casual rat
Senior
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2002
- Messages
- 413
- Reaction score
- 3
BTW oxygen generators caused the fire on that airtran plane a number of years ago.
ANYTHING TO MAKE A PROFIT
ANYTHING TO MAKE A PROFIT
Ual and their maintenance practices (alleged)
- Thread starter ualflynhi
- Start date
----------------
On 5/17/2003 4:08:10 PM casual rat wrote:
Uh, maybe it''s because those airlines have more flights per day? At least we don''t put oxygen generators on our planes--by management suggestion--like some of our competitors have in the past.
----------------
On 5/17/2003 4:08:10 PM casual rat wrote:
Uh, maybe it''s because those airlines have more flights per day? At least we don''t put oxygen generators on our planes--by management suggestion--like some of our competitors have in the past.
----------------
Yes, but where is the evidence that "low cost" carriers, or carriers that outsource maintenance, are any less safe?
You''re missing the point Segue. If I were the CEO of an airline and I wanted the safest and best maintenance program out there, I would hire MY OWN PEOPLE who were the best I could find and keep ALL maintenance activities under MY THUMB so I would have DIRECT control over all of my maintenance activities. That, in my opinion, is THE SAFEST way to run a maintenance program. It used to be like that here.
Now with the proliferation of low cost carriers who will outsource everything including maintenance, in order to compete, we''re going to have to do the same. So will all other airlines big and small. Instead of doing major maintenance activities in house where we HAD direct control of its quality and scope, we are now forced to send maintenance out to the "most reasonably priced bidder" and therefore we are one step removed from the work performed upon our aircraft. That, in my opinion, is not an action that increases safety or maintenance quality.
No one knows what long term effect this outsourcing will have on airline safety. I have my suspicions. If you want to use statistics as your guide, you''re going to have to wait until the full ramifications of these activities become statistically significant. Until then, I guess you and your loved ones can take comfort in the fact that the airplanes/engines you will be flying on at just about every airline will soon be overhauled and repaired by the very best $8/hr mechanics (if they are licensed mechanics!) the MRO industry can find.
Now with the proliferation of low cost carriers who will outsource everything including maintenance, in order to compete, we''re going to have to do the same. So will all other airlines big and small. Instead of doing major maintenance activities in house where we HAD direct control of its quality and scope, we are now forced to send maintenance out to the "most reasonably priced bidder" and therefore we are one step removed from the work performed upon our aircraft. That, in my opinion, is not an action that increases safety or maintenance quality.
No one knows what long term effect this outsourcing will have on airline safety. I have my suspicions. If you want to use statistics as your guide, you''re going to have to wait until the full ramifications of these activities become statistically significant. Until then, I guess you and your loved ones can take comfort in the fact that the airplanes/engines you will be flying on at just about every airline will soon be overhauled and repaired by the very best $8/hr mechanics (if they are licensed mechanics!) the MRO industry can find.
I hate to be one of those who drag their posts from forum to forum, but I posted the following on the AA board during a similar discussion last week:
----------------
On 5/12/2003 11
23 AM FrugalFlyer wrote:
Right. Cost is king. Tramco does not only do it cheaper, but obviously at least as well as if not better than anybody else.
Ignorance is bliss!!!
----------------
Not necessarily. For the most part it has to do with the airlines being willing to lower their expectations and redefine what they are willing to accept and call a ''well-maintained'' aircraft. Unfortunately, the relentless drive to cut costs, along with an increased willingness on the part of airlines to accept less as long as they pay less, has made it so the vendors like Tramco are not expected to do it "at least as well as if not better than anybody else". As long as the maintenance is signed for (and the check is signed), everybody is happy.
I have had the opportunity to work for both an FAR145 repair station (not Tramco) and for two major airlines, one which did all it''s maintainance in-house and one which did not. I can tell you with certainty that the standards are quite different.
