Third Party Monkey Business

[E-TRONS]

FLYAWAY,

Are you personally a flight crew member?? Because you seem to have an awful amount of faith in MAE and their performance concerning our Airbus aircraft.

Mark my words.....when the day comes (and it will) that you are sky high and the airplane doesn't want to fly anymore and the houses are getting bigger.....think really hard about that 14 day maintenance visit at MAE.....and all the money UAIR saved while getting "QUALITY" work performed.

Again, your ignorance is legendary!!

 

[700UW]

And everytime we need a part that is at MAE HMV it costs us an additional $125 to get a courier to get the part from BFM and take it to MOB and get put on FedEx, US Airways Express if allowed or anyother carrier or courier that get it to CLT or PIT.

 

[mweiss]

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.

Ahh, then you misunderstand. I do not believe that an unfettered free market would necessarily lead to an aviation system at least as safe as the one we have today. Nor do I believe that any intereference with that free market system is bad.

I believe that, with sufficient oversight, an otherwise free market would likely lead to an aviation system both less expensive and as safe as the one we have today.

Furthermore, I believe that there are many instances where the free market system fails. Most of them are ones where short-term benefits are chased at the expense of larger long-term costs, either individual costs or societal costs. The MAE case is beginning to look a lot like such a situation.

 

[Bear96]

I believe that, with sufficient oversight, an otherwise free market would likely lead to an aviation system both less expensive and as safe as the one we have today.

Sounds good. I don't disagree with that.

The only problem is, Who provides the oversight?

The government? Then we have people complaining about "too much government regulation."

Unions? Then we have the complaints about evil, stubborn, greedy, socialist union bosses.

So where does the "sufficient oversight" come from that is both effective enough and that doesn't gum up the free market system too much to discourage efficiency?

 

[mweiss]

The only problem is, Who provides the oversight?
The government? Then we have people complaining about "too much government regulation."

When it comes to protecting individuals' safety, there's nowhere near enough government regulation. And what regulation exists is barely enforced.

 

[E-TRONS]

I believe that, with sufficient oversight, an otherwise free market would likely lead to an aviation system both less expensive and as safe as the one we have today.
*******************************************************************

What you are proposing does not exist nor will it ever.

More oversight leads to accountability which will cause the work to be accomplished by the book...... Doing it right (by the book) takes more time....there goes your early check turn time. And more time means less profits.....So much for turning MAE into an operation with adequate oversight.

It's simple math: More oversight = Less efficiency + Less profits!!!

Hey, Maybe that's why UAIR has only ONE company rep watching the work at MAE.....you can only be in so many places at one time :huh: !!!

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You either choose Quality & Reliability or Low quality & Questionable reliability. It's rather obvious the combination the imbiciles of CCY are choosing.......for shame :down: .

MW: Do you know why the A319/320/321 family has the nickname SCUD?? Because after it takes off MOC never knows where it's going to land !! Just something to keep fresh in your mind.

 

[mweiss]

You either choose Quality & Reliability or Low quality & Questionable reliability.

It's not a one-dimensional continuum.

MW: Do you know why the A319/320/321 family has the nickname SCUD?? Because after it takes off MOC never knows where it's going to land

The MD-11s had that nick in the past as well. I'm aware of their reliability issues, though they are rather nice from a passenger comfort perspective. And the cockpits have a remarkably uncluttered feel to them.

 

[TDR1502C]

...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.

You're not going to like the next part of this movie, but since your airline seems to be where some of the managers end up at after the outsourcing airline I work for dismisses them, I'll give you a heads up on "How To Outsource So That In-house Looks Really Bad In A Powerpoint Presentation".

You've already mentioned parts, company representative oversight and check times. Wait till the company starts to alternate one or two outsourced checks on an aircraft, then brings it in-house for the subsequent check and a good clean-up of items. Guess what the in-house times and costs will look like on a colored chart compared to the outsource shop's figures after that starts?

When the airline I work for started outsourcing work, teams of inspectors where sent to provide oversight, similiar to how Southwest oversees their work. The airline quickly called back the inspectors and replaced them with one management employee to provide company oversight. Care to wonder why?

These planes should start to get interesting in a few years, because in the rush to do the checks, the outsource shops don't seem to take the time to put down drop cloths and no one takes the time to clean up all the drill chips produced during the check. But don't worry, the FAA has the Aging Wiring program they want to implement, as soon as the airlines let them.

 

[to much time to quit]

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.

Use your brain!! :blink: If the 3rd party companys didn't have blinders on their budget would never make it. But this will never come to light until its to late unforunately. As sad as it may be your question will probably be answered one day. And guess what, you'll be wrong, because you seem to be on the outside looking in without the proper knowledge to really understand. :down:

 

[mweiss]

So, in short, you're saying that it's impossible for anyone do to thorough maintenance for a dime less than it costs for US to do it in house. Is that correct?

 

[mweiss]

TDR, I get what you're suggesting, but what does the endgame look like? Once you get rid of in house altogether, you no longer have a cleanup team to handle the stuff that got missed in previous checks. So now what? You wait for the planes to fall from the sky? You'll have a grounding of the airline after the NTSB looks into the causes.

 

[to much time to quit]

You would make an excellent #### house lawyer. I said you seem to be on the outside looking in without the proper knowledge to really understand. :down: It is also to late for me to have any type of productive conversation with an edited by moderator like yourself.

 

[mweiss]

That's really very sweet of you. Thanks.

 

[TDR1502C]

TDR, I get what you're suggesting, but what does the endgame look like? Once you get rid of in house altogether, you no longer have a cleanup team to handle the stuff that got missed in previous checks. So now what? You wait for the planes to fall from the sky? You'll have a grounding of the airline after the NTSB looks into the causes.

Grounding an airline is unlikely, as Valujet showed, and the larger operations are better connected politically. Grounding a freight operation like Emery didn't seem to do anything. About all one can do (airline employee wise) is try to weather this cycle through. The work will return, as it has in the past when the airline herd gets the idea that inhouse is now a better idea and whips out the nifty charts and graphs to back up their new position.

There might be a few crashes along the way, but airliners are pretty fault tolerant, and besides, if the Alaska Air and Aloha incidents are any indication, not much will be done safety wise to improve maintenance, since it would cost money. Aloha was supposed to enlighten us on Human Factors, but it only got lip service in maintenance.

 

[TDR1502C]

Forgot to ask these MRO questions.

Why don't any of these outside shops have any staying power? Why do they keep changing hands and changing names? Why don't the people that we hired from them go back when they are laid off? Why are they always in the trade magazines complaining about the shortage of skilled technicians?