Kahala777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2315 times:
There has been a thread started in regards to a hole punctured by a non-union outsourced handler from Alaska Airline. Exactly how safe is is for Northwest Airlines, Alaska Airlines, and other airlines to continue to outsource the safety of the airline industry?
NonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2307 times:
Quoting Kahala777 (Thread starter): There has been a thread started in regards to a hole punctured by a non-union outsourced handler from Alaska Airline. Exactly how safe is is for Northwest Airlines, Alaska Airlines, and other airlines to continue to outsource the safety of the airline industry?
Kahala777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2290 times:
Quoting NonRevKing (Reply 1): Would this include Jetblue, who outsources it's heavy MX to El Salvadore?
Yes, this does include Jet Blue...
Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 2): How did I figure he would list Northwest first? Anyway, guess what Kahala your beloved United Airlines is outsourcing its maintnence to Hong Kong! OH NOOO say it isnt true!
Yes, this does include United Airlines....
The topic is meant to include all airlines that charge out aircraft upkeep and safety.
DouglasDC8 From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2233 times:
It's safe if the airline keeps an eye on their vendor. In my experience, some airlines seem to be better at this than others. Don't count on the FAA to keep the aviation system safe. They never have enough manpower to keep a close watch on anything.
Qutaiba From Kuwait, joined Dec 2005, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 2178 times:
I believe that there are rules for 'continued monitoring & surveilance' by airlines given in ( I think) FAR 145, they talk about the responsibility of an airline even if the work is done by another party, and what the airline should ensure about the quality & documentation that party should perform. FAR 145 also
And speaking from experience, yes outsourcing is safe, and several airlines worldwide outsource, many of whom have excellent safety record.
It is best done by balancing the matter between quality and cost through an approperiate selection matrix, where bottom line costs do not overweigh the decision vs. the quality of work (as they say: quality does not come cheap).
777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12473 posts, RR: 17
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 2175 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Zkojh (Reply 9): well the bosses at NZ are sending there heavy works off shore to Europe and China, at a cost of a few job losses!!
This is the second time this has happened. The previous time this happened, NZ had headachs repairing their aircraft that was sent overseas for heavy MX. Obviously NZ bosses havnt learnt the hard way yet, hopefully it wont end in a crash.
Apodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4323 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2065 times:
I read something about a recent FAA audit of Airline Maintenance. It found that much of the MX is being outsourced to facilities that aren't even certified by the FAA. Apparently the rule is, as long as the mechanic has an FAA A and P, they are good, regardless if the repair shop is certified or not. In my opinion, this is a major problem, becase I believe that if a repair shop is doing work on an airline, the shop should be certified by the FAA, otherwise you have accountability issues, and I think the airline could face even more lawsuits as a result.
Swissy From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1739 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 1986 times:
Globe Ground (Hudson) is no longer it is now Serviceair, however in realitly it comes down to proper pricing of the out sourced work, the competiton is so great they are under biting each other like there is no tomorrow and the result is.... cutting some corners.
I know all these company's have polices and procedures in place but with such a small margin training is suffering..........the hourly rate is low....
Ca2ohHP From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 955 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1959 times:
Nearly every airline in the world outsources some part of their operation. B6 outsources their ramp at KBUR, FJ is handled by AA at KLAX, to name a few. These companies are required (in the United States) by the FAA to be trained under the respective carriers training program.
Quoting BigOrange (Reply 14): In the UK most ramp operations have been outsourced for years, with the exception of BA/BD, plus a few others at LHR who used other airlines for ground handling.
Large parts of British Airways and bmi handling is now outsourced, British Midland's handling division was sold off to Aviance several years ago, and even at major UK station while bmi staff handle some of the face-to-face passenger handling, the below-wing functions are carried out by Aviance at virtually all stations. Same with British Airways at Manchester, with below-wing handling carried out by Ringway Handling.
In my opinion outsourcing ground handling is safe, or at least no more dangerous than doing it yourself.
Self-handling airlines wouldn't in general be paying their staff much higher wages, but the overall costs of self-handling are a lot higher because you generally cannot use your staff and equipment efficiently just to cover your own flights, whereas a handling agent can will divide staff and equipment over several different airlines, generating economies of scale and also keeping staff occupied on other airline's flights during your quiet periods.
All US carriers outsource ground-handling at international stations, I wouldn't say their international operations were less safe than their domestic operations because the ground handling is outsourced.
