Airbus Update
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
In reading the briefs, I can see how it's possible for there to be a dispute, and I understand now why the question wasn't able to be addressed in a simple summary judgement.
Personally, I'm inclined to agree that the two sentences in subparagraph (G) cannot be taken separately. If they were intended to be treated separately, they would have been separate subparagraphs.
If the subparagraph is to be treated as a single idea, then the S checks must be handled by US Airways employees.
The company's briefs do bring to light a question worth further investigation, however. Why is it that there was a shortage of hangar space in the first place? The fleet at the time wasn't as large as at its peak; what happened in the past, when there were many more (and Jack? 🙂 ) aircraft?
Personally, I'm inclined to agree that the two sentences in subparagraph (G) cannot be taken separately. If they were intended to be treated separately, they would have been separate subparagraphs.
If the subparagraph is to be treated as a single idea, then the S checks must be handled by US Airways employees.
The company's briefs do bring to light a question worth further investigation, however. Why is it that there was a shortage of hangar space in the first place? The fleet at the time wasn't as large as at its peak; what happened in the past, when there were many more (and Jack? 🙂 ) aircraft?
mweiss,......As you found out, Any rational thinking person would see the company does not have a leg to stand on. It is downright pathetic that this dispute has gone to arbitration....This should of been squelched in the court hearings.. But a couple of so called "judges" decided NOT to do their jobs, Which was to rule on the case according to the evidence that was before them... :down:
hp_fa
Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Messages
- 3,290
- Reaction score
- 178
I read the briefs and understand what MWEISS is saying. I think the IAM will prevail, but I at least understand there is an issue.
A question that the IAM should have asked of the company six years ago is "what are you gonna do when heavy maintenance comes due?"
A question that the IAM should have asked of the company six years ago is "what are you gonna do when heavy maintenance comes due?"
contractually was not needed..........funny thing though...us court in pgh,Judge Robert Cindrich asked U exactly the same question...hp_fa said:
"you've known of this now for some 6 years,and now you have a problem??
Yes we are Down the TPA Hangar but, we added a Hangar in PHL.
So boys, how are we maxed out? Yes we do not have the Equipment but that is due to MANAGEMENT never purchasing it. As the Judge asked, you have know this for six years, why is this an issue. It appears with a more in depth look, the Company NEVER planned on having the IAM do the work from day one. IAM wins this one and it is the final nail into BK2. And everyone here has asked why we, the Employees, have no faith in Management.
So boys, how are we maxed out? Yes we do not have the Equipment but that is due to MANAGEMENT never purchasing it. As the Judge asked, you have know this for six years, why is this an issue. It appears with a more in depth look, the Company NEVER planned on having the IAM do the work from day one. IAM wins this one and it is the final nail into BK2. And everyone here has asked why we, the Employees, have no faith in Management.
I'm confused. At least one PIT mech said that the S check is simply a bunch of the more minor checks (all done in-house) put together. How can you not have the equipment?Hope777 said:
The Company and IAM both agree in their briefs that the issue is insufficient hangar space.
No the IAM does not, go read it again, the IAM says with some rearranging we have hangar space.
And the S-check is all the C-check (C-1 thru C-11) combined.
And in the Dunsford award it states the company cannot shut down a facility to circumvent the contract.
And the S-check is all the C-check (C-1 thru C-11) combined.
And in the Dunsford award it states the company cannot shut down a facility to circumvent the contract.
I did read it thoroughly. The IAM's stance is that much of the line work can be done outdoors. However, the contract is quite explicit on this point. It is the Company's choice to allow line work to be done outdoors. The IAM concedes this point.700UW said:
Just as it is important to hold the Company to the terms of the entirety of subparagraph (G), it is important to hold the IAM to the other terms of the contract.
Apparantly you did not, it can be done by rearranging work in PIT and CLT withouth using the CLT line hangar at all. You are only reading the POST hearing briefs, not the transcripts.
"In Charlotte, the line maintenance hangar can accommodate two 737's or Airbus
320F’s, or one 757 or 767, or one Airbus 330, and its base maintenance hangar
accommodates three 757 “C†checks, or two 757 “C†checks and one A330 check, and in addition, can accommodate an A319/320/321 “C11" check, which is the most intensive in the “C†check series, calling for work over four employee shifts. Id. (Tr. 375). The same base maintenance hangar can accommodate a total of five aircraft, three undergoing base maintenance checks, and two “nosed in†to perform line maintenance. (Tr. 372-373).
