The Loop Hole

[The End]

And your point is what?

If the scope language does not contain the Airbus S check or the 737 50% clause then what does it say? Read your contract.

If in fact the scope contains no limitations then guess what? They are free to do what they want when they want.

Your scope does contain specifics. This was demanded by the IAM. It will in turn bite them in the butt in the end.

And if you think Hal wants to bring anything in house think again. He has lead the fight at AmericaWest to keep the work out, he has been a big supporter of the work being done in Macon and at TACA..

The same was said to the people in GSO, INT, ROA, UCA, IND, SAN and of course TPA.. All were told the same thing. Oh we want to do this and we want to do that and we will never close you down just keep pumping out the work.. Give me a break.

There is no discussion about bringing back the seat shop. There is nothing in the contract that says they need to discuss it with the union. They can put the seats on the floor and assign anyone they want.. OH, wait a min.. Hmmm.. Arn't they doing that now in hangar 5? Did the company ask the union for permission? I don't think so.

Think again.. The cost in-house vs outsource is close to 20%.. The money people make the decision.. Don't be fooled. If Hal was such a big supporter of bringing all this work in-house then why has he led the fight to keep it out at AmericaWest? Answer that. I bet you can't..

Go ahead and Believe Gary and John in hangar 5. They will tell you whatever you want to hear so you will keep up the good work..

Mech,
I agree with you 100%. I was in INT when the axe fell. The line of cr** from management and the union was the same." If you keep pumping them out they won't close this place". My advice is not to believe anything from management or the unions. If we're lucky we will see a few more years in PIT. Certainly when the contract is up it will close. They will start hiring the scabs in '08 and tell the unions to pound salt. Of coure the iam will lead the charge like they did at nwa. They want the survivors dues. The End

 

[B737 MECHANIC]

Yes, the bridging plan has to be inplace and that will take some time to accomplish. First step is to determine which maintnenance program (East or West) of each fleet type (each fleet type has it's own individual program) that are common between East and West and go with one. Probably makes sense to go with 757 East program since they have many more 757's and bridging will be less of an issue. East's 319/320s are much newer and most probably haven't been thru overhaul heavy check so West's program probably looks more attractive as They may even disect it even futher into specific checks not just fleet type as a whole. No guesses on the 737-300 fleet. 340/170s are no brainers since West doesn't have 340s/170s.

WE were told 319/320 will use AWA program and 737-300 will use U mx program

 

[EricLv2Fish]

WE were told 319/320 will use AWA program and 737-300 will use U mx program

I've heard the same about the 319/320s. 737-300s may have to go thru a cost analysis of some sort is what I've heard. Maybe they are closing their eyes and hoping the 737-300s go away

 

[delldude]

And your point is what?
you don't know your contract
If the scope language does not contain the Airbus S check or the 737 50% clause then what does it say? Read your contract.
previously i asked you to show where this exists in the scope...you haven't

If in fact the scope contains no limitations then guess what? They are free to do what they want when they want.
where were you when U attempted to do what you infer and it was proven wrong against the company in federal court?

Your scope does contain specifics. This was demanded by the IAM. It will in turn bite them in the butt in the end.
you know not what you preach.... you know you are right,it says any and all...



There is no discussion about bringing back the seat shop. There is nothing in the contract that says they need to discuss it with the union. They can put the seats on the floor and assign anyone they want.. OH, wait a min.. Hmmm.. Arn't they doing that now in hangar 5? Did the company ask the union for permission? I don't think so.
they do not have to ...they own the roof dude...
Think again.. The cost in-house vs outsource is close to 20%.. The money people make the decision.. Don't be fooled. If Hal was such a big supporter of bringing all this work in-house then why has he led the fight to keep it out at AmericaWest? Answer that. I bet you can't..
they aren't getting things back in a timely manner from the vendor....duh ...that answer your question...

Go ahead and Believe Gary and John in hangar 5. They will tell you whatever you want to hear so you will keep up the good work.. whatever they tell you,you are still bound by the contract to perform as a professional... :unsure:

 

[700UW]

Dell is correct there are no loop holes and the scope has been tested and the IAM prevailed.

Eric, the US Airbus were recieve starting 1998/9, they are on a 5 1/2 year S-check program. They undergo their annual c1-11 checks then at that the 5 1/2 year mark they get their S-check.

 

[700UW]

Cant take it to the judge, it went to arbitration and it is precedent setting. Company cannot revisit the issue.

The court remanded it to arbitration, the IAM prevailed and the company by law has to adhere to the arbitor's decision or they will be in violation of the RLA.

It is a mute and dead issue and the company knows that, they are having so many problems with the vendors, between cost and not delivering the products on-time, so that is why the 757s and the 50% of the 737s they were able to outsource are all coming back in-house.

And the seats will too, the CLT mechs got an overhaul done 10 days early on a 737 and the plane had to sit for five days because the vendor could not get the seats done.

When the seat shop was in CLT, they was a complete ship set of sets done and ready for each check and they never went out late because of no seats, you will the seats come back in-house too, the ironic thing the seats are now vendored out to a company in Texas which is owned by a close friend of the former SR VP of MTC John Prestifilipo.

 

[delldude]

Last time! New company new judge, who knows????
previous ruling,never go to court...double jeopardy?
Some judges take intent into account, some stick strictly to the letter of the contract.
so you just keep on filing until you get your ruling??NOT

If the ruling is based on Intent IAM wins

If the ruling is on strict interprtation IAM loses.

 

[700UW]

The company cannot take the outsourcing issue to court, you do not understand.

The company filed a grievance against the union, the case went to court, then to arbitration, the IAM won, the issue is done and over, it cannot be revisited. The decision is precedent setting and binding, if the company violates it they will be liable for damages.

The contract has succesorship clauses in it, just because US merged it does not change the scope of the contract.

See if you knew about the RLA, grievance procedure and arbitration you would understand how it works. An arbitor's decision is just like a judge's ruling, the company could have went to court to appeal it, they did not, they accepted the decision and the work was brought in-house. The company in an executive session met with Arbitor Bloch and they accepted the outcome, it is over and done.

 

[700UW]

See you don't care about it yet you profess to think you know.

The arbitor's decision is precedent setting just like a court of law.

I tried to explain to you how it works and what transpired, you once again have no idea of what you talk about.

Have you been to classes on RLA, collective bargaining, grievance procedure and arbitration?

I have, I have been educated on the process and been active, have you?

We are not talking about differant contracts, or section 6 negotiations, trying to deflect the real issue at hand?

The issue is the current scope language and if a loop hole exsits.

Guess you don't like it when you are shown to be wrong.

 

[Paul]

PineyBob you have a PM.

 

[700UW]

Have you been to classes on RLA, collective bargaining, grievance procedure and arbitration? No moe than you've been to classes on how to beat peopel up! Just because you go to class doesn't mean you learn anything. It means you went to classs.

I have, I have been educated on the process and been active, have you?Which process is that? The one where 22 beat up 5 and the IAM says it's self defense? Or did you have something else in mind?

See once again all you are trying to do is smear.

I have never been to a class on how to beat people up, nor did I partake in what happened in PHL.

You have no idea how labor law, the RLA and our CBA plays out.

I have been gracious enough to try to explain it to you and you still don't understand it and how the process works, a CBA and the RLA is not general contracts and torts.

An arbitration decision cannot be overturned, the company has no recourse other then to accept the arbiter's decision, that is how it works under the RLA. No and, if or buts. The issue is dead and the IAM has prevailed and the company is adhering to the Arbiter's Bloch Decision.

A precedent in arbitration cannot be overturned, there is no avenue for it to occur.

I have taken the time to learn and educate everything and anything that I have been taught.

One again the incident in PHL has nothing to do with the topic at hand yet you continue to bring it up when a topic or thread is not going your way to try and deflect and smear, it has no bearing on the issue and this topic. And yet all the facts are not in on what occurred, so take your own advice and wait to see how it plays out. Why do you continue to bring this up when it has no bearing on this topic?

The scope language is what it is, until it modified by agreement between the company and the union, you once again are bringing things into the topic that have no bearing, the issue is the current contract language and if there are any loop holes.

On the surface?

Did you write the language? Did you work under it? Have you applied it?

The language has been tested in federal courts and the arbitration process, the IAM has prevailed plain and simple, the language has been explained numerous times. Until you work under it an understand its application and intent, you once again have no idea of what you talk about.

Like I said it is a mute issue, is been tested and the company is adhering to the Bloch Decision, which by law they have too.

And see all you can do is call the IAM names and try to smear, I finally see you agenda very clearly.

 

[gonzo]

There exists a loop hole in the IAM contract that will allow the combined company to outsource the heavy maintenance on the Airbus and the Boeing fleets.

If the IAM contract survives this is the loop hole the company will exploit.

My contention is that this will be a problem if the IAM becomes the representative of Maintenance and Related.

The present IAM contract for the Maintenance and Related membership has been altered by the company via a BK judge. Anytime a company gets it's hand in a CBA, with no restrictions, then the CBA is "contaminated". If you think that the company attorneys changed things arbitrarily, then you are sadly mistaken. The "loop" holes will become more apparent as the CBA goes to grievances and arbitration. Only time will tell.

 

[700UW]

Once again another poster who posts without knowledge.

There are plenty of restriction on the company, we do heavy mtc on the east side, you don't on the west.

There are no loop holes and it has been tested, amazing how you poster keep posting misinformation.

Keep trying to distort the facts.

 

[gonzo]

The IAM CBA has not been tested to it's fullest yet. The company is waiting until the representation dispute is completed. If they start to challenge the IAM CBA now, then support for the IBT will increase even more.

Challenging the IAM CBA will only show how weak the IAM is as well as their CBA. The company wants IAM (as stated by DP) to represent the Mechanic and Related. The company wants to take advantage of the changes they have made to the IAM CBA. Hmmm.....the company wants the IAM to survive as the representatives of the Mechanic and Related? Does that seem right to you?

Something to consider next time you think about what the IAM has done for you.

Think about the future.

 

[AIRWOMAN]

There is always a loop hole no matter how you interpret something. Someone always has or can have, a different interpretation of what is written. Look at our legal system.......one judge makes a ruling, an appeal is made, another judge gets the case, this judge rules differently......all the different levels of courts and judges. It's all about who has the power.