Rise In Outside Repairs Raises Questions

[UAL_TECH]

The practice of maintenance outsourcing has been statistically demonstrated by LUV, JetBlue , and CO (we continually hear this mantra from the public and airline management). Our objections and warnings as to the quality of maintenance is being interpreted as a ‘job protectionism’ action. We are being dismissed as there is not ‘enough’ statistical data to prove our case. While in some part that ideology may have some validity, from my ‘seat’ the concerns run a little deeper than that.

Maybe it is because I’m from the ‘old school’ in which safety is not a compromise from what is acceptable to what is ‘economically viable’. Evidentially, I’ve been in this industry too long to accept the substandard work we see from the outside vendors as I could never put a dollar sign in front of an unacceptable risk of life.

It may be that I am in the minority in my standards, but I am with very good company!!!

Can I make a difference?
Yes!!! I do it every day!!!

Can ‘You say the same'?

B) UT

 

[mweiss]

Our objections and warnings as to the quality of maintenance is being interpreted as a ‘job protectionism’ action.

There are a handful of reasons for this. First of all, job protectionism is a component of the collective objections. Denying that only serves to undermine your credibility. Secondly, the statements issued by union leadership are worded in such a manner as to suggest that nobody but UA mechanics are good enough to work on UA aircraft...and yet, somehow, nobody but AA mechanics are good enouch to work on AA aircraft...etc., etc. Again, it undermines the credibility of the argument. There are several other instances in this vein.

If the message weren't so scattershot and blanketing, it might not sound so self-serving. Instead, it sounds political, and that's bad news if you're aiming for credibility.

Evidentially, I’ve been in this industry too long to accept the substandard work we see from the outside vendors as I could never put a dollar sign in front of an unacceptable risk of life.

The two halves of that sentence are a nonsequitur. Do you think the engineers at Boeing don't have to put a dollar sign in front of the risk of life? If so, I have a surprise for you.

To Boeing's credit, they value lives more than their acquiree (McDonell) did. It's harder to make a comparison against Airbus, since the fundamental philosophies differ so much as to render nearly impossible an apples-to-apples comparison. But, in the end, everything we do in safety involves a balance between cost and risk.

Can I make a difference?
Yes!!! I do it every day!!!

Can ‘You say the same'?

Yes, I can. I work in a safety organization daily. If my organization fails, people's fiscal lives can be ruined. While they won't die, they often wish they had if the worst happens to them. I take my job very seriously.

 

[UAL_TECH]

The two halves of that sentence are a nonsequitur. Do you think the engineers at Boeing don't have to put a dollar sign in front of the risk of life? If so, I have a surprise for you.

[post="258984"][/post]​

FMEA analysis for the B777?
Why do you think we have a 100K + MTBUR?

B) UT

 

[NWA/AMT]

As I noted before, this is done as a form of shorthand, because the costs of recalculating systems individually is extraordinary relative to the benefits.

[post="258874"][/post]​

And virtually impossible on a moment-by-moment basis. Yet, it should be noted, the 1.5 to 2.0 X safety factor currently in use in aircraft engineering was originally 3.0 in the first and second generation of jets. In order to reduce weight and fuel consumption, structures have gotten lighter and thinner, and, since there has been no major advance in materials other than composites, less robust.

Not at all. My intent was to illustrate the absurdity of your assertion, not to suggest that it was anything close to my actual beliefs.

Nor mine, but yet you chose to use it in an attempt to reduce my point to a ridiculous, and incorrect, conclusion.

I don't have any complete proposals. However, I assert that the one we have today isn't working anymore, since it has done nothing to prevent the rapid increase in the use of chop shops.

Indeed, the one we have today is being bent to justify the use of the chop shops in the first place.

One of the reasons the airlines were regulated in the first place was the realization that transportation by air is a national asset too important to be left to the whims of market forces.

I'd like to throw out a few ideas to chew on, though. Certainly, better FAA oversight would be extraordinarily helpful, particularly if their aggregate findings could be reported in the same way that RASM, CASM, ASMs, and P&L are reported monthly, quarterly, and yearly. Feeding those to the press makes it easy for the information to get to the traveling public.

