Outsourcing of Airline Maintenance

[Hauptman]

I am not opposed to the idea, but at this point the process is so ingrained that it would probably take a lot of time and effort to get to an equilibrium point.

Do you believe that an unregulated market would mean that businesses would just do no maintenance and inspection and pocket the money saved? I'm curious.

As in some evil plot to let people die and pocket the money? No.

BUT if you mean, "Will the companies cut corners at every turn, set standards far below what the gov't would, and rationalize that they aren't?", then yes, absolutely.

[I_luv_saber]

A) The FAA is still inspecting the aircraft. Slipshod maintenance is still going to show up.

That's the sort of thing I'd like details on. What would be the difference in regulation, supervision, inspection, etc, between a domestic and foreign contractor. It would seem like monitoring and inspecting the process along with the end product would be more likely to catch foul play, and really just honest mistakes

B) The airlines are watching their contractors.

I question how well they can do that compared to the current federal regulation and supervision of domestic contractors (or lack thereof, as I said at this point I don't know, I'm just asking the question).

Because they are aware that if there's a problem, it's not the contractor which will get sued by next of kin or investigated by the government and possibly get driven out of business.

This is what worries me. This is of course a problem with contracting out ANY work and is always an issue - the more degrees of separation the worse the problem gets. However, again, what I'm wondering is if this problem can't be mitigated by keeping it domestic rather than foreign due to the current system of oversight here.

Do you believe that they are so focused on the short-run that they would ignore the consequences of an upswing in crashes for the long term?

Absolutely I believe there are a good number of companies like that. Many would argue that's how we got in this recession (or downturn, whatever) mess - companies (on the leadership level and otherwise) were focused on short-term and/or personal goals rather than long-term health of the company.

( If so---if you believe that fundamentally all of these businesses are stupid---then I wonder you dare to fly at all, wherever their maintenance is done. )

I don't believe that all businesses are fundamentally that stupid - but I do believe they are out there. My contention is that it can be more easily prevented and taken care of under a domestic system of oversight rather than a foreign system which may have little to no oversight (it also may, that's why I'm asking).

[lindajdunn]

Do you believe that they are so focused on the short-run that they would ignore the consequences of an upswing in crashes for the long term? ( If so---if you believe that fundamentally all of these businesses are stupid---then I wonder you dare to fly at all, wherever their maintenance is done. )

Most major defense contractors have already been caught and fined for violating contract terms and they've done this for the same reason that the guy robs a 7-11: They wanted the money and they didn't think they'd get caught. Too, the people at the bottom are not the ones who will be sued and when they're told that they must meet some quota or lose their jobs, they WILL meet their quota.

The cartoon strip, Dilbert, is unfortunately accurate.

[I_luv_saber]

The cartoon strip, Dilbert, is unfortunately accurate.

Uncannily accurate...

[jessicasimpson]

Do you believe that an unregulated market would mean that businesses would just do no maintenance and inspection and pocket the money saved? I'm curious.

No maitainence? Of course not. I am fairly sure that they would use a mathmatical formula to find out how much less they could do to maxamize profit. I do not think they would pocket the extra money saved, I am sure they would use it to help the homeless, or third world children, or help fund special education in economicly depressed regions.

[Inquartata]

BUT if you mean, "Will the companies cut corners at every turn, set standards far below what the gov't would, and rationalize that they aren't?", then yes, absolutely.

My problem with this is in taking "what the government would do" as the proper standard. I suspect that in fact it tends to require way more than is actually necessary to achieve safety, largely on the grounds that "nothing costs too much for the man who doesn't have to pay for it himself"...

I don't believe that all businesses are fundamentally that stupid - but I do believe they are out there.

If so, they will be driven out of business, raising the average as a result.

Most major defense contractors have already been caught and fined for violating contract terms and they've done this for the same reason that the guy robs a 7-11: They wanted the money and they didn't think they'd get caught.

I'm not talking about either contract terms or run-of-the-mill businesses. I'm talking about firms which WILL either be sued out of existence or shut down by the FAA if they sacrifice maintenance to profitability to the point where safety suffers enough...

