The Death Of An Industry

[WorldTraveler]

Before you attempt to use the DOT data cited as evidence for any safety related hypotheses, you might want to read the paragraph posted on their website and reproduced here:

The NTSB wishes to make clear to all users of the preceding list of accidents that the information it contains cannot, by itself, be used to compare the safety either of operators or of aircraft types. Airlines that have operated the greatest numbers of flights and flight hours could be expected to have suffered the greatest number of fatal-to-passenger accidents (assuming that such accidents are random events, and not the result of some systematic deficiency). Similarly, the most used aircraft types would tend to be involved in such accidents more than lesser used types. The NTSB also cautions the user to bear in mind when attempting to compare today's airline system to prior years that airline activity (and hence exposure to risk) has risen by almost 100% from the first year depicted to the last.


As for the arguments presented above, the only one that holds any potential is that LCCs might raise fares in the future. While none of the LCCs have done it, Wal-Mart might provide an example; they still price as low as possible, often undercutting competitors and driving them out of business. Therefore, I don't think that simply raising prices is likely but industry concentration among a few players is certainly possible. While the consumer may continue to benefit from Wal-Mart's low prices, many argue that Wal-Mart's size has negative impacts on other parts of the economy such as suppliers.

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< Hey people! Aren't we over looking another important point??? When I went to A&P school, there were students there from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq! I wonder where they're working today? Maybe at one of those foreign shops, working on our Aircraft! THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!! :down:

 

[hobbes]

"Hmmm...

Who was it that parked a 737 about 50 feet from the gas pump at a Chevron station in Burbank CA after crashing through the airport fence?

Oh yeah, Southwest. Then again, no one died, so that must make them safe, right?"

You missed the point.

Local 12 was implying that Southwest had shoddy maintenance.

Flight 1455 was pilot error, last I'd heard.

If you want to start comparing accidents between our two airlines, we can. But I'm not up for a pissing match about who's had more accidents, because that's pretty darned immature, not to mention unprofessional. I'm simply pointing out the erroneous conclusions that Local 12 was drawing. He sees a dirty plane, so he thinks they must also be poorly maintainted at a Maintenance level. Guess what? I've been on some dirty United planes as well. So they must have poor maintenance? I guess those planes with the new paint jobs are the only ones not vunerable to maintenance problems, huh?

Actually, I've always felt quite safe flying United.

Local 12's reasoning doesn't make sense. It's just an excuse to slam a LCC that actually has an enviable safety record.

"Then again, no one died, so that must make them safe, right?"

I never said anything of the sort, as that would sound conceited...but now that you mention it, Southwest does have a pretty enviable record in area of safety.

If you want to slam the LCCs, go for something logical, for Pete's sake. Don't sit there and make a pathetic attempt to create invalid assocations (I saw a dirty plane, so SWA must have shoddy maintenance!).

Or better yet, invest as much time and effort trying to help your own airline as you do slamming the LCCs. Like it or not, they're here to stay, and that's just the reality of the situation. Making false implications about their safety on this board isn't going to do a darned thing to help United thrive.

 

[Diesel8]

Well, then I would be really concerned about flying on UAL metal these days, after all, they are turning every penny twice, before commiting to spending it. Wonder if they are cutting corners in the MX department, are there a few more MELs or DMI these days, a few more "fixes" with speedtape?

The same was found to be the case at ALK, they were cutting corners, trying to save a penny, due to "competetive concerns", much like UAL is at present.

The argument cuts both ways!

 

[UAL_TECH]

Fortunately we have FAA Oversight?

(Government Oversight, is this an oxymoron?)

Take Care
B) UT

 

[Segue]

again enjoy your CHEAPLY maintained seat, but ill pass thanks!

 

[mweiss]

Some points to remember for the “I just want the cheapest ticket†folks:
- Airlines like Jet Blue and AirTran have cost structures that can only go one way… Up.

Fortunately for them, they don't need to care. If the price goes up to match the increased costs, someone new will step in and undercut jetBlue and AirTran. Ain't capitalism grand?

- LCC’s have smaller, less complex operations, and therefore can not provide the type of necessary air service this country relies on, that is supplied by the major airlines. LCC’s serve a niche.

It's a mighty big niche, though. The interesting question is whether the major airlines can be profitable serving the un-niche...

- LCC’s have high moral because many of their employees came from mediocre jobs and saw very quick advancement due to rapid initial expansion. It’s simple… What they have now is better than what they once had. As they mature, employees will want more.

