What's new

How Are Outsourcing Decisions Made

Boeing4me

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2004
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Based upon the numerous comments on the board about seemingly stupid and costly decisons that CCY makes regarding outsourcing - Does CCY ever provide a business case analysis to the union or employee groups when proposing to outsource a job function?

Based upon what I read here, the decisions seem to be so egregiously ill-conceived and costly that you wonder how the ideas ever see the light of day. Even though CCY has proven themselves to be incompetant many times over, something msut still be missing from all the evidence that we see here on the board.

Rational comments please.
 
Are business case analyses made availble to employees for any decisions, ever? Not just at US, but at any company. Rarely. Management gets and idea, runs with it and either crashes or succeeds.
 
Boeing4me said:
Based upon the numerous comments on the board about seemingly stupid and costly decisons that CCY makes regarding outsourcing - Does CCY ever provide a business case analysis to the union or employee groups when proposing to outsource a job function?

Based upon what I read here, the decisions seem to be so egregiously ill-conceived and costly that you wonder how the ideas ever see the light of day. Even though CCY has proven themselves to be incompetant many times over, something msut still be missing from all the evidence that we see here on the board.

Rational comments please.
[post="260836"][/post]​


Over the years there have been numerous attempts at bringing in 3rd party work as we had the technology, capacity, etc. to do the work. However, it was always shot down because our "in house" costs were too high. It has been my understanding, over the years, that the company really never has been able to figure the actual cost of an individual item or action to begin to put a price on it. That has always left me wondering how could they know if they are saving money by outsourcing it. Just an observation from below decks.
 
The opportunities for personal kickbacks by going to outsourcing is much higher. Anybody ever think about that? Could be another opportunity to quietly bleed a company in the death throws. A popular tactic in terminally ill companies is to slide money out the back door by obscuring, confounding, and greatly complicating the flow of money through archain and circuitous contracts and payment schemes.
 
i'll tell you what....i worked in the PIT hydro shop for many many years and we constantly tried to bring in-house many units and showed cost savings on every one for the most part.it became blatantly clear that we were stepping on someones toes or delving into someones chartered territory.it was and still is the general consensous that there are many kickbacks to purchasing agents/buyers for U...we could never prove it but we knew and know it goes on.....
you know,guide the work here and we'll take care of you type stuff...don't belittle me by insisting this isn't the practice......
there have been people fired for some of these offenses and i know its against corp.policy......but it goes on.... 😉
 
When it comes to Outsourcing, there is no doubt as to the decline in the Quality the work performed. We were told from an Upper Management person that the Company realizes this " Small Detail", but it saves them a few bucks in the short term. The long term effect of poor service leads to lost passengers, which equals
lost revenue. So to sum it all up, the end result has a negative outcome. The Company is saving now, but will lose in the long run.
 
Outsourcing is integral to the corporate "pass-the-buck" trend. Corporations will spend, hide, and waste money, rather than have to make a return on employees time investment in the business. Remember, its all a game, and contract companies are another favored player. They are basically middlemen that reap the rewards of even further depressed labor. The answer to this post is - It doesn't matter who gets the contract, just that it is outsourced, at any cost! I know USair is still paying more than they paid me to get the same work done, it's just going to the players in Alabama, FBO's, etc. Why pay one guy, when you can pay two. (one slave and one master) It's all about who gets the money, not who deserves it. Thats why there's no company loyalty, especially at the top these days. A company is just a vehicle for the players at the top. It's a tough reality in these times.
 
Winglet said:
The opportunities for personal kickbacks by going to outsourcing is much higher. Anybody ever think about that? Could be another opportunity to quietly bleed a company in the death throws. A popular tactic in terminally ill companies is to slide money out the back door by obscuring, confounding, and greatly complicating the flow of money through archain and circuitous contracts and payment schemes.
[post="260845"][/post]​


This has been the suspicion for a very long time. We've always paid extremely high prices for mundane items. It seems most procurement must go through some sort of middle man at greater cost than dealing direct, and must be handled through PIT. It does make one wonder how far up the chain this goes. I'm sure the most cost effective, safe, technologicly proficient heavy maintenance vendor just happened to be located in the great state of Alabama.
 
ggu23311 said:
Outsourcing is integral to the corporate "pass-the-buck" trend. Corporations will spend, hide, and waste money, rather than have to make a return on employees time investment in the business. Remember, its all a game, and contract companies are another favored player. They are basically middlemen that reap the rewards of even further depressed labor. The answer to this post is - It doesn't matter who gets the contract, just that it is outsourced, at any cost! I know USair is still paying more than they paid me to get the same work done, it's just going to the players in Alabama, FBO's, etc. Why pay one guy, when you can pay two. (one slave and one master) It's all about who gets the money, not who deserves it. Thats why there's no company loyalty, especially at the top these days. A company is just a vehicle for the players at the top. It's a tough reality in these times.
[post="260856"][/post]​


I know that I am being a bit naive here, but this is still what I still don't understand - In America (or the rest of the world for that matter) you will never get rich working for someone else. The only real way to accumulate wealth is to own something. In the corporate world this is accomplished by owning stock in a company. While I havn't looked at any of the UAir Form 10-K's lately, I know that management as a whole would stand to accumulate far more wealth by making smart decisions that then in turn drive the stock price up vs. just working for some sork of kickback from a supplier. It just doesn't seem like anyone in management thinks like a shareholder.

