77H
Topic Author
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:24 am

Good Evening All,

I have a simple question regarding the cost differentials between using in-house maintenance and out-sourcing.
I was scrolling through the UA Fleet thread and seeing the posts about aircraft being ferried to 3rd party MROs got me thinking.

Many airlines have elected to out source maintenance to 3rd party vendors, often overseas. It’s reasonable to assume that there is a cost saving by outsourcing, even when the aircraft must be ferried long haul to the MRO or the practice would not be so common. My question is how large is the cost differential when all things are considered, such as ferry costs.

Is there anything that can be done to tip the scales in favor of insourcing, Government subsidies, tax-breaks perhaps?

It should be noted I have no skin in the game here and am not advocating for or against either option. Simply curious. I should also note I’m generally against government intervening financially in the private sector, I simply brought it up as the benefit to insourcing is that it creates skilled labor jobs with decent pay. Something that arguably benefits both the company, community and the government.
If the cost differential is relatively minor, in theory any subsidy or tax break would only need to cover the differential and the cost to build facilities in the carrier’s home country.

77H
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2441
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:57 am

77H wrote:
Good Evening All,

I have a simple question regarding the cost differentials between using in-house maintenance and out-sourcing.
I was scrolling through the UA Fleet thread and seeing the posts about aircraft being ferried to 3rd party MROs got me thinking.

Many airlines have elected to out source maintenance to 3rd party vendors, often overseas. It’s reasonable to assume that there is a cost saving by outsourcing, even when the aircraft must be ferried long haul to the MRO or the practice would not be so common. My question is how large is the cost differential when all things are considered, such as ferry costs.

Is there anything that can be done to tip the scales in favor of insourcing, Government subsidies, tax-breaks perhaps?


77H


It's actually a lot easier than that: just *underpay* your workers. Or in other words, adjust the payscale of western, rich countries, to those of a developing economy. Pretty sure it is going to happen. Not an IF, but a WHEN.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 6196
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:10 pm

77H wrote:
Simply curious. I should also note I’m generally against government intervening financially in the private sector, I simply brought it up as the benefit to insourcing is that it creates skilled labor jobs with decent pay. Something that arguably benefits both the company, community and the government.
If the cost differential is relatively minor, in theory any subsidy or tax break would only need to cover the differential and the cost to build facilities in the carrier’s home country.

77H


Giving a subsidy means other taxpayers are paying for the carrier's maintenance.

Giving a tax break means all other taxpayers are paying for the range of government services that the carrier does not.

In either case, government & taxpayers are subsidizing above-market wages (or below-market productivity levels) for a very small number of workers. Should the government subsidize steel for GM and Whirlpool, and/or pay stock clerk wages at Walmart?

Want to see what government coddling & subsidy gets you? Bombardier. $ Billions flushed down the toilet in passenger aerospace from a non-competitive business. For how many jobs in Mirabel?
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3271
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:39 pm

Every important emerging industry in the United States has its roots in government research, development, government purchases, and tax treatment. So lets look at older economic sectors of the economy, say agriculture. Yeh!! lets look at agriculture.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7322
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:57 pm

The cards are stacked against in-house MRO.

WBs can be ferried to Asia and NBs to Latin American facilities at reasonable costs.
FAA doesn't mandate certification for AMTs (shocker). Car mechanics are ASE certified.
English proficiency is not a requirement for AMTs. No one knows how they can read English manuals.
Inhouse cannot match the third party turnaround times. I doubt any in-house facility can overhaul GE90 in two weeks.
Third-party MROs offer BOGO free deals.

The downside with third-party MRO work.
Poor quality work. No one knows if they did complete the work properly or pencil whipped.

But bean counters seem to have numbers proving dispatch reliability and completion rate is as good as if not better than in-house.
 
UpNAWAy
Posts: 556
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:22 pm

MRO quality is proven by the numbers. As outsourcing has increased accidents have continued to decline. Not cause and effect but if outsourcing was so bad it would be obvious. There are also advantages to in sourcing, more control and sometimes more flexibility and the ability to adjust on the fly, especially when unexpected issues arise. The FAA has been slow to adjust. I think back in 2000 something like about half of all US MX was third party but FAA inspectors at third parties was a small % of their work force. I assume they have adjusted those number by now.
 
n92r03
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:46 pm

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:38 pm

This is an interesting topic and I too am curious about the dollar amounts both actual and as a percentage in the big picture.

One thing to note, ferrying an NB (or even a WB for paint) to Lake City, FL for United is a drop in the bucket. United also uses HAECO in HKG for WB maintenance, but I believe most of this is scheduled and the aircraft is flown normally (a rev flight) to/from HKG.
 
