Airbus "s" Checks

[PITbull]

Chip,

Well I'll be damned....I had to rub my eyes twice and blink at your post above.

Finally, you admit this is a union busting scheme to get us to the LCC level.

Praise be God, I never thought I would hear you ever admit this. And now I know you must finally believe UAL will definitely merge from BK with "bells" on as well.

I spoke of this when I first came on the boards in December and even before that...if you know me Chip.

This was all a well thought out plan...using BK and Liquidation as the "trump" cards. All the Majors will be using some sort of this scheme to get what they want from Labor. That's why no one is marketing. They don't need to. Its all about Pension terminations, poverty wages and benefits, furloughs, outsourcing, BK, Liquidation "bull ####" threats.... Hell, the Industry talked the gov. into TWO tax payer "bailouts" and U is going after again, the PA State. There is no end, because there are no paid consequences to this type of mangement thinking.

I hope that labor soon rises to the occasion and puts "stops" in place and proves that there ARE consequences for devastating lives for the sake of a "buck" for senior execs. and stake holders.

Business is a fine fragile equation, and to fine that balance...is an "art". Some CEO have done it, but very few have found the Key to open that door for all to work perfectly.

U has only manged to use the key that opened "pandora's box".

 

[Dilligas]

(1) "...in my opinion the "Real Story behind US Airways' Restructuring" is union busting and dramatically lowering labor expense, across-the-board, towards LCC expenses. "

(2) " my posts did have an "ulterior" motive"

RE #1: Is that the sentiment you expressed in your published guest editorial in the Charlotte newspaper?

RE #2: Now tell us something we don't already know.

This isn't meant as a personal attack, but to point out yet more inconsistency. I find your constant spin amazing. You, along with the rest of us, have been lied to, ripped off, career expectations shattered, and yet I've never heard you say... "I was wrong", or "I erred in judgement."

Wake up and smell the coffee. Quit carrying Dave's bags and grow a pair. With your eloquence and flair for writing you could have been an asset to helping to present the viewpoints of labor at U.

 

[Atlantic]

Can anyone tell me. If the company farms out the heavy mx, does that mean that there would be more lay offs for the IAM?.
If the company does the heavy checks, does the company have to hire additional AMTs?

 

[Dilligas]

Can anyone tell me. If the company farms out the heavy mx, does that mean that there would be more lay offs for the IAM?.
If the company does the heavy checks, does the company have to hire additional AMTs?

Why the rhetorical question?

If the company contracts out all flying less than 1000 miles, does that mean there will be more layoffs for ALPA?

If the company brings back aircraft from the desert, does the company have to hire more pilots?

As a pilot who has in the past advocated on this board the contracting out of other workgroup's covered work (post 34953), don't you know the answer to your own question?

Is your agenda the exchange of information and ideas or being another harbinger of divide and conquer and class warfare?

 

[PITbull]

Dilligas,

Damn...I'm loving you today. You burn'em baby.

 

[SpinDoc]

Alabama Dave & Labor Unfriendly Dave

I hope the mechanics shut down the airline if you put the airbus heavy check in a 3rd party maint. facility. I can only hope the IAM lives up to their THREAT like you guys did to us. STRIKE THE AIRLINE IF ONE AIRBUS GETS OUTSOURCED.

Does anyone happen to remember an airline named ValutJet (aka Air Tran Airways)? They had more incidents and emergency landings in one month in 1996 than US Airways has had in their history. All of their maintenance was conducted by outside contractors and there was no oversight by their own management or the FAA. The result was ValuJet flight 92 which made an unshceduled stop in the Florida Everglades. THE most important reason for keeping the Airbus heavy checks in house has nothing to do with the IAM contract. It is a safety issue plain and simple. No matter what the clowns in CCY say, there is no way to maintain 100% oversight of an outside contractor. Anything less than 100% oversight is unacceptable when it comes to aircraft maintenance and absolute safety. By keeping heavy maintenance in house, the company maintains complete oversight of the process and ensures the fleet exceeds FAA standards. If the maintenance is "farmed out", the contractor is not obligated to go any further than complying with FAA standards (and they won't if they can save a few bucks). There is a huge difference in the standard of care between work that is done in house and that which is done by outside firms. If Dave and company decide to outsource the Airbus heavy checks, they might as well purchase excess liability insurance coverage, because we will need it to pay death claims in the future. I agree that a line in the sand must be drawn, and SAFETY is something that should never be compromised. IAM, stick to your guns and shut it down if the Airbus is outsourced.

 

[PITbull]

Well done, Spin Doc. You state the real issue and THE main point.

 

[N617P]

Can anyone tell me. If the company farms out the heavy mx, does that mean that there would be more lay offs for the IAM?.
If the company does the heavy checks, does the company have to hire additional AMTs?

Why the rhetorical question?

If the company contracts out all flying less than 1000 miles, does that mean there will be more layoffs for ALPA?

If the company brings back aircraft from the desert, does the company have to hire more pilots?

As a pilot who has in the past advocated on this board the contracting out of other workgroup's covered work (post 34953), don't you know the answer to your own question?

Is your agenda the exchange of information and ideas or being another harbinger of divide and conquer and class warfare?

Dilligas

This is a simple question and should be given an answer.The s-checks will not cause any furloughs right away.The big issue is when the Boeings are retired
they could be replaced with Airbus aircraft. This would eliminate heavy maintenance and all the support shops.Lets not forget the 400 plus a/c we were to receive from Airbus.

This is a very well thought out plan to break the unions.The icing on the cake will be the contracting out of theese checks.

