PLEASE READ THIS NOTE OF CAUTION

This newsletter is going to deal with issues that need to be addressed in
the airline industry. There are things happening which are a threat to
safety.

The problem I have in writing about any problem with safety is, that those
of you who have not done the SOAR Program may not know how to hear
me say there is a problem without going off the deep end.

Why do people who have not done SOAR do that? Because when you
start SOAR, you like to think of things in absolute terms; you say 'Is it
safe? Or, is it dangerous?' Driving your car is not dangerous. But at the
same time, it is not safe, either; there is SOME risk. Flying on ANY airline
is not dangerous. Why? Because the worst airline you could find - even
if you tried to - would be safer to fly on someplace than to drive there.

But we have developed expectations that flying is supposed to be safer
than driving. And it is. But we also have expectations that flying should
be AS SAFE AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE.

That is what we expect.

So, you beg you to understand the following before you read this newsletter.
And if you don't understand, then don't read it.

Safety and danger, when it comes to airline flying, is relative. Accidents are
rare; for that reason, we say 'flying is safe'. That does not mean absolutely
safe; it means relatively safe, or quite safe, or so safe that we don't need
to worry.

Those of you who have done the SOAR Program can think about these
issues without undue anxiety. You want to choose one of the safest airlines
when you fly.

So, for those of you who have done the SOAR Program, I want you to know
about trends in the industry which I believe are a threat to safety. When you
chose an airline, you may want to consider these trends. You may want to
chose an airline which is less impacted by these trends than more impacted
by these trends.

At one end of the spectrum would be an airline with a pilots' union, with a
long track record and a low accident rate, with no subcontracted or out-
sourced maintenance, and a fleet of 'third generation' aircraft.

At the other end of the spectrum would be an airline with no pilots'
union, which subcontracts/outsources all maintenance, no significant
track record, and planes designed prior to 1987.

Without a pilots' union, you expose yourself to pilots with no authority to
refuse a poorly maintained airplane. Without a pilots' union you expose
yourself to pilots who may be extremely fatigued.

Subcontracting and outsourcing introduce additional risk factors. And with an
airline which has not done millions of flights, stats mean little.

To be able to read this newsletter, you need to be able to put safety into a
context. You need to be able to understand and not be alarmed by the
idea that safety is relative - not absolute.

If you still think about safety in absolute terms, don't read this newsletter.
You need first develop the ability to think about aviation and think about
safety and risk without experiencing anxiety. Go to our web site and begin
getting the help you need - not only think about flying but - to fly without
anxiety and panic.

http://www.fearofflying.com/store.shtml

==========

NOW, WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT?

I have to share with you information about trends in the industry which I
find alarming.

And, I hope you will not just read this and do nothing. I hope you will send
a letter or an email to your senator and representative in Congress, and
send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.

I will write a sample letter at the bottom of this email. Please use it as a
basis, and help us make flying as safe as it should be.

==========

WHY NOW?

Because of three things that have happened this past week:

1. Remember the Alaska Airlines crash in 2000 in which a jackscrew
essential to control the plane failed due to lack of lubrication? Well, three
more jackscrews have been found without lubrication. All three, we are
told, were not lubricated during overhaul by a subcontractor.

2. A major article in the New York Times discusses accidents and troubles
at Japan Airlines due to cost cutting and outsourcing.

3. A pilot at one of the cost-cutting airlines contacted me for counseling, to
help deal with anxiety about mechanical failure due to bad maintenance.

ITEM 1: ALASKA AIRLINES

If you go to a Seattle Times article . . .

seattletimes.nwsource.com...ew06m.html

. . . you can see a photograph of the paperwork where a mechanic found
the jackscrew on the MD-80 (that crashed three years later) was worn out.

Normally, when a mechanic finds a work out jackscrew, the unit is immed-
iately replaced. But there was no replacement jackscrew in stock. And the
airline, we are told, needed the plane back in service. So a supervisor had
the unit re-inspected.

It was claimed that the re inspection showed the unit was fine. I, naturally,
have my doubts about that re inspection, particularly since there was no
replacement part available and the airline needed the plane back on
schedule . . . and - let's face it - the plane DID crash three years later
because the unit - by then - had worn out so completely that it failed. We
are told bad lubrication was a factor. We have no way of knowing if lubri-
cation - alone - caused the unit to fail. Certainly the unit was either worn
out (first inspection) or close to being worn out (re inspection) and with the
lube problem, it failed and caused a crash.