Even if that were true (and I think you're waaaay overgeneralizing), so what?

- Ever ask a new Jet Blue Pilot why they would work for peanuts? I have. Almost everyone responds “Because I’ll make captain in 2 years.†Do you think that will be true forever?

Again...so what?

- What happens when a rapidly expanding LCC starts to mature and it’s growth slows or stops? ...what happens to moral when a person who thought they’d make captain in 2 years is still sitting in the right seat making peanuts after 5, 6, 7 years or more? They will organize to negotiate better benefits.

If so, then the cycle will begin anew.

- What will happen when LCC’s brand new airplanes start to age and become less reliable. Will the inexperienced crews be able to deal with events safely? Will less experienced maintenance crews fix them properly? When that happens, would you prefer pilots and mechanics trained to the max extent possible, or those trained to the bare minimum required by law to keep costs down?

Of course, the same can be said for the legacies, who are outsourcing to bare-minimum-trained mechanics... :huh:

- Do want your life in the hands of those who pioneer and forge ever increasing standards in safety, or would you prefer those who just follow the pack and even lobby to bend established safety criteria for the sake of saving a buck or two? (Like Jet Blue’s attempt to waive duty time requirements so they can fly transcon turns.)

Sounds like you haven't paid close enough attention to what B6 is trying to do there.

- If LCC’s took over the domestic transportation system, do you really think that your beloved low fares won’t go up? Think again. The sole purpose of those low fares you are getting used to is to grab market share. The instant an airline (LCC or not) has the pricing power to raise a fair, it will. Example: if SWA runs USAirways out of town prices will go up.

Oh, this one's good. You don't even have the first little inkling of a notion of what you're talking about here. The evidence is precisely the opposite.

You would also see service to many small communities lose air service completely and international fares skyrocket with no hub-and-spoke networks.

I agree that many small communities would lose service (perhaps it's because they can't be served profitably???). But where on earth is your evidence about internationial fares?

 

[mweiss]

Who was it that parked a 737 about 50 feet from the gas pump at a Chevron station in Burbank CA after crashing through the airport fence?

So, let's see...that was bad maintenance because...?

Oh, no...you're just going down the "you get what you pay for" line. OK, I'll bite. Want to compare the number of hull losses at WN versus every single legacy airline? How shall we do it...do you want to compare the total number since 1971? Or would you prefer to go based on ASMs? Or how about number of flight segments?

I'll save you the trouble. WN comes out on top no matter how you slice it. They had a grand total of one hull loss in thirty years. The reason you can remember it so well is because it was extraordinarily notable...it was the only time in the airline's history.

You get what you pay for?

 

[The Ronin]

Hey maintenance....why are you wasting your breath? Why are you wasting your time? You and I know whats going on. You and I know how much we catch before these a**holes climb aboard. Was on a guppy, intermittant aft galley light log. Been relamped several times, or cleared with op check. I dug a little deeper, OSV been messing around ceiling area. Got up in there where the ballast is, shook the harness and bingo, we had sparklers. They didn't tighten down the lugs. We got a lump out of BFM, been chronic since the day it left with stab msgs. Also, first class laptop pwr cycled on and off with PA. Alot of OSV wiring in P8 area, stab trim indicator shorting out the MAWEA cards. Didn't go into OSV like that, but came out with it. Was down for a week. Found the laptop pwr wired to the PA keyline relay and not decompression relay where it should have been. We contract over at AW. Planes are a hodge podge of tail numbers. Really junky airplanes and they have a hard time with parts because of such dis-jointed effectivities, but people climb on all day long, just like ATA next to them. I just do what I can. F*ck' em, sooner or later let time tell the story. I ain't shedding one freak'n tear. Appreciate yourself, appreciate your fellow mechanic (the ones that give a sh*t and work anyways), cause all the rest is falling on deaf ears.

 

[SVQLBA]

SVQLBA,

You really are missing the point. Maybe you should try understanding what another person says before responding.

All of my points are perfectly valid. The connection is not that BA or Air France are LCC’s. Obviously not. The point is the consequences of overlooking recommended maintenance because it is not mandated by law, the hiring of low experience people because you can get them at a cheaper price, and creating a culture of saving every penny to the exclusion of common sense and safety, and covering the bare minimum to keep everything legal.

And by the way, Alaska is not a legacy carrier nor a major hub-and-spoke airline.

