First 757 to outsourced MRO

[furp]

<_< ------ "TWA took over maintenance operations"???? :huh:

What he meant was that AA adopted TWA's maintenance program. When the "merger" first occured you could tell the difference between an AA maintained aircraft and one that was a TWA plane. It was a night and day difference, not because the mechanics did a poor job but because the TWA planes didn't receive the same amount of attention in the checks. Some consultant told AA that they over maintained their aircraft and they should adopt TWA's maintenance program. Less checks, we never had overnight airplanes at any maintenance base overnight not getting looked at, then came the days of the no check airplanes....Morning delays were rampant. Embarrassing to go out to an airplane in the morning and tell the captain it was going to be an hour delay because we had to replace their brake since nobody looked at the aircraft....TWA Maintenance program at its best. 😀

 

[Mr Red]

What he meant was that AA adopted TWA's maintenance program. When the "merger" first occured you could tell the difference between an AA maintained aircraft and one that was a TWA plane. It was a night and day difference, not because the mechanics did a poor job but because the TWA planes didn't receive the same amount of attention in the checks. Some consultant told AA that they over maintained their aircraft and they should adopt TWA's maintenance program. Less checks, we never had overnight airplanes at any maintenance base overnight not getting looked at, then came the days of the no check airplanes....Morning delays were rampant. Embarrassing to go out to an airplane in the morning and tell the captain it was going to be an hour delay because we had to replace their brake since nobody looked at the aircraft....TWA Maintenance program at its best. 😀

I thought eveyone knew that !

 

[787nightmare]

Plenty of airlines out there have 737 fleets and orders from Boeing.. Aeroman doesn't have the capacity for everything and hopefully as planes get older their costs will go up and if airline management runs the Maint. Ops. efficiently they can compete.

Delta does a good job as they do Heavy work on aircraft with their own techs. working beside techs. who work for Delta services..

Since Aeroman is probably(at least) partially owned by the country of El Salvador(could be wrong) I'm thinking they'll have no problem expanding to accommodate more customers(I could even see some carriers helping them with that!) ...so i can't imagine them standing on the sidelines missing this opportunity.
Check it out.... Now we got the US 3rd party MROs being undercut by 3rd world facilities!
I'd say not too far fetched. And from a friend inside Southwest mgt "all the talk of substandard work by these guys is BS", "they put out a pretty good product".
Now what WN mechs on the line will tell you... I don't know. In fact that'd be a good question to pose to "swamt"...

And yeah, DL TOC has been doing this stuff for a long time and does it as good as anyone.

 

[FWAAA]

The fact that AA employs unlicensed individuals (called OSMs?) plus unlicensed skilled specialists like TWU Informer (welder?) at TULE and perhaps AFW means that AA permits unlicensed persons to help fix airplanes inhouse. Presumably, they're properly supervised so that their work results in an airworthy airplane (or at least their work does not result in an un-airworthy airplane).

Proper supervision is the key, whether the work is performed in Tulsa, Fort Worth, Timco, AAR or in El Salvador or China. Not everyone in the business of medicine holds an MD. For every doctor, there's an army of others who have contact with patients. Lawyers employ an army of paralegals and other support staff. Perhaps not everyone who touches an airplane needs to hold licenses. For example: adjusting/fixing seatbacks or changing cabin lightbulbs. Must one hold licenses in airframe and powerplant to competently fix those items?

There are certainly some well-publicized failures in outsourced and off-shore maintenance. The B6 plane that landed at LAX with the nose gear turned 90 degrees - wasn't that linked to faulty maintenance, maybe outsourced maintenance? The key is proper supervision and proper inspection.

If maintenance performed outside the confines of TULE or AFW or DWH was inherently shoddy and placed passengers at risk, wouldn't airplanes be falling out of the sky? After all, non-AA airplanes comprise more than 95% of the worldwide civilian fleet. And I'm not worried about maintenance issues when I fly JAL or CX or QF or BA or LAN or any other first-world airline. The single-727 African airlines are a different matter entirely. The sanctions-crippled Iranian civilian airlines would be on my no-fly list as well.

It's a delicate line to tread when arguing that maintenance performed by someone not empoyed by your employer or by someone in a different country is dangerous or places passengers at risk. Skeptics might conclude that the concern isn't necessarily safety-related, but is instead motivated by a desire to increase employment. Yesterday, someone mentioned the "foreign nationals" employed by AA in London who maintain AA planes. They're fellow employees who, because of their location, belong to a different union.

Years ago, Bob Owens and others posted about the growing list of maintenance checks performed by AA employees in other countries as if that's a bad thing. Owens has repeatedly posted over the years that AA pays the London mechanics significantly more money than the TWU employees are paid here. More evidence of how worthless the worthless union has become when non-TWU AA employee-mechanics are paid more to fix airplanes in London than TWU employees in NYC.

