I heard that he said that she said that he said. Hearsay. If we stick to facts we all are better off and have less stress to deal with. This board deals more with hearsay than facts and everyone lets it just fester and cause more stress. Stick with the topics and deal with the facts please!
Iam Going Back To Court
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
there is more factual here if you take time to seek it.Facts? said:
many strive to provide facts and as you say there is also alot of speculation...but many provide facts here and it is one of the rules of forum etiquette.
welccme to the boards"FACTS"...lets hear some from you!
February 27, 2004
IAM Takes US Airways Back to Court
To All IAM District 141-M Members Employed by US Airways:
Dear Sisters and Brothers,
The Machinists Union today filed a motion in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to enforce the Preliminary Injunction that court issued against US Airways on October 21, 2003.
Following the February 3, 2004 mandate by a panel from Third Circuit Court of Appeals to lift the District Court’s injunction preventing US Airways from subcontracting Airbus heavy maintenance, US Airways immediately flew aircraft to a foreign-owned maintenance repair facility in Alabama. Overhaul work on at least one aircraft has already begun.
On February 17, 2004 the IAM filed a timely petition for a review of the three-member Appeals Court panel’s decision by the full thirteen-member Court of Appeals. Under rule 41(d) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the timely filing of a petition for rehearing en banc stays the mandate until disposition of the petition, unless the court orders otherwise.
Our petition automatically stays the action taken by the three-member Appeals Court panel, keeping the Preliminary Injunction in place. The IAM’s motion seeks enforcement of the Preliminary Injunction.
We will advise you of any developments that result from today’s motion.
Sincerely and fraternally,
Scotty Ford
President
IAM District 141-M
IAM Takes US Airways Back to Court
To All IAM District 141-M Members Employed by US Airways:
Dear Sisters and Brothers,
The Machinists Union today filed a motion in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to enforce the Preliminary Injunction that court issued against US Airways on October 21, 2003.
Following the February 3, 2004 mandate by a panel from Third Circuit Court of Appeals to lift the District Court’s injunction preventing US Airways from subcontracting Airbus heavy maintenance, US Airways immediately flew aircraft to a foreign-owned maintenance repair facility in Alabama. Overhaul work on at least one aircraft has already begun.
On February 17, 2004 the IAM filed a timely petition for a review of the three-member Appeals Court panel’s decision by the full thirteen-member Court of Appeals. Under rule 41(d) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the timely filing of a petition for rehearing en banc stays the mandate until disposition of the petition, unless the court orders otherwise.
Our petition automatically stays the action taken by the three-member Appeals Court panel, keeping the Preliminary Injunction in place. The IAM’s motion seeks enforcement of the Preliminary Injunction.
We will advise you of any developments that result from today’s motion.
Sincerely and fraternally,
Scotty Ford
President
IAM District 141-M
Being a Senator from North Carolina, running for President of the United States on an anti-outsourcing platform, perhaps John Edwards would be interested in USAirways' flying an airplane to a "foreign-owned maintenance repair facility".
Union cancels meeting with US Airways on concessions
By: Karen Ferrick-Roman - Times Staff 02/27/2004
Thursday was when representatives from the mechanics union at US Airways were to hear about the airline's new business plan - and get a clue what concessions the airline might seek.
But Thursday's meeting between the International Association of Machinists and Related Aerospace Workers and US Airways didn't happen.
The union canceled, said David Castelveter, company spokesman.
True, said Bill Freiberger, who handles negotiations as general chairman of the IAM's District 141-M.
And, he said, the union has no plans to meet with the company until the airline is as willing to listen as it is to talk.
Freiberger said that two weeks ago, he passed along cost-saving proposals that could save US Airways $500,000 a year when he met with two airline executives in Philadelphia.
"If the IAM has suggestions on ways to save money and cut costs, we're more than willing to hear them," Castelveter said. "Not only to hear them, to discuss them thoroughly. In addition, we want to provide the IAM's leadership with information about the company's business plan, as we have done with the other unions, with the pilots and the flight attendants, but the IAM refused to attend the meeting."
Freiberger said that he took some of the proposals to the airline last May "and they haven't taken any type of response on it."
He contended the reason is because the proposed savings involve doing Airbus work in-house instead of using outside contractors.
The proposals have nothing to do with another battle over whether in-house mechanics or outside contractors in Mobile, Ala., provide heavy maintenance on the Airbus fleet, Freiberger said. That issue remains alive in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia. The last ruling went the company's way and reduced the dispute to a grievance procedure; the mechanics are petitioning the entire appeals court to decide the case.
Freiberger said the cost-savings proposals instead deal with repairing flight controls, ceiling panels, emergency power supplies and avionics equipment.
Routine Airbus maintenance is done internally, Castelveter said, and outsourced only if a plane needs repairs while at an airport without a US Airways maintenance base.
But the union has a different outlook.
"They're hell-bent on not utilizing existing mechanics, as well as bringing laid-off ones back to work," Freiberger said.
"Until they're willing to meet with us on what we suggested to them, why would we do anything else?"
Meanwhile, a meeting Thursday between the Association of Flight Attendants and David Bronner, chairman of the board for the US Airways Group, was canceled. A spokeswoman from the Retirement Systems of Alabama, which Bronner also chairs, said the meeting had been postponed and no other date set.
Bronner needed to travel through Charlotte, N.C., which had been socked with 10 inches of snow, Castelveter said.
After meeting with Bronner last week, Air Line Pilots Association representatives decided to reopen negotiations with US Airways.
An arbitrator decided Tuesday that six US Airways pilots were improperly laid off.
Individual pilots have not yet been identified, said Jack Stephan, spokesman for US Airways' pilots union.
The pilots were laid off between February and June 2003, according to an update posted on the union Web site.
The union was aware that positions would be eliminated, but Stephan said, "The company was supposed to get to that point through attrition."
The airline will work with the union to decide pay and other terms for the pilots to be recalled, said David Castelveter, US Airways spokesman.
By: Karen Ferrick-Roman - Times Staff 02/27/2004
Thursday was when representatives from the mechanics union at US Airways were to hear about the airline's new business plan - and get a clue what concessions the airline might seek.
But Thursday's meeting between the International Association of Machinists and Related Aerospace Workers and US Airways didn't happen.
The union canceled, said David Castelveter, company spokesman.
True, said Bill Freiberger, who handles negotiations as general chairman of the IAM's District 141-M.
And, he said, the union has no plans to meet with the company until the airline is as willing to listen as it is to talk.
Freiberger said that two weeks ago, he passed along cost-saving proposals that could save US Airways $500,000 a year when he met with two airline executives in Philadelphia.
"If the IAM has suggestions on ways to save money and cut costs, we're more than willing to hear them," Castelveter said. "Not only to hear them, to discuss them thoroughly. In addition, we want to provide the IAM's leadership with information about the company's business plan, as we have done with the other unions, with the pilots and the flight attendants, but the IAM refused to attend the meeting."
Freiberger said that he took some of the proposals to the airline last May "and they haven't taken any type of response on it."
He contended the reason is because the proposed savings involve doing Airbus work in-house instead of using outside contractors.
The proposals have nothing to do with another battle over whether in-house mechanics or outside contractors in Mobile, Ala., provide heavy maintenance on the Airbus fleet, Freiberger said. That issue remains alive in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia. The last ruling went the company's way and reduced the dispute to a grievance procedure; the mechanics are petitioning the entire appeals court to decide the case.
Freiberger said the cost-savings proposals instead deal with repairing flight controls, ceiling panels, emergency power supplies and avionics equipment.
Routine Airbus maintenance is done internally, Castelveter said, and outsourced only if a plane needs repairs while at an airport without a US Airways maintenance base.
But the union has a different outlook.
"They're hell-bent on not utilizing existing mechanics, as well as bringing laid-off ones back to work," Freiberger said.
"Until they're willing to meet with us on what we suggested to them, why would we do anything else?"
Meanwhile, a meeting Thursday between the Association of Flight Attendants and David Bronner, chairman of the board for the US Airways Group, was canceled. A spokeswoman from the Retirement Systems of Alabama, which Bronner also chairs, said the meeting had been postponed and no other date set.
Bronner needed to travel through Charlotte, N.C., which had been socked with 10 inches of snow, Castelveter said.
After meeting with Bronner last week, Air Line Pilots Association representatives decided to reopen negotiations with US Airways.
An arbitrator decided Tuesday that six US Airways pilots were improperly laid off.
Individual pilots have not yet been identified, said Jack Stephan, spokesman for US Airways' pilots union.
The pilots were laid off between February and June 2003, according to an update posted on the union Web site.
The union was aware that positions would be eliminated, but Stephan said, "The company was supposed to get to that point through attrition."
The airline will work with the union to decide pay and other terms for the pilots to be recalled, said David Castelveter, US Airways spokesman.
What Castelveter failed to mention here was this statement: The ONLY reason we will work with the union is because we are FORCED to.700UW said:
That is the crux of the entire problem with this management team we are so unfortunate to have, they act like there are NO unions to deal with, they simply disregard them and only act when forced to. With behavior like this, how can they expect any kind of real cooperation? They are spitting in the wind hoping for the windsock to change direction in their favor. It's my opinion that it's mistake to let this team continue. The unions will not work with them nor should they. All unions except ALPA that is. ALPA, a union in name only.
What are the possibilities that IAM would recommend a strike that would in all liklihood result in chapter 7 for the airline? If they can outsource this work, they can effectively get rid of almost all the mechanics - there is nothing to lose anymore. Better to go down swinging then cowering in the corner.
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
Bob,
Don't start acting dumb now...Bob, you'll be looking pretty damn foolish after all you posted regarding the power of the BOD.
There are no unions that liquidate companies. You just got done saying that when a BOD decides to compensate folks, it a done deal.
If this company liquidates, it will be because they don't have the ingenuity to run an airline. Bronner takes his money off the table and pays ATSB off and that's how it works. No company goes down because labor called a liquidation, my friend. Get real, and stop with focus on labor for every damn thing that comes up that quite doesn't fit your schema.
And let me be more clear from my perch, if this entire enchalada depends on whether we throw our mechanics under the bus by giving up their language... then that's a "negative", my man.
IF BRONNER GIVES THE ULTIMATUM TO LIQUIDATE, I ENDORSE THAT MOVE.
Don't start acting dumb now...Bob, you'll be looking pretty damn foolish after all you posted regarding the power of the BOD.
There are no unions that liquidate companies. You just got done saying that when a BOD decides to compensate folks, it a done deal.
If this company liquidates, it will be because they don't have the ingenuity to run an airline. Bronner takes his money off the table and pays ATSB off and that's how it works. No company goes down because labor called a liquidation, my friend. Get real, and stop with focus on labor for every damn thing that comes up that quite doesn't fit your schema.
And let me be more clear from my perch, if this entire enchalada depends on whether we throw our mechanics under the bus by giving up their language... then that's a "negative", my man.
IF BRONNER GIVES THE ULTIMATUM TO LIQUIDATE, I ENDORSE THAT MOVE.
Ok, I will give it a shot.PineyBob said:
It's like the time you threw a couple co-workers overboard to save your skin.
The mechanics standing together strong and firm just may make a difference
and bring this management to its senses saving our collective skins.
Capisce?
Comprend?
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
So you want those 5,000 to go on strike forcing C7, throwing 23,000 others onto the street? Many of those 23,000 being union brothers?
Bob,
Read your previous post above. Where do you get that IAM is withdrawing its services? Where is the "strike" threat you speak of?
Why do you make this stuff up as you go along??????
Get a grip man. You can keep your FF miles. No one threw those under the bus. Stop your whinning. Geezus.
And Bob, before you post, it is fundamental you learn how to read first.
Bob,
Read your previous post above. Where do you get that IAM is withdrawing its services? Where is the "strike" threat you speak of?
Why do you make this stuff up as you go along??????
Get a grip man. You can keep your FF miles. No one threw those under the bus. Stop your whinning. Geezus.
And Bob, before you post, it is fundamental you learn how to read first.
PITBull,PITbull said:
Trying to get Bob to lay off of subjects that he has no clear grasp of..vested interest in...or tangible involvement with is simply not in the cards.
IMHO , You would stand a better chance of getting a Grizzly Bear to use indoor plumbing.
The man is all over the spectrum...in one post he agree's with the IAM...and in the next one he's telling someone how wrong they are for feeling or reacting as they do.
Frankly , I can live without Piney's support in light of his flip flopping on the subject.
God knows I would not want an alike minded person in combat with me. Having a known enemy to my front....and the Three Stooges mentality providing me support from the rear is not my idea of fun.
The IAM is very clear on their/our direction. The IAM knows with 100% certainty , that they cannot afford to lose , capitulate or even negotiate with these people.
I think we have some folks here whom have NO grasp about what we are dealing with. They operate from a position of fear...and those fears are played for all they are worth. Let's remember what good faith negotiations and concessions have netted us to date. ALPA Pension , Airbus outsourcing and a few other blindsided things come to mind , in a post negotiation with Dave world.
We gave 1.8 Billion to literally buy our jobs...when we should have used that money to buy the company and find a leader whom knows how to lead....instead we supported a regime that has lied about everything at one point or another.
To assume that a legacy carrier like U can be pruned back to HP , B6 or F9 wages is folly. Fleet diversity alone will never allow U to operate as cheaply as WN or any of the others with 1 or even 2 prime Acft fleets. We could outsource , or allow them to pay us nothing....and we will never meet them in a head to head cost structure scenario. Why would an informed employee even begin to assume any differently?
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
Bob,
You know better than that from being on these boards the past few years...
No union can call a strike outside of section 6. There is only 1 instance that they can, and that is if abrogation happens in BK. That means there is no contracts.
So relax. It was a question that was posed.
Any liquidation threat is from BOD and management. Its always their call.
You know better than that from being on these boards the past few years...
No union can call a strike outside of section 6. There is only 1 instance that they can, and that is if abrogation happens in BK. That means there is no contracts.
So relax. It was a question that was posed.
Any liquidation threat is from BOD and management. Its always their call.
Similar threads
