Efohdee From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 214 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 3378 times:
Thats what you call farming out maintenance to the cheapest bidder. There goes all our jobs, overseas. This will become a major problem in the coming years, escpecially with a lot of major carriers having financial trouble. ugh.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 68
Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3324 times:
HAWK21M, as far as I know, wherever JetBlue (or any other airline) sends their planes, the station has to be certified to the same level as a station within the respective home-country has to be, so the question of safety, or lack thereof - usually - doesn't arise.
As for being effective - some airlines send their planes, empty, halfway around the globe to have maintenance done, so I guess it's pretty effective.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3315 times:
Please, no anti-JetBlue nonsense because it sends its planes out of the US to do maintainance.......every US carrier does it. I am not the biggest JetBlue fan in the whole world, but outsourcing of maintainance has become standard industry procedure and JetBlue should not get bad rap for doing it.
Of course JetBlue has spent less on maintainance thus far than other carriers, their fleet is brand new and for the most part under warranty......who spends more on a car maintance, a woman with a 2004 vehicle or a man with a 1986 car?
Srbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3192 times:
The engines that Delta and ValuJet sent to Turkey for overhaul were done at a certified repair station, too. They used defective replacement parts and somebody died.
The Valujet a/c fire on the runway @ ATL was one of engines they bought in the deal with THY for some of their DC-9-30s (along with engines and parts), but the a/c itself was an ex-DL DC-9-30. At that time, the maintenance records on those a/c and engines was spotty at best, Valujet did not use them as a repair station, they just bought a/c and spares from THY, so caveat emptor, as they probably assumed everything was on the level. The engine that failed and caused this fire was overhauled in 1991, some 4 years prior to the incident, and two years prior to Valujet's start.
The DL MD-88 engine failure @ PNS was not an engine overhauled or purchased from Turkey or any other country. The NTSB report:
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
the fracture of the left engine's front compressor fan hub, which resulted from the failure of Delta Air Lines' fluorescent penetrant inspection process to detect a detectable fatigue crack initiating from an area of altered microstructure that was created during the drilling process by Volvo for Pratt & Whitney and that went undetected at the time of manufacture. Contributing to the accident was the lack of sufficient redundancy in the in-service inspection program. (NTSB Report AAR-98/01)
Delta does not farm out too much if any of their a/c maintenance; on the other hand, Delta TechOps does do heavy maintenance and engine maintenance for a number of airlines, like Air France, World Airways, Air Berlin, and even the US military.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 24315 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3150 times:
I'm not sure why we are differentiating between foreign and domestic third-party m/x. After all, the m/x on US 5481 was done in HTS. While some may consider West Virginia another country, it doesn't sound like outsourcing to me.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Wbmech From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3094 times:
Do you really want to fly on A/C overhauled by third-party providers? Is it really as safe as the FAA wants you to believe? Think about this, most of the work is being performed by unlicensed mechanics only to be signed off by the few qualified mechanics working at the provider. Many time FAA mandated background checks and drug tests are not given. Especially foreign providers. However if the government says this double standard is safe, it must be. The public doesn't care, just give them their $69 airfares.
Aa717driver From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1566 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (11 years 2 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3081 times:
Sorry, SRB, I've always been told it was an engine sent out for work...
I'm afraid many companies have become mainc about cost cutting and are willing to compromise safety for profit. This is not specifically directed against JetBlue. In other words, some will take the chance (when given a choice) to cut a corner which may not, on its face, directly compromise safety but will contribute to the sum of many cuts that will eventually cause a safety problem. (I'm sure there is a less cumbersome way to say that but I got in a verbal box canyon! )TC
Crosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2636 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (11 years 2 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3071 times:
Outsourcing should be criminal. PERIOD.
I work for an airline that outsources all our heavy mx so I'm interested in your ridiculous comment.
When we started operation with 2 757s, how could the company possibly have coped with the expense of setting up their own heavy maintenance operation for 2 aircraft?
Nearly 20 years down the line, most of the work is still undertaken by the same third-party contractor - Monarch Airlines Engineering. In fact we are now a larger airline than Monarch, but since they already have the necessary infastructure in place and almost 40 years experience they continue as a the prime supplier of heavy maintenance for us, the cost of setting up our own hangar and infastructure would still be prohibitive. Whenever one of our aircraft is in somebody else's hangar there is an on-site team of airline engineers who supervise the whole process, and ensure the aircraft is maintained in line with our approved maintenance programme.
But by your rekoning it's safe for Monarch to maintain their own fleet of aircraft, but unsafe for them to maintain our almost identical fleet and should be illegal.
How many airlines would survive the startup phase if they all had to complete all heavy maintenance in-house? Pretty close to none - and the success rate for new carriers is appalling as it is.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (11 years 2 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3055 times:
Be careful where you are going here....
If Delta does some maintainance work on an Air France 777, thats OK because the work is done in the US. If Lufthansa does some work on a United A320, that is probably also OK since the Germans know what they are doing (after all, they build all those great cars, so they can probably fix an airplane), and CO does not take too much heat for having maintainance work done on their 777s in Hong Kong because, after all, if the work done in Hong Kong is good enough for Cathay Pacific it must be good enough for Continental. But, after reading this discussion, it seems that if JetBlue (along with many other operators) sends planes to El Salvador for maintainance they are doing something bad and its likely to kill its passengers, since reliable good quality work cannot possibly be done in Latin American country at a facility in El Salvador which happens to be certified by the FAA? That is nonsense.
