be_rettSEA

Just saw this article posted in a Facebook group and thought folks may be interested to hear about ongoing air contamination issues across the pmVX Airbus fleet, as well as more lax safety checks than they are performing on Boeing aircraft (i.e., pushing 'daily' inspections to FAA max of every three days, mechanic visual inspections pushed to weekly, etc). Anyone been on an Airbus flight with air quality issues? Those are definitely concerning to me as a passenger, but frankly am more concerned with the ignoring of reported mechanical safety issues and stretching of required maintenance checks to bare minimum federal requirements. Creating a culture where passing the buck on safety and disciplining staff for bringing these issues to light can lead to dangerous and potential fatal conditions. If this is truly (as author alleges, but provides no real concrete evidence for) a strategy to get out of the Airbus leases earlier, it's deeply concerning.

The article author is a former VX flight attendant so probably has some decent insight here (and possible resentment from the merger as well), but this is the only place I've seen these issues reported (aside form recent report of an Airbus making a diversion due to Kansas City due to pressurization, which I believe is included in the list of events).

https://savvystews.com/2018/07/alask...contamination/

mvoight

Are you suggesting following the federal standards is a safety issue?

be_rettSEA

No, I'm suggesting that creating more stringent standards for one set of aircraft, and creating a culture where it's okay to ignore safety and "just get the aircraft out regardless" on another aircraft type can lead to dangerous conditions. If they're going to do daily inspections on Boeing, why make it three days for Boeing? If staff have been reporting safety issues, why are they being ignored? These are questions I had as I read the article, and I thought others here may want to see it.

Note that I'm not the author article, and there's probably some bias from his former VX employee viewpoint.

eponymous_coward

sfozrhfco

Look at it on a computer--problem solved.

Legend717

Aaaaaand we've uncovered the problem.

Look, as an airline mechanic myself, I hate to break it to you, but mechanics actually DON'T want people to die on our airplanes.
While the two companies may have two different maintenance cultures and scheduling set ups, they're BOTH FAA approved and overseen.

ALL carriers have a prescribed amount of time to do an overnight inspection, and in many cases, it's 72 hours.
That doesn't make them less "safe" than a carrier that does it every 48 hours, 24 hours, or 3 hours. Pilots are still doing walk arounds.
And, contrary to popular belief, planes aren't literally sitting around the ramp, trying to find ways to break as soon as a mechanic isn't looking.

Everyone go back to your regularly scheduled activities, and don't give this flight attendant the fifteen minutes of 'fame' he/she is seeking.

An aside: if that person has legitimate safety concerns, there are APPROPRIATE AVENUES by which to report them to the FAA.
Facebook is NOT one of them, actually. Who'd have thought?!?!?!!

SpicyMorale

You know there's more than one reason why I only have facebook to earn points on MyVegas.



And yes, I am a millennial, blah blah blah.

steve64

Thanks Legend717. I had a long answer started, but you've covered it much better.

The "Savvy Stews" website has been around for awhile.
Personally, I would take anything that website says with a grain of salt.
I tried watching their website many years ago. As an ex (20 years) airline employee myself, I was interested in hearing the "opposite" view on some of the topics they discussed. But I couldn't stomach it. The statements taken out of context, the mis-truths and just about anything to support whatever this week's propaganda was. They try to present themselves as an "airline news" source. Over the years, they do seem to have moved in that direction. However, the website is not a media outlet, it's just a blog and many of the "facts" are really just their opinion. One of the FA's is ex-AA from several years back. Even before being fired, he was always had some "anti management" agenda. Definitely on the "we are here primarily [read:"only"] for your safety" camp.

I love how on the list of VX aircraft with "ventilation" issues, they use the term "differed" to describe some write-ups. I'm sure the real word is "deferred". As long as they've been reporting "airline news" they should be familiar with that industry term. Perhaps they intentionally used the wrong word so that those of us who know a little more wouldn't be able to point out that the FAA allows airlines to create an MEL ... which in short, gives an FAA approved set of requirements for every component on the plane, specifying what criteria must be met to allow the airline to "defer" the maintenance.

And that video. Was that really produced by corporate communications ? There was a banner introducing the speaker, but I couldn't read it. He never stated his name or position, but did keep saying "we're" going to do this or that. Who is "we". The viewer is led to assume "Alaska Airlines Corporate something" but that is never stipulated. Yea, I'm biased, but I think it just that website authors playing their same old tricks.

be_rettSEA

I wasn't familiar with the website, but it's sounding like they're taking a few facts from recent events and adding a whole lot of other speculation in. Good to know the aircraft aren't necessarily an immediate safety risk.

The video appears to be a recording of video playback on another screen. The banner just lists his name/title: Ben Minicucci, President & COO, and looks to be filmed in front of an AS route network map.

UAPremierExec

Well, Sunday was a bad day in SFO....lots of Airbii cancels and swaps to Boeings

notquiteaff

BobbyL

Actually, there's no bias because Virgin America was my former employer. The article was based purely on information, screenshots, photos and documents sent to me from current flight attendants and yes, even pilots. In fact, most of the information I posted, including the list of tail numbers and the issues came from the pilots. And yes, I made a typo in the article with "differed" over "deferred," that was merely a typo which was corrected. I transcribed a document to the article to protect the source I received it from.

Further, the video I posted in the update is also from Alaska Corporate. It was recorded off of a device by another device to ensure it couldn't be tracked. In the video, Ben talks about a conference call to discuss the issues at hand, I also have recordings of both calls that I'll be posting as well.

For the person who said I'm seeking my 15 minutes of fame, I don't need to get it from this article, that's for sure. A little bit of research would help you arrive at that conclusion as well. The truth is, I was contacted by employees to publish this information in hopes it prompted AS to respond to the problems and fix them. The employees themselves are held to a strict social media / "no talking to the media" policy... and that was the next step since they felt Management wasn't responding to their concerns appropriately. They couldn't come out with this on their own publicly, so I did it. And what was the result? An email and a video from AS in under 10 hours responding to the issues and enacting a "48 Hour Action Plan," which included the above mentioned two conference calls to "get to the root of the problem." So, mission accomplished in my book.

Snowdevil

You or any other employee could have reported your concerns through the many internal resources available to you, rather than playing Secret Agent Man and sharing a confidential, internal video with a blogger. Just saying...

SpicyMorale

Hope you are using a VPN as that sounds highly illegal.

BobbyL

First, I am *not* an employee any longer. I quit three years ago. I *am* the blogger. And those "many internal resources" seemingly failed the employees. No action was taken through those avenues until the information was made public. Interesting.

Second, the video was NOT obtained illegally off of their servers. It was released to all of their employees and then shared with me in a way in which the employee wouldn't be found.