U.s. Airlines Outsource Crucial Safety Tasks
- Thread starter OTSmyth
- Start date
OTSmyth said:
And EL Salvador seems to be sending plenty of replacement workers for the overpaid US airline workforce.
zonecontroller
Advanced
- Sep 3, 2002
- 176
- 0
New Destination: Airlines, Facing Cost Pressure, Outsource Crucial Safety Tasks --- Heavy Maintenance on Planes Entrusted to Contractors; A Busy Hub in El Salvador --- Ms. Biddle Is Laid Off Twice
By Susan Carey in Chicago and Alex Frangos in Comalapa, El Salvador
21 January 2005
The Wall Street Journal
A1
English
(Copyright © 2005, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
JetBlue Airways doesn't offer passenger service to El Salvador. But this year, the discount airline will fly at least 17 of its 68 Airbus A320 jets to that country.
There, over six days, local mechanics working for an aircraft-overhaul shop under contract to JetBlue will inspect each plane nose to tail. They'll examine hydraulic and pneumatic systems, lubricate joints, service brakes and paint tray tables and toilet seats. Then the jets will fly back to the U.S.
REMAINDER DELETED: POST THE LINK
By Susan Carey in Chicago and Alex Frangos in Comalapa, El Salvador
21 January 2005
The Wall Street Journal
A1
English
(Copyright © 2005, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
JetBlue Airways doesn't offer passenger service to El Salvador. But this year, the discount airline will fly at least 17 of its 68 Airbus A320 jets to that country.
There, over six days, local mechanics working for an aircraft-overhaul shop under contract to JetBlue will inspect each plane nose to tail. They'll examine hydraulic and pneumatic systems, lubricate joints, service brakes and paint tray tables and toilet seats. Then the jets will fly back to the U.S.
REMAINDER DELETED: POST THE LINK
markkus757
Veteran
- Jul 26, 2004
- 598
- 1
You'll only have something to complain about if their planes fall out of the sky. Until then, just be upset that jetBlue isn't hiring your position yet.
1AA
Veteran
markkus757 said:
We seem to have forgotten about VALUE JET.
Remember the critter? You get what you pay for.
"FLY CHEAP, DIE CHEAP"
Any passenger or employee that flies or works for Jet Blue has no room to complain about Jet Blue service and company pay and benefits.
Bottom line is and always will be money, but at what cost to Service, safety and training.
Maybe if some major incident occurred at Jet Blue they may end up changing their name just like Value Jet did to AirTrans.
Critisize all you want but this has happened in the past and it will happen again, you can bet on it.
1AA said:
Your post would have more credibility if you knew that the name change was "AirTran" not "TransAir." I can't even give you credit for effing up due to a typo mistake. I guess this is what we get when you post from the hip.
1AA
Veteran
Daedalus said:
So now you are a critic because I misspelled a word or miss wrote a companies name. Oh boy, Either way it does not change the point of my post. Can you prove that I shot from the hip?
Go ahead and critique this post as well. My point was well made.
Enough!!
Your post is typical of an intellectual lightweight which makes vasts leaps in logic with little or no supporting facts to predict the future.
You've contributed nothing to advance the debate on this issue except for your witty but ignorant "FLY CHEAP, DIE CHEAP" quip about the state of affairs of this business. If you had any real clue to the strenous oversight that the FAA as applied to every new airline that has applied for, and received, a new certificate to operate as an airline since 1996...including jetBlue, then you'd refrain from making such an imbecilic post. But alas, this is a forum that accepts all points of view including the kind like yours.
You've contributed nothing to advance the debate on this issue except for your witty but ignorant "FLY CHEAP, DIE CHEAP" quip about the state of affairs of this business. If you had any real clue to the strenous oversight that the FAA as applied to every new airline that has applied for, and received, a new certificate to operate as an airline since 1996...including jetBlue, then you'd refrain from making such an imbecilic post. But alas, this is a forum that accepts all points of view including the kind like yours.