User avatar
hongkongflyer
Posts: 724
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:23 am

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:42 pm

n92r03 wrote:
This is an interesting topic and I too am curious about the dollar amounts both actual and as a percentage in the big picture.

One thing to note, ferrying an NB (or even a WB for paint) to Lake City, FL for United is a drop in the bucket. United also uses HAECO in HKG for WB maintenance, but I believe most of this is scheduled and the aircraft is flown normally (a rev flight) to/from HKG.


No, we see a lot of UA's (and other airlines') planes that don't serve HKG. They ferry from the base (or at lease from an nearer destinations)
 
kalvado
Posts: 2178
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:43 pm

There may be two more aspects:
1. having type-dedicated shop and mechanics means economy of scale. Lufthansa Technic pays western wages after all.
2. Lack of qualified workforce. Looks like number of people in US, who can get qualified AND willing to get their hands dirty is shrinking..
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 2961
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:57 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
The cards are stacked against in-house MRO.

WBs can be ferried to Asia and NBs to Latin American facilities at reasonable costs.
FAA doesn't mandate certification for AMTs (shocker). Car mechanics are ASE certified.
English proficiency is not a requirement for AMTs. No one knows how they can read English manuals.
Inhouse cannot match the third party turnaround times. I doubt any in-house facility can overhaul GE90 in two weeks.
Third-party MROs offer BOGO free deals.

The downside with third-party MRO work.
Poor quality work. No one knows if they did complete the work properly or pencil whipped.

But bean counters seem to have numbers proving dispatch reliability and completion rate is as good as if not better than in-house.

DL inhouse routinely beat MRO for turn times. 2 weeks for a GE90 turn I do find to be a little quick. The turn time for the outside repair items is usually 20 days in the middle of the visit. Everyone in the idustry has some outside repair. Nobody has the ability to repair all the parts, not even GE.

For airframe inhouse the MRO killed us on costs. When our MD88/90 work went to Mexico we were told that if we had worked for zero wages, AeroMexico would still be cheaper. We were doing HMV2 (the heavier check) in 21 days. I think they were doing them in about 30. Same thing happened with the widebodies. First they went to Canada. They couldn't make the times DL inhouse could do but were cheaper. I think most of our widebodies go to Asia now. I honestly can't keep track of all the MRO's we send work to now.

On the flip side DL is an MRO for government airframe work and all kinds of engine work. Engine MRO brings in a lot of money because it's not labor intense like airframe.
 
B6JFKH81
Posts: 2125
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:35 am

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:56 am

As someone who works in Heavy Maintenance in facilities outside the US for an American based carrier, I can tell you that there are many things to consider. I will base my response on my main assignment in SAL (MRO Holdings/AEROMAN).

1) Facilities. Land in the USA is not cheap, especially on airport property. My airline just moved into AEROMAN's newest hangar (Hangar 6) which can fit 15 A320s if fully packed. That is a HUGE building which would cost a fortune in the US to design, build, maintain and would have a lot of land costs from a major airport. But that is just where the aircraft go. You need a ton of office space and space for crew tool boxes, locker rooms, stores/warehouse, tool rooms and shops (seat, composite, sheet metal, avionics, paint, NDT, etc.).

2) Tooling and Equipment. Not only do you need the tooling and equipment to perform standard line MX and operational hangar MX, you need a lot of extra stuff to support special inspections, tasks and repairs only done in an HMV environment. This will not just be tools the technicians will use, this includes specialized tools and equipment for all those backshops, ground support equipment, I.T. equipment, etc. The cost very quickly goes into the millions just for procurement of these things. Now you need to maintain and calibrate them.

3) Staffing and certification. This is where things are very different. An airline in the US is under part 121. A repair facility is under part 145. Airlines want A&Ps with experience. An MRO doesn't necessarily need an FAA A&P because everyone is operating under the repair facility 145 certificate. Non A&Ps are overseen by A&Ps and work not stamped off until reviewed by the A&P. In the US, you will often find only a few type of folks working the line operation of an MRO. First you have the young technicians looking to build experience so they can get hired by an airline. You will see a fairly high turnover rate of A&Ps for this group. The next group is the retired old-timers that still want to work on planes but not deal with line operation problems or mentality, nor work midnight shift anymore. (I love talking with these guys and gals, the stories are amazing). And those that don't want to turn wrenches for a long term living and want to work up the chain (project lead, supervisor, manager, etc.). Overall, the pay isn't great, the stress is high, and folks aren't there for the Long haul. Now, go to the foreign MROs like AEROMAN in SAL. AEROMAN is the second most sought after company to work for in that country. They invest in their future employees by sending them to good schools, giving them specific training in composites, avionics, sheet metal, etc., even buying them their first tool set and rolling tool box, providing a transportation system, discounted meals, amazing events, and a beautiful facility. They don't make what people in the US make, but they have some of the most prestigious jobs in their country and they take a huge amount of pride in that. They treat their customers like absolute gold, and have a line of future technicians waiting to get through the door, even if only to sweep the floor. The talent, drive, pride, thirst for knowledge, and welcoming culture cannot be beat stateside. This is all at a fraction of the cost.

3) Contracts and warranty. The contracts between an airline and MRO can be absolutely brutal. Turn around times, routine and non routine rates, material costs, fueling, hotel/transport for airline representatives on site, and warranty for post-check write ups can favor an airline more than you will ever know.

There are SO MANY other things I can talk about, but I'm spent for today.

I know there is a bad view from Americans in outsourcing, but when you actually step into a facility like AEROMAN at SAL or many other ones throughout the world, and you see how modern, advanced, customer-friendly, and proud these facilities and there crews are, it's hard to make a comparison to US facilities other than to say that I hope to never be transferred out of SAL back to the US.
"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
 
77H
Topic Author
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Tue Nov 19, 2019 6:03 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
77H wrote:
Simply curious. I should also note I’m generally against government intervening financially in the private sector, I simply brought it up as the benefit to insourcing is that it creates skilled labor jobs with decent pay. Something that arguably benefits both the company, community and the government.
If the cost differential is relatively minor, in theory any subsidy or tax break would only need to cover the differential and the cost to build facilities in the carrier’s home country.

77H


Giving a subsidy means other taxpayers are paying for the carrier's maintenance.

Giving a tax break means all other taxpayers are paying for the range of government services that the carrier does not.

In either case, government & taxpayers are subsidizing above-market wages (or below-market productivity levels) for a very small number of workers. Should the government subsidize steel for GM and Whirlpool, and/or pay stock clerk wages at Walmart?

Want to see what government coddling & subsidy gets you? Bombardier. $ Billions flushed down the toilet in passenger aerospace from a non-competitive business. For how many jobs in Mirabel?


Guess you missed that part where I said I’m generally against government intervention in the private sector... so I’ll remind you.

77H
 
77H
Topic Author
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Tue Nov 19, 2019 6:06 am

B6JFKH81 wrote:
As someone who works in Heavy Maintenance in facilities outside the US for an American based carrier, I can tell you that there are many things to consider. I will base my response on my main assignment in SAL (MRO Holdings/AEROMAN).

1) Facilities. Land in the USA is not cheap, especially on airport property. My airline just moved into AEROMAN's newest hangar (Hangar 6) which can fit 15 A320s if fully packed. That is a HUGE building which would cost a fortune in the US to design, build, maintain and would have a lot of land costs from a major airport. But that is just where the aircraft go. You need a ton of office space and space for crew tool boxes, locker rooms, stores/warehouse, tool rooms and shops (seat, composite, sheet metal, avionics, paint, NDT, etc.).

2) Tooling and Equipment. Not only do you need the tooling and equipment to perform standard line MX and operational hangar MX, you need a lot of extra stuff to support special inspections, tasks and repairs only done in an HMV environment. This will not just be tools the technicians will use, this includes specialized tools and equipment for all those backshops, ground support equipment, I.T. equipment, etc. The cost very quickly goes into the millions just for procurement of these things. Now you need to maintain and calibrate them.

3) Staffing and certification. This is where things are very different. An airline in the US is under part 121. A repair facility is under part 145. Airlines want A&Ps with experience. An MRO doesn't necessarily need an FAA A&P because everyone is operating under the repair facility 145 certificate. Non A&Ps are overseen by A&Ps and work not stamped off until reviewed by the A&P. In the US, you will often find only a few type of folks working the line operation of an MRO. First you have the young technicians looking to build experience so they can get hired by an airline. You will see a fairly high turnover rate of A&Ps for this group. The next group is the retired old-timers that still want to work on planes but not deal with line operation problems or mentality, nor work midnight shift anymore. (I love talking with these guys and gals, the stories are amazing). And those that don't want to turn wrenches for a long term living and want to work up the chain (project lead, supervisor, manager, etc.). Overall, the pay isn't great, the stress is high, and folks aren't there for the Long haul. Now, go to the foreign MROs like AEROMAN in SAL. AEROMAN is the second most sought after company to work for in that country. They invest in their future employees by sending them to good schools, giving them specific training in composites, avionics, sheet metal, etc., even buying them their first tool set and rolling tool box, providing a transportation system, discounted meals, amazing events, and a beautiful facility. They don't make what people in the US make, but they have some of the most prestigious jobs in their country and they take a huge amount of pride in that. They treat their customers like absolute gold, and have a line of future technicians waiting to get through the door, even if only to sweep the floor. The talent, drive, pride, thirst for knowledge, and welcoming culture cannot be beat stateside. This is all at a fraction of the cost.

3) Contracts and warranty. The contracts between an airline and MRO can be absolutely brutal. Turn around times, routine and non routine rates, material costs, fueling, hotel/transport for airline representatives on site, and warranty for post-check write ups can favor an airline more than you will ever know.

There are SO MANY other things I can talk about, but I'm spent for today.

I know there is a bad view from Americans in outsourcing, but when you actually step into a facility like AEROMAN at SAL or many other ones throughout the world, and you see how modern, advanced, customer-friendly, and proud these facilities and there crews are, it's hard to make a comparison to US facilities other than to say that I hope to never be transferred out of SAL back to the US.


Thank you for the insight.

77H
 
unimproved
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 7:14 pm

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Wed Nov 20, 2019 10:05 pm

kalvado wrote:
There may be two more aspects:
1. having type-dedicated shop and mechanics means economy of scale. Lufthansa Technic pays western wages after all.
2. Lack of qualified workforce. Looks like number of people in US, who can get qualified AND willing to get their hands dirty is shrinking..

Even Lufthansa is moving its MRO for heavy checks to Malta... starting pay around €1k/mo.

There are qualified people, but the ME3 will easily double what you make in Europe. Even a car tech might make more..
 
extender
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:52 am

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:22 am

There are MROs, and there are MROs.

What it comes down to is labor costs. Period. The bean counters have screwed this facet of aviation up, but it was inevitable after the crap that goes down between the airline, and unionized labor. See Eastern Air Lines v. IAM.

I've walked around airplanes headed for D-checks, found a crack on the lower wing panel, only to see it un-repaired after its return from a C-Check visit. The only maintenance it saw was a pen.

Even MROs in the US vary, look at AAR, some are good, some not so good(cough, cough...)
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4054
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:22 am

oldannyboy wrote:
77H wrote:
Good Evening All,

I have a simple question regarding the cost differentials between using in-house maintenance and out-sourcing.
I was scrolling through the UA Fleet thread and seeing the posts about aircraft being ferried to 3rd party MROs got me thinking.

Many airlines have elected to out source maintenance to 3rd party vendors, often overseas. It’s reasonable to assume that there is a cost saving by outsourcing, even when the aircraft must be ferried long haul to the MRO or the practice would not be so common. My question is how large is the cost differential when all things are considered, such as ferry costs.

Is there anything that can be done to tip the scales in favor of insourcing, Government subsidies, tax-breaks perhaps?


77H


It's actually a lot easier than that: just *underpay* your workers. Or in other words, adjust the payscale of western, rich countries, to those of a developing economy. Pretty sure it is going to happen. Not an IF, but a WHEN.

In many foreign countries the actual pay is 20-30% lower than USA salaries for A&P mechanics and Electricians. when you factor in $65/Hr labor rates vs $30Hr labor rates? That offsets the cost of a ferry flight. and part of the labor manhours as well. I'm lucky to have been a retired USA Mechanic,
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4054
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:46 am

extender wrote:
There are MROs, and there are MROs.

What it comes down to is labor costs. Period. The bean counters have screwed this facet of aviation up, but it was inevitable after the crap that goes down between the airline, and unionized labor. See Eastern Air Lines v. IAM.

I've walked around airplanes headed for D-checks, found a crack on the lower wing panel, only to see it un-repaired after its return from a C-Check visit. The only maintenance it saw was a pen.

