Romulus I know you want this place to be a success and the posters here did as well. I read their posts and understand exactly what they are saying, it is like you are also reading the same posts and just don't understand the problem. I do owe you a more in depth answer as well to explain as I offered last week. This is part of the conversation I had with management.
You talk about efficiencies or productivity/profitability, however you want to term it. Correctly we understand that a business must make money, no issue with that. To convert what I am talking about to examples you can undrstand I will put it a different way.
So say you have a business that is struggling, lets call it JHAS. You want to change somthing. You can either make the operation cheaper or make the operation better (more work output). Problem is, to make it better you need to spend some money. Now the accountants faced with this situaton always go for the cut costs model, it's simple for people who do not know a business to adopt. It creates problems later on, people who do know the business try to warn the decision makers who invariably do not listen, they just blame, lose more contracts, cut more costs until there is nothing left.
Alternatively, the business can fight for more work by selling their quality product. In order to do that, you need a quality product (JHAS has never had that but could have). When you have people delivering quality, others around them learn the methods to create what is being delivered. These people are proud of their work and if rewarded sufficiently will do anything for management because they would work together as a team. I've been part of a team like this before at Qantas (then some idiot went and changed it).
So at JHAS what does this mean. Early on there were Engineering mistakes. These occurred because management wanted to make it profitable from day one and did not employ enough experienced people. There were far too many unlicenced Engineers working alone and insufficient oversight. This is not a model for success in Aviation maintenance. I can assure you, an exprienced LAME may even be twice as expensive as an AME, they will nearly always deliver 2-3 times the work output if deployed correctly. This is no offence to AMEs, many of whom are fantastic. The LAME however works untethered, doesn't need to check with another to make a decision and in most cases just has greater exprience levels.
Qf Mel had a high ratio of LAMEs. They managed to drop the heaviest of 737 c checks from 42 days to under 20. Fastest time in the world by a mile. Now this is a market that could deliver something unique and JHAS could have done the same. Non aviation people are running fine businesses and the people there just will not listen. The wrong Engineers have been promoted to management positions. You (am talking Hr, IR non aviation persons) have selected leaders based not on their ability or knowledge but their promises of absolute loyalty to flawed models designd by buffoons.