AMFA Organizing Drive to Replace Association
- Thread starter TWU informer
- Start date
- Status
Seems to be. Hopefully we can rid ourselves of the association mess
AA-MRO.COM
Senior
- Mar 12, 2012
- 425
- 472
The stewards are trying to spearhead the AMFA drive with threats of loosing the tow crew...
Losing the tow crew? That's rich, the planes barely make it to the gate on time from the hangar with 7 taxi crews. There is very little chance the FAA would go along with having baggage handlers towing aircraft across 2 active runways at DFW using Goldhofers. Let them try though, it would be entertaining to watch.
AANOTOK
Veteran
- Oct 10, 2009
- 4,627
- 2,242
We could drop off bags on the proper gates and knock out two birds with one “Goldhofers”...
Kev3188
Veteran
Rampers in places like ATL seem to manage crossing the actives...
The real fix would be to remove the asso. and get a C&C union in there.
Duly noted, thx. Just use to him spouting off misinformation on a reg basis, so figured is was still the same stuff.
Informer is 100% correct. Allow me to provide pages 57 and 58 for you. Also note that the reference for our trainers are clearly on there as well as many other airlines trainers. See Southwest Airlines, 39, NMB, 246 (2011) As I have told you before, they ARE ruled by the NMB to be part of the "And Related". Happy reading...
ederal regulations. - 57 - The Board has long found that positions involved in the development and administration of technical publications providing instructions and procedures necessary for implementation of maintenance policy are part of the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. See US Airways, above; Frontier Airlines, 7 NMB 406 (1980); Allegheny Airlines, above. Accordingly, the positions of Technical Document Specialist and Technical Editor are appropriately included in the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. Technical Crew Chiefs/Maintenance Training Specialists At US Airways, the Maintenance Training Specialist position provides maintenance training and instruction to Mechanics and Related Employees involved in the inspection, maintenance, and overhaul of aircraft and components. Maintenance Training Specialists at US Airways are separately represented by the IAM pursuant to a certification issued in NMB Case No. R6677. US Airways, 26 NMB 341 (1999). Following the merger of US Airways and America West, the IAM requested and the Board granted the extension of the IAM’s certification to cover the unrepresented Maintenance Training Specialists at America West. US Airways/America West, 33 NMB 174 (2006). Although the Maintenance Training Specialists have been certified as a separate craft or class at US Airways, the IAM has historically bargained for these employees in conjunction with the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. At American, Technical Crew Chiefs perform the equivalent work as the US Airways Maintenance Training Specialists. The Technical Crew Chiefs at American perform both on-the-job and classroom instruction related to aircrafts systems. The Technical Crew Chiefs are currently represented in the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class at American. In several cases, the Board has certified separate crafts or classes of employees performing maintenance instruction. In the pre- and post-merger US Airways cases mentioned above, and in United Airlines, 26 NMB 169 (1999), the Board did so with no discussion of work-related community of interest or other craft or class issues. It can be inferred that such issues were not raised by the participants. In Eastern Airlines, 5 NMB 94 (1976), the carrier argued that the appropriate craft or class should cover all instructors including ground school as well as maintenance and ramp instructors. In rejecting the carrier’s argument, the Board acknowledged that the collective bargaining process is “hindered rather than aided by the existence of a multitude of bargaining units.” Id. at 102. The Board concluded, however, that separate representation was appropriate given the record evidence that the carrier “had fragmented - 58 - portions of its training program to such an extent that each group is autonomous.” Id. In more recent cases, the Board has found that employees performing maintenance instruction are properly included in the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class because of their direct contact with mechanics and a strong tie to the maintenance function. See Southwest Airlines, 39 NMB 246 (2011); Spirit Airlines, 33 NMB 363 (2006). In the instant case, the Maintenance Training Specialists/Technical Crew Chiefs possess the same basic qualifications and perform the same duties as those in Southwest and Spirit Airlines. They teach courses to Mechanics and Related Employees in the classroom and in the shop. They must possess A&P licenses. In addition, they provide technical assistance and guidance in trouble shooting and repair of the aircraft and components used by Company. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Maintenance Training Specialists and Technical Crew Chiefs share a work related community of interest with and are properly included in the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. Maintenance Control Technicians/Technical Specialist In US Airways, 26 NMB 359 (1999), the Board found that the Maintenance Control Technicians (the position was then titled Maintenance Operations Control Supervisors) primarily performed the duties of coordinating maintenance operations, did not supervise mechanics but only provided technical advice when problems arose, and, therefore, shared a work-related community of interest with the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. In American Airlines/TWA, 29 NMB 400 (2002), the Board found that employees in the Technical Specialist position at American and TWA provided technical advice and direction to Mechanics on aircraft structural, mechanical, electrical, avionics, and power plant systems problems, and that these employees share a work-related community of interest with the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. The evidence submitted to the Board in this case establishes that there has been no significant change to the duties of these positions and that these positions retain their work-related community of interest with the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. Accordingly, the positions of Maintenance Control Technician and Technical Specialist remain in the craft or class of Mechanics and Related Employees.
That was easy...
Scare tactics again?
He can't read because it's against his liberal agenda. Let it go. No matter what you prove he will still deny, argue and push his agenda lies and all. In the meantime cards are being signed.
Phoenix757767
Advanced
- Aug 22, 2019
- 226
- 8
- Banned
- #208
Why hasn’t AMFA National put out a letter of support and why haven’t they endorsed the campaign and why haven’t they sent help?
Kev3188
Veteran
Not every airport is the same. DFW has a little history regarding crossing actives to say the least. Logistically turning over the hangar - terminal moves to ramp would require purchasing at least 10 - 12 Goldhofers. Gotta figure on at least 4 or 5 being out of service daily - which is exacerbated by the fact that AA refuses to maintain the Goldhofers per manufactures requirements, with a dedicated Goldhofer repair crew. There are several times per day, that as many as 7 taxi crews are taxiing aircraft between the hangar and the terminal. The thought of 7 Goldhofer crews made up of rampers moving aircraft at the same time - sounds like a recipe for disaster. The feds like to have some leverage for enforcement, when say there is a runway incursion. Ramper has no license to suspend, and can basically skate with minimal accountability. Not that it couldn't be attempted, is it really worth the risk though?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
