AA to set up $100mil Maintenance Center at GRU

LAXintl · Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:28 pm

Interesting move. Certainly good for Brazil, though don't know how it plays in the U.S politically.

Brazil sees American Airlines investment as show of confidence

American Airlines Inc plans to invest $100 million in an aircraft maintenance center in Sao Paulo, a Brazilian minister said on Thursday, touting it as a sign of confidence in Latin America's largest economy despite Brazil's recession and latest political turmoil.

Investment Partnerships Minister Wellington Moreira Franco said the U.S. airline would set up its first maintenance center in South America at Sao Paulo's Guarulhos international airport.

American Airlines spokesman Josh Freed said the No. 1 U.S. airline by passenger traffic has plans to invest in Brazil but that he could not immediately confirm the amount.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazi ... SKBN16H01Q

=

FSDan · Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:57 pm

Well, AA has 4-5 aircraft sitting on the ground all day at GRU every day of the week. Is there any chance the maintenance center would be performing more routine tasks that could be accomplished during those windows, or is it more likely to be multi-day maintenance work that is completely separate from the aircraft that are commonly rotating through GRU?

TWA772LR · Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:01 pm

FSDan wrote:
Well, AA has 4-5 aircraft sitting on the ground all day at GRU every day of the week. Is there any chance the maintenance center would be performing more routine tasks that could be accomplished during those windows, or is it more likely to be multi-day maintenance work that is completely separate from the aircraft that are commonly rotating through GRU?

Probably both. Taking into account DL and UA have similar schedules and aircraft into GRU, AA can take home a nice chunk of change doing some MX work for them too. I'd qualify this as a smart move on AAs part.

mercure1 · Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:06 pm

Presumably any new or additional work done in Brazil is work being done someplace else today.

What do AA labor agreements say about foreign base?

LAXintl · Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:08 pm

Article says it will be only for AA not 3rd party work.

KLDC10 · Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:12 pm

I'm sure that will go down wonderfully with those who lost their jobs when the Alliance base was closed.

Rookie87 · Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:19 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
FSDan wrote:
Well, AA has 4-5 aircraft sitting on the ground all day at GRU every day of the week. Is there any chance the maintenance center would be performing more routine tasks that could be accomplished during those windows, or is it more likely to be multi-day maintenance work that is completely separate from the aircraft that are commonly rotating through GRU?

Probably both. Taking into account DL and UA have similar schedules and aircraft into GRU, AA can take home a nice chunk of change doing some MX work for them too. I'd qualify this as a smart move on AAs part.

Very smart move indeed. In light of tech delays, this could be a way to support the operation as a whole since the planes rotate through LAX, DFW, MIA and JFK on to other international destinations. Give them a thorough check, fix issues with the time available and off they go back to base

32andBelow · Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:21 pm

Rookie87 wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
FSDan wrote:
Well, AA has 4-5 aircraft sitting on the ground all day at GRU every day of the week. Is there any chance the maintenance center would be performing more routine tasks that could be accomplished during those windows, or is it more likely to be multi-day maintenance work that is completely separate from the aircraft that are commonly rotating through GRU?

Probably both. Taking into account DL and UA have similar schedules and aircraft into GRU, AA can take home a nice chunk of change doing some MX work for them too. I'd qualify this as a smart move on AAs part.

Very smart move indeed. In light of tech delays, this could be a way to support the operation as a whole since the planes rotate through LAX, DFW, MIA and JFK on to other international destinations. Give them a thorough check, fix issues with the time available and off they go back to base

You could also rotate in and out heavy checks using the scheduled flights to position.

TWA772LR · Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:23 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Article says it will be only for AA not 3rd party work.

As in staffed by AA employees or they will only work on AA aircraft?

jetsetter629 · Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:46 pm

Not too different from what QF does in LAX with 3 frames sitting around all day...

United787 · Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:51 pm

This makes sense with their planes sitting down there already. Surprised that no US airlines did this earlier.

LAXintl · Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:59 pm

Regardless of business case, the optics are murky especially these days.

AA shifting work presumably done by someone already to Brazil should raise eyebrows.

KLDC10 · Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:01 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Regardless of business case, the optics are murky especially these days.

AA shifting work presumably done by someone already to Brazil should raise eyebrows.

Also there's an added irony in the oft-leveled allegations that the ME3 are threatening American jobs.

HPRamper · Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:02 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Regardless of business case, the optics are murky especially these days.

AA shifting work presumably done by someone already to Brazil should raise eyebrows.

The other angle is that work that needs to be done when AA planes go tech in Brazil currently goes to foreign companies, and now will presumably be brought back to AA.

LAXintl · Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:08 pm

For reference AA along with UA already have in-house maintenance staff at GRU. (Not sure about DL)

dfwjim1 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:07 am

On the flip side, LAN opened up a large hanger at MIA last year. Not sure what level of maintenance is done on their aircraft though.

dcajet · Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:07 am

AA also has in-house maintenance at EZE, with 5 flights/day there. Here are some highlights of what happens with AA maintenance there. They also have a hangar too, but it seems on the small side.

http://www.sirchandler.com.ar/2016/12/h ... ntrevista/

anshabhi · Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:16 am

The high time has come when US should work towards reducing costs. Protectionism will earn duck.

Dalmd88 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:21 pm

LAXintl wrote:
For reference AA along with UA already have in-house maintenance staff at GRU. (Not sure about DL)

Yes DL has a line station in GRU. I bet the AA hangar will be for longer visits than an overnight sit. There would not really be a need for a multi bay hangar support just line mtc. Sounds similar to DL's AeroMexico shared hangar in Mexico. That one is used for heavy checks for both airlines.

B737900ER · Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:45 pm

anshabhi wrote:
The high time has come when US should work towards reducing costs. Protectionism will earn duck.

I don't understand your statement. US airlines have been sending maintenance work, and a lot of it, overseas for about 15 years now. They reduced their direct cost. Reliability on the other hand has suffered as a result, but that cost is much more difficult to quantify.

anshabhi · Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:15 pm

B737900ER wrote:
anshabhi wrote:
The high time has come when US should work towards reducing costs. Protectionism will earn duck.

I don't understand your statement. US airlines have been sending maintenance work, and a lot of it, overseas for about 15 years now. They reduced their direct cost. Reliability on the other hand has suffered as a result, but that cost is much more difficult to quantify.

I mean they go out of US because costs are very high. US should reduce them. It might start with wages.

jfk777 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:43 pm

IF GRU is similar to the EZE operation its more about "deep cleaning" then C or D checks. ITS about the type of stuff that can be done between the time the planes arrive early in the morning and they leave in the evening.

B737900ER · Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:17 pm

anshabhi wrote:
B737900ER wrote:
anshabhi wrote:
The high time has come when US should work towards reducing costs. Protectionism will earn duck.

I don't understand your statement. US airlines have been sending maintenance work, and a lot of it, overseas for about 15 years now. They reduced their direct cost. Reliability on the other hand has suffered as a result, but that cost is much more difficult to quantify.

I mean they go out of US because costs are very high. US should reduce them. It might start with wages.

So you're suggesting airlines should pay their mechanics in the US the same as they do in China or El Salvador, which is roughly 210 a week. You can't survive in the US on that wage

mercure1 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:27 pm

jfk777 wrote:
IF GRU is similar to the EZE operation its more about "deep cleaning" then C or D checks. ITS about the type of stuff that can be done between the time the planes arrive early in the morning and they leave in the evening.

Dont think AA needs a USD $100 facility to dry clean seat bottoms.

Sounds more like for $100mil AA will invest in a real hangar and employ many Brazilian staff.

OB1504 · Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:35 pm

dfwjim1 wrote:
On the flip side, LAN opened up a large hanger at MIA last year. Not sure what level of maintenance is done on their aircraft though.