In many FAR145 repair stations the emphasis on keeping the cost of the check down, and meeting schedule, is much greater. The primary means of doing this is to perform maintenance to a different set of standards - only doing what is absolutely necessary to accomplish the check, re-using parts that by normal standards would be replaced, and de-emphasising the "preventative maintenance" aspects of the job. This effectively transfers a lot of the maintenance load back to the customer, when those parts fail or when something that should have been dealt with on a preventative basis in check fails when the aircraft is back in service, while allowing the vendor to meet cost and schedule.
One of the carriers I worked for used many different vendors, including Tramco, to perform much of it''s heavy maintenance and parts overhaul. I can tell you that when the aircraft came back from those vendors we had to spend quite a bit of time, and money, dealing with issues that would have been dealt with in check.
With the first carrier, which performed it''s maintenance in-house, we still had issues when an airplane came from check - but not to the extent or to the degree that I saw from the vendor-maintained aircraft at the other carrier. I never saw any that would be considered a safety-of-flight issue with the first carrier, I saw many with the second.
My objection to the outsourcing of maintenance has nothing to do with the wages the vendors pay, nor even with the "us and them" mentality that goes with that situation. It has to do with the continuing erosion of the standards for aircraft maintenance that we have seen in the last 20 years. There are some endeavors where worrying about cost should be secondary to worrying about safety, and commercial aviation used to be one of those. Even though no airline has ever gone out of business because it spent too much on maintenance, we will soon be able to see if one can go out of business because it spent too little. What constitutes an acceptable loss?
As one of my supervisors at the repair station used to say; "That''s what the airlines have insurance for."
----------------
On 5/12/2003 11
23 AM FrugalFlyer wrote: Right. Cost is king. Tramco does not only do it cheaper, but obviously at least as well as if not better than anybody else.
Ignorance is bliss!!!
----------------
Not necessarily. For the most part it has to do with the airlines being willing to lower their expectations and redefine what they are willing to accept and call a ''well-maintained'' aircraft. Unfortunately, the relentless drive to cut costs, along with an increased willingness on the part of airlines to accept less as long as they pay less, has made it so the vendors like Tramco are not expected to do it "at least as well as if not better than anybody else". As long as the maintenance is signed for (and the check is signed), everybody is happy.
I have had the opportunity to work for both an FAR145 repair station (not Tramco) and for two major airlines, one which did all it''s maintainance in-house and one which did not. I can tell you with certainty that the standards are quite different.
In many FAR145 repair stations the emphasis on keeping the cost of the check down, and meeting schedule, is much greater. The primary means of doing this is to perform maintenance to a different set of standards - only doing what is absolutely necessary to accomplish the check, re-using parts that by normal standards would be replaced, and de-emphasising the "preventative maintenance" aspects of the job. This effectively transfers a lot of the maintenance load back to the customer, when those parts fail or when something that should have been dealt with on a preventative basis in check fails when the aircraft is back in service, while allowing the vendor to meet cost and schedule.
One of the carriers I worked for used many different vendors, including Tramco, to perform much of it''s heavy maintenance and parts overhaul. I can tell you that when the aircraft came back from those vendors we had to spend quite a bit of time, and money, dealing with issues that would have been dealt with in check.
With the first carrier, which performed it''s maintenance in-house, we still had issues when an airplane came from check - but not to the extent or to the degree that I saw from the vendor-maintained aircraft at the other carrier. I never saw any that would be considered a safety-of-flight issue with the first carrier, I saw many with the second.
My objection to the outsourcing of maintenance has nothing to do with the wages the vendors pay, nor even with the "us and them" mentality that goes with that situation. It has to do with the continuing erosion of the standards for aircraft maintenance that we have seen in the last 20 years. There are some endeavors where worrying about cost should be secondary to worrying about safety, and commercial aviation used to be one of those. Even though no airline has ever gone out of business because it spent too much on maintenance, we will soon be able to see if one can go out of business because it spent too little. What constitutes an acceptable loss?
As one of my supervisors at the repair station used to say; "That''s what the airlines have insurance for."
