Aircraft maintenance sent overseas. Help settle a debate.

[dieselbass]

seems like Alaska air lost a couple of plane's due to jackscrews in the tail not being serviced resulting in the stabilizer seizing in position resulting in crashes.

if it doesn't say Boeing, I'm not going.

[placedesjardins]

Originally Posted by Stanley Student

Maintenance on major US airline carriers is being sent to China as well as other stateside entities.

I don't think people in the states know this is happening. If they did, they would have an issue with it.

He thinks people do know and don't care as long as they can get the cheapest flight humanly possible...

Well, for the international capable flights, I wouldn't be surprised that aircraft would need to go under maintenance while at a foreign airport. I just never thought about it.

As for stateside entities, I guess I didn't think that an airline would hire a third-party maintenance workers. You didn't mention it but are the small airlines like Jet Blue or the large airlines like Northwest Airlines using third-party maintenance companies or is it both?

[bmc]

Originally Posted by dieselbass

seems like Alaska air lost a couple of plane's due to jackscrews in the tail not being serviced resulting in the stabilizer seizing in position resulting in crashes.

if it doesn't say Boeing, I'm not going.

Alaska lost one airplane. It was an American airplane, maintained in the States, and poorly as well.

The Boeing phrase is cute but meaningless.

[bmc]

Originally Posted by placedesjardins

Well, for the international capable flights, I wouldn't be surprised that aircraft would need to go under maintenance while at a foreign airport. I just never thought about it.

As for stateside entities, I guess I didn't think that an airline would hire a third-party maintenance workers. You didn't mention it but are the small airlines like Jet Blue or the large airlines like Northwest Airlines using third-party maintenance companies or is it both?

Northwest is no more. They folded in with Delta.

Many airlines contract out their heavy maintenenace to third parties. Not all airlines build up the facilities to do major maintenance, so they go outside for that. Smart airlines use excellent facilities. The are a number of questionabale stateside MRO companies that do not use OEM parts. The non-OEM parts business is huge in the states.

Be careful, third party does not mean third rate quality. In most instances it is just the opposite. These are specialty operations that are manufacture approved repair facilities.

But the suggestion that US carriers ferry their planes to China for maintenance is nonsense, categorically false and unsubstantiated. Heavy maintenance perhaps and only if the airline has operations to that part of the world.

[One Drop]

Originally Posted by bmc

Last year our spent $18 million on travel. Tomorrow, I have a meeting with the head of our corporate travel bureau. I will share this with him and ensure we avoid US carriers. Luckily there are lots of choices.

I appreciate the heads up.

The law of unintended consequences rears its lovely head. Nice one BMC!

[bmc]

Safety is not negotiable.

There are lots of airline choices of far better quality to choose from.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by bmc

I call BS on several fronts.

1. Aircraft maintenance checks are done at different intervals. A, B, C and D checks range in degree of intensity from once every 100 hours to 10,000 hours. To suggest that every week a US carrier is flying a B737 to China for an A check does not happen. To ferry commuter planes or even wide bodies for 10 to 15 hours for maintenance is BS. It is categorically not happening.

2. N registered aircraft, as operated by US airlines, need to maintain a valid certificate of air worthiness. To suggest that a US carrier is going to let untrained people touch their airplanes tells me you don't know what you are talking about. If you did, you wouldn't write such silliness.

3. Where a US carrier may have regular maintenance done is the place where the aircraft is on the ground the longest. Canadian Airlines, long defunct now, had its B747 maintenance base in Bangkok. It had nothing to do with labor costs. The planes arrived in Bangkok at 11pm and there was a curfew at Bangkok airport that restricted jet departures between 11pm and 0700. The planes were on the ground for 11 hours. They cycled the entire fleet of B747's through there on a regular basis. When in Canada, the planes flew out of Vancouver. They would arrive in from Asia around 10 Am and would head back out around 1 or 2 in the afternoon.

4. There are more modern Boeings and Airbus flying in China than US fleets operate. They know how to fix them and they know how to maintain them.

5. All international carriers flying to from China (Including British, KLM, Lufthansa, SAS, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, etc) have maintenance contracts with locals. None of them would hire unqualified people. None of them.

6. All member airlines of International Air Transport Association must be IOSA compliant. IOSA stands for IATA Operational Safety audit. It is a very strict compliance process for ground and air operations. Each airlines must be certified and periodically inspected to verify compliance. All US carriers are IOSA compliant.

Your post in completely inaccurate. There is no debate here.

I've been in the business for 31 years. Airline safety is the number one concern in our industry. Please don't post BS like this.

^ what he said.

Also, 18 months in trade school, who's to say that the personnel in China aren't up to training either?

OP, are you familiar with the hiring processes, the training required and the regulations followed in China? Or are you going with inflammatory speculation? (guess what, people in the UK don't answer to the FDA or DOA, does that mean if they were to take on flight mechanic jobs they wouldn't be up to scratch?)

The original post stinks of " 'der stealing our jobs"

[Sav'nBass]

Originally Posted by Stanley Student

I don't think people in the states know this is happening. If they did, they would have an issue with it.
He thinks people do know and don't care as long as they can get the cheapest flight humanly possible.
Help settle this debate. There is no wrong or right answer, simply your opinion.

It is dangerous and wrong and should be made more widely known..

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I'm not going to say what the OP probably wants me to....
The issue to me is not where the work is done, it's safety. This is something you (and your fellow aircraft workers) need to contact your Congressperson about. Regulations should be in place to assure that maintenance work performed on all aircraft is done by people with appropriate training.
At that point, it's up to the industry to decide which group of well-trained workers should be doing the work. If they're in the US, great. If they're in China, then the US workers need to become more competitive.

This is flawed reasoning. Actually it is just wrong. This is not so much as something wrong with the American worker as it is the end result of capitalism running it's full course in relation to labor and management in the U.S.. Considering the global nature of the world's economy the American worker is now engaged in a Kobayashi Mauru scenario. We cannot compete with foreign workers not because of our skill set but because in terms of salaries and benefits in relation to the cost of living in the U.S. vs China there is no way at all that the bottom line can be effectively met using American labor. Like others have said.. couple that with the fact that people really don't care as long as they can get cheap flights. It's the same with gas. People don't care if the environment gets fouled or we go to war.. until it effects them.. they just want cheap gas.

Originally Posted by hdracer

Unless you have lived under a rock for the past 10 years how could you NOT know that it was happening?

Uhhh This is the first time I have heard this about aircraft maintenance.. other things certainly .. but aircraft maintenance? I always thought you have to have the aircraft available to you in order to maintain it..

[bmc]

Sav n Bass....do not fall for the bait. This is a troll thread. Nothing more. It is rife with unsubstantiated claims. Don't fall for it.

Logistically, it makes no sense. It is impractical. It is alarmist. And it is meant to get people excited.

It is as practical as suggesting that Americans are not driving their cars to China for tune ups. Think about it. Take all the time you need. If you want further clarification, just ask. What I have that the OP does not have is 30 years of airline management experience and industry involvement. His claims are on a level of Mayan prophecy.

[carlos840]

I am not american, and am not partial to the "Made in the US of A" thing.

I have seen a lot of quality things made in asia and a lot of crappy things made in the US or in europe.
The opposite is true to.

The place where something is made means little, what is important is quality control and proper training.

As long as things are done properly i don't mind where it is done!


Just look at american made basses for an example, i have seen horrors made by fender, gibson and rick!
Still, they are proudly made in USA, that doesn't mean they are perfect.
Americans are not immune to doing a crappy job!

[viper4000]

I received a response from my brother whom works for a major aircraft manufacturer. He teaches their mechanics how to do their jobs better. He did agree that maintenance was being preformed in foreign countries, such as China. However in most cases (sic) it is due to the fact they fly on international routes.

OP, It is gross hyperbole to say this is happening on a major scale. Additionally, in your responses, there is no factual proof of your claims. It seems to me that you are very surprised that outsourcing occurs. It is a fact of life. A fact of business. Saying something is inferior purely because it was done by a third party service is naive and uninformed.

As you can see by the discussion that has been created here, we are interested. However, we're not going to start a revolution based solely on you having a bad day. Give us the facts, notate them, index them, and post them. We'll look at your evidence and get on the band wagon if what you say is true.

I work for a company that is here solely because another company decided to outsource something. So, I take offense to that notion.

[Ziltoid]

DERR TUK ER JUBS

[Stanley Student]

Like I've already stated guys. Ask MECHANICS that have hands on experience working on aircraft once it has come back from third party maintenance. NOT management personnel who have their own personal agendas. I'm am trying to be inflammatory and I am trying to get people excited with my statements because the safety of my family and other Amercans should not be compromised. Period.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

And I'm sure if we were to ask mechanics in Europe or Asia, they'd all be astounded by the quality of work coming from the US, they would never deem any of it to be iffy or a potential safety compromise.

[Stanley Student]

The debate has been settled between my coworker and I. All of your posts have been very informative and enlightening.
Check into it folks. Ask those mechanics! Nothing will be done about this until either the American public demands higher standards and accountability or the unthinkable starts to happen. The aviation mechanic in America is a very small percentage of the population. We can't do this alone.
Thank you to all that have replied.

[One Drop]

Originally Posted by Stanley Student

The debate has been settled between my coworker and I. All of your posts have been very informative and enlightening.
Check into it folks. Ask those mechanics! Nothing will be done about this until either the American public demands higher standards and accountability or the unthinkable starts to happen. The aviation mechanic in America is a very small percentage of the population. We can't do this alone.
Thank you to all that have replied.

I'm glad you have satisfied each other!

You've been asked to clarify and defend your position- if you want action from others it's not unreasonable for them to want some proof.

You mention 'third party maintenance but you don't give any details. Are you saying you have yourself seen third party maintenance work performed in China that was below par?

You are right about one thing- nothing will be done about this, not without proof and details, and not as long as the info comes from an anonymous Internet post with zero concrete information.

A bit off topic, but there is a lot of stuff to be scared about out there. I prefer to spend my five minutes a day giving a crap to something I can verify!

[bmc]

Originally Posted by Stanley Student

Like I've already stated guys. Ask MECHANICS that have hands on experience working on aircraft once it has come back from third party maintenance. NOT management personnel who have their own personal agendas. I'm am trying to be inflammatory and I am trying to get people excited with my statements because the safety of my family and other Amercans should not be compromised. Period.

Ok, so, we won't ask management who have their own personal agenda. We'll form our opinion based on your own personal agenda, which is to spread unsubstantiated rumours based on what some guy posted on the internet.

There is no conspiracy here. Airlines outsource avionics repairs, engine overhauls, heavy maintenance, painting. There are over 300 MRO's worldwide. MRO stands for Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul. There are quite a few in Ireland, and the UK. There are big world wide facilities such as Lufthansa Technik, ST Aerospace that have operations in multiple countries.

[Stanley Student]

I've already stated one recent example of inadequacy. Remember? Well, you should go back and reread some of my posts.
Remember the Timco incident where 757 seats came loose during revenue flight. That is a recent one. I know some of you aren't from the states and this definitely will not make international headlines but it was one of the first moves to this type of third party maintenance that this particular airline had tried. The airlines own mechanics had put those seats on for years, without incident. But right out of the gate there were issues when other parties were involved.
Planes often need corrective maintenance when they return from third party facilities. Aircraft are often returned to the airlines own maintenance personnel to correct issues that were done incorrectly.
Let me give a personal example that I've dealt with. An aircraft came back from a third party maintenance provider. The job required removing the rudder cables to facilitate the job. When we got the plane back to us, the pilot reported the rudder being out of rig. We accomplished the re-rig and the pilot did not report any other problems. No problem.
My big issue is, since they were not capable of correctly re-rigging the rudder makes me wonder about the original job that was accomplished and whether it was done correctly. I have no idea because everything had already been put back together. Management saw no need to investigate the issue any further and the plane was returned to revenue service. This is one example of how things can get overlooked for the sake of the almighty dollar.
The truth is out there guys, don't expect it to be spoon fed to you. It must be sought through reliable sources that are rarely in positions to "get the word out". As a aircraft mechanic, I see issues that never get out to the public. In America, the dollar trumps all and don't be fooled by folks that try to persuade you otherwise.

