The Death Of An Industry

[767jetz]

OK, 767, now you're just ranting ...

SVQLBA,

You really are missing the point. Maybe you should try understanding what another person says before responding.

All of my points are perfectly valid. The connection is not that BA or Air France are LCC’s. Obviously not. The point is the consequences of overlooking recommended maintenance because it is not mandated by law, the hiring of low experience people because you can get them at a cheaper price, and creating a culture of saving every penny to the exclusion of common sense and safety, and covering the bare minimum to keep everything legal.

And by the way, Alaska is not a legacy carrier nor a major hub-and-spoke airline.

This whole thread started with the contention that consumers are setting the price and everyone needs to get used to it. Well, you get what you pay for, and I’m trying to illustrate that fact by sighting examples where safety and experience takes a back seat to cost. LCC’s are more susceptible to this problem because their whole business model is based on keeping costs down, but no one is immune to it. Aviation is very safe, but very unforgiving at the same time as demonstrated by my examples.

The trend of low fares at all cost is a very dangerous road to travel. Again, would you rather travel on an airline that does the bare minimum, or one that goes far beyond in keeping you and your family safe?

 

[biztraveller29]

I have yet to see any evidence that shows low fares = less safe. Somebody please site some numbers or studies that correlate the two.

 

[Segue]

I have yet to see any evidence that shows low fares = less safe. Somebody please site some numbers or studies that correlate the two.

Yes, folks, I'm willing to listen but I want facts, not anecdote.

Here are some to start:
Passenger fatalities since 1982
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Paxfatal.htm

Is United really a safety leader?
http://www.faa.gov/apa/pr/pr.cfm?id=1597

Of course LCCs will drive down operational costs, but why does low costs mean you are cutting corners or just cutting the fat?

 

[local 12 proud]

I have yet to see any evidence that shows low fares = less safe. Somebody please site some numbers or studies that correlate the two.

have you actually wittnessed the overhaul of commercial jets at third party hack shops ? well i have because i cut my teeth there before getting on with a major and the cost savings the airlines get are due to accomplishing as little as possible in the quickest time possible!!!!!!! BTW i refuse to fly on outsourced maintained a/c ive seen stuff that would make your hair stand up! so enjoy your cheap seat

 

[Segue]

This may be somewhat true, but it doesn't work in an industry like the airlines.

The problem is that the consumer does not fully understand the complexities of this industry. They do not fully understand the differences between low cost operations and full service airlines. They do not fully understand the difference between a point-to-point airline and a hub and spoke airline. They do not fully understand the evolution of safety pioneered by the legacy airlines and now enjoyed by every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wants to buy an Airbus and call themselves an Airline. They do not fully understand that a start-up airline can easily undercut and mature airline for a period of time. And they don't really care.

All they understand is that "Jet blue does it for less" without really understanding why or for how long it can last. We have many armchair-analysts and very few real experts. Even many who have been in the industry for 30 years still don't get it.

So how can a consumer who knows very little about an industry as complex and safety oriented as the airlines, have any idea what a fair wage is?

I bet that anyone who spent a week at a mature international US airline touring reservations, flight operations, flight training, customer service, in-flight training (flight attendants), dispatch, weather services, cargo, ramp, maintenance, security, scheduling, and catering, (just to name a few) and saw what it takes to move just one pressurized aluminum tube full of fuel, people, and cargo at 500 MPH from point A to point B half way around the world, would have a different opinion.


Some points to remember for the “I just want the cheapest ticket†folks:
- Airlines like Jet Blue and AirTran have cost structures that can only go one way… Up.

- LCC’s have smaller, less complex operations, and therefore can not provide the type of necessary air service this country relies on, that is supplied by the major airlines. LCC’s serve a niche.

- LCC’s have high moral because many of their employees came from mediocre jobs and saw very quick advancement due to rapid initial expansion. It’s simple… What they have now is better than what they once had. As they mature, employees will want more.

- Ever ask a new Jet Blue Pilot why they would work for peanuts? I have. Almost everyone responds “Because I’ll make captain in 2 years.†Do you think that will be true forever?

- What happens when a rapidly expanding LCC starts to mature and it’s growth slows or stops? Well, with young employees who won’t retire for 30 years you get
job stagnation. Just ask any American Airline’s pilot 5-10 years ago. Guess what happens to moral when a person who thought they’d make captain in 2 years is still sitting in the right seat making peanuts after 5, 6, 7 years or more? They will organize to negotiate better benefits.

- What will happen when LCC’s brand new airplanes start to age and become less reliable. Will the inexperienced crews be able to deal with events safely? Will less experienced maintenance crews fix them properly? When that happens, would you prefer pilots and mechanics trained to the max extent possible, or those trained to the bare minimum required by law to keep costs down?

- Do want your life in the hands of those who pioneer and forge ever increasing
standards in safety, or would you prefer those who just follow the pack and even lobby to bend established safety criteria for the sake of saving a buck or two? (Like Jet Blue’s attempt to waive duty time requirements so they can fly transcon turns.)

- If LCC’s took over the domestic transportation system, do you really think that your beloved low fares won’t go up? Think again. The sole purpose of those low fares you are getting used to is to grab market share. The instant an airline (LCC or not) has the pricing power to raise a fair, it will. Example: if SWA runs USAirways out of town prices will go up. You would also see service to many small communities lose air service completely and international fares skyrocket with no hub-and-spoke networks.

Each and every one of your points perfectly distills the essence of the legacy carrier though process. It would make a nice argument - 10 years ago.

I love the last one the best - show me an example where Southwest has taken a predatory stance on pricing - their structure is the same no matter if they are among many competitors or the only airline serving the market. The day they start gouging the public is the day they start becoming a legacy carrier.

No matter what, the industry will continue to evolve - we have not reached the end game just yet, just another chapter in a never ending story.

 

[767jetz]

I have yet to see any evidence that shows low fares = less safe. Somebody please site some numbers or studies that correlate the two.

Oh I get it! So someone has to be hurt/killed as proof before you are convinced.

I guess the concept of learning from the past is lost on you.

Well as someone else has said, enjoy your cheap ticket. But eventually, given enough time, it will catch up to you.

Let me ask you this, if you needed heart surgery would you go to the expensive doctor who's operated on hundreds of patients and maybe a lost a couple over the last 20 years, or the new kid on the block who never lost a patient in his 6 months on the job and charges half as much? After all, the numbers and studies show that he has a 100% success rate and the experienced doc is only at 98%.

A little common sense goes a long way here. I think the general public takes the safety of aviation for granted. Those of us who have seen it, experienced it, and contributed to it from the inside for our whole lives know better.

Those that say our industry is just maturing are way off. The maturity is in the legacy airlines. The onslaught of LCC's have brought us back to the infancy of this industry, and the lessons learned from decades of experience is lost on those who think they can do it for a few bucks less.

You do get what you pay for.

 

[biztraveller29]

Oh I get it! So someone has to be hurt/killed as proof before you are convinced.

I guess the concept of learning from the past is lost on you.

Since your whole premise is that low fares are driving safety down, then yes, I guess I DO have to see someone "hurt or killed" before I believe it. Since you have offered NO proof of this, you resort to shrieking hysterics.

Sorry guys, but companies don't exist for the benefit of workers, they exist to provide goods or services to consumers. I highly recommend reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. She drives home the point much better than I can.

 

[Segue]

We take aviation safety for granted because of professionals just like you. The industry has come a long way - air fatalities as a percentage of miles flown have come down dramatically. Better equipment, safety standards, training and accumulated knowledge has got the industry where it is today.

No matter what the pay, I'm convinced that airlines will continue to attract people who have a passion for the industry and will do their best to ensure that people fly safely.

I have a good friend that flew for years as a cargo pilot - puddle jumpers in Alaska, Zantop, Evergreen, FedEx. He loved flying, even though he never made a lot of money with cargo carriers. He kept at it and is now a JetBlue pilot. Loves his job, and yes, I would trust him with my life.