The cartoon strip, Dilbert, is unfortunately accurate.

Yeah. I mean, my HR director is also a cat, and we send people to train in Elbonia all the time...

[I_luv_saber]

If so, they will be driven out of business, raising the average as a result.

Unless of course they're "too big to fail", eh?

[Inquartata]

Well, there's that, yes. Alas.

[erik_blank]

My problem with this is in taking "what the government would do" as the proper standard. I suspect that in fact it tends to require way more than is actually necessary to achieve safety, largely on the grounds that "nothing costs too much for the man who doesn't have to pay for it himself"...

Of course you could also go with "What price do you place on the life of another human being?"
Since you are the obvious economist here, I am sticking my neck out fully knowing that you can talk rings around my basic arguments, but here goes any way...
Isn't this more of a level playing field sort of thing here? If every company is playing by the same set of rules, then would they not all have the same costs associated with their business? And if this is the case would it not then just be an issue of competitively pricing the service to match the demand, yes?

If so, they will be driven out of business, raising the average as a result.

But WHEN will they be driven out of business? Before or after the accident that may have killed 30-400 or more people with various and sundry property damage in the mix?

I'm not talking about either contract terms or run-of-the-mill businesses. I'm talking about firms which WILL either be sued out of existence or shut down by the FAA if they sacrifice maintenance to profitability to the point where safety suffers enough...

Again, isn't this a REACTIVE rather than PROACTIVE approach? And how will the FAA find out about the safety violations without inspecting the facilities that are supposed to be maintaining the vehicles? Aren't you suggesting on one hand that tthere is no need for regulations, and with the other hand stating that there should be a regulatory body who's sole duty it should be to shut down business that have managed to kill lots of people in the course of their day to day business?

Yeah. I mean, my HR director is also a cat, and we send people to train in Elbonia all the time...

[spinning up the 'ol Monty Python Flying Circus Theme son]Hummm... A CAT, you're luck you are... I WISH we had a cat for an HR director! I remember back in my day our HR director was a WEASEL! And Training in Elbonia? That would have been luxury that! We were lucky if we were allowed to train in LOWER Elbania...

[Inquartata]

Isn't this more of a level playing field sort of thing here? If every company is playing by the same set of rules, then would they not all have the same costs associated with their business?

Alas, no. Just on the most basic of levels, the carriers with more or older planes will sustain higher costs. ( This is a deterrent to expansion in the first case. )

Mostly, however, it's an efficiency loss to the whole economy if more costs are imposed than are necessary...

But WHEN will they be driven out of business?

Unknown. It depends on the interplay of many factors.

Before or after the accident that may have killed 30-400 or more people with various and sundry property damage in the mix?

Very possibly. This is why it's not really comparable to Linda's defense contractor examples: there's a really, really big and threatening risk to skimping on the maintenance. It might take only one mistake to put an airline out of business.

Again, isn't this a REACTIVE rather than PROACTIVE approach?

Yes.

And how will the FAA find out about the safety violations without inspecting the facilities that are supposed to be maintaining the vehicles?

When they inspect the actual aircraft.

I mean, unless the industry can convince the FAA to offshore its operations, too.

Aren't you suggesting on one hand that tthere is no need for regulations, and with the other hand stating that there should be a regulatory body who's sole duty it should be to shut down business that have managed to kill lots of people in the course of their day to day business?

In a perfect world, we'd only have the former. The market would take care of the shutting down. But we must deal with what we have...




[

I remember back in my day our HR director was a WEASEL!

"That's Weisel!" ( Different British comedy. )

[lindajdunn]

I mean, unless the industry can convince the FAA to offshore its operations, too.

Not necessary. All you have to do is downsize the number of government employees performing this function and/or privatize the function. After all, it's not an inherently government function and the industry can police itself. It worked so well for the financial sector.

[erik_blank]

Actually, according to the above referenced NPR report, the FAA DOES 'offshore' their inspections... Unfortunately, this 'offshoring' is flawed in many ways, including the inspectors giving 1-3 months of advance notice of their inspections and being so stretched that quite often they never actually GET to the locations that they are intending to inspect.