Flying Blind story- CASA & Qantas maintenance investigation
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Simply that you are using this as a hidden agenda to achieve some kind of gain in an industrial action you may be or about to launch.
As an outsider I can not see that happening, but this is a common old tactic in many industrial relations games from both sides.
It looks to me more like the ALAEA is taking a swipe at CASA who seem to have lost the plot on many fronts across the whole avaiation community.
As an outsider I can not see that happening, but this is a common old tactic in many industrial relations games from both sides.
It looks to me more like the ALAEA is taking a swipe at CASA who seem to have lost the plot on many fronts across the whole avaiation community.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is all about CASA. We can't take pia against them. Qantas are implicated in the story but they are currently in an agreement period until next year. Even if we did want to take action against them we would be upfront about it like we were last time.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALAEA Fed Sec,
Although I do often agree with your comments, some of your posts tend to become quite biased. You left your Engineers off the list of 'causal factors' in this thread. Not all of them are perfect and have been annointed with some kind of 'mistake free immortality'. They also make mistakes within Australia, along with other unions, regulators, engineers, maintenance facilities and the list goes on.
In a nut shell, yes. When I have filmed with TT or any other outlet for that sake, all they want you to do is mention one word - crash. It gives them their sensationalism and a story. By talking about the side of a hill, it may be the difference between a story that lasts 3 minutes or one that runs for 10. The underlying story that those in the industry would understand needs to be told in as simple terms as possible. Talking about the migration of the fastenings for the flap torque tube that had been lockwired with the incorrect gauge lockwire doesn't really resonate with the public. I will do what it takes to get these extremely serious issues aired publically however I can.
Dear oh dear! What a wonderfully confused thread. Let's get back to basics...
So we start with the maintenance philosophy of the airline, which is something that this MBA graduate actually knows a little about.
Your maintenance philosophy is actually a function of money. No, not maintenance cost, it's a function of your national taxation laws, depreciation provisions and finance and investment environment.
What that means is that if you decide that your best shareholder returns will come from turning your aircraft over every Five years, your maintenance philosophy will be very different from an airline that plans to keep its aircraft for Ten to Twenty years or more.
At one extreme you can simply follow Boeings minimum recommendations. That is called the "buy it and fly it" strategy.
At the other extreme, you can maintain the aircraft like a Rolls Royce, including applying all AD's and SB's and Mods, so that your Twenty year old aircraft is actually very close to factory new production standard. This is really nice when your tax authorities haven't the faintest idea of how to discriminate between a safety related expense - like applying an AD, and a capital expense like a Modification.
It's even nicer when you sell the fully depreciated and there fore almost valueless, but beautifully maintained aircraft with new engines, flaps and gear, to a related company for a song, and then that company sells it to Les Hong at Evergreen for a small fortune.
Qantas is somewhere in the middle of that continuum, and therefore it is therefore vital for them to pick an MRO with a similar philosophy, because if they don't, then the aircraft is going to be either under or over maintained. This is because the values of a maintenance organisation penetrate right to it's heart.
To put it another way; who the heck cares about a little corrosion when the aircraft will be sold to Africa in Four years time? On the other hand, if you contemplate that your unborn Grandchildren may fly on this thing, maybe you had better care...
And yes, you can do it by the manual and it will all be legal, because ultimately it comes down to millions of small and incremental value judgements by the guys doing the work.
..So maybe Singapore and other Asian MROs are not suitable for this reason. That's what I think I'm hearing.
As for CASA, does anyone understand what "regulatory capture" means?
...And on a final note, consider the fate of BP. Apparently they directed that the blowout preventer on the Macondo well was to be overhauled in China to save money. That decision may cost their shareholders their entire investment.
So we start with the maintenance philosophy of the airline, which is something that this MBA graduate actually knows a little about.
Your maintenance philosophy is actually a function of money. No, not maintenance cost, it's a function of your national taxation laws, depreciation provisions and finance and investment environment.
What that means is that if you decide that your best shareholder returns will come from turning your aircraft over every Five years, your maintenance philosophy will be very different from an airline that plans to keep its aircraft for Ten to Twenty years or more.
At one extreme you can simply follow Boeings minimum recommendations. That is called the "buy it and fly it" strategy.