----------------
On 5/19/2003 9:40:33 AM ualdriver wrote:
No one knows what long term effect this outsourcing will have on airline safety. I have my suspicions. If you want to use statistics as your guide, you''re going to have to wait until the full ramifications of these activities become statistically significant. Until then, I guess you and your loved ones can take comfort in the fact that the airplanes/engines you will be flying on at just about every airline will soon be overhauled and repaired by the very best $8/hr mechanics (if they are licensed mechanics!) the MRO industry can find.
----------------
On 5/19/2003 9:40:33 AM ualdriver wrote:
No one knows what long term effect this outsourcing will have on airline safety. I have my suspicions. If you want to use statistics as your guide, you''re going to have to wait until the full ramifications of these activities become statistically significant. Until then, I guess you and your loved ones can take comfort in the fact that the airplanes/engines you will be flying on at just about every airline will soon be overhauled and repaired by the very best $8/hr mechanics (if they are licensed mechanics!) the MRO industry can find.
----------------
All the chicken-littles who predict gloom & doom when maintenance is outsourced always conveniently overlook SWA. A safe, quality product can be obtained...it all depends on how effectively it is managed by the airline. Just like the contractor who builds your house, TRAMCO or any other MRO will likely deliver a product that meets your high standards, only if you make it clear you''ll settle for nothing less. In other words, they''ll give you junk if you''re willing to accept junk. Provided YOUR airline is capable of putting adequate management controls in place to monitor the quality of out-sourced work, you and your family should have no concerns.
----------------
On 5/19/2003 12
35 PM N421LV wrote:
All the chicken-littles who predict gloom & doom when maintenance is outsourced always conveniently overlook SWA. A safe, quality product can be obtained...it all depends on how effectively it is managed by the airline. Just like the contractor who builds your house, TRAMCO or any other MRO will likely deliver a product that meets your high standards, only if you make it clear you'll settle for nothing less. In other words, they'll give you junk if you're willing to accept junk. Provided YOUR airline is capable of putting adequate management controls in place to monitor the quality of out-sourced work, you and your family should have no concerns.
----------------
On 5/19/2003 12
35 PM N421LV wrote: ----------------
On 5/19/2003 9:40:33 AM ualdriver wrote:
No one knows what long term effect this outsourcing will have on airline safety. I have my suspicions. If you want to use statistics as your guide, you're going to have to wait until the full ramifications of these activities become statistically significant. Until then, I guess you and your loved ones can take comfort in the fact that the airplanes/engines you will be flying on at just about every airline will soon be overhauled and repaired by the very best $8/hr mechanics (if they are licensed mechanics!) the MRO industry can find.
----------------
On 5/19/2003 9:40:33 AM ualdriver wrote:
No one knows what long term effect this outsourcing will have on airline safety. I have my suspicions. If you want to use statistics as your guide, you're going to have to wait until the full ramifications of these activities become statistically significant. Until then, I guess you and your loved ones can take comfort in the fact that the airplanes/engines you will be flying on at just about every airline will soon be overhauled and repaired by the very best $8/hr mechanics (if they are licensed mechanics!) the MRO industry can find.
----------------
All the chicken-littles who predict gloom & doom when maintenance is outsourced always conveniently overlook SWA. A safe, quality product can be obtained...it all depends on how effectively it is managed by the airline. Just like the contractor who builds your house, TRAMCO or any other MRO will likely deliver a product that meets your high standards, only if you make it clear you'll settle for nothing less. In other words, they'll give you junk if you're willing to accept junk. Provided YOUR airline is capable of putting adequate management controls in place to monitor the quality of out-sourced work, you and your family should have no concerns.
----------------
Outsourcing of "non-core" activities is perhaps the most prevalent new business model in recent years.
Properly managed, outsourcing:
1) Takes advantage of scale efficiencies of vendors that perform work for multiple customers
2) Allows effective cost management since costs are now directly measureable and controllable
3) Allows scalability - increase volume in up times, decrease in down times
4) Best of all, since outsourcing firms allow suppliers to compete for their business, the suppliers are highly incentified and compete amongst themselves to provide a cost effective, quality product.
My company recently outsourced its IT (personal computer) supply functions to a large supplier. Now, instead of relying oun our IT department to fix a PC which used to take days, our PCs trouble calls are responed to in hours and the quality of service has improved dramitically. Why? Our account is important and they want to keep our business. Customer focus.
