Ste Mobile Aerospace , Strike-two !

[AOG-N-IT]

Aircraft 707UW was released from an S-1 Heavy Maintenance visit with ST Mobile Aerospace yesterday. The aircraft flew non-revenued from BFM to CLT where it re-joined the active fleet that day.

700UW made One (1) revenued flight from CLT to MSY (New Orleans La.) where emergency landing procedures were taken due to a drop in hydraulic pressure followed by only a partial extension of the flap system on appraoch to MSY.

700UW will be maintenance ferried out of MSY to CLT..where it will remain out of service until repairs can once again be performed by skilled maintenance technicians of the USAirways , IAM represented labor force.

Lets see here Naysayers....ST Mobile Aerospace is O for 2 on returning safe revenue ready aircraft to USAirways....how much have we saved now? What's wrong here? Has ST Mobile Aerospace been exposed enough as being sub-standard in their practices to suit all the outsource fans of this board?

Where's the FAA on this subject??? ...I think if I were Doc Bronner and Dave , I would really be taking another look on how and where I elect to spend my money (and the employees concessionary funds , I might add)...a bargain is not a bargain unless full value and safety are acheived in the same manner as was achieved by the previous maintenance provider...and the subsequent correcter of all thier flawed work in Alabama.

Lets review for the slow witted and stubborn of the group. 707UW has had the same failure as it's previous outsourced sister ship 700UW had months before , has ST Mobile Aerospace learned or improved from their previous mistakes and flawed maintenance practices? Clearly NOT !!

Yes folks..the results are clearly the same...2nd rate pay , nets second rate work and lack luster end results...it's time to return the work back to the rightfull and contractural owners of all USAirways Aircraft work...and that would be the IAM represented Mechanic and Related of USAirways...not Doc Bronners Singapore shadetree yahoo's in BFM.

In closing....WE Have Told You So Before. 😛

 

[cavalier]

In closing....WE Have Told You So Before. 😛

Lets us see how Itrade, usifliboy and other yes men attempt to curry favor by the excessive use of compliments of our management team’s blatant disregard of our contracts with outsourcing, spin the facts, spin the reality on this one!

 

[Dilligas]

Well...

at least they are consistent.

"Mobile Aerospace turned out another on-time overhaul job with the quality we've come to expect from them."

:blink:

 

[Harry Callahan]

Maybe USA320 pilot would like to fly this one!
No suprise here....I am just scared someone is going to die on these planes.

 

[High Iron]

"700UW made One (1) revenued flight from CLT to MSY (New Orleans La.) where emergency landing procedures were taken due to a drop in hydraulic pressure followed by only a partial extension of the flap system on appraoch to MSY."

Did you mean 700 or 707? Did the same thing happen to 707?

 

[Piedmont4US]

Looks like the IAM has a good case now.

 

[delldude]

so what do we do now...pay people to ride our MAE airbus fleet? 😉

 

[Flying Titan]

I am just scared someone is going to die on these planes.

IAM is in a tough spot here. They must make the most of this to pull this repair work back in house - I say this as a frequent passenger now concerned about my own safety - but if the general public gets the impression that US Airways has shoddy maintainence work being done on their planes, then there truly will be nothing left to save, because people will stay away in droves.

I have been fortunate not to see N700UW since it went through its overhaul, but - as I have stated before - if I see that plane at my gate for my next flight, I will have serious second thoughts about boarding for that flight. Now you can add a second aircraft to that list N707UW.

 

[A320 Driver]

The aircraft made several uneventful revenue flights after it's return. It was in perfect condition on it's arrival in CLT from MAE. You people are trying to scare the public with this bologna and I hope it comes back to bite you.

I would gladly fly any A/C maintained by these folks. They also maintain United's 747s, A320s and Fed Ex's aircraft.
A320 Driver :angry:

 

[delldude]

i see your point...funny i thought united had a nose gear turn 90 degrees on landing from the same outfit.
isn't US Airways maintenance thats at fault here..i think its management trying to squeeze bucks at the flying public's expense.
hows that saying ...you get what you pay for??

 

[A320 Driver]

i see your point...funny i thought united had a nose gear turn 90 degrees on landing from the same outfit.
isn't US Airways maintenance thats at fault here..i think its management trying to squeeze bucks at the flying public's expense.
hows that saying ...you get what you pay for??

Don't know anything about that, but I know when people take pride in their work, something sadly lacking around here lately. These people are professionals and should be regarded accordingly. Your beef is with the management and the IAM, not the people working at Mobile Aerospace Engineering.

I'm sure the Flight Attendant whose father was passing away while our people held the airplane hostage for an hour doing paperwork Sunday morning is REALLY impressed with the quality of your work. That's when you guys lost me. I was a supporter up until that point, but you guys did me in.

A320 Driver <_<

 

[delldude]

i've always been an ardent ALPA fan since you guys supported us way back when....
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT
you guys me tooing it this concession time also?

 

[ITRADE]

I've also noticed that the IAM is not blameless in maintaining of US Airways aircraft:

Aug. 23, 1999 - Boeing 727-200 - DCA: The inadequate lubrication of the landing gear side strut assembly by company maintenance personnel. A factor in the accident was the inadequate design of the assembly that trapped water and prevented adequate lubrication.

Nov. 7, 1997 - Fokker F-100 - CLT: Improper written instructions (job/task card) by company maintenance personnel. The procedures did not reflect the correct manufactures maintenance manual servicing procedure, and did not ensure that the proper tool (replenishing gun) was available for the servicing of the torque link damper. This resulted in the improper servicing of the damper, and subsequent collapse of the right main landing gear on landing rollout.

 

[AP Tech]

"We are satisfied with St Mobile work", I believe that was the statement form one of U's company spokeman. As for people taking pride in their work careful when you make that statement about ST Mobile. The company is comprised of mostly temporary full time employee's who are brought on the property as contracts warrant. I really doubt they have any company pride as they are only employed as long as the contract lasts and then they move on to their next employer!!

I do hope the media picks up on this, will it hurt as much as when Bronner speaks?

 

[delldude]

I've also noticed that the IAM is not blameless in maintaining of US Airways aircraft:

sounds like bogus manufacturer spec's to me guy...we only do what the book says.
i believe in both cases you mention,mech was absolved....