So BP2197, when we are simply on par with the rest of the world in the way we treat maintenance, what edge do we have in attracting those who flew because of our safety?
Management would counter with - those other airlines/MRO's are safe. Planes are not falling out of the sky.That is true. But you never hear about the number of incidents and delays whilst the aircraft is on the line. Well, how do they really do it?
Inspect and find nothing. AMM calls for a consumable, don't have it, no worries nobody will know. If you find something, ignore it. At all cost deliver the plane to the client on time for the right price. These MRO's do exactly that or the client will not come back.
Imagine holding up a plane for a couple of extra weeks for corrosion removal, chasing that hydraulic leak, just can't quite rig those ailerons, the annunciator that flickers intermittently etc etc etc. You take your car for it's 100K service, you get it back on time and for the agreed price OR you're rung up in the morning and told this and this and this have been found, parts not available for a couple of days and it will cost over a thousand bucks and at the moment your car cannot be driven ie unroadworthy. How would YOU feel. I've always wondered why the analogy is not used more often with the media.
That is the dilemma facing aircraft maintenance. When the dollar is almighty and the place is run by bankers, mathematicians, accountants and piss weak ex-LAMEs in management, too afraid to make a case for good engineering, then what choice do most airlines make? She'll be right. It's the minimum requirement. It's cost effective. It's worlds best practise.
How can you argue? But what about our reputation for world beating safety, reduced incidents etc ? Just doesn't cut it in this 'modern' world.