Did Lombardo ok this?

[Realityck]

Ok so we got nothing for that concession. So you are saying that a senior man should not be allowed to go where ever his seniority takes him in a RIF situation. OK that says a lot about your ideas as far as Seniority rights. (By the way thats the company's BS argument. Fits right in there with all the reasons why there should be no minimum wage etc etc). The number one purpose of seniority is job protection. 
 
"Subsequent displacements" serve to discourage layoffs in the first place. It makes it more costly for the company.  The old AA may have been less trigger happy but as we saw with yesterdays headcount changes the new boys in town have no issue with displacing people just to see if it works out. 

 
 
 
Don’t try to put words in my mouth Bob, if the members support it that’s what needs to be done.  Save your Motherhood, Apple Pie and American Flag speech for your next campaign.
 
I do agree however that the “new” management team will be testing the water in a lot of ways. Those that welcomed the new management group may have a lot of time to regret it. 

 

[Bob Owens]

 
 
 
Don’t try to put words in my mouth Bob, if the members support it that’s what needs to be done.  Save your Motherhood, Apple Pie and American Flag speech for your next campaign.
 
I do agree however that the “new” management team will be testing the water in a lot of ways. Those that welcomed the new management group may have a lot of time to regret it. 

Ok so do you agree with the Juniority system or not? A yes or no would do. 
I agree that management will be testing the waters but I think most who welcomed them here have already cashed out and gone. 

 

[Realityck]

Ok so do you agree with the Juniority system or not? A yes or no would do. 
I agree that management will be testing the waters but I think most who welcomed them here have already cashed out and gone. 

 
 
 
Just so you’re not confused I’ll say it again. I don't have a problem with the juniority system and if the members support it, that’s what needs to be done. 

 

[swamt]

Back on topic and story, here's an article on the AIR21 case @ SWA:
 
US Airline Industry and safety: Airline mechanic punished for reporting cracked fuselage

 

[Overspeed]

Based on Sehams own summary we still don't know if the issue of writing up items that are not part of the bill of work is okay?

"Whether or not the report of the crack in the fuselage was ever addressed is not known, as that was not what the court case was about."

 

[TWU informer]

Based on Sehams own summary we still don't know if the issue of writing up items that are not part of the bill of work is okay?

"Whether or not the report of the crack in the fuselage was ever addressed is not known, as that was not what the court case was about."

 
Are you seriously so consumed with negativity that you have to dig some  BS opinion out of a clear legal victory?

 

[Overspeed]

Goey,
Calm down. I didn't post the article to read. The "BS legal opinion" was posted by swamt who is an avid AMFA supporter like you. And it is written by Mr Seham himself.

 

[FWAAA]

Goey,
Calm down. I didn't post the article to read. The "BS legal opinion" was posted by swamt who is an avid AMFA supporter like you. And it is written by Mr Seham himself.

Do you have any evidence that the article was written by Lee Seham?   As far as I know, eturbonews is not a publication of the Seham law firm.  

 

[eolesen]

Do you have any evidence that the article was written by Lee Seham?   As far as I know, eturbonews is not a publication of the Seham law firm.

The cite at the bottom of the post says "Source: Lee Seham, Esq., New York: www.ssmplaw.com"

 

[Goey]

Goey,
Calm down. I didn't post the article to read. The "BS legal opinion" was posted by swamt who is an avid AMFA supporter like you. And it is written by Mr Seham himself.

OS
Is there someone else nicknamed Goey? Well I thought I was the only one.
Steve Goeyvaerts (Goey)
SFO Aircraft Maint

 

[JABORD]

Based on Sehams own summary we still don't know if the issue of writing up items that are not part of the bill of work is okay?

"Whether or not the report of the crack in the fuselage was ever addressed is not known, as that was not what the court case was about."

Wow, this one is where I believe many readers will say "WTF, did he really say that!" O/S, every man must know his limits, even 'stone chuckers' such as yourself. This is an example of crossing the line and any credibility goes out the window.
IF, you claim to have an A&P License you've obviously lost your way. As stated by Bob many times, our skills are a commodity we bring and are compensated for due to the company's needs. Ultimately, we are accountable for our actions, or inactions, such as doing an inspection with one eye covered due to managemnt pressure, TO THE FAA. Jobs will come and go but our Certificate is the golden ticket to what should be a proud profession. "writing up items.......is okay?" It isn't a choice, it's our duty, one that myself and many of my mechanic brethren would and are fighting to get recognized.

 

[FWAAA]

The cite at the bottom of the post says "Source: Lee Seham, Esq., New York: www.ssmplaw.com"

That's evidence that the journalist who wrote the piece for the eTurbonews travel blog, Juergen Steinmetz, ETN HONOLULU, HAWAII, might have consulted with Seham, but it's not evidence that Seham wrote the quote posted by Overspeed, "Whether or not the report of the crack in the fuselage was ever addressed is not known, as that was not what the court case was about." That's not Seham's words; those are the words of a travel blogger who didn't read the summary decision very closely.

I'm certain that Seham did not write that sentence, which Overspeed attributed to Seham. In fact, I would bet my house that Seham did not write that or any other piece of the travel blogger's story linked by swamt. The journalist quoted Seham in the fourth paragraph of the story. The summary decision of the administrative law judge makes clear that the aircraft was taken out of service and repaired as a result of the report of the crack in the fuselage. The journalist in this case, Juergen Steinmetz, wrote the quote. And obviously, the journalist didn't read the decision of the ALJ, because it makes clear that the aircraft was repaired.

I have no idea why swamt felt the need to post a link to a questionable travel blog like eTurbonews, especially when he already posted links to the AMFA explanation (which probably was written by Seham) and the decision of the ALJ.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Excellent observation FWAAA.

I am also puzzled by the post and link.

 

[WNMECH]

Excellent observation FWAAA.

I am also puzzled by the post and link.

As am I.
The story is full of unrelated incidents with no explanation of them. They just hang out there, ripe for speculation.

Correction: The unrelated items are highlighted hyper links to other stories.
But they don't tell the complete stories and two of the links, about two different incidents, send you to the same bogus headline "Southwest Airlines tries to ensure safety after near crash in Arizona".
A depressurization event is not "a near crash".

I wouldn't go to that site for accurate news.

 

[Overspeed]

Nope haven't lost my way. I know full well if I see something wrong I write it up. The similarities I see with both issues is not whether or not the mechanics found something is not where the disagreement lies. It is whether or not deviating from the established check procedures and looking at other things not specifically called out in the procedures rises to the level that the mechanics should have been disciplined. The mechanics in both circumstances have found items that required maintenance action but in management's opinion were not required to be inspected at that time.
 
The AIR21 process will play out at AA like it did at SW. I'll be waiting like all of you to see what happens.