At the other extreme, you can maintain the aircraft like a Rolls Royce, including applying all AD's and SB's and Mods, so that your Twenty year old aircraft is actually very close to factory new production standard. This is really nice when your tax authorities haven't the faintest idea of how to discriminate between a safety related expense - like applying an AD, and a capital expense like a Modification.
It's even nicer when you sell the fully depreciated and there fore almost valueless, but beautifully maintained aircraft with new engines, flaps and gear, to a related company for a song, and then that company sells it to Les Hong at Evergreen for a small fortune.
Qantas is somewhere in the middle of that continuum, and therefore it is therefore vital for them to pick an MRO with a similar philosophy, because if they don't, then the aircraft is going to be either under or over maintained. This is because the values of a maintenance organisation penetrate right to it's heart.
To put it another way; who the heck cares about a little corrosion when the aircraft will be sold to Africa in Four years time? On the other hand, if you contemplate that your unborn Grandchildren may fly on this thing, maybe you had better care...
And yes, you can do it by the manual and it will all be legal, because ultimately it comes down to millions of small and incremental value judgements by the guys doing the work.
..So maybe Singapore and other Asian MROs are not suitable for this reason. That's what I think I'm hearing.
As for CASA, does anyone understand what "regulatory capture" means?
...And on a final note, consider the fate of BP. Apparently they directed that the blowout preventer on the Macondo well was to be overhauled in China to save money. That decision may cost their shareholders their entire investment.
A few questions – Have the overseas maintenance organisations been granted certificates of approval by CASA or is the maintenance carried out under the Qantas certificate?
An audit by CASA would normally look at the facilities, systems and procedures of an organisation. Qantas, as the customer, and holder of a certificate of approval, is responsible for the control of the quality of the work performed on its aircraft. If an aircraft is returned to service with defects that are considered serious then CASA should be getting on to Qantas to establish the cause. Have a look at CAO104 appendix 2, 4 (g).
Is there any Qantas surveillance carried out or are there just a few LAMEs sent to assist with the paperwork? What are the qualifications and experience of the Qantas surveillance persons? Are there any investigative reports raised internally or is it only academic tokenism?
An audit by CASA would normally look at the facilities, systems and procedures of an organisation. Qantas, as the customer, and holder of a certificate of approval, is responsible for the control of the quality of the work performed on its aircraft. If an aircraft is returned to service with defects that are considered serious then CASA should be getting on to Qantas to establish the cause. Have a look at CAO104 appendix 2, 4 (g).
Is there any Qantas surveillance carried out or are there just a few LAMEs sent to assist with the paperwork? What are the qualifications and experience of the Qantas surveillance persons? Are there any investigative reports raised internally or is it only academic tokenism?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish i just read your post and i wholeheartedly, absolutely wholeheartedly agree, finally someone who understands exactly what's going on. I always wanted to express the exact same thought, you nailed it on the head. Having grown up in Europe starting my career with a lean, mean, low cost operator and now working in Australia this is exactly what i experienced. Noone at my first employer gave a rats a** about exceptional maintenance. No aircraft made it past a few years before it was flogged off to Africa, minimum recommended standards were enough. As Sunfish said though, when you operate your fleet to 20 years and more you better make sure you apply a different system of maintenance. That doesn't mean that Australians are better, or the only ones able to do proper maintenance nor is it racist. I personally have the highest respect for anyone in the industry, and as everywhere you find good people and morons in any airline or MRO. And big changes are happening worldwide in our industry no doubt about that, and it's a good thing. I have seen slow as, hopeless Lame's in low cost airlines and MRO's, and i have seen crazy superhero's in big airlines signing just about anything illegal to get an aircraft off the ground. It doesn't matter where you go or look, it's all more or less the same.
But Sunfish's post just summed it up beautifully, well done!
But Sunfish's post just summed it up beautifully, well done!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Sunfish's post just summed it up beautifully, well done!
However when I inspect corrosion and then assess it against the SRM, it is those limits, and not, if the aircraft is being flogged off to Africa, that determines my decision of serviceability.
That pretty much goes for the rest of the decisions I make on a day to day basis, that is, using approved data and materials and not bowing to commercial pressures. I don't have a real scope to be creative.