[bmc]

Originally Posted by Stanley Student

I've already stated one recent example of inadequacy. Remember? Well, you should go back and reread some of my posts.
Remember the Timco incident where 757 seats came loose during revenue flight. That is a recent one. I know some of you aren't from the states and this definitely will not make international headlines but it was one of the first moves to this type of third party maintenance that this particular airline had tried. The airlines own mechanics had put those seats on for years, without incident. But right out of the gate there were issues when other parties were involved.
Planes often need corrective maintenance when they return from third party facilities. Aircraft are often returned to the airlines own maintenance personnel to correct issues that were done incorrectly.
Let me give a personal example that I've dealt with. An aircraft came back from a third party maintenance provider. The job required removing the rudder cables to facilitate the job. When we got the plane back to us, the pilot reported the rudder being out of rig. We accomplished the re-rig and the pilot did not report any other problems. No problem.
My big issue is, since they were not capable of correctly re-rigging the rudder makes me wonder about the original job that was accomplished and whether it was done correctly. I have no idea because everything had already been put back together. Management saw no need to investigate the issue any further and the plane was returned to revenue service. This is one example of how things can get overlooked for the sake of the almighty dollar.
The truth is out there guys, don't expect it to be spoon fed to you. It must be sought through reliable sources that are rarely in positions to "get the word out". As a aircraft mechanic, I see issues that never get out to the public. In America, the dollar trumps all and don't be fooled by folks that try to persuade you otherwise.

I will concede and agree on the high level of third party maintenance and in the case of US carriers, it is done to a high degree. Particularly with start ups and carriers struggling to stay afloat. The FAA has penalized a number of US carriers over the years for shoddy maintenance. But shoddy maintenance is not only a third party problem. It is indicative of a culture of cost cutting wherever it can be found. Reduced staff. Signing out airplanes when they shouldn't be flying. Letting machines fly with snags that the MEL (minimum equipment list) permits. The use of non OEM parts has, in the past, resulted in incidents. The Alaska crash, I believe, was caused by an incorrect part. I won't agree that third party means poor maintenance. Cost cutting and a culture of non adherence to strict operational maintenance and safety what is often found to be the culprit.

As for heavy maintenance performed abroad, this is done in many cases, to coincide with the sched operation and cycling of the fleet. Many of you have been to Narita. Go there today and you'd think you were in Hartsfield, there are so many Delta tails. I don't know if Delta, or back in the day Northwest, had a heavy maintenance op there. I am sure they have a substantial maintenance facility, probably their own given the number of airplanes that go through there.

Don't scare the public with unclear claims. The shoddy work you see is because your company's head of maintenance is not paying attention, not qualified to the job, or is put under severe pressure to keep costs under control. Given the recession you guys are in, coupled with high fuel costs, margins continue to be thin. I will not doubt shoddy maintenance is being performed. But I will argue that it's not only third parties, but in-house as well.

The US has a long history of so so maintenance issues and parts flying off of airplanes. Pilots are very poorly paid. Staff are poorly paid. Morale is often low. And planes are made to fly long days in pursuit of declining revenues.

[Mike N]

If someone can't tighten down a seat properly I sure as heck don't want them working on the engine.

How much are the airlines saving by flying the plane to China to have it serviced, and then flying it all the way back home? Fuel isn't cheap, seems to me it would be more cost effective to have them serviced here.