Third Party Monkey Business

[insp89]

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.

weiss, What contracts are you talking about ?? Please elaborate on how "contracts are set up to discourage a thorough job". [On the other hand, Surely you can see how OUTSOURCING takes the focus off of SAFETY and blends in cost savings.. When these outside contractors sign contacts with Usairways that include strict time restraints on ETR's], Do you not see the incentive " to look the other way" when non-routine discrepincies show up ????????

 

[mweiss]

insp89, you answered your own question. I think you got confused by the word "contracts." Remember, contracts don't just exist between the unions and the employer, they also exist between the company and any external supplier (e.g., outsourced maintenance).

 

[cavalier]

insp89, you answered your own question. I think you got confused by the word "contracts." Remember, contracts don't just exist between the unions and the employer, they also exist between the company and any external supplier (e.g., outsourced maintenance).

Exactly, and why many vendors are demanding CASH only dealing with U now, gee I wonder why.... h34r:

 

[FLYAWAY]

I have believed this all along with third party maintenence. We have been told time after time by certain individuals on the board that MAE can turn the airbus in 14 days vs in house which we have never done so you cannot put a time on it. I do find it funny that all the aircraft are coming out of the check on time or early. Funny how they never find any extra things like lav floor corrosion and such???? They only accomplish what is on the paperwork and no more.....a little paint on the corrosion...it will be ok! Many times in house while accomplishing a job card we have found other serious problems and repaired them extending the ETR. I just find it kind of funny that nothing is every found by MAE during the checks?

Actually, they have found the aft lav corrosion. Not only have the affected parts(floor structure) been replaced but a new moisture barrier has been added to that area. And yes..14 days. Add in new door sills, additional bonding straps, repaired gear door cracks, dozens of new fan blades and paint work not labled as "routine" for the S check.

 

[cavalier]

Actually, they have found the aft lav corrosion. Not only have the affected parts(floor structure) been replaced but a new moisture barrier has been added to that area. And yes..14 days. Add in new door sills, additional bonding straps, repaired gear door cracks, dozens of new fan blades and paint work not labled as "routine" for the S check.

I'll keep this post and post it again when we see them on the networks special bulletin.

 

[700UW]

Funny, the lavatory corrison problem and the moisture barrier and new lav pans ARE FOR THE FORWARD LAVATORY, not the REAR! And only ONE A/C had it done A/C 705.

The only paint work done is some touch up and the gray MAE used does not even match the US Airways Gray.

Try again.

 

[insp89]

insp89, you answered your own question. I think you got confused by the word "contracts." Remember, contracts don't just exist between the unions and the employer, they also exist between the company and any external supplier (e.g., outsourced maintenance).

No confusion here, You didn't specify in your post if you were talking about existing labor contracts or contracts with the 3rd party contractors.

 

[E-TRONS]

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

MW, The AA DC-10 engine change procedure "deviation" was under the guidance of AA's engineering dept. Do you understand how that works?? Apparently NOT.

Engineering Authorizations "EA's" are routinely issued to legally deviate from a standard procedure after a thorough review by the engineering dept. The request to deviate might be for a number of reasons.

Example: Damage is in an area that is not specifically addressed by the SRM. That would be a candidate for an EA. NEVER is it used to circumvent the SRM or MM in a manner that would ignore the design intentions of the manufacturer. And as usual, SAFETY is the governing factor. It's either good or it's not.

Unfortunately the engineering dept along with the Lead mechanic on that DC-10 engine change were WRONG. They missed the mark as far as their calculations went. Such a procedure should not have been authorized. There is no arguing these facts. And if I am not mistaken, the Lead mechanic on that crew took his life shortly thereafter.

You are deliberately attempting to whitewash my facts with your arrogance. What's up with that?? Did I piss in your Wheaties or on your copy of "The Sweatshop Circular??"

How dare you attempt to compare what took place at AA in ORD and apply it to the current situation at UAIR :angry: !!! Are you some sort of 3rd party maintenance groupee?? You sure as heck have issues with the TRUTH being told on what really goes on in the world of MRO's. If you have a problem with what you read here then DON'T READ IT!!!! Moreover, STOP TRYING TO DISCREDIT THOSE OF US WHO GIVE A FLIP ABOUT SAFETY AND THE DIRECTION THIS INDUSTRY IS GOING AT THE HANDS OF IDIOTIC BUSINESS EXPERTS :angry: :angry: !!!!! I know you are one of these types by your loyalty to making money as opposed to keeping passengers safe <_< .

Go jump in a lake pal.....and don't forget to take your seat cushion with you !!!

 

[mweiss]

I'm very familiar with what happened with AA191. I've probably read more on that one crash than I have on any other single airline incident. The fact was that the EA was issued on a procedure that was not safe, and the mechanics, the last line of defense, signed off on the work. Granted, hindsight is always much better than foresight.

