Tech Ops Mexico is now reality.

[topDawg]

yes, I noticed that too.

You see the downside and negative. I can't help but think it is part of winning those contracts that DL wants.

I'm a glass 3/4 full guy. Life sometimes gives you lemons but I focus on making the best lemonade out of life. and it has worked for me. I've had my share of challenges like everyone.

BTW, since it is open, can you tell us what aircraft are going down there and for what?

I thought they would name it something....
 
Because i have done this before. I don't trust this leadership team at all, and i haven't since GG and Jim left. They have made some questionable changes on how TechOps does things, IMO and i think its just a sign of things to come. The track record for what was done at NWA doesn't help. 
Engine work just isn't going to come because of HMVs. It just doesn't work that way. If Delta picks up AA's 767 overhauls(just an example) that doesn't mean the CF6s are coming with it. 
If they did engine/component work in Mexico it might make difference, but AA is just going to issue contracts for each part. 
Very little is being said about it internally and I think thats for a reason. If it was such a great thing and they really thought growth would come from it, the grand opening would be all over the place....all that was said was a little line on DeltaNet. No memo, nothing on the TechOps page. 
 
Delta keeps news on the low for a reason, I have yet to see it be good news. 
 
they haven't said much about it. At one point they said the plan was for all 700+ aircraft to get HMVs done there.  It would start with the 88s......thats about it. 
While the small fleets (330, 747, 777) won't take up much dock time (over many years) you can pretty much count on having 1-2 each 32S, 737, 757/767, t-tail in a bay most of the time because those fleets will have 100+ per. This is another reason why I don't see them being able to grow much.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

I wonder how this will effect the cost of outsourcing? I only posted this here because of Delta's most recent foray. As for the discussion of the drug/alcohol testing, please discuss over here since it applies widely across all airlines:

http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/56936-faa-proposes-drugalcohol-testing-at-foreign-maintenance-facilities/?p=1071525


"For Immediate Release
March 13, 2014
Contact: Les Dorr or Alison Duquette
Phone: (202) 267-3883

WASHINGTON – The Federal Aviation Administration today announced it is seeking comments on an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that would require drug and alcohol testing of maintenance personnel who work on aircraft operated by U.S. air carriers (Part 121) in facilities outside the United States.

In the Federal Register notice, the FAA noted that it is considering developing a rulemaking that would require employees of FAA-certified foreign repair stations and certain other maintenance providers who perform safety-sensitive work on U.S. air carrier aircraft to be subject to a drug and alcohol testing program. Consistent with the Congressional mandate for the rulemaking, the testing program would have to meet FAA standards and be consistent with the applicable laws of the country where the repair station is located. Currently, the FAA’s drug and alcohol testing regulations do not extend to companies or individuals who perform safety-sensitive functions, including aircraft and preventive maintenance, outside the United States.

The public comment period will help the FAA develop a proposed rule and to assess its likely economic impact. Today's notice invites comments on a variety of issues related to proposing drug and alcohol testing requirements for the relevant employees of covered maintenance providers. These issues include:

Which drugs are most misused in a particular country? If testing programs exist, are they administered by a national regulatory authority? Are industry participants required to establish such programs under the country’s laws and regulations, or does industry do that voluntarily
Should the program require testing for the same drugs the FAA requires tests for in the United States? At what concentrations should alcohol and drug tests be considered “positive?”
Does a particular country allow or require random drug and/or alcohol testing? If so, what is the process?

If a country does not allow or require random drug and/or alcohol testing, are there laws that prohibit random testing? What other methods might successfully deter employees from misusing drugs or alcohol while performing safety-sensitive duties, or within a certain period of time before performing such duties? How would such misuse be detected?
What are the standards that employees who have violated drug and alcohol regulations should meet before they are allowed to return to performing safety-sensitive maintenance work?

The FAA's action responds to a mandate in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.
The FAA will accept comments for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Here you can view the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. (PDF)"

 

[WorldTraveler]

I don't see any reason why it should increase costs any more than it does here in the US.
 
Are you implying that other cultures are more tolerant of drugs or alcohol than in the US?
 
Why would it affect DL any more than any other US carrier?  They all outsource significant amounts of their maintenance operations.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Of course they are more tolerant. Do you think the foreign MRO's do any testing now?

The foreign MRO's will have to pay more to hire drug free workers. It will cost more for overseas MRO's to maintain a drug-free workplace. It will increase costs for all airlines as foreign MRO's pass on the costs of hiring a higher quality workforce that is free of drug and alcohol use.

Maintaining a program is not cheap, nor is hiring and training.

Please take the discussion over to the airline news thread as this will effect more than just Delta (as I said in my previous post).

 

[WorldTraveler]

yes, I get that... but the cost should not be any higher for DL than for any other US airline.  I'm also not sure that the costs other than for administering the program are that egregious.  What percentage of the US airline workforce is dismissed on an annual basis for alcohol or drug related issues? 
 
I applaud the move, by the way.  

 

[eolesen]

I'd guess no cost impact whatsoever. The Chinese and other Asian cultures don't have a tolerance for illicit drug use, and I wouldn't expect that the Latin bases do either.

I see drug and alcohol testing as nothing more than a whipping horse issue used by the unions, and I'll predict that it won't result in any more dismissals overseas than it already does in the US.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

If that was the case, why has it been lobbied against? We will see if you are correct. I am for all MRO's, here in the States and foreign, to play by the same rules. That should include DOT regulations for testing.

 

[eolesen]

If that was the case, why has it been lobbied against?

Because it's a mandate?...

Companies hate new mandates and added red tape, even if it just matches what they're already doing for their own employees.

 

[topDawg]

I don't see any reason why it should increase costs any more than it does here in the US.
 
Are you implying that other cultures are more tolerant of drugs or alcohol than in the US?
 
Why would it affect DL any more than any other US carrier?  They all outsource significant amounts of their maintenance operations.

the only thing it might do is add a little bit of cost, but its a cost that airlines already pay here in the US. 
Drug testing costs are going to be very small in the big picture. Aircraft overhauls cost millions, this might add a few thousands yearly.
 
also I have a feeling this wont shut the MROs down like the union lovers believe. 
 

I'd guess no cost impact whatsoever. The Chinese and other Asian cultures don't have a tolerance for illicit drug use, and I wouldn't expect that the Latin bases do either.

I see drug and alcohol testing as nothing more than a whipping horse issue used by the unions, and I'll predict that it won't result in any more dismissals overseas than it already does in the US.

agreed. I think its something that should be done, but I don't think it changes anything. It damn sure isn't going cause a massive influx of work to come back to the mainline carriers like the unions say.