The problem with the FAA is that even though their original mandate to promote aviation to the public AND ensure safety and compliance was changed to eliminate the, often contradictory, promotion of aviation, the FAA still acts as if that is it's primary purpose. When it does attempt enforcement actions, even it's own spokespersons attempt to minimize the impact to those subject to that action. It's fines are reduced or eliminated through negotiation and it is completely subject to political pressure. The fact that even the FAA inspectors themselves are among those who have suggested that FAA oversight of the third-party vendors is inadequate is dismissed as union propaganda.

In short, I don't think the FAA will even admit the problems, let alone fix them.

I would prefer to let the FAA administer the airways and place regulation and enforcement in the hands of an independent, non-politicized, NTSB. In light of the NTSB's assessments of aviation safety and what should be done to improve it, I doubt any airline executives will join me in my opinion.

The closest thing I can think of to the metric you seek is "Maintenance Dispatch Reliability", but even that is imperfect because it places the onus upon line maintenance for things that might possibly have been fixed in check and penalizes those airlines with older fleets that require more maintenance.

Rather, every attempt they have made to stop it has resulted in an increase in outsourcing to chop shops.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but I disagree with it as written. The fact that the rush to the chop shops has accelerated in recent years has nothing to do with anyone's efforts to stop it.

Clearly, something else has to be tried...or, perhaps, even if the public were truly informed, they would still take a pass.

Again, Valujet. Even with the FAA moving, (at more than its usual glacial pace for a change), to shut them down, with every media outlet directly questioning their safety, people were still lining up to fly them. It's interesting to note that, in this case as well, those who initially attempted to draw attention to the danger were dismissed as union propaganda and buried under an avalanche of the ubiquitous spokespersons, including initially some from the FAA, including it's Administrator. The only one to raise warning flags was the DOT Inspector General and they were ignored in favor of the conventional wisdom.

My gut says that they would pay for it, because they're not looking at it from a strict fiscal perspective, but I could be wrong.

I used to think so as well, but it has been demonstrated clearly enough to me that price overrides all other considerations in the current environment.

It's not a hard decision to you, because you don't have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders.

Indirectly I do and, in fact, I'm even one of them.

We live in a country that legally mandates the people at the top to maximize returns to the shareholders.

But it does not mandate that they resort to criminal action, either through comission or through omission, to do so, otherwise all the airlines would have turned to importing drugs long ago.

That is a mandate in direct conflict to your mandate to refuse to sign off on an airplane that isn't airworthy. No, you don't have to make the hard decision, but somebody does.

At some point someone has to make a decision that either directly or indirectly results in the airline shutting down. It can be the CEO, or it can be a mechanic who grounds an airplane and that one cancelled flight is the event that results in the shutdown. Ask the TWA mechanics who lived with that possibility over them for years.

I've lost people and I've lost money. The money was easier to replace.

As callous as it sounds, people end up choosing the path that costs the least. If people have to die in order to take the least expensive path, so be it.

Indeed. Some of us have been fighting that for a couple of decades now. As I stated before, I decline to endorse that view.

I don't like that approach at all, but fixing it requires realignment of goals, which requires better education outside of the hangars.

Not "might." That's precisely what happened.

I'd love to do that, but where will the millions come from to finance it? If one mechanic standing up leads to discharge, and one union leasing one billboard to try to bring their concerns to the public results in threat of lawsuits, where will the additional millions come from to fight for the right to say anything in the first place?

But people who value safety above all else gravitate toward Volvos...assuming that they can afford them. People who don't, buy something else.

Volvo chose to target a small market segment who value safety rather than the broader segment who value style. I don't really see how this applies to the airline.

I posit that more people would treat safety more seriously in airlines than in automobiles, because of the element of control. As such, I believe that safety would play better, not worse, in the airline industry. But, as you noted, the early days of air travel created a different model in that respect. It seems to me that the time for that model has passed, and it is now not only feasible, but important, to differentiate on safety.

If in educating our passengers we scare many of them away, will there not be legal repercussions?

 

[NWA/AMT]

Nobody's made maintenance a point of differentiation in the industry.

[post="258876"][/post]​

Nobody has included maintenance at all in their advertising since the 1990s, when both UAL and AA had commercials that featured mechanics. Aviation Week at the time was filled with Letters to the Editor implying that doing so risked undermining the passengers overall faith in the industry.

To be fair, that's probably not a good metric to use, since nobody but Southwest has spent much energy on martketing differentiation anyway.

"We're not like them" is an easy point to make.

Perhaps it's just really bad marketing departments, and not a reflection of the public's desires. If so, then it's a ripe opportunity for someone to make a ton of money.

