Feedback

I read your magazine every month. Generally, I am pleased with it, even if I don't agree with every statement. Unfortunately, the July editorial (page 3) begs a response. The topic is a good one. I have worked on third-party aircraft and am aware of the challenges.

You were right to refute Kevin Wildermuth's biased complaints, although in the U.S. his criticism is not without merit. You might have made a stronger case if you had pointed out some examples of the European MRO industry. Standards in Europe are generally higher for maintenance than in the U.S., historically. The system of contracting out is also better controlled, according to my sources.

Chris Legrange
Via e-mail

There is a perception that third-party MRO in Europe is of higher quality than in the U.S. But I haven't seen any hard evidence to support that. One feature of the U.S.-versus-Europe landscape that isn't much different is the amount of regulatory oversight; I believe it is pretty much the same in Europe and the U.S. That means, governments spend as little as possible providing the personnel needed for regulatory oversight, and therefore the burden of compliance is almost fully on the aircraft operators and the companies that serve them, such as MROs. What does differ is some companies' approach toward maintenance safety and quality, but again, it's not all good or bad in Europe or the U.S. — Matt Thurber, Editor

Correction:

In the July issue Intelligence article "AMT Award Winners Announced..." on page 10, we wrote an incorrect URL for the website to find more information on the draft advisory circular for the AMT Awards program. The correct URL is www.airweb.faa.gov/rgl, then search for AC 65-25C in the Draft Advisory Circulars section. To comment on the draft AMT Awards advisory circular, send comments to FAA national resource specialist Bill O'Brien at:
william.o'brien@faa.gov
Phone: 202-267-3796
Mail: FAA Headquarters
Aircraft Maintenance Division, AFS-305
800 Independence Ave, S.W., Washington, DC 20591

How to Save an Airline

Bravo on your editorial on how to save an airline (April 2004, page 3). That was a great editorial. I wish the major airline magazines like Air Transport World and the rest of them would come as clean as you have. I really enjoy your magazine. Among all the aviation magazines, I get more of a kick out of yours than the rest of them put together.

Bob Landon
H&L Instruments
North Hampton, New Hampshire

I disagree with your comment that old line air carriers had not effectively created low cost subsidiaries before September 11, 2001. The following come to mind as existing either through acquisition or creation before 9/11 and were proving very effective in both feeding traffic to their old line air carriers or taking over some of their routes at lower costs.

Unfortunately, after 9/11, many were caught up in the same problems as their owner old line air carriers and some have passed on.

Keith Grayson
Scottsdale, Arizona

Good point, yet all of those airlines listed above are a different animal than a true low-cost airline; they are all regional airlines, which don't necessarily target the consumer of low cost air travel. The point is that some old-line air carriers have forgotten their roots and have drifted away from their core competency, which confuses the marketplace and makes survival during economic downturns all that much more difficult. — Matt Thurber, Editor

Cost of Maintenance

Your article regarding the cost of maintenance in the airline industry addresses some very important issues. We often tend to forget in our business that if you explain your business to a customer, such as the traveling public, advising them of maintenance costs for example, compared to what other industries get for maintenance and subsequently ask them to pay more for an airline's service, the industry might get quite a positive surprise. I think we underestimate the general public. They have jobs, they want a fair income, and above all they want to know things that are happening around them. So tell them!

When you take the airline industry into account, the employees are a small number of the population but it is the larger population that uses the service. I think we have long underestimated the fact that the general public will pay for something they understand and have value for. Safety is something they understand and have value for. Maintenance to keep a machine running is something they understand and have value for. If a customer understands the issues, he/she is often the first to pay more if assured of the results being continued.

What if the airlines took the time to tell the public what it costs to maintain their aircraft such as you have done? Aircraft maintenance magazines are not on the average person's kitchen table. I believe many of the MROs could have greater success if their immediate customers, the airlines, told the general public that it was going to cost more for their ticket because of maintenance, if in fact that is where the actual money was really spent! I am certain that the average passenger would be more than pleased to add an extra $5 to any airfare for the comfort of knowing that his/her money was being spent on the caliber of maintenance that they felt made them feel better and more confident.

Educate the public about your business. Fortune 500 companies do it all the time. Communicate with the customer? How well has the airline industry communicated with the customer? Maybe we should start to think about this great idea of better communications more seriously. I suspect the airline passenger is smarter then they have been given credit for and maybe it's time to talk to them about some basic facts.

Does anyone really believe that the general public wants their mother, wife, son, or daughter flying on a aircraft whose maintenance staff are paid less then their auto mechanic while their family members are 35,000 feet in the air and traveling at over 500 miles per hour? I doubt it. And I bet they don't have the slightest idea what is really paid to the maintenance employees who support these aircraft.

Maybe your information should go to the Wall Street Journal or USA TODAY.

Marty Craig
Empire Air Center
Rome, New York

Send letters to: Editor, Aviation Maintenance, 1201 Seven Locks Road, Suite 300, Potomac MD 20854. Fax: 301-340-8741. E-mail: am@accessintel.com. Include name, address, and phone number. We will withhold contact information if desired. Aviation Maintenance reserves the right to edit letters.