The Second Worst Airline in the World

The second worst airline in the world according to the Daily Mail. This is not in defense of Royal Jordanian (RJ) but more of an attempt to understand; the AirHelp report (click here for the report) covers seventy two (72) airlines and RJ ranked seventy one (71). This is not a very flattering ranking but then the world has more than 72 airlines.

The rankings are based on:
1. On time Performance; RJ's score is 8.3 (83% on time performance);
2. Quality of Service; RJ's score is 6.3;
3. Claim Processing; RJ's score is 0.8.
For a total score of 5.13, the sad thing is that this ranking has deteriorated over the last year or so.

In Summer 2016  RJ ranked 48 out of 78 airlines with a score of 6.73 (7.3, 6.0 and 6.9)
In Autumn 2016 RJ ranked 59 out of 79 with a score of 6.33 (8.1, 6.0 and 4.9)
In Winter 2016/2017 RJ ranked 76 out of 87 with a score of 5.67 (8.0, 6.0 and 3.1)

From Summer 2016 to date RJ worked on improving on time performance and quality. However, Claims Processing went from 6.9 to 0.8 with a steady deterioration with every report. Either
AirHelp got it wrong or Royal Jordanian just became oblivious to passenger claims and complaints and just did not care. Following social media; complaints are on the rise and I am sure so are claims for compensation which appear to follow on deaf ears.

In 2017 the airline went on a social media blitz that earned it top awards and I am sure improved its brand recognition. In 2017 RJ leased an old beat up B737 to help with peak traffic which created a storm of complaints; which I am sure contributed to this (0.8) score. Well, in 2018 RJ did the same again showing complete insensitivity to their passengers views. I am sure whatever savings the airline is hoping to make will be offset by passengers choosing other carriers.


For AIRHELP AIRLINE SCORE METHODOLOGY (click here)

ASA Twentieth Anniversay

Last week I had the privilege of attending the Aviation Suppliers Association (ASA) annual conference, from the 9th to the 11th of July 2013 in Las Vegas which also marked the association's Twentieth Anniversary.

Having worked for airlines and MROs dealing with approved vendor lists and suppliers' approvals, one becomes very familiar with the ASA-100 Quality System Standard, one of the most respected supplier certifications based on the FAA's AC 00-56A (Voluntary Industry Distributor Accreditation Program).
ASA maintains and ensures that the quality standard is updated and is rigorously applied.

One day in the conference is dedicated to the Quality Committee, where quality issues ranging from common audit findings and updates to the standards (ASA-100/ISO9001/AS9100/AS9120) to Law Enforcement Initiatives were discussed. ASA is not only an accreditation body, it is also an advocate for the industry on issues such as Counterfeit Parts, PMA Parts to FAA Part 21 and Designee policy among others. The association ensures the views of its members and the suppliers community on the whole are heard, proactively helping to shape regulations and policies.

Another aspect of the conference is the time dedicated to workshops and training, a total of eight (8) workshops in two (2) days.

On a personal note, the conference provided me with a unique insight of the hard work ASA does, not only to maintain the standard and support it with training but the advocacy work it does to defend the interests of the industry and its members.

And as Ms Dickstein, the association's President, said What happens in Vegas this time does not have to stay in Vegas and I totally agree.

Kudos ASA and Congratulations, keep up the good work.

Quality Assurance, Safety Management Systems and the FAA

The FAA has finally released its FAR Part 145 Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) 2006-26408. The NPRM was initially issued in 2006 and withdrawn in 2009 because the FAA felt it did not adequately address the current repair station operating environment. The new proposal covers three major areas plus several other changes
1. The system of Ratings.
2. The certification Requirements.
3. Repair stations providing maintenance to air carriers.

The original 2006 NPRM proposed a requirement for a formal Quality System to improve safety, this requirement is not included in this proposed NPRM. The rationale is that the FAA is developing the Safety Management Systems (SMS) rules and those will cover repair stations operating under Part 145. It is felt that if a Quality System is mandated now it will have to be modified once SMS rules are produced, which is not an efficient use of repair station resources.

SMS requires compliance with the following requirements
1. Identify safety hazards, assess and mitigate risks.
2. Ensure that remedial action necessary to maintain an acceptable level of safety is implemented.
3. Provide for continuous monitoring and regular assessment of the safety level achieved.
4. Aim to make continuous improvement to the overall level of safety.
However SMS requires a Quality Assurance Program and policy that is consistent with and supports the fulfilment of the activities of SMS, including annual internal audits.

In the original NPRM the FAA proposed an expansion of the existing Quality Control system to include a Quality System that assures compliance with regulations and internal processes and procedures. Any findings are addressed and corrections/corrective actions taken to ensure compliance and improve the effectiveness of the procedures. It also requires management oversight and follow up to ensure effective corrective actions and continuous improvement. This requires an internal annual audit plan and periodic management reviews.

SMS requires a Quality Assurance system, but it is directed towards the safety function, and does not cover the other aspects of the operation. It can be argued that all actions or inactions affect safety and therefore SMS will mandate by default an all encompassing Independent Quality Assurance regime.

Considering that the origins of this NPRM date back to 1999 and has been issued and withdrawn several times; to wait for the release of the SMS rules could mean a wait of a few more years and a QA System will not be mandated until the turn of the decade.

Double Standards

Double Standards, who among us have not voiced these accusations against parents, spouses and or bosses. We all had damn good reasons, didn't we. I never gave it a second thought, until I started giving Quality Awareness courses and found out that we wallow in Double Standards.
How so, in Aviation just as in other critical industries; Quality, Safety and Security are not nice things to have, they are core values, they are culture and should be second nature. We should breathe, think and live these values. (This is the party line)
Back to reality, in Quality there is a need for continuous improvement and we have that nice Plan, Do, Check, ACT (PDCA for short) process. In our personal life PDCA is intuitive, we plan to go some place, we start the journey (do) we find a problem we change our route (act) and then check again to see if there is another problem until we reach our destination. And we do that for every thing we do.
The other intuitive aspect is Risk Assessment, in our personal lives (unless we are distracted or doped) we run a quick risk assessment and mitigate the risk for every thing we do, be it crossing the street, driving, playing or cooking you name it.

So why don't we use it in our professional life, the standard answer is we are too busy with work, duh. Really, too busy to improve or be safe. Why is it when it comes to our personal issues we perform certain things and when it comes to work we don't even think of these things; Simple DOUBLE STANDARDS.

So please before you start accusing people of double standards, have an inward look at yourself.