Again, having spent decades trying to convince people that the unnatural state of being suspended over the Earth in an aluminum tube is safe, it is unlikely that they will do so. AA stating, in articles regarding outsourcing, that they prefer to keep control of their maintenance for quality purposes, while still outsourcing a good portion of their work, is as close as anyone has come.

Hey, now, you don't have to get testy with me.

Then do not assume that, because you do not see the complete execution of the effect we both desire, nothing is being done.

If it were actually working, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all, because maintenance wouldn't be moving to chop shops. Appreciating the desire, efforts, and sacrifice is one thing. Recognizing that it hasn't achieved its goal in the end is something else entirely.

Given the reality of the environment we have to work in, I'm surprised we have accomplished as much as we have.

If we had the legal freedom to engage in a industry-wide wildcat strike to draw people's attention to the issue, I have no doubt that we could find enough interest to do that. However, the Railway Labor Act prevents such action. As I have noted already, even attempting to bring the issue to the public's attention through ostensibly legal means entails a risk.

I do not work for any airline.

Thank you for answering my question.

 

[mweiss]

Indeed, the [system] we have today is being bent to justify the use of the chop shops in the first place.

So obviously it's not working, if the goal is to prevent this. Forgive me if I don't give a standing ovation to those who continue to apply the same methods and expect different results.

One of the reasons the airlines were regulated in the first place was the realization that transportation by air is a national asset too important to be left to the whims of market forces.

Another was the recognition that the system was too fragile at the time.

...the FAA still acts as if that is it's primary purpose.

I've noticed that as well. Switching the function to the NTSB is fine by me. To me, we seem to have a fine system of regulations in place, but abysmal enforcement. Without the latter, the former becomes nice words on paper.

The closest thing I can think of to the metric you seek is "Maintenance Dispatch Reliability", but even that is imperfect because it places the onus upon line maintenance for things that might possibly have been fixed in check and penalizes those airlines with older fleets that require more maintenance.

Agreed on all counts. What we really need is something closer to a metric on how consistently maintenance is performed by the book (or the cards).

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but I disagree with it as written. The fact that the rush to the chop shops has accelerated in recent years has nothing to do with anyone's efforts to stop it.

It does insofar as the efforts haven't prevented the acceleration. Perhaps not a direct correlation, but it's a good metric for evaluating the success of effort.

Again, Valujet. Even with the FAA moving, (at more than its usual glacial pace for a change), to shut them down, with every media outlet directly questioning their safety, people were still lining up to fly them.

"People" were. Those who do, consider the dollars to be worth more than the risk. At least those people did so with reasonable information at hand. I'm inclined to let informed people take those risks without comment. It's when the information isn't available at all that I begin to have greater concern.

Indirectly I do [have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders] and, in fact, I'm even one of them.

Not really. You're not liable if you do something in violation of the fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. That liability stops at the top. As a shareholder, you have no obligations at all.

But it does not mandate that they resort to criminal action, either through comission or through omission, to do so, otherwise all the airlines would have turned to importing drugs long ago.

Outsourcing, however, is not criminal action.

I've lost people and I've lost money. The money was easier to replace.

The interesting juxtaposition between you and those at the top is what you lose and when. You can lose your career if people die, but not if the business dies. Those at the top can lose their careers if the business dies, but not if people die (unless it's through criminal action). This is the tension to which I've been referring.

I decline to endorse [the] view [that if some people must die, so be it].

I'm ambivalent in some respects. Clearly we cannot prevent all tragic loss of life, so we are forced to draw lines in the sand. In many cases, they're arbitrary. Ethically, I want to say that all lives are priceless. Realistically, I recognize that we'd have to grind most of what we do to a screeching halt if we must spend an infinite amount of money to save every life.

Similarly, drawing upon a much earlier theme, would we be better off trading 150 lives on an airplane for 1,500 lives elsewhere, if we were presented with such a choice? It's a macabre question in many respects, but not an outlandish one.

 

[mweiss]

I'd love to do that, but where will the millions come from to finance it?

Not all methods cost millions, but if a union or two wish to go down that path, taking up a collection might be the way to go. It couldn't do any worse than the existing methods.

Volvo chose to target a small market segment who value safety rather than the broader segment who value style. I don't really see how this applies to the airline.

It applies to the airline because the market segment who values airline safety over money is significantly larger than the market that values automobile safety over style. How much more would quality maintenance cost?

If in educating our passengers we scare many of them away, will there not be legal repercussions?

Such as libel? Only if you speak falsehoods.

Nobody has included maintenance at all in their advertising since the 1990s, when both UAL and AA had commercials that featured mechanics. Aviation Week at the time was filled with Letters to the Editor implying that doing so risked undermining the passengers overall faith in the industry.

Doesn't make it true. My sense is that people are ready for this message. They want to know if "US Scare" is an appropriate moniker. If it is, it's not going to mean that they will refuse to fly someone else. We're past that stage in the industry, by about 30 years.

"We're not like them" is an easy point to make.

That's the entire point of differentiation-based marketing. And, yet, the legacy carriers have been really horrid at doing it. It's another thing that has to change.

Then do not assume that, because you do not see the complete execution of the effect we both desire, nothing is being done.

I never said that nothing is being done. I said that what's being done isn't significantly changing the outcome.

If we had the legal freedom to engage in a industry-wide wildcat strike to draw people's attention to the issue, I have no doubt that we could find enough interest to do that.

If you had the legal freedom to engage in an industry-wide wildcat strike, and engaged in one, you'd lose all credibility with those whom you are trying to educate. Such actions sound like job-protection acts, not education acts. You'd lose their attention before you started to speak.

Thank you for answering my question.

You're welcome.

 

[NWA/AMT]

So obviously it's not working, if the goal is to prevent this.

[post="259095"][/post]​

"...if the goal is to prevent this".

But the goal of the system is no longer to prevent but to justify the conventional wisdom eroding the margins of safety, that's what I mean when I say it's being bent.

For those who are trying to prevent this and are forced to work within the system as it is, rather than deal with it as theory, the fact that you're not impressed with their efforts is immaterial.

Another was the recognition that the system was too fragile at the time.

The system is inherently fragile, and has become more so since deregulation, not less.

It does insofar as the efforts haven't prevented the acceleration. Perhaps not a direct correlation, but it's a good metric for evaluating the success of effort.

Economic factors beyond the control of anyone involved in the effort to prevent the erosion of aviation safety have led to the acceleration, so it's not really a good metric for evaluating the success of that effort.

Those who do, consider the dollars to be worth more than the risk. At least those people did so with reasonable information at hand. I'm inclined to let informed people take those risks without comment. It's when the information isn't available at all that I begin to have greater concern.

Since I've explained several of the reasons why the information isn't being provided, and the public has done little to demand the information themselves, one must wonder whether they really want it in the first place. Perhaps they prefer the illusion of safety to the reality that what they're doing is inherently unsafe and is only becoming more so.

You're not liable if you do something in violation of the fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. That liability stops at the top.

That's why Ken Lay is living in a tarpaper shack while he awaits an extended sentence in a maximum security prison. Liability and accountability stop BEFORE the top.

As a shareholder, you have no obligations at all.

Nor control, only risk. Even that is much less than there used to be; the concept of limited liability has removed the really serious threats to the shareholders.

Outsourcing, however, is not criminal action.

An airline cannot outsource the responsibility for making sure that their aircraft are maintained in accordance with FAA regulations, anything short of that is a criminal action. A crime of omission is still a crime.

The interesting juxtaposition between you and those at the top is what you lose and when. You can lose your career if people die, but not if the business dies. Those at the top can lose their careers if the business dies, but not if people die (unless it's through criminal action).

In the airline industry that makes you an EXPERIENCED executive and ensures you a better position elsewhere. Having a 'golden parachute' in place certainly mitigates the risk of making bad decisions.

If the business dies I lose my job and my seniority, which is the same as losing my career. I start over, if I'm lucky enough to get another job in the field, at the bottom, without the benefit of any 'golden parachute'. How many airline executives has this happened to?

This is the tension to which I've been referring.

It's an illusion and they know it.

Ethically, I want to say that all lives are priceless. Realistically, I recognize that we'd have to grind most of what we do to a screeching halt if we must spend an infinite amount of money to save every life.

But that's not the choice we face, is it? For decades the trend for maintenance related fatalities was down, now it's up. Realizing that absolute safety is effectively impossible, we concentrate during the best of times on simply providing as much safety as we can. At the worst of times, like now, we're simply trying to arrest that trend.

Similarly, drawing upon a much earlier theme, would we be better off trading 150 lives on an airplane for 1,500 lives elsewhere, if we were presented with such a choice?

Again, that's not the choice we face. Even if it were, and we take all the money from aviation maintenance and put it into auto maintenance, few lives will be saved because few lives are lost due to bad auto maintenance. It's much harder to pull over at 35,000 feet and call AAA.

Not all methods cost millions, but if a union or two wish to go down that path, taking up a collection might be the way to go. It couldn't do any worse than the existing methods.

I think that, like most Americans, you overestimate the wealth and power of unions. I think you also overestimate how much would be obtained by taking up a collection.

In cases where a union has been proven to have damaged an airline's business through an action such as the AA pilots alleged 'sick out', the union has been held liable for the entire loss. The judgement against the AA pilots was in the neighborhood of $60 million, and effectively bankrupted the union.

If the method you propose effectively destroys one of the last groups willing to address the problem, and leaves the employees without independent representation, I would have to say that would be worse than the existing methods.

It applies to the airline because the market segment who values airline safety over money is significantly larger than the market that values automobile safety over style.

But still not a significant enough portion of the market to cause the airlines to change their course, to date.

How much more would quality maintenance cost?

Less than $.05 to CASM, as that is the advantage most airlines expect to realize through outsourcing.

Such as libel? Only if you speak falsehoods.

Falsehood is in the eye of the beholder. If an airline can convince a court that the union's allegations are false, by deploying the usual 'experts' and spokespersons, do you not think they would go for the maximum amount they could get?

Even when unions have engaged in simple informational picketing, the airlines have had private detectives present with video cameras so their lawyers can see if any of the statements could be considered disparaging to their particular airline, allowing legal action against the unions.

This is what is happening in the case of AMFA 33 President Ted Ludwig in MSP, who brought his concerns to his elected representatives in the MN legislature. NWA, ignoring the question of the validity of his statements, which were backed by physical evidence, is attempting to discharge him for making disparaging comments against his employer and has threatened civil action against him and his union. In the unlikely event that this fails, they will probably discharge him for theft of company property - the metal shards that were his physical evidence.

One need only look to the many employees discharged, and often sued, by their employers for making what the employer considered disparaging statements about that company on the internet. Rarely does the question of the truth of those statements get addressed, rather the question becomes the neo-feudal expectation of fealty on the part of the employer. Unlike the concept of fealty as applied in the actual feudal system, neo-feudal fealty is a one-way affair.

Doesn't make it true.

Doesn't make it likely to happen again, either.

My sense is that people are ready for this message. They want to know if "US Scare" is an appropriate moniker. If it is, it's not going to mean that they will refuse to fly someone else. We're past that stage in the industry, by about 30 years.

If you find someone with the ability, resources and willingness to do this, please let me know. Until then, I'm still trying to keep them safe one airplane at a time, like most other airline mechanics. But there are a lot fewer of us than there used to be, so please hurry.

That's the entire point of differentiation-based marketing. And, yet, the legacy carriers have been really horrid at doing it. It's another thing that has to change.

"We ARE them" isn't working? I'm shocked...

I would prefer to have seen the airlines focus on the things they did right, like maintenance, to establish the difference between themselves and the LCCs, but that didn't happen. Now, with the current trend of taking money away from maintenance, I think they'd prefer the public not think about it at all.

I never said that nothing is being done. I said that what's being done isn't significantly changing the outcome.

The only way to be certain of that would be to take away the effort entirely and see what effect that had.

Sadly, that's exactly what is happening as many of the really qualified people in the industry, tired of the struggle, leave for other endeavors. The best aircraft mechanic I know, someone that I know has kept people alive by his skill, is now fixing mail sorting machines for the postal service. That those who replace them will achieve the same level of skill, and involvement, is unlikely in the current environment.

Many of those who remain, having seen the passengers repeatedly vote with their wallets regardless of safety concerns, prefer to wait for the maintenance equivalent of 9/11 to bring the issue to the forefront. Unlike them, I'm unwilling to sit by and let that happen.

If you had the legal freedom to engage in an industry-wide wildcat strike, and engaged in one, you'd lose all credibility with those whom you are trying to educate. Such actions sound like job-protection acts, not education acts. You'd lose their attention before you started to speak.

I think that, if it were legal, a three day shutdown of the US air transportation industry would bring the issue to the public attention and perhaps help dispel the fiction that all is well. Since we, who actually work on the airplanes, have no credibility now when we speak on this issue, what would we have lost?