Dave Siegal would have stood to gain far more wealth if he had driven the stock price up instead of pulling the golden parachute rip cord. I also understand that stock ownership is no longer a carat for management at CCY as long as the company is in BK.
 
A rather long article but an interesting read non the less!


Outsourcing Airline Safety May Prove Costly
Diane M. Grassi
April 4, 2005

As airlines in the United States continue to struggle with either recovering from bankruptcy or considering it following September 11, 2001, they increasingly try to invent ways to cut down on costs. American Airlines is considering removing the galleys from the rear of its airplanes which are no longer used to prepare meals, in order to install more passenger seats, while many others increase fees for services other than those performed by passengers on the internet.

And as the U.S. government has been rather mum regarding the continual escalating prices of oil and the required use of petroleum, airlines can no longer avoid the toll of their fuel needs which they claim have doubled in monthly costs from a year ago. But the path that Delta Airlines has just chosen, following suit of many others, is a double blow to the U.S. in terms of laying off American workers in favor of “cheaper†labor in the aviation industry as well as a lack of consideration of security threats to the people of the U.S.

Many say that Delta is merely following the industry trend as 70% of airline maintenance contracts are now done outside of the U.S. United Airlines, Northwest Airlines, US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Jet Blue, Southwest, and America West all outsource the majority of major maintenance of their aircraft. Jet Blue and America West both contract with El Salvador, and Northwest and Continental send their wide-body jets to Hong Kong and Singapore, where terrorists are known to operate.

But there is a price to pay for farming out work outside of our borders, in terms of security and safety compliance, which is an issue with any type of outsourcing. To wit, the flu vaccine debacle in the fall of 2004 with a United Kingdom manufacturing lab in which half of the entire flu vaccine supply for the U.S. was contaminated and not reported by the lab until after some medication had already been distributed here only to be destroyed after the fact.

In 2003 the Transportation Security Agency’s Inspector General's report cited the Federal Aviation Administration for inadequate supervision of outside contractors throughout the aviation industry. Since that time airlines have not concentrated on better oversight of their outside vendors but rather have continued their charge in expanding the outsourcing of U.S. mechanics’ jobs. Many argue that the end result is the difference between an experienced mechanic’s high quality job and an entry-level mechanic doing an acceptable job. But even more disturbing is that mechanics working for outsourcers do not have to be licensed. The only oversight of the mechanics is their supervisors earning between $10 and $20 per hour who are required to hold FAA licenses. But who is holding them accountable?

Short term financial considerations should not be a high priority when the safety of passengers and the livelihoods of Americans are at stake. Delta’s announcement on March 29, 2005 stated that all major aircraft overhauls now based in Atlanta will now be handled by Avborne of Canada and Air Canada Technical Services of Vancouver, Canada, eliminating 2,000 jobs in its technical operations division in Atlanta alone. This comes on the heels of the shut down of a major maintenance hanger in Dallas in January 2005. Delta will not reveal how many jobs were lost there but hopes to eliminate a total of 6,000 to 7,000 jobs over an 18 month period with the Atlanta jobs eliminated by early summer.

Most distressing are security gaps in how maintenance vendors operate given the less stringent background checks and requirements at such outsource facilities as opposed to those done in the U.S. They attract technicians and maintenance workers that airlines on domestic soil would not find acceptable to hire. And the volatility of governments such as China and El Salvador should not sit well with the FAA and Homeland Security officials.

But apparently Delta’s projected savings of $240 million over five years has blinded them from seeing the big picture. This however is not just a criticism of Delta, but rather highlights the actions of another corporation caving in to perceived reduced costs topped off by a slap in the face to the American worker. American Airlines now remains the only domestic carrier which still does the majority of its airplane maintenance in the U.S.

So when will salary concessions, the freezing of employee pay and benefits and continued borrowing be enough? After all, the $15 billion bail-out of the airline industry by the federal government after 9/11 apparently was not enough, even though 2004 airline passenger levels have now surpassed the previously record high levels of passenger travel recorded in the year 2000.The airline industry can no longer stand by their mantra that Americans are no longer traveling by air. In truth the airlines were in trouble before 9/11 due to mismanagement with many of their CEO’s suffering punishments of multi-million dollar severance packages on their way out.

But this issue is much more far reaching than a balance sheet. In the post 9/11-world airline security has been the focus of two newly created federal agencies since 2001, namely the Transportation Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security which it oversees, in addition to new legislation and added technologies and personnel at airports, all to the tune of billions of dollars. However it may be for naught if either terrorism or shoddy maintenance is responsible again for another jet going down. Much like the passivity of our government with respect to protecting our borders we can have all the security in the world for passengers entering aircraft in the U.S., but if there are no checks and balances for crews maintaining aircraft outside of our borders, it may be in vain.

