Dan Garton puts full blame on AA mechanics

[jetmechjer]

http://www.wfaa.com/video/index.html?nvid=234533


Not that The FAA revised the AD about 11 times in the last 2 years!!!

And we are all out here bustin ass to get them flying again once the FAA decides what they really want. Just got the latest revision at about 7 pm tonight and had to bring loaded planes back to the gate that were supposedly already released by the FAA!!! :blink: :blink:

 

[Bob Owens]

http://www.wfaa.com/video/index.html?nvid=234533


Not that The FAA revised the AD about 11 times in the last 2 years!!!

And we are all out here bustin ass to get them flying again once the FAA decides what they really want. Just got the latest revision at about 7 pm tonight and had to bring loaded planes back to the gate that were supposedly already released by the FAA!!! :blink: :blink:

"One inch plus or minus .25 inches." OK

 

[WingNaPrayer]

http://www.wfaa.com/video/index.html?nvid=234533


Not that The FAA revised the AD about 11 times in the last 2 years!!!

And we are all out here bustin ass to get them flying again once the FAA decides what they really want. Just got the latest revision at about 7 pm tonight and had to bring loaded planes back to the gate that were supposedly already released by the FAA!!! :blink: :blink:

Saw it coming didn't you? It's what you'd expect from a guy who wears his ass on his shoulders!

Regardless of the number of revisions, was the AD that precise? From the video, it looked fine to me but I'm certainly no expert.

Again I stand by my original assessment - it's all about the upcoming contracts.

 

[eolesen]

Actually, Garton didn't hang the mechanics out to dry --- he backhanded the FAA if you read between his words:

American Airline's Garton explains, apologizes
6:16 PM Wed, Apr 09, 2008

Terry Maxon

Dan Garton, American Airlines' executive vice president of marketing, was the front man Wednesday for a press conference.

Mr. Garton explained the problem with the MD-80 wiring harnesses, apologized to customers and then answered questions. Here are excerpts from the press conference:

Between 2005 and 2006, in response to a service bulletin - those precede airworthiness directives - we covered the bundle in a sheathing, and then we tied the bundle and clamped it to the aircraft.
All that work was done by the end of 2007, well before the actual termination requirement of the AD. That was the work that was originally done. The FAA during our audit of our AD compliance very recently found discrepancies in that work compared to the sort of strict guidelines that had been prescribed. Chief among those was spacing of the lace cord. ...

They were originally focused on the spacing on those cords.

That led us to the efforts that we were involved in two weeks ago to rectify that discrepancy. This Monday, the FAA returned and discovered additional discrepancies.

[Mr. Garton displayed on a photo that showed how the wiring harness had to be protected with a sheath tied onto the harness, with ties no more than one inch apart. He also demonstrated where clamps were supposed to go to attach the harness to the wheel well.]

Our mechanics had taken certain latitudes as to where they tied that cord off. That was an example of another discrepancy that the FAA wants rectified.


(For more, keep reading.)

This is obviously a significant event for the airline and for all the many customers that we cover. We're extremely sorry for this grave inconvenience. We are humbled by the loyalty of our customers, and we are very, very disappointed to ever let them down. We know how difficult this has been, whether you're on a leisure trip or a business trip. This kind of interruption is truly unacceptable.
We are doing everything we can right now to help our customers. We are re-accommodating them as fast as we can. It's not just on American Airlines. Obviously when we can re-accommodate them on American Airlines, we do so, but we are using any means available, any other airline or any fashion that we can re-accommodate them and get them to where they need to go.

While they are dislocated, we're providing them meals, hotels and ground transportation and for those customers who are stranded overnight, we will provide vouchers good for future travel on American Airlines simply as a way to apologize.

We are working very hard now to return to the airline to normal. This is a very large task, but we're working hard to accomplish that, and then also to ensure that this doesn't happen again.

We're very busy in the field doing inspections and additional work where it is required. We have maintenance teams, including our maintenance technicians that have been specifically trained in this specific engineering change order. They are followed by American Airlines quality assurance inspectors. Then they are followed by an American Airlines engineer. So three levels of American employees to look at the work that has been accomplished.

Then, as the aircraft are returned to service, the FAA inspects the aircraft to make sure they are satisfied with the work that has been done.

We are also contracting with an independent third party to review all our processes of compliance with FAA airworthiness directives, with the obvious goal of eliminating the possibility of this type of interruption again in the future.