That philosophy may be a far cry from the 'she'll be right when not keepin' it for long' mentality of the modern operators but it is easier to live with as a 'professional'.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However when I inspect corrosion and then assess it against the SRM, it is those limits, and not, if the aircraft is being flogged off to Africa, that determines my decision of serviceability
Sure it was not as easy to live with as a professional seeing an aircraft maintained to the mere minimum standards, but on the other hand it wasn't all that bad either. Brand new frame, not many SRM limits we had to apply unless someone ran a catering truck into it ;-)
Folks,
One thing Sunfish might like to expand on is Australia's internationally uncompetitive aircraft depreciation schedules, compared to the competition. That most (all??) Qantas group aircraft are leased does not change the underlying problem.
Put another way, Qantas is taxed on "profits", that would not be profits elsewhere, and anybody who believes this has nothing to do with many Qantas decisions in recent years probably believes in the tooth fairey.
Year after year, the difference in SAL and QF results can almost entirely be sheeted home to the finance/tax policy differences of the two countries.
The recent (and still in place, in principle) mining super profits tax is another gross example of Canberra not living in the real world, where the "profit" to be taxed is struck before finance costs are deducted in the balance sheet. Almost , if not quite, being taxed on the EBIT profits.
It was completely uncompetitive taxation policies that destroyed the local maritime industry ---- despite militant maritime unions getting the blame for high wages and feather-bedded manning ----- but the fact was that, even if the crews had worked for nothing, the local shipping lines would still have gone offshore because of tax policies that were internationally uncompetitive --- under the then Australia tax law it was impossible to run Australian flag ships.
Qantas, including Jetstar, is in the same position, because of the now unrealistic write-off periods for aircraft ----- and quite a number of other imposts more or less unique to Australia.
None of this is new, the 1961 Menzies government budget disallowed interest on finance company debentures as a business expense, precipitating a string of major finance company bankruptcies (Reid-Murray, the original AGC for two examples) , and tens of thousands of "mums and dads" lost their life savings ---- again the unreal world of Canberra coming to the fore.
The "Frazer" years were a disaster, financially, for QF, in large measure it was only the Hawke/Keating government that "saved" QF, largely because the Menzies era "financial directive" that completely hobbled QF was withdrawn, and QF were allowed to competitively respond to an increasingly competitive international market.
As a result, the company about doubled in size in about four years --- nothing to do with taking over TAA.
Similar problems surround MRO facilities being competitive in Australia, it is the gross distortion in the tax framework that is the biggest killer.
Believe me, it is not cheap to hire people in Singapore, and maybe you should ask why QF maintenance is being done in Germany and US, not exactly "cheap labor" areas.
You only have to go the NZ to see how overall competitive Government policies determine aviation sector competitiveness.
Indeed, have a look at the NZ long term investment in aeroskills training, compared to Australia. NZ still believe basic training is an investment in the future, not a cost in the present. Indeed, NZ companies are more likely to regard employees as assets, not liabilities.
All good MBA stuff.
Tootle pip!!
One thing Sunfish might like to expand on is Australia's internationally uncompetitive aircraft depreciation schedules, compared to the competition. That most (all??) Qantas group aircraft are leased does not change the underlying problem.
Put another way, Qantas is taxed on "profits", that would not be profits elsewhere, and anybody who believes this has nothing to do with many Qantas decisions in recent years probably believes in the tooth fairey.
Year after year, the difference in SAL and QF results can almost entirely be sheeted home to the finance/tax policy differences of the two countries.
The recent (and still in place, in principle) mining super profits tax is another gross example of Canberra not living in the real world, where the "profit" to be taxed is struck before finance costs are deducted in the balance sheet. Almost , if not quite, being taxed on the EBIT profits.
It was completely uncompetitive taxation policies that destroyed the local maritime industry ---- despite militant maritime unions getting the blame for high wages and feather-bedded manning ----- but the fact was that, even if the crews had worked for nothing, the local shipping lines would still have gone offshore because of tax policies that were internationally uncompetitive --- under the then Australia tax law it was impossible to run Australian flag ships.
Qantas, including Jetstar, is in the same position, because of the now unrealistic write-off periods for aircraft ----- and quite a number of other imposts more or less unique to Australia.
None of this is new, the 1961 Menzies government budget disallowed interest on finance company debentures as a business expense, precipitating a string of major finance company bankruptcies (Reid-Murray, the original AGC for two examples) , and tens of thousands of "mums and dads" lost their life savings ---- again the unreal world of Canberra coming to the fore.
The "Frazer" years were a disaster, financially, for QF, in large measure it was only the Hawke/Keating government that "saved" QF, largely because the Menzies era "financial directive" that completely hobbled QF was withdrawn, and QF were allowed to competitively respond to an increasingly competitive international market.
