Airlines trying to survive in today’s
competitive environment, with high fuel, maintenance and labor costs,
are taking a pronounced proactive business strategy.
Well-managed younger airlines are turning
profits while the older dinosaurs are looking at Chapter 11
reorganization.
Several strategies that are incorporated
are as follows:
-
Outsourcing heavy maintenance to third
party providers on a competitive basis.
-
Buying fuel futures to lock in stable
and sometimes lower prices.
-
Multi-tasking cabin crews to cut down
on cleaning expenses as well as turn-times.
-
Eliminating crew and economy passenger
meals.
-
Adjusting seat pitch in order to add
additional rows of seats.
However, there is one strategy that seems
to be overlooked by many airlines. How to preserve precious cash flow;
especially when it comes to heavy maintenance. Its one thing to
negotiate a competitive price for heavy “C” checks but having to pay for
them on a net 30 or net 60 will still negatively impact cash flow. The
ideal scenario is to have the aircraft back in service while paying for
the maintenance over an extended period and AVMAC has developed a
strategy for just such a scenario.
Not that we have enough problems with the financial end
of the airline business the issue of maintenance safety, every so often,
is brought to the forefront.
Two items were specifically brought to our attention this month. The first
involves “Human Factors in Maintenance – Another Reminder” an important
article in the Overhaul and Maintenance magazine by J. Donald Collier; and
the other, a Wall Street Journal article concerning the 2001 American
Airlines Flight 587 crash in Queens, NY.
The premise of Mr. Collier’s article is as he states: “As a whole, the air
carrier industry is experiencing a slight trend toward becoming less
safe.” The research for the article came from a Purdue University study of
NTSB records in which maintenance was a causal factor.
The salient points of this article reveal the following:
-
76.5% of maintenance-related events had
“failure to follow established procedures” as a contributing factor
-
19.8% of maintenance-related events
had “inadequate or missing inspections” as a contributing factor
-
15.2% of maintenance-related events
were marked by errors or omissions by the maintenance organizations, not
just individuals
-
Maintenance contributions to
accidents and incidents are increasing, and steps should be taken to
arrest this trend…
In addition to the above, the premise
of an October 8th. Wall Street Journal article focuses on what
responsibility Airbus has with respect to the American Airlines 2001 crash
in Queens, New York. As stated in the article: “…newly reviewed documents
underscore that Airbus engineers years before realized but failed to
explicitly warn pilots or airlines about the potential for such a
catastrophic accident”.
“Testimony and documents already have revealed that Airbus had warned
about the matter, but many of the warnings were overlooked and the
aircraft maker itself failed to push the issue.”
The records are full of maintenance-related aircraft accidents. What we
read in each report does not begin to describe the horror of the final
seconds of the passengers on board or the grief shared by their families.
In the desire to get an aircraft back in service or save a few dollars by
cutting corners is, in this writer’s opinion, not only a crime but a
mortal sin. We are only human and subject to mistakes, however, in this
industry, let’s go beyond what is just required and do our personal best
to insure that safety is the number one concern of every maintenance
occurrence.
|