 

[Dilligas]

This is a simple question and should be given an answer.The s-checks will not cause any furloughs right away.The big issue is when the Boeings are retired they could be replaced with Airbus aircraft. This would eliminate heavy maintenance and all the support shops.Lets not forget the 400 plus a/c we were to receive from Airbus.

This is a very well thought out plan to break the unions.The icing on the cake will be the contracting out of theese checks.

You have given the correct answer and I agree with everything you said, 617.

I felt the question was not a "good faith" question designed for obtaining information due to my reading of the questioner's previous postings. I was prepared to give the same info which you did until I went back and researched a bit on the tone of some previous postings. So instead of providing a factual answer I addressed the questioner. I hope your job is not one of the ones that he wishes to contract out.

Thanks for providing the answer, I have more than just a tad of smart aleck in me and sometimes I can't resist.

 

[Atlantic]

Dilligas,
I ask a question and you come back with this rhetorical stuff.
If you don't know, just say so. Maybe someone else on the board can enlighten us both.
As for planes flying out of the desert, one or two probably won't add pilots or f/a's.
More than that would add pilots, f/a's, some inside jobs, ramp, and others.
I would like to see that.
As for that post you refer to. Was it about lead in and lead out? Any pilot will tell you that docking and undocking seems to be quicker now.
Cleaners? Went through PHL on Thursday same plane to MYR. 1+20 turn. Two phone calls, two radio calls, no cleaners. Me and the f/a's clean, but push 15 min. late. And that pisses me off, because I see many out side workers in the break rooms, doing x-words, cards, t.v., oh, but it's not their gate. Can't work it.
What a great job, doing a x-word and getting paid at the same time.
Stuck on stupid.

 

[Dilligas]

I ask a question and you come back with this rhetorical stuff.
If you don't know, just say so. Maybe someone else on the board can enlighten us both.
As for planes flying out of the desert, one or two probably won't add pilots or f/a's.
More than that would add pilots, f/a's, some inside jobs, ramp, and others.
I would like to see that.
As for that post you refer to. Was it about lead in and lead out? Any pilot will tell you that docking and undocking seems to be quicker now.
Cleaners? Went through PHL on Thursday same plane to MYR. 1+20 turn. Two phone calls, two radio calls, no cleaners. Me and the f/a's clean, but push 15 min. late. And that pisses me off, because I see many out side workers in the break rooms, doing x-words, cards, t.v., oh, but it's not their gate. Can't work it.
What a great job, doing a x-word and getting paid at the same time.
Stuck on stupid.

IF that was a legitimate question, N617P has answered it very well. I also would love to see the parked planes return, the furloughed pilots restored, all those on the street have a job to come back to. Ain't gonna happen.

We need to fight to protect the remaining jobs we have. And when they come for yours, I'll be there to support ALPA trying to protect what scope they have left.

In your most recent post, you speak in a negative manner toward mechanics and utility. I am sure it is very frustrating from where you sit when you can't get what you need when you need it.

Did you ever consider that if people jumped to run to your gate, then when they were not on their ASSIGNED gate when needed, they would be subject to discipline? What you observe does not always lead you to the correct assumption or conclusion. From the outside looking in, it is never as simplistic as it appears to be.

I doubt they attempt to tell you how to do your job, give them the same respect, nor are they undermining your contract by doing another group's covered work. They work for a lead and a supervisor... not you. You are just another worker bee paid by the hour, albeit with a cleaner uniform.

We should come together as labor and hold management accountable and fix this trainwreck. Petty bickering serves no one but the Palace.

Consider directing your anger toward those that can actually fix the situation they have created. Your coworkers are in the same boat as you, just as powerless to effect positive change as you are, and just as frustrated. Those that give respect, tend to get it. I doubt you get much.

 

[tug_slug]

I doubt they attempt to tell you how to do your job, give them the same respect, nor are they undermining your contract by doing another group's covered work. They work for a lead and a supervisor... not you. You are just another worker bee paid by the hour, albeit with a cleaner uniform.

Dilligas, damn your good

 

[LavMan]

Dilligas for CEO!

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

[
Did you ever consider that if people jumped to run to your gate, then when they were not on their ASSIGNED gate when needed, they would be subject to discipline? What you observe does not always lead you to the correct assumption or conclusion. From the outside looking in, it is never as simplistic as it appears to be....
[/QUOTE]



Question regarding the "that's not my gate" issue: How many hub/large stations are still ramp staffed this way, with one team working one gate, never to venture to another one. I thought it was more common to put a number of agents into an area or zone who then "swarm" the first arriving plane in a sequence for offloading/servicing. When the next arrival pulls in some people split off to start working that flight and are joined by the rest when the first arrival is done (a couple stay to start the on load).

 

[Dilligas]

Question regarding the "that's not my gate" issue: How many hub/large stations are still ramp staffed this way, with one team working one gate, never to venture to another one. I thought it was more common to put a number of agents into an area or zone who then "swarm" the first arriving plane in a sequence for offloading/servicing. When the next arrival pulls in some people split off to start working that flight and are joined by the rest when the first arrival is done (a couple stay to start the on load).

Hi Shir.... whoops.... what do we call you?

One point of clarification that you may or may not have been aware of, your question seems to be referring to our ramp agents method of assignments. The other gentleman's problem was with utility. Utility is assigned in a different manner with different responsiblilities when an aircraft is on the gate, and I will step aside for a Utility Person to address your question.

BTW, I can't resist...

"Rodger, Roger... Get the clearance, Clarence. What's the vector, Victor?"

What a silly, fun movie, still makes me laugh. Happy flying