Even MROs in the US vary, look at AAR, some are good, some not so good(cough, cough...)

those MRO's who do shoddy wok aren't usually around very long. One of the first 737's that United outsourced for an overhaul generated 600 writeups on it's first routine inspection, including a cracked floor at the tp of the wheel well. The repairs cost us as much as the Overhaul. That company wasn't around 6 months later after a rotten 737 overhaul and a botched 727 overhaul when the aircraft arrived back at SFO with a cracked Nose gear retract casting. That sent outsourced overhauls back close to 5 years at United and we sent our OWN inspectors out for the next 4 to let the MRO know what we expected of them, To this day we still do the majority of our engines in House. and a Lot of our components as well which includes avionics. We do use component shops but they work to our timeline and reliability standards, Before I retired United had the reputation for being a difficult customer for shops as we were demanding. But I never heard of a shop going Bankrupt that did our work. .
When we liked them? Usually everybody else liked them and we sent airplanes in there Nose to tail so they rarely ever lacked for work if Ever.
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3609
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:10 pm

Hangars that carry out major inputs have a lot of staff working there. So you need to keep the hangar full all the time so these guys are not sitting around waiting for the next aircraft. That means that a single bay can support a fixed number of aircraft. For an airline this can be a problem when they don't have the correct number of aircraft, then either the bay has some slack time, or they need to outsource some aircraft. Also it's no good having a 'D' check bay, and then put an aircraft in there that needs a flap motor replaced. 4 guys are working, and 150 are drinking coffee.
So planning work into hangars is a specialised occupation in the planning dept.
When I worked for BA most of the WB Major checks were carried out at Cardiff. Then the A380 was introduced. Only 12 aircraft. Enough to keep the bay busy for about 4 months a year. In the end, major checks were all sent out to an MRO in the Far East, because there was no way to keep the work force fully occupied the rest of the year.
 
B6JFKH81
Posts: 2125
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:35 am

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:32 am

Tristarsteve wrote:
Hangars that carry out major inputs have a lot of staff working there. So you need to keep the hangar full all the time so these guys are not sitting around waiting for the next aircraft. That means that a single bay can support a fixed number of aircraft. For an airline this can be a problem when they don't have the correct number of aircraft, then either the bay has some slack time, or they need to outsource some aircraft. Also it's no good having a 'D' check bay, and then put an aircraft in there that needs a flap motor replaced. 4 guys are working, and 150 are drinking coffee.
So planning work into hangars is a specialised occupation in the planning dept.
When I worked for BA most of the WB Major checks were carried out at Cardiff. Then the A380 was introduced. Only 12 aircraft. Enough to keep the bay busy for about 4 months a year. In the end, major checks were all sent out to an MRO in the Far East, because there was no way to keep the work force fully occupied the rest of the year.


Thank you, that is another great point. Airlines have peaks an troughs. Peak flying season means having as many aircraft flying as possible for an airline, this reduces how many aircraft can be on the ground for maintenance. Airlines will have a hard time productively re-assigning those mechanics from the empty bays. MROs have more flexibility with PTO, line re-assignments or task re-assignments overall.

Great point that I didn't bring up in my post.
"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
 
Sokes
Posts: 459
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:17 am

Tristarsteve wrote:
Hangars that carry out major inputs have a lot of staff working there. So you need to keep the hangar full all the time so these guys are not sitting around waiting for the next aircraft. ...


Very informative. Thanks.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 2961
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: In-House vs Outsourced Maintenance Costs

Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:27 pm

B6JFKH81 wrote:
Tristarsteve wrote:
Hangars that carry out major inputs have a lot of staff working there. So you need to keep the hangar full all the time so these guys are not sitting around waiting for the next aircraft. That means that a single bay can support a fixed number of aircraft. For an airline this can be a problem when they don't have the correct number of aircraft, then either the bay has some slack time, or they need to outsource some aircraft. Also it's no good having a 'D' check bay, and then put an aircraft in there that needs a flap motor replaced. 4 guys are working, and 150 are drinking coffee.
So planning work into hangars is a specialised occupation in the planning dept.
When I worked for BA most of the WB Major checks were carried out at Cardiff. Then the A380 was introduced. Only 12 aircraft. Enough to keep the bay busy for about 4 months a year. In the end, major checks were all sent out to an MRO in the Far East, because there was no way to keep the work force fully occupied the rest of the year.


Thank you, that is another great point. Airlines have peaks an troughs. Peak flying season means having as many aircraft flying as possible for an airline, this reduces how many aircraft can be on the ground for maintenance. Airlines will have a hard time productively re-assigning those mechanics from the empty bays. MROs have more flexibility with PTO, line re-assignments or task re-assignments overall.

Great point that I didn't bring up in my post.

This is very true. A lot of hangar MRO's in the US have a heavy temp staffing through the contractor route. When they have a run of heavy checks coming in they call an outfit like Strom Aviation. Strom calls around to their contract workers to assemble a crew to send to Bob's Aircraft Repair and Stormdoor Co. to do the heavy checks. Once the checks are done the contractors load up their campers and head off to another contract. The handful of permanent Bob's employees stay and build the stormdoors until the next heavy check comes in.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos