Fly Northwest?

proAMFA

Senior
Sep 28, 2003
286
0
Sent this to USA Today and Tulsa World.

Please send your opinions in too!

We need to be heard now more than ever.



Fly Northwest Airlines?

According to the airline everything is just fine. However I believe as a maintenance technician with another carrier there are some things you should know.

Northwest Airlines has already outsourced a significant amount of aviation repair work overseas. The work is performed on mostly the larger jets that travel overseas. With each jet outsourced overseas jobs are lost here in the United States. The jobs lost are good paying jobs that support American families with a fair living wage.

The work done overseas has little oversight by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the government organization whose job it is to oversee the maintenance performed on aircraft flown in the United States. The FAA will admit that it is difficult to send its agents all over the world to oversee the maintenance of these overseas venders.

Most aircraft maintenance procedures are written in English while most overseas maintenance facilities operate in countries that speak a different language. The translation issue could result in problems in repairing aircraft.

FAA oversight of U.S. maintenance facilities is not such a difficult task in the United States. A FAA inspector can observe that FAA maintenance standards are being met; that all the maintenance manual procedures are up to date and are being followed, and that the calibrated tools required to perform correct maintenance on aircraft are all within their required inspection dates. The inspector can do this usually in a day. The U.S. maintenance facilities are also required to maintain OSHA and safe environmental standards while overseas facilities are not.

Overseas maintenance programs put more emphasis on production than doing the job correctly. The maintenance workers are, in general, less likely to report findings of corrosion or expensive repair tasks that may be required in order to insure or enhance the airworthiness of the aircraft. By “finding â€￾ items that are in need of repair an overseas maintenance worker can find his employment status in jeopardy as his employer focus is on “turningâ€￾ the product in a minimum amount of time. If a U.S. maintenance worker is pressured in such a way than the FAA is likely to become involved.

Most american aircraft maintenance workers are required to have a license of some sort, either an Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) license issued by the Federal Aviation Administration or a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued General Radio Telephone license. If a maintenance worker performs aircraft maintenance at an airport the A&P license is a requirement. There are no such requirements at most overseas maintenance vender facilities. The licensed mechanics in the U.S. are held accountable by the issuing agencies of these licenses and can have their licenses revoked at any time. Foreign aircraft maintenance workers do not have this additional worry to impede their swift progress in the performance of their maintenance tasks in which they are assigned. Again their emphasis is on quantity not quality.

The A&P requirement at U.S. airports require that the technician candidate complete normally 19 months of training on the different aircraft systems, the proper techniques of repairing the different systems and the repair of the structure of the aircraft. Since most aircraft maintenance workers in the United States have gone through Airframe and Powerplant training in order to enable them to work on aircraft, there is an unspoken standard that must be met by the workers in this peer group. If an american maintenance worker attempts to work on an aircraft in a way that is not up to speed with the rest of his peer group the person gains a reputation of being a “hackâ€￾. There is peer pressure against the person who attempts to perform maintenance in such a way by his fellow workers.

Most American airline maintenance workers have a security check performed on them before they are allowed to work on aircraft or are allowed inside the fence at an American airport. Foreign maintenance workers generally have no such security requirements to allow access to the aircraft they maintain. A person working on an American jet overseas could very easily be a security risk to this country.

Foreign maintenance workers are not randomly drug tested. American maintenance workers are required to randomly submit samples for drug testing. The passenger has no way of knowing the state of mind of the person doing the work on these outsourced aircraft.

American maintenance workers and their families often fly on the aircraft the American maintenance worker performs maintenance on. This practice is a pretty good insurance policy to insure that the maintenance worker will maintain the aircraft properly. Foreign maintenance workers and their families normally do not fly on the aircraft the worker performed maintenance on.

With most large U.S. airlines there exists a self-disclosure program in which, if a maintenance worker discovers that his maintenance task was done incorrectly he can self-disclose his unintentional error by way of a self-disclosure form. This form alerts the carrier and allows the carrier to have the correct procedure performed on the aircraft after it has been released for service. This self-disclosure program found at most major airline companies is way to keep aircraft flying safe after an airline worker discovers that he has made a mistake. The airline worker is not punished for the disclosure, but the important result is that the aircraft is taken out of service and repaired properly. If the aircraft is repaired overseas the worker more than likely would never self-disclose for fear of losing his job, and the worker making the faulty repair is left to “hopeâ€￾ the problem will eventually be found and corrected at a later time by someone else.


