|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administration
Joined: 8/20/2008
Posts: 22
Points: 66
|
My column in the next issue will address budgeting cutbacks as a result of the tightening economy! I'd like to know your thoughts. Here's a Preview:
If you haven’t heard that the United States is experiencing some tough economic times — you’re probably hiding under a rock somewhere.
The downturn in the economy has resulted in production cutbacks across practically all industries, and unfortunately layoffs are the norm as we enter the new year. As expected, its beginning to have an impact on the aviation industry. The impact was slow to set into the aviation industry — already lean from the devastating effects of the 9/11 attacks. Business jet declines were lagging behind as corporate use increased slightly as corporations increased travel in an effort to re-energize their businesses.
But it appears as though economic hardships have caught up with the aviation industry. The downturn was punctuated in the last six months with the closing of DayJet and the filing of bankruptcy for it’s aircraft supplier Eclipse Aviation. The light jet industry crawled to a halt as other competitors for light jet aircraft scaled back production and announced layoffs. More recently, aircraft manufacturers such as Cessna and Cirrus announced layoffs and a reduction in production levels. Just recently, a long-standing aftermarket parts manufacturer and distributor, Superior Air Parts, filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy and will likely sell off most of its assets to Lycoming.
Another casualty of the economic conditions as has been the sell-off of corporate flight departments as company CEOs receive pressure to reduce spending and avoid public scrutiny in the face of asking for government funded bailouts (notably Ford and GM).
So where does all of this bad news leave the average aircraft maintenance professional? For some, out of a job. For others, certainly keeping their options open. For the mechanic that’s gainfully employed, it adds a perhaps unspoken burden to their already long list of worries!
That burden – Budget Cutbacks!
As if the prospects of an average-paying profession where making a mistake or missing an FAA directive to repair a part a certain way can put you out of a job at best, or land you in jail at worse is not enough — maintenance personnel are now likely to be under increased pressure to reduce maintenance costs.
Some of the pressure will be requests to “make do” with the equipment that you have, or to keep old aircraft flying longer instead of updating to new. Some of the pressure will be to work longer hours instead of hiring that help that’s so badly needed, or a freezing of your pay in the face of increasing economic hardship! You could even be asked one day to fudge some paperwork or to do something that’s just not right.
So what do you do when faced with the prospect of losing your job over not compromising on safety? I’m not suggesting that you all have the same answer. It’s not true that there is only one level of safety! The highest level is replacing your aircraft with a new one each day (we all know that’s not possible or practical). The lowest is just meeting the requirements of regulatory compliance. Everyone is faced with a different situation. As well, how vehemently safety is defended is based on the situation of each maintenance professional. Some can defend the need for safe practices actively without fear of losing their job. Others may only have the option of walking away from the job. And others still may find some other acceptable method of complying which will maintain safety while reducing costs to an acceptable level.
Regardless, the time to think through the scenario of being faced with the prospect of compromising safety is NOW – before it happens. You need to decide today where to draw the line, know your reasoning for it, and shore up your arguments for the level of safety for which you are comfortable.
How do you feel about budgeting issues and their impact on safety?
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/11/2009
Posts: 11
Points: 33
Location: Texas
|
Greg, You are up to my style of beating a dead horse, a broken drum, a rented mule, etc. In a perfect world with a given set of aircraft maintenance performance standards and competent, honest technicians, there are only a few ways to reduce maintenance. If you are looking at total aircraft cost then just reduce the flying hours. If you are looking at cost per hour/landing/month, you can fly more which usually reduces cost/hour, reduce maintenance and inspection items through MSG-3 or similar evaluation, or develop more efficient technology (which usually drives cost up in the short term and down in the long term). The big rub is that the world is not perfect and neither are humans. We have gotten sucked up in a debt driven world where people must have jobs to keep up with their debt loads. This allows a huge opportunity for unscrupulous employers and individuals to skimp on standards. Credit scores are being used by HR departments for selecting employees. Would a shady employeer want a technician with a high debt load and a quality employeer want a technician with a high credit score? So, does the possibility of universal health care, portable retirement programs, and other socialist trends being driven by our government have a possible positive impact on air safety? I say that is a huge stretch. Twisted Thought, Jack
Jack Tunnell 214-683-5428 http://www.twisted-wrench.com/jack@twisted-wrench.com
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/2/2008
Posts: 148
Points: 347
Location: Ozark, Mo
|
Welcome aboard Jack.
Its good to see a fresh set of views on here, and someone not afraid to post (seems to be a fear to post syndrome with most of our members). Feel free to stop up to the Welcome to DOM Magazine thread area and introduce yourself.
Join in and Be Heard,
Mike
Join in and Be Heard.
Are you a pofessional or are you just here for the paycheck?
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/10/2009
Posts: 5
Points: 15
Location: FTW, Texas
|
Compromising safety is simply not an option. Fostering up a stern commitment to become a cost effective and efficient contribution to your maintenance department is where we should have our sights sets in my opinion. We technicians are expected and relied upon to make safety conscience decisions, that must never change. However, that’s not to say we cannot ignite an aggressive campaign to assist our organizations in becoming more cost conscience and cost effective in the way we perform our obligations and responsibilities on a day in and day out basis. We should posses a strong commitment to achieve the highest reliabilities numbers obtainable, respect and support schedule requirements, at the lowest cost possible, without sacrificing any margin of safety.
Let’s look at something as simple as parts ordering. If we get in a hurry and order the wrong part number. On the surface we may appear to be hyper efficient because we got the parts order in as quick as possible. But when the surface is uncovered and we realize we have just spent hard earned company assets on a part we may never use. Most manufacturers have a re-stock fee, and you never get back dollar for dollar of what you spent. Consequently, this could impact our reliability numbers if our aircraft is a revenue generator, or impact schedule in a repair station environment. By the time we realize we have ordered the wrong part number, and go back to order the correct part number, we may have found we had the part in stock, and didn’t have to spend the assets in the first place. Had we ordered the correct part number on the first attempt the manufacturer had several in their stock, but now a few days later when we realize we need to order the correct part number the manufacturers stock is depleted.
There are a multitude of ways we can look at assisting our management in reducing the Direct Operating Cost, while simultaneously improving or enhancing the margin of safety. This type of technician is way to valuable to an organization to get rid of, and will normally not find themselves unemployed unless it is by choice.
Your Either a Safety Leader, or Your Dragging Hazards Behind You
|
|
|
Guest |