When you do the funtion internally, where is the incentive to develop efficiencies? UA maintenance was essentially a "sole source supplier" to United. Any wonder why effiency was low and costs were bloated? If you have only one seller, its called a "monopoly".
Look at Japanese auto manufacturers - some of the biggest adopters of outsourcing in the world. I don't hear many complaints about Toyota quality! In fact, suppliers from all over the world fight to sell to them, and Toyota will not compromise standard, ever.
Yes, its all about managment and what your standards are. If you only look for the cheapest price and just take what you get (just like before hiring Argenbright to do air secruity), well you get what you pay for. If you buy for quality, and closely manage the process and demand the highest standards, well I'm sure that is what you will get. Home building is a great example. If you talk to a buider, you will find that many use the same subcontractors, but the quality is all based on the general contractors standards and how they manage the subs.
----------------
On 5/19/2003 1235 PM N421LV wrote:
All the chicken-littles who predict gloom & doom when maintenance is outsourced always conveniently overlook SWA. A safe, quality product can be obtained...it all depends on how effectively it is managed by the airline. Just like the contractor who builds your house, TRAMCO or any other MRO will likely deliver a product that meets your high standards, only if you make it clear you'll settle for nothing less. In other words, they'll give you junk if you're willing to accept junk. Provided YOUR airline is capable of putting adequate management controls in place to monitor the quality of out-sourced work, you and your family should have no concerns.
----------------
On 5/19/2003 12
35 PM N421LV wrote: All the chicken-littles who predict gloom & doom when maintenance is outsourced always conveniently overlook SWA. A safe, quality product can be obtained...it all depends on how effectively it is managed by the airline. Just like the contractor who builds your house, TRAMCO or any other MRO will likely deliver a product that meets your high standards, only if you make it clear you'll settle for nothing less. In other words, they'll give you junk if you're willing to accept junk. Provided YOUR airline is capable of putting adequate management controls in place to monitor the quality of out-sourced work, you and your family should have no concerns.
----------------
Yet those who always try to use WN as an example of the 'perfect outsourced maintenance airline' conveniently forget that Southwest also does heavy maintenance in-house. From the Southwest website:
[url="http://southwest.com/careers/mxapmech.html"]http://southwest.com/careers/mxapmech.html[/URL]
"Line Maintenance -Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Oakland, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Tampa Bay
Intermediate (B&C Checks) Maintenance - Phoenix, Houston and Dallas
Heavy Maintenance - Dallas"
Since WN does not do things without a reason, there must be a reason they keep the ability to do heavy maintenance in house.
N.C. Crash Investigators Eye Maintenance
By LESLIE MILLER
Associated Press Writer
Published May 20, 2003, 4:36 PM CDT
WASHINGTON -- Safety investigators zeroed in Tuesday on airplane maintenance by outside contractors at a hearing into the cause of the plane crash that killed 21 people in Charlotte, N.C., on Jan. 8.
At the same time, the National Transportation Safety Board released transcripts of the cockpit voice recorder on doomed US Airways Express Flight 5481, recounting its harrowing last seconds.
The 19-seat Beech 1900, which plunged to earth 37 seconds after takeoff, was found to have improperly set turnbuckles, which control tension on elevator control cables. If a cable is too slack, the pilot does not have full control of the elevator, a tail flap that moves up and down and causes the plane to climb or dive.
The crew of the plane apparently didn't have enough control of the elevator to pull the plane out of a steep climb on takeoff, which caused the wings to lose their lift and the plane to dive, according to the NTSB's investigator in charge, Lorenda Ward.
The elevator control cables were adjusted two nights before the crash at a repair station owned by a company other than the airline; that company, in turn, hired mechanics from another company.
The hearing raised the issue of whether the Federal Aviation Administration should oversee outsourced maintenance facilities more closely.
Though major airlines, except for Southwest, perform their own maintenance, many smaller airlines, corporate jets and the U.S. military outsource their maintenance. Big airlines struggling to become profitable again are expected to rely more heavily on outsourced maintenance.