To say that aviation professionals are only in it for the high $$$$ seriously demeans the profession IMHO.

 

[local 12 proud]

again enjoy your CHEAPLY maintained seat, but ill pass thanks!

 

[luvn737s]

Airlines are a bit different than grocery retailing - the value of a ticket is high relative to a can of tomato sauce, there are a limited number of options, and no actual "product" is distributed - with e-ticket, its pure information until you show up at the airport./


I disagree, they are very much the same. An airline ticket is a commodity with little substantive differentiation among brands, thus none commands a premium. An airline and a grocery store deal in very thin margins. The shelf-life of an airplane ticket is very small. However the industry continues to price it's product as though it was already rotted even before it's picked.

On Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz and Sidestep (my favorite) it takes about 5 minutes to get the best price on nearly any domestic route. I can shop the LCCs right along side the majors and make my own decision. /

So why is it in the best interest of any airline to play this game?

Perfect information drives competition, and its a basic rule that in a mature, highly competitive industry, that prices march downward to meet costs, and in the end, a mature industry will make near zero over the cost of capital.

Yes, its a radical shift in wealth, with the wealth going to the consumer pockets and the strength of the economy./


If the industry cannot produce profits, there will be no investment, no growth and no industry. Why should the wealth go to the consumer? Does this radical imbalance between the reasonable cost of providing a service and the insanely low price (the difference being made up, for the time being by labor concessions) produce a stable industry? I have always said that if there is no money to pay employees there will be no money to pay investors.

Study after study has show that there is a very high elasticity of demand for air travel, and lower fares stimulate travel and commerce. More and more people will be traveling because of the newer fare structures and this will help drive our economy./


Elasticity exists primarily in leisure traffic. By placing fares in a venue like Travelocity you devalue the inelastic business travel demand and treat them equally. In fact if business travel was as elastic as airline execs believe, there would be no Netjets or other booming fractional ownership businesses. Instead the industry is choking on low fare traffic and watching those who they relied on for any hope of profits transfer to other, much more expensive alternatives. Training a consumer base to demand fares far outside the range of market equillibrium doesn't help the economy anymore than cocaine helps an athlete win the race. Sooner or later it comes crashing down.

My 400 level Econ books have no explanation for the bizarre behavior of the airline industry. I think most execs make it up as they go along.

 

[local 12 proud]

December 18, 2003

Dangers Aloft

By Mary Grady
Newswriter, Editor

Maintenance Practices Cited In Airline Crashes...
Flying today is certainly much safer than it was in the early days, when the Wrights and others were developing the first airplanes, but things still can go wrong. Last week, the Charlotte (N.C.) Observer reported that faulty maintenance played a role in at least three, and perhaps four, of the last five fatal airline crashes, including the January crash of an Air Midwest Beech 1900D that killed 21 people in Charlotte. NTSB member John Goglia told the Observer that cost-cutting by the airlines is at the root of the problem. "Unless we start dealing with these issues sooner rather than later, we're going to pay the price, and that could mean more deaths," Goglia said. The Observer said its analysis found that since 1994, maintenance problems have contributed to 42 percent of fatal airline accidents in the United States, excluding the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That's up from 16 percent the previous decade. In the Air Midwest accident, the cable work was outsourced, and was performed by a mechanic working a 14-hour shift and attempting that type of repair for the first time on a Beech 1900D, the Observer said. Maintenance has been the largest single source of enforcement actions by the FAA in commercial aviation during the past decade, the Observer said.

The FAA is looking into outsourcing at Continental Airlines, according to a report in Sunday's USA Today. The newspaper said it has obtained FAA records that say safety inspectors have recommended a penalty for Continental in connection with its use of Miami Tech Line Maintenance, but the nature of the violation is not known. The case is under review at the FAA, and no action has been taken against the company. The FAA declined to comment on the case to USA Today.

 

[AirplaneFan]

Oh I get it! So someone has to be hurt/killed as proof before you are convinced.