It doesn't happen overnight. This has been a very large disruption. We have tens and twenties and 80,000 employees working extraordinarily hard to solve this for t he customers. I want to take a special moment to thank all of these people who have worked way beyond their normal hours and their normal jobs to accomplish this work.

Again, I want to end up by apologize by our customers who have been inconvenienced by this.

Q. Did your mechanics not understand it or did they ignore it?
A. It's a relatively significant engineering change order. It's about 30 pages. The mechanics understood it. When they accomplished it, they took what I would call certain latitudes in accomplishing it. My example would be where they tied those cords.

I think what they didn't understand that there is a sort of greater focus on strict enforcement or strict compliance with the rules of the AD. The rules have gone to a very strict level of enforcement, and we will meet that and get the planes back in the air.

Q. Is this a safety of flight issue?
A. No, it is not because we have completed the AD. It's not a question of whether we completed it. It's more a focus on how we have completed it. We have worked very hard to make sure we've met the letter of the AD.

Q. That's a contradiction. The AD requires these specific actions or there is a danger of sparking and fire.
A. it is my understanding that provided the bundle is secure, you will not have that. But you are not in compliance with the airworthiness directive until you accomplish the letter of the law, and that's what we are now accomplishing.

Q. Any pilot will tell you an airworthiness directive is a matter of safety. Any mechanic will tell you. And yet American Airlines maintains this is a technical compliance issue.
A. Meeting the requirements of the AD is a job we have to do, so we take responsibility to do that. It is my understanding that this is a question of how we did it, not whether we did it.

Q. If this is not a safety issue, why ground these airplanes immediately?
A. That's a good question. It is a requirement to comply with airworthiness directives. If you're not in compliance, you must ground the aircraft. When the FAA concluded that we were not in compliance and this is what we had to do, we did it voluntarily because it is a requirement of the law that we do that if we are not in compliance.

Q. Does the airline believe it could have waited until next scheduled maintenance?
A. Not based on the FAA's position in terms of strict adherence to the directive.

Q. People want to know who's to blame for this, the second grounding in two weeks?
A. American Airlines has to take responsibility for the disruptions they've experienced. We're very apologetic for that. I cannot say that more than I have. We're very sorry for it. We have to take responsibility for it.

In the end, it would have been our job to have followed the strict guidelines that we were there. We felt, our mechanics felt that they had greater latitude. They did not, and that was our mistake.

Q. Were the guidelines clear?
A. The directive I held up is about 30 pages and it's very specific. If you could go through and understood how it pertained to the many different MD-80s that we have, you would be able to determine what was required.

On the other hand, in the past they have had certain latitudes to adjust to the realities of an airplane and to do the job they felt was required to make the aircraft safe.

Q. Are you saying there is a change in level of enforcement and inspection from FAA that there wasn't previously, that they're being tougher?
A. I don't know if 'tougher' is the right language, but it appears there is a focus on extraordinarily strict adherence to specifics.


Q. Was that not the case in the past?
A. Well, it feels like they are more focused on it. And as you know, they're going through this audit of our compliance with past ADs. It does feel as if they have upped the level of rigor on looking of the specificity of not just whether you accomplished the AD but exactly how you did it.

Q. If you don't meet the letter of the AD, doesn't that mean you didn't meet the AD?
A. By the FAA's definition - and that's why we grounded the airplanes - yes.

Q. Is this a power play between the FAA and the airlines?
A. I really can't comment on the FAA's position on Capitol Hill. For us, the real issue here is that we have thousands of customers who are stranded from home. Whether the rules have changed or what's going on on Capitol Hill, for us the issue is that we are the ones responsible for getting our passengers to where they need to go. We have to adjust to that and we have take responsibility for that.

Q. Are they ratcheting up their inspections and specificity?
A. We definitely know there is an ongoing audit of past completed airworthiness directives. That, there's no question of. In terms of the politics you're describing, that's not my job to comment on. My job is to take care of the customer.

Q. In light of these problems, will you accept your performance stock bonus next week?
A. Our executive compensation structure is market based, is in the median of the market and our board will look at our executives and determine where they should be compensated relative to the peer group, and I'm not gong to comment any further than that.

Q. Why did you ground the entire fleet? Why didn't you do that gradually?
A. Because when the FAA concluded with our work on inspecting the work that was done that it wasn't in compliance with the airworthiness directive to the strict level of the law, we extrapolated based on the inspections that we'd done that many of them were not going to meet those specific requirements. We decided what we had to do was stop flying those aircraft until we had met those guidelines. It was our decision.