Passengers who died in the Charlotte plane crash may not have realized that they were traveling on a plane owned by Air Midwest, which had an agreement with US Airways Express.
"Passengers expect that when the US Airways name appears on any flights, that these flights will be operated and maintained to US Airways' high standards," said David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association.
Air Midwest outsourced its maintenance to Raytheon Aerospace, which is 74 percent owned by Veritas Capital Inc. Raytheon Aerospace hired contract mechanics from Structural Modification and Repair Technicians Inc. (SMART).
On the night the Beech 1900 underwent maintenance, there were no Air Midwest representatives at the hangar. The Raytheon supervisor who was teaching the mechanic to adjust the elevator control cables also signed off on his work, a questionable practice under the regulations.
"Air Midwest let US Airways down by not providing proper oversight," Stempler said.
Another factor contributing to the crash may have been weight. The plane was judged to be within 100 pounds of its weight limit. Too much weight can change a small plane's center of gravity and make it much more difficult to fly.
The aircraft's data recorder showed an unusual up-and-down motion of the elevator control on all nine flights it took following the maintenance work, investigators have said. The flight that crashed was carrying the heaviest load since the elevator cables were adjusted, investigators said.
The cockpit voice recorder transcripts show Capt. Katie Leslie and co-pilot Jonathan Gibbs discussing the plane's weight.
Their conversation turned frantic as the plane took off from Charlotte-Douglas International Airport.
"Help me," Leslie said. Gibbs swore.
"Oh, my God," said Leslie, who then radioed the control tower, "We have an emergency."
A child yelled, "Daddy!"
Warning horns sounded. "Pull the power back," Leslie said. "Oh my God."
The hearing is expected to last two days. The safety board will probably take months to issue a final report and recommendations.
All but three people working on the plane were contractors who were supposed to have
been trained on flight control rigging per the regulations.
Hope it isnt any of us that end up on a cvr tape.
* __
By LESLIE MILLER
Associated Press Writer
Published May 20, 2003, 4:36 PM CDT
WASHINGTON -- Safety investigators zeroed in Tuesday on airplane maintenance by outside contractors at a hearing into the cause of the plane crash that killed 21 people in Charlotte, N.C., on Jan. 8.
At the same time, the National Transportation Safety Board released transcripts of the cockpit voice recorder on doomed US Airways Express Flight 5481, recounting its harrowing last seconds.
The 19-seat Beech 1900, which plunged to earth 37 seconds after takeoff, was found to have improperly set turnbuckles, which control tension on elevator control cables. If a cable is too slack, the pilot does not have full control of the elevator, a tail flap that moves up and down and causes the plane to climb or dive.
The crew of the plane apparently didn't have enough control of the elevator to pull the plane out of a steep climb on takeoff, which caused the wings to lose their lift and the plane to dive, according to the NTSB's investigator in charge, Lorenda Ward.
The elevator control cables were adjusted two nights before the crash at a repair station owned by a company other than the airline; that company, in turn, hired mechanics from another company.
The hearing raised the issue of whether the Federal Aviation Administration should oversee outsourced maintenance facilities more closely.
Though major airlines, except for Southwest, perform their own maintenance, many smaller airlines, corporate jets and the U.S. military outsource their maintenance. Big airlines struggling to become profitable again are expected to rely more heavily on outsourced maintenance.
Passengers who died in the Charlotte plane crash may not have realized that they were traveling on a plane owned by Air Midwest, which had an agreement with US Airways Express.
"Passengers expect that when the US Airways name appears on any flights, that these flights will be operated and maintained to US Airways' high standards," said David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association.
Air Midwest outsourced its maintenance to Raytheon Aerospace, which is 74 percent owned by Veritas Capital Inc. Raytheon Aerospace hired contract mechanics from Structural Modification and Repair Technicians Inc. (SMART).
On the night the Beech 1900 underwent maintenance, there were no Air Midwest representatives at the hangar. The Raytheon supervisor who was teaching the mechanic to adjust the elevator control cables also signed off on his work, a questionable practice under the regulations.
