PDA

View Full Version : Food for thought when you outsource your maintenance


The Bungeyed Bandit
13th Oct 2006, 11:22
How could anybody in their right mind expect a B747 to be turned around in a couple of hours after coming in as a ferry flight from Singapore where it spent the last month or so having a "supposed" D Check carried out.

This was the situation with VH-OJQ this afternoon. It came in with the following defects:

Techlog Incoming Defects SIN-SYD:
- APU oil qty dropped below 0.25 - 7 qts oil uplifted upon arrival - found major oil leak at oil supply line.
- #4 Eng NAI valve failed to close.
- Unable to receive on both HF Radios.
- "No Land 3" EICAS msg.
- Fuel Xfer valve Main 1 to Main 2 did not close when commanded.
- Door Chime 1L Inop - Found wiring disconnected.
- Numerous cockpit panel discrete lights Inop.
- Flt Deck toilet door unable to engage/lock.
- Crew rest curtain not fitted.

HOLD ITEMS OUT OF SIN:
- # 8 Spoiler PCU SQ loan item.
- FCC-C SQ loan item.
- Cabin Pressure Controller A SQ loan item.
- No VHF link on ACARS.
- #2 Eng NAI valve BA loan item.
- ELT deactivated.
- #2 Eng cold stream acoustic panel detached on 3 sides - temp repair.
- Capt's panel flood light low intensity.

DEFECTS FOUND DURING ATTEMPTED TRANSIT:
- #1 Eng oil leak - IDG drive pad.
- CSM Sta cabin temp control panel found with cannon plug disconnected.
- No water flow in U/Deck galley.


Suffice to say another A/C that was scheduled for a stayover had to be turned around and OJQ towed over to the hangars to get it up to speed.

J430
13th Oct 2006, 11:36
Not being faniliar with all items listed, but what F#@& was that doing leaving a maint. shop in the first place.

Who were the poor suckers flying it back here.....next time take the whole senior management on a JUNKET trip and shortly before you TKOF clearence is issued hand the the defect list:eek: .............see what they think of that.:mad:

I am starting to think my little 4 seat plastic plane is maintained to a higher standard...........oh yeah...myself and an ex QF 744 captain do the work.....its gotta be better.:E

J:ok:

J430
13th Oct 2006, 11:42
L.M.A.O.

Within minutes...my prayers were answered.

Arrange a few more, preferably long delays and ugly diversions:E

J:ok:

Feather #3
13th Oct 2006, 12:28
U don't even get what you pay for going down this track! :ugh:

How may times does it take before each new set of beancounters get the message??:uhoh:

BUT, as someone once said; they're cheap! :rolleyes:

G'day ;)

Ultralights
13th Oct 2006, 12:59
being one of those EX QF engineers, i dont know whether to laugh or cry.

sadly the list of defects will be overlook as all involved (beancounters) only bask in the glory of having the maintainence done at the lowest ever prices.

do it cheap now, let the next lot worry about it later.

forget
13th Oct 2006, 13:04
Are these Checks carried out wthout any Qantas reps on site?:confused:

Air Ace
13th Oct 2006, 14:56
Exactly my thoughts forget. Was the aircraft signed out and released by an Australian LAME and/or a Qantas Rep?

UPPERLOBE
13th Oct 2006, 21:46
Sounds like the beancounters are starting to see the fruit of their labours. Never mind, put it all down to risk management.
Sounds like he is a true nimby, although "The Three Stooges" have all shown shown their true colours when a maintenance issue dares to interrupt their jollies. :}

Sunfish
13th Oct 2006, 22:07
This is all going to end in tears.

By the way, are you aware that QF have just sold its spares inventory to an outsourcer?

The concept of the "virtual company" where everything is outsourced, sounds good on paper. All the Board does is sit in its boardroom and sip champagne. The aircraft are outsourced to an "aircraft provider" the crews to a "crew provider", marketing to an advertising agency,............you get my drift.

The trouble with this idea is that each time you outsource something you lose a little chunk of value added. Taking the outsourcing case to the extreme - where your virtual company has no employees - just owners and a Board, the question has to be asked, what value are you adding to the business? And the answer is actually zero.

In addition, unless the market into which you are outsourcing is highly competitive, you risk being royally screwed at a later date. then of course their is the possibility of your business being disrupted through supply chain failure.

If Qantas continues to outsource, there is no reason to protect it anymore as an Australian Icon or strategic asset. In fact our strategic interests, as well as the public interest, would be better served by an open skies policy to maximise the supply of airtravel opportunities as well as consumer choice.

To put it another way, being tied to Qantas the "outsourced" airline, the Australian public can be held to ransom by Chinese suppliers.

Ultralights
13th Oct 2006, 22:19
i have never understood why QF , and many otehr airlines and companies are in such a rush to hand over control of their greatest costs to another party? and risk being held to ransom by another companies balance sheet/ unions etc

QF MAINT OUTSOURCED
13th Oct 2006, 23:02
now here is the best bit about this aircraft OJQ,RUMOR HAS IT ,it had a 55 hr structual inspection done in 8hrs overnight while on this check,1 person carried out the structual inspections on 4 pax doors,the wet area of the floor in E zone( TOILET AREA AT THE BACK OF THE AIRCRAFT),and the pressure deck in D zone(structure between the cabin and the landing gear wheel well),and the grand total of 1 defect was raised,this was of coarse done overnight when there was no QF rep around,bearing in mind that the nexted time these areas will be looked at will be 6 yrs,and this current check was not too flash,that will be 12 yrs before this area has a decent inspection.That's if it is done proerly the nexted time.I should think it will only be a matter of time before the QF board buy themselves a corporate jet to get around,this is just too much of a risk flying on our aircraft.

Feather #3
14th Oct 2006, 00:15
Gets it off the balance sheet, don't have to employ pesky staff with all the on-costs and if it goes wrong you can then blame/sue the provider!:rolleyes:

G'day ;)

Woomera
14th Oct 2006, 01:35
They are showing now. Read Danny's notice above: Probationary membership

tlf
14th Oct 2006, 02:34
Would be a real shame if that information made it into a daily newspaper :)

neville_nobody
14th Oct 2006, 03:12
I'm sure the ABC would be interested to hear. 4 Corners did a show on QF outsourcing years ago talking about the loss of aprentices, loss of company knowledge and skills for short term gain etc etc.

EmiratesSandpit
14th Oct 2006, 06:15
I'm going to be a dunce for a moment and ask the following questions:

1) What's Techlog Incoming Defects SIN-SYD
2) What's a "Hold Item"
3) What's "Defects Found During Attempted Transit", specifically "Attempted Transit"
4) What's a "Loan Item" and why are there "Loan items"
5) It's ST Aero I think that does the MX for Qantas isn't it?

Feel free to be condescending.

I take it this was the one B747 that was outsourced a bit after the latest job cuts and had to be justified by QF's engineering guy who came out and said that this was just a temporary measure and that there was nothing to worry about (in terms of jobs obviously)

UPPERLOBE
14th Oct 2006, 07:13
1) What's Techlog Incoming Defects SIN-SYD
2) What's a "Hold Item"
3) What's "Defects Found During Attempted Transit", specifically "Attempted Transit"
4) What's a "Loan Item" and why are there "Loan items"
5) It's ST Aero I think that does the MX for Qantas isn't it?

To answer you briefly without going too far into things,

1. Defects added to the a/c's tech log by the crew on the SIN - SYD sector.
2. A defect which can continue until ground time permits rectification or spares become available or MEL expires, etc.
3. During the transit check routine these defects were found.
3.5 Attempted transit means this aircraft was replaced by a "serviceable" a/c.
4. To limit spares holdings on station airlines pool spares and borrow from the pool, or in this case spares borrowed from the maintenance provider in order to despatch the aircraft.
5. Singapores maintenance/engineering company.

Hope this helps.

EmiratesSandpit
14th Oct 2006, 07:22
Thanks Upperlobe.

