and fully utilize their fixed assets (what they have left) to be competitive in the new world of out-source MTC for other carriers that use simular aircraft as US.
SO with the airline smaller than before, what needs to be done so that US can sell MTC services like AC, and fully utilize their fixed assets (what they have left) to be competitive in the new world of out-source MTC for other carriers that use simular aircraft as US.
