a/c maint taxi and tow?

[paul1]

I recieved this from amfa today in a email.

my question is this true? Also is the taxing of a/c and towing on active runways covered by FAR's.

does maint do aircraft push back off the gate at ual?

Subject: Aircraft Movement (Towing, Taxi)

The IBT's Airline Division leaders Clacy Griswold, Ed Gleason and Bob Fisher decided to trade away Aircraft Movement, (Towing and Taxi) to IAM Ramp Supertug crews.



Aircraft movement was traded away for two additional floating holidays and 100% sick pay, benefits CAL mechanics currently enjoy.



Hundreds of IBT Mechanic jobs gone forever!

Yet another Concessionary contract

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

I recieved this from amfa today in a email.

my question is this true? Also is the taxing of a/c and towing on active runways covered by FAR's.

does maint do aircraft push back off the gate at ual?

Subject: Aircraft Movement (Towing, Taxi)

The IBT's Airline Division leaders Clacy Griswold, Ed Gleason and Bob Fisher decided to trade away Aircraft Movement, (Towing and Taxi) to IAM Ramp Supertug crews.



Aircraft movement was traded away for two additional floating holidays and 100% sick pay, benefits CAL mechanics currently enjoy.



Hundreds of IBT Mechanic jobs gone forever!

Yet another Concessionary contract

I wont speak for the listed parties involved but the language allowing this can be found in the most recent IAM Ramp/Fleet service TA ( the one shot down)

The mechanics at UAL once controlled receipt and dispatch as well as taxi/tow, but the IAM gave up that control when they allowed the ramp to also do receipt and dispatch in the first bankruptcy CBA. After that agreement both Mechanics and Ramp could be utilized for receipt and dispatch. That said mechanics alone continued to perform aircraft tow moves and taxi.

While the mechanics at UAL have yet to see a new TA at UAL, the fact that UAL & the IAM agreed to this new language in their TA could only really come about if the ibt had first agreed to it at least in principle.

Hundreds of IBT Mechanic jobs gone forever .....

Taxi/Tow crews aren't going to lose their jobs even if this is true, they'll just be reassigned.

This might be better stated as ....Hundreds of ibt mechanic furloughees recall opprotunities lost.

Either way, it is a concession and loss of jobs.


This has been out for a couple weeks at least here in SFO, and the ibt is indeed silent. While thats not exactly "proof" you can consider how easy it would be for the ibt to come out and say for the record, that they are not dealing with the company on Taxi/Tow.

Again, they are silent on the issue. Minus an official announcement we'll find out when our TA is reached.

JMHO

TSH

 

[Topcat187]

If this is true, then the IBT has lost their mind. We dont need another union who gives our work away!

 

[swamt]

If this is true, then the IBT has lost their mind. We dont need another union who gives our work away!

Typical teamsters doing their "behind closed doors" deals once again.

 

[T5towbar]

sCO has always had a dedicated Move Team which handled all aircraft movements at our hubs. Also, all sCO ramp crew does pushbacks. I push out 757, 767, and 777 a/c every day. All sCO ramp is trained to push off aircraft and some also "ride the brake" as well. So ramp (sCO and sUA) will be pushing back from all gates instead of MX which sUA does or did. The Move Team provides those functions of any taxiing to the hardstand or the hangars especially at EWR and IAH. In the TA that was shot down, there were provisions to protect our move teams. There will be in any TA to protect them. I think that they will expand the Move Team concept to the rest of the sUA hubs as well. So I guess this was the reason to give up that which would be fought for by the IAM, and get something else for it.

 

[xUT]

sCO has always had a dedicated Move Team which handled all aircraft movements at our hubs. Also, all sCO ramp crew does pushbacks. I push out 757, 767, and 777 a/c every day. All sCO ramp is trained to push off aircraft and some also "ride the brake" as well. So ramp (sCO and sUA) will be pushing back from all gates instead of MX which sUA does or did. The Move Team provides those functions of any taxiing to the hardstand or the hangars especially at EWR and IAH. In the TA that was shot down, there were provisions to protect our move teams. There will be in any TA to protect them. I think that they will expand the Move Team concept to the rest of the sUA hubs as well. So I guess this was the reason to give up that which would be fought for by the IAM, and get something else for it.

Thanks for the info! That's quite interesting. sUA used to do receive and dispatch; towing, run-up and taxi.
so, sCO does taxi as well? Is there additional skill pay for your move team?
I can see the R&D and towing, but am surprised at the taxi.
Oh well, not my gig anymore. Good to see the IAM is protecting you guys.
Take Care,
B) xUT

 

[T5towbar]

Yeah. There is premium pay for all Move Team members. I think it is 1.75 override.
These are considered as specialized ramp jobs that are considered "closed area".

Not sure about the taxi part though. MX still will do run ups and or taxi if needed. It is just aircraft movements that the Move Team does since they have SuperTug tractors (large for M/L and small for RJ's) to move around the ramp between hardstands and hangars. Good thing is that you don't need the old fashioned towbar & tractor while someone rides the brakes. I didn't know that sUA didn't do pushbacks till after the BK. We've (sCO) always done ours since it was more easier to do. Makes much more sense in a hub where there are multiple movements. So the figuring is that since there is a move team, MX can do other functions within their scope. So I guess that the IBT knows this.