But wouldn't you think that, having crashed because of a jackscrew problem,
Alaska Airlines would be very much on top of that particular problem. That's
what I thought, so when I saw someone post on the message board some-
thing about an Alaska Airlines jackscrew problem, I was ready to answer,
'Oh that was years ago, and I'm sure Alaska Airlines is watching that care-
fully now.'

But lo and behold, it was a NEW bad lube situation (actually no lube) that
was discovered. And it was not just one; it was two. The Seattle Times claims
to have prodded the FAA into action, and a third unit was found unlubricated.

In all these cases, it is said to have been the failure of the subcontractor to
lube the unit during major overhaul of the aircraft, and yet, the lube was
signed off as having been done.

See Monday's Seattle Times at:

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=alaskaair10m&date=20051010&query=alaska+airlines

I just as very concerned about the direction maintenance is going, being
subcontracted out and outsourced. We are going to see more of this kind
of thing.

And because of that, I'm only going to fly airlines that have their own
maintenance, such as American, United, US Air, and Continental.
Northwest? The ultimate effect of the strike there is hard to call, so
although I believe it is OK to fly Northwest, if I had a clear choice
between Northwest and one of the others listed, I would choose one
of the others listed.

You may point out that there may be no airline which does all its own
maintenance, but my point is, it is wise to consider HOW MUCH sub-
contracting and outsourcing the airline does, since it presents risk.

ITEM 2: JAPAN AIRLINES ACCIDENTS DUE TO OUTSOURCING

Full text at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/05/business/worldbusiness/05air.html

In a New York Times article, concern has been expressed about cost
cutting's impact on safety. In the cited article by Martin Fackler, it is first
pointed out that Japan Airlines has flown for the last twenty years without
a fatality. That's excellent. But what has become worrisome is a series of
non-fatal accidents.

Critics of Japan Airlines say part of the problem has to do with how
coddled the airline was when it was a government-owned airline. They
say it is having a hard time adjusting as a non-government-owned airline
competing in the over competitive marketplace.

Critics contend that the airline has overreacted to pressures on its bottom
line, by reducing safety checks, increasing workloads and outsourcing
crucial maintenance to cheaper companies in China, Singapore, New
Zealand and Singapore.

Critics say these are extreme examples of the cost-cutting taking place
across the industry. 'It's not just JAL,' said Hiroaki Tateno, a Japan
Airlines pilot who heads the accident analysis committee of Japan's
national pilots' union. 'The whole industry is standing on the brink.
We're losing our ability to prevent big accidents.'

Mr. Tateno sited specific cutbacks in safety checks, and allowing planes
to fly without backup systems working. The airline confirms it has taken
these steps to save money, but says they do not endanger safety. No
pilot would agree with that assessment.

The critics' biggest complaint is that the airline sends its jets to low-cost
maintenance centers overseas for routine major overhauls, which are
critical for the aircraft's safety.

Most complaints by employees center on the quality of work done at a
maintenance company in Xiamen, China. Employees said planes some-
times came back with more problems than before the overhaul.

'We get the most nervous after heavy maintenance,' Mr. Tateno said.
'This should be the time when aircraft are safest.'

ITEM 3. AN AIRLINE CAPTAIN'S FEAR OF FLYING

First, you need to understand that this captain was flying with a real airline,
but after 9/11, was laid off, and could only find a flying job at one of the cut
rate, cut-throat flying circuses that poses as a real airline. I have posted
about my safety concerns at some of the new airlines and received some
ridicule that I was overreacting.

After counseling this captain this week, I realized that the situation - AT
SOME PLACES, NOT ALL - is far worse than I had thought, and even worse
than I had imagined.

The captain said maintenance is so bad, he fears a catastrophic engine
failure, or other failure, which would cause damage to the plane which he
could not deal with. He felt the passengers depend on him, and believe he
can be trusted with their safety concerns, but he knows he cannot guaran-
tee their safety, because if he speaks up and refuse to fly the planes which
are not properly maintained, he will be fired.

And, the pilots are pushed to fly well beyond the FAA limits. He said they
generally get no more than six hours of sleep a night, and often get only
three or four. I asked him about the federal law limiting pilots - even non-
union pilots - to a sixteen hour duty limit; he said they have to ignore it
because, if they refuse to fly past the legal limits, they will be fired.