As a result, the company about doubled in size in about four years --- nothing to do with taking over TAA.
Similar problems surround MRO facilities being competitive in Australia, it is the gross distortion in the tax framework that is the biggest killer.
Believe me, it is not cheap to hire people in Singapore, and maybe you should ask why QF maintenance is being done in Germany and US, not exactly "cheap labor" areas.
You only have to go the NZ to see how overall competitive Government policies determine aviation sector competitiveness.
Indeed, have a look at the NZ long term investment in aeroskills training, compared to Australia. NZ still believe basic training is an investment in the future, not a cost in the present. Indeed, NZ companies are more likely to regard employees as assets, not liabilities.
All good MBA stuff.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 23rd Jul 2010 at 07:45.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Blackbushe
Age: 74
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow, what an eye opener this thread is turning out to be. I don't want to be critical of anybody but can we bring this thread back down to earth?
The issue as I see it is very simple and basic. There are laws,regulations and procedures to be followed. We are not talking about a washing machine factory here, its commercial aviation.
The issue isn't about whether Singapore or America or Germany are any better or any worse than Brisbane, Melbourne or Sydney. The issue is about why a government funded agency, in place to ensure adequate safety levels are maintained, has apparently failed miserably in its task.
Its not about smart alecs who think they know how to run companys or are experts at selling aircraft to Africa, it is about protecting the public. The public consider CASA to be good at their job and rely on them to be good at their job.
If they are not, then the public have a right to know, be the issue in Brisbane, Sydney, Frankfurt, Los Angeles or Singapore. The rest will sort itself out once we have got to the bottom of whether CASA have been doing their job or not.
The issue as I see it is very simple and basic. There are laws,regulations and procedures to be followed. We are not talking about a washing machine factory here, its commercial aviation.
The issue isn't about whether Singapore or America or Germany are any better or any worse than Brisbane, Melbourne or Sydney. The issue is about why a government funded agency, in place to ensure adequate safety levels are maintained, has apparently failed miserably in its task.
Its not about smart alecs who think they know how to run companys or are experts at selling aircraft to Africa, it is about protecting the public. The public consider CASA to be good at their job and rely on them to be good at their job.
If they are not, then the public have a right to know, be the issue in Brisbane, Sydney, Frankfurt, Los Angeles or Singapore. The rest will sort itself out once we have got to the bottom of whether CASA have been doing their job or not.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled
You make many good points. Singapore labour costs for MROs are probably slightly cheaper than Australia overall, due to the strong Australian Dollar these days. However, Singapore has the highest labour costs in Asia outside Japan, so if labour costs were everything, SIN won't have one of the largest MRO industries in Asia.
I did an internship a few years ago at an SIAEC facility. It seemed very unionised and there was a lot of abuse of overtime. I hear they've cut back massively on overtime abuse these days, but it seemed like lots of people (especially the office folks) were quite free. I wouldn't exactly say it was the most efficient organisation around - a legacy of the airline industry I guess.
Also, they did tell me that SIA's general philosophy is to replace, not repair. The slightest defect and SIA throws things away and replaces the part. In the past, when they started servicing other airlines, they had some sort of culture shock when those airlines with limited budgets wanted parts repaired, and not replaced.
The facility also employed many Australian LAMES. And they were on local Singaporean terms.
I wouldn't put down QF's profit differential with SIA purely down to tax treatment. SIA's pre-tax operating profit margins have generally been higher than QF, and contrary to popular belief, SIA did not make a full year loss last FY ending Mar 31. The group's profit was about S$250 million for the FY I think.
SIA, EK and CX can enjoy larger profit margins and cost efficiencies largely because they have single hub structures, allowing two banks of connecting flights in a day from East to West and vv (and North to South) thoroughout the day. Far more efficient than operating out of multiple hubs, through vast distances across domestic territory.
There is also a large emphasis in Singapore on training and skills development, and every year, polytechnics are given quotas on the number of technicians to train for the aerospace industry. Yes, it is easier to manage such stuff when you're a small island, compared to a vast country like Australia - but when your only resource is people, you tend to place huge emphasis on skills development and job creation. Because it's not like there are rocks in the ground for Singaporean companies to extract for export.