I would imagine that the new AA facility in GRU will do much of the same work as the LATAM hangar at MIA, with both facilities taking advantage of long ground times.

Newbiepilot · Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:54 pm

Good timing to take advantage of labor prices in Brazil. There are lots of experienced engineers and mechanics in Brazil. With GOL and LATAM reducing their workforce, AA has a big pool of talent to tap into.

b747400erf · Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:48 pm

anshabhi wrote:
The high time has come when US should work towards reducing costs. Protectionism will earn duck.

Fine then move your HQ out of America and change your name from American Airlines if you are not American.

b747400erf · Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:49 pm

anshabhi wrote:
B737900ER wrote:
anshabhi wrote:
The high time has come when US should work towards reducing costs. Protectionism will earn duck.

I don't understand your statement. US airlines have been sending maintenance work, and a lot of it, overseas for about 15 years now. They reduced their direct cost. Reliability on the other hand has suffered as a result, but that cost is much more difficult to quantify.

I mean they go out of US because costs are very high. US should reduce them. It might start with wages.

And Americans are being paid too much. Good argument you should run for office.

Planesmart · Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:56 pm

FSDan wrote:
Well, AA has 4-5 aircraft sitting on the ground all day at GRU every day of the week.

Don't let some posters on A.Net see that comment. Idle aircraft, sitting on the ground. A conspiracy theory to conceal a downturn in AA business.

Planesmart · Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:59 pm

Will be an AA exclusive facility only? If not, an opportunity to generate third party revenue profit from other airlines and engine manufacturers as well. If structured well, the only funds flowing into Brazil would be wages and other local costs, so no foreign currency repatriation issues.

jeffrey0032j · Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:06 pm

AA doing this during Trump's era.

It must be a case of Make (South) America Great Again.

b747400erf · Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:24 pm

It is not a smart forward thinking move. Brasil struggled after the global financial crisis, corruption scandals, and soon another financial crisis is coming once the American Federal Reserve raises interest rates and foreign investors pull money out of developing markets again just like they did in the last crisis. Unless you see the mx base as a place to send a large portion of your fleet closer than Asian mx bases not expecting to only service flights that park at the airport after a revenue flight to Brasil.

C010T3 · Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:09 am

And we have a project with renderings and all: https://www.pontodeapoio.eng.br/pg-arq-hangar-aa-gru

Cubsrule · Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:17 am

b747400erf wrote:
It is not a smart forward thinking move. Brasil struggled after the global financial crisis, corruption scandals, and soon another financial crisis is coming once the American Federal Reserve raises interest rates and foreign investors pull money out of developing markets again just like they did in the last crisis. Unless you see the mx base as a place to send a large portion of your fleet closer than Asian mx bases not expecting to only service flights that park at the airport after a revenue flight to Brasil.

It's a question of opportunity costs. Deep South America takes a lot of aircraft time (1.5 aircraft versus not even 1 for a flight of comparable length to Europe). If they can get something accomplished during the ground time, that seems like a win to me.

atlflyer · Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:01 am

C010T3 wrote:
And we have a project with renderings and all: https://www.pontodeapoio.eng.br/pg-arq-hangar-aa-gru

Looks like a nice facility.

Sydscott · Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:15 am

Cubsrule wrote:
b747400erf wrote:
It is not a smart forward thinking move. Brasil struggled after the global financial crisis, corruption scandals, and soon another financial crisis is coming once the American Federal Reserve raises interest rates and foreign investors pull money out of developing markets again just like they did in the last crisis. Unless you see the mx base as a place to send a large portion of your fleet closer than Asian mx bases not expecting to only service flights that park at the airport after a revenue flight to Brasil.

It's a question of opportunity costs. Deep South America takes a lot of aircraft time (1.5 aircraft versus not even 1 for a flight of comparable length to Europe). If they can get something accomplished during the ground time, that seems like a win to me.

