IBT No Show Forum
- Thread starter swamt
- Start date
Fresh off the street and remember they would be cheaper for the company and would be GRATEFUL to be working at swa NOT slapping u guys in the face with insults about paperwork
AvTech04
Senior
You really need to just stop with the sh%t stirring... You're making something out of nothing and trying to piss everyone off. And you're not even a mechanic. Go piss and moan on another thread and leave us the hell alone already!! It was so nice not having this troll on here for so long..
S
Swadl
Guest
Well mine and 4 others NO votes got sent in today!
Tssst test ..name calling lucky I don't have AT thin skin ormy feelings may be hurt
So u can come lambaste me on our fa thread but I can't have a say in the mech thread?? Do I even have to say it,, lol,, i OK I won't
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #98
You guys must all live next door to the post office. Still don't have mine yet, therefore I can't brag about my "NO" vote. At least not yet. Keep up the "NO" vote fellas. Will post my vote ASAP...
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #99
You are absolutely correct sir. Let's say this integration agreement gets voted in or arbitraded in, then we still would have to vote on the transitional agreement. The AT guys cannot become part of our contract until this is done. Therefore, we would remain on seperate contracts until it is voted in as one...
AvTech04
Senior
That is 50% correct, in reference to the current integration agreement, if the current T/A passes, then its all said and done. If the current TA doesn't pass and if the seniority list is arbitrated, so to speak, then we would still have to negotiate a transition agreement for AT mechs to fall directly under the current AMFA contract. But keep in mind, even of they paint all the airplane SWA colors, it doesn't put AT mechs out of a job nor does it stop is from working on SWA airplanes. So, this integration could go on for years and SWA could have 2 mechanic groups... I know you're going to call me a liar and ask me to prove it but I can't because I can't give away the smoking gun just like I wouldn't expect AMFA to give away theirs..
Truth is, M&M's scenario is the most probable of them all of this gets voted down. And that would be a win-win for the AT guys, so to speak.
Of we go back to the table, the fairest thing I think we could offer is DOH with a staple clause. AT merges in DOH, but is stapled to the bottom for a period of 3 years for the purpose of station slot bidding, OT and vacation only. After 3 years, all previous accrued time plus the 3 year accrual gets tallied up and that's where AT would fall on the seniority list. This gives the higher senior AT guys a little more time to retire, the junior SWA guys an opportunity to accrue seniority and no SWA mechanic is immediately effected. The 3 year expiration will gaurantee a single workforce. That's my best idea. It's almost like a 3 year probation for AT. We could negotiate the length some I suppose... What do you guys think??
S
Swadl
Guest
AVTECH04- you might want to re read article 2 of our contract again. SWA may give you SWA planes to work but that is in violation of our contract. It will be up to us (AMFA) to greave it. Your smoking gun theory doesnt mean sh$&. Our contract is ours/company guidelines regarding MX work performed. Like iv stated in the past that I have more to gain from a 3rd party ruling than this TA offer. Why would I vote this TA in knowing that a Senior mechanic could get loose his job before a junior mechanic in a worse case senerio??
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #103
That is 50% correct, in reference to the current integration agreement, if the current T/A passes, then its all said and done. If the current TA doesn't pass and if the seniority list is arbitrated, so to speak, then we would still have to negotiate a transition agreement for AT mechs to fall directly under the current AMFA contract. But keep in mind, even of they paint all the airplane SWA colors, it doesn't put AT mechs out of a job nor does it stop is from working on SWA airplanes. So, this integration could go on for years and SWA could have 2 mechanic groups... I know you're going to call me a liar and ask me to prove it but I can't because I can't give away the smoking gun just like I wouldn't expect AMFA to give away theirs..
AvTech, sorry bout that. Your right, if it passes, then both the integration amd the transitional agreements are in. If an arbitrator gives an integration agreement then yes we would all have to agree to the transitional agreement seperately. Good eye-ball, I missed that even when I re-read it. my original post made it sound as if we were still voting on the trans. even if this was passed with current vote.
I like how you are still throwing some ideas around. I like seeing your willingness to continue on. Speaks volumes at a time, that in my opinion, alot of the AT guys are pissed-off that we might be voting this down. As long as the IBT is willing to do something at the table as well, I really do thing we will get something done outside of arbitration, but, it will take give and take from all sides, this includes the company as well.
AvTech, sorry bout that. Your right, if it passes, then both the integration amd the transitional agreements are in. If an arbitrator gives an integration agreement then yes we would all have to agree to the transitional agreement seperately. Good eye-ball, I missed that even when I re-read it. my original post made it sound as if we were still voting on the trans. even if this was passed with current vote.
I like how you are still throwing some ideas around. I like seeing your willingness to continue on. Speaks volumes at a time, that in my opinion, alot of the AT guys are pissed-off that we might be voting this down. As long as the IBT is willing to do something at the table as well, I really do thing we will get something done outside of arbitration, but, it will take give and take from all sides, this includes the company as well.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #104
I stand corrected. The wifey just brought me the mail from Saturday. Appearently mail ran later than usual. Looks like I have the ballot. Before I state how I will vote, I must read full context then I will vote.... To be continued later... You all do know if it all reads the same as we were told it's a "NO" for me as well, right??
AvTech04
Senior
I hope you're correct. I'm not sure what the IBT's ultimate intentions are but they seem pretty ambitious about taking this to arbitration. They have a, "fine we'll play this game" kind of attitude towards AMFA it seems like. And you're right, everyone seems to be pissed off at everyone right about now, but this isn't the time for a pride match!! I know SWA mechanics are confident in their company but when push comes to shove, I guarantee SWA will be the ultimate winners. My fear is that we, the MX group as a whole, will push them to point that they won't give an inch unless you do as they say, at which point AMFA has the history of organizing because they have the same attitude and SWA has an opportunity of scab some mechs in. Especially now that there are so many mechs out on the market looking for another job in Texas! AA has already started to move their 777 and 767 HMV to Singapore, 3,186 A&P's , most of which are in Texas, have suddenly become available right in the middle of our integration and right before the your CBA negotiations. I don't like to play devils advocate but all of our futures look pretty grim, deepening on the next IBT move. I almost hope that scenario that madman337 put out is what happens. But the odds of any of this happening are slime, I just like to look at all the angles.
Swadl, I've read through your entire contract and specifically your scope of agreement, multiple times, and I as simple mechanic have found flaws in the verbiage that are, well, inconsistent with its intent. But like every document and action taken or written, there's always going to be an error or 2, and if I can find it, I assure you a more educated individual, such as an attorney, can find it as well. Don't get me wrong, your scope is pretty well written, but it's not perfect.
Similar threads