It is ironic that when QF and BOAC were shareholders of SIA way back in teh 1960s, QF trained the first batch of SIA engineers. in the late 1960s to early 1970s. Batch after batch of engineers were sent from SIN to SYD for training, and many of SIA's aircraft were maintained by QF in SYD.
You make many good points. Singapore labour costs for MROs are probably slightly cheaper than Australia overall, due to the strong Australian Dollar these days. However, Singapore has the highest labour costs in Asia outside Japan, so if labour costs were everything, SIN won't have one of the largest MRO industries in Asia.
I did an internship a few years ago at an SIAEC facility. It seemed very unionised and there was a lot of abuse of overtime. I hear they've cut back massively on overtime abuse these days, but it seemed like lots of people (especially the office folks) were quite free. I wouldn't exactly say it was the most efficient organisation around - a legacy of the airline industry I guess.
Also, they did tell me that SIA's general philosophy is to replace, not repair. The slightest defect and SIA throws things away and replaces the part. In the past, when they started servicing other airlines, they had some sort of culture shock when those airlines with limited budgets wanted parts repaired, and not replaced.
The facility also employed many Australian LAMES. And they were on local Singaporean terms.
I wouldn't put down QF's profit differential with SIA purely down to tax treatment. SIA's pre-tax operating profit margins have generally been higher than QF, and contrary to popular belief, SIA did not make a full year loss last FY ending Mar 31. The group's profit was about S$250 million for the FY I think.
SIA, EK and CX can enjoy larger profit margins and cost efficiencies largely because they have single hub structures, allowing two banks of connecting flights in a day from East to West and vv (and North to South) thoroughout the day. Far more efficient than operating out of multiple hubs, through vast distances across domestic territory.
There is also a large emphasis in Singapore on training and skills development, and every year, polytechnics are given quotas on the number of technicians to train for the aerospace industry. Yes, it is easier to manage such stuff when you're a small island, compared to a vast country like Australia - but when your only resource is people, you tend to place huge emphasis on skills development and job creation. Because it's not like there are rocks in the ground for Singaporean companies to extract for export.
It is ironic that when QF and BOAC were shareholders of SIA way back in teh 1960s, QF trained the first batch of SIA engineers. in the late 1960s to early 1970s. Batch after batch of engineers were sent from SIN to SYD for training, and many of SIA's aircraft were maintained by QF in SYD.
DrPepz,
Re. the differential in the QF and SQ results, the info. in my post comes from a long term study of both airlines accounts by a well known "think tank", having considered all the points you mention, and a few that you don't. It is not a matter of my opinion.
Given the professional reputation of the organization that carried out the study, I would put reliance on the findings.
Certainly, being an "end of the line" carrier makes sustaining a network much harder for QF, hence the QF scheduling patterns, and the QF pax. hubs in Singapore and Bangkok, (and KLAX with AA) not to disregard the increasing Jetstar network based in Singapore.
The part played by Qantas and BA in the setting up of the original MSA is often forgotten, the level of engagement ( later also Malaysian) was much greater than the few areas you mention.
Tootle pip!!
Re. the differential in the QF and SQ results, the info. in my post comes from a long term study of both airlines accounts by a well known "think tank", having considered all the points you mention, and a few that you don't. It is not a matter of my opinion.
Given the professional reputation of the organization that carried out the study, I would put reliance on the findings.
Certainly, being an "end of the line" carrier makes sustaining a network much harder for QF, hence the QF scheduling patterns, and the QF pax. hubs in Singapore and Bangkok, (and KLAX with AA) not to disregard the increasing Jetstar network based in Singapore.
The part played by Qantas and BA in the setting up of the original MSA is often forgotten, the level of engagement ( later also Malaysian) was much greater than the few areas you mention.
Tootle pip!!
ABAT:
I'm sorry, but you don't have the experience to make those statements.
1. I assure you that todays "Washing Machine Factory" has infinitely higher quality standards than any airline or MRO. That process used to be called "Total quality management". Every procedure is documented in detail, every staff member is trained in minute detail.
2. Everything in that washing machine factory is subjected to statistical quality and process control which is almost totally foreign to aircraft manufacture and certainly to aircraft maintenance with the exception of high use components like fasteners, tyres, blades, etc. Aircraft manufacture is series production, not mass production, I can assure you that the sheet metal of a Holden Commodore is built to tighter tolerances than an F18
3. The washing machine factory discarded the "near enough is good enough" approach that allows value judgements to be made in about 1990 in Australia, or about 1955 in Japan. When I last looked, which was quite a few years ago, each disk and ring in an F404 engine was still slung on to the coordinate measuring machine (CMM) and measured up, and they were all slightly different, and an American inspector at GE's Lynn Massachusetts military engine division might accept one, or perhaps not.