Agree. A smart way for AA to make use of the ground time their fleet has in GRU to do some maintenance work similar to what QF and LATAM do in LAX and MIA respectively. Doubt this facility will do heavy checks but there are plenty of other things to keep an operation like this going.

mercure1 · Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:03 pm

I would expect unions in the US to smartly bring this to the attention of Trump administration, and have AA get publicly shamed for this move.

ojjunior · Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:04 pm

jeffrey0032j wrote:

It must be a case of Make (South) America Great Again.

Be my guest.

UpNAWAy · Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:07 pm

B737900ER wrote:
anshabhi wrote:
The high time has come when US should work towards reducing costs. Protectionism will earn duck.

I don't understand your statement. US airlines have been sending maintenance work, and a lot of it, overseas for about 15 years now. They reduced their direct cost. Reliability on the other hand has suffered as a result, but that cost is much more difficult to quantify.

That last part is very inacurate. Reliability is at all time highs in the US (as well as elsewhere I'd imagine).

ojjunior · Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:09 pm

atlflyer wrote:
C010T3 wrote:
And we have a project with renderings and all: https://www.pontodeapoio.eng.br/pg-arq-hangar-aa-gru

Looks like a nice facility.

Agreed, an amazing piece of architecture indeed!
But I believe AA doesn't care too much about confidentiality of the project right?
Or they just let this be online to provoke envy on the competitors?
BTW, where at GRU area will it be built?

Polot · Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:14 pm

ojjunior wrote:
But I believe AA doesn't care too much about confidentiality of the project right?

What confidentiality? It is just a hanger, nothing worth keeping a secret about. The minute AA announced a maintenance center everyone knew they were going to build one.

deltal1011man · Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:30 pm

UpNAWAy wrote:
B737900ER wrote:
anshabhi wrote:
The high time has come when US should work towards reducing costs. Protectionism will earn duck.

I don't understand your statement. US airlines have been sending maintenance work, and a lot of it, overseas for about 15 years now. They reduced their direct cost. Reliability on the other hand has suffered as a result, but that cost is much more difficult to quantify.

That last part is very inacurate. Reliability is at all time highs in the US (as well as elsewhere I'd imagine).

No it isn't.

The reason reliability is up is for a few reasons
1) Once the airplane comes back from _________ (insert garbage water vendor here), the airline's line(sometimes base if its bad enough) mechanics get it and get to fix all the important crap the vendor screwed up. All the big, but not safety related, issues get fixed at the next check (B or C check) which are, for the most part done in-house by all the majors.
2) Most component and engines are either done in-house or by vendors that don't suck. (i.e. they don't have basic slave labor)
3) we are now 10-15 years into the majors sending its overhauls out of house. They have figured out how to do this, plus pay more for the work being sent out and just shift vendors every couple of years to whipsaw them, much like they do with RJ operators.
4) Now that airlines are making money hand over fist maintenance departments have bigger budgets and can spend more on things that help reliability but not directly related to safety. During BK maintenance got its budget tightened and work that wasn't absolutely needed was put off. Example, DL has created a visit completely devoted to reliability. These are done outside of regular C/L/M/H-checks (and PSVs if they are still doing those on the 737/777s)

So yes, for some US airlines, reliability is good, but that has nothing to do with what B737900ER said. The simple fact is the vendors doing the heavy checks do not do nearly the quality and TAT/TBOs that the US carriers (specially UA, DL, NW, AA who where well known for their technical operations) did.

mercure1 wrote:
I would expect unions in the US to smartly bring this to the attention of Trump administration, and have AA get publicly shamed for this move.

You don't know much about the IAM/TWU do you? The TWU will sit with its thumb up its ass as always and the IAM will probably be trying to get them to organize so the IAM can get more dues.

What the mechanics at AA need to focus on is getting a contract done without giving up any more scope.

Dalmd88 wrote:
Yes DL has a line station in GRU. I bet the AA hangar will be for longer visits than an overnight sit. There would not really be a need for a multi bay hangar support just line mtc. Sounds similar to DL's AeroMexico shared hangar in Mexico. That one is used for heavy checks for both airlines.