Though USAirways submitted its conclusion that it lacks sufficient existing line
maintenance hangar space to perform S checks because all such hangar space is devoted to nightly line maintenance, the Company offered no evidence detailing how often line maintenance it performs is required to be done in a hangar (Tr. 337)4. In reality, there is little occasion for the Company to reserve the six line maintenance bays in Pittsburgh or even the three larger line maintenance bays it reserves in Charlotte exclusively for line maintenance, and no essential line maintenance that must fill all line maintenance bays so as to thwart the Company’s ability to perform HMV work.
A review of the nightly work records in Charlotte made available to the IAM for
purposes of overtime calls -- the documents that lead mechanics use to assign
maintenance work, and thus reveal the precise work tasks performed on a given night where Company management provides the sheet to the IAM after it has listed the work assignments to be performed – revealed only four occasions from January 1, 2004 through May 11, 2004 when as many as three jobs that required hangar space can be documented, and on only one of those occasions there were four such jobs. (Tr. 429; U Ex. 21)5. On the remaining days during that period for which there are documented work assignment descriptions, there were two or fewer jobs requiring the use of a line maintenance hangar, thus freeing up multiple bays for S Checks in Charlotte. Id. The Company admitted that
at the base maintenance hangar in Charlotte, it could “nose in†two aircraft for line
maintenance or even a four-shift “C11" check, though it only depicted one aircraft
positioned in that manner in its diagram purporting to demonstrate hangar usage (Co. Ex. 10; Tr. 371-373, 376).
The Company’s Maintenance Hangars and Facilities USAirways currently has, and in October, 2003 had, two stations where “base maintenanceâ€, including HMV work, is performed: Pittsburgh and Charlotte. (Tr. 90; Co. Ex. 10). In Pittsburgh, the Company has three base maintenance hangars with 7 bays, and two line maintenance hangars with 6 bays. (Tr. 336 Co. Ex. 10) In Charlotte, the
Company has one base maintenance hangar with 3 bays. (Tr. 336 Co. Ex. 10).
In addition, the Company maintains line maintenance hangars in Boston,
Philadelphia, Washington, DC and Los Angeles. (Tr. 77, 367).
Prior to November 30, 2002, the Company had a maintenance hangar in a third
location, Tampa, Florida (Tr. 344-345). Prior to the Company’s emergence from
bankruptcy, it planned to perform its Airbus S-Checks in Tampa. (Tr. 344). Indeed,
according to the Company’s testimony, it planned to perform S-Checks on its Airbus fleet in-house even without retaining the Tampa hangar. (Tr. 347).
When It Claimed to Lack Facilities in 1999
In September, 1999, USAir attempted to gain through negotiations the authority to
outsource the then-pending HMV work – “Q checks†– on its Boeing 737's. (Tr. 113-
115). The Company submitted to the Union a series of proposals on September 20, 1999 asking for the Union’s agreement to outsource the work to reduce the backlog. Id. (U Ex. 11). Significantly, in connection with the second time the Company raised the proposal, USAir CEO Rakesh Gangwal advised the Union’s chief negotiator, Bill Freiberger, that the Company “needed extra hangar bays†to get the work done, and to keep the planes from being grounded and losing revenue (Tr. 119; U Ex. 11). Faced with the IAM’s rejection of that proposal, the Company later that same day modified its proposal to seek the Union’s agreement to outsource 15 of the aircraft, from then until December of 2000 (Tr. 121). Again, the Union rejected the Company’s proposal to outsource HMV work when it was contending with a lack of available facilities. (Tr. 122-123). At the end of the
negotiations, there was no agreement to permit the Company to outsource the HMV work. (Tr. 123). Eventually, the Company reoriented its facilities to enable it to perform the HMV work: it removed Ground equipment (“GSEâ€) maintenance facilities out of what had formerly been used as a hangar in Pittsburgh, re-converted it back to an aircraft maintenance facility, and moved the GSE equipment to be used elsewhere on the property (Tr. 124). Once the Company completed the reconversion, it recalled 200-400 mechanics to erase the backlog of Boeing HMV work (Tr. 125), which took two years to accomplish
"In Charlotte, the line maintenance hangar can accommodate two 737's or Airbus
320F’s, or one 757 or 767, or one Airbus 330, and its base maintenance hangar
accommodates three 757 “C†checks, or two 757 “C†checks and one A330 check, and in addition, can accommodate an A319/320/321 “C11" check, which is the most intensive in the “C†check series, calling for work over four employee shifts. Id. (Tr. 375). The same base maintenance hangar can accommodate a total of five aircraft, three undergoing base maintenance checks, and two “nosed in†to perform line maintenance. (Tr. 372-373).
