Third Circuit Ruling
- Thread starter BoeingBoy
- Start date
repeet
Veteran
Since this work is "unscheduled", who the company uses to make these repairs will telegraph their intent on future maintenance.
Dont call me Shirley
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,270
- Reaction score
- 306
Please explain to me why WN has a near flawless safety record then. [/QUOTE]High Iron said:
So, planes just have to NOT auger in to prove your point?
Then again, maybe they choose their contractors more wisely?
Then again, what ABOUT 700? [/QUOTE]
I guess it all comes down to the choice of the vendor and the oversight. A while ago someone mentioned that WN imposes "draconian" supervioson of their MTC vendors. Does anyone know if US had someone stationed in Alabama to oversee/inspect the work on A/C 700?
Also, does anyone know how much experience the Alabama folks had on Airbii before turning wrenches on A/C 700. I'd venture to to say that WN's vendors have more experience which might very well lead to higher quality work?
:unsure:
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 37
Or the arbitrator to rule in the IAM's favor.MarkMyWords said:
So, planes just have to NOT auger in to prove your point?Dont call me Shirley said:
Then again, maybe they choose their contractors more wisely?
Then again, what ABOUT 700? [/QUOTE]
I guess it all comes down to the choice of the vendor and the oversight. A while ago someone mentioned that WN imposes "draconian" supervioson of their MTC vendors. Does anyone know if US had someone stationed in Alabama to oversee/inspect the work on A/C 700?
Also, does anyone know how much experience the Alabama folks had on Airbii before turning wrenches on A/C 700. I'd venture to to say that WN's vendors have more experience which might very well lead to higher quality work?
:unsure: [/quote]
U did have a Maintenance "Management" person present in Mobile....a former TPA based foreman whom had overseen our Airbus work prior to TPA's closure. He has been PIT based since that time.
ST Mobile Aerospace should not have any excuses regarding thier levels of expierience...and they are still working Airbus narrow bodies at this time. Air Jamaica is a regular customer that I know of...and UA has used them as well , more often with results that mirrors what we got with 700UW. This is not rumor..it's fact based on conversations with UA workers in a position to know.
UA's people have stated to me...that "Diversions" after departing Mobile to return to the active fleet is not un-common. The same was said about the other 2 3rd party facilities whom they've contracted with as well
Today is a big win for management on paper...and I'm sure a select few on this board are thrilled with themselves...but how many times has a short term win for U set us up for more problems ?
Did recieving $1.2 Billion in concessions change anything ? Did lowering the ranks from 45,000 to 28,000 change our circumstance in an end all positive way?
Did clipping the pilots pension fund off-set a failing business plan....and has it expedited the presentation of plan C ?
Let's remember this fact...This case is set to go to arbitration...in this world nothing is certain...and what may look like a run of the table today , could easily shake out differently in the end.
MarkMyWords
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,900
- Reaction score
- 1
With the lift on the injunction, doesn't that mean that the 6 parked airplanes and the 3 upcoming are free to fly to Alabama again?
What happens after that is anyone's guess. No telling which way the arbitrator will see things.
What happens after that is anyone's guess. No telling which way the arbitrator will see things.
Mr Moderator.....Please let me speak!!
To all of you gloating fools (ITRADE) who think this is a great thing for the company:
You are sadly mistaken. Southwest doesn't even come close in comparison to our situation. Let me tell you why.
WN developed a 3rd party program that works for them by building history with their maintenance providers along with major oversight of the program. This has evolved over the course of many decades of doing business in the manner that WN does......SMART.
What did UAIR do?? They picked S.T. MAE primarily because it's where BRONNER wanted it to go. Remember Mr. Bigshot saying he was going to bring jobs to AL?? Never mind QUALITY or a mere 2% margin of savings if that. All they know is that Mobile Aerospace MUST PAY PENALTIES when an aircraft is not returned to service as promised. This is where they feel they can make out....whilst sacraficing quality which in turn will inevitably effect safety. PERIOD!! :down:
If you think for one moment that this sort of situation can possibly breed a quality orientated environment then you are a blithering idiot!! PERIOD!! It's the lowest bidder that wins with this management group :down:
UAIR is run by BEAN-COUNTERS and ROBBER BARRONS that haven't the slightest idea how to nurture a highly talented workforce. Instead they choose to employ a scorched earth policy that results in further demoralizing an already battered employee group. :blink:
No layoffs??
You cannot possibly be that naive. If dearest DAVE get's the 60 A320's with an agreement to maintain ONLY 279 aircraft, you can kiss the Boeing a/c goodbye. NOTE: He never once stated that the 60 a/c would be additional to the existing fleet....did he?????
This ruling might appear to be the saving grace (that the company has wasted so much money appealing) but it will only be a short lived notion. It's just another step in dismantling the company for a quick sale in the very near future....Then we are all gone together. Yes indeed. And that includes all the pompous know it all's that think farmout is going to make us competitive....because any monies saved will be spent on re-work of the aircraft in house. I cite N700WU as my proof.
Remember this fact......the cockpit hits the dirt first <_<
To all of you gloating fools (ITRADE) who think this is a great thing for the company:
You are sadly mistaken. Southwest doesn't even come close in comparison to our situation. Let me tell you why.
WN developed a 3rd party program that works for them by building history with their maintenance providers along with major oversight of the program. This has evolved over the course of many decades of doing business in the manner that WN does......SMART.
What did UAIR do?? They picked S.T. MAE primarily because it's where BRONNER wanted it to go. Remember Mr. Bigshot saying he was going to bring jobs to AL?? Never mind QUALITY or a mere 2% margin of savings if that. All they know is that Mobile Aerospace MUST PAY PENALTIES when an aircraft is not returned to service as promised. This is where they feel they can make out....whilst sacraficing quality which in turn will inevitably effect safety. PERIOD!! :down:
If you think for one moment that this sort of situation can possibly breed a quality orientated environment then you are a blithering idiot!! PERIOD!! It's the lowest bidder that wins with this management group :down:
UAIR is run by BEAN-COUNTERS and ROBBER BARRONS that haven't the slightest idea how to nurture a highly talented workforce. Instead they choose to employ a scorched earth policy that results in further demoralizing an already battered employee group. :blink:
No layoffs??
You cannot possibly be that naive. If dearest DAVE get's the 60 A320's with an agreement to maintain ONLY 279 aircraft, you can kiss the Boeing a/c goodbye. NOTE: He never once stated that the 60 a/c would be additional to the existing fleet....did he?????This ruling might appear to be the saving grace (that the company has wasted so much money appealing) but it will only be a short lived notion. It's just another step in dismantling the company for a quick sale in the very near future....Then we are all gone together. Yes indeed. And that includes all the pompous know it all's that think farmout is going to make us competitive....because any monies saved will be spent on re-work of the aircraft in house. I cite N700WU as my proof.
Remember this fact......the cockpit hits the dirt first <_<
If I were in the maintenance department at U and had a senority number over 1000, I would be packing my bags!!! With the rumors of the 737 lap joint damage you can bet that in the near future there will be an anouncement concerning the acclerated retirement of the 737's.
What does this mean...well boys and girls for each Boeing that rolls out the door and replaced with an Airbus.....well you can do the math. Most of the Boeing gone most of the maintenance department will also disappear!!! :down:
What does this mean...well boys and girls for each Boeing that rolls out the door and replaced with an Airbus.....well you can do the math. Most of the Boeing gone most of the maintenance department will also disappear!!! :down:
EyeInTheSky
Veteran
This is going to arbitration. As of late, the arbitrators have been ruling in the union's favor. This is NOT over people. Not by a long shot. IAM keep the faith!
repeet
Veteran
I'm on my knees now, and will be for a while.
People once again don't let facts get in your way.
