Contract Maintenance screwup again!

[DR.EVIL]

What about all the in house union screwups? How do they happen? Most all 3rd party vendors hire your ex-union buddies who have been laid off so are they now somehow un-qualified? The same FAA that regulates you regulates them. You would agree that third party MX vending has seen a tremendious increase in the last 10 years and that US airline safety is at an all time high. Hum? How does one square those facts with nice little slogans?

Do you have connections that work at the 3rd party vendors to verify your claims? I doubt it. There is a large mix of experienced and non experienced mechanics at these facilities. The experienced ones are getting paid close to airline wages and the non experienced ones get paid very little, can't even speak or read the english language let alone read or comprehend maintenance manuals. You are very IGNORANT to the real world out there. Many of the experienced mechanics do the job right the first time, what everyone better start worrying about is the inexperienced ones that really screw something up one day, covers it up and creates a giant lawn dart. Thats the problem there oh wise one. :down: The problem with this particular aircraft is factual and should of never happened, and would not of happened if the work was performed by Usairways mechanics from the start!!

 

[delldude]

Where's the committment to the members supposed to come from?? Union leadership?? Hmmmm.......not seeing much committment from either right now.

wow...seems both ends don't do what they should,huh?
my point.....
thank you for verifying.

 

[PITMTC]

you guys make me laugh....its like a ying yang concept,one cannot continue without the others input.its that simple.
unions are weak because of lack of membership commitment.
union leadership is weak because of the above.corporations are strong because of an explotation of this lack of commitment.

Now this can be disputed for ever.
I bet there would be great commitment from the membership if they actually trusted the leadership. A leadership made up of educated, proffesional and committed individuals (preferrably not some member who worked his way up the ranks because he was a big-mouth tough guy who all the slackers wanted on their side to protect them). When I say committed, I mean to the members, not to the bottom dollar of the corporations that unions have become.
With two different examples of how a decisions could go wrong:
A. "Concession stand is closed" and "We'll take our chances with the judge". US
B. No vote, but walk out. NW
and the possibility that both = loss, how can you expect commitment. The members see no difference in how they are being treated by the company than the outcome of what they get when they follow what the union says.
What do you want these people to do. It's not made up, it's real life drama. What kind of commitment are you talking about?

 

[delldude]

commitment i guess in this sense wouldn't be as good word at this time in the airline industry because as we both know things haven't been the best even before 9-11.it just accelerated things quickly.
if things were better economically all over, profits were there to justify better benefits,wages,(yin/yang,put in -get out)then i'd think the commitment would be there at least more would hopefully have an incentive to get involved... as it would be an end to justify the means.
bottom line as you point out...if they got something they want from leadership they would be more inclined to support those who get them something.....(politics).
i agree with 'the concesion stands closed' and the other things weren't the best options at the times.
look what it got both parties....
IAM alienated the company and at the same time shot themselves in the foot later on in the game.may have been a valiant stand when first brought out but as time went on members got desperate and it backfired.
NWA...i still feel they walked into an ambush at the worst possible time in the industry....they feel they have a purpose,if thats what they believe in then so be it.i still feel they got bushwacked by a long term plan.
as to tough guys and all that...i think pretty much that has gone aside...i feel PIT local leadership is committed to the membership and working together with the company in boths best interests..i know tons will dispute that here.but it goes with the position whether union or management...can't please everyone all the time.

 

[700UW]

From the FAA Database:
Singapore Technologies Mobile Aerospace
Airport ID: BFM
Physical Location:
2100 NINTH STREET
BROOKLEY COMPLEX
MOBILE , AL 36615

Personnel
Certificated Mechanics: 532 (licensed)
Repairmen: 54 (unlicensed)
Non-Certificated Mechanics: 1050 (unlicensed)
Total Employees: 1636

 

[DR.EVIL]

From the FAA Database:
Singapore Technologies Mobile Aerospace
Airport ID: BFM
Physical Location:
2100 NINTH STREET
BROOKLEY COMPLEX
MOBILE , AL 36615

Personnel
Certificated Mechanics: 532 (licensed)
Repairmen: 54 (unlicensed)
Non-Certificated Mechanics: 1050 (unlicensed)
Total Employees: 1636

Somewhere around a 33% qualified mechanic ratio. Is that what everyone is comfortable at 33,000 feet.

 

[PITMTC]

If they are in the FAA database, there must be FAA oversight. I guess you need to go bark up another tree if you don't think they should be working on aircraft.
We have been over this argument many times before.

commitment i guess in this sense ...........
..........can't please everyone all the time.

Well said.