By sending aircraft maintenance overseas the airlines are able to save millions but there is a cost and the American public are the ones who will eventually pay the cost.

At Northwest Airlines the company wishes to contract out most all of its maintenance. In the last five years the number of mechanics have dwindled from over nine thousand to less than four thousand. With the contract that was offered the mechanics at Northwest the number of mechanics would be reduced to less than three thousand. Besides slashing the head count, the company wants the slash the mechanics pay by 25% at a time when the costs of fuel and health care are rising through the roof. Maintenance workers are continually being threatened with outsourcing if they do not work faster and with less pay and benefits. In short the whole airline industry expects its workers to subsidize cheap airline tickets.

Would my family or I risk flying with Northwest at this time? You can, the airline says everything is fine, however my family and I will pass.

Dennis Hayes
Aviation Maintenance Technician
 
Great letter, but the average USA Today and Tulsa World reader will stop reading after the first paragraph....
 
Yup. Really great letter.

Since I doubt that I could do better, do we have the permission of the writer to send this to other newspapers under the writer's name or our own?

Perhaps it could be "dumbed down" for Tulsa World and USA Today readers.
 
Articles like this really make my blood boil ! Just because aircraft maintenance is also accomplished outside the US, it doesn't mean that its always done to a substandard level. I am not a US citizen, I live outside of the US but I do work on US registered aircraft. I resent the implications made in this message regarding the standard of work done outside the US. The guy harps on about how the standard of training in the US is at least 19 months, well let me tell you that in most european countries the required minimum amount of aircraft engineering training is at least 4 years, before you are qualified to sign off your own work.

I can understand that this article is a generalisation of the industry in general, but to "tar everybody with the same brush" is unacceptable. There is a lot of good work carried out around the world outside of the USA on aircraft in countries that have extremely tough aviation authorities with very strict regulations.

Just as an example.... Quote "Overseas maintenance programs put more emphasis on production than doing the job correctly. The maintenance workers are, in general, less likely to report findings of corrosion or expensive repair tasks that may be required in order to insure or enhance the airworthiness of the aircraft.".......

Really, well in 1991 I worked on an ex EAL B757 that was bought by a UK airline. We were accomplishing the work on behalf of the purchaser to bring it up to UK CAA standard and were appalled by the general condition of the 7 year old aircraft and standard of the work that had been accomplished on it. The aircraft had many, many defects and was riddled with some very serious corrosion that required major rectification that included at least four whole floor beam replacements.

This is just an example, and I know that EAL had gone bust just a few months beforehand, but aircraft do not deteriorate so much in such a short space of time.

I just wish that the US public knew that it is not all that bad out there, although there are admittadly a few bad apples about (which I don't deny that there are). Also that the US based aircraft maintenance industry is not as perfect as it would like to think it is...
 
Former ModerAAtor said:
Great letter, but the average USA Today and Tulsa World reader will stop reading after the first paragraph....
[post="292439"][/post]​


Well maybe we should draw them picture?
 
777GUY said:
Articles like this really make my blood boil ! Just because aircraft maintenance is also accomplished outside the US, it doesn't mean that its always done to a substandard level. I am not a US citizen, I live outside of the US but I do work on US registered aircraft. I resent the implications made in this message regarding the standard of work done outside the US. The guy harps on about how the standard of training in the US is at least 19 months, well let me tell you that in most european countries the required minimum amount of aircraft engineering training is at least 4 years, before you are qualified to sign off your own work.

I can understand that this article is a generalisation of the industry in general, but to "tar everybody with the same brush" is unacceptable. There is a lot of good work carried out around the world outside of the USA on aircraft in countries that have extremely tough aviation authorities with very strict regulations.

Just as an example.... Quote "Overseas maintenance programs put more emphasis on production than doing the job correctly. The maintenance workers are, in general, less likely to report findings of corrosion or expensive repair tasks that may be required in order to insure or enhance the airworthiness of the aircraft.".......

Really, well in 1991 I worked on an ex EAL B757 that was bought by a UK airline. We were accomplishing the work on behalf of the purchaser to bring it up to UK CAA standard and were appalled by the general condition of the 7 year old aircraft and standard of the work that had been accomplished on it. The aircraft had many, many defects and was riddled with some very serious corrosion that required major rectification that included at least four whole floor beam replacements.

This is just an example, and I know that EAL had gone bust just a few months beforehand, but aircraft do not deteriorate so much in such a short space of time.