Airlines have ways to fire pilots in a way they have no recourse. Pilots
have to pass a flight check every year. Any supervisor conducting a check
can claim the pilot's performance was below acceptable standards. Any
pilot who gets out of line at a non-union airline can be fired this way and
nothing can be done about it.

This captain, like hundreds of others, is working for a flying sweatshop.
And like most sweatshops, it is not safe to work there. And for unsuspecting
passengers, it is unsafe to fly there.

He is thinking of going into another line of work. But if he does, someone
else desperate for a flying job will take his place.

Do not email me asking the name of the airline. First, I cannot disclose it.
Second, it is not just this airline: it is the cost-cutting airlines as a group
who push past the limits of safety, and who are pushing airlines which
insist on doing things right into bankruptcy.

AN OP-ED I SUBMITTED TO THE NEW YORK TIMES

which did not publish it, but I'll paste it here for you to read.

It is titled: EVEN VULTURES FLY

If we look back at those who build the airline industry, such as Juan Tripp
or Howard Hughes, we cannot easily say they were any more idealistic
- or any less vulture-like - than the managers who now eat at the bones of
kind of airlines Tripp and Hughes built.

The airline industry is spinning in a competitive death spiral. Some airline,
or airlines, will have to crash before others can pull out of the dive. Once
the number of available seats is reduced, fares will rise again to levels
which allow the surviving airlines to sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, airline employees are being told to give up another pound of
flesh, or their airline will surely perish. And when - in spite of extended
sacrifice - one or two airlines disappear and its employees find other work,
the surviving airlines will require their employees to maintain the level of
sacrifice which allowed their airline to survive the bloodbath.

But how many employees will remain? A Times article on Wednesday
said, 'While it is hard to imagine that an airline would not hire its own
pilots, some day there could be no need for Delta or Northwest to employ
anyone else working on, around or in their planes, labor analysts say.'

As this brave new airline world is lauded by investors and analysts alike,
what happens to safety? Air Florida landed in the Potomac by hiring pilots
too inexperienced to know when to turn on the anti-ice system or de-ice
the wings. ValuJet became the darling of Wall Street by subcontracting
and cutting costs on everything possible. That practice led to its crash in
the Florida Everglades. To cut costs, ValuJet banned so-called 'hazardous
goods', and claimed there was no need to train anyone to deal with such
items. As a result, no one recognized what 'hazardous goods' were, and
a subcontractor placed a cardboard box of hazardous items on a plane.
One-hundred-ten people died.

ValuJet had been praised by Wall Street as the way the entire airline
industry should go. Wall Street still advocates the same measures, in
spite of the safety implications. It is not that Wall Street won't learn; it's
just a different perspective. Investors are diversified; if one investment
- or even one airliner - crashes, not all is lost. Passengers can't diversify;
when you board the plane, your 'corporation' - your body - is totally
invested in the safety of that flight.

Since Wall Street understands is self-interest, why can't the analysts who
define progress understand that the self-interest of mechanics has some-
thing to do with safety? When I have taken clients in my fear of flying
classes down to talk with mechanics, inevitably the question is asked,
'How do I know you did the job right?' The answer was never 'Because
I don't want to lose my license.' Instead, mechanics inevitably said,
'Because I know when I put my family on a plane, it is going to be one I
have worked on.'

According to the Seattle Times, mechanics at Alaska Air have twice
discovered jackscrews without lubrication following overhaul by a sub-
contractor. This was the problem that brought down Alaska 261 less
than five years ago.

See: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002527652_alaska29m.html

With increased subcontracting and outsourcing, that kind of self-interest
is becoming a thing of the past, and nothing is replacing it. Anyone who
believes FAA inspections will fill the gap is more than naive.

The Times article also said, 'And though this may sound far-fetched now,
it is the direction in which the world's auto companies seem headed
- farming out design, engineering and manufacturing work. Mr. Brueckner
of the University of California, Irvine, said such moves represented how
Delta and Northwest could teach the industry to move forward.'

The only problem with applying what car companies do to what airlines
should do is that when your cars stops running, you can pull your car over
to the side of the road, and it doesn't fall 30,000 feet first.