Q. Will there be more cancellations Thursday?
A. We expect there will be cancellations tomorrow and there will be some lingering into Friday, although we hope that by Friday we're largely back to normal.

Q. Will mechanics be disciplined for not doing it right?
A. The mechanics understood what the objective of the airworthiness directive was. What they failed to recognize is that the specific details of how it had to be accomplished were going to be as strictly enforced as they now are. Now, we obviously understand, and that is the work that is going on right now.

Again, to prevent us from getting into this situation again, as the airlines are brought back into service, we'll have the FAA inspect the aircraft to make sure that we've mete their demands.

Q. Any fines for what they found?
A. No, not that I'm aware of, and that's something we should have avoided by taking the aggressive action we did.

Q. How many passengers were affected?
A. We do not have an exact number. We are working very hard to get these people where they need to go and take care of them. Some of them were obviously able to re-accommodate to other airlines. Although we apologize to them, we at least were able to get them home. That's harder in certain cities where we have a big presence. In placeslike Chicago, it's easier. I promise, sitting here right now, I don't know how many had to overnight. But that's the group ... we're concerned for everybody, but we're particularly concerned about the people who had to overnight away from where they meant to go."

Q. Do you have a chance to take engineering change ordres back to the FAA before implementing them?
A. My understanding is that you can get certain flexibility. You have to go through a process to get alternative means of compliance accepted by the FAA. But you can do that if you want to do it in a little different way.

Q. Is the FAA nitpicking?
A. I don't know what's going on at the FAA. I only know that if this is the way it's going to work, we've got to do a better job of being in compliance with it. That's why bringing a third party in to ensure that we do this in the future and the FAA doesn't have this kind of action is very important to us.

We cannot put our customers through this again. If we need to understand at what level of adherence we need to meet, then we need to do that.

Q. Do you honestly believe you can get these airplanes back in service by Friday?
A. Yes.

Q. Are you saying in effect that what used to be good enough for the FAA isn't good enough?
A. I can't say precisely how this is going to flesh out. All I know is that from what I understand from talking to the maintenance people here, this is a new level of scrutiny onto exactly how you did it - where did you tie the cords?

Q. Did American ask for the latitude to do fixes, and then didn't have it?
A. We have been seeking additional latitude since this has been going on to make sure that we've accomplished it per their instructions or how we adapted.

Q. What is the financial impact?
A. "The financial impact is significant. We're first and foremost worried about our customers and taking care of them. That is why when we talk about the vouchers we give them for future travel, obviously nothing is going to feel generous but it is a very significant offer on our part to try to apologize to them. When you add that to the costs of providing reaccommodation on other airlines, hotels, meals, additional crew costs, this is going to be a very large financial impact. At this point, we've got to work through it as best we can. Our thought is purely about taking care of the customers."

Q. When will the audits be wrapped up?
A. "my understanding is there were two phases of that audit and there will be additional audits of previously issued airworthiness directives. I guess that would be called Phase II."

Q. How egregious were these mistakes by mechanics and will anyone be punished?
A. "I can't comment on that, but from my perspective, these were not huge errors."

Q. Do you perceive any financial troubles from this? Layoffs, hiring freezes, etc?
A. "The airline industry is obviously challenged on any number of fronts right now. For American Airlines specifically, this certainly couldn't have come at a worse time. If there is any good news, this is a relatively concentrated event. It's a one-time event, unlike the price of jet fuel, which is 24/7, 365 days a year. So this will be a flash point. But the far bigger concerns we have economically are the weak U.S. economy and the high price of oil."

Q. How many flights were cancelled?
A. "but I think yesterday it was about 490, and"

Q. Did you initially propose a rolling grounding so you could do it gradually?
A. "I think the conversations with the maintenance guys and the FAA obviously commenced on Monday when they started to come in talking about this. It's always a back-and-forth as to how we should best accomplish this. But the FAA was clearly looking for such strict adherence. And as we began to inspect the aircraft, they would say that doesn't meet the guideline that we see there. As the percentage of aircraft that didn't meet their guideline increased to such a high level, we recognized that on the fleet it was going to be a very high percentage. So we viewed ourselves as to have no choice but to ground the aircraft and take care of that problem."

