Large Piece Falls off Monorail - Being Evacuated

Nubs70

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
Raineman said:
I just wanted to chime in on the discussion about preventative maintenance. I have been working in Quality management in manufacturing for quite a few years now, and I am almost positive both Disney parks in the US would be accredited to at least 9 or 10 of the major international quality standards, ie ISO-9001, TS-16949-there are dozens of them. A major part of some of these standards is an adequate PM system, and with the new IATF standard replacing the TS standard this year, the new requirements for a total productive maintenance system have increased. Any argument that says Disney isn't doing any PMs cause they don't want to pay for them is not necessarily true-they have to prove to an auditor every year that their PM system in place is good enough, and that they have been doing what their system says has to be done. Now, might they be recording PM results but not actually doing them? Possibly, I have seen it myself in manufacturing. However, if they record PMs that were not done, and a major incident occurs as a result of the PMs not being done, that is a major non-conformance on their next audit (in addition to lawsuits, negative press, etc), which would cause them to lose certification, and not be able to keep doing business in whatever area the certification covers. I'm not saying the recent issue was a result of negligent PMs, but I would think WDW is doing enough in the preventative maintenance department to satisfy requirements, but possibly nothing beyond that.
Click to expand...
Is not ISO procedural based and not outcome Based?

One can manufacture an abysmal product but be ISO certified as long as you follow the documented procedure.

Additionally, from what you see from quality, uptime and throughput, do you not see questionable management practices in regards to the monorail?
 
Raineman

Raineman

Well-Known Member
Nubs70 said:
Is not ISO procedural based and not outcome Based?

One can manufacture an abysmal product but be ISO certified as long as you follow the documented procedure.

Additionally, from what you see from quality, uptime and throughput, do you not see questionable management practices in regards to the monorail?
Click to expand...
ISO is definitely based on having and following documented systems and procedures, but an auditor will question procedures and possibly de-certify an organization if procedures are being followed but incidents still occur. For example, if the manufacturer I work for follows all ISO/TS procedures, but we keep sending defective parts to our customer, the auditor could take our certification away, as the procedures we do have in place are not adequate or effective. If there was a specific PM for the area of the monorail that flew off, and WDW has documents that show the PM was done, then either the PM was not done but documented that it was, or the actual PM that was performed was not effective enough to prevent breakage. Not saying that's what happened in this case, but it is a possibility. I would hope an event like this would make WDW look at their maintenance procedures and adjust accordingly.
 
ford91exploder

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
Raineman said:
I just wanted to chime in on the discussion about preventative maintenance. I have been working in Quality management in manufacturing for quite a few years now, and I am almost positive both Disney parks in the US would be accredited to at least 9 or 10 of the major international quality standards, ie ISO-9001, TS-16949-there are dozens of them. A major part of some of these standards is an adequate PM system, and with the new IATF standard replacing the TS standard this year, the new requirements for a total productive maintenance system have increased. Any argument that says Disney isn't doing any PMs cause they don't want to pay for them is not necessarily true-they have to prove to an auditor every year that their PM system in place is good enough, and that they have been doing what their system says has to be done. Now, might they be recording PM results but not actually doing them? Possibly, I have seen it myself in manufacturing. However, if they record PMs that were not done, and a major incident occurs as a result of the PMs not being done, that is a major non-conformance on their next audit (in addition to lawsuits, negative press, etc), which would cause them to lose certification, and not be able to keep doing business in whatever area the certification covers. I'm not saying the recent issue was a result of negligent PMs, but I would think WDW is doing enough in the preventative maintenance department to satisfy requirements, but possibly nothing beyond that.
Click to expand...

The problem with all the ISO standards is they are focused on documentation and process repeatability not whether the process is correct. Just that you do your process repeatably.

Now that does help drive quality when work is compared to an objective standard.
 
Cesar R M

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
HauntedPirate said:
I used to work for one of the three major US-based airlines. The potential costs associated with any kind of shoddy maintenance catching up to them FAR outweigh any perceived cost savings. Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul business is a big money maker when you have the people and facilities to do them. The one US airline that I used to know rather well does a lot of Airbus MRO and it generates hundreds of millions in revenue each year. The same principle applies here - Deferred maintenance will only wind up costing more down the line, so putting it off in the interest of "short term profits" will hurt them in the long run.
Click to expand...
It still doesnt not stop them from trying.
Like they try to move their repair and maintenance bays to smaller countries who have way lower costs.

I think this happened to Quantas and they started to have reliability issues on their planes.
 
HauntedPirate

HauntedPirate

Park nostalgist
Premium Member
Cesar R M said:
It still doesnt not stop them from trying.
Like they try to move their repair and maintenance bays to smaller countries who have way lower costs.

I think this happened to Quantas and they started to have reliability issues on their planes.
Click to expand...

Indeed, they will still try and cut costs on MRO whenever they can. They think cheaper labor = lower costs, but in reality, it costs more to train that cheaper labor, as they are coming in at square one and having to learn from the ground up. Plus, you cannot transfer that "tribal knowledge" which those who have been doing the maintenance for years have accumulated in their brains. They know tendencies and cause-and-effect and when sometimes A can lead to B which can cause C for Model XYZ. There's a big drop off in knowledge with any kind of outsourcing.
 
larryz

larryz

I'm Just A Tourist!
Premium Member
HauntedPirate said:
Indeed, they will still try and cut costs on MRO whenever they can. They think cheaper labor = lower costs, but in reality, it costs more to train that cheaper labor, as they are coming in at square one and having to learn from the ground up. Plus, you cannot transfer that "tribal knowledge" which those who have been doing the maintenance for years have accumulated in their brains. They know tendencies and cause-and-effect and when sometimes A can lead to B which can cause C for Model XYZ. There's a big drop off in knowledge with any kind of outsourcing.
Click to expand...
I read a story just yesterday about a flight that was delayed for three hours after a passenger tossed some coins into the number one engine "for good luck." At some point, you have to wonder about airline maintenance in a country where beliefs like that still prevail...
 
Santa Raccoon 77

Santa Raccoon 77

Thank you sir. You were an inspiration.
larryz said:
I read a story just yesterday about a flight that was delayed for three hours after a passenger tossed some coins into the number one engine "for good luck." At some point, you have to wonder about airline maintenance in a country where beliefs like that still prevail...
Click to expand...
71dc882df8dd90f6685a0e5ea66caa6c--duck-tape-duck-duck.jpg
 
MisterPenguin

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
larryz said:
I read a story just yesterday about a flight that was delayed for three hours after a passenger tossed some coins into the number one engine "for good luck." At some point, you have to wonder about airline maintenance in a country where beliefs like that still prevail...
Click to expand...

That was in China.
 
zakattack99

zakattack99

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Does anyone have a list of what year each train entered service? I thought there was a list somewhere but I could not find it. From what I gather blue was the first mark vi to enter service in 1989 but I don't have a month.
 
ford91exploder

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
larryz said:
I read a story just yesterday about a flight that was delayed for three hours after a passenger tossed some coins into the number one engine "for good luck." At some point, you have to wonder about airline maintenance in a country where beliefs like that still prevail...
Click to expand...

FOD is bad enough with stuff sucked off the ramp/runways, But to THROW FOD into the engine is a whole new level of stupid.

FOD - Foreign Object Damage, aka Finger Of Death
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom