WN Mechanics seek mediation

[swamt]

DISCLAIMER ALERT !!!!

The majority of Southwest AMT's are not similar to B737 driver in their views or opinions.
Frankly, he makes us all look bad though.

I actually put him back on ignore due to the constant repeating he was going on and on about. But, I wouldn't really say he makes us look bad, I just think he is not informed as well as we are, he's kind of left out (from what he claims that is) that his ALR never makes a station visit or comes and updates him at his station. But, again that's no excuse either. If I were being completely ignored by my ALR I would simply reach out to other NC members to get a real good update, and not just the ones that the mediator allows out.

 

[swamt]

It wasn't that long ago that the pilots filed a lawsuit over the max. Who knows, perhaps the pilots advised us to go for it. Better than sitting on our hands waiting for another year to pass without challenge.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-southwest-pilots-boeing-max-lawsuit-20160516-story.html

In regard to TWU's superior contract language I beg to differ. AA has $15,000 of my medical pre-fund match held hostage over inferior contract language that allows them to hold until "the successful completion of the 1114 process", which they obviously never intended to do.

Lighten up Francis, I'm no lawyer and neither are you. In regard to the pilots the company thought it's a 737, what's the problem. They we're wrong and so were the pilots that may have agreed with the company. I hope this turns out to be something we can gain an advantage over but if not I'm in no hurry.

Yes the Pilots did. And, the Pilots filed long before the company broke the contract as they filed long before we received our first Max. In other words they were pro-active. And yes I agree with you that the Pilots are involved in this and supportive. There is language in our contract that addresses this. However as you state I too am not an attorney, so we will see. I too hope this turns into something where we do gain advantage at the table. But also like you say, if not, then so be it, no hurry here either.

 

[WeAAsles]

Yes the Pilots did. And, the Pilots filed long before the company broke the contract as they filed long before we received our first Max. In other words they were pro-active. And yes I agree with you that the Pilots are involved in this and supportive. There is language in our contract that addresses this. However as you state I too am not an attorney, so we will see. I too hope this turns into something where we do gain advantage at the table. But also like you say, if not, then so be it, no hurry here either.

You don’t have to be an Attorney to understand the basics of a contract you’ve lived under for many many many many many years now. Are you telling me that you don’t even know the basics? That I’ve been engaging with an individual who needs a Lawyer to be able to read if you have “ETOPS” language or not?

swamt is the word ETOPS in your language or not? Why are you pretending you have language in your contract when you clearly do not?

Did you ever live in or visit WACO Texas BTW? Just curious.

 

[B737 driver]

I actually put him back on ignore due to the constant repeating he was going on and on about. But, I wouldn't really say he makes us look bad, I just think he is not informed as well as we are, he's kind of left out (from what he claims that is) that his ALR never makes a station visit or comes and updates him at his station. But, again that's no excuse either. If I were being completely ignored by my ALR I would simply reach out to other NC members to get a real good update, and not just the ones that the mediator allows out.

Waiting on my road show and my next local AMFA meeting stupid.

 

[B737 driver]

Yes the Pilots did. And, the Pilots filed long before the company broke the contract as they filed long before we received our first Max. In other words they were pro-active. And yes I agree with you that the Pilots are involved in this and supportive. There is language in our contract that addresses this. However as you state I too am not an attorney, so we will see. I too hope this turns into something where we do gain advantage at the table. But also like you say, if not, then so be it, no hurry here either.

The pilots,had specific language read your contract.

 

[B737 driver]

You don’t have to be an Attorney to understand the basics of a contract you’ve lived under for many many many many many years now. Are you telling me that you don’t even know the basics? That I’ve been engaging with an individual who needs a Lawyer to be able to read if you have “ETOPS” language or not?

swamt is the word ETOPS in your language or not? Why are you pretending you have language in your contract when you clearly do not?

Did you ever live in or visit WACO Texas BTW? Just curious.

Wezz you read the scope language, that is the very language SWA quoted in their email to the AMFA members . Swamt is too blind to admit anything, but our law firm will gladly take our dues money.I will just sit back and watch the train derail.

 

[sendmeupacrowsfoot]

Wezz you read the scope language, that is the very language SWA quoted in their email to the AMFA members . Swamt is too blind to admit anything, but our law firm will gladly take our dues money.I will just sit back and watch the train derail.

