It pretty much states that airlines are bidding maintenance to the lowest bidder and that company may employ people who have no clue what they are doing, how to read English, and have no background check. Apparently all airplane parts are supposed to be traceable but at least one company installs parts without the proper paperwork and tracking numbers.
The airlines say that they are in the business of flying passengers, not maintaining aircraft. To them it makes more sense to outsource and that may be true in many instances. Someone who knows how to maintain a Boeing 757 I’m assuming could maintain the plane regardless of the operating carrier. The problem is when the company solely looks at the bottom line. That is an issue in any industry, it’s not unique to airlines. I’m surprised airlines would put their name on something that could be unsafe. The whole point of outsourcing should be competition. If an airline has doubts about the quality of the company they are using, they should find another company. It doesn’t appear that there is any shortage of vendors.
I tend to prefer free market solutions and I think outsourced maintenance can be the same, if not better than in-house maintenance. The key is keeping up with the vendors and changing if needed. I’m sure many of the options cost less than in-house operations so it’s not likely that they would pay more with anyone except the lowest bidder.
If you claim to be in the business of transporting passengers, it is in your best interest to make sure they get to point B. Shoddy maintenance can cost more in the long run.