A bit surprising that SIA Engineering Company (SIAEC) did the work. :eek:

In the last financial year, we underwent 92 internal audits and 107 external audits. Constant review of our work procedures ensures that a high standard of service is maintained. As a testament to the Company’s high quality of work, we currently hold regulatory approvals from 23 national aviation authorities and 20 airlines (as of April 2006). These includethe FAA, EASA, Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB), Emirates Airlines and Qantas Airways

SIAEC Annual Report 2005/2006 (http://www.siaec.com.sg/InvestorRelations/AnnualReport/2005_2006/AnnualReport_2005.pdf)

Ultralights
14th Oct 2006, 08:47
I always thought CASA had to give approval for a maintainence organisation to maintain ausie registered aircraft? not the airline itself?

max autobrakes
14th Oct 2006, 10:06
DOWNSIZE
RIGHTSIZE
=CAPSIZE :mad:

chemical alli
14th Oct 2006, 23:04
to be fair ,no aircraft comes out of a d check clean .even when the good old guys and girls of syd heavy carried out the work there was always tech log write ups and snags .I ask the question the aircraft had a test flight before being ferried back to syd who signed it out,why did the fly boys accept it ? yes there were qf guys on the ground in sin looking after it and most of these guys are ex syd heavy, you think that thay would stand hard come a release to service signature

Bleve
14th Oct 2006, 23:10
As for CASA approval - maybe that has been delegated to a QANTAS engineering manager. After all it happens in the pilot ranks. Licence renewals are a CASA responsibilty but that is delegated to QANTAS Senior Check Captains. When in the sim the QANTAS SCC wears a CASA hat when doing a licence renewal and a QANTAS hat when doing training.

Redstone
15th Oct 2006, 00:59
Well, it is a duty incumbent upon all engineers to report any incidents that they feel compromise the basic standards directly to CASA.

It is all very well for SIAEC or SASCO to talk up their credentials, but it would be interesting to see them in action when the FAA man or the EASA people are there paying a visit. One suspects they handle these "audits" quite differently to the way Qantas does.

The Bungeyed Bandit
15th Oct 2006, 04:13
Reply to EmiratesSandpit:

Quote:
A bit surprising that SIA Engineering Company (SIAEC) did the work. :eek:


Quote:
In the last financial year, we underwent 92 internal audits and 107 external audits. Constant review of our work procedures ensures that a high standard of service is maintained. As a testament to the Company’s high quality of work, we currently hold regulatory approvals from 23 national aviation authorities and 20 airlines (as of April 2006). These includethe FAA, EASA, Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB), Emirates Airlines and Qantas Airways
SIAEC Annual Report 2005/2006 (http://www.siaec.com.sg/InvestorRelations/AnnualReport/2005_2006/AnnualReport_2005.pdf)


May I put forward the following reasons this A/C came out of a "D Check" in such a mess:
- Internal Audits at SIAEC are rubber stamped (SIAEC is a money making concern and we don't want to upset the honey cart or lose face do we?).
- External Audits if done by CAAS are also rubber stamped (I'll grease your palm if you grease mine).
- External Audits done by Regulatory Authorities from outside Singapore are well controlled by SIAEC:
- Plenty of notice given when an audit is going to be carried out.
- SIAEC dedicate 2 or 3 "Customer Relations" people to "look after" Outside Authority/Customer Inspectors. (Keep em away from job while we inspect lah). After all, the locals know where the best bars are.
- Keep all those uncontrolled items away from prying eyes.


EmiratesSandpit, if you beleive the sales pitch you quoted I think you may have been in the sun a bit too long.


As QF MAINT OUTSOURCED said: "now here is the best bit about this aircraft OJQ that just had it's D check done,it had a 55 hr structual inspection done in 8hrs overnight while on this check,1 person carried out the structual inspections on 4 pax doors,the wet area of the floor in E zone( TOILET AREA AT THE BACK OF THE AIRCRAFT),and the pressure deck in D zone(structure between the cabin and the landing gear wheel well),and the grand total of 1 defect was raised,this was of coarse done overnight when there was no QF rep around,bearing in mind that the nexted time these areas will be looked at will be 6 yrs,and this current check was not too flash,that will be 12 yrs before this area has a decent inspection.That's if it is done proerly the nexted time."

Don't forget, MROs employ LAEs/LAMEs to use a pen not swing a spanner. Get the inspection done ASAP, with the minimum of fuss and while no one else is looking. Unfortunately the customer (QF) reps are really only there to make sure the paperwork has all the "I"s dotted and the "T"s crossed. The MRO does the "inspection and rework".

It is for this reason that MROs can do Major Maintenance Checks so cheap.

