BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #46
I'll admit that I know little about the details of the IAM contract so if anyone can point the contractual basis for my thinking being wrong I'd appreciate it. Now to my thoughts:
Assume for a second that an arbitrator rules against the IAM. To me that means two things...
1) Past practice doesn't matter - all heavy maintenance on new fleet types have been done in house in the past.
2) All that matters is whether the company has the "facilities & equipment" to do the work.
If the above is correct, the PIT maintenance facility can be gone in a year. Any "equipment" necessary to do the Boeing heavy checks can be gone as soon as the company can find a buyer. Would either of these allow the company to outsource Boeing heavy checks (again assuming arbitration goes against the IAM)?
Jim
Assume for a second that an arbitrator rules against the IAM. To me that means two things...
1) Past practice doesn't matter - all heavy maintenance on new fleet types have been done in house in the past.
2) All that matters is whether the company has the "facilities & equipment" to do the work.
If the above is correct, the PIT maintenance facility can be gone in a year. Any "equipment" necessary to do the Boeing heavy checks can be gone as soon as the company can find a buyer. Would either of these allow the company to outsource Boeing heavy checks (again assuming arbitration goes against the IAM)?
Jim