Third Party Monkey Business

[cavalier]

No, not really. It's begging the question. If a hack-shop can be "competitive" due to relatively rigid criteria of time/money, then there is a built-in lack of quality. If an FBO/MRO is on the up-and-up ( or more so ) then the quality will increase, but with a built-in competitive disadvantage ( compared to a hack-shop ). That this same pressure can be present in in-house programs ( both overhaul and line ) doesn't invalidate the basic point illustrated...though the same hurry-hurry pressure is still wrong regardless. In this manner, a good FBO/MRO can be theoretically better than a bad inhouse program. That you believe that this may highlight a tacit agreement with your position is not really the case though. Due to the fluidity and variability of the maint situation ( one never knows what one will find once inspection is perfomed ), it is difficult to have an authoritative benchmark for costs and schedule: Theoretically speaking then, an in-house "move the metal" culture may obviate the need to outsource...but at what cost? A better MRO may not appear "competitive" enough. A company wishing to cut upfront costs may find a "competitive" ( ahem ) MRO very attractive...more so than their own in-house program or better ( less "competitive" ) MRO...but at what cost?

Not so simple.

Interesting.

Here is something that was not mentioned. I have been both fixing and making mechanical devices all my life and I know that mechanical devices are even more unpredictable than the humans who conceived them.

I don't care if the work is preformed in-house, or at good or bad repair facilities, if the nature of the beast rears its head and things don't work exactly as planned resulting in two consecutive accidents, which is the nature of the beast at times, that repair facility whether in-house or good or bad third party repair station will likely either go out of business or be permanently damaged as far as reputation. People just don't care about the nature of the beast. Go ask any car mechanic if they do or watch ticket sales plunge for the misfortunate airline.

 

[AP Tech]

How is it the ETR's are always on time or early? They never seem to find any other problems with the aircraft on open up. Do you think this is just luck or are they maybe "overlooking" potential problems just to make the ETR?

Just a thought.........

 

[E-TRONS]

E-trons--

I thought this document was actually from UAL (in house), and signed off by UAL sectretaries? Not saying that makes it okay, just all the more disturbing.

KEV3188: If you notice the station that the transgressions repeatedly occurred ***GSO*** where TIMCO works on UAL aircraft.

MW, Re question: Has the falsification situation been corrected?? More than likely NOT since no known incidents directly related to the signoffs have occurred.

Who will rectify such a violation? UAL?? "What we don't know can't hurt us.....right??" Maybe the FAA who barely have enough inspectors to go around. And the ones they do have spend the MAJORITY of their time at the major airlines...not the 3rd party vendors. Recent studies tied to the Air Midwest crash in CLT revealed that all facilities do not get the same attention.....perhaps you missed that press release?

The FAA operates on a "Tombstone Legislation" system where FATALITIES must occur before anything will be done .

Valujet crash....Alaska Airlines crash.....Air Midwest crash. See any similarities here?? They all resulted in fatalities before anything was enacted or investigated.

The FAA's mission statement itself is flawed.....how can you enforce safety while promoting aviation?? You can't. It's a direct conflict of interest.

Lastly, The AA DC-10 crash at ORD was caused by maintenance under the guidance of their engineering dept. They thought they could save time......why should that matter??? Because management would have been happy with their time-saving performance......sure did AA and those 279 souls a whole lot of good didn't it?????

"We're making great time but we're going nowhere fast."

 

[E-TRONS]

How is it the ETR's are always on time or early? They never seem to find any other problems with the aircraft on open up. Do you think this is just luck or are they maybe "overlooking" potential problems just to make the ETR?

Just a thought.........

Only something an experienced technician would know and understand.

Now if we can only convince the public to believe what we are saying is true!!

 

[mweiss]

The FAA's mission statement itself is flawed.....how can you enforce safety while promoting aviation?? You can't. It's a direct conflict of interest.

That mission statement was changed as a result of the ValuJet crash. The aviation promotion goal was removed.

Lastly, The AA DC-10 crash at ORD was caused by maintenance under the guidance of their engineering dept.

Oh, excuse me. I thought you said

The mechanics are the absolute last line of defense in assuring the safety of the aircraft.

as a justification for why the maintenance needs to be done in-house.

 

[mweiss]

How is it the ETR's are always on time or early?

The problem here is not outsourcing. The problem is that the contracts are set up such that they discourage a thorough job. That should be the focus of the discussion, but of course that would only serve to validate nonunion maintenance, so we'll never hear that argument.

 

[Kev3188]

KEV3188: If you notice the station that the transgressions repeatedly occurred ***GSO*** where TIMCO works on UAL aircraft.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[High Iron]

The problem here is not outsourcing. The problem is that the contracts are set up such that they discourage a thorough job. That should be the focus of the discussion, but of course that would only serve to validate nonunion maintenance, so we'll never hear that argument.

The problem here is not outsourcing. The problem is that the contracts are set up such that they discourage a thorough job. That should be the focus of the discussion

Should be the focus of the discussion? Well, it is, though you just didn't realize it for all the attempts at parsing/spinning in an effort to "win" a debate as in end unto itself, but alright, I'll throw you that bone...it's not "outsourcing" in the extreme broadest sense BUT....

The contracts that discourage a thorough job are more prevalent in the 3rd party world. This is what makes many firms attractive to bean counters because they aappear very ( ahem ) "competitive". So it really is about outsourcing in this case. It is not as easy to separate the wheat from the chaff as you may think; "Well we'll just improve things by setting up a less punitive time/dollar based agreement" Not really. The present system is what makes said shop so "competitive" to begin with. And around and round we go...........

but of course that would only serve to validate nonunion maintenance, so we'll never hear that argument

Nothing more than a smug barb, and a major non-sequitor at that. Yeah, go to a sweatshop and talk of reforms ( of the type we refer to above ) to the people running it....you'll be tsk-tsk'd up one side and down the other.