From what some friends at AA have told me, its going to be used for heavy work done currently in China. We will see if its true.
I'm shocked at the size of this though. IIRC DL only paid around 65m for the mexico project and I think its like 12 bays and at least a few can take large widebodys.

Of course I'm sure some line work will also be done down there

B737900ER wrote:
So you're suggesting airlines should pay their mechanics in the US the same as they do in China or El Salvador, which is roughly 210 a week. You can't survive in the US on that wage

I think people need to research this more.
A lot of vendors, in China at least(never visited any south of the boarder) use basic slave labor. They provide (crap) housing and such and this pay next to nothing. On top of that they treat the workers like dogs. Punish them for reporting things that are out of the work scope ("oh you found a crack? Paint over it or get out")
US vendors aren't much better. They do the same except the pay is much better. The turnover is still ridiculously high. This is why you don't see vendors like AAR setting up in cities that have major maintenance bases, because they know they would just be a quick pipe line to the airlines.
Last I heard HAECO in MCN was making workers sign a 3-4 year contract because everyone was quitting and going to dobbins as soon as they got some time under there belt.

For what its worth there are some good videos on youtube about this stuff. Specifically videos about EA and NW's maintenance outsourcing. I believe the video about NW shows some of the things I posted about labor in China. (specifically HAECO IIRC)

anshabhi wrote:

I mean they go out of US because costs are very high. US should reduce them. It might start with wages.

You have no idea what you are talking about. :banghead:

what needs to be done is things like reducing costly and unneeded regulation from agencies like the EPA and OSHA. Also, give airlines tax benefits for doing the work in the US. Also the FAA needs to find the budget to properly mange and inspect vendors. Also things like speaking english, drug testing etc. should be mandatory for any vendor outside of the states just like it is for us in America. On top of that the FAA needs to ban the airlines from sending work to places that require advance notice for a random inspection. (looking at you China)
Leveling the playing field would definitely make doing the work in-house more attractive.

but till people start dying nothing will be done. :shakehead:

grbauc · Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:56 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
b747400erf wrote:
It is not a smart forward thinking move. Brasil struggled after the global financial crisis, corruption scandals, and soon another financial crisis is coming once the American Federal Reserve raises interest rates and foreign investors pull money out of developing markets again just like they did in the last crisis. Unless you see the mx base as a place to send a large portion of your fleet closer than Asian mx bases not expecting to only service flights that park at the airport after a revenue flight to Brasil.

It's a question of opportunity costs. Deep South America takes a lot of aircraft time (1.5 aircraft versus not even 1 for a flight of comparable length to Europe). If they can get something accomplished during the ground time, that seems like a win to me.

This was what I was thinking might be the case. I'll bet your right on spot with this Cubs

anshabhi · Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:20 am

A little fact: People who shout "Make America Great Again" themselves don't want to take any pain for America!

AmericanHeavy · Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:20 pm

ojjunior wrote:
BTW, where at GRU area will it be built?

https://www.google.com/maps/@-23.423193 ... !1e3?hl=en

ojjunior · Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:23 pm

AmericanHeavy wrote:
ojjunior wrote:
BTW, where at GRU area will it be built?

https://www.google.com/maps/@-23.423193 ... !1e3?hl=en

Thanks.
So they're finally going to demolish the old GRU ghost terminal building? It's about time...

C010T3 · Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:26 pm

Terminal building? That's the abandoned VASP maintanance center that was never completed.

N717TW · Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:31 am

LAXintl wrote:
For reference AA along with UA already have in-house maintenance staff at GRU. (Not sure about DL)

DL has TechOps staff at GRU but their capabilities are pretty limited as the facility doesn't even do farily basic A-checks.

FlyUSAir · Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:52 am

Great job AA! Now stop whining about Norwegian and the ME3 or else you'll be hypocritical!

B737900ER · Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:04 am

anshabhi wrote:
A little fact: People who shout "Make America Great Again" themselves don't want to take any pain for America!

Again, you'll have to explain this, because it makes no sense.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net