I just wish that the US public knew that it is not all that bad out there, although there are admittadly a few bad apples about (which I don't deny that there are). Also that the US based aircraft maintenance industry is not as perfect as it would like to think it is...
[post="292480"][/post]​

There are two reasons why that EAL 757 aircraft you worked on was in such bad shape. First, It was flown around for EALs last two years and maintained by scabs (replacement workers). Second, even before the strike (from the time Lorenzo took over in 1986) he was cutting maintanence. The IAM (mechanics union) advised the media of this and were dismissed as "trouble makers". After the strike, it was discovered that EAL was pencil whipping aircraft. The FAA investigated and charged EAL with maintanence fraud and pulled their maintenance certificate in JFK. After EAL shut down, they changed their plea to guilty. During the strike, they were cannibalizing some of their planes for parts. There were many L-10-11s sitting in MIA with no engines. They were cannibalizing the avionics in the 757 cockpits because there was no one to repair them when they broke. I know of one avionics technician who told me that EAL called his house and begged him to cross the line; he did not do so. I worked with a person at AA who said his brother was an AMT at USAir. His brother told him that the 757s USAir got from EAL were junk. He said the EAL scabs ran wiring under the carpet. I also went to college with a girl that worked for an aircraft leasing company. She told me that when EAL returned the aircraft, they were in extremely poor condition. So the condition of that 757 you received from EAL was the result of scab labor.
 
I will not fly NWA until all the AMFA represented workers are back to work. Even if NWA was not outsourcing the work overseas, I still would not fly NWA. Union members stay unified no matter who you work for or what union represents you.

UNITY PAYS!
 
Do not send that in as a letter to the editor. It will be rejected outright because it is too long.

Send it in as an editorial. Unlike the posts here from some people ranting and screaming like toddlers, I think your editorial is worthy of publication.


I hope the suggestions to copy it and send it to other newspapers was a joke. Ever heard of plagiarism?
 
It's not plagerism if the sender has my permission and gives me the credit for the article. My permission is given to anyone who thinks they can further the cause with the article. Yes the article is probably too long but I think a letter writing campaign to the press is a good idea and I wanted to get things rolling. Enough ideas thrown out there and some got to hit their mark.

My apologies to my European friend. I will readily admit that US maintenance is not the world standard. I am sure there are many countries that have higher standards-I hope so anyway. I have been told that Canada has very high standards. I believe there is much room for improvement. What I have a problem with is the outsourcing of maintenance to facilities that do the work quick, cheap and dirty and that have an unfair advantage over U.S. maintenance facilities. Accountability is my biggest concern. I want to know that the maintenance workers are doing the work correctly and are not painting over corrosion or are afraid to write up repairs. Also I worry about language. While watching testimony on the ValueJet crash in Florida it was revealed that the manuals for the proper handling of the hazardous material were written in English yet the CEO of Sabretech admitted on the stand that the majority of tech's he employed were fluent in Spanish rather than English. I want the safest maintenance available for the flying public and an inability to read the manual tells me that the book is not being followed.
 
proAMFA said:
Sent this to USA Today and Tulsa World.

Would my family or I risk flying with Northwest at this time? You can, the airline says everything is fine, however my family and I will pass.

Dennis Hayes
Aviation Maintenance Technician
[post="292403"][/post]​

Does that letter apply to scabs also? Reading that anyone who has an A&P is a really stand -up kind of guy. 100% of us scabs are A&P holders.
 
aafsc said:
. She told me that when EAL returned the aircraft, they were in extremely poor condition. So the condition of that 757 you received from EAL was the result of scab labor.
[post="292492"][/post]​

How long did the strike last and how long did the scabs work on the aircraft?
 
keeptheodds said:
How long did the strike last and how long did the scabs work on the aircraft?
[post="292675"][/post]​

What sort of stupid question is that KTO :blink: ? You scabbed at the NEW EASTERN :down: so you should know exactly what the answer is!
 
aafsc,
Word is that a number of Pan Am's aircraft were in such bad condition that they could barely be flown and there was no scab mechanics working on those aircraft. In fact, Delta was able to get Airbus to take back the A310s originally built for Pan Am, partly because Airbus tried to tell Delta that the poor performance of the planes was because they were so poorly maintained. DL didn't entirely buy it but went along with a whole new fleet of A310s as long as they were able to walk away from those leases on short notice, which is exactly what Delta did. The A310 was simply not a viable transatlantic aircraft but their performance was further compromised by poor maintenance.

When an airline is in dire financial straits, money is just not spent where it should be. That is why the FAA increases surveilance of carriers in financial difficulties.
 

Latest posts