There may come a time which all airlines operate in this irresponsible way.
But until then, the passenger needs to choose an airline which is, as much
as is possible, still operating the old way.

Ref:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/28/business/28bankrupt.html

Thomas Bunn
President SOAR, Inc.
www.fearofflying.com

I am a retired airline captain (UAL and PAA) and licensed therapist (LCSW)
who helps people deal with fear of flying, and have been doing so since
1980. The Times has published information on my work several times, most
recently at:

http://travel2.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/travel/07qna.html?ex=1128052800&en=920479e81b4577b3&ei=5070

Previously: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50F15F8395E0C7A8EDDA80894DA404482

http://travel2.nytimes.com/mem/travel/article-page.html?res=9C0CE4DD113AF937A15752C1A960958260

http://travel2.nytimes.com/mem/travel/article-page.html?res=9F0CE3D91130F934A25753C1A965958260

http://travel2.nytimes.com/mem/travel/article-page.html?res=9A0DE6DB1130F93AA15755C0A960948260

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FB0717FA395F0C718DDDAB0894DC484D81

==========

A STAR-LEDGER ARTICLE ON OUTSOURCING/SUBCONTRACTING

See:

http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-3/1128231153104780.xml?starledger?ntop&coll=1

Outsourced jet repairs are raising safety fears
More U.S. carriers send planes to foreign shops
Sunday, October 02, 2005
BY SUSAN TODD
Newark Star-Ledger Staff

Forced to slash costs, U.S. airlines are relying more on outside repair shops,
including foreign-owned businesses, to perform everything from routine
maintenance to major overhauls on their commercial jets.

JetBlue Airways, the New York-based low-fare carrier, flies its planes to
facilities in Canada and El Salvador for regularly scheduled maintenance.
Delta Air Lines takes some of its jets for service to Canada. And when it's
time for United Air Lines to perform major work on its Triple 7s, the
company sends them to China.

Airlines have outsourced work for decades, but with the industry bleeding
billions of dollars in red ink, the use of outside contractors has peaked,
according to federal transportation officials. Now, questions are being
raised about safety and the Federal Aviation Administration's ability to
monitor numerous and far-flung aircraft repair shops.

'People are doing it because of the bottom line,' said Fred Mirgle, a
professor of aviation maintenance science at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University in Daytona Beach, Fla. 'There's a point at which you can
undercut anything, including maintenance.'

Concern about outsourcing first arose in 1996 when Atlanta-bound
ValuJet Flight 592 crashed in the Florida Everglades, killing 110 people
on board. Federal investigators blamed a fire aboard the plane on
improper procedures by a third-party maintenance contractor.

Yet, the use of outside contractors, or maintenance repair organizations
as they are known, has grown steadily as the industry's losses have
deepened in recent years. Last year, these companies performed more
than 53 percent of maintenance work for U.S. airlines, according to the
U.S. Department of Transportation. That was up from 47 percent in 2003.

With the growth has come renewed concern about the $37 billion outside
maintenance industry.

In March, fifteen illegal immigrants working at Timco Aviation Services,
an FAA-certified repair and service provider in North Carolina, were
arrested in a raid by federal immigration authorities. The men were all
contract laborers temporarily employed to assist Timco's own work
force on commercial aircraft repairs and maintenance service, said
Monty Hagler, a spokesman for the company.

Timco, which is the nation's top third-party maintenance provider based
on man hours, does not disclose names of its customers, Hagler said.

A Call For Control

Four months after the arrests, a report by the Office of the Inspector
General for the U.S. Department of Transportation called on the FAA
to improve oversight of outsourced maintenance. It was the second
warning by that office in two years.

Marshall Filler, managing director and general counsel for the Aero-
nautical Repair Station Association, a trade association, said airlines
have used third-party maintenance contractors since the 1930s.

'What's really different is we're doing more of it,' he said. 'There's every
reason to expect the trend will continue.'

Earlier this year, Atlanta-based Delta said it would outsource work to
Miami-based Avborne and Air Canada Technical Services in Vancouver
to cut its maintenance costs by 34 percent. The airline also said it would
cut 2,000 of its own mechanics. Delta filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection last month.

Economics motivated United, which is also in bankruptcy, to sign a five-
year agreement with Ameco Beijing in August. Ameco Beijing will perform
heavy maintenance,the most rigorous service, on United's fleet of 777s.

