Absolutely. CPCP (corrosion Prevention Program) is a prime example. Operators must monitor corrosion findings, and ensure that findings are limited to Level 1 or better. Level 2 corrosion findings necessitate action, which can be either improvements in the protection, changes to the operation, training of staff, or even decrease of the inspection interval.
The CPCP philosophy is that whist everyone starts from the same baseline, there are many factors unique to each operator, such as operating environment (weather), choice of corrosion prevention compounds, skills and quality of the maintenance facilities, cargo types, etc, etc, that can all add up to corrosion being a problem in some areas for some, and not for others.
Another area of maintenance commonly subject to in house de-escalation regards component maintenance. Component reliability is measured, and if a trend is detected, then the inspection/overhaul interval is brought down to try to reduce the number of incidences of on wing failure.
Airlines also share information with OEM's, NAA's and each other. Whilst some parts of our maintenance programmes are closely guarded secrets, most of the big airlines share new, uncommon, or disturbing maintenance findings. The OEM's track findings and recommend changes to the operators, either by changing the MPD, or by issuing service bulletins. Where those Service Bulletins affect safety, the NAA's pick them up and mandate them with AD's.
The big public decompression incidents are primarily fatigue related. Fatigue affects all operators, where it exists in one airframe of a certain age, it is likely to be in other airframes of similar age, hence these issues become AD's, and public knowledge.
But in the background, there are people at every airline who are paid to fine tune the maintenance program to strike the right balance of reliability through product improvements, modifications, trend monitoring and task interval escalation and de-escalation.