Arbitration Request For Airbus S-check Work.

[to much time to quit]

It seems that high level management employees in maintenance stated Friday that the company has requested arbitration with the IAM over the airbus work being done in house. Anyone have any information whether this is true or false?? No information posted on the IAM 141M website but we're hearing the IAM said forget about it. Its our work and there is nothing to arbitrate. h34r:

 

[airknocker]

Dave visited the PIT hangars on Fri., when pressed for info on the Airbus checks he said that it would be decided in the courts, interpret as you wish. As for the future for PIT, Dave said it was still up to the politicians make the next move. Finally, no plans to return maint. to TPA, a $31 million investment U won't make.

 

[repeet]

PineyBob,

The contract for that work already exists. The group who has that contract has decades of experience on all types of commerical aircraft. They have also reduced their cost to the company twice in the last twelve months, exactly where the company asked them to, in order to stay competitive.

Now they want maintenance to go the way of computers, TV's, steel, sneekers, clothing, and about any other consumer item you can think of. They want it done for the least possible amount that they can snooker the desperate into doing it for. So that they can give themselves more bonus' and widen the gap between the managers and the working poor.

The answer is NO. That contract already exits and the workers are already involved in the project. If the courts take away that work, then it will be society making the decision, and society will have to live with it. Not the overly rich trying to become even so much richer![

 

[High Iron]

This is an honest question! It is not to bait or inflame any group.

What is wrong with the following scenario.

!. US Airways solicits 2 to 3 bids from outside service companies. Bid specs state that US will supply all parts required. Significant penalties if S-checks are not completed on time. Bids are to be based on manufacturers recommended times to perform said work. That eliminates low-balling.

2. IAM is allowed to bid as if it were a 3rd party.

3. IAM in order to win bid must be within plus or minus 10% of the average bid price.

IF IAM is successful bidder then a side letter ammending the existing contract is ratified and work stays in house.

There is precedence in the UF&CW & UAW, so the practice is not unheard of. this path would do a few things. One it would preserve the Airbus work for IAM even if it is at a reduced rate. Two it would force the IAM and US to look for ways to drive the structural costs out of the process in order to save the 10% premium. Three it should help maintain the safety record US has and the added benefit of forcing US & IAM to work more closely toward the mutually beneficial goal of a profitable growing airline.

Please don't paste copies of the scope clauses and all of that doo doo. If it's going to arbitration then all of that really doesn't matter. Tell me what you think of the idea.

I'm sure it's an honest question, but the scenario is flawed on the basis that rigid cost/time goals alone are too abstract a yardstick when applied against the actual nature of the work ie: How long and costly depends on the condition of the A/C...which varies greatly from plane to plane, all else being equal. In this manner, the party that cares more about the aircraft than the schedule has a sort of built-in disadvantage.

I don't want to know what company XYZ will do to make sure makes it accross the tracks on time.

The thread of about 2-3 days ago on 'Airbus checks- who's lying?' brought good issues to light but unfortunately, the most salient points in posts on the last 3rd of the thread didn't survive the move to the new BB...although the administrators say they'll re-import them as time allows: In any case, like a correction to a news article 3 days after the fact, the momentum is lost.

 

[cat 111]

Dave visited the PIT hangars on Fri., when pressed for info on the Airbus checks he said that it would be decided in the courts, interpret as you wish. As for the future for PIT, Dave said it was still up to the politicians make the next move. Finally, no plans to return maint. to TPA, a $31 million investment U won't make.

I believe Dave screwed up and he knows it. He saw what United did in bankrupcy by contracting out all of their heavy maintenance. Too bad Dave your not in bankruptcy court anymore !!! It seems as though the pilots and f/a's are not the only ones having contract issues with this company. Labor Friendly my A## DAVE.

 

[to much time to quit]

This is an honest question! It is not to bait or inflame any group.

What is wrong with the following scenario.

!. US Airways solicits 2 to 3 bids from outside service companies. Bid specs state that US will supply all parts required. Significant penalties if S-checks are not completed on time. Bids are to be based on manufacturers recommended times to perform said work. That eliminates low-balling.

2. IAM is allowed to bid as if it were a 3rd party.

3. IAM in order to win bid must be within plus or minus 10% of the average bid price.

IF IAM is successful bidder then a side letter ammending the existing contract is ratified and work stays in house.

There is precedence in the UF&CW & UAW, so the practice is not unheard of. this path would do a few things. One it would preserve the Airbus work for IAM even if it is at a reduced rate. Two it would force the IAM and US to look for ways to drive the structural costs out of the process in order to save the 10% premium. Three it should help maintain the safety record US has and the added benefit of forcing US & IAM to work more closely toward the mutually beneficial goal of a profitable growing airline.

Please don't paste copies of the scope clauses and all of that doo doo. If it's going to arbitration then all of that really doesn't matter. Tell me what you think of the idea.

Piney, thats got to be the most idiotic reply I ever read on this board. Your IDEA does not have a hint of intelligence in it. Usairways is going to try do whatever it wants to further demoralize and alienate their employees. There will be no bids by the unions or workers to do our job which is in our contract. Our employee group has already saved enough money for the company and will being paying a hefty price for the rest of our working careers at US. When the airbus work begins it would result in many of our coworkers who have been sent out the door with over 14 years seniority a chance to regain their jobs. This is not a bidding game for work that is OURS!! period!! The employees under the IAM contracts of the maintenance and related are not the reason this company can't be profitable and its not our job to keep negotiating to drive our costs down further. Is that how you would like to do things in your profession. If a certain report or presentation needed to be done let everyone in the office bid for that report and the lowest bidder get it. GET REAL. You may stick your nose all over this board commenting on every subject available, but you are way of of touch with REALITY when it comes to this. Get a life and get outa the house, take a walk and get some exercize and shut the computer down for a while until you can get in TOUCH. :censored: :rant: :censored: :angry: :down: :censored: :censored: :rant: :rant: :censored: :

 

[High Iron]

--"1. In aircraft repair is there a "flat rate book" like in car repair? If so that negates the time and condition of A/C comment somewhat."

I'd say it's the other way around. There really isn't a "flat-rate" book per se' ( I'm familiar with the flat-rate in the automotive world ) for specific tasks. There's some estimated in-house times for planning purposes but they're really pretty arbitrary- It's done when it's done; To put it bluntly. Obviously over the years you can get an idea for an aggregate time for tasks, but one cannot get too bent out of shape if an unforseen problem/difficulty occurs and must be addressed. As old lead I had put it ( when asked how long to perform a specific task ) "It depends if the airplane is smiling or frowning".

I won't really comment on the rest of your 2nd post, but I'll be short and sweet and say I agree.

 

[LavMan]

Dave was told there is nothing to arbitrate, the contract language is quite clear, it is IAM covered work. It does not take a harvard MBA to figure out that our scope language has not changed.

 

[to much time to quit]

Dave was told there is nothing to arbitrate, the contract language is quite clear, it is IAM covered work. It does not take a harvard MBA to figure out that our scope language has not changed.

So our you saying the IAM was asked by the company to go to arbitration for our work?? How do you know this as a fact and the rest of the dues paying members are still in the dark. If this is true will it be shared with us? :unsure: :unsure:

 

[LavMan]

Because this past Thursday, our AGC in CLT, Tony G, told the membership in attendence at the business meeting about the company's proffer of arbitration, and the IAM told the company there is nothing to arbitrate.

Remember one thing, if they farm out the airbus, what is to stop them from doing the boeings? This is the time when the mechanic and related need to solidify and not fight each other, but the common enemy of DAVE!

 

[N628AU]

Lav,

To save you from habing to reply to my post in the other thread, I will ask it here. As to your posting of "Our scope has not changed", are you referring to the same scope that allowed the company to farm out GE engine work, landing gears on the B757/767 and Airbus fleets, and numerous other rotable work?

 

[Baret4]

Because this past Thursday, our AGC in CLT, Tony G, told the membership in attendence at the business meeting about the company's proffer of arbitration, and the IAM told the company there is nothing to arbitrate.

Remember one thing, if they farm out the airbus, what is to stop them from doing the boeings? This is the time when the mechanic and related need to solidify and not fight each other, but the common enemy of DAVE!

I agree and well said.

 

[Baret4]

Well unlike you I have no illusions regarding breaking of contracts and US and their legal team to be successful in that endeavor.

I did some homework on this and I found the both the UAW and the United Food & Commercial Workers both on multiple occassions presented options that allowed them to secure work that was in jeopardy. In fact UF&CW actually went so far as to take over unprofitable A&P stores in the Philadelphia market, several of which are still open and owned by their employees.

So my suggestion was not only supported by prior documented successes, but a genuine attempt to offer a possible middle ground. While it apears that IAM is on solid legal footing, you have to ask yourself if you want to risk it all in court. Any decent lawyer will tell you that open court is somewhat of a crap shoot.

You might also note that I am not a huge fan of outsourcing when there are legitimate safety and compliance concerns that doing the s-checks entail.

Additionally I stated that I didn't know all of the ins and outs of this issue and that is why I posed the questions I did. For the record I do have a life, and a great deal of it is spent on your employers aircraft. So PARDON ME MR. HAPPY, I'll post what I want where I want. Airline safety effects me directly as it is my assets in the seat and I would PREFER that the folks who fix them now, fix them tomorrow. CLEAR ENOUGH BOY GENUIS?

LOL!!! Bob, of course its your business to respond!!! Paying customers paying my paycheck should always have a voice in these matters.

 

[PITbull]

Bob,
Arbitration may be a "crap shoot". But taking it to federal court is not. This is not BK with a BK judge. And there are appeals to exercise in this country.

The language is black and white. USAirways is buying time and taking it to Arbitration. They are good with that manuever so they can steal more cost savings out of the conracts than what was ratified.

AFA will use the court systems as well when the time comes.

 

[Smartest Loser]

It boils down to this company will do ANYTHING to save a dollar...!! Period.

I am so tired of all the double talk coming out of CCY. Dave says 'Thanks for all the hard work of our employees"..." Our employee's hard work did this."..!!

You are a liability NOT an asset. So, I'm gonna sit back on my assets and watch the fight of my life unfold between Dave and the IAM strike chicken.

:angry: