Recent fines against some U.S. carriers over maintenance issues have increased the debate over who is doing the maintenance on the planes you fly. The airlines insist that safety is the top priority and all mechanics meet the same qualifications no matter where they do the work. But that hasn't slowed detractors.

According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA) which represents over 200 airlines worldwide, Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul, known as MRO, represents 12-15 per cent of airline operating costs. Given today's economic climate, it's no surprise that MRO work is under the spotlight and more airlines are farming out the work to third parties.

For many airlines in the U.S., 60 per cent of airline maintenance work is done in-house, meaning an airline's employees and facilities are used for routine work. However, more of the heavier or major overhaul tasks are being outsourced to facilities around the world. This practice is not unique to airlines in the United States. Airlines from Ireland to India to Australia have outsourced some, if not a majority, of their maintenance work as well. There is no question that outsourcing maintenance work saves the airlines money, but it also raises concerns among airline union workers, lawmakers and consumer groups.

Maintenance facilities entering into a contract with an airline must satisfy the requirements of that airline, which is under the oversight of an aviation body like the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). However, issues arise over grey areas. For instance, some opponents of MRO outsourcing argue that many mechanics in overseas facilities lack the proper certification and background checks to work on certain aircraft and equipment. Warnings about third-party facilities run the gamut from the risks of shoddy maintenance to possible infiltration by terrorists. Though there has been no accident directly attributed to maintenance work done by a contracted vendor since 2003, and that was done by a U.S. company, the concerns have not subsided. The loudest voices have come from unions, business groups and legislators in the U.S. where nine major airlines outsourced 70 per cent of their heavy maintenance work in 2008.

Though many maintenance shops are run by airline companies and have flawless reputations, the problem that critics raise is the lack of sufficient oversight of overseas facilities. For instance, there are approximately 700 repair shops approved by the FAA around the world, but there are simply not enough resources to inspect them all, and when they do, there is typically enough advance notice to give a repair shop time to clean up its act if necessary. Airlines and their advocates think otherwise and contend that overseas maintenance contractors are more highly supervised than the airlines' own personnel, and are subject to additional supervision by their respective governments. This issue surfaced during a recent aviation safety conference IAPA attended. It was suggested that additional inspections by U.S. authorities could hamper the already-scrutinized work being done by overseas facilities and strain relationships between the affected nations. According to IATA, many countries already require audits that cost airlines millions of dollars each year. Though IATA would like to see a standardized audit scheme for MRO facilities, they object to some stringent proposals from U.S. lawmakers such as mandated drug and criminal screenings for foreign workers, which the Association says is a clear violation of local laws in many countries. IATA does favor a proposal by the U.S. Senate which defers to international agreements and sovereign law. It also supports an FAA in-house committee which has called for risk-based inspections. The airlines and IATA stress the importance of promoting a global economy and find some of the U.S. legislative proposals "protectionist." However, critics warn that all it would take is a catastrophic accident to raise the concerns about MRO outsourcing to an actionable level.

According to the FAA, The United States has country-to-country Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements with France, Germany and Ireland. These agreements eliminate duplicate efforts by the FAA and the national aviation authorities, and specify that each authority perform certification and surveillance activities on behalf of the other. The FAA audits these national aviation authorities, reviews their inspector guidance materials, inspector staffing levels and training programs, and performs joint repair station audits with the authorities' inspectors. Under these agreements, the FAA conducts sample inspections of repair stations located in these countries. The FAA also states that:

• Air carriers have to ensure that all contractors follow the procedures specified in the air carrier's maintenance program.
• Air carriers must list all contractors on a vendor list; only substantial maintenance providers have to be approved in the air carrier's operation specifications.
• The airline must show that the provider has the capability, organization, facilities and equipment to perform the work.

The question is not whether the practice of outsourcing maintenance can or should be stopped, but how to ensure that the highest standards of safety are met, no matter which country these standards arise from. Regardless of how strongly governments or airlines espouse the virtues of their aviation standards, sometimes public perception is everything. For an airline, that might be a high a price to pay if the issue of utmost maintenance safety languishes in a battle of opinions instead of emerging as an enviable global standard. It is that standard we must all insist on.