Since deregulation the safety margins for air carrier maintenance have been steadily eroded by cost pressures, and there is no evidence of an end to that trend.
Considering the low quality of the outsourced maintenance I have seen so far, also with allegedly strenuous FAA, and air carrier, oversight, it seems only a matter of time before the phrase "Fly Cheap, Die Cheap" becomes reality for some airline. Only then will the flying public realize that when you're flying around in an aluminum tube .060 of an inch thick, six miles above the earth at 400 MPH, maintenance is quite possibly NOT something that should necessarily be left to the lowest bidder.
To paraphrase and update an old quote: Aviation itself is not inherently unsafe but is extremely unforgiving of any inattention to detail and is completely immune to the hubris of those charged with its safety.
Considering the low quality of the outsourced maintenance I have seen so far, also with allegedly strenuous FAA, and air carrier, oversight, it seems only a matter of time before the phrase "Fly Cheap, Die Cheap" becomes reality for some airline. Only then will the flying public realize that when you're flying around in an aluminum tube .060 of an inch thick, six miles above the earth at 400 MPH, maintenance is quite possibly NOT something that should necessarily be left to the lowest bidder.
To paraphrase and update an old quote: Aviation itself is not inherently unsafe but is extremely unforgiving of any inattention to detail and is completely immune to the hubris of those charged with its safety.
At the same time, there is scant evidence that thowing more money at maintenance means greater safety. Certainly, below some threshold, the quality of maintenance will suffer...but I'd be hard pressed to identify where that threshold is.
mweiss said:
Proving a negative, that something prevented something that might or might not have happened, is never easy. In the case of outsourced maintenance and the diminishing standards for the quality of that work, I expect we'll find out.
However, I suppose that whether you characterize it as "throwing more money at maintenance" or "simply reinvesting in the infrastructure that is at the core of the airline business" will determine how how you interpret that outcome.
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Mar 5, 2004
- 4,265
- 4
perhaps if you ever worked at a third party chop shop you would have been enlightend how the quality of maintenance suffers...!mweiss said:
mweiss said:
Yet there is growing evidence that 'throwing' less money at maintenance means less safety. I worked in a third-party maintenance outfit for several years and can verify first hand that the standards are very different; it was when I wasn't allowed to replace a corroded bolt in a flight control because my employer wasn't willing to pay the $4 for the new one that I left. That employer is still performing maintenance for several airlines and my friends who still work there tell me that things have only gotten worse, not better. If this is how the US companies operate, does anyone really think an offshore operator will be better?
Interestingly, it may well turn out that the offshore operator will be better. Less money paid in wages that still prove to be luxurious by local standards leaves more money for $4 bolts.
My point is that money is only one of many, many factors that influence the safety of a maintenance organization. Focusing solely on the wages of the outsource maintenance shops smacks of protectionism, not a concern for safety.
My point is that money is only one of many, many factors that influence the safety of a maintenance organization. Focusing solely on the wages of the outsource maintenance shops smacks of protectionism, not a concern for safety.
mweiss said:
Not very likely. One of the primary differences that makes overseas or outsourced maintenance attractive is lower overall costs, which comes in part from not paying for that $4 bolt in the first place.
If the experience some of the airlines have had with overseas maintenance is any indication, the corroded bolt will not be reported for fear of discharge or discipline. One of the other things that influences the safety is the ability of the mechanic to say "This is wrong" without fear of reprisal, one of the main things missing from most third party shops.
Incidentally, maintenance contracts are bid by cost per man hour, with overhead rolled into that cost, so comparing wages per hour is quite central to the subject, as is comparing the pressure on the third party mechanics to keep costs low by not changing parts that should be changed.
As for protectionism, since every job that goes overseas reduces the US consumer base by one - we can't ALL be MBAs - maybe it's time that the American people exercised a little protectionism in their own interests.
Similar threads
