# Maintenance contracts for new aircraft



## MarkOttawa (27 Apr 2007)

A blow to aerospace industry
Canada not buying rights to fix new military aircraft Rowe
http://www.herald.ns.ca/Business/743215.html



> Canada’s aerospace repair industry is in peril because Ottawa isn’t buying the rights to data needed to maintain $13-billion worth of new military aircraft, the CEO of a leading maintenance firm says.
> 
> Ken Rowe, owner of Halifax-based IMP Group International, is angry because a plan to buy 37 aircraft from Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing Inc. doesn’t include licences that would grant access to vital engineering know-how.
> 
> ...



Those most necessary for the mission, which could well be ours depending on the circumstances.  And how limited would resources be?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081 (27 Apr 2007)

IMP can whine and complain all it wants.  I would be happy if they never touched another CF aircraft again.


----------



## geo (27 Apr 2007)

What do you know..... an article that doesn't slag Bombardier ... who would have thought!


----------



## Mike Baker (27 Apr 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> What do you know..... an article that doesn't slag Bombardier ... who would have thought!


Who would have thought


----------



## observor 69 (27 Apr 2007)

OK we only bought four C-17's, makes sense to let the Yanks do maintenance. 
But if we get into contracts involving large numbers of aircraft, CF-18 replacement, I would be thinking differently.

Perhaps 33 choppers is that large number?


----------



## childs56 (27 Apr 2007)

Why would the Canadian Government buy the extended data required for in depth maintenance of these or future A/C?

Why would the individual company who bids to maintain the birds not acquire on their own the rights to this.

As a tax payer I agree with not spending the extra money of in depth technical aspects of the Airframes we are getting. We have the experts who will do in depth work on them. The manufacture. 
Instead of having a local company do in depth work and possibly loose any warranty we may have on the A/C. Have them do the level of maintenance that is simple yet effective. 

Plus if I do remember most of these company's are already getting benefits of these Airframe purchases in the way of maintenance contracts and training contracts from the Equipment manufacturers. 

Stop whining and asking for hand outs again. The Liberals are out of power, no more major handouts to buy votes. 
Work in the future will be based on merit and ability, not how many votes your company can in cure with it's workers and the area around you.


----------



## geo (27 Apr 2007)

CTD said:
			
		

> Why would the individual company who bids to maintain the birds not acquire on their own the rights to this.
> 
> As a tax payer I agree with not spending the extra money of in depth technical aspects of the Airframes we are getting. We have the experts who will do in depth work on them. The manufacture.
> Instead of having a local company do in depth work and possibly loose any warranty we may have on the A/C. Have them do the level of maintenance that is simple yet effective.
> ...


CTD you have think forward, not only as far as your nose.
If the local service centre pays Boeing or someone else to bet mtce specs to do contracted work - the charge is going to be passed on back to us taxpayers - might as well pay for them without having the extra middleman.

If we limit ourselves to only dealing with the main manufacturer and he is either jammed with other orders OR the US Gov't is pissed off at us,.... guess what - they could have us over a barrel - the same way as Iran when the US cut them off from service to their US made weapon systems.


(BTW, stop talking about liberal handouts.... this gov,t has started doing it's own....)


----------



## childs56 (28 Apr 2007)

So what you are saying is that we spend a few billion more dollars for the design specs of the A/C so a Canadian company can be given a contract to add cigerate lighters and toilets. Then when something major happens they can go and add lets say stiffeneners to the V Stab to only excert the force elsewhere. Thus causing more damage or long term effects. Then costing the tax payers more money in the long term, Then the Warrenty of the Airframe is out the door, and great we now have huge Airplanes that we have to pay through the rough for parts because we have null and voded the warrenty. 

Protecting Canadian Aerospace business means making them go out and do the work themselves. If they want to provide a fair and level playing field in the future then they can aquire the sepcs themselves and build not only a National level facility but a International level, such as Spar has, but they had lots of help. 

The US isnt going to get mad at us like Iran, We are not a bad alley of the US. We are friends, and long standing friends of them. 
The Aerospace Industrys of Canada and the US are closly linked together. A huge portion of the electronic gear that US uses actually makes it's debute here in Canada first, then gets sent to the US for futher trials and evauluations then usually ends up back here to be manufactured. 

For me I think having Lockheed Martin or Boeing as a primary contractor on an Air Frame they designed, built and maintain would be the right step in the right direction. 

They will have reps at the Airbase these are flown from, when we want to do a mod or other work that we may be concerned about, they will make the choice there and give us their input. That is how it works now and will continue in the future. 

Next they will want us to buy all the jigs and tooling associated with the aircraft. 

Very few countrys actually get the full rights to their aircraft. Boeing has a 24hr a day, 7 days a week, 356 day a year hot line you can call for engineering instructions. 

That does not mean they do not modify their airframes with out knowledge. Most companys have people who also design and have visited the Manufacture to learn about these. 

To me it seems like a company who may have lost out on a deal is getting in a snicker over this issue. Tough suck it up, re vamp your comapany and get in line for contracts. 

Your comment on the present goverment and their hand outs confuses me. Please send me a PM on the handouts they have given I would like to know....