Plus ground-handling is far more than loading and pushback crews, fueling and catering is already outsourced by virtually every airline on the face of the planet, everywhere. A fuel or catering truck is just as likely to be unsafe around an aircraft if all due care isn't taken as a baggage belt or airbridge...
For all those who are calling for those who cause damage to aircraft to be immediately dismissed or disciplined are missing one of the major factors in unreported ground-damage of aircraft: fear of reprisal. Many ramp workers are fairly low paid, and could be reluctant to jeapordise their only family income for damage which to them seems like just a scratch, even though a paint scratch may be outside SRM limits.
My airline operates a "no-blame" policy for damage caused by ground-handling staff. This is for one reason only - safety. The company wants people to report all damage, as soon as it occurs, without fear of personal reprisals. Most costs are recovered by insurance anyway, but the costs of a major accident caused by unreported ground damage could be enough to fold the company. It just isn't worth it.
Latest policy to reduce possibility of unreported ground damage is for pilots to complete their walkaround as late as practically possible in the turnaround to minimise chances of damage occuring afterwards. At one point it was usual for the crew to complete the walkaround shortly after arrival to check for damage sustained on the previous flight, that emphasis has now changed.
Aa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3350 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 1899 times:
This is a weird question. What if an airline had employees that had no union and were paid $8 an hour and then outsourced it to a company represented by TWU and were paid, say, $11.50 an hour. Would it be unsafe then?
No offense to rampers here, but the job isn't exactly open heart surgery. Almost anyone - if properly trained - could do the job. Maybe not well, but it would get done.
And what does it matter if there is a union or not? It's the FAAs job to make sure procedures are being done correctly, not Teamster's. It's OSHA's job to make sure workers are working in a safe environment, not IAM's.
DL1011 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 386 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week ago) and read 1851 times:
The question of outsourcing tends to produce some very heated comments, both for and against.
My comments are based only on my observations and experience over the past 18 years, working ramp and mtc.
My comments and observations are also focused on the US industry. No disrespect intended for the other-then-US readers, but other then knowing that the training requirements for Western European Engineers is higher then the FAA A&P, I know nil about other countries procedures.
As far as ramp goes, there doesn't seem to be a middle ground. If you use a contract company, the wages are very low with poor to no benefits. I think Menzies in SEA is paying about 9 bucks an hour with no benefits and from reading the news articles, they have a HUGE turnover rate. That means the experience level is always low and one has to wonder if there is time for proper training and safety. The recent Alaska damage only highlites the risks.
On the other hand, I don't think a ramp job should be a career. It's a tough, hard job and while I enjoyed it for the couple of years that I worked it, I wouldn't want to do it now.
Outsourced mtc is a whole different beast. I absolutely think that the trend to outsource is very dangerous and driven ONLY by money. I do not believe and probably will never believe that a third party provider can produce as high a quality product as an in house mtc department.
The third party providers tend to pay less, provide fewer benefits and DO NOT require an A&P certificate. The local third party provider does not require ANY aircraft experience at all! I also suspect that background checks and drug screening requirements are not as tight.
FAA oversight is lacking and their staffing levels are way too low to provide proper enforcement. The dual mandate of promoting aviation and providing oversight sets up a conflict right out of the box. If an Inspector is too tough on an airline, a complaint by the airline will bring pressure on the Inspector to back off.
Aogdesk From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 935 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1820 times:
Quoting LN-MOW (Reply 4): It all comes down to training and procedures.
Thats not entirely true. You can develop the best training procedures and guidelines in the industry, but ensuring that they're adhered to on a consistent basis becomes extremely difficult. In the case of outsourced maintenance (I'll stay away from ground handling, not my area of expertise), how do you ensure proper quality control when one licensed mechanic/engineer is 'overseeing' the work of a dozen unlicensed laborers? Is it realistic that safety and quality work will trump economics when a third party Mx provider is swimming in red ink? Who is actually and pragmatically accountable? Does that person(s) have a vested interest in the airworthiness of that aircraft, or does their performance bonus matter more than letting an "insignificant" problem ride?
You can dismiss this as a union diatribe, but this is real world stuff. I'm not claiming that the sky is falling, but the questions about outsourcing are valid.
Miamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1709 times:
In the US, it is the Air Carrier's responsibility to oversee the maintenance that is outsourced. Since the Air Carrier is operating under an FAA certificate, the FAA oversees the Air Carrier. We operate under a 145 certificate, so the FAA oversees us as well. The Air Carriers do audits, which in some case are more in depth than what the FAA does.
