Outsourcing Maintenance
Outsourcing is a growing trend. Employees in all industries are seeing their employers outsourcing more and more work — some to U.S. contractors, some to foreign countries.
Aircraft maintenance outsourcing has been in the news again recently. As we reported last week, United mechanics handed out pamphlets nationwide urging the company not to outsource its Mileage Plus and maintenance units. In another news story yesterday, it was reported that AMR Corporation (parent company of American Airlines) intends to sell its American Eagle regional airline next year. AMR shareholders have been pressuring American to sell the regional airline and other assets, moves they believe could raise money and raise AMR’s stock price. Other assets that could be on the chopping block in the future might include the airline’s maintenance unit and its repair and overhaul operations.
When looking at outsourcing, airlines are looking at one thing — money. They are looking at how to save the most money in order to create the best value for their shareholders. They want to concentrate on their core business while outsourcing other non-core business units. To them, they see the operations side of their companies as their core business. They fly people from point A to point B. That is what they do. The rest of the stuff like reward programs and maintenance are seen as non-core business units.
But what are the long-term effects of outsourcing? By outsourcing maintenance, airlines experience a loss of aircraft knowledge and technical expertise. They are depending on other companies for the maintenance and safe operation of their airplanes.
The public has been in an uproar recently over toys. But if you look at the criticism of what went wrong with outsourcing toy manufacturing, you could easily replace “toy manufacturing” with “outsourced maintenance.” Buzz words are, pardon the pun, flying around — words like “sub-standard practices,” “improper procedures” and “inadequate government oversight” come to mind.
But while the public is in an angry uproar over sub-standard toys, there is barely a whisper of anger when it comes to outsourcing airline maintenance. It’s not because they aren’t aware of the practice — the mainstream media continues to report on the topic. Yet, the flying public does not respond. They remain indifferent to the issue. Could it be because the flying public is addicted to low ticket prices? Like toys, airline tickets have become a commodity, with customers making purchasing decisions based on the lowest ticket price, not even considering for a moment the quality of the airline’s maintenance.
The flying public has the power to influence the airlines. If they are concerned about maintenance, they could choose not to fly on airlines that outsource their maintenance. The airlines would then have to respond or go out of business.
But that is not the case…
…yet.
Thanks for reading,
Joe Escobar
I would submit that it would be an excelent idea to publish a list of the carriers that outsource the most. I think the flying public would be very intersted.
I believe that outsourcing of HEAVY maintenance to third parties can be extremely beneficial. It relieves the pressure on operators in having to do heavy as well as line maintenance which often require different skills and technologies. Quality controll is the responsibility of the operator NOT the government.
Let the airlines do what they do best - fly their airplanes to get passengers where they want to go. The maintenance has to be done, so let those who want to do the maintenance do what they do best - airplane manitenance. If left alone, that means no government interference, the situation will take care of itself.
It seems that the outsourcing trend continues altering the Unions state of mind, and provides interesting subjects for the media. Most of the foreign countries like the one where I live have been outsourcing specialized or substantial maintenance for many many years to respected US based companies well known by their capabilities, quality of work, reliability and value for the money. Subcontrated works well managed by the customers (US or Foreign) does not equate “sub-standard practices,” “improper procedures” and “inadequate government oversight”. The company I work for have been providing line and heavy maintenance for 121 operators responding to the customer and FAA expectations, without major issues. Nobody is perfect. The suggestion that US airlines are just looking for foreign money saver contractors is an outrage. Quality work at a reduced price tag in a foreign country is a fact. Expensive but domestic is better? Please accept it.
Regards
Outsourcing heavy maintenance is not only common practice for many 121 operators, in many cases it is the only economically feasible option. And foreign maintenance providers have in some cases advantages that simply cannot be equaled or surpassed here in the states. For example there are repair stations abroad that are not subject to the same government and union regulations regarding pay and work hours, and are therefore able to complete more work, in a shorter amount of time for less money and still provide a safe and reliable product equal to, or better than their counter parts in the states. As far as the oversight issue goes, the FAA or any government entity for that matter, has never been, nor ever will be as effective at oversight as someone whom has a vested and substantial financial incentive to ensure that they are receiving a quality product (read safe and reliable) delivered on time, and at competitive cost. As operators, if our aircraft are “unsafe” or unreliable, it effects us in an extremely negative way, thru lost trust in our customer base, excessive aircraft down time for repairs, and in lost revenue. We are in effect policing ourselves, and in my opinion doing a pretty darn good job of it. Why do you think the FAA is sifting the burden of oversight onto the carriers thru ATOS? I think it is because they know that they will never have the funding, man power or ability to provide the oversight to an effective level. At least that is the view from my cubicle………..
Let me remind you all with a sad chapter in avaition maintenance history. A few years ago Air Wisconsin subcontracted out their heavy maintenance to a company in Louisiana who then sub-subcontracted out the maintenance to company in West Virginia who then hired some gypsy mechanics to work these aircaft from a company in Florida. Did any of these parties have a vested interest in proper maintenance? No, they wanted cheap maintenance and the result was a smoking hole in the ground in North Carolina. I worked that site for a week and have been up close and personal with with the results of ‘cheap’ maintenance. So for those of you who say let the operaters police themselves and not the government, your wrong.
Outsourcing Maintenance has to be looked from balanced perspetive.For a smaller airlines with smaller fleet, outsourcing is economically viable option wothout having to bother about huge costs involved in the inhouse maintenance. As far as quality of maintenance is concerned , with the growth of aviation sector, number of MRO’s providing the maintenance services are going to rise,effectivelt increasing the competitivness and thereby quality focus.
Further, numbers of MRO’s are coming up which are being set up in collabration with aircraft manufacturers which has increased credibilty.
I am a 19 year veteran with American Trans Air (ATA Airlines). ATA recently decided to shut down the C Check line and close the Hangar Facility in IND and outsource all C Checks and above, as well as increasing contractor presence in the out stations.
Since this occured I have witnessed a degradation in the quality of work being done to our aircraft. I will give one small example. We had an aircraft with an inbound writeup of lav fluid puddeling in the middle electronics service compartment. While troubleshooting this problem I discovered the cargo liner had been installed with incorrect hardware the lav drain line clamps were loose and much of the hardware securing the components was missing. There was no externl sign of anything wrong (other than the leak) as every thing was covered with cargo liner and pit tape.
I can not lay the blame for this on anyone but management.
The few core employees left have been denied the proper resources to turn the aircraft in a timely manner with out cutting corners (we have to protect our paychecks too) because the hangar was a large source of free stock inventory that has not been made available to the out stations. Everything must be ordered against a discrepency (not a good situation on a R.O.N.).
The M.R.O.s incentive is to move the aircraft through check as fast as possible, and with no protection from the dictates of management the M.R.O. mechanics are under pressure to move a product that they have no ownership or pride in anyway, so what if they lose their job as an under paid drudge, there are a dozen more like it out there.
The inspection process that is supposed to oversee and prevent all this is flawed because the company is mostly concerned that the paperwork is complete, because that is all the Feds will see, and no one but the M.R.O. inspectors actually look at the aircraft.
The end result is that economics overshadows safety.
I notice this on the day to day basis but as an A&P, I can only answer for myself.
The aircraft are built with an inherint safety margin that is slowly being eroded by an economic priority and safety apathy that will eventually result in the loss of life.
Will we then give the FAA a power akin to the TSA?
Just as with the lead paint on toys, the American public will stay blissfully unaware until we have a major airline accident that is at least partially attributable to shoddy outsourced maintenance. The fact is that no foreign maintenance shops are required by FAA regulation to have pre-employment drug and/or criminal background checks, while our requirements are getting tighter. As long as airlines can get away with cheap foreign maintenance, they will. The stockholders and customers demand cheap fares and the FAA generally can’t even read the manuals of the CRS’s they certify in non-english-speaking countries. What we need is a good, old-fashioned air disaster to return some safety to the system. Until that happens, the outsourcing will accelerate. Like the previous commenter, I have seen horror shows coming out of outsourced “C” checks, including a DC-9 tailcone emergency escape mechanism safety-wired closed (inoperative). Who did the airline blame after this went unnoticed for a couple of weeks? Their own mechnics, of course, who were not charged with inspecting the system. It will only take one fatal airline accident to expose the rot in this system.
Everyone that is currently working as an A&P should start looking for a new career. It really is better on the other side.
As an Avionics/A&P tech for almost 20 years, I am not presently working in aviation. Outsourcing, whether done in the US or outside, is NOT good despite all these comments favoring the practice. Such as the example with ATA & Air Wisconsin, these contractors hire one FAA A&P who then is responsible for the work of several unskilled workers. He/she has to sign off their work to be in compliance but he/she is under tremendous pressure for time constraints to get the job done. Is is really possible for that person to check every task done by the laborers to ensure proper and safe maintenance was done??????????
This is exactly what is going on this aviation industry the one and only concern is the bottom line with all the airlines. Unfair compensation for actual valuable asset of the company (Employees), so the upper corporate executives get their share of the pie. The flying public is paying a huge price in becoming sacrificial lambs due to corporate profits, without regards to human life and safety. Flying public should be more demanding when an aircraft is delayed due to maintenance and become more proactive with the flight crew in becoming more involved with the lack of information when an aircraft has a potential catastrophic failure or a minor pilot report. Being empowered with the knowledge can become a great tool for the flying public to demand a safe and airworthy aircraft even if it’s only peanuts is paid for a flight. Consumers should have more disclosure and rights when it come to placing your life in a corporation hands at 33,000 feet. The field needs to be balanced when their is so much oversight to aircraft maintenance. Accountability needs to begin with the “Friendly Friends Administration”(FAA).
Everyone outsources. Have you ever signed a contract for someone to work on your car? You just outsourced, you A&P, you! Sometimes you get a great deal, sometimes you don’t. Whether we like it, or think we can point the finger towards management or the FAA, the bottom line is essential for the airlines to hand out paychecks. With fuel costs over $130 a barrel now, outsourcing of maintenance, to foreign or domestic MROs, is not just good business, it’s a survival tactic. We can all point to work that was poorly done in the past by contractors. Frankly, we can all point to work that was well done, too. US MROs need to find creative ways to compete with foreign MROs. Labor costs aside, quality of work in the US isn’t really better than anywhere else. We don’t have a corner on the market for making a good bucktail.
There will always be those who have no conscience and take advantage of any situation. But the better operators do, in fact, control the quality of work done on their airplanes. Instead of getting hysterical about how jobs are flowing outside our border, let’s get our heads together and figure creative new ways to compete on a global level. That’s the game nowadays, folks.