 

[Frank Szabo]

The fact that AA employs unlicensed individuals (called OSMs?) plus unlicensed skilled specialists like TWU Informer (welder?) at TULE and perhaps AFW means that AA permits unlicensed persons to help fix airplanes inhouse. Presumably, they're properly supervised so that their work results in an airworthy airplane (or at least their work does not result in an un-airworthy airplane).

Proper supervision is the key, whether the work is performed in Tulsa, Fort Worth, Timco, AAR or in El Salvador or China. Not everyone in the business of medicine holds an MD. For every doctor, there's an army of others who have contact with patients. Lawyers employ an army of paralegals and other support staff. Perhaps not everyone who touches an airplane needs to hold licenses. For example: adjusting/fixing seatbacks or changing cabin lightbulbs. Must one hold licenses in airframe and powerplant to competently fix those items?

There are certainly some well-publicized failures in outsourced and off-shore maintenance. The B6 plane that landed at LAX with the nose gear turned 90 degrees - wasn't that linked to faulty maintenance, maybe outsourced maintenance? The key is proper supervision and proper inspection.

If maintenance performed outside the confines of TULE or AFW or DWH was inherently shoddy and placed passengers at risk, wouldn't airplanes be falling out of the sky? After all, non-AA airplanes comprise more than 95% of the worldwide civilian fleet. And I'm not worried about maintenance issues when I fly JAL or CX or QF or BA or LAN or any other first-world airline. The single-727 African airlines are a different matter entirely. The sanctions-crippled Iranian civilian airlines would be on my no-fly list as well.

It's a delicate line to tread when arguing that maintenance performed by someone not empoyed by your employer or by someone in a different country is dangerous or places passengers at risk. Skeptics might conclude that the concern isn't necessarily safety-related, but is instead motivated by a desire to increase employment. Yesterday, someone mentioned the "foreign nationals" employed by AA in London who maintain AA planes. They're fellow employees who, because of their location, belong to a different union.

Years ago, Bob Owens and others posted about the growing list of maintenance checks performed by AA employees in other countries as if that's a bad thing. Owens has repeatedly posted over the years that AA pays the London mechanics significantly more money than the TWU employees are paid here. More evidence of how worthless the worthless union has become when non-TWU AA employee-mechanics are paid more to fix airplanes in London than TWU employees in NYC.

As an addition to your post - why is it the majority of the TULE base inspectors in the hangers can't check a hole size for themselves? They have to call someone from the machine shops to do that for them. Evidently, inspection isn't all it's supposed to be - inspectors can't inspect - they simply operate a pen.

Another failure of the worthless union - seniority trumps knowledge and ability.

 

[Buck]

The fact that AA employs unlicensed individuals (called OSMs?) plus unlicensed skilled specialists like TWU Informer (welder?) at TULE and perhaps AFW means that AA permits unlicensed persons to help fix airplanes inhouse. Presumably, they're properly supervised so that their work results in an airworthy airplane (or at least their work does not result in an un-airworthy airplane)

Proper supervision is the key, whether the work is performed in Tulsa, Fort Worth, Timco, AAR or in El Salvador or China. Not everyone in the business of medicine holds an MD. For every doctor, there's an army of others who have contact with patients. Lawyers employ an army of paralegals and other support staff. Perhaps not everyone who touches an airplane needs to hold licenses. For example: adjusting/fixing seatbacks or changing cabin lightbulbs. Must one hold licenses in airframe and powerplant to competently fix those items?

There are certainly some well-publicized failures in outsourced and off-shore maintenance. The B6 plane that landed at LAX with the nose gear turned 90 degrees - wasn't that linked to faulty maintenance, maybe outsourced maintenance? The key is proper supervision and proper inspection.

If maintenance performed outside the confines of TULE or AFW or DWH was inherently shoddy and placed passengers at risk, wouldn't airplanes be falling out of the sky? After all, non-AA airplanes comprise more than 95% of the worldwide civilian fleet. And I'm not worried about maintenance issues when I fly JAL or CX or QF or BA or LAN or any other first-world airline. The single-727 African airlines are a different matter entirely. The sanctions-crippled Iranian civilian airlines would be on my no-fly list as well.

It's a delicate line to tread when arguing that maintenance performed by someone not empoyed by your employer or by someone in a different country is dangerous or places passengers at risk. Skeptics might conclude that the concern isn't necessarily safety-related, but is instead motivated by a desire to increase employment. Yesterday, someone mentioned the "foreign nationals" employed by AA in London who maintain AA planes. They're fellow employees who, because of their location, belong to a different union.

Years ago, Bob Owens and others posted about the growing list of maintenance checks performed by AA employees in other countries as if that's a bad thing. Owens has repeatedly posted over the years that AA pays the London mechanics significantly more money than the TWU employees are paid here. More evidence of how worthless the worthless union has become when non-TWU AA employee-mechanics are paid more to fix airplanes in London than TWU employees in NYC.

Mechanics are responsible for all the work they perform whether licensed or not. There are many instances that there is no "buy back" by an inspector and supervisors never back check a mechanics work. New mechanics and OSM's are supervised by other mechanics but as they become proficient, they are normally on their own. In Avionics on airframe maintenance a very high percentage of the inspectors have no background to rely on. There are lists of RII, required inspection items, that must be bought back.

When you state that Supervision is the key, believe it or not a supervisor at times can just get in the way. Mechanics is the US are drug tested and it has not been confirmed that any other country performs screenings.
In this business the mechanics are the MD's, including non-licensed skilled specialists (welders) and OSM's. There are no army's of people behind these MD's. It is the airlines maintenance program that requires a license in certain areas. I pretty sure you have been following the exchange on non-licensed mechanics on the line or not.

Just because there might be "shoddy maintenance" performed does not require a mass failure of the aviation industry. Aircraft are machines and they break. but it might be wear and tear that ultimately lead to a massive failure, so routine maintenance is performed. It is where the maintenance quality difference begins. Yes for the uneducated it might appear that because aircraft are not falling out of the sky, that everything is just fine. In many cases aircraft are flying with maintenance deferrals that the mechanic and his staff of maintenance personnel have determined that the aircraft can make a safe flight.

As for cabin seat issues I hope that when you are flying that you do not have a loose seat or that tray table spills you drink in your lap or your seatbelt holds you in place.

As for compensation, foreign nationals are not just paid a lower wage because their work is better or worse than those in the US, they are paid for their economies. Now the Third Party maintenance facilities in the US all of this might be different. You could be right and there is only one way to be sure, that you return every time you fly.

 

[strikeforce]

The fact that AA employs unlicensed individuals (called OSMs?) plus unlicensed skilled specialists like TWU Informer (welder?) at TULE and perhaps AFW means that AA permits unlicensed persons to help fix airplanes inhouse. Presumably, they're properly supervised so that their work results in an airworthy airplane (or at least their work does not result in an un-airworthy airplane).

Proper supervision is the key, whether the work is performed in Tulsa, Fort Worth, Timco, AAR or in El Salvador or China. Not everyone in the business of medicine holds an MD. For every doctor, there's an army of others who have contact with patients. Lawyers employ an army of paralegals and other support staff. Perhaps not everyone who touches an airplane needs to hold licenses. For example: adjusting/fixing seatbacks or changing cabin lightbulbs. Must one hold licenses in airframe and powerplant to competently fix those items?

There are certainly some well-publicized failures in outsourced and off-shore maintenance. The B6 plane that landed at LAX with the nose gear turned 90 degrees - wasn't that linked to faulty maintenance, maybe outsourced maintenance? The key is proper supervision and proper inspection.

If maintenance performed outside the confines of TULE or AFW or DWH was inherently shoddy and placed passengers at risk, wouldn't airplanes be falling out of the sky? After all, non-AA airplanes comprise more than 95% of the worldwide civilian fleet. And I'm not worried about maintenance issues when I fly JAL or CX or QF or BA or LAN or any other first-world airline. The single-727 African airlines are a different matter entirely. The sanctions-crippled Iranian civilian airlines would be on my no-fly list as well.

It's a delicate line to tread when arguing that maintenance performed by someone not employed by your employer or by someone in a different country is dangerous or places passengers at risk. Skeptics might conclude that the concern isn't necessarily safety-related, but is instead motivated by a desire to increase employment. Yesterday, someone mentioned the "foreign nationals" employed by AA in London who maintain AA planes. They're fellow employees who, because of their location, belong to a different union.

Years ago, Bob Owens and others posted about the growing list of maintenance checks performed by AA employees in other countries as if that's a bad thing. Owens has repeatedly posted over the years that AA pays the London mechanics significantly more money than the TWU employees are paid here. More evidence of how worthless the worthless union has become when non-TWU AA employee-mechanics are paid more to fix airplanes in London than TWU employees in NYC.

You get what you pay for.....it's only natural to believe when one continuously get's screwed by their employer, his/her performance and the performance of the operation will diminish over a nine-year period. Now, tell me how imposing even more severe wage and benefit reductions on your front line employees will help improve American Airlines or the safety of AA's customers?????

 

[Buck]

You get what you pay for.....it's only natural to believe when one continuously get's screwed by their employer, his/her performance and the performance of the operation will diminish over a nine-year period. Now, tell me how imposing even more severe wage and benefit reductions on your front line employees will help improve American Airlines or the safety of AA's customers?????

You get what you pay for. This makes me wonder why some of the rather knowledgeable posters here think it is okay to perform maintenance at MRO's and Foreign Repair facillities who pay less, but possibly have no FAA oversite and are allowed to operate in this country.

 

[Mr Red]

You get what you pay for. This makes me wonder why some of the rather knowledgeable posters here think it is okay to perform maintenance at MRO's and Foreign Repair facillities who pay less, but possibly have no FAA oversite and are allowed to operate in this country.

The foreign shops are even exempt from DRUG TESTING !

 

[xUT]

You get what you pay for. This makes me wonder why some of the rather knowledgeable posters here think it is okay to perform maintenance at MRO's and Foreign Repair facillities who pay less, but possibly have no FAA oversite and are allowed to operate in this country.

IMHO,
The 'Repairman's Certificate' will be the new A&P signature.
Days of old, the 'company' likes an A&P, but now, not so much.
The FAA recognizes the 'Repairman's Certificate' as a signature equal to an A&P.
Hang on, it's going to be a rough ride...
JMHO & PO,
B) xUT

 

[lineguy43]

IMHO,
The 'Repairman's Certificate' will be the new A&P signature.
Days of old, the 'company' likes an A&P, but now, not so much.
The FAA recognizes the 'Repairman's Certificate' as a signature equal to an A&P.
Hang on, it's going to be a rough ride...
JMHO & PO,
B) xUT

Afraid your right xUT...Like I said in a previous post Republic Airlines in the mid 1980's wanted avionics types cuz they A@P's were pretty lame at avionics so they hired just FCC guys and applied for a repairman certificate so they could work the line and sign off their work. Problem is the repairman is not portable but if a guy has plans to never leave a company it would be fine I guess. Thats the problem and why we as mechanics will never have the leverage because anyone can do aircraft maintenance as long as someone else signs for it...That is not the case with anyone else in aviation required to hold a certificate like pilots and dispatchers.

 

[xUT]

Afraid your right xUT...Like I said in a previous post Republic Airlines in the mid 1980's wanted avionics types cuz they A@P's were pretty lame at avionics so they hired just FCC guys and applied for a repairman certificate so they could work the line and sign off their work. Problem is the repairman is not portable but if a guy has plans to never leave a company it would be fine I guess. Thats the problem and why we as mechanics will never have the leverage because anyone can do aircraft maintenance as long as someone else signs for it...That is not the case with anyone else in aviation required to hold a certificate like pilots and dispatchers.

Not sure but isn't it tied to FAR145 Holders specifically?
Gee I am really getting lazy...
B) xUT

 

[furp]

Buck Posted Today, 04:30 PM
Veteran pompous ass!!


Group: Registered Member Posts: 3,052 Joined: 20-August 02
.

Saving Line Maintenance One Aircraft at a Time



What a Pompous Puke!!!!
And the overhaul mechanics wonder why we the suffering line mechs have a problem with subsidising overhaul??
I worked in Tulsa and I know there are many many very skilled mechanics and I am sure Buck is not one of them.
His skills are patting himself on the back without breaking his arm. He must be double jointed. Makes me wonder what other pleasure he gives himself?
When the line sells overhaul out thank little BUCK aroo and others like him that alienate the line!!!

 

[MCI transplant]

What he meant was that AA adopted TWA's maintenance program. When the "merger" first occured you could tell the difference between an AA maintained aircraft and one that was a TWA plane. It was a night and day difference, not because the mechanics did a poor job but because the TWA planes didn't receive the same amount of attention in the checks. Some consultant told AA that they over maintained their aircraft and they should adopt TWA's maintenance program. Less checks, we never had overnight airplanes at any maintenance base overnight not getting looked at, then came the days of the no check airplanes....Morning delays were rampant. Embarrassing to go out to an airplane in the morning and tell the captain it was going to be an hour delay because we had to replace their brake since nobody looked at the aircraft....TWA Maintenance program at its best. 😀

<_< ------- When AA took over maintenance of TWA LLC aircraft, you could tell they weren't getting the same attention AA aircraft were. The interiors especially were neglected because AA wasn't ordering parts for them because of the differences. After a short period of time, this was obvious because of condition! As for the maintenance program, I agree! I never did like the changes. It went from changing curtain parts on a time in use bases, to change "on condition". I felt it was just another bean-counter way to save money!

 

[2ndGENAMT]

Afraid your right xUT...Like I said in a previous post Republic Airlines in the mid 1980's wanted avionics types cuz they A@P's were pretty lame at avionics so they hired just FCC guys and applied for a repairman certificate so they could work the line and sign off their work. Problem is the repairman is not portable but if a guy has plans to never leave a company it would be fine I guess. Thats the problem and why we as mechanics will never have the leverage because anyone can do aircraft maintenance as long as someone else signs for it...That is not the case with anyone else in aviation required to hold a certificate like pilots and dispatchers.

anyone can do aircraft maintenance

I get your point but I have to disagree with these five words as I have been around 15+ year techs that can't do a simple aileron rig..