I guess the concept of learning from the past is lost on you.

Well as someone else has said, enjoy your cheap ticket. But eventually, given enough time, it will catch up to you.

Let me ask you this, if you needed heart surgery would you go to the expensive doctor who's operated on hundreds of patients and maybe a lost a couple over the last 20 years, or the new kid on the block who never lost a patient in his 6 months on the job and charges half as much? After all, the numbers and studies show that he has a 100% success rate and the experienced doc is only at 98%.

A little common sense goes a long way here. I think the general public takes the safety of aviation for granted. Those of us who have seen it, experienced it, and contributed to it from the inside for our whole lives know better.

Those that say our industry is just maturing are way off. The maturity is in the legacy airlines. The onslaught of LCC's have brought us back to the infancy of this industry, and the lessons learned from decades of experience is lost on those who think they can do it for a few bucks less.

You do get what you pay for.

If I carry your argument to its (IL)logical conclusion. You would rather got to a heart surgeon who might have 20-years experience and has spent 18-years complaining about other doctor's who got paid more. Went on strike a couple of times inconveincing thousands of customers so he could get himself a pay raise. And of course, the doctor would take every opportunity to talk to their patients and explain to them how unfairly they were being treated by their managment. They would complain about "trying to feed my family", then after the conversation was over would hop in the jaguar to head to their vacation home.

Alternatively you could get a heart surgeon with 15 years of experience who loves his job. He is personable and always has a smile for his customers.

Some of you unionists who have the kool-aid for a long time think this is a no-brainer, you would rather have someone like yourselves (the first man). However, many customers don't see the world as you do. Just get us from Point A to Point B. And do with courtesy and a smile. And we would choose the second man.

BTW, LLC's have a better safety record than legacy carriers.

 

[local 12 proud]

Airlines Decisions To Outsource Repairs Costing Lives?
Country's 13 Largest Airlines Outsource Mechanical Work

POSTED: 4:50 pm PDT May 26, 2004
UPDATED: 5:22 pm PDT May 26, 2004

SAN DIEGO -- The next time you fly, the airplane you board may have been repaired by someone who isn't a certified airline mechanic, according to 10News.


More and more, airlines are outsourcing maintenance, 10News reported.

Experienced airline mechanics said sending repair work to third-party shops is like playing Russian roulette with a jet. They added that several crashes have already prove their point.

In 1996, a Value Jet plane crashed into the Florida Everglades and killed 110 people. In 2000, 113 died in the Concorde crash in France. And, 21 more people were killed when an Air Midwest commuter plane crashed last year.

What do these disasters have in common? According to Ken Mactiernan, from the Aircraft Maintenance Technicians Association, outsourced maintenance played a part in all of the accidents.

"The public may be in danger in the future as the airlines make a mad dash to outsource as much work as they can get away with," Mactiernan said.

According to the Department of Transportation, the country's 13 largest airlines are outsourcing huge portions of their mechanic work.


Overall, airlines in the United States send about one-third of their work to outside repair shops. In fact, America West, Alaska and Southwest airlines all outsource more than half of their work to other companies.

So, what's the problem with outsourcing? Airline mechanics who are trying to stop the trend said work is not getting done or is done poorly, and passengers are at risk.

Former United Airlines mechanic Tim Hafer supplied 10News' investigative team with documents showing secretaries, not mechanics, signed off on outsourced repair jobs.

"It looks like it was never even done. I mean, the fact that the (Federal Aviation Administration) inspector told me United (Airlines) couldn't come up with written paper work, that basically (tells me) the work was never done," Hafer said.

Hafer said he was fired after reporting the violations to the FAA.

The 10News investigative team also uncovered photos of shoddy work done at outside maintenance centers, including:

wires damaged and left on a 757
a fuel leak that was improperly repaired
a 747 jet engine that came apart in flight after an overhaul
missing bolts and nuts from a 737 door, which was discovered just before takeoff

"Airplanes are very forgiving. I mean, you can beat an airplane and it will forgive you only so many times," Hafer said.

The quality of outsourced repair work in the United States is not the only concern. Critics are also troubled by what they say is a lack of security in overseas shops.

"I don't think it would be very difficult at all. I mean there are a lot of places on a plane where you can hide or do whatever you want to do," Hafer said.

"I can assure you that the Transportation Security Administration, along with DHS and its partners, has processes in place to address those (concerns). We are continually looking for those gaps and seams that somebody would use to get inside our security apparatus," said Mike Aguilar, a federal security director, about Hafer's allegations.

The bottom line is that airlines say outsourcing lowers costs and airfares, but the mechanics 10News interviewed said saving $100 on a flight could cost a passenger their life.

"In the most extreme case, they can put that $100 toward a coffin," Hafer said.

Certified airline mechanics will picket against outsourcing maintenance jobs for three days next week in Washington, D.C.

Southwest Airlines said it keeps a close eye on the quality of its outsourced work. Spokesperson Angela Vargo said passenger safety is the first concern, and all repair work goes to the original manufacturer or a specialized vendor. Southwest has not had a fatal crash in its 33-year history.

But, 10News' sources said it is only a matter of time before the lack of experience at outside repair shops leads to another crash and more deaths.

Responses To Recent Media Reports On Maintenance Outsourcing:

 

[local 12 proud]

AIR SAFETY WEEK


May 3, 2004



Procedures Must Be Followed to Halt Mounting Toll of Maintenance Mistakes

'All is not well,' safety board member John Goglia declares

Airline flying is becoming less safe and maintenance errors are playing
an increasing role in the reduced operational level of safety, according to a
new study of the role maintenance mistakes play in aircraft accidents and
incidents.


The examination marks an unprecedented effort to take a comprehensive
look at the impact of maintenance error on operational safety, said professor
Gary Eiff, who directed the study at Purdue University's Department of Aviation
Technology in Lafayette, Ind.


The findings - that maintenance errors were a contributory factor in far
more incidents and accidents than previously thought - come at a time when
financially-strapped airlines are contracting out more maintenance to save
money, and in a period when federal oversight of repair stations has been found
lacking (see ASW, Jan. 21, 2003, Oversight Needs to Keep Pace With Expansion

of Contract Maintenance).


Although adherence to approved procedures is one of the most effective
defenses against errors, the Purdue study found that in 76 percent of the
maintenance-related events, failure to follow established procedures was cited
as a contributing factor.


Although inspection is often the last line of defense, the study found
that inadequate or missing inspections were a contributing factor in nearly 20
percent of the maintenance-related accidents and incidents.


Organizational factors, such as inadequate procedures, documentation,
training and supervision accounted for more than 15 percent of the maintenance-
related contributions to accidents and incidents.


The study was undertaken with the encouragement of John Goglia, the
resident maintenance expert on the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

The NTSB has found maintenance error contributed to a number of recent fatal

air crashes, notably the Jan. 21, 2000, fatal crash of an Alaska Airlines [ALK]

MD-83, the Feb. 16, 2000, crash of an Emery Worldwide Airlines DC-8 freighter,

and the Jan. 8, 2003, crash of an Air Midwest Beech 1900D (see ASW, March 1).

Together, these three accidents killed 112 people.


As a consequence of the investigations into these accidents, Goglia
pushed for a wider examination of maintenance error. The Purdue study is a
result of this concern that recent maintenance-related crashes are symptoms of a
more widespread and sinister trend.


"Since coming to the safety board, and seeing the raw data, my gut was
telling me the rate of maintenance-related problems was much higher than
generally believed," Goglia said. "This study tells us that all is not well."


The Purdue study found that, indeed, there are worrisome trends that
ought to prompt a hard look at the level of training and oversight of aircraft
maintenance. The safety culture in aviation maintenance also is being
scrutinized in a separate study under way at Missouri's St. Louis University
(see ASW, April 12). According to a draft copy of the Purdue study obtained by
ASW, "Maintenance contributions to aviation accidents and incidents are
increasing."