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

If AA (management) was really, really smart, they could take the "high road" and do the following PUBLICLY, as a TEAM, with ALL the Employees, to show it's customers, and the Industry, that we are the BEST NOW, and In the Future,........................by..Declining this years PUPS, and as a team............concentrating solely on getting the fleet airborne, finally free of the FAA(for now), and EVERYONE taking responsibility for this "grey area" with the "AD's",...............and then EVERYONE................MOVE ON !!

The FEDS will then look to put some other carrier/carriers.........in "the barrel".

This "overall" FAA situation(for the Industry) is only in it's Infancy !!

 

[DallasConehead]

If AA (management) was really, really smart, they could take the "high road" and do the following PUBLICLY, as a TEAM, with ALL the Employees, to show it's customers, and the Industry, that we are the BEST NOW, and In the Future

But their really really not, so, they wont. We will move on anyway... And, whats more they will use this as just another reason why the AMT's shouldn't be paid market wages and benefits.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

But their really really not, so, they wont. We will move on anyway... And, whats more they will use this as just another reason why the AMT's shouldn't be paid market wages and benefits.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Conehead".........(Sadly) your probably gonna' be right !!

 

[nbmcg01]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Conehead".........(Sadly) your probably gonna' be right !!

Dan Garton can blame the mechanics all he wants BUT, mechanics are supervised, work is required to be signed off by management, the supervisor has a manager, and the manager has a director and so on.....The head at the top is ultimately responsible.

Significant financial loss? Wouldn't it be interesting to see how close the losses come to the payouts.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

Dan Garton can blame the mechanics all he wants BUT, mechanics are supervised, work is required to be signed off by management, the supervisor has a manager, and the manager has a director and so on.....The head at the top is ultimately responsible.

Too many chiefs and not enough indians!

Significant financial loss? Wouldn't it be interesting to see how close the losses come to the payouts.

I'm still thinking that this might be, at least some anyway, an insurable loss. There may be some coverage here
for AMR to file a claim with their insurer. Your statement, however, will really apply if it turns out they are
self insured for this type of issue/loss, wouldn't it? They would get to "name that loss" and apply any amount
they wish and yes, they could even wash some bonus money in there if they were really sneaky. . . . but they
aren't sneaky, are they?

The plot thickens! h34r:

 

[flyhigh]

...aren't book signed by crew chiefs? Aren't they union line guys. Good lord, some of you people think the ground you walk on is golden and management is just the worst of human life. It's amazing how, no matter the story, you will find a way to blame managment, bring up bonuses, and shed blame from one self...

 

[eolesen]

I thought the repairs were signed off by a crew chief as well.

Problem here is the FAA being caught under WN's desk, guys. Don't lose sight of that.

If they're getting this nit-picky over the spacing of some string, you have to wonder either there are bigger fish they're diverting attention away from, or the problems aren't nearly as far reaching as you'd think they are so they're looking anything they can to try and give the impression that yes, they're really a safety agency....

 

[Crapdog]

Can't wait to see how much fuel was saved. I'll bet it will pay for all the vouchers and hotel bills.

 

[FWAAA]

Can't wait to see how much fuel was saved. I'll bet it will pay for all the vouchers and hotel bills.

It won't even come close. The fuel bill is about $25 million a day systemwide. The MD-80s account for a fraction of the daily fuel burn.

Lost revenue is where AA is bleeding here; This may end up costing AA several hundred million dollars in lost revenue and out of pocket expenses for passenger reaccommodation/hotels, etc. before it's all over.

 

[eolesen]

Depends. Yes, lost revenue and hotel/meal expenses, but reaccom might not be as bad as some seen to think it is. In situations like this, weather, or even labor disputes, settlement used to be done at the face value of the ticket coupon when you're dealing with ATA member carriers, provided the cabin doesn't change.

 

[FWAAA]

Depends. Yes, lost revenue and hotel/meal expenses, but reaccom might not be as bad as some seen to think it is. In situations like this, weather, or even labor disputes, settlement used to be done at the face value of the ticket coupon when you're dealing with ATA member carriers, provided the cabin doesn't change.

You're probably right. I still think lost revenue is gonna be huge.

Good thing about the $500 vouchers is that everyone on the radio and on the TV has been loudly proclaiming that they'll NEVER fly AA again - so if they're to be believed, very few of those vouchers will ever be redeemed. So the vouchers won't end up costing AA any lost revenue on their own. B)