What the court ruled today means it is a minor dispute which sends it back to arbitration. The IAM did not lose the right to do the work, the company can vendor the work out until the arbitor makes a decision.
So the IAM won one battle and the company has won one battle, the war is not over.
54 years of history of peforming all overhauls inhouse will prevail.
Once again the court did not rule on the collective bargaining agreement nor the contract language.
Appeals Court Overturns Injunction Barring Airbus Outsourcing at US Airways
Washington D.C., February 3, 2004 – In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today overturned a lower court’s injunction preventing US Airways from subcontracting heavy maintenance of its Airbus aircraft. The Court majority held that merely by asserting arguments based on the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, US Airways met its relative light burden of showing that the dispute between the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) and US Airways was a “minor†dispute under the Railway Labor Act. In dissent, Judge Smith found that US Airways failed to show that its arguments in support of subcontracting are even theoretically plausible.
The Appeals Court did not rule on the merits of the Machinist Union’s assertion that its collective bargaining agreement requires US Airways’ IAM-represented employees to perform Airbus heavy maintenance work. Instead, the Court majority ruled that the dispute be resolved through binding arbitration.
“We have a strong case backed by 54 years of history,†said IAM General Vice President Robert Roach, Jr. “The Court majority is permitting US Airways to use frivolous arguments to circumvent the status quo requirements of the Railway Labor Act. We will not allow the airline’s arrogance and disregard for the employees that rescued the company to go unchallenged.â€
Subcontracted maintenance on Airbus aircraft was halted by the October 21, 2003 injunction issued by Judge Cindrich of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Maintenance of one aircraft had already begun by Singapore Technologies Mobile Aerospace Engineering in Mobile, AL when the injunction was issued and was allowed to be completed.
What the court ruled today means it is a minor dispute which sends it back to arbitration. The IAM did not lose the right to do the work, the company can vendor the work out until the arbitor makes a decision.
So the IAM won one battle and the company has won one battle, the war is not over.
54 years of history of peforming all overhauls inhouse will prevail.
Once again the court did not rule on the collective bargaining agreement nor the contract language.
Appeals Court Overturns Injunction Barring Airbus Outsourcing at US Airways
Washington D.C., February 3, 2004 – In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today overturned a lower court’s injunction preventing US Airways from subcontracting heavy maintenance of its Airbus aircraft. The Court majority held that merely by asserting arguments based on the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, US Airways met its relative light burden of showing that the dispute between the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) and US Airways was a “minor†dispute under the Railway Labor Act. In dissent, Judge Smith found that US Airways failed to show that its arguments in support of subcontracting are even theoretically plausible.
The Appeals Court did not rule on the merits of the Machinist Union’s assertion that its collective bargaining agreement requires US Airways’ IAM-represented employees to perform Airbus heavy maintenance work. Instead, the Court majority ruled that the dispute be resolved through binding arbitration.
“We have a strong case backed by 54 years of history,†said IAM General Vice President Robert Roach, Jr. “The Court majority is permitting US Airways to use frivolous arguments to circumvent the status quo requirements of the Railway Labor Act. We will not allow the airline’s arrogance and disregard for the employees that rescued the company to go unchallenged.â€
Subcontracted maintenance on Airbus aircraft was halted by the October 21, 2003 injunction issued by Judge Cindrich of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Maintenance of one aircraft had already begun by Singapore Technologies Mobile Aerospace Engineering in Mobile, AL when the injunction was issued and was allowed to be completed.
Appeals court lifts ban on US Airways outsourcing
Tuesday February 3, 6:04 pm ET
By Meredith Grossman Dubner
CHICAGO, Feb 3 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday overturned an injunction preventing US Airways (NasdaqNM:UAIR - News) from outsourcing heavy maintenance on some of its Airbus aircraft.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said the disagreement between the International Association of Machinists and the No. 7 U.S. airline was a "minor" one, and therefore the district court that had issued the temporary injunction lacked the jurisdiction to do so.
The appeals court did not rule on whether outsourcing the maintenance work violated the IAM's labor agreement with the company. Instead, the court said the issue must be resolved through binding arbitration, under rules in the Railway Labor Act governing minor disputes.
IAM spokesman Joe Tiberi said the union's attorneys were reviewing its options.
The union could decide to seek arbitration on the matter or it could choose to appeal Tuesday's ruling.
In the meantime, the Arlington, Virginia-based airline will resume maintenance on the nine Airbus A319 aircraft that was scheduled to be completed by the end of last year, spokesman David Castelveter said.
The IAM claims its collective bargaining agreement requires US Airways to use IAM employees to perform the heavy maintenance work, while the company has sought to outsource the work as it tries to cut costs.
"We will not allow the airline's arrogance and disregard for the employees that rescued the company to go unchallenged," IAM General Vice President Robert Roach said in a statement.
In October, U.S. District Judge Robert Cindrich permitted a private contractor, ST Mobile Aerospace Engineering Inc., to finish work on one of the planes that had already been started. But he blocked the airline's plans to complete servicing up to nine other narrowbody planes.
US Airways issued a statement on Tuesday saying it was prepared to quickly arbitrate the matter.
"The court's decision validates the company's consistent legal opinion that this issue is a minor contract dispute under the Railway Labor Act that must be resolved through arbitration," the company said.
The Federal Aviation Administration requires heavy maintenance -- which involves checking planes for major structural weaknesses -- every five years.
US Airways emerged from bankruptcy 10 months ago and is still struggling to cut costs to survive. It is reportedly considering the sale of some of its assets, and four U.S. airlines have bid on various pieces of the airline, according to banking sources.
Shares of US Airways closed 2 cents higher at $4.55 on the Nasdaq on Tuesday.
Tuesday February 3, 6:04 pm ET
By Meredith Grossman Dubner
CHICAGO, Feb 3 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday overturned an injunction preventing US Airways (NasdaqNM:UAIR - News) from outsourcing heavy maintenance on some of its Airbus aircraft.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said the disagreement between the International Association of Machinists and the No. 7 U.S. airline was a "minor" one, and therefore the district court that had issued the temporary injunction lacked the jurisdiction to do so.
The appeals court did not rule on whether outsourcing the maintenance work violated the IAM's labor agreement with the company. Instead, the court said the issue must be resolved through binding arbitration, under rules in the Railway Labor Act governing minor disputes.
IAM spokesman Joe Tiberi said the union's attorneys were reviewing its options.
The union could decide to seek arbitration on the matter or it could choose to appeal Tuesday's ruling.
In the meantime, the Arlington, Virginia-based airline will resume maintenance on the nine Airbus A319 aircraft that was scheduled to be completed by the end of last year, spokesman David Castelveter said.
The IAM claims its collective bargaining agreement requires US Airways to use IAM employees to perform the heavy maintenance work, while the company has sought to outsource the work as it tries to cut costs.
"We will not allow the airline's arrogance and disregard for the employees that rescued the company to go unchallenged," IAM General Vice President Robert Roach said in a statement.
In October, U.S. District Judge Robert Cindrich permitted a private contractor, ST Mobile Aerospace Engineering Inc., to finish work on one of the planes that had already been started. But he blocked the airline's plans to complete servicing up to nine other narrowbody planes.
US Airways issued a statement on Tuesday saying it was prepared to quickly arbitrate the matter.
"The court's decision validates the company's consistent legal opinion that this issue is a minor contract dispute under the Railway Labor Act that must be resolved through arbitration," the company said.
The Federal Aviation Administration requires heavy maintenance -- which involves checking planes for major structural weaknesses -- every five years.
US Airways emerged from bankruptcy 10 months ago and is still struggling to cut costs to survive. It is reportedly considering the sale of some of its assets, and four U.S. airlines have bid on various pieces of the airline, according to banking sources.
Shares of US Airways closed 2 cents higher at $4.55 on the Nasdaq on Tuesday.
