Mr Eagle
Senior
YES We Will See This And Witness A Prosperous AIRLINE unless you Want to Be The NEGATIVE unproductive SAME old SAME OLD way Of AVIATION Talk That We Have Been WItnessing on these Bd Posts.
MWW
In-house Mtc Vs Outsourcing
- Thread starter ydk68
- Start date
MWW
High Iron
Senior
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 495
- Reaction score
- 0
Non-sequitur. I was merely making an observation to a very astute previous post.
BTW ace, the point was whether or not those leading want to make the place a successful going concern, as it should be since they make those decisions. Twasn't the case heretofore. Of course the rest of the cogs in the machine want this thing to work; They're here for their health, or maybe to "find themselves"? :huh:
The way the IAM can assure they get the in-house maint. is to perform the work at the same speed as the outsourcers for around the same cost. If they can't do that then they can't get the work. I have a colleague of mine who is a mechanic use to brag about sleeping on the midnight shift and getting paid to sleep. This type of behavior is what makes it look bad for everyone.
Q2DETX5
Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2004
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 0
My outlook on the merger is quite positive, but with some reserve, as American and global business strategy, from the ivey halls to the crystal palaces, is still heading down the same path.
As to competing with third party vendors, in all honesty we can't. The playing field is not level. The company's own maintenance operation is held to a much higher standard, with vast oversight at many levels and redundant safeguards built in to ensure safety and quality in our processes. Also, the people involved at all levels have personal comitments to that safety and quality that they will not adulterate even when faced with denegration or loss of employment. And there is also the imbedded and personal relationship of our FAA oversight integrated into every level. The fact that the company must provide complete support to the vendors from training, tooling to rags and tape leaving the vendor providing a structure and warm bodies does not indicate actual cost savings. Unless you are only accounting for the rate of one manhour and the volume of those and not the actual work done nor it's quality. Outsourcing can produce a cost savings, but in this case only a very small one if at all. Is it worth the trouble or the risk?
Properly managed and communicated, with comitment from all parties, our operation could be reshaped and rebuilt incrementally incorporating best practices without sacrificing safety or reliability. There must be a long term buy in. Unfortunately, I doubt this would happen as there are too many vested interests and unproductive agendas. Thus we remain with reduced capabilities.
As to competing with third party vendors, in all honesty we can't. The playing field is not level. The company's own maintenance operation is held to a much higher standard, with vast oversight at many levels and redundant safeguards built in to ensure safety and quality in our processes. Also, the people involved at all levels have personal comitments to that safety and quality that they will not adulterate even when faced with denegration or loss of employment. And there is also the imbedded and personal relationship of our FAA oversight integrated into every level. The fact that the company must provide complete support to the vendors from training, tooling to rags and tape leaving the vendor providing a structure and warm bodies does not indicate actual cost savings. Unless you are only accounting for the rate of one manhour and the volume of those and not the actual work done nor it's quality. Outsourcing can produce a cost savings, but in this case only a very small one if at all. Is it worth the trouble or the risk?
Properly managed and communicated, with comitment from all parties, our operation could be reshaped and rebuilt incrementally incorporating best practices without sacrificing safety or reliability. There must be a long term buy in. Unfortunately, I doubt this would happen as there are too many vested interests and unproductive agendas. Thus we remain with reduced capabilities.
justaumechanic
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2003
- Messages
- 578
- Reaction score
- 0
The issue with in-house has never been about quality. It has always been about cost.
The simple fact is cost.. Cost cost cost. The company wants to cut costs. They don't care
about quality. They just want it done cheaply.
The S check at MAE cost US 250K per check plus parts. Thats what the IAM is up against.
250K and MAE completing the aircraft in 14 days.
One other difference. The vendor pays a penalty for every day late. In-house they do not.
So the in-house work there is no one to yell and scream at, no one to fine for being late. If
its late, well its late. Not like they are going to get rid of Gary the bonehead or Tom McMuffin.
They could create a 50 day S check and not get fired..
Cost folks, its all about cost. Has nothing to do with quality. Lets keep our eye on the ball.
The simple fact is cost.. Cost cost cost. The company wants to cut costs. They don't care
about quality. They just want it done cheaply.
The S check at MAE cost US 250K per check plus parts. Thats what the IAM is up against.
250K and MAE completing the aircraft in 14 days.
One other difference. The vendor pays a penalty for every day late. In-house they do not.
So the in-house work there is no one to yell and scream at, no one to fine for being late. If
its late, well its late. Not like they are going to get rid of Gary the bonehead or Tom McMuffin.
They could create a 50 day S check and not get fired..
Cost folks, its all about cost. Has nothing to do with quality. Lets keep our eye on the ball.
Doesn't look like either one of them has anything to worry 'bout
😉
