What is going on with AA MD-80 Fuel Tank Covers?

[James T. Kirk]

The 2003 IAM Restructuring Agreement specifically states that the Company will "preserve the protection of the San Franciscon Maintenance Center." It also states that "The Company will not sell or lease or otherwise dispose of its maintenace facility at the San Francisco Maintenance Center." That is where the three C checks continued to be performed and that is the arrangement AMFA carried forward. What they did not carry forward were the blanket restrictions on overseas outsourcing which the Company desperately wanted to relax because there was not sufficient capacity in the US to handle its outsourcing needs and it was not interested in bringing the work back.

 

[AMFAMAN]

The 2003 IAM Restructuring Agreement specifically states that the Company will "preserve the protection of the San Franciscon Maintenance Center." It also states that "The Company will not sell or lease or otherwise dispose of its maintenace facility at the San Francisco Maintenance Center." That is where the three C checks continued to be performed and that is the arrangement AMFA carried forward. What they did not carry forward were the blanket restrictions on overseas outsourcing which the Company desperately wanted to relax because there was not sufficient capacity in the US to handle its outsourcing needs and it was not interested in bringing the work back.

Almost laughable how the cultist continue to post off-topic crap to try and keep the tank covers off this board. Their credibility has now sunk to the level of PTO and friends. Who are they trying to protect?

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Third Seat, I have something that has come to mind that was part of the UAL agreement with the amfa. It was noted upon ratification of the agreement that there was an open window of 60 days to "tweak the language" after ratification. With this window it could be assumed that the contract was still open for change. If the outsourcing was the fault of the IAM as you suggest then why didn't the amfa fix it? Apparently the amfa was in agreement with the levels of outsourcing proposed because as the way I see it they had two missed opportunities to save face with the issue here at UAL.

As the old saying goes..."If you sign it, you own it".

Do you know what you are talking about? It certainly doesn't seem so.

If you're in possession of the actual agreement I suggest you read/re-read what it is you "think" you're refrencing.

Rather than go into a drawn out breakdown of the many things wrong in your post, I'll leave you with the most obvious flaw in your logic....

The return/renegotiation of heavy overhaul would have constituted putting over $100 million back into play.

That would require alittle more than a "tweak" of the language.

If you're still attempting to somehow pass blame for the loss of heavy overhaul at UAL on AMFA and thus giving some sort of credibility to Bill, I'd advise you to give it up.

Hes wrong.

 

[AMFAMAN]

If you're still attempting to somehow pass blame for the loss of heavy overhaul at UAL on AMFA and thus giving some sort of credibility to Bill, I'd advise you to give it up.

The three cultist could care less about UAL, AMFA, or anything else, as they strictly on this thread to change the topic from fuel tank cover screw-ups to something anti-AMFA. :down:

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

The 2003 IAM Restructuring Agreement specifically states that the Company will "preserve the protection of the San Franciscon Maintenance Center." It also states that "The Company will not sell or lease or otherwise dispose of its maintenace facility at the San Francisco Maintenance Center." That is where the three C checks continued to be performed and that is the arrangement AMFA carried forward. What they did not carry forward were the blanket restrictions on overseas outsourcing which the Company desperately wanted to relax because there was not sufficient capacity in the US to handle its outsourcing needs and it was not interested in bringing the work back.

WRONG.

There are TWO agreements you are refering to as ONE.

First- The IAM 2003-2009 agreement

This gave away 100% of heavy overhaul visits.

It DID NOT protect the 3 c-check lines in SFO

It did restrict the outsourcing of heavy visits to the US only.


Second- The AMFA 2005-2009 agreement

It DID protect the 3 c-check lines in SFO

It DID allow the company to OSV the B747/B777 heavy visits overseas.




Here is the ACTUAL language from both agreements

Article II Scope of Agreement Para D(+)

IAM-2003-2009

D. The Company may contract out the work of heavy maintenance visits (as defined
by current Company practices consistent with AOP and MOP guidelines) without
restriction. Additionally, the Company may contract out up to 20% of all remaining
maintenance work annually as measured by the sum of the Maintenance Operations
Division's gross annual budget, excluding the cost of heavy maintenance visits, plus
those portions of stations' total gross annual budgets attributable to building maintenance
and ground equipment maintenance, provided however this percentage
may be exceeded in the event the Company has fully utilized its existing equipment
or facilities.

