Aircraft maint issues

Stupid.jpg
 
And the letter from the FAA (attached) dated June 24th is addressed to Isom, Garcia and Pantoja.

Guess they don't want to deal with Samuelsen or Peterson either??
 

Attachments

  • document.pdf
    452.8 KB · Views: 238
The legitimacy of the write-ups isn't what is being argued.

It's the concerted effort to slow down the fixes which in turn become delays and cancellations.

Seems the focus of the argument with mechanics is that they can't say anything about legit issues. The problem with that argument is the legitimacy isn't the problem. The Company isn't arguing the maintenance work isn't necessary or frivolous, it's just intentionally slow.
Then my question now is, are they slower than normal? And if so, why?? I would think spring and summer family obligations will slow down some of the mechanics that accept the O/T as a norm as well. You know kids are out of school now. If slower maint is being blamed, could it be that the company (as in our case at SWA) is asking for more and more compliance??? Ours came from the pressure from the FAA to get more compliant in order to get ETOPS qualified so we all complied to get more compliant and that slowed down our regular maint routines a bit as well. Our SVP of maint was screaming "compliance, compliance, compliance" for months. When we did, he got pissed off about the slower maint. times. So just wondering if you guys are experiencing the same????
 
It's simple. They have documents, postings, even voice recordings that show certain terminology being used. "Long hot summer" ect. They can date those things and connect other dots to show something is happening.

Then they have statistical arguments of MEL items taking longer to clear, while at the same time less OT and Field Trips being accepted which leads to longer maintenance intervals which lead to late flights or cancellations. They're concentrating on RON and 0700 departures since those have less other issues that can contribute to higher than normal service failures due to maintenance. (weather, crew legality...)

Then you have statements from mechanics saying they're being pressured to not accept OT or Field Trips by Representatives and other employees.

Combine all those things and it paints a picture the Judge could interpret as a job action.

Nowhere is there are any calls or arguments to not write up maintenance issues or not fix them. There is no calls to violate any safety guidelines.

Simply, the Judge will decide if there is enough for him to declare in injunction to compel everyone to get back to normal, whatever normal was prior to the communications shared as evidence of an alleged job action.

Normal isn't what you say, it's what you've done...as a collective.
Terminology by individuals is not enough. Too grey for courts as any different individuals could very well take it in different ways. It has to be proven...
 
And the letter from the FAA (attached) dated June 24th is addressed to Isom, Garcia and Pantoja.

Guess they don't want to deal with Samuelsen or Peterson either??
I guess the FAA have seen GP's You Tube videos of him ranting like a three year old. They also don't want to deal with Sammy boy during the hot summer bloody months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: swamt
Then my question now is, are they slower than normal? And if so, why?? I would think spring and summer family obligations will slow down some of the mechanics that accept the O/T as a norm as well. You know kids are out of school now. If slower maint is being blamed, could it be that the company (as in our case at SWA) is asking for more and more compliance???

In their filing, they compare to the same period last year and the period prior to the postings they referenced as indicators to the calls for the avoidance of voluntary actions, like OT.
 
Terminology by individuals is not enough. Too grey for courts as any different individuals could very well take it in different ways. It has to be proven...

This isn't a murder trial. The burden of proof is nowhere near that level of scrutiny.

The RLA is in place to protect commerce and air transport. The Association is accused of violating the RLA and an injunction is a call to stop the actions that cause the violation.

If nothing is happening, then an injunction harms no one.

If something MIGHT be happening an injunction should stop it.

Seems like a simple choice. The threshold for evidence is very low.
 
This isn't a murder trial. The burden of proof is nowhere near that level of scrutiny.

The RLA is in place to protect commerce and air transport. The Association is accused of violating the RLA and an injunction is a call to stop the actions that cause the violation.

If nothing is happening, then an injunction harms no one.

If something MIGHT be happening an injunction should stop it.