"Air Midwest let US Airways down by not providing proper oversight," Stempler said.
Another factor contributing to the crash may have been weight. The plane was judged to be within 100 pounds of its weight limit. Too much weight can change a small plane's center of gravity and make it much more difficult to fly.
The aircraft's data recorder showed an unusual up-and-down motion of the elevator control on all nine flights it took following the maintenance work, investigators have said. The flight that crashed was carrying the heaviest load since the elevator cables were adjusted, investigators said.
The cockpit voice recorder transcripts show Capt. Katie Leslie and co-pilot Jonathan Gibbs discussing the plane's weight.
Their conversation turned frantic as the plane took off from Charlotte-Douglas International Airport.
"Help me," Leslie said. Gibbs swore.
"Oh, my God," said Leslie, who then radioed the control tower, "We have an emergency."
A child yelled, "Daddy!"
Warning horns sounded. "Pull the power back," Leslie said. "Oh my God."
The hearing is expected to last two days. The safety board will probably take months to issue a final report and recommendations.
All but three people working on the plane were contractors who were supposed to have
been trained on flight control rigging per the regulations.
Hope it isnt any of us that end up on a cvr tape.
* __
----------------
On 5/20/2003 1:00:45 PM NWA/AMT wrote:
Yet those who always try to use WN as an example of the ''perfect outsourced maintenance airline'' conveniently forget that Southwest also does heavy maintenance in-house. From the Southwest website:
http://southwest.com/careers/mxapmech.html
"Line Maintenance -Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Oakland, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Tampa Bay
Intermediate (B&C Checks) Maintenance - Phoenix, Houston and Dallas
Heavy Maintenance - Dallas"
Since WN does not do things without a reason, there must be a reason they keep the ability to do heavy maintenance in house.
----------------
On 5/20/2003 1:00:45 PM NWA/AMT wrote:
Yet those who always try to use WN as an example of the ''perfect outsourced maintenance airline'' conveniently forget that Southwest also does heavy maintenance in-house. From the Southwest website:
http://southwest.com/careers/mxapmech.html
"Line Maintenance -Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Oakland, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Tampa Bay
Intermediate (B&C Checks) Maintenance - Phoenix, Houston and Dallas
Heavy Maintenance - Dallas"
Since WN does not do things without a reason, there must be a reason they keep the ability to do heavy maintenance in house.
----------------
I''m sure the reason is $$$$$. Some jobs are cheaper to do in-house, some are not. Yes, SWA does both quite well. What''s your point?
But ualflynhi, didn''t you read Segue''s post? Didn''t you read about the 4 wonderful benefits of outsourcing MRO activities? He made a list for us. Didn''t you read about Toyota quality and his company''s success outsourcing COMPUTERS?
*****Air Midwest outsourced its maintenance to Raytheon Aerospace, which is 74 percent owned by Veritas Capital Inc. Raytheon Aerospace hired contract mechanics from Structural Modification and Repair Technicians Inc******
*****Air Midwest outsourced its maintenance to Raytheon Aerospace, which is 74 percent owned by Veritas Capital Inc. Raytheon Aerospace hired contract mechanics from Structural Modification and Repair Technicians Inc******
----------------
On 5/20/2003 11:07:43 PM N421LV wrote:
I''m sure the reason is $$$$$. Some jobs are cheaper to do in-house, some are not. Yes, SWA does both quite well. What''s your point?
----------------
The point should be obvious: a "C check" is a "C check" and "Heavy maintenance" is "Heavy maintenance" - it''s the SAME job, with only minor variations, rather than being different from what they send to the vendors. As it is the same job, your argument that it''s cheaper to do "some jobs" in-house contradicts your previous inference that it was cheaper to do the same job outside.
At WN the trend for the last ten years has actually been to bring a larger percentage in house - as their fleet has increased the total amount of work to be performed has increased, yet so has the percentage of that total that is done in-house. If the solution to the current state of the airline industry, according to all the pundits, is to copy Southwest, perhaps they should think twice before dismantling their in-house maintenance infrastructure.