As much as we dont like it, airlines will contract out maintainance work to foreign facilities to save money, to get better service, or to meet time schedules. Outsourcing is a controversial issue, I understand and respect that viewpoint - however, the fact that JetBlue or other airlines use facilities in El Salvador does not mean that they are getting 2nd rate maintainance or cutting corners that may lead to accidents. Those are two totally seperate issues.
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 6053 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (11 years 2 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3039 times:
I don't think you can lump all 3rd-party vendors together, nor can you suggest that "foreign" maintenance is per-se inferior. Depends upon where you send the stuff. Many countries have reputations for excellence in skilled manufacturing: Germany, Japan, Switzerland, for example. Indeed, some workers in those three countries look *down* at the quality of American work and workers, as opposed to what they see as their own superior, detail-obsessed meticulousness. Other places can be good or bad, depending upon who is doing the work and who is supervising it, regardless of country.
The issue of keeping jobs in the US is a different issue, and one that cuts both ways: we want to do maint for foreign carriers (and we do) and we want them to buy our planes. The issue of whether the country benefits as a whole when we have freer trade is one that economists and activists will debate forever. Heck, in the early 80s, people were actually saying that it was "unfair" for companies to move jobs from Ohio to Texas (i.e. from the rustbelt to the sunbelt). Imagine if we had trade barriers between states! Bottom line is that the folks who are losing complain and the folks who are gaining often don't gloat, so you usually just see the losses without the gains.
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3813 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (11 years 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2987 times:
See, they ARE doing maintenance... TC
Hopefully you (and others of objective mind) have seen from the start that the Jet Blue "no maintnance" myth is nothing more than one of the many straws at which myopic legacy-lovers grasp in attempting to advance their never-ending agenda of attempting to discredit any and every LCC who dares demonstrate that a bloated, convoluted product is not necessary to succeed in the airline business.
The legacy-lovers simply cannot face the fact that their cherished legacies cannot survive with their high cost business models that attempt to be all things to all people and the high-cost, high-maintenance, low-yield customers with covetous freeloader mindsets that their product creates. So somehow or other, by creating myths about jetBlue, Southwest and other legitimate LCCs, they suppose they will somehow preserve the legacy status quo.
Efohdee From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 214 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (11 years 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2936 times:
To explain the anger over outsourcing a little better for those who dont understand. A lot of it comes from national pride and patriotism, and to have a large company go "traitor" , head overseas to cut costs and corners on maintenance, which is a safety of flight issue. How would anyone like it if their employer laid them off becuase they "cost too much", hired some yahoo somewhere else to sign off the same work for $4.00 an hour, and I cant believe the same quality and safety of work cannot be totally assured. Yes the rules apply the same such as FAR's and airline regs, but to enforce that so far away is a joke. Does anyone really think the third party provider workforce has the same level of training, all licensed, inspection scrutiny, quality minded?? Read, speak, and understand the English language?
I am trying not to draw national lines, but us here in the US here feel the pich here especially lately in the last few years. So we feel it is a treasonous stab in the back by our corporate employers and fellow aviation businesses when we are rejected for some shadetree somewhere else. All in the name of profit.
Even airlines outsourcing locally to low cost contractors can be questionable. I have met quite a few who have worked for such places. And they have shrared quite a few stories about working condtions, quality, saftey of flight, low pay, long hours, bad moral, no training or experienced people, the list goes on.
Flyibaby From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1021 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (11 years 2 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2899 times:
Look, if TACA is doing the MX, I don't see a problem. Airlines such as TACA actually join codeshares such as the OneWorld allaince and actually send people to the US in large numbers via AA and so on. I haven't seen a news release reffering to anyone of their a/c going down, so I really don't see the need to belittle them for doing MX in El Salvador. With regard to questionable work, B6 and other airliners send a good staff of people as foremen and project managers with the aircraft while they are being serviced. This is done for quality control. I am an american, and I see no problem with this. All for a profit? No, all to keep a company healthy enough to save the rest of its jobs. Not only is bad management to blame for airlines such as US and UA, its the unions who think a baggage handler with 10 years of employment is worth $20 an hour. Imagine what the cost would be to pay a unionized mechanic to perform a C or D check in the US. If we are paying $15-20 an hour for a baggage handler, I think we can all do the math. Until someone can show me a method of doing things at an affordable rate for an airline, everyone needs to get off their soapbox and let an airline run things the way they are.
Jetbluefan1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3149 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (11 years 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2843 times:
I couldn't have said it any better.
On another note, while people are complaining about outsourcing, JetBlue isn't the only one to blame. Almost every U.S airline - if not all - outsource their Mx assignments. But what about when you call that 1-800 number? I called DL several weeks ago to reserve a seat by using my Skymiles, and I was calling into Bombay, India. However, if I'm calling into JetBlue, I'm calling an American in Salt Lake City, USA.
While I don't agree that outsourcing is the healthiest for the economy, perhaps the U.S government should look and see why so much is outsourced. Can someone say "taxes?"
Remember, people in other countries need jobs too, not just Americans. And I highly doubt that by outsourcing Mx, corners are being cut. An airline's number one priority - especially JetBlue (who installed bullet proof cockpit doors first and also installed safety video cameras throughout the cabin, along with having an annual training session for flight attendants in case of a hijacking) - is safety.