But you misunderstand my point, as you have for several months now. I don't doubt that there are issues with MAE, nor do I doubt that the contract with MAE is written so as to have safety take a backseat to money. That should be stopped. But the solution of bringing the work back in house is not the only viable solution.

 

[E-TRONS]

I'm very familiar with what happened with AA191. I've probably read more on that one crash than I have on any other single airline incident. The fact was that the EA was issued on a procedure that was not safe, and the mechanics, the last line of defense, signed off on the work. Granted, hindsight is always much better than foresight.

But you misunderstand my point, as you have for several months now. I don't doubt that there are issues with MAE, nor do I doubt that the contract with MAE is written so as to have safety take a backseat to money. That should be stopped. But the solution of bringing the work back in house is not the only viable solution.

Mechanics routinely rely on the company's engineering department to give accurate and credible instructions. If an EA is issued then it is presumed to be the proper procedure.....just as those AA mechanics did.

Are you suggesting that a lowly mechanic challenge the authority and knowledge of a 4 year college educated Engineer at every interface?? You must be kidding. If you cannot trust the directives from the engineering department then ALL AIRLINES need to cease operations immediately!!!

I take strong offense to your biased opinions in regard to 3rd party mtc providers and your business only approach to the issues at UAIR. It goes much deeper than that.

Reliability and safety are paramount and will remain so in my book. However, it is becoming diluted with each aircraft that passes thru MAE. And your attempts to discredit my dedication to my profession sickens me.

 

[mweiss]

And your attempts to discredit my dedication to my profession sickens me.

I don't doubt your dedication to your profession. I have, however, repeatedly heard subtext of job security along with the safety message. That the two are coincidentally in sync is fortuitous. What would your position be if they were not?

I take strong offense to your biased opinions

And what bias would that be?

 

[Bear96]

And what bias would that be?

Here's what I see as your bias:

That an unfettered free market would necessarily lead to an aviation system at least as safe as what we have today, and any intereference with that free market system is bad.

While I too have great faith in free markets, at some point natural human greed needs to be checked, or we start to have trade-offs of safety for a little more profit.

(And don't get me wrong-- I am not saying that in-house maintenance is necessarily always better than contracting it out-- both can be done correctly. I am just commenting on a theme I see running through many of your posts. Though the logic of it sounds good on paper, in the day-to-day mayhen of operating an airline with all its moving parts, people tend to cut corners and pressure things that shouldn't be pressured.)

 

[FLYAWAY]

Funny, the lavatory corrison problem and the moisture barrier and new lav pans ARE FOR THE FORWARD LAVATORY, not the REAR! And only ONE A/C had it done A/C 705.

The only paint work done is some touch up and the gray MAE used does not even match the US Airways Gray.

Try again.

Wrong again. Better check the data while you're at work. Aft lavs, painting entire nose from radom past forward entry on a couple of a/c. And I don't doubt the grey doesn't match. The paint is 5 years old. You failed to mention the door sills, gear doors, new risers on the cabin side walls, bonding straps, fan blades, engine cowl supports and avionics updates. 14 days!

 

[cavalier]

Wrong again. Better check the data while you're at work. Aft lavs, painting entire nose from radom past forward entry on a couple of a/c. And I don't doubt the grey doesn't match. The paint is 5 years old. You failed to mention the door sills, gear doors, new risers on the cabin side walls, bonding straps, fan blades, engine cowl supports and avionics updates. 14 days!

Yep, no doubt about it, they are the Gods of maintenance, "until" that first incident when it hits the headlines, and it will, give it time.

 

[E-TRONS]

MW: Apparently I am not the only one who realizes your bias....what a surprise eh??

A BIG thank you to BEAR96 .

BTW, I do my job and do it well....with pride and ownership as do many at UAIR. To have your work sent to MAE only because it's in Bronner's state is utter BS!! I would have rather seen the aircraft go to Delta instead of a sweatshop for Pete sake!! If MAE was up to par then they could have it all...but they are not even close :down: !! That's what I have a problem with.....Bean counter Idiots thinking that outsourcing in this manner is equitable....How can anyone be that stupid???

UAIR whines about how long we take to turn out an aircraft yet all OUR resources are taken away and sent to HMV in Alabama.....parts, tooling (that we don't have <_< ), rotables, expendibles....all things we use to support our maintenance operation. Not to mention the disparity in manpower. And what do you think happens when the need arises for one of these parts sitting at HMV?? Everything pertaining to that task STOPS!! No parts......yes, our fault again.

The deck is stacked against us. It's a system that is designed to fail. Give us both a level playing field and we will see a more accurate assessment of UAIR's claims. But that will never happen because they want OUT of the maintenance business altogether. So we will just have to settle for their carefully crafted numbers game....I bet they have no idea as to the exact amount of savings( :huh: ) realized with MAE to this point in time. Do you?? Because NOBODY has seen any such report.....makes one wonder??? And you know what?? You will NEVER see it because it's a sham!!