Motorblog

Airlines and Websites

OK, so I spoke too soon.

A combination of reliability, customer service and a little attention to detail can go a long way.  In the past, I have written editorials related to my experiences with air travel and outsourcing.  This week I was handed several more stories by an airline and a company that I outsourced website development to.

OK, so I spoke too soon.

A combination of reliability, customer service and a little attention to detail can go a long way.  In the past, I have written editorials related to my experiences with air travel and outsourcing.  This week I was handed several more stories by an airline and a company that I outsourced website development to.

About a year ago, an airline went to battle with their mechanics union and won.  One of the main goals was to reduce the operating cost of the airline by outsourcing such things as maintenance.  Up to this point, approximately one year later (referring to the 12-24 month rule) I had been recommending this particular airline as pretty reliable and customer friendly.

[As a side note: I am drafting this editorial on an aircraft.  We have just been informed that “the missing inspection panel on the left engine will not effect the structural integrity of the aircraft.” As we are pulling away from the gate.  One of ALL-TEST Pro’s employees happens to be on the flight, looked back and glared at me.]

The story starts out similar to the others.  This one was on an older DC-9 going to Detroit.  On these aircraft, the rear cone can be ejected as an emergency exit.  We boarded the aircraft, took our seats and ten minutes after we were supposed to take off, the Captain came through the aircraft towards the back with a flashlight.  A short while later, he came on and announced that the rear cone had not been fastened after a maintenance inspection.  It appears that when they pressurized the cabin at the gate, an alarm went off.  It also appears that if the gaskets had not been worn (overheard) we may not have discovered it until we were at altitude.

The adventure continued as we were led off the aircraft and placed in a re-booking line.  At about the middle of the line, it took me two hours to get up to the front.  At that point, I was informed that I would be put on standby for a flight two days later.  I requested my bags so that I could drive the eleven hours to Detroit.  It took three hours for the airline to handle the baggage.

Through the entire ordeal, I was first calm, and then became more and more angry as I and the other passengers were informed that it was beyond the airline’s control and no one would take responsibility for getting our bags.  In fact, every time we could cajole an employee into obtaining our bags, one of the passengers would tell us not to bother the person, it’s not their fault.  At this point the employee would disappear never to be seen again.  We finally obtained our bags when I took charge of the employees, kept them away from the problem passenger and identified the puddle of melting snow and ice where are bags were setting on the tarmac (mine was soaked through – books, papers, clothing and kit – with salt water).

The first thing I noted from this adventure was that the crew and ground staff were not aware that the situation was completely avoidable if maintenance had been performed properly.  It is the company’s fault whether the maintenance is performed in-house or through an outsourced organization.  Literally, it is management that is responsible for setting the tone of the workmanship and quality of the work.  Should it be communicated that management is more interested in costs and profitability, and less emphasis on passenger safety and comfort, the results will be what I have experienced.  This is coupled with the lack of a planned reactive process to get the passengers taken care of and on their way.  The bank of ten special re-booking phones were not operational (batteries were dead) and we were left with two agents of which one had to keep disappearing to support another gate.

The lack of personal responsibility was astounding.  The fact that passengers had to take charge of the situation identified a severe lack of managerial direction and weak leadership.

With my personal experiences with aircraft maintenance issues, I can only think that I have been either experiencing very bad luck or that the cost-cutting measures being taken by many of the airlines have gone too far.

What also concerns me is that it was the FAA and the airlines who generated many of the reliability concepts, such as RCM, that many companies are striving for today, and the expectation of zero tolerance for failure.  This concept (the airlines use a standard process called MSG-3) has the goal of performing the right maintenance on the right equipment at the right time for the right reasons.  When used correctly, RCM, MER, Lean and other tools can have a positive effect on a company’s asset health investment.

The purpose of the RCM tool is to identify optimal maintenance practices for equipment.  It should be used to set the budget for a successful maintenance program, not as a cost and personnel cutting measure.  In fact, when performed properly, it is possible that some costs may actually increase!  In the end, however, the overall cost to operate the business and the asset lifecycle will be improved dramatically.

The second issue had to do with the outsourcing of the development of the company website, http://www.motordoc.net.  I maintained due diligence, checked references, pricing, samples, etc.  Even the outlined contract from the company gave specific terms and development goals.

We paid the customary 50% deposit, signed the contract and waited close to a month in which no calls or emails were returned.  A threat of our company lawyers becoming involved prompted an immediate call and a flurry of apologies.  We were given a link to the ‘ongoing development’ project that turned out to be a cheap template from a separate online service that was presented to us as a custom project (we also watched the activity on our website over the four hour period that they rushed things together).  The purpose of the project was to set the cornerstone of an expensive marketing campaign, and to project our image.

At least the developer took responsibility, to some extent.  However, I believe the objective was actually to drag the project along with promises of things being almost complete.  Instead, I did what most companies should do and cut them loose with a demand that our deposit be fully refunded.

What was the impact of both of these situations?

First, both instances had a direct impact on the profitability of the company.  Over the past year, improper maintenance of aircraft has cost SUCCESS by DESIGN over one full month of billable time.  Now, the improper development of the website generates an image issue, resulting in lost potential, and having to put personnel on the project resulting in lost billable hours.

In effect, the poor maintenance, customer service and support of just two of SBD’s vendors have directly impacted the bottom line.  By cutting my losses and driving, in the first instance, I regained a full day as opposed to losing three and in the second, we cut our losses and are moving in a different direction.  We have been involved in other instances and have seen where trying to work things out has cost tremendous opportunities, funds and the companies still have to complete the work themselves and ‘live with’ the results.

The moral of these stories is quite simple: Improper reliability, customer service and support practices add up quickly towards the losses outlined in the SUCCESS by DESIGN “Trillion Dollar Report” (http://www.motordiagnostics.com/presentations.htm).  The change will come, for I already know that if an airline comes out professing R&M, safe passenger best practices and top service, I will pay a few dollars more.  It will save my company the losses that are presently being incurred.  Once larger companies also realize the impact, there will be a push towards R&M, service and support that may have a small impact on first-cost but will actually improve the bottom line significantly.

Unfortunately, we still have many that are willing to live with poor quality, late deliveries, poor support and other costly impacts of present business practices.  They make excuses for the avoidable.  It is important to the survival of your business to demand the best.  Set expectations and enforce them.  Know that there really is a ‘best cost’ and deviating in either direction will result in trade-offs.

I founded SUCCESS by DESIGN on educating our clients in these principles (See ‘The SBD Story’ editorial) and we practice the very principles and best practices that we preach.

Sincerely,

Howard W Penrose, Ph.D., CMRP
President, SUCCESS by DESIGN