 

[BoeingBoy]

If they are in the FAA database, there must be FAA oversight.

Ah, the old "FAA oversight" thing.....

Excerpts from the DOT Inspector General's testimony to Congress yesterday:

In July 2003, we reported 4 that FAA’s oversight had not shifted to where the maintenance was actually performed—rather it remained focused on air carriers’ inhouse
maintenance procedures. For example, inspectors for 1 air carrier completed 400 inspections of inhouse maintenance operations 1 year while only completing 7 inspections of repair stations—but this air carrier contracted out nearly half of its maintenance that year.

We also found that two different groups of inspectors performed repair station oversight, but neither group performed comprehensive repair station inspections. One group was responsible for oversight of major air carriers’ operations and maintenance activities. These inspectors conducted reviews of repair stations used by their assigned air carrier; however, the number of repair station inspections was limited and the visits infrequent. In addition, this group of inspectors only reviewed the work the repair station completed for their air carrier—they did not assess the entire repair station operation.

FAA has a second group of inspectors that is responsible for oversight of various types of aviation operators located within their region—including repair stations. Although they have primary responsibility for repair station oversight, they are only required to perform one inspection per year. Due to their workload, we found that these inspectors spent a limited amount of time on repair station surveillance.

For example,

− One inspector was responsible for oversight of 21 repair stations, 21 agricultural operators, 12 serviceforhire
operators, 3 general aviation operators, 2 helicopter operations, and 1 maintenance school.

− Another inspector was responsible for oversight of 32 agricultural operators, 19 repair stations, 7 ondemand
operators, 2 helicopter operators, and 1 maintenance school.

When the two groups of inspectors did perform surveillance at the same repair station, they frequently did not share the inspection results with each other. This was due in part to the fact that these inspectors were located in separate offices and used two separate inspection data bases.

In addition, we found that 138 FAAcertificated
repair stations in France, Germany, and Ireland were not inspected by FAA at all because the civil aviation authorities in these countries reviewed these facilities for FAA. Yet, FAA had not developed an adequate system to monitor this surveillance to ensure FAAcertificated foreign repair stations continued to meet FAA standards. For example, foreign inspectors did not provide FAA with enough information to understand the results of their inspections—14 of the 16 inspection files we reviewed were incomplete or incomprehensible (many were written in a foreign language).

In July 2003, we recommended several improvements to FAA’s oversight of repair stations, such as: (1) identifying repair stations used for critical maintenance; (2) targeting surveillance based on risk assessments; (3) implementing datasharing mechanisms for FAA inspectors; (4) developing a more standardized, comprehensive approach to oversight; and (5) implementing new procedures for monitoring the oversight conducted by foreign authorities on FAA’s behalf. FAA agreed to develop a new riskbased
oversight process for repair stations that would make their inspections more consistent and comprehensive. FAA also agreed to develop procedures to improve its oversight of repair station inspections performed by other aviation authorities. FAA committed to implement these actions in FY 2005.

However, in July 2005, 5 when we checked the status of FAA’s efforts in implementing these recommendations, we found that FAA’s progress had been slow. Specifically, we found that FAA’s planned implementation dates have now slipped to FY 2007.

Jim

Full prepared testimony here

 

[NeedForSpeed]

From the FAA Database:
Singapore Technologies Mobile Aerospace
Airport ID: BFM
Physical Location:
2100 NINTH STREET
BROOKLEY COMPLEX
MOBILE , AL 36615

Personnel
Certificated Mechanics: 532 (licensed)
Repairmen: 54 (unlicensed)
Non-Certificated Mechanics: 1050 (unlicensed)
Total Employees: 1636

 

[700UW]

Thanks Jim,

You proved my point exactly, care to comment mr pitmtc?

 

[DR.EVIL]

Thanks Jim,

You proved my point exactly, care to comment mr pitmtc?

Pitmtc is in denial and full of himself. :down:

 

[E-TRONS]

It's all about the money. The airline philosophy these days is this:

It's cheaper to occasionally pay out an insurance claim for loss of life (CRASH) as opposed to paying for getting the stuff done right the first time. FAA oversight is a crock of ####!!! Who is watching overseas??????

OK this is the kind of union rhetoric or mindless idiocy we have to deal with!
Does anyone think an airline bean counter thinks it is cheaper to have a hull lost, the loss of life and insuing lawsuits and the negative publicity a crash would incure to justify the outsourcing? No of course this is not the justification.
Please take BUS 101 and ECON 101. I think unions should try an educate their people before they indoctrinate them. But of course if they did that they wouldn't need unions now would they?