As far as the IAM protecting us....... the jury is still out and after that POS that was offered, we'll see.........
But the Move Team isn't going anywhere.

 

[blue collar]

At least in some stations (ORD for example) a mechanic is required for a/c movement whether by supertug or, obviously, taxi. So that work is still protected for mx. I, being mx, feel that it should remain a mx function, and not be given to ramp.

 

[paul1]

yes in ord aa does a/c movement by taxi or supertug. In are yearly training the FAA comes and does a lecture on a/c movement and problems at ord. Ramp has done a/c push backs at gates every since the twu gave that up. I just don't see ramp comm. with the tower. This is a major safety issue.

 

[T5towbar]

IMHO, I think that they will 'harmonize" that function. Obviously MX will do taxi and run ups, but at sCO hubs (IAH; EWR; CLE) aircraft movements have been the responsibility of the Move Team. Ramp communicates with SOC and the FAA tower, since the Move Team is part of SOC. So more than likely, the sUA hubs may or may not keep that. Unless they start one at the sUA hubs.

2 different cultures that have to be ironed out, since the IAM will fight to keep the move team in place at the sCO hubs. I'm not familiar with sUA policy on aircraft movement, but the IAH team have been recently awarded for no accidents or incidents.

But ramp will be pushing back aircraft from gates. That's part of our job.

 

[blue collar]

The local airport policy will determine if they can have a move team there or not. I can only speak to ORD (and mdw if you flew there), but 2 mechanics are required for anything in the movement area, and both must have a blue stripe on their badge indicating they took and passed the city test. The blue stripe is only issued to mechanics.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

The teamsters admit to the deal.

http://www.teamster.org/content/amfa%E2%80%99s-poor-attempt-distort-truth

...The email further states that Clacy Griswold, Ed Gleason and myself agreed with the company to allow this work to be outsourced. To this point, the company approached IBT leadership and made a proposal along the lines described in the email. There was more to the proposal but the point is that neither Clacy, Ed or I have the authority to make a back room deal like AMFA did with the “low-tech” work. In bargaining with the Teamsters, it’s the rank-and-file voting members of the committee who decide whether to accept or reject an offer such as this...

So the company approached the teamsters and they obviously agreed, and as slick worded as Fisher trys to be, he never states they said "NO" to the company, and as the language already appeared in the IAMs most recent TA its clear the ibt has surrendered mechanics work.

I find it laughable that they now try to placate us by allowing us to vote on it.

The deal should not have been made.

 

[swamt]

The teamsters admit to the deal.

http://www.teamster.org/content/amfa%E2%80%99s-poor-attempt-distort-truth



So the company approached the teamsters and they obviously agreed, and as slick worded as Fisher trys to be, he never states they said "NO" to the company, and as the language already appeared in the IAMs most recent TA its clear the ibt has surrendered mechanics work.

I find it laughable that they now try to placate us by allowing us to vote on it.

The deal should not have been made.

100% correct. Typical ibt/teamsters "behind closed door" deals being done. The teamsters have done this while representing us here at SWA. It was brought to lite on 2 or 3 occations where they got busted by the membership and tried to lie there way out of it, and the exact same scenario you have pointed out above is what they pulled to try to get out of it. The last time they did these "behind closed door" deals was during one of our contract nego's and was added to the long list of reasons for being fired from representing the SWA mechs. It was also brought to lite that the teamsters were doing the same "behind closed door" deals while representing the CAL mechs (prior to CAL and UAL merger) as we shared the same representatives for nego contracts and such. The CAL mechs were not successful in firing the teamsters, now they are paying the price with the current merger being done and still having the teamsters represent them. Rest assured the teamsters will be practicing their typical teamster representation with the continued "behind closed door deals". The key words in your statement above, written by the union themselves, is; "...The email further states that Clacy Griswold, Ed Gleason and myself agreed with the company to allow this work to be outsourced." (quotations added by me)
I really do wish you guys luck, but it won't be long where the teamsters will be their own demise at UAL not to far in the future. Just let them run their own course, they will do it to themselves.

 

[Topcat187]

Funny how they never just say, "we didnt agree to it". A lot of wording to tell us that it was the companies idea, so its not our fault.

Why would you even allow it on the table????

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

Yeah. There is premium pay for all Move Team members. I think it is 1.75 override.
These are considered as specialized ramp jobs that are considered "closed area".

Not sure about the taxi part though. MX still will do run ups and or taxi if needed.As far as the IAM protecting us....... the jury is still out and after that POS that was offered, we'll see.........
But the Move Team isn't going anywhere.

I have a question here, Why does the ramp get extra for moving aircraft, does maint get extra for the same job or extra for taxi or runup of aircraft?

If NOT then WHY not?

Is this some thing the IBT is attempting to get for aircraft maintenance?