On 5/20/2003 11:07:43 PM N421LV wrote:
I''m sure the reason is $$$$$. Some jobs are cheaper to do in-house, some are not. Yes, SWA does both quite well. What''s your point?
----------------
The point should be obvious: a "C check" is a "C check" and "Heavy maintenance" is "Heavy maintenance" - it''s the SAME job, with only minor variations, rather than being different from what they send to the vendors. As it is the same job, your argument that it''s cheaper to do "some jobs" in-house contradicts your previous inference that it was cheaper to do the same job outside.
At WN the trend for the last ten years has actually been to bring a larger percentage in house - as their fleet has increased the total amount of work to be performed has increased, yet so has the percentage of that total that is done in-house. If the solution to the current state of the airline industry, according to all the pundits, is to copy Southwest, perhaps they should think twice before dismantling their in-house maintenance infrastructure.
Like it or not, outsourcing will become more prevalent in aviation, like it has in so many industries. The challenge to the workers of UAL is to keep this from happening by making it less attractive. To do this, you must do more with less. A relentless drive to more efficiency. If you don't, you will accelerate the shift - not just to outside (US) vendors, but to other countries as well. Think about who your competition is, lest history continually repeat itself.
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
----------------
On 5/22/2003 12:13:02 PM Segue wrote:
Like it or not, outsourcing will become more prevalent in aviation, like it has in so many industries. The challenge to the workers of UAL is to keep this from happening by making it less attractive. To do this, you must do more with less. A relentless drive to more efficiency. If you don''t, you will accelerate the shift - not just to outside (US) vendors, but to other countries as well. Think about who your competition is, lest history continually repeat itself.
----------------
Agreed that outsourcing of maintenance (is) will happen!!!On 5/22/2003 12:13:02 PM Segue wrote:
Like it or not, outsourcing will become more prevalent in aviation, like it has in so many industries. The challenge to the workers of UAL is to keep this from happening by making it less attractive. To do this, you must do more with less. A relentless drive to more efficiency. If you don''t, you will accelerate the shift - not just to outside (US) vendors, but to other countries as well. Think about who your competition is, lest history continually repeat itself.
----------------
However, I will not agree to work for wages that our outsource competitors are willing to pay. If, in you analysis, you consider cost greater than experience, and safety, then you have achieved your goal. Historically, by moving the unionized garment industry to the south to take advantage of people willingly seeking jobs at less pay was a good move. When southern workers demanded a ''living'' wage, and working environment, the production was moved to third world ''Child Labor Sweat Shops''.
If this is your cost justification, then you can bite my a$$.
Being a ''social conscience'' investor, the ''least'' that our corporations could do is to offer US minimum wage, and US minimum environmental protections.
Has this happened?
NFW!!!
Instead of meeting ''our'' minimum, we have no compulsion in poring (OUR) industrial byproduct into ''THEIR ENVIRONMENT'' according to ''THEIR'' minimum standard
(if it even exists).
Our corporate entities are ''ROBBER BARONS''!!!
No more, No Less!!!
IMHO,
UT
PS
The difference between a life of a one-year widget, and a three-year widget is two years.
(Other than CO$T)
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
----------------
On 6/4/2003 9:25:36 PM Segue wrote:
I love my Japanese car, my quality furniture made in Mexico, and my Chinese made clothes. If the companies that made those things are robber barons, that I must be a common theif!!! Blame me for buying all those great goods at low prices!
----------------
Thanks, nice twist, but you ''folks'' are always good at it!!!On 6/4/2003 9:25:36 PM Segue wrote:
I love my Japanese car, my quality furniture made in Mexico, and my Chinese made clothes. If the companies that made those things are robber barons, that I must be a common theif!!! Blame me for buying all those great goods at low prices!
----------------
Think I''ll stick to my Jeep, and American Drew!!!
IMHO,
UT
I love my Japanese car, my quality furniture made in Mexico, and my Chinese made clothes. If the companies that made those things are robber barons, that I must be a common theif!!! Blame me for buying all those great goods at low prices!