 

[cavalier]

Now if we can only convince the public to believe what we are saying is true!!

They will understand only after a couple bad crashes, and I predict it will happen because I can see what's involved.

There are people who lost their jobs and now working at these sweatshops that repair A/C. Everyone at these sweatshops negotiates their own terms. This is done with an ax over their head being told to be quiet about it or they will be fired knowing that dissension can and will break the company. How long can that last?

Ask some posters on here and you will find that they believe this is good thing, so as long as there is no union. These are the posters brain washed by their corporate American daddies who don’t know what a hand callous is. You know them, the ones who want two classes in society and of course they belonging to the upper one, you know them, the ones paying off government so they can send all the jobs overseas.

 

[mweiss]

Should be the focus of the discussion? Well, it is...

Then why do the posts sound like "Nobody but US Airways mechanics can fix a US Airways airplane safely?" Safety in this context is usually the argument pulled out to justify saving one's job.

 

[High Iron]

Then why do the posts sound like "Nobody but US Airways mechanics can fix a US Airways airplane safely?" Safety in this context is usually the argument pulled out to justify saving one's job.

Yeah yeah, "sound like", "all these posts"...all very general in nature without specifics to numbers to debate ratio. Much like another poster ( won't say the name, but very much a numbers man ), whenever the specifics of an argument remove spin and boil down to a dirty issue they'd rather not discuss ( much less concede ), we get the "well that's not what all your posters are saying" or somesuch dodge. Continue the debate, or say you'll have to agree to disagree, but don't try to invalidate the course of the debate with a strawman by putting other's words in someone's mouth.

I would go so far to say, that yes, compared to other sweatshops, US mechanics will do a much better job. Now some other 3rd party set-up, especially other airline's, would be inherently better, due to a better culture...but I'll bet they can't match the sweet deal of a sweatshop. In fact, the difference between the in-house and them may not be enough to justify outsourcing. It may be a good deal for a smaller operation without ( yet ) the infrastructure to handle the job in-house. Get bigger, and the story changes. They may then find it more advantageous to aquire/upgrade facilities to handle the job in-house ( and to control same )

 

[mweiss]

Yeah yeah, "sound like", "all these posts"...all very general in nature without specifics to numbers to debate ratio.

There are three mechanics in particular who have made many, many such comments. If you want to play that game, I'll be happy to give you links to the posts. Is that the debate you're looking to have?

Now some other 3rd party set-up, especially other airline's, would be inherently better, due to a better culture...but I'll bet they can't match the sweet deal of a sweatshop.

Probably true. Keeping the discusson on this footing, there is absolutely an element of getting what one pays for. And it is possible to set up contracts with the sweatshops such that the quality is high. The unanswered question is whether the cost of such a contract would make their services too expensive to bother with.

 

[AP Tech]

Get a hold of the report on the Air Midwest Beech 1900 crash in Clt. Read the chain of events that led up to the crash, very interesting and it should open some eyes on the value of outsourcing maintenance. Not necessarily monkey business but more inexperience led to the crash. Most experience mechanics do not wish the transient lifstyle of contract maintenance, U is bad enough. That leaves third party maintenance contractors with mostly new and/or inexperienced workers. No work and off they go to their next customer.....

 

[High Iron]

There are three mechanics in particular who have made many, many such comments. If you want to play that game, I'll be happy to give you links to the posts. Is that the debate you're looking to have?
Probably true. Keeping the discusson on this footing, there is absolutely an element of getting what one pays for. And it is possible to set up contracts with the sweatshops such that the quality is high. The unanswered question is whether the cost of such a contract would make their services too expensive to bother with.

There are three mechanics in particular who have made many, many such comments. If you want to play that game, I'll be happy to give you links to the posts. Is that the debate you're looking to have?

...and there are much more then 3 who have debated into specifics, only to be told they differ from the prevailing sentiments you assume here. No need to post links. Your search will uncover those as well, if you chose to be comprehensive enough. You'll also get some really good review material.

Game? no. is that the debate you're looking to have? Depends, though I'm not the least bit intimidated by this apparent calling-out. It's the debate you are clearly looking to have, since you veered by setting up a strawman. I read this BB too and seen debates going back 2 years. Hope you have the time ( you obviously do )

...there is absolutely an element of getting what one pays for. And it is possible to set up contracts with the sweatshops such that the quality is high. The unanswered question is whether the cost of such a contract would make their services too expensive to bother with

Ya think? B) Unanswered? Oh, it's answered alright. Of course, now you'd be agreeing with me.

 

[mweiss]

...and there are much more then 3 who have debated into specifics, only to be told they differ from the prevailing sentiments you assume here.

True enough. I was specifically debating with at least one of the three when you jumped in. At least now you understand my position clearly.

Oh, it's answered alright. Of course, now you'd be agreeing with me.

I'd like to see the evidence of this. We've seen some very low-price sweatshops (some of which were shut down after ValuJet), and they certainly have a price advantage resulting from a cost advantage. And, provided those airlines contracting with these firms do not care about the quality of the results, the lowest cost shops will get the business. At least until an airplane falls from the sky. Then they'll be out of business, and spring up as a new one down the street.

What we haven't seen is a cost comparison of high-quality outsource maintenance firms. Without such information, we don't have enough data points to conclude about the cost necessary for such operations.

Better oversight by the FAA would do wonders to level the playing field such that maintenance wouldn't have to suffer by going to the lowest bidder. Barring that, better public information about the choices being made would help.