Supply chains, maintenance and safety in the Australian airline industry

Abstract

This article examines potential regulatory and safety problems arising from the outsourcing and offshoring of heavy aircraft maintenance. We raise questions about the advisability of using increasingly complex supply chains in the aircraft maintenance industry where safety standards are paramount. Greater disarticulation of maintenance work makes regulatory oversight more convoluted and expensive to do thoroughly and transparently. Using a Pressure, Disorganisation and Regulatory Failure model, the article highlights how new work arrangements involving increased use of supply chains are developing more quickly than adequate airline, union and regulator responses to the safety problems engendered by those changes. In often heated industrial debates between licensed aircraft maintenance engineers (LAMEs) and airline managers about business needs and safety, we urge that more attention be paid to LAME concerns about outsourcing.

Safety risk factors in two different types of routine outsourced work: a systematic literature review

“…Studies were predominantly from three sectors: construction (n=12), petrochemicals, including oil exploration (n=9) and manufacturing (n=7). There were single studies in specific sectors, for example in tourism and catering (Belle et al, 2013), space (Garner, 2006), public transport (Hasle, 2007), airline maintenance (Gregson et al, 2015) and sport (McDermott et al, 2018). Several studies using survey instruments collected data from multiple sectors (e.g.…”

“…Unfamiliarity with the site or the changing nature of the site (Spangenberg et al, 2002) suggests that accidents are more likely for contractors. This is compounded by a lack of induction or limited training (Gregson et al, 2015;Lamare et al, 2015). Communication between client firm and contractors is often poor (Manu et al, 2013) leaving contractors isolated (Lingard et al, 2010) and this is particularly so when there is a difference in organizational culture (Drupsteen et al, 2015).…”

Mutual gains or mutual losses? Organisational fragmentation and employment relations outcomes at Qantas Group

“…In contrast to studies emphasising the short-term business benefits of externalisation, the potential adverse consequences of such practices for product quality, skills development, workplace safety, workers' conditions and access to collective voice have been highlighted by employment relations scholars (see e.g. Davis-Blake and Broschak, 2009;Gregson et al, 2015;James et al, 2007;Marchington et al, 2005;Wright and Brown, 2013;Wright and Kaine, 2015). While the human resource management literature has tended to downplay these consequences (see e.g.…”

“…Since 2007, there have been lengthy disputes over the negotiation of enterprise agreements, with some exceeding two years. Increased externalisation of licensed maintenance work has been a major source of contention between management and ALAEA, which claims that externalisation decisions have led to an increase in aircraft safety incidents (Creedy, 2008; see also Gregson et al, 2015).…”