Airbus Overhaul
- Thread starter LavMan
- Start date
Lynx_plyr02
Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 0
----------------
On 5/8/2003 9
52 AM LavMan wrote:
Does anyone know why the company would be soliciting bids on work that is covered by the IAM Mechanic and Related Contract?
PS. why did you remove the the thread?
----------------
Contract? Thier doing what they want to do.We''re still under force majeure.TemcoOn 5/8/2003 9
52 AM LavMan wrote: Does anyone know why the company would be soliciting bids on work that is covered by the IAM Mechanic and Related Contract?
PS. why did you remove the the thread?
----------------
will do it and they will lay off another 1000 mechs maybe more.Just a guess.
repeet
Veteran
New and unique is the word we get in the Avionics and Instrument shops.
Every new instrument or airborne computer device would require a customized interface panel in order to run the acceptance test after a repair. The manufactures sent NO COST P.O.s to the shops for this "new and unique" test equipment. These were then sent up the chain of command towards the Vice President''s offices and were never heard from again. Some equipment we asked for, and received, duplicate P.O.s for resubmission, but they to, "dissappeared".
We (mechanics) have been told that if we can submit a business plan documenting a cost recovery within two years, then "they" would buy the test equipment and bring our contractually specified work in house. We did this for several items, and the paper work was returned to us with a note saying that now, cost recovery had to be within twelve months. We did that too, and then were told that all of the new electronics were under warrantee and would be for years.
So the next time you fly on an AirBus, which is controlled by a joystick mounted on the side panel of the cockpit; rememeber that the Instruments and Computers flying the aircraft are maintained by people who have no company loyality, are faceless to the public, don''t get flying priviledges and aren''t paid enough money to be able to fly anywhere, except for special occasions.
Every new instrument or airborne computer device would require a customized interface panel in order to run the acceptance test after a repair. The manufactures sent NO COST P.O.s to the shops for this "new and unique" test equipment. These were then sent up the chain of command towards the Vice President''s offices and were never heard from again. Some equipment we asked for, and received, duplicate P.O.s for resubmission, but they to, "dissappeared".
We (mechanics) have been told that if we can submit a business plan documenting a cost recovery within two years, then "they" would buy the test equipment and bring our contractually specified work in house. We did this for several items, and the paper work was returned to us with a note saying that now, cost recovery had to be within twelve months. We did that too, and then were told that all of the new electronics were under warrantee and would be for years.
So the next time you fly on an AirBus, which is controlled by a joystick mounted on the side panel of the cockpit; rememeber that the Instruments and Computers flying the aircraft are maintained by people who have no company loyality, are faceless to the public, don''t get flying priviledges and aren''t paid enough money to be able to fly anywhere, except for special occasions.
cubfan02us
Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2002
- Messages
- 93
- Reaction score
- 0
Thanks for the info. Most of us would''nt have any idea
of what was going on if not for that post. Watch United
and see what they''re doing with Oakland and Indy.Siegel
said the cost cutting is not done.
They aim to cut,any which way they can.
"This could be the year", Go Cubs...
of what was going on if not for that post. Watch United
and see what they''re doing with Oakland and Indy.Siegel
said the cost cutting is not done.
They aim to cut,any which way they can.
"This could be the year", Go Cubs...
Well according to our union reps, it all seems to be driven from CFO Neil Cohen who thinks he is still at NWA who had the right to farm out work. He is going to be in for a rude awakening if he tries to farm out work that the IAM mechanic and related have the exclusive right to do. We were told to let mr cohen know how we feel.
Neal_Cohen@usairways.com CFO
John_Prestifilippo@usairways.com Sr VP of Maintenance
It seems to work, we still have not gotten our contract books and a certain director of labor relations was bombarded by phone calls and e-mails and we shall be getting our new contract books shortly, seems the company has lied to us (what a shock) they never have sent them to the printers yet!
Neal_Cohen@usairways.com CFO
John_Prestifilippo@usairways.com Sr VP of Maintenance
It seems to work, we still have not gotten our contract books and a certain director of labor relations was bombarded by phone calls and e-mails and we shall be getting our new contract books shortly, seems the company has lied to us (what a shock) they never have sent them to the printers yet!
LavMan,
While I don''t agree with the company''s move here if they try to do this, I think they have a legitimate out in the contract. About two years ago, an AGC told me that the company can farm out any work we do not have the equipment for. If these overhauls do indeed require computer interfaces the company does not have, that is the out to farm out overhaul. I am not sure what the current exact language is, but unless there was a major revision from the previous contract (1997?) to the restructuring agreement in this area, I think all bets are off.
While I don''t agree with the company''s move here if they try to do this, I think they have a legitimate out in the contract. About two years ago, an AGC told me that the company can farm out any work we do not have the equipment for. If these overhauls do indeed require computer interfaces the company does not have, that is the out to farm out overhaul. I am not sure what the current exact language is, but unless there was a major revision from the previous contract (1997?) to the restructuring agreement in this area, I think all bets are off.
----------------
On 5/9/2003 1:09:38 AM N628AU wrote:
LavMan,
While I don''t agree with the company''s move here if they try to do this, I think they have a legitimate out in the contract. About two years ago, an AGC told me that the company can farm out any work we do not have the equipment for. If these overhauls do indeed require computer interfaces the company does not have, that is the out to farm out overhaul. I am not sure what the current exact language is, but unless there was a major revision from the previous contract (1997?) to the restructuring agreement in this area, I think all bets are off.
----------------
On 5/9/2003 1:09:38 AM N628AU wrote:
LavMan,
While I don''t agree with the company''s move here if they try to do this, I think they have a legitimate out in the contract. About two years ago, an AGC told me that the company can farm out any work we do not have the equipment for. If these overhauls do indeed require computer interfaces the company does not have, that is the out to farm out overhaul. I am not sure what the current exact language is, but unless there was a major revision from the previous contract (1997?) to the restructuring agreement in this area, I think all bets are off.
----------------
I worked in the instrument shop for years and getting the company to buy test equipment was all but impossible even before all the recent events. Doing the avionics part versus the airframe part is two entirely different birds. Just yesterday Frank Schifano himself said if they try to farm out the airbus overhauls, we walk. I was working A/C 516 when I found that out in hanger 3. This whole thing is blown out of proportion because of that guy from NW, Mr. farm out himself. He is trying to impress the boss and it''s going over like a lead ballon.