We still live in a hand crafted regime when it comes to most areas of aviation manufacture and maintenance.....and a quill, ink, parchment and capital punishment era when it comes to CASA and regulation.
The issue as I see it is very simple and basic. There are laws,regulations and procedures to be followed. We are not talking about a washing machine factory here, its commercial aviation.
The issue isn't about whether Singapore or America or Germany are any better or any worse than Brisbane, Melbourne or Sydney. The issue is about why a government funded agency, in place to ensure adequate safety levels are maintained, has apparently failed miserably in its task.
The issue isn't about whether Singapore or America or Germany are any better or any worse than Brisbane, Melbourne or Sydney. The issue is about why a government funded agency, in place to ensure adequate safety levels are maintained, has apparently failed miserably in its task.
1. I assure you that todays "Washing Machine Factory" has infinitely higher quality standards than any airline or MRO. That process used to be called "Total quality management". Every procedure is documented in detail, every staff member is trained in minute detail.
2. Everything in that washing machine factory is subjected to statistical quality and process control which is almost totally foreign to aircraft manufacture and certainly to aircraft maintenance with the exception of high use components like fasteners, tyres, blades, etc. Aircraft manufacture is series production, not mass production, I can assure you that the sheet metal of a Holden Commodore is built to tighter tolerances than an F18
3. The washing machine factory discarded the "near enough is good enough" approach that allows value judgements to be made in about 1990 in Australia, or about 1955 in Japan. When I last looked, which was quite a few years ago, each disk and ring in an F404 engine was still slung on to the coordinate measuring machine (CMM) and measured up, and they were all slightly different, and an American inspector at GE's Lynn Massachusetts military engine division might accept one, or perhaps not.
We still live in a hand crafted regime when it comes to most areas of aviation manufacture and maintenance.....and a quill, ink, parchment and capital punishment era when it comes to CASA and regulation.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assure you that todays "Washing Machine Factory" has infinitely higher quality standards than any airline or MRO.
Unfortunately, in our uniquely different industry we are so far away from attaining the efficiencies you state and our management so blinded by cost control that they are simply unaware of how to develop and evolve aircraft maintenance to the effectiveness of other 'comparable' industries.
Sunfish, I think you wish to be given free reign to build such an enterprise from the ground up but the realities are we and our neighbors are not anywhere near this theoretical organisation you envision.
Certainly not while they are selling $29 seats.
Clipped,
Sadly, all too true, and right at the top of the heap, CASA, which is not within a bull's roar of meeting any ISO or similar process QA standard.
This quite apart from CASA, in my opinion, not being within the same bull's roar of complying with Government mandate that all departments and instrumentality comply with the "Model Litigant" policy.
And we now have an accurate idea of what FAA thinks on the subject of CASA ---- Australia is hanging on by a thread to Cat.1 FAA certification.
Tootle pip!!
Sadly, all too true, and right at the top of the heap, CASA, which is not within a bull's roar of meeting any ISO or similar process QA standard.
This quite apart from CASA, in my opinion, not being within the same bull's roar of complying with Government mandate that all departments and instrumentality comply with the "Model Litigant" policy.
And we now have an accurate idea of what FAA thinks on the subject of CASA ---- Australia is hanging on by a thread to Cat.1 FAA certification.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets also remember back in 2008 when outsourcing maintenance was at it high, of some 20%, the on time reliability was down to something like 75%. The average deferred defect list per aircraft was up to 20 defects plus.
Now with the average of 5% outsourcing, on time is averaging 95% and deferred defects approx 2 per aircraft and usually cleared at end of the flying day (if parts are avail).
Says it all, really.
Now with the average of 5% outsourcing, on time is averaging 95% and deferred defects approx 2 per aircraft and usually cleared at end of the flying day (if parts are avail).
Says it all, really.
Last edited by Short_Circuit; 24th Jul 2010 at 05:39.
LeadSled
Have you got a reference to substantiate that claim?
And we now have an accurate idea of what FAA thinks on the subject of CASA ---- Australia is hanging on by a thread to Cat.1 FAA certification.