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (28 Apr 2007)

Ken Rowe translated: "What I demand happen is Canadian Taxpayers pay unnecessary billions for design specifications so that the government can then give them to me.  I will then bill the government while I figure out what they actually mean and subsequently present a series of untested one-of-a-kind solutions in place of the standardized work being done by the manufacturer who will have done 100's if not 1000's of simulations and tests, and upon sanction will bill the taxpayers for that work too.....Dammit, I'm entitled to be paid unnecessarily by my government to do redundant things of questionable quality."


Matthew.


----------



## observor 69 (28 Apr 2007)

Good comment Blackshirt. But I am concerned over how little or how much we will be able to do on future a/c purchases. I am afraid the C-17 may start a trend to use only doing minimal no brainier servicing. 
I mean you have got a very valid point about best to let those who have the knowledge do the best maintenance but there is a saw off between them doing too much and us not being able to do more than change tires and pump gas.


----------



## childs56 (28 Apr 2007)

The false sense of this is what is boggling. 
An engine is an engine, a airframe is a airframe. They will still pound rivets, and they will still repair composites. Engines will be overhauled and things will be fixed as normal. 

If any major repairs are needed then the manufacturer will have to pull out the stops and deciede if it requires to go back to the manufacturer where the proper jigs and other EXPENSIVE tooling is already located at. 

The analogy of we will only be changing tires and fueling the planes up is rediculas. A ploy by those who have been given huge hand outs on the past to make a play with the public.  

Sikorsky has already gone ahead with plans to make Canadian industry one of the main contenders in the maintenance of the S92, along with training. 

As for Boeing and Lockheed I will suspect that the spin offs will be very similiar. Possibly a maintenace base located with in Canada for foreign contracts. 

Wait and see.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (28 Apr 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Good comment Blackshirt. But I am concerned over how little or how much we will be able to do on future a/c purchases. I am afraid the C-17 may start a trend to use only doing minimal no brainier servicing.
> I mean you have got a very valid point about best to let those who have the knowledge do the best maintenance but there is a saw off between them doing too much and us not being able to do more than change tires and pump gas.



I guess my comments upon thinking about it overnight are as follows:
1)  To me, it doesn't make sense that taxpayers would pay for an asset, that would be handed over FOR FREE to Canadian Companies who would then try to compete with the original manufacturer to provide maintenance and upgrade services.  
2)  Instead I would argue that as part of the contract deliverables perhaps we should be specifying that LM or Boeing must create a Canadian-based service and maintenance unit that will then be responsible for all regular maintenance and upgrades *as defined in the original manufacturer's plans (read: no Canadianization)*.  This unit must do the work in Canada.  It is then up to LM or Boeing to find the most cost effective "partner" (rather than creating a competitor).  If they choose an existing firm, great.  If they choose to create their own standalone corporation, that's fine too.  As long as the know-how to manage, update and upgrade all systems exists in-country, I'm fine with that....
3)  With the exception of structural work, I should add that I'm still not a fan of outsourcing any of these services to private companies at all and would prefer the knowledge mentioned above be passed directly to CAF personnel as part of the contract deliverables.


Matthew.


----------



## jimmy742 (28 Apr 2007)

I think some people - politicians, CEOs, and private individuals - refuse to get off this mind set that Defense procurement is another "megaproject" like the Confederation Bridge or a museum where it's not quality that matters, but job creation and re-election. If IMP and L3 here in Canada are so good at their jobs, why isn't Boeing, for example, dealing with them already? Let them compete and win according to their own merit or even negotiate with Boeing privately. Let them earn it. Enough with the shoddy workmanship and pork already. The country simply can't afford that kind financial largesse, not to mention putting lives at risk.

There are numerous examples in this country of industries thriving and being competitive world wide when compelled to do so. It forces them to be more efficient and provide higher quality. As for the cost of doing business, it's actually cheaper to do things here than in most places in the U.S. so it's no excuse. It's simply a matter of will.


----------



## peaches (29 Apr 2007)

For the C17, is Boeing in Winnipeg or in Renfrew going to be doing any of the work.  Is Boeing Renfrew going to work on the Chinooks???  Just wondering.....


----------



## geo (29 Apr 2007)

Peaches....
Production lines already exist for the Mfg of both the C47 & the C17. If we are buying models that are, straight off the shelf; why would either plant get to work of the orders???


----------



## geo (29 Apr 2007)

Jimmy,
Why isn't Boeing not already doing business with IMP or L3?
US Gov't security restrictions would be a good place to start.

As an example, a US citzen (former Iranian refugee) works for boeing on the C17 project..... not a problem
A Cdn citzen (former Iranian refugee) works for boeing Canada..... he would never be allowed to work on any component of the C17 aircraft... regardless of how many CDN security clearances he may have.....


----------



## peaches (29 Apr 2007)

Perhaps the plants in Winnipeg or Renfrew Mfc parts for these A/C, I am just wondering....  Renfrew used to do maint on the Labs, a Boeing Vertol product.

It would not likely be too much of a stretch to give C17/C47 work to Boeing operations here in Canada.  I personnally don't care who maints it, as long as it works and does the job.......


----------

