Dell -
Thank you for your response. I honestly don't think my thought pattern is coming through as clearly as I would like it to. Sometimes emotional responses get things all jumbled up. I appreciate you trying to answer the questions that I had, but in reality those questions were directed toward the company, and are probably the same questions you are asking yourself. I want to know what the company thinks it will save by contracting out the work. There are up front costs, associated costs and long term costs. While the up front costs may be lower, the associated costs (ferrying airplanes, fuel, deadheading crews to test hop, hotel expenses, parts movement, etc) will sky rocket. All I am saying is that I would like to see what the companies rational is and see a response from the IAM. Either way you cut it, my support is still behind the IAM. I dont' care if it saves us 10 million dollars a year to contract the work out. It is work that is in your contract and should be performed in house. End of story. My comments about a more compelling arguement just mean that you may win more support with arguements such as, "The company states that the work will save XX million dollars, by our figures we show no/little cost savings due to .......blah blah blah" versus 'It has been our work since 1949." That is all I am saying. I don't contest that in any way, I am just looking at what is a more compelling arguement.
Also, your point about checks going beyond schedule time is a very valid point. You never know what you will run into when you take an airplane apart. If you are a contract company that has a deadline imposed with financial penalties for failing to meet that deadline, there is a motivation to cut corners. That is a very valid arguement. What I don't necessarily agree with is that contract vendors are less safe then in house vendors. Using the tragedy in CLT to prove your point is fine, but let me play devils advocate here and ask this. Your leafletting to the public is to muster support for keeping the work in house due to safety reasons. What would your stance be on people flying with our alliance partners like UA? do you now consider them to be unsafe because their heavy mtc is contracted out? What about other STAR members? What about our express affiliates? How about even going one step further, since we are one of the few airlines that (up til now) have done all our heavy work in house, are we the only safe airline? I realize that safety is our number one priority, but are you exploiting a tragedy for personal gain? Again, just playing devils advocate here.
PitBull -
My thoughts are all over the page on this issue. It has a huge impact on each and every one of us. Bottom line, I do support the Mechanics and their fight to uphold the language in their contract. My reponses regarding people talking about shutting the place down and so on, were to counter the belief that by doing so people would be teaching Dave and Dave a lesson. We will all learn that lesson and I think Dave and Dave will fair much better then most. If the place shuts down, it is because the union(s) took a stance that enough is enough and you willing to make a huge sacrifice to protect what is yours, not to feel you have in some way won out over Dave and Dave. In a strike that results in a Chapter 7 filing, there are no winners, just a moral victory on the part of labor.
If I may, let me ask just a couple more questions....
If the first airbus goes to Alabama and results in a job action and the IAM wins, how long would it take to gear up to perform the work? Again, we have not recalled 1 person to perform the checks, we have not trained anyone to do the work yet, we have not prepared the facilities, we don't have all the tooling. how long would it take to get this track up and running?
Second question, Say the first airbus goes to Alabama and results in a job action. The judge decides that the company is right and can contract out the work. What happens then? Stirkes over or do the mechanics continue to walk?
Thanks for your time.