Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
FAA Tougher on AA
- Thread starter Hopeful
- Start date
jimntx
Veteran
If they are being tougher, why did I have to sit for 4 hours in DCA last week while a part was brought from DFW? The igniter (?) for the right engine (MD-80) would not work. Captain said this made the 17th incident involving the same part for him in the past 2 or 3 years. (Maybe he's getting the matches wet or something.)
I loved the fact that the mechanic told us that the reason they didn't stock that part at DCA was that the company stocks a part. Then if it isn't used within a set period of time, the company determines that part is not needed at that station, and they remove it from parts inventory in that station.
I loved the fact that the mechanic told us that the reason they didn't stock that part at DCA was that the company stocks a part. Then if it isn't used within a set period of time, the company determines that part is not needed at that station, and they remove it from parts inventory in that station.
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
The FAA could care less what parts are stocked and their availability. FAA cares about procedure and the following of it to the letter.
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
At one time AA mechanics totaled near 12000 right before the 2003 concessionary contract was shoved down our throats. Incidentally that contracted was to prevent job losses.
So I ask you where are the roughly 2000 plus mechanics not on that list anymore?
Actually, the company does not make the decision to move the part. A computer program called "Zealous" does; unfortunately, nobody wants to admit that Zealous is a complete failure. Zealous was supposed to save a fortune. As it turns out, it only cost the company a fortune - and continues to cost by shipping parts needlessly around the system.
jimntx
Veteran
EXCUUUZE ME! Are you trying to say that the FAA is not concerned that I might be inconvenienced? That's ridiculous. It is ALL about me.
Still on layoff. :down:
JFK Fleet Service
Veteran
Vortilon said:
And in typical American Airlines fashion, rather than admit a mistake and scrap aforementioned system, they keep it and continue to lose their asses.
Now that is management acumen we can ill afford to lose.
Why is it management never admits they've stepped on their crank whilst wearing golf shoes, but they have no problems blaming the very people that make this airline run on a daily basis for the current sad state of the company?
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
EXCUUUZE ME! Are you trying to say that the FAA is not concerned that I might be inconvenienced? That's ridiculous. It is ALL about me.
The DOT is more concerned with passenger inconvenience even though that entity includes the FAA. They cannot demand certain parts be stocked when there are thousands upon thousands of parts on an aircraft. American's stores department has a system that records how many times a particular part is changed at a particular station. Believe it or not, if a certain part is not changed in a six month period, that part is either no longer stocked or its on-hand" availability is reduced.
There was a time when you can conceivably order any part for any AA aircraft. And I mean ANY part...
Then the bean counters took over running AA and flight crews get frustrated when we have to placard certain things because we don't have parts.