404 Titan
15th Oct 2006, 05:39
The Bungeyed Bandit & QF MAINT OUTSOURCED

"now here is the best bit about this aircraft OJQ that just had it's D check done,it had a 55 hr structual inspection done in 8hrs overnight while on this check,1 person carried out the structual inspections on 4 pax doors,the wet area of the floor in E zone( TOILET AREA AT THE BACK OF THE AIRCRAFT),and the pressure deck in D zone(structure between the cabin and the landing gear wheel well),and the grand total of 1 defect was raised,this was of coarse done overnight when there was no QF rep around,bearing in mind that the nexted time these areas will be looked at will be 6 yrs,and this current check was not too flash,that will be 12 yrs before this area has a decent inspection.That's if it is done proerly the nexted time."
May I put forward the following reasons this A/C came out of a "D Check" in such a mess:
- Internal Audits at SIAEC are rubber stamped (SIAEC is a money making concern and we don't want to upset the honey cart or lose face do we?).
- External Audits if done by CAAS are also rubber stamped (I'll grease your palm if you grease mine).
- External Audits done by Regulatory Authorities from outside Singapore are well controlled by SIAEC:
- Plenty of notice given when an audit is going to be carried out.
- SIAEC dedicate 2 or 3 "Customer Relations" people to "look after" Outside Authority/Customer Inspectors. (Keep em away from job while we inspect lah). After all, the locals know where the best bars are.
- Keep all those uncontrolled items away from prying eyes.

I hope both of you have unequivocal proof of what you have just claimed here and are willing to put your own name to them because I’m quite sure Pprune have no intention of being hung out to dry when these claims are taken to court which I’m sure they will be. These are very serious accusations to make especially if they are hearsay. And has been said before if a court orders Pprune to disclose your identity, it has no choice but to comply. If as I suspect what is being said here is purely for industrial reasons, you are treading on very dangerous grounds.

And before you go trying to shoot me down, I “DO NOT” for one minute support outsourcing. It's immoral in my book. But I despise spin even more.

BHMvictim
15th Oct 2006, 06:01
.... a 55 hr structual inspection done in 8hrs overnight ....

Ahhhhh!!! The good old overnight inspection! Done whilst Mr QF-Rep is out enjoying a beer and some noodles. (and some other things were it me :p )

Many guys that I work with, who have spent time working overseas as reps, have recalled stories almost exactly the same as this.

Worst part about it is that when the aircraft is in a QF facility at a later date, QF employees recieve pineapples sideways for having found the vast amounts of corrosion in wet areas..... naughty naughty QF engineer! You shouldnt have found it! Now the check will slip 2 or 3 days!

BHMvictim
15th Oct 2006, 06:10
The Bungeyed Bandit & QF MAINT OUTSOURCED
I hope both of you have unequivocal proof of what you have just claimed here and are willing to put your own name to them because I’m quite sure Pprune have no intention of being hung out to dry when these claims are taken to court which I’m sure they will be. These are very serious accusations to make especially if they are hearsay. And has been said before if a court orders Pprune to disclose your identity, it has no choice but to comply. If as I suspect what is being said here is purely for industrial reasons, you are treading on very dangerous grounds.


Thanks Geoff. 3% again this EBA is it?

Sunfish
15th Oct 2006, 06:40
As the silly pr*ck who had to do the maintenance budgets for Ansett, now deceased, before it was gutted and sold, I concur with Bungeyed.

Threats of legal action are easy to make.

What the general public does not understand, not do pilots, is that failures and defects are a bit like bank accounts. The more you have of them the more your account i in debit. If one day your accounts are called in and your debits exceed your credits then you are F%^$ed.

If Woomera and Danny decide to censor this information, then they can bear the responsibility when the inevitable happens.

To put it another way, GD will not bear the financial cost if a QF ship goes in. Neither will the rest of the Board.

My gut feel (as someone no longer associated with an airline) is that airlines are buying new aircraft and planning to dispose of them before they need heavy maintenance. In other words, putting the burden on tomorrows managers.

404 Titan
15th Oct 2006, 08:09
BHMvictim

Bwahahahahahahaha. Yeh right. GD? Couldn’t be further from the truth. I couldn’t even be bothered pissing on his shoes. For all I know the rumours here could be true but you had better be prepared to back it up and even if you do and the company looses, they have won. You know why? Because you have been identified and the next thing you realise you are a leper in the industry and lots of other industries as well. You are unemployable. Think it can’t happen? Just ask the poor b******d LAME that blew the whistle on Alaskan Airlines in the mid 90’s. He has never worked as a LAME again even though he was right and supplied the info anonymously to the FAA.