E. The Company will not sell, lease or otherwise transfer or dispose of its maintenance
facility at the San Francisco Maintenance Center. This includes the Company's
engine maintenance facility located in San Francisco. The Company is permitted to
enter into sale/lease back arrangements for financing reasons and/or a joint venture
with a third party to provide necessary capital improvements. Notwithstanding the
above, the Company may a) sell, lease or otherwise transfer the above facilities as
part of a sale, lease or transfer, within a twelve month period, of all or substantially
all the Company's assets, and sell, lease or otherwise transfer portions of the
above facilities to the extent such portions constitute unused capacity. In the event
the facilities specified in this paragraph become unavailable due to the loss of lease
(or other circumstances beyond the Company's control), or become uninhabitable
due to a natural disaster, the Company agrees to make every reasonable effort to
replace such facility unless it is not financially reasonable to do so.

Article II Scope of Agreement Para D(+)

AMFA-2005-2009

D.4 The Company may contract out the work of heavy maintenance visits
(as defined by current Company practices consistent with AOP and
MOP guidelines) without restriction. Additionally, the Company may
contract out up to 20% of all remaining maintenance work annually as
measured by the sum of the Maintenance Operations Division's gross
annual budget, excluding the cost of heavy maintenance visits, plus
those portions of stations' total gross annual budgets attributable to
building maintenance and ground equipment maintenance, provided
however this percentage may be exceeded in the event the Company has
fully utilized its existing equipment or facilities.
Commencing in 2006, the Union shall be permitted to perform an annual
audit for the purpose of verifying compliance with the outsourcing
limits set forth in the preceding paragraph. Such audits shall begin no
later than July 1 following the year to be audited. The Company shall
reimburse the Union for the cost of retaining a mutually acceptable outside
independent auditor to perform the audit, up to an annual maximum
reimbursement by the Company of $75,000. The Company shall provide
access to documents reasonably deemed necessary by the auditor for
performing the audit. Prior to gaining access to such documents, the
auditor shall execute a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement satisfactory
to the Company. Reimbursement shall be made to the Union
within 30 days following the Company's receipt of the auditor's final
report and proper documentation of the costs incurred in preparing the
report.

5. Effective with the ratification date of the 2005-2009 Mechanics'
Agreement, no line aircraft mechanic shall be furloughed from any thenexisting
point as a direct result of the outsourcing of then-existing nonroutine
or routine line aircraft maintenance work performed at that point
by mechanics covered under this Agreement. The Company shall retain
in full its traditional discretion to move maintenance work within the
Company, provided, however, that should the Company's exercise of
this discretion at a point directly result in the furlough, subsequent to ratification,
of line aircraft mechanics at that point, no additional outsourcing
of non-routine or routine line aircraft maintenance work shall occur
at that point until any such furloughed mechanics are offered recall. This
paragraph shall not apply to emergency on-call maintenance.

6. Effective with the ratification date of the 2005-2009 Mechanics'
Agreement, the three "C" check lines of work currently performed by
Company employees in-house at the San Francisco Maintenance Center
will not be outsourced. This provision shall not apply under the following
circumstances:
a. an act of nature;
b. a strike or labor dispute;
c. a reduction in the Company's operations because of a decrease
in the available fuel supply or other critical materials due either
to governmental action or commercial supplier being unable to
meet the Company's demands;
d. a revocation of the Company's operating certificate(s), the
grounding of a substantial number of the Company's aircraft by
governmental action, or a significant reduction in the size of the
Company's fleet or schedule beyond current levels;
e. a declared or undeclared war or national emergency;
f. compulsion by government agency or legislative or court
action.

