A321
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Time Pressure; Workload
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Procedure; Company Policy
Maintenance had been called for when the First Officer (FO) was informed; during his pre-flight; that a 4 foot length of insulation tubing was hanging from the Passenger Service Unit (PSU) area in the aft right cabin. After being informed of this I went to the rear of the cabin to see the discrepancy and could not find it. One of the Flight Attendants (FA) in the aft galley area explained that an individual wearing a 'Manager' vest came back earlier and had pushed the tubing back up between 2 plastic panels in the PSU area above the seats. I was shown where this happened and pulled about 2 inches of the tubing out and the entire 4 feet of tubing fell out of the overhead. I went back forward to find this individual but he had left the aircraft..I found him in the terminal speaking with one of the gate agents. I had spoken with him briefly upon boarding the aircraft and knew he was aware of the maintenance issue. I asked him if he had pushed the tubing back into the overhead. He said he had. I asked him his name and his department. He said he was from the Ramp department and that he was there to expedite the aircraft turn around; ie: cabin cleaning; fueling and security slip delivery to the cockpit. I asked if that included performing aircraft maintenance. He said no to which I responded that is exactly what he had done without authorization; training or a license. I explained to him that in spite all of the best intentions his action was inappropriate and not appreciated by a crew that was preparing to fly this aircraft. He was also informed that this would have to be written up. I returned to the aircraft and was advised the mechanic was working on the issue. He explained that the tubing had to be pressed well into the PSU with a tool in order for it to remain in its proper place. Boarding commenced when the mechanic completed his work and the flight departed 11 minutes late. The airline is understaffed and not equipped to sustain desired on-time performance. There is; however; a mandate for this performance from the highest level of management; in spite of the lack of manning; training and equipment. This results in a rushed environment in most departments when turning an aircraft around for a departure. As the pressure mounts procedural expediencies (short cuts) are utilized to expedite in order to meet the mandate. In this case a Manager performed a task he was neither trained; qualified nor licensed to do; yet his behavior indicates he felt justified in doing so; for the sake of expediting. The rush to turn around and depart creates a highly stressful environment in which to work for many employees and degrades safety margins in an already dynamic and potentially dangerous environment.  This episode causes this pilot to wonder what other unauthorized fixes are going on for the sake of expediency around the aircraft and around the system.As a Manager this individual should have known better than to do what he did. He needs more training.The operation appears to be manned and equipped from a purely optimized standpoint. There is very little or no slack for the eventual environmental condition(s) that demands more than what is provided. The only answer extract more out of an already busy and stressed worker. Manning and the provisioning need to optimized for a higher demand level.
A321 Captain reported a repair made to his aircraft by a non-mechanic. This repair was made by a ramp manager then an actual Mechanic came out shortly after to re-do the repair correctly.