Yeah I'm an idiot alright <_< That's why I left UAIR on my own accord!! This industry seems to think the likes of me are a liability, rather than an asset.

Airframe and Powerplant License.

20+ years in aircraft maintenance, Overhaul and Line (4 Different carriers).

Engine run-up and taxi on the Boeing fleets(727,37,47,57,67).

FCC General Radio-telephone Operators License.

Onboard-Avioncs Systems Technician (UAIR).

Category II/IIIa/IIIb Certified for most of my career.

FAA-AMT Diamond Award Recipient(twice).

Aircraft Lead Mechanic (UAIR)

Aircraft Quality Assurance Inspector (UAIR)

Composite Repair Technician on Boeing & Airbus.

Why the hell would an individual like me know what I am talking about??????? I've never been anywhere, seen, nor done anything........Not like I ever witnessed the aftermath of a plane crash caused by 3rd party maintenance either :angry:

I don't know what YOU do Mr. UPNAWAY, but I know you don't have any idea how it "really works" inside the airline's maintenance departments. Allow me to enlighten you.

The VP's are usually flunkies that know NOTHING about aircraft. Most don't even have common sense. I have worked under such morons for many years and have seen them come and go. They always surround themselves with yes men who compound the problem by distorting the truth of the matter. Heaven forbid if the VP hears about something unpleasant like more corrosion than originally anticipated, which will make the plane leave the check late....that's the reality inside the business.

The planning department is also over it's head when it comes time to plan checks. They just worry about meeting the deadlines....forget what really is waiting to be uncovered when the bird get's opened up!! Non-routines....why allocate any time for those?????? We don't need to test fly a plane that was in 10,000 pcs a week ago either!! What could possibly happen anyway???

The bean counters are nothing more than people trying to make a name for themselves. Outsource it!!! Brilliant!!! Mr. CEO, look what we can do for you??? Never mind they don't have the slightest idea of what is required to properly maintain an aircraft. It takes TIME and MONEY. If you don't want to pay??? Then get out of the airline business. So what do they do???? Send the work to the LOWEST BIDDER :down: Who is idiotic again??

I don't care where you went to college or how many degrees you have. If you don't have common sense and a mechanical aptitude of sorts, you need to shut up and maybe learn something from the veterans of the industry!!! And you know what you can do with those degrees too.

Why do you think aircraft go out late more often than not form inhouse maintenance?? Because the REAL aircraft mechanics....the last line of safety....will not allow the repairs to be done at 99% safety/quality. It must be 100% or the plane goes nowhere. That is the DIFFERENCE between inhouse and outsourced maintenance. Inhouse, it's our bird!!! OURS!! We care about every last thing from nose to tail. Our families and friends travel on the skill of our hands.
To 3rd party, it's just another plane that has to make schedule or the company will pay penalties. "don't look there...you might find something." That again is reality. Ask anyone worth a spit, who QUIT (key word) a 3rd party vendor and they will repeat what I have stated here, verbatim. Where do you think my knowledge of 3rd party providers comes from??? From those that were once within. What a surprise !!

FAA Oversight??? Talk about a popular misconception. Go read BOEINGBOY's post. Yeah....I made that stuff up too <_< .

Knock yourselves out trying to disprove me. I have always called it like I have seen it. That is what a professional does.....and I am not shy to talk about the truth, even if it will ruffle some feathers somewhere out there.

BTW, A Union is a necessary evil. PERIOD. If employers would treat employees with respect instead of contempt, unions would all go away. But that will never happen. So get over it! Live better-Work Union.

Lastly, To all you pompous "know it all-NOT" types out there...pull your heads out of your arse every now and then. You might actually see something new .

 

[700UW]

Very well said E-trons

 

[PITMTC]

Thanks Jim,
You proved my point exactly, care to comment mr pitmtc?

I don't see where he supported or proved anything you ever posted. Don't make BoeingBoy another AOG-N-IT. Support your own arguments. Don't use their facts for your typical "that's what I said" or "you proved my point".

Actaully, I agree with the content of BoeingBoy's post. It's pretty common knowedge what the problems are. If I had a dispute against what he copied, I would have disputed it. Fact is, the FAA is who provides oversight. If anyone is not happy with their efort or performance, then they need to go try to fix it. Like I said go "bark up a different tree". I don't monitor them, they monitor me and us.

Pitmtc is in denial and full of himself. :down:

Read above. I had no dispute. I agree.

 

[700UW]

If they are in the FAA database, there must be FAA oversight. I guess you need to go bark up another tree if you don't think they should be working on aircraft.
We have been over this argument many times before.
Well said.

Sure you did.