The only one you can get to agree with you is a ramper from another airline. Sad really. Grasping for straws.... Looking for a hint of approval from........anyone.

 

[WeAAsles]

The only one you can get to agree with you is a ramper from another airline. Sad really. Grasping for straws.... Looking for a hint of approval from........anyone.

You make hollow comments it seems my friend.

My employment status and position is irrelevant. But the fact that you can’t provide contractual language to verify or bolster any narrative that a contractual violation “could” occur sometime in the future is still fact.

Driver provided proof for the reality of fact. Can you refute his facts?

Who here agrees with you BTW?

 

[B737 driver]

The only one you can get to agree with you is a ramper from another airline. Sad really. Grasping for straws.... Looking for a hint of approval from........anyone.

Look I don't need anyone's approval I don't go to other Airline forums and tell them their union sucks, and tell them what they need to do to fix their situation and tell them to use our union AMFA which can not produce one lousy T/A in over five years at SWA when every other group has. Plus you blindly follow the people in charge wasting our hard earned dues money on a Lawsuit that has no chance of success because the contract language is not there. You can't pull stuff out of your ass, and produce it, in front of a Federal judge. You and Swamt are sheep.

 

[Hackman]

[QUOTE="B737 driver, post: 1277286, member: 33831"]Wezz you read the scope language, that is the very language SWA quoted in their email to the AMFA members . Swamt is too blind to admit anything, but our law firm will gladly take our dues money.I will just sit back and watch the train derail.[/QUOTE]

As a steward I had to know language to argue a grievance and win it, including all the way to a system board, and I know what language means.Now I will wait for the Hack attack.

The pilots,had specific language read your contract.

I guess you didn't do such a great job with grievance procedures as a steward, along with the Reamsters as a whole, they got bounced out by AMFA at SWA for poor representation. Along with this, your Reamsters blatantly lied about their contractual abilities to the AMTs at UAL stating they would: "The Teamsters can and will reopen the contract" to woo the UAL membership with false promises most knew were lies. Never happened did it? I guess that Reamster "Contract Knowledge" was a paper tiger. Continuing Reamster lies: "Much has been said over the past few weeks regarding the Teamster's ability to reopen the very narrowly ratified Maintenance contract. Here are the facts. The Teamsters, after ejecting AMFA from the property at UAL, notified UAL that we intended to reopen the AMFA MX contract.

Those Reamster lies exposed again for all to see, you and your TWu ramper buddy Dippy Dave to question a legitimate fight by AMFA to defend the contract concerning ETOPS is truly laughable. If AMFA didn't fight this, then you and your pet ramper would be here complaining that they are not defending the contract and AMFA isn't doing the job they are paid for. Therefore your sniveling and whining are easily dismissed as disingenuous. You just want your pay raise, as nearly every post is pathetically crying about money.

Finally, the AMFA scope language should cover ETOPS checks, but I have not read your contract. "The servicing, maintaining, modifying, and overhauling of airplanes" is what our TWu scope says. I would say ETOPS would fall under this. I'm sure AMFA language is similar if not better.

I'm glad to see AMFA fighting for it's SWA membership instead of using the old TWu mantra over the past 30+ years: "They can do that brother". Buck up little Reamster sniveler, put down your crying towel, and wait to see the outcome.

 

[B737 driver]

[QUOTE="B737 driver, post: 1277286, member: 33831"]Wezz you read the scope language, that is the very language SWA quoted in their email to the AMFA members . Swamt is too blind to admit anything, but our law firm will gladly take our dues money.I will just sit back and watch the train derail.

I guess you didn't do such a great job with grievance procedures as a steward, along with the Reamsters as a whole, they got bounced out by AMFA at SWA for poor representation. Along with this, your Reamsters blatantly lied about their contractual abilities to the AMTs at UAL stating they would: "The Teamsters can and will reopen the contract" to woo the UAL membership with false promises most knew were lies. Never happened did it? I guess that Reamster "Contract Knowledge" was a paper tiger. Continuing Reamster lies: "Much has been said over the past few weeks regarding the Teamster's ability to reopen the very narrowly ratified Maintenance contract. Here are the facts. The Teamsters, after ejecting AMFA from the property at UAL, notified UAL that we intended to reopen the AMFA MX contract.

