WorldTraveler said:
so far as YOU KNOW at this point, DL is outsouring those Trent engines - but the change in GE engines shows that DL does change what capabilities it keeps inhouse.
No, if we use your rules Delta is, no matter what, outsourcing the Trents. AT BEST a JV with RR is coming. (at best) because they have signed a long term TotalCare agreement that means they will be sent to a vendor.
Now in theory that vendor could be a Delta/RR JV. So what does that mean to TechOps employees? well it "could" be coming to Atlanta
Or it "could" be going to Mexico or Asia.....
Right now it doesn't look good.
WorldTraveler said:
I don't know why they made the decision they did regarding swapping which types of engines they do inhouse vs. outsource, but even by your estimation, outsourcing is not increasing.
Like I said that isn't completely true. You see the data yourself.
and if the PW4000 and CF6 lines go away without any replacement that is going to be a huge loss. Huge. In my honest opinion that will mean the F word...
WorldTraveler said:
and I'm still waiting to celebrate with you when news comes out that DL is putting in a large engine test cell and that part of DL's purchase of RR engines for the new Airbii is that those engines will be done inhouse.
Again, If you don't count TAESL as in-house for AA you won't be able to do so for DL. Delta isn't doing those engines in-house. It will be a JV or nothing. (and again, that doesn't mean it will be a JV worked by Delta employees. Could be in Asia, in Mexico, in the US staffed with contractors...... nothing stopping Delta from doing any of the above.)
WorldTraveler said:
your example is valid but given the significant differences in the percentages of the percent of outsourcing and the value of outsourcing, it is pretty hard to argue that US - which outsources about 15% more maintenance than DL does - could do that same work inhouse without dramatically improving US internal employee expenses while the inverse is true for DL.
I don't know that as a fact.
Engines don't get sent out because of labor. Engines themselves cost a metric ton of money to overhaul. Most of the time it is done 4-6 years and most true airframe overhauls now days are done every 6-10 years.
Parker isn't doing the engine work because it is just easier to do power by the hour deals now. Its the same reason Delta is doing it. Could Delta overhaul all the engines they send out? other than 46 engines (T800/GE90s) they could do them tomorrow. Why don't they? Well OEMs are now getting away from allowing carriers to do their own work and wants it send to them (or a JV vendor)
It is going to be interesting to see what happens to the engine overhaul game in the US. United has basically said they are going to get out of it. (at least for the big engines) because they aren't going to fight with the OEMs for the right to do the work. AA hasn't really said what they are doing
and all the signs point to Delta doing the same thing United is doing.
Notice what airlines like LH and AF do, they publicly play the engine OEMs off of each other to get what they want. AF has been in a pissing contest with Rollers over a TrentXWB overhaul center. I don't know if, even now, they have worked out a deal.
That wouldn't, IMHO, ever happen with this leadership team.
but again, I don't know what kind of costs it would be for US to do more engine work in-house. I would almost bet that facility costs would be larger than the employees cost. (that is my point, Engines don't have the labor costs like airframe does because staffing is so low.)
WorldTraveler said:
given that DL does engine maintenance inhouse which takes up less space but is more valuable in terms of revenue to the company - which is credited to Tech Ops - not Flight Ops or the Ramp - it should be clear that DL can use its assets - including people more efficiently and it is highly doubtful that the work that is outsourced at DL could be done inhouse for anywhere close to the same amount or that US wouldn't dramatically increase its own employee maintenance expenses if it did the work inhouse to the same level that DL does, even on a value basis.
I have already told you most of the work Delta sends out costs about the same as it would if it was done in-house. I have seen managers say the key reason HMVs aren't done in-house is because 1) they can't get approval for more hangar space (but building mexico hangars they can do....*sigh*) 2) The guys on the 4th floor simply don't want to do it. (and/or they are to scared of wall streets reaction.)
Margins just aren't there like people think they are. The money Delta "saves" is totally lost in potential profit and transportation cost.