"While the increase is not at an alarming rate, we should take action now
to arrest this trend," the report said. One of the more significant revelations
in the report is that while incidents are trending toward fewer per year, the
accident trend is in the opposite direction. Thus, while the total number of
accidents and incidents remains relatively the same, the report notes that "the
criticality of [the] outcome of such events is becoming more severe."


The assertion that maintenance errors are on the rise is a contributing
factor in the larger conclusion in the Purdue study: "As a whole, the air
carrier industry is experiencing a slight trend toward becoming less safe as a
mode of transportation."


This finding flies in the face of the fervently held belief that the
safety level is improving. For example, at the recent Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Forecast Conference, Nicholas Sabatini, associate FAA
administrator for regulation and certification, asserted that 2003 was the
safest year ever (see ASW, March 29). However, Sabatini's assertion was

based on fatal accidents, of which there were only two in 2003, while the 50 other non-
fatal accidents for 2003 pushed the total number of air carrier accidents last
year to the highest ever recorded by the NTSB.


How the system's performance is measured can largely drive perceptions
about safety. Eiff and his graduate students, who did the grunt work in the
Purdue study, looked at all accidents and all incidents in the NTSB database
over a 20-year period from 1982 to 2002. The Purdue study focused on scheduled

passenger operations; it excluded cargo aircraft and charter operations.


The purpose of the study was to determine if maintenance played a more
prominent role in aviation accidents and incidents than was previously thought.


The Purdue researchers analyzed roughly 1,300 NTSB records of airline
accidents and incidents. The study found that maintenance problems were factors

in nearly a third (29 percent) of the events. One of the key assumptions in the study

was that mechanical failures were maintenance-related. "While the reports do not

directly link these mechanical failures to maintenance, it is reasonable to believe

that many result from maintenance shortcomings," the report said.


The study found that maintenance was a contributory factor in far more
cases than previously thought. For example, a recently published Boeing [BA]
safety summary attributes only about 3 percent of crashes to faulty maintenance.
The Purdue study suggests that maintenance problems may be some 10 times
greater.


A major reason for the difference is that the Boeing data includes only
hull losses. Not all accidents are hull losses. In addition, according to Dustin
Wilcox, one of the students involved in the Purdue study, "We looked at
incidents as well, which might be described as accidents that got lucky."


Goglia believes the findings of the Purdue study are closer to the
reality. "The students who did the work did not change the NTSB findings in all
those accident and incident reports," Goglia said. "This was a straightforward
exercise, extracting what the NTSB said and compiling it. That is significant,
and a big reason why we need to pay attention to the results of this data-mining
effort." As an example, the data mining found more than 100 cases of nose
landing gear failures to extend for landing.


In a telephone interview, Goglia said the study's findings are consistent
with other inquiries. For example, an engine manufacturer found that 50 percent
of engine-related turnbacks (return to departure airfield) were caused by
installation error, Goglia said.


What can be done? "We need to start putting some mitigations in place,"
Goglia said. He recalled that after a spate of crashes from pilot error,
primarily from a failure to follow procedures, aircrews were enjoined to stick
to procedures.


Now, for maintenance, Goglia said, "We need to pound into everybody's
head the importance of following procedures." Secondly, he said, the procedures
themselves need to be evaluated for currency, consistency and ease of
understanding. Following the Air Midwest crash, which was attributed to
improperly rigged elevator control cables, the relevant section of the Beech
1900D maintenance manual was revised significantly (see ASW, March 1, , What

a Difference an Accident Makes). >> Goglia, e-mail [email protected]; Eiff, e-mail
[email protected] <<

Growing Concerns



Research at several airline operations suggested that:



* Growing numbers of aircraft delays were maintenance-related.
* An increasing number of aircraft turn-backs and diversions were due to

maintenance.

* Several recent accidents and incidents occurred with maintenance as a

causal factor.


Source: Purdue Univ.

 

[whlinder]

a DC8 that ran out of fuel in portland.

Hey my parents were on that!

And then my dad proceeded to fly over a million paid miles on UA...