This whole thread started with the contention that consumers are setting the price and everyone needs to get used to it. Well, you get what you pay for, and I’m trying to illustrate that fact by sighting examples where safety and experience takes a back seat to cost. LCC’s are more susceptible to this problem because their whole business model is based on keeping costs down, but no one is immune to it. Aviation is very safe, but very unforgiving at the same time as demonstrated by my examples.

The trend of low fares at all cost is a very dangerous road to travel. Again, would you rather travel on an airline that does the bare minimum, or one that goes far beyond in keeping you and your family safe?

767jetz

First, let me just say, I very much appreciate your experience and enjoy your contribution to these boards -- I'm not trying to get in a pissing match (e-mail/postings don't get tone well).

I agree with you that the safety culture is definitely threatened. However, a good safety culture is absolutely not incompatible with being low-cost. Just as Honda and Toyota proved that there is no-trade-off between cost and quality (i.e., you can get low cost and a high quality, reliable auto, you don't need to shell out for a beemer), I believe SW, and I believe jetBlue have proven and will continue to prove that you can run efficient, lower cost Mx operations, maintain a strong safety culture throughout an organization, and still deliver low prices to consumers. Your examples from Alaska, BA, AA et al all thoroughly disprove your (implied) conclusion that higher cost is safer. I believe the folks at WN and B6 are fully aware that nothing will blow their economics more than a poor safety record. Just as Toyota showed that higher quality = lower cost, that will be shown (is being shown) in the airline world too.

The key issue is this: maintaining a strong safety culture at airlines, their Mx and flight divisions, and at the suppliers they use. It's an issue NASA and its contractors face ensuring the safety of every space mission. There will always be a place for 3rd parties, and there'll probably be a place for in-house Mx too. Could pressure on costs lead to short cuts in Mx? Possibly, if people are stupid about -- definitely the possibility. Can in-house Mx orgs get complacent, cut corners, and make erros, even when there is no apparent cost pressure? Absolutely.

Is the quality of 3rd party MROs very variable? Yes. Is that true of in-house Mx divisions. Yes also. Will people make errors, yes. Let's focus on I think the key point you mentioned in passing in one of your notes -- learning lessons, applying them, and not forgetting them. And let's make sure this happens throughout aviation -- not just the airlines, but the FAA and suppliers too. Going back to my well worn Toyota example, they are all over their suppliers to ensure their goods/services are the highest quality at the best price. Airlines that outsource Mx have to take that same responsibility.

Sorry for the long reply. Summary -- we agree on the threat to the industry safety record, but we disagree on the root cause. One last time, you can be efficient, low cost, and safe.

 

[local 12 proud]

obviously those defending low cost maintenance on this board have never worked in that area, i have and have seen for my self the cost saving corner cutting so dont tell me i dont know what im talking about. and for you hobbes i never implied southwest mechanics performed shotty maintenace reread my post mouth! what i did say southwest is starting to bring alot more inhouse maintenace back because they are seeing alot of shotty outsourced work with much rework having to be performed. i could care less if you think third party maintenance is equal to inhouse, i know the truth because ive worked both sides! so i stand by my statement "you get what you pay for" enjoy your CHEAPLY maintained seat.

 

[hobbes]

"and for you hobbes i never implied southwest mechanics performed shotty maintenace"

I didn't ever say you mentioned such a thing. But your post read pretty darned clearly to me.

I read that you saw dirty Southwest planes, and you translated that into equaling that the aircraft itself was unsafe. Or you implied that. And that's what I responded to. Are you now saying differently?

 

[local 12 proud]

call as i see'em

 

[dbcwaar]

Lets not forget that Value jet purchasing Airtran and then adopting their name to spin the DC-9 crash they had into the everglades, or America West's being fined for 41 thousand safety violations back in 1998! I believe this was the largest fine in FAA history at around 5 million.. If I recall they were not securing luggage in their plans and had some various other safety issues...



http://www.wsws.org/workers/1998/july1998/air-j16.shtml

 

[local 12 proud]

again your implying, i said dirt on the outside makes you wonder what it looks like on the inside........look im not ging to say SOUTHWEST MECHANICS are hacks and thats what your trying to twist my words and say, i know several s.w. mech. and they are very knowledgeable but the company has outsourced maint. for years and its now rearing its ugly head. THEY ARE NOW BRINGING MORE WORK INHOUSE BECAUSE OF THIS FACTOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! does that spell it out where you can understand now? :huh: