General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Disturbing Truth About How Airplanes Are Maintained Today
As for the first airplane, the one with the maintenance problemwhat was its destination going to be? When you have time on your hands, you begin to wonder about things like this. My own assumption, as yours might have been, was that the aircraft would be towed to a nearby hangar for a stopgap repair and then flown to a central maintenance facility run by the airline somewhere in the U.S. Or maybe there was one right here at the airport. In any case, if it needed a major overhaul, presumably it would be performed by the airlines staff of trained professionals. If Apple feels it needs a Genius Bar at its stores to deal with hardware and software that cost a few hundred dollars, an airline must have something equivalent to safeguard an airplane worth a few hundred million.
About this I would be wrongas wrong as it is possible to be. Over the past decade, nearly all large U.S. airlines have shifted heavy maintenance work on their airplanes to repair shops thousands of miles away, in developing countries, where the mechanics who take the planes apart (completely) and put them back together (or almost) may not even be able to read or speak English. US Airways and Southwest fly planes to a maintenance facility in El Salvador. Delta sends planes to Mexico. United uses a shop in China. American still does much of its most intensive maintenance in-house in the U.S., but that is likely to change in the aftermath of the companys merger with US Airways.
The airlines are shipping this maintenance work offshore for the reason youd expect: to cut labor costs. Mechanics in El Salvador, Mexico, China, and elsewhere earn a fraction of what mechanics in the U.S. do. In part because of this offshoring, the number of maintenance jobs at U.S. carriers has plummeted, from 72,000 in the year 2000 to fewer than 50,000 today. But the issue isnt just jobs. A century ago, Upton Sinclair wrote his novel The Jungle to call attention to the plight of workers in the slaughterhouses, but what really got people upset was learning how unsafe their meat was. Safety is an issue here, too. The Federal Aviation Administration is supposed to be inspecting all the overseas facilities that do maintenance for airlinesjust as it is supposed to inspect those in America. But the F.A.A. no longer has the money or the manpower to do this.
Snip
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/airplane-maintenance-disturbing-truth
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Jam-packed airplanes. Insane delays. The airlines are terrible union busters. I forget who said this, but they explained things very nicely when they said, "The airlines were started by people who love to fly, and then taken over by people who love money."
madokie
(51,076 posts)on my final trip home from 'Nam. I've been up a few times in small planes with friends but other than that nothing
CrispyQ
(36,514 posts)In 2009, a US Airways Boeing 737 jet carrying passengers from Omaha to Phoenix had to make an emergency landing in Denver when a high-pitched whistling sound in the cabin signaled that the seal around the main cabin door had begun to fail. It was later discovered that mechanics at Aeromans El Salvador facility had installed a key component of the door backward. In another incident, Aeroman mechanics crossed wires that connect the cockpit gauges and the airplanes engines, a potentially catastrophic error that, in the words of a 2012 Congressional Research Service report, could cause a pilot to shut down the wrong engine if engine trouble was suspected.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... how long the repair would take, they told me the delay wasn't the repair, but finding a pilot who didn't care.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)what airline?
Liberal In Texas
(13,576 posts)Deregulation and cuts in funding government agencies.
What could go wrong?
Auggie
(31,188 posts)felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)I was a hosp tech and as soon as maitenance went downhill so did everything else. WE should be maintaining our own infrastructure, FFS, we need the jobs too.
former9thward
(32,080 posts)And what crashes are those? When was the last time a U.S. commercial flight crashed due to mechanical issues?
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)moondust
(20,006 posts)Last edited Sun May 29, 2016, 03:18 PM - Edit history (1)
has to have his $14 million bonus each year so there's no other choice but to pay somebody 5 bucks a day to do the maintenance. It's just simple math. Besides, people hardly ever see the maintenance guys so it's not like they're enhancing the corporate image or anything.
(I'm just glad I no longer have to fly.)
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Save a whole shitload of money.
HuskyOffset
(890 posts)It's amazing, isn't it, how management positions are never outsourced. I wish boards of directors would insist that that be done if outsourcing of labor is done. That will never happen, because BoD are mostly made up of CEOs of other companies.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)If I can't drive or take a ship, I'm just not going.
I'm done with all of the bullshit the airlines and government puts us through for air travel.
kayakjohnny
(5,235 posts)You said it very well...
Califonz
(465 posts)Too many close calls in the news lately. But nothing will be done until a tragic accident happens, as usual.
bjo59
(1,166 posts)And just imagine what life will be like under the TTP, TTIP, and TISA.
mountain grammy
(26,650 posts)He as a licensed aircraft mechanic, me in records. Airlines began outsourcing heavy checks in the 80's, but to American facilities. Many were in the south and many mechanics were unlicensed, The mechanics' unions (my husband was IAM) and pilots' unions (ALPA) kept a close eye on this situation and demanded contract language protecting them (and the flying public) from outsourcing aircraft maintenance.
America's infatuation with Ronnie Reagan gave way to union busting and a disrespect of safety rules and regulations, and here we are today. Airplanes are safe, which is why they're not falling out of the sky due to shoddy maintenance, but when companies put profits above safety, it's only a matter of time.
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)my experiences with Southwest.
They had called everyone taking that flight to get in line and then we waited while the technicians open the "hood" on the left engine and were looking at it. They then opened the other engines hood and walked back and forth comparing them. They told us to set down because the flight would be delayed. Before I set down, I ask the guy that takes the boarding pass what was wrong and he said that the thrust reverser would not drop down on one engine.
After more examinations and 2 hours later they once again ask us to get ready to board. I sat on the side of the malfunctioning thrust reverser and it was in the up position all the time including landing.
On my very late night return flight, I sat close to on of Southwests pilots going back home as a passenger. I learned from him that what they did was fly with one engine.
Gee thanks Southwest... I need a 50% discount since I paid for two ingines to work.
BlueCollar
(3,859 posts)Not one engine.
For twin engine aircraft...both are required to be operational for departure.
If one fails in flight the crew will divert to the nearest airport for an emergency landing.
The reverser are not considered critical for flight ops...they can be placarded inoperative...but restrictions are applied to the aircraft's operating parameters. (Altitude, takeoff weight, runway length etc.)
mountain grammy
(26,650 posts)Response to BlueCollar (Reply #44)
Turbineguy This message was self-deleted by its author.
hunter
(38,327 posts)Who's gonna do a better job on your plane? Somebody in another country who thinks he has a great well paying job, or some kid in the U.S.A. who knows he's never going to be as well off as his parents were.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,838 posts)One nice perk of working for an airline is you get to fly for free (although you can't always get the flight you want when you want it). I know a lot of airline mechanics (and at most airlines they are still unionized - IAM) and they're very careful - if you or your family is going to fly on a plane you worked on, you're not going to be sloppy.
rpannier
(24,338 posts)'Some kid'... nice attempt at framing
Happy foreign worker, disgruntled American
Did you read the article?
Like the part about there not being any inspectors in Aisa any longer
Or, how when there were they couldn't enter the country without advanced notice so everyone knew they were coming
Or, (this goes to your happy foreign worker) how the instructions are all in English and there are very few (to almost zero) people building those planes that are actually authorized
hunter
(38,327 posts)Technical industry doesn't pay well enough for our children to afford comfortable housing, much less buy their own homes. Industry imports workers who live and work in conditions that would have appalled our union member parents.
I see it everywhere, my kids are living it. The stereotypes of a dozen immigrant workers sharing what was once a single family home, or of children living with their parents, are not far off
Anyways, I'm not the best judge of anything having to do with airlines. If I could afford to fly, if I had any desire to fly, maybe I'd worry about this issue more. I've got no love at all for the airline industry. But in general, lacking strong unions and strong government regulatory agencies, the United States is hardly any better than the nations whose workers so many of us despise.
SakonyaChen
(7 posts)I worry they can't read their own language.
KT2000
(20,587 posts)when they mention the manufacturer of an aircraft that crashed, if that is even appropriate. An Airbus or Boeing could go down and take the hit for a malfunction when a mistake could have been made in their outsourced shops. To be fair, instead of saying an Airbus or Boeing craft crashed, it should include a reference as to its maintenance history and where it was done.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)The problem is the FAA designee system is more of an FAA honor system and privileges that should have only been extended to the most trusted entities is given just about on demand now.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)but if the components are not in metric, then there could be some really bad confusion.
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)One would hope the manuals would be in the mechanics' own language
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)When flying international ATC might give pressure in mb, and tell you to decend to 3000 meters. Thats great except the controls are all in feet. So you pull out a chart on the clipboard and do the conversion.
At least for pressure, most large planes let you calibrate using inHg, or hPa (mb).
If we were going to standardized one thing it should be the instruments.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)It's possible to select the units of measure being displayed.
Most of the world has adopted using feet, knots and degrees. Russia and China have some differences.
rurallib
(62,448 posts)IIRC the whole air traffic control system is a 1960s system way, way out of date for today.
Then of course there are the sewers and water systems that are slowly decaying under our streets, plus the electric grid.
On and on it goes because some guy at the top wants a bigger paycheck
Seems that someday soon things will really start popping. Just hoping I won't be in the plane or on the street when it does.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)Whereas certain countries are basket cases.
Not saying I like this outsourcing thing at all, though Viva Mexico
newthinking
(3,982 posts)I know you tend toward glee whenever you can find something about Russia that looks to confirm your obvious bias... sorry to burst that bubble but here is the actual ranking from 2016 (Hint, these are not Russian airlines).
These 38 Airlines Have the Lowest Airline Safety Ratings
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travel-leisure/these-38-airlines-have-th_b_8963632.html
Thats Okay, Ill Pass (Rating: 3)
Afriqiyah
Air Bagan
AirAsia Thailand
AirAsia Zest
Avia Traffic Company
Bangkok Air
Camair-Co
Cambodia Angkor Air
Drukair Royal Bhutan
FastJet
Felix Airways
Fly540
Garuda Indonesia
JetStar Pacific
LAM
Libyan Airlines
Nauru Airlines
Orient Thai Airlines
Polynesian Airlines
Scat
Somon Air
Tajik Air
Definitely Not (Rating: 2)
Airlines PNG
Ariana Afghan Airlines
Blue Wing
Daallo Airlines
Kam Air
NOK Air
Not If You Paid Me (Rating: 1)
Batik Air
Citilink
KalStar Aviation
Lion Air
Nepal Airlines
Sriwijaya Air and Nam Air
Tara Air
TransNusa
Wings Air
Xpress Air
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)former9thward
(32,080 posts)When was the last crash of a U.S. commercial flight due to mechanical issues?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Which is a good reason why we shouldn't lower our standards to that of other nations.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)by the standards of American carriers, not foreign carriers.
I'm in favor of having the maintenance done in the U.S., but from the employment perspective, not the safety perspective.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Moving the maintenance to the 3rd world with no increase to the FAA's budget for policing pretty much insures 3rd world standards.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)because there's no such thing as transmitting maintenance records via electronic means, so FAA inspectors would have to be in the maintenance bays.
Or not.
Do you believe that the FAA was actually on-site when the planes were being maintained here?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The FAA just allows them to achieve certification prior to inspection, and now those on-site inspections are getting pushed farther and farther back, especially with those overseas.
And no, I don't believe the FAA is on-site all the time at all of the hundreds, if not thousands of repair stations, but I do believe the FAA does perform on-site inspections. That's why the inspectors are dispersed all over the US.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)until it is certified by the FAA, which includes an inspection. So if you're claiming to know that airlines are having planes maintained in non-FAA certified facilities, you should report the airline to the FAA.
A quick search shows that there has been only one crash in the United States since 2001 that was related to maintenance, and even then, the maintenance issue alone wouldn't have caused the plane to crash; it was the maintenance issue combined with an overweight plane that caused the crash.
And the maintenance was performed in the U.S., not overseas.
The idea that simply because maintenance is performed overseas it must be shoddy is pretty insulting to the skilled workers who are maintaining the aircraft.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Because if you are, you're wrong.
The fact that there's been very few air carrier accidents in the US related to maintenance is a testament to the oversight of that maintenance. Less oversight is a recipe for disaster regardless of how skilled you think foreign workers are.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)or the repair work has to be signed off by an FAA certified aircraft mechanic. If it's a certified facility, then yes, it has to be inspected. If it's not, the FAA-certified mechanic still has to sign off on the work, so I don't see the problem.
This has been going on for years, yet there is no outbreak of maintenance related crashes. There were more maintenance related crashes when the work was done here in the U.S than there is now.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)This is true. What is not true is that the facility has to be inspected before they are certified. Implying the contrary is wrong.
It's also true that there's currently a massive backlog of these inspections, much of which has to do with the airlines moving their maintenance operations out of the country.
The reason there were more maintenance related crashes in the past, is because much of the regulation today is written in blood.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)that a facility has to be inspected by the FAA prior to certification. If they aren't, then I stand corrected.
But I also stand by the statement that American carrier planes maintained overseas are just as safe as those maintained in the U.S.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It's really just a matter of time. Russian and Polish aviation regulatory standards certainly are attributable to more accidents, even though relatively speaking aviation there is safe. So it's really just a matter of how many more deaths you are willing to accept.
There's at least a couple of problems with "just as safe". For one thing, the number of FAA safety inspectors has remained constant even though the reliance on foreign repair stations has greatly increased. So it's just not that hard to figure out that regulation and oversight has suffered. The next problem is foreign repair stations aren't held to the same standards as US based repair stations. Mechanics who approve airworthiness at US based repair stations must be FAA certified. This is not true with foreign repair stations. So as I said, you aren't getting US regulatory standards and in many cases you are getting 3rd world standards. So if you think that's "just as safe" you are certainly entitled to that opinion. I don't agree.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Where is the increase in maintenance related accidents?
Oh wait. There isn't one.
So yeah, I feel just as safe now as I ever have when I fly.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Airplanes are becoming significantly safer due to technology and lessons learned from previous accidents. So throughout the history of aviation, air travel safety has always gone in one direction.
So the question isn't whether or not there are more accidents, but how many can be attributed to less oversight which due to the increased burden is going to affect even maintenance performed in the US. There's no question air transport aircraft maintained by foreign carriers have more accidents attributable to maintenance issues. The US operates far more airplanes than anyone and has the best safety record. Whether or not you get a warm happy feeling when you fly is pretty much irrelevant to whether or not those standards are now lower than they have been.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)So how many crashes have been attributed to less oversight since the surge in overseas maintenance?
And this statement, "There's no question air transport aircraft maintained by foreign carriers have more accidents attributable to maintenance issues" is irrelevant, as we're talking about American carriers and American maintenance standards.
Bringing airline maintenance activities back to the U.S. is a worthy goal from a jobs perspective, and that's how it should be approached, rather than throwing up unfounded concerns over safety that aren't borne out by any evidence.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I am not.
As I already wrote, maintenance personnel at foreign repair stations do not have to be FAA certified. That's not "American maintenance standards".
Air transport aircraft are typically kept in service for decades and for the last couple domestic carriers have been rapidly changing out their fleets. So problems with maintenance performed in 3rd world countries with 3rd world standards may not show up for some time. You may be happy with waiting until planes start falling out of the sky due to substandard oversight before deciding to do something. I am not. There's a damn good reason for "American maintenance standards". Neither have I claimed that the only way to fix this is to bring maintenance back to the US.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)that American aircraft are being maintained in "3rd world countries with 3rd world standards"?
3rd world countries perhaps, but are you actually claiming that American carries don't have to adhere to American maintenance standards, and can instead follow the standards of the countries in which the maintenance is being performed?
Ridiculous.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Feel free to call their statement ridiculous.
http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/Web_File_Foreign_Repair_Station_Final__Statement.pdf
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)so perhaps you have the location in the document, since you're making the claim, but I found nothing that said American aircraft are being maintained according to the standards of the country in which the repair station is located.
Is it actually there, or are you just assuming?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Right.
Thanks for playing.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Here it is, in big bird letters.
So tell me again how my claim is "ridiculous", and self-declare victory after twice being just flat wrong.
Right.
Thanks for playing.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Because you claimed that American aircraft are maintained based on foreign standards, not American standards. That's not even close to what you posted in jumbo font above.
Keep trying though.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I don't think I have to try anymore. You just can't argue with that level of brilliance.
Cheers!
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)with another word starting with "b"
Here, let's try an example so that we're clear (a made up example)
Every 1000 takeoffs/landings, landing gear must be inspected.
American maintenance standard: Landing gear has to be removed, taken apart, and all parts inspected for wear and corrosion, with wear being measured to ensure compliance with manufacturer's/FAA recommended/mandatedAmer tolerances.
3rd world maintenance standard (for that country's aircraft): Landing gear doesn't have to be removed, but must be visually inspected for wear and corrosion. No actual measurement of observed wear must be taken - use best judgement.
You're showing evidence of a difference in facility/mechanic certification standards rather than a difference in actual maintenance standards to maintain airworthiness. You've claimed, repeatedly, that American aircraft maintained in 3rd world countries are maintained by those countries' standards.
So where does the document you've provided released American carriers from the responsibility to maintain American aircraft by American standards?
BlueCollar
(3,859 posts)Is actually done there.
I happen to know a lot of that work is subcontracted to other vendors who again subcontract the work.
Ultimately the carrier is supposed to be responsible for all the work accomplished by all of the subcontractors but I have knowledge that that is not always the case.
I also take issue with your statement that there has only been one maintenance related crash since 2001...
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)the Air Midwest crash in Charlotte.
What are the other ones that are maintenance related?
And if you have knowledge of laws being broken, you should absolutely report it, if you haven't already.
BlueCollar
(3,859 posts)Comes to mind....
As to your comment on reporting violations under FAR 145. ...been there...done that...FAA sweeps most of it under the carpet...at least that has been my experience to date.
Califonz
(465 posts)Foreign mechanics and engineers can be just as good, if not better, than airline mechanics in the USA, who may or may not be disgruntled, hungover, angry about some union issue, etc.
former9thward
(32,080 posts)It said the maintenance HAD BEEN outsourced to other nations .
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)How does the OP contradict what I said exactly?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I kinda doubt that, unless they're puddle-jumpers and local commuter routes.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Question: "So where are the crashes if maintenance is so bad? When was the last crash of a U.S. commercial flight due to mechanical issues?"
Your answer: "Most are in places other than the US (all emphasis mine). Which is a good reason why we shouldn't lower our standards to that of other nations."
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Seems to be an older article, wonder what the current state of affairs is.
geomon666
(7,512 posts)The stories he could tell you would make your hair turn white if it isn't already. You would damn sure think twice about flying again, that's for sure.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I dont dispute the need for improvements, but it is probably the safest form of travel.
glinda
(14,807 posts)Switzerland and am scared to fly to go there to take my friends up on it. Doesn't help that I am claustrophobic on top of it.
BlueCollar
(3,859 posts)I will just say this...
"Using the checklist is statistically safer than thinking"
That is as true on the ground as it is in the cockpit...or to be politically correct now...the flightdeck.
It matters not where your aircraft is maintained or who is flying it...it only matters that the individuals who are in charge of those functions give a damn about the job they are doing.
I cut my teeth in Naval Aviation where "...Attention to detail..." was the mantra...and after leaving the service I worked for an MRO where I was fortunate enough to apprentice under old school mechanics for several years before I wound up working for a regional carrier that was absorbed by a major.
Today, unfortunately, the mantra is..."Do we have to fix that or can we placard it?" meaning...Does the item have to be fixed or can we fly without it?
These days there are a lot more placards in logbooks than there used to be...but that doesn't necessarily translate to an unsafe aircraft.
In an example given above the issue was apparently a malfunctioning thrust reverser. It sounds like it was decided to placard the reverser and fly without it being operational which is considered acceptable as long as certain conditions are met. (e.g .Altitude, takeoff weight, runway length etc.)
Some items cannot be placarded and are definitely no-go...others are nice to have but not flight essential.
The real decision is up to the individual who is using the checklist. Can that individual be held to account?
It is a lot easier to question that individual if he works here in the USA.
I can cite plenty of enforcement actions by the FAA here in the USA but I know of none against overseas contractors.
Fortunately, Boeing, AirBus et al build a better product every time they design a new one.
Your safety on an airplane is much more dependent on human factors than mechanical reliability.
My advice...avoid flying on airlines with disgruntled employees.
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)How about a door?
If I ran an airline, all flights would double as a thrill ride.
mainer
(12,029 posts)Headed overseas on business day after tomorrow. Hate flying anyway, and this doesn't help.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)I'm speaking of the one you'll wear as you drive TO and FROM the airport - cause that's the most dangerous part of your travels!
ReRe
(10,597 posts)We are gonna get it one of these days. The whole airline industry is being mismanaged right into the ground. They are scraping in the money nowdays, charging high fares, extra for baggage and at the same time, laying off screeners, and now we learn of outsourcing the planes for repairs.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Airlines are operating on ~5% profit margin, which is by no means outrageous, fares, as measured in 1979 dollars, are down about 30%, and aside from the fact that airlines don't hire or layoff screeners, the TSA is hiring thousands of screeners.
Really not as dire as you make it out to be.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)TSA layoffs NYTimes. Start there. The situation IS dire. I know I get upset and I do have to check myself from time to time. Very excitable right now due to election. Sorry.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)... as passengers are standing in the lines, in the middle of the crisis? Of course he said they were hiring more screeners. He had to say something to respond to the storm of criticism. It's a TSA problem, not necessarily an airlines problem. (If I understand the dividing line between the airlines and the TSA.)
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)but I couldn't find anything that says they are currently laying of TSA screeners, just that they're hiring them.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... I found it yesterday. That's where I got my info about the lay-offs. Since 2013 and now, some 2,000 have been layed-off. And now, they are having to hire them back again. They downsized too much, which landed them in the current mess.
greiner3
(5,214 posts)But the plane was delayed 5.5 hours after boarding. Finally all deplaned and since it was said delays are not reimbursed for extra fare on another carrier his ticket cost about doubled because they don't have to pay for his, and everyone else's costs. Way to go stupid regulations and the lack of them
Fritz Walter
(4,292 posts)...and call Bullshit!
Airport gate areas more closely resemble livestock pens at factory farms.
When I hear the word "lounge," I think of comfortable seating, pleasant ambiance, a relaxing experience. Please tell me which airport's gates even vaguely resemble that. Southwest just took it to an inevitable extreme by making us cattle -- oops, I mean "passengers" -- stand in queues to get a decent seat.
Meanwhile, the airlines cater to their frequent flyers and others who can afford the annual membership fees by operating clubs which are slightly less crowded, noisy and uncomfortable.
GETPLANING
(846 posts)and he told me everything that I just read in this article. I was asking him if aviation services was a good career path for my son who was graduating from high school and thinking about his future. The guy I was speaking with worked for a major US airline and told me the planes fly during the day and receive maintenance at night, so the hangars are working night shifts. For more major maintenance the planes are flown to Mexico or Eastern Europe. The US jobs are paying less and less. He also warned that what was keeping the aircraft from falling out of the skies was not better maintenance, but the fact that airplanes are much better built today than they ever were, and are more reliable.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)benld74
(9,909 posts)Unless they are 'maintaining' their planes??
HOW can that be cost efficient?
Much easier for someone wishing to make a 'statement' to make one.😡👎🏽👎😱
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)for the demise of our airports and end of our unions. He was one of the most destructive forces in our country. Of course every repuke since then has added more nails to the coffin of what was once a great nation.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Offshoring is so profitable is so many ways.
There are 731 foreign repair shops certified by the F.A.A. around the globe. How qualified are the mechanics in these hundreds of places? Its very hard to check. In the past, when heavy maintenance was performed on Uniteds planes at a huge hangar at San Francisco International Airport, a government inspector could easily drive a few minutes from an office in the Bay Area to make a surprise inspection. Today that maintenance work is done in Beijing. The inspectors responsible for checking on how Chinese workers service airplanes are based in Los Angeles, 6,500 miles away.
Thank you for the heads-up, LiberalArkie!
valerief
(53,235 posts)LongTomH
(8,636 posts)I remember touring AA's repair facility and the pride of the workers there!
"What is job one?" "Safety is job one, sir!"
My God, what are we losing??
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)This reads like "There are foreigners who have jobs, only Mericans should have jobs!"
Edited to add: This actually sounds like an extension of when Trump was going around saying Mexicans aren't good enough to build air conditioners.