U.S. Airline Industry Must `Restructure or Die,'' Aviation Week & Space Technology Reports

[sfb]

LDKIAM-

Don't you think the time spent by a mechanic doing a pushback or waving a couple of wands would be better-spent on those required checks? Or on repairing an aircraft that actually has a maintenance issue? Yes, I am aware that there are ETOPS procedures which must be performed daily, but that affects what, maybe 8% of your fleet?

Performing maintenance in-house is NO guarantee of its quality; the fork-lift job on the AA DC-10 which crashed in Chicago in 1979 was done in-house, while the jack-screw on the AS MD-80 which crashed in 2000 was also inspected in-house.

And let's see, Southwest decides to contract out maintenance of its avionics to a terribly disreputable company -- THE MANUFACTURER OF THE EQUIPMENT. I mean, isn't it obvious that the maker of the avionics equipment would have no clue whatsoever about how to repair it???

 

[LDKIAM]

There are only 27 stations out of 200 that have a barebone staffing of mechanic and related for r&d and other duties. And there are sufficient mechanics on duty for repairs and the majority of repair work is done at the hubs and on third shift.

 

[pitguy]

One would be surprised at some of the garbage work we get back from vendors. Also note you have little control over turn around also when you vender out work. Most maintenance management do not like to vendor maintenance work knowing they get hosed by the vender allot of the time. Some things you almost have to vender out though do to special situations. A bean counter may think he is getting the same thing, but in reality he is not. The vendor issue looks allot better on paper than in reality to those in the know.

As far as mechanics doing push backs it would cost very few jobs if we did give it up since you have to have a certain number of mechanics to do the day in and day out required maintenance and when they are not doing it they would be sitting down and not being productive, so the receive and dispatch would be a small savings if any.

 

[KCFlyer]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/21/2002 7:15:04 PM pitguy wrote:
[P]One would be surprised at some of the garbage work we get back from vendors. Also note you have little control over turn around also when you vender out work. Most maintenance management do not like to vendor maintenance work knowing they get hosed by the vender allot of the time. Some things you almost have to vender out though do to special situations. A bean counter may think he is getting the same thing, but in reality he is not. The vendor issue looks allot better on paper than in reality to those in the know. [BR][BR]As far as mechanics doing push backs it would cost very few jobs if we did give it up since you have to have a certain number of mechanics to do the day in and day out required maintenance and when they are not doing it they would be sitting down and not being productive, so the receive and dispatch would be a small savings if any.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]How do you explain the high dispatch rate for SWA aircraft then if the airline has little control over turn around? SWA's philosophy is to make money by keeping the aircraft flying. They obviously have a lot more control than you might think.

 

[Steiner]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/21/2002 7:27:20 PM KCFlyer wrote:

[/P]How do you explain the high dispatch rate for SWA aircraft then if the airline has little control over turn around? SWA's philosophy is to make money by keeping the aircraft flying. They obviously have a lot more control than you might think.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Maybe they save all of the cocktail napkins until the end of the day. Oh by the ways

 

[LDKIAM]

We use to do third party work for Air South, America West, the Hornets and Challenge Air Cargo, but management messed that up too!

 

[LDKIAM]

Southwest's fleet is young, they are bringing in more work in house, one fleet type and Tramco is a decent MRO.[BR][BR]A couple of years back Vangaurd returned five 737-200's that were on lease to US, Vangaurd sent the airplanes to COPESA in Costa Rica, for the C check, metrojet reconfiguration and painting. The planes went from COPESA to Tampa and when they got to TPA the C-Checks basically had to be redone and engines changed. And there was a US Airways maintenance foreman overseeing the work too![BR][BR]Also the now defunt Dynair did the return to service work on the 757s we got from Eastern and all they did was cosmetic work, with the airplanes needing major work redone, I remember 618AU coming in on its first revenue flight with five pages of logbook write ups.[BR][BR]This says it all about contract maintenance:[BR][BR][A href=http://www.the-mechanic.com/3rd_party_maint.html]http://www.the-mechanic.com/3rd_party_maint.html[/A]

 

[mga707]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/19/2002 752 PM N513AU wrote:

The reality is that even WN and JetBlue can't survive the current market for long. Once their size becomes around the size of say, American or Delta, their costs outpace their revenue. Remember the low-cost darlings of the 1980s? Are any still around? No. The whole thing eventually implodes.

Then there is issue of service. WN and the like have absolutely no interest in serving big cities with congestion problems (ie. BOS, PHL) or small cities with limited marketshare. They only go where they can turn airplanes quickly and fill them. PHL and BOS would be suicide venture for any company even dreaming of on-time performance. If the big "hub and spoke" carriers fail, most rural air service will cease to exist.

[/blockquote]

You seem to contradict yourself with these two paragraphs: Given that the assertion in the second graph is true (and I think you are correct), it implies that your prediction in graph one will never come to pass. In other words, due to the self-imposed conditions in their business plans, airlines such as Southwest and jetBlue will never be the size of AA/UA/DL, nor will they ever desire to be so.

