QF's Maintenance Outsourcing.
 

Maintenance Outsourcing.

Qantas Airways has endured a bruising time in relation to its maintenance operation and seen its much-vaunted safety record battered in the media and parliament as the safety and labour relations agendas have become intertwined.

The flag-carrier had been outsourcing maintenance work but after a management change and some high profile incidents, it is now bringing a substantial amount of the work in-house. It was having Airbus A330 heavy maintenance checks performed by Lufthansa Technik Philippines but more controversially was also planning to outsource Boeing 747 heavy maintenance to Malaysia Airlines in a joint-venture.

The view in the company was that it was cheaper to have maintenance work done overseas, particularly in Asia, and that the Australian workforce was inflexible. But following the departure of chief executive, Geoff Dixon, and Qantas Engineering executive general manager, David Cox, the plan has changed.

LEADERSHIP REVAMP
Under Dixon, the airline's strategy was to treat maintenance as a separate stand-alone business with its own profit and loss statement. But Alan Joyce, who succeeded Dixon a year ago has adopted a strategy of treating the maintenance business as integral to the airline - whether outsourced or in-house.

In April this year Qantas announced that, effective February 2010, the A330 heavy checks, would be done at Qantas' Brisbane, Australia facility rather than continuing to be done at Lufthansa Technik Philippines. But executive general manager of operations Lyell Strambi says that even though the A330 heavy maintenance work is coming in-house, the Boeing 767s already being worked on at Brisbane will be outsourced in future.

"We look at MRO as a total operation - some onshore and some offshore," says Strambi, adding that "we have our own facilities and it is important to keep a consistent activity." He adds that "you want a consistent fleet type coming through so the maintenance teams get efficient" otherwise "you will end up with broken lines of maintenance". Outsourcing is the technique used to counter the "broken line" issue.

Strambi, who was previously chief operating officer of Virgin Atlantic Airways, is also new to Qantas' management. He joined in December after the airline's reputational battering following a series of incidents last year.

In the space of a few months a Qantas Boeing 747-400 had to make an emergency landing in Manila due to a fuselage rupture; another 747-400 lost electrical power while on descent into Bangkok; and a 767-300 had to turn back to Sydney because of a suspected hydraulic system problem. In addition, the carrier grounded six Boeing 737-400s as a precaution while it investigated anomalies in the aircraft's maintenance records.

Some trade unionists leapt on the opportunity to blame the safety incidents on Qantas' move to outsource work overseas. It was later discovered that some of these aircraft were in fact worked on in Australia and Strambi explains that the problems had nothing to do with maintenance. But the all-important public perception was that Qantas' safety standards were suffering and that this was due in part to Qantas' cost-cutting and moves to outsource maintenance work.

Another factor that may have helped in the decision to bring A330 heavy maintenance to Australia was the Australian Defence Force's decision to award Qantas Defence Services a contract to convert A330s to military tankers and to maintain these A330s in years to come. Strambi says Qantas would have won the contract even if Qantas had continued to have its own A330s maintained in the Philippines. But he concedes there are synergies having the ADF A330s and Qantas A330s maintained at the same Brisbane facility.

Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association federal secretary Steve Purvinas says one of the benefits for airlines of doing heavy maintenance checks in-house is that the airline can generate extra money by doing third-party work. Having in-house teams means the airline also has greater control over quality standards and can "ensure an ongoing supply of experienced engineers in the local market", says Purvinas.

Day-to-day flight operations can improve too if heavy maintenance checks are done in-house. "While the aircraft is in a dismantled state during a heavy check, there are available spare parts that can be transferred to an aircraft on the tarmac that needs a spare part," says Purvinas. Other benefits are the money saved on ferrying aircraft and the predictability of costs, he says

BEYOND THE BRIEF
Purvinas adds: "If maintenance is done in-house, you can do additional work that sits outside of the contract. If outsourced, it is often a set price for a bare essential check required. You have scope in the contract for additional work but it comes at a cost and once you add up all the additional bits, it can be expensive."

Strambi at Qantas agrees the engineering staff often find things outside of the original scope of work. But he insists that if an airline "outsources to a quality shop there is no difference between the two".

There is also a benefit of outsourcing to a maintenance firm that works for many airlines, because the maintenance company may be aware of issues that your airline has not yet encountered, he notes. And he concedes that "with on-shore there is a bit of a benefit in terms of reputation - although that is more perception than reality."

But as Qantas discovered last year the hard way, public perception can be everything.

Flight Global 2009/10/29

Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association federal secretary Steve Purvinas says one of the benefits for airlines of doing heavy maintenance checks in-house is that the airline can generate extra money by doing third-party work.
In all the time QF and Forstaff have talked about doing third part work at avalon what has ever happened .
nothing !

Yet another "expert" who has never worked in a heavy maint facility (on-shore or off-shore) throwing around comments based on absolutely no experience.