And finally as our economy relies more and more on employing Americans in the services sector, we continually erode whatever jobs we have left by permanently eliminating the incomes of our very own. Outsourcing has permeated every level of business in this country from the factories and the farms to the offices and the laboratories. In this case an airplane mechanic has little chance of finding another job with his or her skills, especially those who have made it their life’s work. And for that reason alone the U.S. government and our leaders must be admonished and held accountable. It is no longer “profitable†for the American corporation or its consumers to cast aside its own workers, especially where not only our livelihoods but our lives are at stake.
 
All:

Another reason these fools continue to outsource so much could be the dreaded merger.

From a cost standpoint, outsourcing does little to enhance the bottom line. Sure there might be some minor cost savings, but doing things in house gives you much better quality control and the like.

Step back and imagine this. U guts the contracts of every union on the property. They get rid of mechanics, cleaners, pilots, people of every work group. They outsource these jobs to the outside vendors at a marginal cost savings....perhaps.

Other airlines use the U "model" to keep up according to the idiots on Wall Street. The same happens at other airline.

Then they somehow make it out of Cpt. 11 and make a merger attempt. Name your suitor, it doesn't matter, but for sake of example UAL. UAL and U have ridded themselves of thousands of employees and gutted contracts across the board. If they decide later to bring MTC and Utility back in house, they have to hire off the street at bargain basement wages. If they do nothing, there is half the people to integrate which creates fewer integration issues.

Sometimes it isn't about cost per se. It is about what they have planned.


I don't want to give Chip a leg up here. So read this with a grain of salt.

Boomer
 
delldude said:
i'll tell you what....i worked in the PIT hydro shop for many many years and we constantly tried to bring in-house many units and showed cost savings on every one for the most part.it became blatantly clear that we were stepping on someones toes or delving into someones chartered territory.it was and still is the general consensous that there are many kickbacks to purchasing agents/buyers for U...we could never prove it but we knew and know it goes on.....
you know,guide the work here and we'll take care of you type stuff...don't belittle me by insisting this isn't the practice......
there have been people fired for some of these offenses and i know its against corp.policy......but it goes on.... 😉
[post="260851"][/post]​

I too saw many examples of this going on in CLT years ago.

We needed a 50-dollar tool or a 50-dollar part to fix something and all of a sudden it’s not economical to repair. Out to the vendor it goes and a bill shows up for 400 dollars.

Deals are made and promises are kept…. Nobody was ever able to prove anything..!!

SL
 
Boeing4me said:
I know that I am being a bit naive here, but this is still what I still don't understand - In America (or the rest of the world for that matter) you will never get rich working for someone else. The only real way to accumulate wealth is to own something. In the corporate world this is accomplished by owning stock in a company. While I havn't looked at any of the UAir Form 10-K's lately, I know that management as a whole would stand to accumulate far more wealth by making smart decisions that then in turn drive the stock price up vs. just working for some sork of kickback from a supplier. It just doesn't seem like anyone in management thinks like a shareholder.

Dave Siegal would have stood to gain far more wealth if he had driven the stock price up instead of pulling the golden parachute rip cord. I also understand that stock ownership is no longer a carat for management at CCY as long as the company is in BK.
[post="260873"][/post]​
Asset (stock) value is only good when it's good. Favors (pass the buck) go alot further in some circles. Like I said, one company is only one vehicle in thier game. I honestly don't see how an airline can be worth anything (stock value) anymore. There is no sustainable worthwile revenue anymore. It's just a pass through capital business now. It's only been years now that this has been going on. Isn't it obviouse!
 
CaptainBoomer:

Sometimes it isn't about cost per se. It is about what they have planned.

I've often thought and wondered the same. If you follow every bit of company rhetoric and move they make to an ultimate conclusion, it all comes out the same: They don't intend ( and haven't for some time ) to operate the airline as a going concern. It will either be parted out or sold, or an attempt made thereof...and they'll die trying.

From the initial rumblings around the proposed/failed UAL deal of "...There is no plan B.." to the single-minded laser-beam like fixation on headcount reduction and gutting of contracts, and the sanguinity they relate despite the failure of the moves and the long-term damage they do....it doesn't take much to connect the dots.

Oh, they were shrewd enough not to tip their mitts and tell you all this 3 years ago ( "We need your help; We need you to help fund your own demise, so we need to cut our workforce by 40%, and cut compensation of those that remain by nearly the same amount, because we're going to cash in when we burn the furniture and sell the house to a blockbuster...Thanks!" ) Hence, the incrementalism.

This would also explain the continual ( and permanent ) poisoning of employee relations with no apparrent concern on their part. Why would they seek to do this if they need the utmost in cooperation to help spur a pheonix to rise from the ashes? They don't care. It's all irrelevant because they don't need anybody. Although sterile ivory-tower ignorance does play a role, it in reality only made it easier for them. Face it: You're not going to keep up a diligent maintenence schedule and repaint a car you're going to soon sell....or junk.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top