Since we, either as individuals or as unions, apparently don't have the freedom to even speak of specific incidents at specific carriers publicly, and are dismissed as pursuing some unrelated union agenda when we speak of general concepts, I'd be interested to hear what you would have us do instead.

 

[mweiss]

the fact that you're not impressed with their efforts is immaterial.

Being impressed is immaterial. What's material is the continued rise of outsourcing to chop shops. The endgame looks the same, with or without the efforts of the unions.

The system is inherently fragile, and has become more so since deregulation, not less.

The fragility is quite different today than it was sixty years ago. Today, several of the players are fragile. Sixty years ago, the demand for the product was fragile. When demand for the product is fragile, the entire industry can collapse easily. Air travel has become a necessity, rather than a luxury. The demand isn't going away.

Economic factors beyond the control of anyone involved in the effort to prevent the erosion of aviation safety have led to the acceleration

Not true at all. The economic pressures have been there since the beginning of deregulation. It's just that it took a while to squeeze other elements of the business first.

Since ... the public has done little to demand the information themselves, one must wonder whether they really want it in the first place.

There is a segment that would prefer not to know. That's been part of my point from early on. For that segment, don't they deserve whatever they get? It'd be a much better proposition if they could bear the risk without having to bring others (e.g., pilots, FAs, innocents on the ground) into the picture, of course. Then again, the pilots and FAs are probably far better informed of the risk than are the passengers who don't care to know. They're making the choice.

There's also another segment of the public that does care to know. I know that segment exists, because I'm in it. I'd far prefer to be able to make an informed choice, but I don't have enough information to do so. Nor do I have access to enough information to do so.

That's why Ken Lay is living in a tarpaper shack while he awaits an extended sentence in a maximum security prison. Liability and accountability stop BEFORE the top.

???

An airline cannot outsource the responsibility for making sure that their aircraft are maintained in accordance with FAA regulations

And yet, they're doing it anyway. What does that tell you?

If the business dies I lose my job and my seniority, which is the same as losing my career.

It's the same as losing your seniority. That's quite different from losing your license.

if I'm lucky enough to get another job in the field, at the bottom, without the benefit of any 'golden parachute'. How many airline executives has this happened to?

How many airline executives have presided over the death of an airline? Tell me, what happened to them? Where did Harding Lawrence go? How many airlines has Lorenzo run lately?

Realizing that absolute safety is effectively impossible, we concentrate during the best of times on simply providing as much safety as we can.

Exactly. That's the tradeoff between money an risk, in the end. Even during the best of times, you cannot eliminate the risk. During worse times, there's less money, and therefore greater risk.

Again, that's not the choice we face.

Certainly not in a microeconomic sense. We do face it in a macroeconomic sense, but at such dilution as to have a modest effect.

 

[mweiss]

Even if ... we take all the money from aviation maintenance and put it into auto maintenance

That isn't where the money would go. It would go toward safety systems. As you noted, a tiny number of autmobile fatalities are caused by poor maintenance.

I think that, like most Americans, you overestimate the wealth and power of unions.

Perhaps, but I don't think so. I'm certainly not expecting mountains to be moved. The most important change would have to be the marketing of the unions themselves. Today, they have a well-deserved reputation for being agents of job protection. As long as that reputation persists, any issues raised against outsourcing to chop shops sounds like job protection, not life protection. In other words, it's not that the message is getting out; it's that the message getting out is suspect.

In cases where a union has been proven to have damaged an airline's business through an action such as the AA pilots alleged 'sick out', the union has been held liable for the entire loss.

That's because the union encouraged a breach of contract. Of course you're liable if you breach your contract.

But still not a significant enough portion of the market to cause the airlines to change their course, to date.

We don't really know that at all, do we? What we do know is that the legacy carriers, who haven't really had reason for differential marketing to date, haven't tapped this market. That could mean that it's not there, but absence of evidence is hardly evidence of absence.

Less than $.05 to CASM, as that is the advantage most airlines expect to realize through outsourcing.

Let me make sure you're saying this correctly. Five cents per ASM?

Falsehood is in the eye of the beholder. If an airline can convince a court that the union's allegations are false, by deploying the usual 'experts' and spokespersons, do you not think they would go for the maximum amount they could get?

Sure. That's why you craft the message very carefully. Stick to the facts, and stay away from messages that smack of job protection.

Even when unions have engaged in simple informational picketing, the airlines have had private detectives present with video cameras so their lawyers can see if any of the statements could be considered disparaging to their particular airline, allowing legal action against the unions.

Hence why you must carefully craft the message.

NWA ... is attempting to discharge him for making disparaging comments against his employer

Depending upon the terms of the contract, that may be a legal action on NWA's part. Depending on where it occurs, there may be whistleblower protection available as well.

I'm still trying to keep them safe one airplane at a time, like most other airline mechanics.

And I appreciate you doing so.

... the passengers repeatedly vote with their wallets regardless of safety concerns ...

How can a passenger vote any other way when the only message of differentiation among the airlines is fare?

 

[mweiss]

Apologies for splitting the posts, but you can't have more than ten quotes in a message.

I think that, if it were legal, a three day shutdown of the US air transportation industry would bring the issue to the public attention

The public would hear "I'm on strike," which they would understand to mean "I'm trying to protect my job." The rest of the message would be lost.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Being impressed is immaterial. What's material is the continued rise of outsourcing to chop shops. The endgame looks the same, with or without the efforts of the unions.

[post="259367"][/post]​

So, by your estimation, they may as well have done nothing at all?

The demand isn't going away.

Just the means to supply it in a safe manner.

The economic pressures have been there since the beginning of deregulation. It's just that it took a while to squeeze other elements of the business first.

Then why is it that the legacy carriers, while obsessed with following the WN model, ignore the fact that WN is decreasing their outsourcing?

There is a segment that would prefer not to know.

There's also another segment of the public that does care to know.

Also a very large segment that doesn't believe it when they are told, as we continue to discover, much to our amazement.

I'd far prefer to be able to make an informed choice, but I don't have enough information to do so. Nor do I have access to enough information to do so.

Nor are you likely to, as the sources that have the information seem to be working pretty hard to keep it from you.

???

You say accountability begins at the top, yet I see no examples of anyone at the top being held accountable for any of the flawed decisions they make.

And yet, they're doing it anyway. What does that tell you?

It tells me that the conventional wisdom says that while what they may be doing may be illegal and injurious to the long term health of the entity they claim to serve, if they claim they did it for the good of the company they expect to be absolved of any guilt.

It's the same as losing your seniority. That's quite different from losing your license.

As airline CEOs aren't licensed and fail upward into better positions elsewhere, I have more to lose than they do.

How many airline executives have presided over the death of an airline? Tell me, what happened to them? Where did Harding Lawrence go? How many airlines has Lorenzo run lately?

Harding Lawrence - Braniff V1.0 - Retired comfortably on his golden parachute when forced out of Braniff prior to it's demise.

Howard Putnam - Braniff V1.0 - Retired comfortably on his golden parachute after Braniff collapsed, later held executive positions at Pan Am.

Frank Lorenzo - Texas Air, et. al. - Semi-retired very comfortably on his multiple golden parachutes after being barred from the airline industry, the only living executive ever to be so barred. Runs an airline investment and consulting business in Houston Texas.

Carl Icahn - TWA - walked away from TWA with billions in return for his investment of millions, still in business.

Martin Shugrue - Pan Am, Continental, Eastern - A perfect example of failing upward, despite the fact that he never succeeded in anything at an airline. Continued in the airline business until his death in 1999.

Phil Bakes - Continental, Eastern - Continues in the travel industry as CEO of Far & Wide Travel, despite generous golden parachutes for serving as Frank Lorenzos straw man for many years.

Shall I continue? Perhaps if you were to come up with one that HAS suffered for his economic decisions that led to the demise of an airline it might be quicker.

 

[NWA/AMT]

That's the tradeoff between money an risk, in the end. Even during the best of times, you cannot eliminate the risk. During worse times, there's less money, and therefore greater risk.

[post="259369"][/post]​

Then we are wasting our time discussing this, as the only alternative being presented to the passengers is greater risk.

As you noted, a tiny number of autmobile fatalities are caused by poor maintenance.

A flat tire on the road is an inconvenience, a flat tire on the Concorde killed people.

When faced with an automobile repair bill with labor charged at $65 per hour, people pay without blinking. When reading a news story about airline mechanics making $30 per hour, articles that consistently fail to mention the level of risk or the nights/weekends/holidays part of our jobs, most Americans polled consider them overpaid and blame 'the unions'.

Perhaps, but I don't think so. I'm certainly not expecting mountains to be moved. The most important change would have to be the marketing of the unions themselves. Today, they have a well-deserved reputation for being agents of job protection.

And who do you think gave them that reputation, the unions themselves? You can only change the 'marketing' of your image so far when others actually form and reinforce that image for the public.

As long as that reputation persists, any issues raised against outsourcing to chop shops sounds like job protection, not life protection. In other words, it's not that the message is getting out; it's that the message getting out is suspect.

Let's do an experiment. Call the local paper in your nearest big city and tell them you represent a union wishing to take out a full page article explaining how whatever large airline is their major advertiser may be unsafe. Let me know what they say.

AMFA Local 14 in SEA leased one billboard near SEA-TAC raising the question of whether insourced maintenance was better than outsourced maintenance without mentioning any specific airline. When they sought to renew the lease, the owner declined citing threats from the airlines to take their advertising dollars elsewhere.

That's because the union encouraged a breach of contract. Of course you're liable if you breach your contract.

No, it was because certain individuals within the union were found to have possibly encouraged breach of contract, but no evidence was presented that the union itself authorized or approved of those actions. In fact, the union was on record as opposing any actions that violated the RLA.

We don't really know that at all, do we? What we do know is that the legacy carriers, who haven't really had reason for differential marketing to date, haven't tapped this market. That could mean that it's not there, but absence of evidence is hardly evidence of absence.

If it were there, and it were significant enough to matter in their overall struggle to survive, the airlines would be addressing it.

Let me make sure you're saying this correctly. Five cents per ASM?

I believe that I was clear; a reduction of $.05 to CASM.

That is the benefit NWA claimed to achieve by closing the ATL overhaul base and sending that work outside. That is actually MORE than the benefit AS claimed to be seeking when outsourcing their maintenance.

Sure. That's why you craft the message very carefully. Stick to the facts, and stay away from messages that smack of job protection.

ANY message from a union is spun as job protection in the media. Even the FAA inspectors, whose only statement was that they were not being used correctly regarding the vendors, found their statements spun as union job protectionism.

Hence why you must carefully craft the message.

Let us return to this after you make that call to your local paper. Then we'll discuss exactly WHERE this message is supposed to be placed.

Depending upon the terms of the contract, that may be a legal action on NWA's part. Depending on where it occurs, there may be whistleblower protection available as well.

The NWA contract contains no such prohibition and 'whistleblower' protection extends only to those who bring issues to the FAA, an organization which has declined to address the issue so far.

 

[NWA/AMT]

How can a passenger vote any other way when the only message of differentiation among the airlines is fare?

[post="259371"][/post]​

The only differentiation is on fare because that's the only issue the passengers seem to react to. Prior to deregulation the only differentiation was on service and image and, before all the airline started limiting their speed for fuel efficency, speed. Now all the difference that is left IS fares, in the eyes of the public.

Apologies for splitting the posts, but you can't have more than ten quotes in a message.

Thank you, I had forgotten that.

The public would hear "I'm on strike," which they would understand to mean "I'm trying to protect my job."

Because that is the the easiest explanation, which is all they would look for and the only message they would be allowed to hear.

The rest of the message would be lost.

Apparently it already has been.

 

[mweiss]

So, by your estimation, they may as well have done nothing at all?

That'd be an overstatement.

Just the means to supply it in a safe manner.

Oh, please. The means isn't disappearing. It's the direct demand that's disappearing.

Then why is it that the legacy carriers, while obsessed with following the WN model, ignore the fact that WN is decreasing their outsourcing?

Because they have to pay the bills today in order to even consider a tomorrow. In other words, they're mortgaging their future in order to have a future to mortgage.

Also a very large segment that doesn't believe it when they are told, as we continue to discover, much to our amazement.

Because of how they are told. If the message sounds like job protection, it doesn't matter if the facts are accurate. It sounds political, so the validity of the message is discounted.

You say accountability begins at the top, yet I see no examples of anyone at the top being held accountable for any of the flawed decisions they make.

I'm sure Bernie Ebbers would be surprised to hear that. Ken Lay, incidentally, is using the same defense in his case.

As airline CEOs aren't licensed and fail upward into better positions elsewhere, I have more to lose than they do.

Hmmm...so the CEOs you listed no longer worked in the industry. That's not failing upward. That they had enough money afterward to retire didn't make their careers any less over.

The others you listed weren't CEOs.