Seems like a simple choice. The threshold for evidence is very low.
Let's say nothing is happening. Let's say the injunction holds and a fine is initiated. The company has leveraged a big advantage in negotiations over something that does not affect them but they will get what they want from the association through the membership. CONCESSIONS!
The company was unable to get scope, outsourcing and other concessions from the negotiations process including mediated negotiations. So now this little trick if successful will force the association to think about giving in on all the articles the company has been trying to get or pay a hefty fine. We will see when the judge returns with his decision or if we are lucky he may recommend getting our butts back to negotiations. In my opinion I see the company holding all the cards if the judge rules in favor of AA.
 
Let's say nothing is happening. Let's say the injunction holds and a fine is initiated. The company has leveraged a big advantage in negotiations over something that does not affect them but they will get what they want from the association through the membership. CONCESSIONS!
The company was unable to get scope, outsourcing and other concessions from the negotiations process including mediated negotiations. So now this little trick if successful will force the association to think about giving in on all the articles the company has been trying to get or pay a hefty fine. We will see when the judge returns with his decision or if we are lucky he may recommend getting our butts back to negotiations. In my opinion I see the company holding all the cards if the judge rules in favor of AA.

Little trick? Hardly.

If nothing is happening, the case isn't happening.

They have statements from this very forum that draws a line from the comments and postings, by Association Representatives, all the way to the statistical analysis of disruptions and also substantiates some of the independent statements they've received directly from mechanics.

Let's not try to save failed and misguided actions as a supposition nothing is happening to then lay blame to eventual JCBA shortcomings on a Judge or other targets.

If the injunction is declared then we drove that bus straight into the wall. It wasn't anyone else, it was us, as an Association.
 
Little trick? Hardly.

If nothing is happening, the case isn't happening.

They have statements from this very forum that draws a line from the comments and postings, by Association Representatives, all the way to the statistical analysis of disruptions and also substantiates some of the independent statements they've received directly from mechanics.

Let's not try to save failed and misguided actions as a supposition nothing is happening to then lay blame to eventual JCBA shortcomings on a Judge or other targets.

If the injunction is declared then we drove that bus straight into the wall. It wasn't anyone else, it was us, as an Association.
Statements on this forum are not sworn testimony and are he said, she said. Going on peoples opinions on this forum sounds like nonsense. I'm sure they must have more creditable things to go on.
Samuelsons big mouth at the townhall meeting is more creditable. They have a face to go with the threats and he is in a leadership position. The company is throwing everything out there. They will let the dysfunctional association sort it out and the judge will decide.
 
Little trick? Hardly.

If nothing is happening, the case isn't happening.

They have statements from this very forum that draws a line from the comments and postings, by Association Representatives, all the way to the statistical analysis of disruptions and also substantiates some of the independent statements they've received directly from mechanics.

Let's not try to save failed and misguided actions as a supposition nothing is happening to then lay blame to eventual JCBA shortcomings on a Judge or other targets.

If the injunction is declared then we drove that bus straight into the wall. It wasn't anyone else, it was us, as an Association.
Your right about the Bus comment. That's Samuelsons mind set. Buses and trains. o_O
 
Statements on this forum are not sworn testimony and are he said, she said. Going on peoples opinions on this forum sounds like nonsense. I'm sure they must have more creditable things to go on.
Samuelsons big mouth at the townhall meeting is more creditable. They have a face to go with the threats and he is in a leadership position. The company is throwing everything out there. They will let the dysfunctional association sort it out and the judge will decide.

But it goes together. The Association and Representatives go around and say things that have other meanings.

How do you show they have other meanings? By including conversations on how something is happening and the use of the "code words" taken from Association postings and recordings. You don't need sworn statements because you're just establishing something is happening and how the information shared by Association was interpreted.

Keep saying, this isn't a jury trial. It's a bench trial with the Judge making the decision. The evidentiary threshold is much lower.
 
Trying to understand why I should care if the union gets hit with an injunction...
You will found out at a later date after the union enforces a union dues for the added cost of ANY induced cost after all this is said and done. Watch and learn. Your union has been doing it for decades...
 
Just got word this morning the judge has decided to let the union fine its members if we violate the TRO. I don't have any info yet. It was just released this morning. Any links please post. Thanks.