7. Effective with the ratification date of the 2005-2009 Mechanics'
Agreement:
a If the flight schedule at a hub station (ORD, SFO, DEN, IAD,
LAX) as of the date of ratification is thereafter reduced by more
than 25%, there shall be no additional outsourcing of ground
equipment or building maintenance work at that station until
recall is offered to mechanics who (i) have been furloughed at
that station as the direct result of said flight schedule reductions,
and (ii) have the skills and ability to perform the additional
work to be outsourced.
b. The foregoing paragraph (a)
(i) shall not apply to work that the Company has traditionally
outsourced, and

(ii) shall cease to apply if the flight schedule at a hub station
is reduced to less than 50% of the flight schedule
in effect at that station as of the date of ratification.
c. For purposes of this paragraph 7, "flight schedule" shall mean
the schedules of the mainline and the LCO as defined in Article
III.B.1 (currently known as "Ted").

8. AMFA-represented employees covered under this Agreement agree to
fully participate in Lean and cooperate in implementing, executing, and
maintaining Lean initiatives and goals. In return for this commitment,
the Company commits that effective with the ratification date of the
2005-2009 Mechanics' Agreement, no mechanic shall be furloughed
from the San Francisco Maintenance Center shops listed below as a
direct result of outsourcing from those shops of maintenance work currently
performed at the San Francisco Maintenance Center by mechanics
covered under this Agreement: Pneumatics, Avionics, Landing Gear,
APU, Engine Accessories, Engine Disassembly, Assembly and Test,
Reversers, Nose Cowls and Radomes, Wire Harnesses, Heat Transfer
Units, Tire Shop, Plant Maintenance, and Flight Controls. The
Company shall retain in full its traditional discretion to move maintenance
work within the Company.

9. AMFA will cooperate with the Company and use its best efforts in
exploring and implementing effective cost savings and productivity and
efficiency improvements in connection with plant, facilities, and ground
equipment maintenance and Ground Communication Technician
(GCT) work.

E. The Company will not sell, lease or otherwise transfer or dispose of its maintenance
facility at the San Francisco Maintenance Center. This includes the
Company's engine maintenance facility located in San Francisco. The Company is
permitted to enter into sale/lease back arrangements for financing reasons and/or a
joint venture with a third party to provide necessary capital improvements.
Notwithstanding the above, the Company may a) sell, lease or otherwise transfer
the above facilities as part of a sale, lease or transfer, within a twelve month period,
of all or substantially all the Company's assets, and sell, lease or otherwise transfer
portions of the above facilities to the extent such portions constitute unused
capacity. In the event the facilities specified in this paragraph become unavailable
due to the loss of lease (or other circumstances beyond the Company's control), or
become uninhabitable due to a natural disaster, the Company agrees to make every
reasonable effort to replace such facility unless it is not financially reasonable to do
so.

The IAM lost heavy overhaul at UAL.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

The three cultist could care less about UAL, AMFA, or anything else, as they strictly on this thread to change the topic from fuel tank cover screw-ups to something anti-AMFA. :down:

I do apologize for taking an active part in the hi-jacking of this thread. On my part it was unintentional, I simply didn't want Bills(and associated) attempted slight on my former haunts go uncorrected.

Having posted enough verifiable data to expose the ignorance and out right fallacy of their collective position,I will cease on this matter.


So, fuel tank covers. The threads kinda light on specifics, where can I find good info to get up to speed???

 

[Bill]

The story has been posted several times already by the Informer, no need to post it again.
BTW...it is not considered "afar" when you actually work on the subject planes. "Afar" would be more appropiate for someone totally out of the loop like you, considering afterall you work at the Rock which has not seen any of these planes to date.

That's interesting....he has posted several times but each time the story is different!!! You slam me for what you say is ducking the situation. I haven't ducked anything. It's just funny to me that for some strange reason the story keeps changing. WHAT, Informer didn't get the facts right the first time??????? It seems noone has the story right. That's certainly not my fault. I've been the only smart one in NOT posting figures or information I know NOT to be true.

 

[Hackman]

That's interesting....he has posted several times but each time the story is different!!! You slam me for what you say is ducking the situation. I haven't ducked anything. It's just funny to me that for some strange reason the story keeps changing. WHAT, Informer didn't get the facts right the first time??????? It seems noone has the story right. That's certainly not my fault. I've been the only smart one in NOT posting figures or information I know NOT to be true.

