A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 23rd, 2006, 08:39 PM posted to rec.travel.air
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More

In article , mrtravel
wrote:

Of course they were. Just as the garage is where a friend always gets
his New York state inspections "done" is a certified New York State
Inspection Station. Still, for fifty bucks, he gets a sticker on a car
that shouldn't be on the road. The certification means very little.


Are you sayiing that SabreTech paid off the FAA inspectors?
That's quite an accusation.


NO! Absolutely not. My only point was that just becuse a repair
station is certified, doesn't make them ethical or competent. That's
all I was saying.
  #12  
Old April 23rd, 2006, 09:41 PM posted to rec.travel.air
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More

beavis wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

... they were the first airline to extensively contract out
maintenance. Something done in many other industries, I might add.
There was an accident, which arguably wasn't the fault of the
airline management...


Please. They contracted things out to SabreTech because they were
CHEAPER, simple as that. Their subcontractor cut corners, and 110
people died as a result.


Are you implying that dealing with the lowest bidder is somehow
wrong?


Not at all. What I'm directly *saying* is that using a contractor to
do work doesn't absolve the company of responsibility for the work
done by that contractor. That's one of the risks a company takes when
it relinquishes control of necessary work to an outside, third party.


So the fact they were cheaper had nothing to do with it, you simply
threw that in to sensationalize things.

Anybody could make a mistake, as demonstrated by Alaska Airlines' own
in-house maintenance with the accident off Los Angeles, or American
Airlines' maintenance in their accident in Chicago.

And you have also been implying that contracting out was somehow evil,
yet it is the normal practice for most other transportation modes.
Airlines are anachronistic in that they try to be all things, rather
than contracting various services to groups that specialize in the
activity.

Airlines are in business to transport people, and that is where they
should be concentrating their effort and intelligence. Maintenance is a
specialty that can be performed better by others. In this case, there
was no indication that maintenance of the aircraft had anything to do
with the accident. The direct cause was the mistaken shipment of
charged oxygen generators.

It is the way business is done... SabreTech was a licenced aircraft
maintenance supplier.


Of course they were. Just as the garage is where a friend always gets
his New York state inspections "done" is a certified New York State
Inspection Station. Still, for fifty bucks, he gets a sticker on a
car that shouldn't be on the road. The certification means very
little.


So your friend should be held responsible for deliberately circumventing
the law? It appears he knows what is going on is illegal. ValuJet, on
the other hand, did not know of any shortcomings. The NTSB report
criticized them for not having more oversight, but I consider that
simply a manifestation of an outdated organizational and regulatory
structure. The FAA and NTSB are too slow to recognize that contracting
out such things is a reality, and that the FAA and NTSB did not
restructure the regulatory environment to address that reality.

Also, please describe how the accident was as a result of Sabretech
"cutting corners". The airline prohibited the shipment of hazardous
material, and weren't aware that the oxygen generators were aboard.


Correct. SabreTech *mislabeled* the shipping containers as containing
empty oxygen generators, because full ones cannot be transported in
the cargo hold of passenger aircraft, and thus must be sent on
cargo-only aircraft. That costs more money. That's what I mean by
"cutting corners."


Now you are implying that they did it on purpose. Nonsense. There are
too many things suggesting it was only a mistake, such as:

- The shipment was labelled as discharged generators.
- It is not difficult to discharge the canisters.
- If they had intentionally wanted to ship undischarged oxygen
generators, they would have put the safety caps on.

Blaming the airline, even partially, is like blaming Ford Explorer
drivers for Firestone tire failures: They shouldn't have bought them,
therefore they are at fault.


That's an excellent example, actually. But it's more analgous to
blaming Ford for the Firestone tire failures. *Ford* sold the tires,
*Ford* recommended that they be underinflated. Yes, it was Firestone
that built the weak tire, but they were OEM tires -- Ford is the
primarily repsonsible party, not Firestone.


Ford was not the primary party responsible. Firestone was. Ford took
some blame for equipping their vehicles with the tires, but reduced
their responsibility by showing that they took action as soon as they
became aware of the problem.

However, you would also be blaming the drivers for any consequences, as
they "contracted out" the manufacture of the vehicle and tires. Under
your view of the world, they would be primarily responsible for any
consequential damages, since they should have known better.

The lack of interphone communication was not cited in the NTSB report
as either a cause of the accident or even aggravating the conditions.


http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1997/aar9706.pdf

Page 108:
"Therefore, the Safety Board believes that the FAA should specify, in
air carrier operations master MELs, that the cockpit-cabin portion of
the service interphone system is required to be operating before an
airplane can be dispatched. "


Page 138:

"As a result of the investigation of this accident, the National
Transportation Safety Board made the following recommendations:
‹to the Federal Aviation Administration:
...
Specify, in air carrier operations master minimum equipment lists,
that the cockpit-cabin portion of the service interphone system is
required to be operating before an airplane can be dispatched.
(A-97-57) "


Those are simply recommendations at the end of the report. I repeat:
The lack of interphone communication was not cited in the NTSB report
as either a cause of the accident or even aggravating the conditions.