 

[LDKIAM]

Your BZE comparasion is ludicrous, I am talking about 27 US mainline stations, do you not understand every single one of the 279+ airplanes must have a daily check accomplished before the end of the day by a US Airways mechanic at a mainline station. and you need to post truthful information. Also all of the 11 767 and nine A330 require etops maintenance everyday before they leave the US for Europe[BR][BR][STRONG]US Airways Systemwide Fact Sheet[BR][/STRONG][BR][BR]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][FONT color=#000000 size=3][STRONG]Daily Departures[SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 1] [/SPAN][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 1] [/SPAN][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 1] [/SPAN]Airports Served[/STRONG][/FONT][BR]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][FONT size=3][FONT color=#000000][?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice /][o][/o][/FONT][/FONT][BR]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][FONT color=#000000 size=3]US Airways [SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]1,245[SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 1] [/SPAN]US Airways[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN][SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes][/SPAN]89[/FONT][BR]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt][FONT color=#000000 size=3]US Airways Shuttle 90[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]US Airways Shuttle[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]3[BR][/FONT][/P]

 

[sfb]

LDKIAM-

Well, of those 200 stations (mainline and express combined), only 85 actually get mainline flights, and only 31 of those 85 actually see 10 or more daily departures. I mean, it'd be kinda silly to have much staffing for mechanics somewhere like BZE that sees four flights per week. Or for the two daily flights at SNA or SRQ. It seems to me that 27 stations with mechanics seems pretty reasonable given the current scope of the company's operations and the potential need to staff two or three shifts seven days a week at each station.

pitguy-

The way you control the quality and turnaround time of outsourced work is by writing the conditions into the contract. If the vendor won't do things properly or in a timely way, they have to pay a penalty. Plus they probably won't get the job on the next go-round.

And as for Vanguard sending the 737-200's to Costa Rica...well, they probably didn't care if the maintenance was shoddy, they were getting rid of the planes anyway. It all depends on how their contract with US's leasing arm was written.

If R&D weren't such a big deal, the union wouldn't be as protective of it as they are. It's got to be VERY expensive in the hubs, considering that you have to staff enough guys to handle the banks.

 

[chipmunn]

LDKIAM & USAirBoy330:

Earlier in this thread, I believe this is now the thrid time, I asked what your opinion was of the Aviation Week & Space Technology article above. However, you must have missed my question.

Regardless, what's your opinion regarding the article and whether or not the U.S. Airline Industry Must Restructure or Die?

Thanks.

Chip

 

[N628AU]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/21/2002 6:30:23 AM LDKIAM wrote:

Also the work done by planners and mcu can be be farmed out to Airbus of Boeing, maybe Dave should have gotten those jobs since you make more then utility or stock clerks.


----------------
[/blockquote]

This proves your ignorance. I only must add that original username of Boof was more appropriate. You have obviously no idea of what MCU entails, nor how airline logisitcs or AOG response works if you think it can be farmed out. Your posting from Airbus? The number is 1-800-799-2264. They will be happy to provide you with the vendor for that part, because unless it is structural, they do not stock it. Do you have any idea of how much money I saved the company in my first hour on shift tonight alone, in addition to saving a cancellation? No, obivously you do not, nor do the passengers in LAS that got out of there due to the work of MCU working hand in hand with our LAX stores personnel. That does not matter, because I can derive my own pleasure from the satisfaction of a job well done without having to break my arm trying to pat myself on the back. I can do my job and be happy, and not live in the past with something that happened ten years ago. I also know what my market value is out there, and if I feel I am not being appreciated, I can go somewhere else where I will be appreciated. Unlike you, I do not see my job here as an entitlement. This company simply owes me compensation in the form of a paycheck, plus it is nice to have my health insurance and term pass.

On another note, I believe you have been a victim of IAM mind-programming. The number for EAS is 1-800-872-4711. They can hook you up with someone to deprogram you so can think for yourself again.

 

[GeorgeO1984]

Moreover, ALL of the aircraft go through PIT, PHL, CLT, DCA, or LGA at least once per day now.

Do you have information proving that?

 

[sfb]

You're right, there are 89; I went from the schedule change summary which left out some of the biggies like CZM, ANU, and UVF. And I know you were talking about 27 US mainline stations, but you spoke of it being 27 stations out of over 200. There aren't 200 US mainline stations. That still doesn't change the fact that 30% of your mainline stations (and note that another 33% see three or fewer daily mainline flights) have maintenance stations.

Let's see, the current fleet count is 279. 20 aircraft (11 767's and 9 A330's) out of 279 are 7.17% of the fleet. They make 24 transatlantic flights per day, just under 2% of the total number of flights (though a significantly higher percentage of ASM's due to aircraft size, utilization, and stage length). They all go through PIT, PHL, or CLT at least once per day for their ETOPS maintenance. Moreover, ALL of the aircraft go through PIT, PHL, CLT, DCA, or LGA at least once per day now.