Though USAirways submitted its conclusion that it lacks sufficient existing line
maintenance hangar space to perform S checks because all such hangar space is devoted to nightly line maintenance, the Company offered no evidence detailing how often line maintenance it performs is required to be done in a hangar (Tr. 337)4. In reality, there is little occasion for the Company to reserve the six line maintenance bays in Pittsburgh or even the three larger line maintenance bays it reserves in Charlotte exclusively for line maintenance, and no essential line maintenance that must fill all line maintenance bays so as to thwart the Company’s ability to perform HMV work.
A review of the nightly work records in Charlotte made available to the IAM for
purposes of overtime calls -- the documents that lead mechanics use to assign
maintenance work, and thus reveal the precise work tasks performed on a given night where Company management provides the sheet to the IAM after it has listed the work assignments to be performed – revealed only four occasions from January 1, 2004 through May 11, 2004 when as many as three jobs that required hangar space can be documented, and on only one of those occasions there were four such jobs. (Tr. 429; U Ex. 21)5. On the remaining days during that period for which there are documented work assignment descriptions, there were two or fewer jobs requiring the use of a line maintenance hangar, thus freeing up multiple bays for S Checks in Charlotte. Id. The Company admitted that
at the base maintenance hangar in Charlotte, it could “nose in†two aircraft for line
maintenance or even a four-shift “C11" check, though it only depicted one aircraft
positioned in that manner in its diagram purporting to demonstrate hangar usage (Co. Ex. 10; Tr. 371-373, 376).
The Company’s Maintenance Hangars and Facilities USAirways currently has, and in October, 2003 had, two stations where “base maintenanceâ€, including HMV work, is performed: Pittsburgh and Charlotte. (Tr. 90; Co. Ex. 10). In Pittsburgh, the Company has three base maintenance hangars with 7 bays, and two line maintenance hangars with 6 bays. (Tr. 336 Co. Ex. 10) In Charlotte, the
Company has one base maintenance hangar with 3 bays. (Tr. 336 Co. Ex. 10).
In addition, the Company maintains line maintenance hangars in Boston,
Philadelphia, Washington, DC and Los Angeles. (Tr. 77, 367).
Prior to November 30, 2002, the Company had a maintenance hangar in a third
location, Tampa, Florida (Tr. 344-345). Prior to the Company’s emergence from
bankruptcy, it planned to perform its Airbus S-Checks in Tampa. (Tr. 344). Indeed,
according to the Company’s testimony, it planned to perform S-Checks on its Airbus fleet in-house even without retaining the Tampa hangar. (Tr. 347).
When It Claimed to Lack Facilities in 1999
In September, 1999, USAir attempted to gain through negotiations the authority to
outsource the then-pending HMV work – “Q checks†– on its Boeing 737's. (Tr. 113-
115). The Company submitted to the Union a series of proposals on September 20, 1999 asking for the Union’s agreement to outsource the work to reduce the backlog. Id. (U Ex. 11). Significantly, in connection with the second time the Company raised the proposal, USAir CEO Rakesh Gangwal advised the Union’s chief negotiator, Bill Freiberger, that the Company “needed extra hangar bays†to get the work done, and to keep the planes from being grounded and losing revenue (Tr. 119; U Ex. 11). Faced with the IAM’s rejection of that proposal, the Company later that same day modified its proposal to seek the Union’s agreement to outsource 15 of the aircraft, from then until December of 2000 (Tr. 121). Again, the Union rejected the Company’s proposal to outsource HMV work when it was contending with a lack of available facilities. (Tr. 122-123). At the end of the
negotiations, there was no agreement to permit the Company to outsource the HMV work. (Tr. 123). Eventually, the Company reoriented its facilities to enable it to perform the HMV work: it removed Ground equipment (“GSEâ€) maintenance facilities out of what had formerly been used as a hangar in Pittsburgh, re-converted it back to an aircraft maintenance facility, and moved the GSE equipment to be used elsewhere on the property (Tr. 124). Once the Company completed the reconversion, it recalled 200-400 mechanics to erase the backlog of Boeing HMV work (Tr. 125), which took two years to accomplish
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Alaska Airlines F/A's vote in favor of a new contract- Latest: Jalsporteam