Just to clarify any confusion. I didn't make this comment -

That was a Qf manager. It may seem a bit confusing due to the previous post. Sure not intended. Strambi has never worked in maintenance at all.

cheers
Steve

Sorry mate, my remarks were not directed your way.

anyway who ever said what ever this part below still stands.
In all the time QF and Forstaff have talked about doing third part work at avalon what has ever happened .
nothing !

i thought ngineer had a valid point with regards mr stambi,
if he made those comments,

Strambi at Qantas agrees the engineering staff often find things outside of the original scope of work.
But he insists that if an airline "outsources to a quality shop there is no difference between the two".
my experience in H245 was not only finding 'things' outside the scope of
work, but fixing them at the same time. definately different to the horror
stories of the previous assclowns' outsourcing efforts.

There is also a benefit of outsourcing to a maintenance firm that works for many airlines,
because the maintenance company may be aware of issues that your airline has not yet encountered, he notes.
well, that worked both ways. i'd never heard of stapling high voltage electroluminescent emergency light wiring with office staples until
the 'quality shops' of the heavy maintenance world showed us how it could be done.

he does not come across as once working in a heavy maintenance hangar. i can get over that, since he recognises that a large airline does need to have heavy maintenance capabilities and the need for that group to be fully under the companies wing, indeed the whole engineering and catering department. If i recall the previous assclown wanted to get rid of them and in fact nearly did. mr strambi seems like a breath of fresh air for now.

'Strambi Taste Test'
 

I think the big question that needs to be asked is 'Does Strambi support the use of Danish butter by Qantas' ??

he supported the 280 virgin 'beauty therapists',
danish butter hardly rates a mention, lol.
Virgin admits mile-high beauty treats face axe - Times Online

Massaging With Butter
 

Perhaps the introduction of therapeutic massages using Danish butter is a viable option and innovative way to stimulate economy during these hard times ?

In the meantime, below is a valuable tip for any catering company that is fortunate enough to pick up a contract within Australia supplying Danish butter -

Danish Butter Cookies

Ingredients -


1 c sweet butter
1 egg
1 c sugar (can use splenda for diabetic or use 1/2 splenda and 1/2 sugar)
1 tsp vanilla
2 c flour
1/2 tsp baking soda
1/2 tsp cream of tartar

Directions -

1. Cream butter & sugar together
2. Add egg
3. Mix dry ingredients, sifted once, add a little at a time
4. Add vanilla
5. Roll into small balls about the size of a walnut
6. Flatten with fork or spoon (Optional: Sprinkle color sugar on top before baking for xmas colors, easter, 4th of July, etc.)
7. Bake at 350 degrees for about 10-12 mins or til lightly golden brown

Try running an overseas outsourcing operation in the middle of a Global Financial Crisis that is not even half over yet ....and with most of your components priced in U.S. Dollars!

I love this bit
YES, do it by the maintenance manual, no other option. Is this being inflexible? :confused:

Anyone not up with, why all the concern about maintenance outsourcing; could probably learn something from reading the following report compliments of Jet A Knight.

The Nimrod Review

Well! I hope then can.

Thanks for the reference but eeeek, The Nimrod Review is 575 pages long - any shortcut/tips to what we could be looking at ?

Isn't that what SQ and MH tried to do, and wasn't Steve Purvinas blasting QF for outsourcing work to SIA Engineering and MH Engineering, which are both inhouse airline maintenance companies who use spare capacity to service the aircraft of other airlines?

Or is it to say - if QF sends aircraft to other airlines' engineering subsidiaries for maintenance, that's completely unacceptable because outsourcing is bad and all that, but if other airlines send aircraft to QF for maintenance then that's fine?

Seeing that Jetstar Asia is now going to maintain their fleet as part of Jetstar Australia's (which means sending aircraft to Australia for heavy maintenance), should the Singaporean public be screaming that jobs are being shipped to Australia?!

drpepez
 

Scream your heads off.That is your right to do so.I'd do it if were a local there.
Prob wont do you any good in Singapore.I think companies (and politicians ) are more susceptible to pressure here in Oz than in Singapore.

Unions will do what they wish to maintain jobs in country.That's their job.maintain employment and to seek wage increases for members who pay them to do so.

No I think the people from Singapore should be pleased that their aircraft may be a little safer. In Australia household staplers are limited to paper products and prisoners are not allowed onto airports to wash aircraft prior to maintenance.

WOW masked goatrider, you may be heartened to learn that the allegation that Singaporean prisoners were used to wash aircraft was completely baseless. Also, since I work at the airport I am fully aware of the security regulations - anyone with a criminal record is basically banned from getting an airport pass. Prisoners in Singapore remain where they should remain - in Changi Prison, not Changi Airport.

Regarding companies in Singapore being less susceptible to political pressure, it's indeed amazing that there is very little offshoring of jobs here, despite the fact that Singaporean wages are far higher than neighbouring nations. SQ shut down all its call centres in the English speaking world and routed the calls to a third party centre in India instead, while calls made from Singapore are still routed to Singaporean agents. All English speaking too. I did hear from people within SQ that they were petrified of handling the unions and govt should they shut down the SIN call centre.

I hear the use of prison labour had stopped within a day so they could legitimately say that they do not use prison labour. This however was written at the time -

How about the staples. SIAEC have denied that one too. They were found in many locations in EEL lighting power cables. SIAEC claim that they have no record of work on the EEL system. If that is the case, how did they lift the mid section floor boards to carry out the usual C check inspections?

It is good that SIA are petrified of the Sin unions and are keeping your work onshore. Best of luck and send me a pm if you need a new stapler sent over.