Gosh Billdo, since your the omnipotent twu goober, why don't you lay it all out for us? Since you and the 'Nuts BB cut/paste master Capt Spaceman have the UAL AMFA/iam contracts all wrong, try and get something right for a change. Go ahead and give all the facts that your corporate mAAsters and the Company Union want to get out to squash the rumors.

"I've been the only smart one in NOT posting figures or information I know NOT to be true". :blink: :blink:

Smart one.....

 

[TWU informer]

Actually I think what happened and this thread speaks volumes.

Nothing more really needs to be said.

 

[MCI transplant]

Actually I think what happened and this thread speaks volumes.

Nothing more really needs to be said.

<_< --- AMEN!!!!

 

[TWU informer]

Quick Update, overtime still happening this weekend in Tulsa over the Fuel Tank Cover Plate issue.

Lord this was a huge problem.

Forget what the stooges have posted this problem was big.

 

[MCI transplant]

Quick Update, overtime still happening this weekend in Tulsa over the Fuel Tank Cover Plate issue.

Lord this was a huge problem.

Forget what the stooges have posted this problem was big.

<_< ----- Had some grumbling here about the paper work used to clean up this problem. Or lack of specifically how to deal with it! Seems aa only wants a signature on the bottom line! Cards say to "clean!" But don't say how! A little too generic for a lot of people! But what do you want on such short notice! I believe this may be a first for Boeing!!! I know it is for me in my years working for an Airline! ---- :unsure:

 

[Wretched Wrench]

Key word......RUMOR!!! You're a welder...so that's exactly what you are operating on, rumor. Has nothing to do with cost cutting. You even have your numbers wrong Dave. Self disclosure to FAA that they were completely satisfied with.

You are the biggest SH*T stirrer I have ever had the MISfortune to come across. Is that a personality flaw, I guess??
Have you EVER had all your "ducks" in a row???????

Good call, Bill. Be sure to share your accurate, inside knowledge with us on every issue.

 

[HighFlyerMiami]

Good call, Bill. Be sure to share your inside knowledge with us on every issue.

Flight has the story

Paint chip problem led American to temporarily ground 22 Boeing MD-80s

American Airlines earlier this month temporarily grounded 22 of its Boeing MD-80s – returning the final aircraft to revenue service last weekend - after finding paint chips in the fuel filters of the aircraft, Flight can exclusively reveal.

The problem was first spotted during the week of November 6 when filter warning lights illuminated on two MD-80s, an American spokesman tells Flight.

Maintenance workers determined that the aircraft were part of a batch of 32 that had been through a major overhaul in the summer months, during which their fuel access plates – manufactured by the carrier in Tulsa, Oklahoma - were painted.

Inspections determined that 22 of the 32 aircraft had paint chips in the fuel filters.

“We discovered that the paint we put on plates did not adhere,â€￾ says the American spokesman, adding that the paint was “coming off in little flakesâ€￾, which were being found in the fuel filters.

He says the MD-80 fuel filters “never had a full clogâ€￾ nor caused an in-flight engine shutdown and the paint chips were “never a safety issue as far as we’re concernedâ€￾.

However, the carrier did pull the 22 aircraft out of service to repair the problem at its airport line maintenance facilities and overhaul bases, causing some service cancellations. At the peak of the groundings, some 40 flight segments were cancelled, but that figure was quickly reduced as aircraft returned to service, says the spokesman.

A new procedure that involves changing the way the plates are prepared for paint was employed by maintenance staff for the 22 aircraft, and will be used in the future by the carrier.

“We have found a good solid fix,â€￾ says the spokesman, noting that the airline now has “a different way of getting the paint to stickâ€￾.

By the middle of last week, only six aircraft remained out of service. These final airliners were returned to service over the weekend.

The financial impact of fixing the problem – and the subsequent cancellations – has not yet been calculated by American. “The additional maintenance cost of doing this in a hurry probably has some impact,â€￾ says the spokesman.

American will continue to monitor the filters and the plates, he says.

While flakes were not found on the remaining 10 of 32 MD-80s involved in the summer maintenance overhaul, the spokesman says: “I am quite certain that those aircraft will be redone as well, routinely, even though they haven’t generated any flaking captured in the filter.â€￾