Those Reamster lies exposed again for all to see, you and your TWu ramper buddy Dippy Dave to question a legitimate fight by AMFA to defend the contract concerning ETOPS is truly laughable. If AMFA didn't fight this, then you and your pet ramper would be here complaining that they are not defending the contract and AMFA isn't doing the job they are paid for. Therefore your sniveling and whining are easily dismissed as disingenuous. You just want your pay raise, as nearly every post is pathetically crying about money.

Finally, the AMFA scope language should cover ETOPS checks, but I have not read your contract. "The servicing, maintaining, modifying, and overhauling of airplanes" is what our TWu scope says. I would say ETOPS would fall under this. I'm sure AMFA language is similar if not better.

I'm glad to see AMFA fighting for it's SWA membership instead of using the old TWu mantra over the past 30+ years: "They can do that brother". Buck up little Reamster sniveler, put down your crying towel, and wait to see the outcome.[/QUOTE]
I can read my language, tell me Hacky how long has American airlines been an international and ETOPS airline, so do you have American Airlines mechanics in every station before an aircraft goes on an ETOPS flights. Hackboy uses the same old attack lines. You finish your widebody check, your Crew Chief giving you internet time? Good for you.

 

[Hackman]

You make hollow comments it seems my friend.

My employment status and position is irrelevant. But the fact that you can’t provide contractual language to verify or bolster any narrative that a contractual violation “could” occur sometime in the future is still fact.

Driver provided proof for the reality of fact. Can you refute his facts?

Who here agrees with you BTW?

Your employment position as a chunker is very relevant Dippy Dave, as the most you will do after a ETOPS check is load bags on it after we sign off the logbook.

That is a "reality of fact".

 

[WeAAsles]

I guess you didn't do such a great job with grievance procedures as a steward, along with the Reamsters as a whole, they got bounced out by AMFA at SWA for poor representation. Along with this, your Reamsters blatantly lied about their contractual abilities to the AMTs at UAL stating they would: "The Teamsters can and will reopen the contract" to woo the UAL membership with false promises most knew were lies. Never happened did it? I guess that Reamster "Contract Knowledge" was a paper tiger. Continuing Reamster lies: "Much has been said over the past few weeks regarding the Teamster's ability to reopen the very narrowly ratified Maintenance contract. Here are the facts. The Teamsters, after ejecting AMFA from the property at UAL, notified UAL that we intended to reopen the AMFA MX contract.

Those Reamster lies exposed again for all to see, you and your TWu ramper buddy Dippy Dave to question a legitimate fight by AMFA to defend the contract concerning ETOPS is truly laughable. If AMFA didn't fight this, then you and your pet ramper would be here complaining that they are not defending the contract and AMFA isn't doing the job they are paid for. Therefore your sniveling and whining are easily dismissed as disingenuous. You just want your pay raise, as nearly every post is pathetically crying about money.

Finally, the AMFA scope language should cover ETOPS checks, but I have not read your contract. "The servicing, maintaining, modifying, and overhauling of airplanes" is what our TWu scope says. I would say ETOPS would fall under this. I'm sure AMFA language is similar if not better.

I'm glad to see AMFA fighting for it's SWA membership instead of using the old TWu mantra over the past 30+ years: "They can do that brother". Buck up little Reamster sniveler, put down your crying towel, and wait to see the outcome.

I can read my language, tell me Hacky how long has American airlines been an international and ETOPS airline, so do you have American Airlines mechanics in every station before an aircraft goes on an ETOPS flights. Hackboy uses the same old attack lines. You finish your widebody check, your Crew Chief giving you internet time? Good for you.[/QUOTE]


Legitimate fight? Did that moron actually write legitimate fight?

There is no fight. You either have the language to prevent or defend or you don’t. So far no one has provided any contractual language to do either on this board. Even with all the juvenile insults, LMAO.

That moron (Moron with a license BTW) hasn’t got even a toe to stand on. He’s nothing but a hot air balloon filled with too much bad gas.

Reality and Fact simple: “There is no Contractual Language to win PERIOD”

 

[WeAAsles]

Let’s “try” to make this simple.

There is NO language in the AMFA Maintenance contract to prevent SWA from flying to Hawaii if they want.

 

[B737 driver]

Your employment position as a chunker is very relevant Dippy Dave, as the most you will do after a ETOPS check is load bags on it after we sign off the logbook.

That is a "reality of fact".

And what's your reality, attack dog, no answers can't argue with logic