Virgin Blue Maintenance - an Oxymoron????
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne Aus
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Red Line.
This so called thread was confirmed by three engineers that were less than pleased with the current systems in place and not pub talk.
As for maintenance paperwork system one engineer (concerned not to be identified for obvious reprisals) suggested talking to maintenance control to confirm their procedures and inefficiencies in paperwork.
All in all this has resulted in two of the three engineers lodgeing CAIR reports as they are fed up with the system and feel safety is being compromised.
This so called thread was confirmed by three engineers that were less than pleased with the current systems in place and not pub talk.
As for maintenance paperwork system one engineer (concerned not to be identified for obvious reprisals) suggested talking to maintenance control to confirm their procedures and inefficiencies in paperwork.
All in all this has resulted in two of the three engineers lodgeing CAIR reports as they are fed up with the system and feel safety is being compromised.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sydney
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing may well say $5m in spares is recommended. No operator in their right mind would have that amount of spares per aircraft.
Try around $1m in spares for a single 73 - there aren't many places on the planet you can't arrange a loan at short notice for a 73 part (and at worst, just cop the AOG and fly the part in). And if you have a reasonable-size fleet, no need to have even $1m per A/C.
Don't forget, Boeing sell parts and make money from them. So their recommendations in this area should be taken with a pinch of salt. Economics dictates taking a bit of downtime or copping loan charges rather than having lots of little-used, expensive spares sitting around not doing much.
Try around $1m in spares for a single 73 - there aren't many places on the planet you can't arrange a loan at short notice for a 73 part (and at worst, just cop the AOG and fly the part in). And if you have a reasonable-size fleet, no need to have even $1m per A/C.
Don't forget, Boeing sell parts and make money from them. So their recommendations in this area should be taken with a pinch of salt. Economics dictates taking a bit of downtime or copping loan charges rather than having lots of little-used, expensive spares sitting around not doing much.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The party.
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Valid point.
What is required as minimum though?. And at which ports of call. What are the comparative factors for the price of a rotable component, general spares, tooling etc when it's needed against the delay cost.
An aircraft swap isn't a big delay but the punters may not come back. And then theres the 10 to 3 factor of the number of people tell others of a bad to a good flight experience.
Worst scenario is putting up all pax for a night. Whats that cost?.
Experience, not accounting, would say having the right gear and people inplace works far more efficiently.
If you pulled up to a servo and were told the pumps knackered and waiting for it to be fixed, wouldn't you find somewhere else and never go back?. Both garages charging same price.
What is required as minimum though?. And at which ports of call. What are the comparative factors for the price of a rotable component, general spares, tooling etc when it's needed against the delay cost.
An aircraft swap isn't a big delay but the punters may not come back. And then theres the 10 to 3 factor of the number of people tell others of a bad to a good flight experience.
Worst scenario is putting up all pax for a night. Whats that cost?.
Experience, not accounting, would say having the right gear and people inplace works far more efficiently.
If you pulled up to a servo and were told the pumps knackered and waiting for it to be fixed, wouldn't you find somewhere else and never go back?. Both garages charging same price.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groaner
?? Boeing actually sell aircraft and wont continue to sell a shedload of them if they don't work when they are supposed to or they get trashed by the operator.
An operator in his right mind will have or have access to something like they, Boeing, suggest at the peril of their continued existence.
Sure the aircraft will survive on its reputation for a very good while, but sooner than later you are going to have to replace something somewhere and usually out the back of Bourke.
If I was the regulator I would be scruting mightily with an very intense scrute. (apologies to Messrs Milligan and Bentine)
The scary bit is, that when you are bumping along the bottom of an "economic" spares inventory, the risk that 'someone' out there will sign off on or turn a blind eye to "'till it gets back to base so they can rat the part up from somewhere" on a dodgy part out of loyalty 'for the company" goes assymptotic and you will get set up for a expense that makes Boeing's $5,000,000 look like lunch money.
Chances are, if you cant afford a sensible spares package and need to run the aircraft on its reputation to make money, then you probably didn't have a business in the first place.
Consuming capital or parts amounts to the same thing at the end of the day.
Don't forget, Boeing sell parts and make money from them. So their recommendations in this area should be taken with a pinch of salt. Economics dictates taking a bit of downtime or copping loan charges rather than having lots of little-used, expensive spares sitting around not doing much.
An operator in his right mind will have or have access to something like they, Boeing, suggest at the peril of their continued existence.
Sure the aircraft will survive on its reputation for a very good while, but sooner than later you are going to have to replace something somewhere and usually out the back of Bourke.
If I was the regulator I would be scruting mightily with an very intense scrute. (apologies to Messrs Milligan and Bentine)
The scary bit is, that when you are bumping along the bottom of an "economic" spares inventory, the risk that 'someone' out there will sign off on or turn a blind eye to "'till it gets back to base so they can rat the part up from somewhere" on a dodgy part out of loyalty 'for the company" goes assymptotic and you will get set up for a expense that makes Boeing's $5,000,000 look like lunch money.
Chances are, if you cant afford a sensible spares package and need to run the aircraft on its reputation to make money, then you probably didn't have a business in the first place.
Consuming capital or parts amounts to the same thing at the end of the day.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Over 'ere
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...the real point is they (DJ) don't carry enough of the 'right' spares and furthermore they don't have the spares they do have in the right places. I'm told the guys in the other ports get a bit peeved at nearly always seeing the bit they want as "n/r" on the system or the entire stock is in Brisbane - and then a geat pile of 'xyz' at that. Instead of responding to a problem when it exists, why not try a bit of anticipation. The probability of failure/breakdown/life expired/etc is after all why Boeing (etc) suggest, to buyers of their products, a spares float consisting of xyz. Their (Boeing etc) figures are based on worldwide fleet experiences and data from ventors of the OEM - be that an actuator, hose or screw etc. I am lead to believe that the way DJ look at spares requirements is more on 'how much does it cost' than any other data considerations or the ramifications of not having it. Sadly, Initial Provisioning is an art form which DJ have yet to appreciate.... and try to catch up on.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sydney
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty, ER and mainwheel, agree with you all (as far as it goes - I am in no position to know whether DJ has the right spares inventory)
Certainly an aircraft operation should have a minimum of spares - but 5 bars worth is too much. At commercial spares lease rates that would cost you around $75k each and every month - plus the usage of them of course. Whether the $75k is worth paying is dependent on what not having such spares would cost - a very complex calculation dependent on many things, including failure probabilities, reputation costs, recovery costs, how tight the fleet plan is (spare A/C), maintenance turn times and capacity, direct delay costs etc etc.
In my experience, having lots of spares is a false panacea - Murphy's law always strikes, and the one vital part you actually need is not even in the $5m parcel, or else is not in the place it's needed.
Far more important (imho) is to have access arrangements to spares pools (rather than holding them yourself) at major ports on your network. The access costs are usually pretty cheap (even if the actual loan charges are not). And no reason why this shouldn't get by an intense scrute.
It's all part of the art of inventory management - not a simple thing at all. To use mainwheel's example in a different way, how many servos do you think carry a spare pump? I'd guess maybe close to zero. I'd also guess that most carry almost no pump spare parts at all - effectively on-condition repair.
I'll still stick with my assertion that a good clean (reputable, reasonable dispatch reliability up above say 98%) 737 operation can be had with a little over $1m spares holding. DJ with its fleet should have a multiple of that, but certainly nowhere near $5m per tail.
Certainly an aircraft operation should have a minimum of spares - but 5 bars worth is too much. At commercial spares lease rates that would cost you around $75k each and every month - plus the usage of them of course. Whether the $75k is worth paying is dependent on what not having such spares would cost - a very complex calculation dependent on many things, including failure probabilities, reputation costs, recovery costs, how tight the fleet plan is (spare A/C), maintenance turn times and capacity, direct delay costs etc etc.
In my experience, having lots of spares is a false panacea - Murphy's law always strikes, and the one vital part you actually need is not even in the $5m parcel, or else is not in the place it's needed.
Far more important (imho) is to have access arrangements to spares pools (rather than holding them yourself) at major ports on your network. The access costs are usually pretty cheap (even if the actual loan charges are not). And no reason why this shouldn't get by an intense scrute.
It's all part of the art of inventory management - not a simple thing at all. To use mainwheel's example in a different way, how many servos do you think carry a spare pump? I'd guess maybe close to zero. I'd also guess that most carry almost no pump spare parts at all - effectively on-condition repair.
I'll still stick with my assertion that a good clean (reputable, reasonable dispatch reliability up above say 98%) 737 operation can be had with a little over $1m spares holding. DJ with its fleet should have a multiple of that, but certainly nowhere near $5m per tail.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty, have to agree with you about a serious lack of spares possibly pressuring engineers to sign off or turn a blind eye.No company is immune from that.
I also agree that $5m per frame is on the rich side but lets face it, the parts that are used the most frequently should be kept in good supply.
(ie: Tyres/Starter Motors/Generators/GCU's/Hydraulic
components/Lamps and globes (landing and other lights etc) rather than those things which have a long shelf life such as IRS's etc.
Also it gets sad when the bean counters get involved and actually sell parts from store inventories to improve the bottom line and make the books look better.
I remember Air New Zealand doing this with Ansett with obvious consequences and little forethought as to the expense when an aircraft is grounded in Perth for a few days waiting for a spare from god-knows where.
One day a B737 was grounded in Darwin because of a sheared starter motor and the nearest part was in Auckland.
Great sheep-shagger mentality there guys!!
Bean counters - take note.
I also agree that $5m per frame is on the rich side but lets face it, the parts that are used the most frequently should be kept in good supply.
(ie: Tyres/Starter Motors/Generators/GCU's/Hydraulic
components/Lamps and globes (landing and other lights etc) rather than those things which have a long shelf life such as IRS's etc.
Also it gets sad when the bean counters get involved and actually sell parts from store inventories to improve the bottom line and make the books look better.
I remember Air New Zealand doing this with Ansett with obvious consequences and little forethought as to the expense when an aircraft is grounded in Perth for a few days waiting for a spare from god-knows where.
One day a B737 was grounded in Darwin because of a sheared starter motor and the nearest part was in Auckland.
Great sheep-shagger mentality there guys!!
Bean counters - take note.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Over 'ere
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TIMMEEEE
TN/QF had been doing that for years too. Many examples where parts were 'sold' to their disposal agent in the States, only for QF to buy some back - even before they'd got there!
Ah.... Bean Counters. Don't you just love 'em....next to ATO monsters, Bank Managers and murderers.....
TN/QF had been doing that for years too. Many examples where parts were 'sold' to their disposal agent in the States, only for QF to buy some back - even before they'd got there!
Ah.... Bean Counters. Don't you just love 'em....next to ATO monsters, Bank Managers and murderers.....