There are large 145s in the US that get major 121 work. For example, Delta has Avborne Heavy Maintenance doing MD-88 and B737 checks. Mobile Aerospace, TIMCO, Lockheed/Greenville, Goodyear all get major work.
But, and here is what I have a problem with...I have seen a DC-8 go down south(South America) for a heavy check. I remembered seeing a crack in a lower wing, trailing edge panel (Not the wing skin) which was about 2.5-in. long. When the airplane returned 10 days later, the crack was still there. It had been "pencil whipped." Either that or Mr. Magoo was the inspector and never got written up; but it was very hard to miss.
You get what you pay for. Labor rates at US 145s are in the high 30s to low 40s per man hour. Go to Central America and you get three guys for the price of one. Most of the repair technicians do not read or understand English. Why is this important you ask? Because the technical data is in ENGLISH. Someone has to read, comprehend and accomplish the instructions accordingly. Their personal tools leave a lot to be desired, and a lot of tools are improvised. But, yes another one, I have seen some structural work that is a work of art(in Colombia), that I would have expect from an old "tin pecker" here in the US.
I have experienced both foreign and domestic repair stations and don't have a problem with either, so long as the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed, i.e. follow the regs, and have a personal sense of responsibility and accountability.
Obviously not if you're an AS MD80 on the SEA Ramp.
As I mentioned in the thread on the AS incident . . . . outsourcing provides no one doing that job any incentive to do a good or better job. None. The employees working for the outsource provider do not have any "ownership" in the company for which they are working.
In the case of the AS Incident, what does Menzies contractor ramp widget give a hoot about AS?? Certainly they do not. And it wouldn't matter if it was AS, UA, DL, CO . . . . if Menzies loses the contract, it will likely be picked up by some other company and the widget(s) simply transferred over to the new company. . . that is simply how contracting works in alot of instances.
AS screwed themselves in this case as the number of accidents on the ramp has increased markedly, from 9 last year to over 70 under Menzies.
My take on any outsourcing - "be careful what you wish for/pay for - you may get it".
In the case of AS: lousy, lazy, inadequate, questionable integrity support. S is throwing good $$$ after bad.
GlobeTrekker From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 851 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1584 times:
From a ground handling point of view:
I started my career as an outsourcing CSA for KLM in Aruba. First I worked for an airline that handled KLM (Air Aruba) and later Menzies. At Menzies KLM paid for what is called "dedicated staff"... meaning that the Menzies agents wore KLM uniforms and were trained by KLM on location or in Amsterdam. This included Passenger Handling, Baggage Services, Operations and Maintenance.
We even got flight benefits, although restricted. Menzies was monitored by KLM Station Management on every aspect and once every quarter Management Outstations would come to AUA to audit us.
Later I crossed over to KLM. Same uniform, same training. Only now my job (together with Station Management) was to monitor the ground handling at AUA, CUR, BON and SXM. We made sure KLM's procedures were carried out, that product knowledge was optimal and we tried to stimulate the agents to "think blue".
Line Maintenance in AUA, BON, CUR and SXM was now done in-house by KLM Engineering & Maintenance.
The goal that we at KLM Station Management tried to achieve is to create one big KLM family, no matter where your paycheck came from. Some non-KLM staff feel ownership for the company, while others do not.
The company that handles KLM also handle other carriers, however KLM does not allow for the agent to "cross-over", unless for special circumstances. We noticed a major surge in service excellence, when we started to provide flight benefits. They got unlimited flight passes on KLM... boy did that make a difference!
But considering the money KLM saves by outsourcing (a lot!!) it's the only way to do things nowadays. KLM and Swissport have a worldwide agreement in outsourcing.
On the other hand I see AA does self-handling (above the wing) at a small station like AUA. I find that amazing! That must cost a lot of $$$. UA, DL and CO are all handled by third-party handlers with dedicated staff... so everyone wears the airline uniform and is trained in IAD, ATL and EWR.
The World Is A Book And Those Who Do Not Travel Read Only A Page
: You hit the nail on the head! I have seen plenty of outsourced work come back as "questionable", not necessarily a safety issue, but poorly done. The
: In some cases outsourcing the work is the safer option. Yes I really said that. I used to work for a 135 operator who operated a couple of Lears. Lear
: L-188 you are talking about a whole different type of outsourcing.Many operators do this for special items because that is a major part of what the ot
: As far as if it is safe? Just compare the numbers of incidents from the loyal and dedicated employees versus the numbers from the "outsource" employee