You brought it up earlier as evidence that maintenance was inadequate,
and somehow contributed to the accident. Nothing in the NTSB said that,
and there was no evidence that any other maintenance issue was at fault.

The NTSB only made the recommendation since the cockpit door was opened,
and they were concerned in the future that smoke could get into the
cockpit if such circumstances happened again.

It was a side issue, and ValuJet was perfectly legal in flying the
aircraft without the interphone according to the FAA-approved Minimum
Equipment Lists.


"Perfectly legal" doesn't necessary equal safe, in the aviation
business or in any other. In New York, it's illegal for me to hold a
phone up to my ear and talk, but "perfectly legal" to type a message
out on a Blackberry. That doesn't make it safe; some common sense
needs to come into play.


I would bet that most other airlines also allowed aircraft to depart
without interphone communication at the time. It was common practice,
and nothing specific to ValuJet or SabreTech.
  #13  
Old April 23rd, 2006, 11:20 PM posted to rec.travel.air
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More

my general perceptions & ideas concerning quality control

I'm not in your industry, so my comments are as consumer of service.

It appeared to me at the time of its near-Miami crash that Valujet was
pushing the risk/margin/envelope.

I noticed their patronage fell-off, and I presume other consumers
perceived similarly.

A week--month(s) subsequently another DC-9 or two either burned or had
glitch(es) fortunately still on the ground at Hartsfield.

The Air Tran company has recovered, though at the expense/losses of
Delta etal, which is kind of the story of competition/capitalism.

So do airplane passenger companies "cut corners?"

I hope not.

Why would they?

Because they think they can get away with such, and maybe get bigggg
bonuses.

And so what's my humble solution/suggestion?

Well, of course our government must primarily be competent, honest &
diligent.

Also--imho-- their INSURANCE company(ies) should be watching their
airline clients closely.

If an insurance investigator observes corners being cut, then the
insuror tells the insured to clean it up or bye bye so far as coverage.

So, it's both the nicey-nice public good (via govt
regulation/inspection) AND smart/innovative private incentive/interest
that should keep serve to keep the industry clean and the public
confidant.

The insuror and/or the govt might even offer rewards for valid
substantive tips of poor quality & wrong-doing.

Hey, I know I'm a glib outsider who doesn't know my butt from second
base, and herein spewing-out some gadfly jibberish, so if Sabre Tech
was operating with qualified personnel--people who can understand/read
warnings about oxygen containers and so forth properly--then I duly
apologize for that negative implication.

  #14  
Old April 24th, 2006, 04:40 AM posted to rec.travel.air
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More



beavis wrote:

In article 42, James
Robinson wrote:


... they were the first airline to
extensively contract out maintenance. Something done in many other
industries, I might add. There was an accident, which arguably wasn't the
fault of the airline management, and were then considered as "unsafe".



Please. They contracted things out to SabreTech because they were
CHEAPER, simple as that. Their subcontractor cut corners, and 110
people died as a result. ValuJet wasn't DIRECTLY responsible, no, but
they were most certainly at fault for using a shady contractor.

Further, the cabin-to-cockpit interphone had been deferred, meaning the
cabin crew had no way to communicate the fire to the flight crew other
than yelling through the cockpit door.

So yes, Valujet shared a great deal of responsibility for the crash.



They shipped dangerous cargo without proper care.


  #15  
Old April 24th, 2006, 04:43 AM posted to rec.travel.air
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More



James Robinson wrote:

beavis wrote:


James Robinson wrote:


... they were the first airline to extensively contract out
maintenance. Something done in many other industries, I might add.
There was an accident, which arguably wasn't the fault of the airline
management, and were then considered as "unsafe".


Please. They contracted things out to SabreTech because they were
CHEAPER, simple as that. Their subcontractor cut corners, and 110
people died as a result. ValuJet wasn't DIRECTLY responsible, no, but
they were most certainly at fault for using a shady contractor.



Are you implying that dealing with the lowest bidder is somehow wrong?
It is the way business is done. Everything from computer programming to
moon landers is awarded to the lowest qualified bidder as a normal
contracting process. SabreTech was a licenced aircraft maintenance
supplier.

As far as SabreTech being "shady", they were properly licensed by the
FAA to perform aircraft maintenance. It's not as though they were some
back lot garage that repairs cars using stolen parts.

Also, please describe how the accident was as a result of Sabretech
"cutting corners". The airline prohibited the shipment of hazardous
material, and weren't aware that the oxygen generators were aboard. The
maintenance contractor made a mistake in not discharging the generators
or applying safety caps. It was more a mistake than a deliberate act to
save money.

Blaming the airline, even partially, is like blaming Ford Explorer
drivers for Firestone tire failures: They shouldn't have bought them,
therefore they are at fault.


If Ford sold Firestone tires as original equipment then they are
responsible for the performance of the tires. If the tires were
subsequently purchased then they are not.


Further, the cabin-to-cockpit interphone had been deferred, meaning
the cabin crew had no way to communicate the fire to the flight crew
other than yelling through the cockpit door.

So yes, Valujet shared a great deal of responsibility for the crash.



The lack of interphone communication was not cited in the NTSB report as
either a cause of the accident or even aggravating the conditions. It
was a side issue, and ValuJet was perfectly legal in flying the aircraft
without the interphone according to the FAA-approved Minimum Equipment
Lists.

  #16  
Old April 24th, 2006, 08:59 AM posted to rec.travel.air
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

beavis wrote:


James Robinson wrote:

... they were the first airline to extensively contract out
maintenance. Something done in many other industries, I might add.
There was an accident, which arguably wasn't the fault of the
airline management, and were then considered as "unsafe".

Please. They contracted things out to SabreTech because they were
CHEAPER, simple as that. Their subcontractor cut corners, and 110
people died as a result. ValuJet wasn't DIRECTLY responsible, no,
but they were most certainly at fault for using a shady contractor.


Are you implying that dealing with the lowest bidder is somehow
wrong? It is the way business is done. Everything from computer
programming to moon landers is awarded to the lowest qualified bidder
as a normal contracting process. SabreTech was a licenced aircraft
maintenance supplier.

As far as SabreTech being "shady", they were properly licensed by the
FAA to perform aircraft maintenance. It's not as though they were
some back lot garage that repairs cars using stolen parts.

Also, please describe how the accident was as a result of Sabretech
"cutting corners". The airline prohibited the shipment of hazardous
material, and weren't aware that the oxygen generators were aboard.
The maintenance contractor made a mistake in not discharging the
generators or applying safety caps. It was more a mistake than a
deliberate act to save money.

Blaming the airline, even partially, is like blaming Ford Explorer
drivers for Firestone tire failures: They shouldn't have bought them,
therefore they are at fault.


If Ford sold Firestone tires as original equipment then they are
responsible for the performance of the tires. If the tires were
subsequently purchased then they are not.


Yes, to the final buyer, but they will pass on any claims to Firestone,
who ultimately is responsible.

And if an owner gets into an accident as a result of tire failure that
involves others, the owner and his insurance company would be
responsible for the damages. However, do you really "blame" the owner,
or is Firestone utimately to blame. That is my point.
  #17  
Old April 24th, 2006, 09:02 AM posted to rec.travel.air
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:

beavis wrote:

James Robinson wrote:


... they were the first airline to
extensively contract out maintenance. Something done in many other
industries, I might add. There was an accident, which arguably
wasn't the fault of the airline management, and were then considered
as "unsafe".


Please. They contracted things out to SabreTech because they were
CHEAPER, simple as that. Their subcontractor cut corners, and 110
people died as a result. ValuJet wasn't DIRECTLY responsible, no,
but they were most certainly at fault for using a shady contractor.

Further, the cabin-to-cockpit interphone had been deferred, meaning
the cabin crew had no way to communicate the fire to the flight crew
other than yelling through the cockpit door.

So yes, Valujet shared a great deal of responsibility for the crash.


They shipped dangerous cargo without proper care.


ValuJet did not knowingly ship dangerous cargo. Their policy was to not
handle dangerous items. The package was not labeled by SabreTech as
dangerous, so the airline did not know what they were handling.
  #18  
Old April 24th, 2006, 02:22 PM posted to rec.travel.air
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More

"Robert Cohen" wrote:

It appeared to me at the time of its near-Miami crash that Valujet was
pushing the risk/margin/envelope.

I noticed their patronage fell-off, and I presume other consumers
perceived similarly.


Yes, that is what the the unions, and the airline's competitors, and to
a certain extent, the sensational media would want you to believe. It
was easy to suggest that low cost = poor maintenance by innuendo.

The airlines all have a pervasive culture of safety. They know that all
it takes is one mistake, one incident, to cause a bad accident, and
destroy any credibility they might have had as a carrier. The loss of
credibility causes loss of patronage, which would cost them far more
than the cost of the accident itself.

A week--month(s) subsequently another DC-9 or two either burned or had
glitch(es) fortunately still on the ground at Hartsfield.


If you are referring to the engine failure and fire at Hartsfeld, it was
about a year earlier. The aircraft in that incident was second-hand,
and the engine failure that caused the fire was blamed on poor
inspection procedures on the part of the previous owner. It had nothing
to do with ValuJet's maintenance. However, it would enter prospective
passenger's minds as another black mark on the carrier.

Well, of course our government must primarily be competent, honest &
diligent.

Also--imho-- their INSURANCE company(ies) should be watching their
airline clients closely.

If an insurance investigator observes corners being cut, then the
insuror tells the insured to clean it up or bye bye so far as
coverage.

So, it's both the nicey-nice public good (via govt
regulation/inspection) AND smart/innovative private incentive/interest
that should keep serve to keep the industry clean and the public
confidant.

The insuror and/or the govt might even offer rewards for valid
substantive tips of poor quality & wrong-doing.

Hey, I know I'm a glib outsider who doesn't know my butt from second
base, and herein spewing-out some gadfly jibberish, so if Sabre Tech
was operating with qualified personnel--people who can understand/read
warnings about oxygen containers and so forth properly--then I duly
apologize for that negative implication.


The industry is pretty well self-regulated. Generally, the reality of
potential accidents or incidents keeps them on their toes, since they
both want to keep alive, and want to keep a good reputation to continue
to attract passengers.

In the past, the regulators have often been too slow to react when there
are basic problems with a carrier's culture. They have been reluctant
to pull an operating license until something actually happens. Pilgrim
Airways was a good example of an overbearing owner pushing the limits,
which was well known to the regulator. They only acted after several
major incidents.

After a major accident or two, the regulators sometimes go overboard,
such as when the DC-10's certification was revoked. It becomes
political, and they want to be seen to be doing something.
  #19  
Old April 24th, 2006, 02:24 PM posted to rec.travel.air
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More

nobody wrote:

James Robinson wrote:
Are you implying that dealing with the lowest bidder is somehow wrong?


The problem wasn't the "outsourcing" per say. It was the lack of quality
assurance and proper controls to ensure that everything went by the
book. And that is why Valuejet was grouded since the FAA discovered tons
of paperwork irregularities while investigating the crash. And that is
100% the responsability of the airline.


Yes, ultimately that was probably the core problem with SabreTech. They
didn't provide adequate training, and were casual with paperwork. Overall,
it was indicative of a loose organizational structure.
  #20  
Old April 24th, 2006, 04:08 PM posted to rec.travel.air
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More



James Robinson wrote:

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:

James Robinson wrote:


beavis wrote:



James Robinson wrote:


... they were the first airline to extensively contract out
maintenance. Something done in many other industries, I might add.
There was an accident, which arguably wasn't the fault of the
airline management, and were then considered as "unsafe".

Please. They contracted things out to SabreTech because they were
CHEAPER, simple as that. Their subcontractor cut corners, and 110
people died as a result. ValuJet wasn't DIRECTLY responsible, no,
but they were most certainly at fault for using a shady contractor.

Are you implying that dealing with the lowest bidder is somehow
wrong? It is the way business is done. Everything from computer
programming to moon landers is awarded to the lowest qualified bidder
as a normal contracting process. SabreTech was a licenced aircraft
maintenance supplier.

As far as SabreTech being "shady", they were properly licensed by the
FAA to perform aircraft maintenance. It's not as though they were
some back lot garage that repairs cars using stolen parts.

Also, please describe how the accident was as a result of Sabretech
"cutting corners". The airline prohibited the shipment of hazardous
material, and weren't aware that the oxygen generators were aboard.
The maintenance contractor made a mistake in not discharging the
generators or applying safety caps. It was more a mistake than a
deliberate act to save money.

Blaming the airline, even partially, is like blaming Ford Explorer
drivers for Firestone tire failures: They shouldn't have bought them,
therefore they are at fault.


If Ford sold Firestone tires as original equipment then they are
responsible for the performance of the tires. If the tires were
subsequently purchased then they are not.



Yes, to the final buyer, but they will pass on any claims to Firestone,
who ultimately is responsible.

And if an owner gets into an accident as a result of tire failure that
involves others, the owner and his insurance company would be
responsible for the damages. However, do you really "blame" the owner,
or is Firestone utimately to blame. That is my point.



I do not expect a consumer to be knowledgeable concerning tires. I
probably wouldn't even expect an auto dealer to know what is going on.
However an automobile company should be responsible for the quality of
the tires that they choose for a vehicle.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Drving times in the west David & Barbara Schmidt USA & Canada 7 May 5th, 2005 01:34 AM
Times: Another danger of flying lies not in air but food sufaud Air travel 3 March 11th, 2005 11:12 PM
S Times: If New York can tame them, so can we Kuacou Europe 0 December 5th, 2004 04:16 PM
Times: Budapest's Jewish quarter fights a new invasion Sufaud Europe 8 November 10th, 2004 05:19 PM
New Dining Times On Holland America Peter Berlin Cruises 14 March 27th, 2004 04:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.