What would deregulated maintenence do to used aircraft price?

Actually CA was, I believe Commercial Activity. I was in a DON (Department of Navy) organization that underwent a CA study in 1998-99. Basically, the org we were in was allowed to bid for the our jobs against civilian contractors.

They sat down and defined the roles of the organization. Our organization proposed our costs. Private firms were invited to bid on the same job. A private firm had to beat the existing Govt organization's costs by 10% to replace us. It was implemented by Al Gore.

The problem I had with the process was that our organization developed a streamlined organization on paper. The theoretical, untested organization's costs were what we bid.

We won, because no civilian organization even bid. But we had to reorganize into the group we said we were on paper.

I wasn't convinced the paper organization could perform the same level of service we had been providing. It gave us a price competitive advantage though.
 
Last edited:
kontiki said:
I wasn't convinced the paper organization could perform the same level of service we had been providing. It gave us a price competitive advantage though.
Click to expand...

Heh. Welcome to every public company I've ever worked for, that did a "re-org" to meet Wall Street's expectations. :)
 
denverpilot said:
Interesting. Never heard of such a thing. Are they viewable by the public?

Would love to see one.
Click to expand...

No they are not, it is an internal thing, the government asks companies like L-3 Aero union and others to evaluate the job being bid upon, all companies that are interested to contract the work/service will study the work/service and submit a bid.
The Government then must prove they are doing or can beat the bid. even if they must lay off workers and lower over head costs.

Prime example,,,,,,, your postal service. the government labor force would not agree to meet the bid by reducing costs, the contractor won the postal service is now a contracted service.
 
Wow. Sounds like a total cluster...

I'm so glad I pay for all that. :rollseyes:
 
As far as management business philosophies and implementations go, I believe have seen specific cases of failure with every philosophy implementation.

When it comes to business management in technically complex enviromnents, one system may lend itself more to conflicts of interest than others, but intellectual corruption aside, there is never sufficent QA over the detailed changes made by new inexperienced management team.

Implement any system with a person new to the operation and despite business and soft skill abilities, they are going to make mistakes, some cheap, some expensive simply because they don't know the business.

I believe the BS artists teaching management at universities have really done a great disservice to a lot of industries. Most business professors most have never run a business or worked at any significan level in business. There probably is no academic road to Sr. Management. A lot is about how personalities accept subordinate roles in an organization.


You gotta love absurdity, or drink from the magic koolaid regularly in this world.
 
kontiki said:
I personally believe the state of aircraft maintenence and resale value of airplanes are much improved under the A&P system vs owner maint.

I still recall some of those classmates that never made it through the program years ago. Some bounced for cheating.

Despite many flaws mentioned, things could be worse. I think the model worked well enough that the auto industry copied it by implementing SAE certified mechanics, and that industry has benifeted as well.


I do believe the FAA needs to implement some reasonable mechanisim to allow an operator to approve replacements for unreliable parts.

That is a lot of the work we see in an airline engineering office. If a part is too expensive to keep operating, we'll try to find a replacement.

If it's a complicated computer that plays a key role in Cat III landings, certification of a substitute by an airline will be out of reach.

Lamps are another matter.

From a certification standpoint, I'd say try to substutite a more reliable lamp from a different airplane. The approval substantiation should be easier. I haven't tried it though. I'm still working up the nerve to buy my first airplane.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. There is still mechanism to find replacements for aging aircraft parts and there are IAs who will inspect the installation and independently approve by signing your annual. It's kinda a good thing because it keeps it under scrutiny for a few years. The FAA actually allows for that in a way. They aren't coming looking for it. You have to bring it to them.

If your installation looks like the dogs breakfast, you will eventually get your a$$ handed to you. If your installation meets a visual inspection conforming to "best or standard practices" and what the airplane is supposed to look like, you'll get away with it as a pt 91 operator.

I feel safe in believing that if I cannot find a reasonable way to install Pulse Lights, I will be able to get away with the install by installing it with a cooperative IA to provide the first sign off. Signatures can be bought still. No matter your vice, and aviation is a hedonistic vice for me, there is a black market to serve your needs.

BTW, That was ASE, originally NIASE I believe you were referring to
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
Why do *you* personally care if I question the Certification group's effectiveness?
Click to expand...

Great post! You have brought to light something that greatly disturbs me about the new class of government worker: They are ganging together.

I suppose this was inevitable in the face of efforts to cut the size and scope of government, but it is almost frightening the way an attack on one is viewed as an attack on ALL. :no:

This attitude makes rooting out incompetence and inefficiency nearly impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top