Think very carefully before you open your mouth on this or any other forum. The working life of a whistle blower is a very short one, whether you are right or wrong.

company_spy
15th Oct 2006, 08:59
Over the last 30 years QANTAS has outsourced maintenance to various company's, it has never gotten a good result. From United in the 80's, EEI at Singapore, the Ugly sisters, cheaper has never been better.
QANTAS engineers may not be God's gift to engineering but they are pretty good, what they can't do is paper work to satisfy FAA and EASA, eg BA repairs to a/c after engine failure and ATLAS repairs. Nothing wrong with the repairs only the paperwork was f:mad:ed. Overseas MRO's know how to pander to these organisations to keep their authorisations, QANTAS doesn't!(Don't call an FAA inspector a piss head when he is teetotal, alah Robbo!):=
As long as the bean counters can see a saving on the bottom line a/c will continue to be sent overseas. When they finally add up the cost of an overseas check and the repairs afterwards they may finally see that it is more cost efficient to do it at home, I don't see that happening in a long time, by then it will be to late.

soldier of fortune
15th Oct 2006, 10:39
yes company spy as the standards are lowerd its only a matter of time:( :(

c100driver
15th Oct 2006, 23:52
Having been involved in a few aircraft sent to MRO organisations and also returning them to service I can say that the work done is ONLY what the WRITTEN CONTRACT between the owner and the MRO states unless a further extension and further work is agreed to. Aircraft are always returned with defects outside the contract agreement still open.

If your aircraft is returned with open defects it is because the owner eg QF, has decided not to have the defects cleared at the MRO. It is not the MRO's fault that it still open it is the customer who decided where, when, and what gets done.

The contracts for C and D checks can and do sometimes run into 100's of pages of legal documents on who is resposible for what. This is all run by the owner i.e. the one that pays the bills in the end.

Chris Higgins
16th Oct 2006, 00:27
I'm glad to see the old PPRune back!:ok: :}

QF MAINT OUTSOURCED
16th Oct 2006, 01:05
if Qanats want to take me to task over a rumor i heard,well let them,i'm sure the media would love to be there at this court hearing to hear about all the rumors going round,then QF can explain to the courts in detail what is happening really to there aircraft,rumor has it there is alot of rumors going around about qantas outsourcing

BHMvictim
16th Oct 2006, 01:31
It is not the MRO's fault that it still open it is the customer who decided where, when, and what gets done.


So in the case of the original post, QF decided that the MRO should release the aircrafft with major oil leaks, wiring and cannon plugs disconnected?

company_spy
16th Oct 2006, 02:25
c100driver is correct to a point, the operator dictates what they want fixed, all airlines do it. What is at question is if cannon plugs and wiring being disconnected and other problems were approved. The MRO is usualy responsible for the work and certification, the reps are there to oversee proceedings. Depending on the number of reps most of these problems would not have been noticed until departure and by then its too late. As the a/c was probably a positioning flight back to Syd cabin defects would not be picked up until being prepared for the next flight. It would be a good bet that pressure by QANTAS to get the plane back to SYD would be extremely high. So who is to blame for the state of the a/c? The MRO, the flight crew, the reps or QANTAS management. Probably all of them, but mostly QANTAS mismamagement for having to put the aircraft there in the first place.:ugh:

jack red
16th Oct 2006, 03:21
Just ask the poor b******d LAME that blew the whistle on Alaskan Airlines in the mid 90’s. He has never worked as a LAME again even though he was right and supplied the info anonymously to the FAA.

Legislation exists in Canada and the USA for protection against discrimination & unfair dismissal of all whistleblower employees. If the LAME you speak of hasn't worked again it's because HE chose to.

He's probably living off the proceeds of his unfair dismissal lawsuit against Alaska Airlines ! :D

Sunfish
16th Oct 2006, 03:43
I think this has been discussed to death before, but it would appear that QF is now going to experience the reality. Speaking as someone who was part of the management of an outsourcing company, let me tell you what we did...

First of all we bid as low as we dared to win the contract - basically we bid at cost. Why did we do this? Because we knew as C100 driver has pointed out, that a contract can never spell out the complete requirements of a job - there are always unknowns - and these unknowns are the money spinners - we call them variations. Anything not in the contract, even the smallest teensiest detail, immediately becomes a variation and attracts a premium price.

The two immediate consequences are first that the simple repetitive boring stuff contained in the contract gets done as quickly and as cheaply as we can possibly do it. And secondly (thats right!) we put all our effort into finding variations and getting the customer to sign off on them. E.G.: "half the placards in the cabin are illegible, want us to fix that?".

There are three longer term consequences.

The cost savings are not as great as expected, but its hard to discover why. The heavy maintenance costs have disappeared but (guess what?) the line maintenance costs have increased for some reason.

The outsourcing company will try and "lobotomize" the engineering (or other part involved of the company) if it can to remove any and all expertise in the outsourced area. This has three purposes.

- It removes possible sources of technical criticism of the job the outsourcer is doing.

- It makes it difficult for the customer to remain an "informed" consumer of outsourced services.

- It removes possible criticism of the beancounters that made the decision in the first place.

In our case we connived with the head beancounter of this particular organisation and their technical staff were either hired by us or fired. It took them five years to work out what we had done to them and start the long term job of wresting control of their technical strategy and future from us, by which time we had releaved them of well over $100 million.

Of course if you really want to make money as an outsourcer, ensure that the company has three or four different outsourcing deals that overlap. You can then make heaps of cash claiming incompatibilities between each of your responsibilities and claim major variations because of it.

Sorry for the lecture, I just dislike watching people go down this road only to retrace their steps five years later.

Turbo 5B
16th Oct 2006, 09:28
BHMvictim
Bwahahahahahahaha. Yeh right. GD? Couldn’t be further from the truth. I couldn’t even be bothered pissing on his shoes. For all I know the rumours here could be true but you had better be prepared to back it up and even if you do and the company looses, they have won. You know why? Because you have been identified and the next thing you realise you are a leper in the industry and lots of other industries as well. You are unemployable. Think it can’t happen? Just ask the poor b******d LAME that blew the whistle on Alaskan Airlines in the mid 90’s. He has never worked as a LAME again even though he was right and supplied the info anonymously to the FAA.
Think very carefully before you open your mouth on this or any other forum. The working life of a whistle blower is a very short one, whether you are right or wrong.
BHM Victim wont have any worries being outed as whistle blower.
The truth of SIAEC and their standards of maintenance will come out of their own accord.
And by the way, I believe it is well documented.

BHMvictim
16th Oct 2006, 14:12
It's a hard situation.... As stated, the reps are expected to clear cards and provide technical support. That's about it. As stated, they cannot be present to witness every single job taking place.

There is more than just Aussie jobs at stake here. What worries me, and others, is that Qantas seems to be jeopardising it's reputation for safety. Gone are the days of safety (with respect to the aircraft), being number one. Nowdays, management at all levels are more worried about someone pricking their finger on a piece of lockwire. Why? Aircraft are maintained to a medecocre level offshore. Those that are maintained at QF facilities are still recieving the old high level of maintenance however those facilities are under the spotlight for not being able to provide the aircraft in minimum time for minimum money.

Is your manager doing his best to ensure your workplace is competetive? Or is he simply interested in LTI's?

As far as Brissy goes, I know which of the two are more important to our management.

Planes go offshore... they come back without sufficent maintenance. QF engineers uncover these defects at a later date and managment harrass them for "blowing out" the check times. Management have no understanding of what's going on because they are too busy protecting their LTI driven bonuses.

Bumpfoh
17th Oct 2006, 04:08
"Planes go offshore... they come back without sufficent maintenance. QF engineers uncover these defects at a later date and managment harrass them for "blowing out" the check times. Management have no understanding of what's going on because they are too busy protecting their LTI driven bonuses."

Too true, but the additional aspect is the often occuring defects as stated at the beginning of this thread that may not immediately surface post HM visit, but appear not to long after with considerable time/manpower ($$$) spent rectifying by Line Maintenance which is often unable to be recovered without considerable further effort by the guys on the floor through a verbose paperwork exercise. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Invarably the outsourced MRO have nothing to answer for.:ugh:

company_spy
17th Oct 2006, 07:00
QANTAS and external MRO's have never operated on a level playing field no matter what anyone may say. Untill outsourced maintenance uses the same safety standards that is required in Australia we can never compete economicaly with other operators. While ever we have rediculas retrictions placed on us it will always be the same. Some say it would be a return to the bad old days, but I believe the use of commonsense, which we are no longer allowed to use, would make us alot more competative than we are now.:(