Think of an airplane as if it were an automobile. After each flight, there is
routine maintenance. Then, after so many flight miles, service is done on
the airframe, the plane's wings, fuselage and landing gear. Heavy
maintenance is the most involved work, often lasting weeks, as mechanics
overhaul the engine. Heavy maintenance is often outsourced because it
requires such expertise.

'We recognize there is work where we at United do not have an
advantage,' United Chief Executive Glenn Tilton was quoted in the
Chicago Tribune as saying when he announced the Ameco agreement.
'That work is performed for us in the U.S., Korea and other countries,
including China.'

American Airlines is bucking the trend. The Fort Worth-based company,
which is the world's largest airline, performs nearly 80 percent of its own
maintenance. American is even offering its maintenance services to other airlines.

Airlines like Continental, the dominant carrier at Newark Liberty Inter-
national Airport, are more typical. The Houston-based carrier outsources
nearly 65 percent of its maintenance to shops from North Carolina to Canada.

In its June report, the DOT's inspector general urged the FAA to better
assess the effect of outsourcing and improve its scrutiny of the practice.

Safety Record Lauded

FAA spokesman Les Dorr said the agency is following the guidance
contained in the report. 'We agreed with the recommendations,' he said.

To be sure, the report emphasized the safety record of the U.S. airline
industry: There has not been a fatal crash of a major passenger airline
in three years. And no matter where they are located, outside contractors
must be certified and routinely inspected by U.S. regulators, Dorr said.
Each airline must also ensure the contractor's work meets certain
standards, he said.

'Our safety program is designed to comply with FAA's guidance,' said
Jenny Dervin, a spokeswoman with JetBlue. 'We're very comfortable
with the quality of work we receive from our business partners.'

Continental spokeswoman Julie King said the airline has an experienced
team that provides oversight of its maintenance providers. 'We very care-
fully manage the work that is not done on our soil,' she said.

Still, the DOT report cited inconsistent FAA monitoring of outsourcing
facilities. Inspectors for one airline planned 32 checks of outside mainten-
ance programs while inspectors for another -- which outsourced more
than half its maintenance work --planned only seven checks.

The potential for inadequate monitoring of outside maintenance was a
hot issue among picketing Northwest mechanics who went on strike in August.

'It's not like Dell sending a call center to India,' one mechanic, Mike
Petrozzo, said as he picketed outside Newark Liberty International
Airport. 'They're shipping an actual product to be outsourced.'

==========

SAMPLE TEXT TO WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS
OR FOR A LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF YOUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER

To email your representatives, go to: http://www.congress.org

Trends in the airline industry are of great concern to me. Competition has
become so intense that airlines are subcontracting and outsourcing
maintenance. The FAA does not have enough resources to provide
adequate inspection of outsourced maintenance.

It is not right for the airlines to escape FAA supervision by having work
done overseas. Nor is it right to use public funds. The airlines themselves
should be required to pay for the additional expense of inspection.

Since the airlines are saving money by outsourcing maintenance, they
can certainly afford to pay the expense of hiring additional inspectors
FAA inspectors and paying the extra expense of FAA inspections on
duty full time at these overseas locations.

Pilots are being required by some airlines to fly day after day with far
less than eight hours of sleep. At non-union airlines, pilots are not in a
position to object for fear of being fired.

Hearings need to be held on the impact these trends have on safety which
increasingly place the public at risk.

Yours truly,

==========

DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE HOW FLYING FEELS?

To get started, please just go to:

http://www.fearofflying.com/store.shtml

==========

IF YOU ARE NOT SURE, CALL ME

I'm available from 10 AM until 7 PM Eastern Time (same as New York) at
877 332-7359. Outside the U.S. and Canada, call (203) 258-4803

Or email me at: tom@fearofflying.com

==========

FEAR OF FLYING BLOG

All the newsletter from the past year or so are at:

www.fearofflyingblog.com

plus some photos of last years New York SOAR-FEST and blogs
by Bonnie, Cap'n Steve (AA captain) and others.

==========

ARE YOU INTERESTED IN BLOGGING?

Oh yes, what does 'blog' mean anyway? It is an abbreviation of web log;
a few years ago, a few people started just putting their daily thoughts on
an Internet site; they called them their web log. That got shortened to 'blog'.

If so, please submit your blog to tom@fearofflying.com