U.s. Airlines Outsource Crucial Safety Tasks

[mweiss]

...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...

Except that wages alone have only a loose correlation with quality of work.

as is comparing the pressure on the third party mechanics to keep costs low by not changing parts that should be changed.

Your strongest argument is this one. Use the wage argument, and it makes you sound like you're out for yourself, not the people in the metal tube.

As for protectionism, since every job that goes overseas reduces the US consumer base by one...

Only in a first-order analysis. The first-order analysis of throttle reduction would tell you that the speed would drop, but the multi-order analysis shows that, in fact, the speed remains the same and the altitude drops instead. Similarly, the first-order analysis of jobs going to other countries suggests that you have more unemployment, but the multi-order analysis shows that, in fact, employment typically remains constant instead of falling.

 

[AA-MCI]

Except that wages alone have only a loose correlation with quality of work.

[post="242494"][/post]​

Not when it comes to aircraft maintenance, I'm afraid. Those with higher skill levels are rarely willing to do the same job for less pay, so our profession is losing its more skilled members, and the knowledge they could pass on to others, to other industries. Meanwhile, the places paying the lower wages enforce rigid time standards on each task, despite the fact that the time necessary to accomplish most aircraft maintenance tasks is not a constant, allowing no time for peer training and often forcing a mechanic to choose between facing discipline or accomplishing a task in a sloppy or less than thorough manner.

Your strongest argument is this one. Use the wage argument, and it makes you sound like you're out for yourself, not the people in the metal tube.

The wage issue is central to the whole question, as I have explained several times so far, and the fact that you think it makes me sound like I'm out for myself says more about you at this point than it does about me or my argument. It's interesting that when a company makes the argument that it must pay its executives well or lose their skill it's just considered obvious business reality, but when someone makes the same argument for a position such as aircraft mechanic it is considered "just looking out for yourself".

Only in a first-order analysis. The first-order analysis of throttle reduction would tell you that the speed would drop, but the multi-order analysis shows that, in fact, the speed remains the same and the altitude drops instead.

Yet, if you retard the throttle far enough for long enough you still hit the ground. Unintended consequences are still consequences.

Similarly, the first-order analysis of jobs going to other countries suggests that you have more unemployment, but the multi-order analysis shows that, in fact, employment typically remains constant instead of falling.

Yet the quality of those jobs, and their contribution to the overall economy, declines. When we're all trying to sell each other cell phone plans, at the wages such jobs provide, what will our relevance be to the world economy?

 

[mweiss]

Not when it comes to aircraft maintenance, I'm afraid. Those with higher skill levels are rarely willing to do the same job for less pay, so our profession is losing its more skilled members, and the knowledge they could pass on to others, to other industries.

Reread what I said. Wages alone... Relative wages within an economic ecosystem certainly have an impact on quality, regardless of industry. But that doesn't mean that someone whose native language is not American English is incapable of performing quality maintenance on aircraft assembled in Renton.

Meanwhile, the places paying the lower wages enforce rigid time standards on each task

Whether or not that is true, it is not because they are paid lower wages.

It's interesting that when a company makes the argument that it must pay its executives well or lose their skill it's just considered obvious business reality, but when someone makes the same argument for a position such as aircraft mechanic it is considered "just looking out for yourself".

And as long as a company can function well with the CEO residing in a lower-wage nation, the same rules should apply. That they won't at the top of the large corporations speaks more to the closed environment than anything else.

Yet, if you retard the throttle far enough for long enough you still hit the ground. Unintended consequences are still consequences.

Precisely my point.

Yet the quality of those jobs, and their contribution to the overall economy, declines.

In a local and short-term sense, that is absolutely true. In a global and long-term sense, it is not.

I'm not going to argue that the loss of US-based aircraft maintenance jobs is good for people in the US in our lifetime. It's not. But to pretend that this fact means that we're all less safe when we get on board is beyond silly.

 

[Busdrvr]

NWA/AMT,
Believe me, I share you view on outsourced MX. Outsourced to the U.S. is bad. Overseas is much worse. From a political standpoint, I think the AMFA and IAM need to re-evaluate the folks they call their friends. From a 1999 Jblu press release:

"The Clinton administration has championed enhanced airline competition so that all Americans may benefit from lower fares and better service that most have enjoyed," Secretary Slater said. "JetBlue will provide low-fare service, increased competition and better access to New York for travelers in many communities."
Senator Schumer added: "JetBlue is the perfect airline to break the monopoly power which other airlines used as ransom to hold Upstate's economy hostage. They are modern, well financed and committed to Upstate. It is a perfect fit for New York."
JetBlue's Chief Executive Officer David Neeleman added: "With the support of Senator Schumer, Congresswoman Slaughter, Secretary Slater and many others, we are bringing an end to the regimen of high fares. Not only will JetBlue offer safe, reliable, and comfortable service with new jets, leather seats, and satellite television monitors at every seat. Our air fares will be 65 percent less than our competitors' offer today."
JetBlue wishes to express its gratitude to the Secretary of Transportation and the Assistant Secretary of Transportation for granting this order. Further, JetBlue is grateful for the leadership and strong support offered by United States Senator Charles Schumer, as well as Senators Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Patrick Leahy, Jim Jeffords, Bob Graham and Connie Mack.
JetBlue also wishes to thank its supporters in the House of Representatives: Congressman Gregory Meeks, John Sweeney, Louise Slaughter, John LaFalce, Sherwood Boehlert, Jim Walsh, Maurice Hinchey, Jack Quinn, Tom Reynolds, Mike McNulty, Amo Houghton, John McHugh, Rick Lazio, Mike Forbes, Sue Kelly, Ed Towns, Nita Lowey, Ben Gilman, Bernard Sanders, Clay Shaw, Robert Wexler and Corrine Brown.
JetBlue also is grateful to Vermont Governor Howard Dean, New York Governor George Pataki, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani for their unwavering support.

 

[acmech]

I have been down this outsourced maintence thing before, both as a contractor and a direct employee at a few of these U.S. based 3rd party maintenance facilities. My experience with both were not good. As direct a direct employee, I was generally paid far less then the contractor working next to me doing the same job I was. Go figure.

As far as qulity of work, it depends on the location and who is doing the job. I have seen the whole gambit of quality. Generally speaking those who have experience from other airlines have better workmanship than those starting out.

If I were to get laid off again, I would go into something else. I would not try contracting again, nor would I go to these 3rd party maintenance outfits.

For the kids who read this, I would not recomend aviation maintenance as a career choice at all. Go into something else while you still can.

 

[NWA/AMT]

NWA/AMT,
Believe me, I share you view on outsourced MX.  Outsourced to the U.S. is bad.  Overseas is much worse.  From a political standpoint, I think the AMFA and IAM need to re-evaluate the folks they call their friends.  From a 1999 Jblu press release:

[post="242735"][/post]​

While I'm not interested in moving political discussions out of the "Just Converstation" forum, I must point out that the revision to FAR145 that allowed overseas maintenance operations to work on FAA certificated aircraft was sponsored by the Republicans under Reagan and signed into law by G. H. W. Bush in 1989 and that every attempt by the Clinton administration to revisit it was strenuously opposed by the Gingrich Republicans, including many of the ones you chose not to highlight in your post.

Incidentally, for the record, AMFA does not contribute to political parties or causes, nor does it support or endorse political candidates.

 

[AA-MCI]

Reread what I said. Wages alone... Relative wages within an economic ecosystem certainly have an impact on quality, regardless of industry. But that doesn't mean that someone whose native language is not American English is incapable of performing quality maintenance on aircraft assembled in Renton.

[post="242699"][/post]​

Reread what I said. There is a definite correlation in decline in maintenance wages and decline in maintenance quality. The erosion of the standards in maintenance has been gradual since deregulation but it has accelerated in the last few years, with outsourcing being the primary cause. This isn't a theory, it's an observed effect. Finding the wiring for a wheel well light disconnected, uncapped, and creating an electrical arc to the nearest structure - a hydraulic line - isn't economic theory, but it is explosive. Receiving a part allegedly 'overhauled' by some offshore vendor and finding it to be in worse shape than the broken part you removed has become a common occurrence; now imagine what it means if those defects aren't readily or immediately visible...

As for the language issue, it is interesting that, according to the DOT Inspector General, in the majority of the overseas maintenance operations very few of the mechanics or even the engineers speak, read or write english. Yet, ostensibly, they are performing complex and intricate procedures from manuals which are only available in english where they work.

And as long as a company can function well with the CEO residing in a lower-wage nation, the same rules should apply. That they won't at the top of the large corporations speaks more to the closed environment than anything else.

Once we have outsourced the manufacturing, servicing, technical support and other non-management functions of an industry, how long do you think it will be before those overseas realize they can manage themselves quite well without us? I think you're confusing "won't" with "currently don't".

Precisely my point.

No, your point was that as jobs are lost employment remains constant, and my point was that as they are replaced the wages and quality of the jobs declines, as does the contribution of those jobs to a consumer economy, begetting more job losses.

In a local and short-term sense, that is absolutely true. In a global and long-term sense, it is not.

I'm not going to argue that the loss of US-based aircraft maintenance jobs is good for people in the US in our lifetime. It's not.

Explain the global and long-term benefits to the former airline mechanic who now works for a third party maintenance outfit, if he's able to find a job in this country, and is faced with choosing between what is right by the maintenance manual and feeding his family. Or to the passengers who depend on his decision.

But to pretend that this fact means that we're all less safe when we get on board is beyond silly.

Again, you misunderstand: I'm not putting forward a theory here, I'm describing an observed effect. We see these planes every day and we see the effects of outsourcing first hand. If you choose not to believe me, then that's your choice. But if you think that all maintenance is performed equally regardless of the environment in which it is performed, you're just kidding yourself.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/07/10/bi.ai...airs/index.html

DOT IG Report

http://www.aviationoutsourcing.com/PDF/GAO...about%20FAA.pdf

 

[mweiss]

Reread what I said. There is a definite correlation in decline in maintenance wages and decline in maintenance quality.

There is, but you describe it as if it were causal.

I think you're confusing "won't" with "currently don't".

Not really. Yes, there are changes ahead that will result in a less dominant position for these people, but the world is really different up there. It would take too long to explain it here.

No, your point was that as jobs are lost employment remains constant

That's an oversimplification. It's true in the long run, but of course Keynes famously pointed out that in the long run you're dead.

my point was that as they are replaced the wages and quality of the jobs declines, as does the contribution of those jobs to a consumer economy, begetting more job losses.

It changes the types of jobs that they do, but it doesn't change the fact that they work...again, in the long run.

Explain the global and long-term benefits to the former airline mechanic who now works for a third party maintenance outfit, if he's able to find a job in this country, and is faced with choosing between what is right by the maintenance manual and feeding his family.

I don't have to. I'm not trying to justify it.

But if you think that all maintenance is performed equally regardless of the environment in which it is performed, you're just kidding yourself.

I don't. And you won't find anywhere on this board where I have said that I do.