Aircraft maint issues

[Tom Talbert 1888]

Filed a grievance on something that hasn’t occurred yet.

So where is the violation of your contract?

So no lawsuit?

http://www.amfanational.org/index.c...le.cfm&HomeID=676467&page=Southwest20Airlines

Not really evidence, just AMFA’s opinion.

 

[WeAAsles]

Filed a grievance on something that hasn’t occurred yet.

So where is the violation of your contract?

So no lawsuit?

http://www.amfanational.org/index.c...le.cfm&HomeID=676467&page=Southwest20Airlines

“The Company asked for this exact relief during the current prolonged Section 6 negotiations. In fact, in its June 2017 comprehensive proposal, the Company proposed the following language to be included within Article 8:

At ETOPS launch stations within the contiguous 48 states, the Company will use Southwest Technicians to perform ETOPS pre-departure checks. At ETOPS launch stations outside the contiguous 48 states, the Company may utilize on-call providers to perform ETOPS pre-departure checks.”


Now just because the Company wants to add language to avoid any ambiguity when it comes to current or future interpretation doesn’t necessarily imply that if they do engage in a particular activity that a current contractual violation has ensued or even if taken to Arbitration (No BS Lawsuits) the case that a violation has occurred could be met.

I want to take a little more time to read that update but I’m not seeing offhand the arguments for any violation myself driver?

Of course if you’ve been convinced there would be one I most certainly hope you’re right.

 

[B737 driver]

“The Company asked for this exact relief during the current prolonged Section 6 negotiations. In fact, in its June 2017 comprehensive proposal, the Company proposed the following language to be included within Article 8:

At ETOPS launch stations within the contiguous 48 states, the Company will use Southwest Technicians to perform ETOPS pre-departure checks. At ETOPS launch stations outside the contiguous 48 states, the Company may utilize on-call providers to perform ETOPS pre-departure checks.”


Now just because the Company wants to add language to avoid any ambiguity when it comes to current or future interpretation doesn’t necessarily imply that if they do engage in a particular activity that a current contractual violation has ensued or even if taken to Arbitration (No BS Lawsuits) the case that a violation has occurred could be met.

I want to take a little more time to read that update but I’m not seeing offhand the arguments for any violation myself driver?

Of course if you’ve been convinced there would be one I most certainly hope you’re right.

I hope they are correct too, they obviously think they are on to something. So we will see.

 

[Tom Talbert 1888]

I believe AMFA is blowing smoke up where the sun doesnt shine.

First of all what violation of your CBA has occurred to file a grievance?

Second where is the lawsuit AMFA said they were filing?

 

[B737 driver]

I believe AMFA is blowing smoke up where the sun doesnt shine.

First of all what violation of your CBA has occurred to file a grievance?

Second where is the lawsuit AMFA said they were filing?

If the company doesn't answer the grievance, and violates the contract, then they will file a cease and desist order to block the ETOPS flights from what we were told. But gauging how long it takes to get ETOPS, the contract will be settled by then.

 

[Tom Talbert 1888]

If the company doesn't answer the grievance, and violates the contract, then they will file a cease and desist order to block the ETOPS flights from what we were told. But gauging how long it takes to get ETOPS, the contract will be settled by then.

You are going down a bad path and believing what you are being sold.

Here’s your answer. “No violation”.

 

[737823]

You are going down a bad path and believing what you are being sold.

Here’s your answer. “No violation”.

So you’re an expert on WN AMFA CBA too? Did the USAIR NC study it? Do classes at W3 use it as an example of a superior CBA?

Josh

 

[WeAAsles]

Red Herring.

“The origin of the expression is unknown. Conventional wisdom has long supposed it to be the use of a kipper (a strong-smelling smoked fish) to train hounds to follow a scent, or to divert them from the correct route when hunting; however, modern linguistic research suggests that the term was probably invented in 1807 by English polemicist William Cobbett, referring to one occasion on which he had supposedly used a kipper to divert hounds from chasing a hare, and was never an actual practice of hunters. The phrase was later borrowed to provide a formal name for the logical fallacy and literary device”

 

[Tom Talbert 1888]

So you’re an expert on WN AMFA CBA too? Did the USAIR NC study it? Do classes at W3 use it as an example of a superior CBA?

Josh

Why don’t you come clean and stop”pretending” you are a banker.

Till then I suggest you don’t post towards me as I won’t respond, you are irrelevant and easily refutable.

 

[WeAAsles]

I hope they are correct too, they obviously think they are on to something. So we will see.

Or are they going with something told to them again by SSM&P? That would be my suspicion quite honestly.

 

[B737 driver]

Or are they going with something told to them again by SSM&P? That would be my suspicion quite honestly.

All I know is the company wants the relief language for outside the 48 states, and they do not have it, unless we give it to them. Part of the problem we had with this mediator, is this is her first mediation on her own, and part of that I feel slowed the process down. I think with a seasoned mediator we might have been done already. At least a T/A.

 

[Tom Talbert 1888]

You know?

Were you in the room?

You only know what you’ve been told.

Time to do some critical thinking.

I’ve read your language and showed you what WN will use to defend their actions.

I have a bag of magic beans, want to buy them?

Where’s the lawsuit?

 

[Rogallo]

Here's an idea....

Take your LUV arguments over to the LUV discussions.

Here's a link to help y'all find it.....

http://www.airlineforums.com/forums/southwest-airlines-airtran-airways.35/

 

[WeAAsles]

All I know is the company wants the relief language for outside the 48 states, and they do not have it, unless we give it to them. Part of the problem we had with this mediator, is this is her first mediation on her own, and part of that I feel slowed the process down. I think with a seasoned mediator we might have been done already. At least a T/A.

Any inserted language in regards to this issue is not “relief” language if there is nothing that the Airline needs relief from.

What they want and yes it is insulting while you are being stonewalled by them is clarification of their intent not to staff in house in Hawaii.

But there are no grievances for something that hasn’t occurred yet or for being insulted.

First the Airline has to violate your CBA or the intention of a written Article and then the burden of proof is on you to win the Greivance or Arbitration and then remedy that violation.

 

[Tom Talbert 1888]

Here's an idea....

Take your LUV arguments over to the LUV discussions.

Here's a link to help y'all find it.....

http://www.airlineforums.com/forums/southwest-airlines-airtran-airways.35/

Funny this has been going on for months with swamt, you were silent then.