WestJet London Problems in the News

[boestar]

For many years the joke was the "Miami Overhaul", Clean it, paint it and push it out.  Everything we ever got back from the "Cheap" MRO was exactly what was paid for.  Unfortunately Westjet doesn't have the capacity for in house heavy maintenance on a wide body.

 

[deicer]

Morning Boe! 

You hit the nail on the head, you get what you paid for.

When you paid more for in-house mtc, you had control over what was done and how.

Subcontracting is a crap shoot to the lowest bidder.....

[boestar]

This is why a Bean Counter with no knowledge of what actually happens in an airline should never be in charge.  

The amount of money spent on covering off mechanical delays due to shoddy maintenance can exceed the savings on the shoddy maintenance.

The guy in Louisiana has no horse in the race at Airline X so does he take more pride in his work? No.  Once that airplane rolls out of the hangar he will never see it again so there is not real job satisfaction there.  When the work is done in-house you take pride in your work and do it the best you can because you know that anything done wrong will come back to you.  You also get to see the plane again as well as knowing that it is performing as expected.

That being said, there are companies out there that do great 3rd party work and do it right.  HOWEVER...The companies that paying for that work are generally the ones that "approve" what does and does not get done when it comes to findings on an inspection.  Sometimes you cannot blame the supplier for the faults.

 

[dagger]

Now a diversion to Greenland, which is a new one. No reason for WS4 doubling back to Greenland rather than continue on to, say Goose Bay.

 

Update: It's maintenance

 

 

[better4me]

Weather is light snow, >6 miles visibility, 8kts wind. Could be better for a trip up the big fjord. 

[Super 80]

I wouldn't have guessed Kangerwhatever could effectively accommodate a widebody.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Super 80 said:

I wouldn't have guessed Kangerwhatever could effectively accommodate a widebody.

Surely the aircraft have been "in house" long enough that the overhaul facility can no longer be held to blame?  But the airport has served 767s before: 

Quote

SAS operated flights to Greenland until March 2003, the route re-opened the spring 2007 until January 2009. The Boeing 767-383ER at Kangerlussuaq Airport (2001)

 

[Super 80]

Lets wait and see how their guests feel about the sleeping arrangements. This town such as it is, is basically a bunch of squatters at an old USAF base.

[Fido]

The rule is "The closest suitable airport".  Unless the airplane is on fire I would not call Sondrestom Fjord suitable for a diversion.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Fido said:

The rule is "The closest suitable airport".  Unless the airplane is on fire I would not call Sondrestom Fjord suitable for a diversion.

I guess we will know all in the fullness of time.  

[J.O.]

ETOPS guidance at my last airline was that BGSF was an "emergency only" airport - adequate, but not suitable.

[Gumbi]

7 minutes ago, J.O. said:

ETOPS guidance at my last airline was that BGSF was an "emergency only" airport - adequate, but not suitable.

Suitable is not used anymore... Used to be that a suitable airport was an adequate airport for which the weather forecasts had been validated for the operational window required.

[J.O.]

It's been a while but I wasn't intending it as an official definition. Adequate as in "use it if you really have to" vs. suitable meaning no restrictions.

[Gumbi]

3 minutes ago, J.O. said:

It's been a while but I wasn't intending it as an official definition. Adequate as in "us it if you really have to" vs. suitable meaning no restrictions.

Got it!  Indeed Sondestrom is not the "friendliest" place for a diversion...

[AIP]

At what point does the obvious question start to get answered ??

This cannot possibly all be attributed to these airframes. 

At what point is ETOPS in jeopardy ???

Would this have played out differently if the aircraft was between YYC - HNL (much, much further from an airport of any kind) ??

Is ETOPS qualification strictly based on power plant ???

There are percentages at play here, based on numbers of flights and hours, how many diversions have occurred??

[boestar]

The powerplant is the single largest component monitored for ETOPS.  While there are some other systems and components involved, the powerplant is the most important.  In Flight Shutdown being the heaviest weight contributor to losing that certification.

 

[st27]

From the flight tracker, it looked like the flight was non etops and was closer to yfb than sfj , at least from this armchair.

[FA@AC]

7 hours ago, AIP said:

 

This cannot possibly all be attributed to these airframes. 

What are the other possibilities?

[boestar]

How familiar are the WJ engineers with the airframe?  What is the experience level?  As was said, at some point any discrepancies attributed to the heavy maintenance provider would (or should) have been mitigated.  It has been a while.  the aircraft has been through more than a few A-Level checks now.  What are the issues?

 

[Kasey]

5 hours ago, st27 said:

From the flight tracker, it looked like the flight was non etops and was closer to yfb than sfj , at least from this armchair.

Might have been closer but might have taken longer due to high winds, no wind on the armchair though ;-)

[J.O.]

It's possible they dispatched non-ETOPS but it's quite common for a minimum time track flight plan to take you that far north this time of year.

[deicer]

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=49f935b0&opt=0

[mrlupin]

On 10/18/2016 at 6:39 PM, Malcolm said:

Surely the aircraft have been "in house" long enough that the overhaul facility can no longer be held to blame?  But the airport has served 767s before: 

 

Hi Malcolm,

I am not sure you understand the scope of work being done on a heavy maintenance check. A good check adds years of durability to the airframe and engines. A bad check will give you headaches for years.

The larger check are at 5-6 years of interval and the aircraft is fully torn down and rebuilt. Flight controls, actuators, transmission (flap and slats) ,the entire water waste system, the doors, the packs, interiors and the engines come off during the larger heavy maintenance visits. The aircraft just looks like a skeleton... The possible headaches down the road are quite numerous!

On a widebody heavy maintenance visit, there could be as many as 250 technicians working (different shift and times) on the same aircraft. Some of these checks took 8-10 weeks. That's allot of manpower and time.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, mrlupin said:

Hi Malcolm,

I am not sure you understand the scope of work being done on a heavy maintenance check. A good check adds years of durability to the airframe and engines. A bad check will give you headaches for years.

The larger check are at 5-6 years of interval and the aircraft is fully torn down and rebuilt. Flight controls, actuators, transmission (flap and slats) ,the entire water waste system, the doors, the packs, interiors and the engines come off during the larger heavy maintenance visits. The aircraft just looks like a skeleton... The possible headaches down the road are quite numerous!

On a widebody heavy maintenance visit, there could be as many as 250 technicians working (different shift and times) on the same aircraft. Some of these checks took 8-10 weeks. That's allot of manpower and time.

Well aware but on the surface it appears the larger number of the mechanical s are recurring ones but without access to the actual records I guess we will never know the actual causes.

[Lakelad]

.

WestJet and London: A mess or a success?

Airline's expansion has put bums in seats but company struggling with delayed, cancelled, diverted flights

Thu Oct 20, 2016 - CBC News
By Tracy Johnson

As WestJet struggles with the operation of its Canada-to-London routes, the last thing the airline needed was another grounded flight.

But that's just what happened Tuesday, when a WestJet flight from London's Gatwick Airport to Toronto was diverted to Greenland because of a potential mechanical problem. Passengers were given meal vouchers, and two aircraft were sent to Greenland to bring them to Canada.

This has become a familiar story for the airline. Earlier this month, two flights from Toronto to London were cancelled. According to flight-tracking website Flight Aware, a further three from London to Toronto were cancelled the same weekend.

Three weeks before that, a WestJet flight from London to Edmonton was diverted to Iceland, once again because of a mechanical issue.

As airline analyst Ben Cherniavsky, of financial services company Raymond James, wrote in a research report earlier this month, "The passengers were accommodated in hotel rooms, two 737s were flown in to retrieve them to YEG [Edmonton] and a new engine was delivered (on a chartered 747) to repair the plane."

In addition, everyone on board was entitled to 600 euro compensation, according to European Union regulations.

A mess?

In September, WestJet's chief executive Gregg Saretsky told the audience at a Calgary business conference that his airline's expansion into London was one of the best decisions WestJet has ever made.

In terms of number of seats sold, WestJet's expansion to Europe has been a huge success. But in terms of operations, it's been a mess.

In his report, Cherniavsky found that over a five-week period starting September 1, nine per cent of WestJet's flights between Toronto and Gatwick were cancelled, and 40 per cent were on time. For Air Canada Rouge, flying the same route over the same period, closer to 70 per cent were on time.

WestJet said that from August 1st until October 18th, 14 flights were cancelled and four diverted, one of those for medical reasons.

As well, data from Flight Aware indicates that since July 1, there have been 13 WestJet flights out of London to Canadian cities that have been delayed more than three hours, the point at which compensation must be paid to passengers.

'Who pays for mechanical issues?'

.