American Airlines and Labor Negotiations

Status
Not open for further replies.
WeAAsles said:
Because the Companies themselves lobby against any random drug testing program being implemented among baggage handlers. It’s already difficult enough getting people to work for the chatty wages outfits like Envoy, UGE, and DGS and others offer. Now throw random (weed) testing into that mix.

Trust me I would LOVE it if they started random testing in our group.

The issue with the lawsuit though is it being a violation of our CBA and the ramifications of someone coming back negative. So that’s why the TWU filed suit to get the Company to cease and desist from the practice.

(Also should allow more time for people to clean up their act if they’re dirty)
Click to expand...
yea but is the company doing this at envoy?
I havent heard of any lus ord getting tested.
 
dvlhog212 said:
FSC are all spun up about drug testing? Really? I`ve never understood why FSC are not subjected to the same random drug/alcohol testing that the AMT group is. The ramp is a dangerous place.
Click to expand...

The FSC group has nothing to do with being DOT certified or regulated. I worked for FedEx years ago part time as a courier, and we were regulated. Personally, I was never tested since the initial when being hired. The biggest item that they stuck with was the amount of time that you were on the clock and taking the required breaks.
The only time that a LUS FSC is tested is following an accident, no matter how minor. I've seen people tested after something as minor as having one of their carts being hit by someone else. I do recall that anyone who was a GSC was subject to random testing. That was more prevalent in a smaller station.
 
wings396 said:
The FSC group has nothing to do with being DOT certified or regulated. I worked for FedEx years ago part time as a courier, and we were regulated. Personally, I was never tested since the initial when being hired. The biggest item that they stuck with was the amount of time that you were on the clock and taking the required breaks.
The only time that a LUS FSC is tested is following an accident, no matter how minor. I've seen people tested after something as minor as having one of their carts being hit by someone else. I do recall that anyone who was a GSC was subject to random testing. That was more prevalent in a smaller station.
Click to expand...
FSC may not be dot regulated but they do touch aircraft. United airlines was reminded of this when a fsc didn't lock a cargo door and killed passengers on a 747.
 
Actually, after that accident indicator sight glasses we installed on the main cargo doors of 74s to verify the door is locked shut. The locking mechanism is different than the cargo door not closed indicator light in the flight deck.
 
texasreb said:
FSC may not be dot regulated but they do touch aircraft. United airlines was reminded of this when a fsc didn't lock a cargo door and killed passengers on a 747.
Click to expand...
https://ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/AAR9202.aspx


From the ntsb evidence indicated that the latch cams had been back-driven from the closed position after into a nearly open position after the door had been closed and locked. The latch cams had been driven into the lock sectors that deformed so that they failed to prevent the back driving.
 
I'm pretty sure you remember Coney, checking the sightglasses on the SPs just prior to nrt departure? Make sure the the red lines line up, iirc?
 
1986Mekanic said:
I'm pretty sure you remember Coney, checking the sightglasses on the SPs just prior to nrt departure? Make sure the the red lines line up, iirc?
Click to expand...
I Remember that and when we did ba 777 in dfw they had a requirement we check them and signed for them and had to verify to the captain before push back
 
If the Fleet Service is only tested after an accident then that is the way it should be for the Mechanics also...
 
Last edited:
yes, it was only a matter of time that the frackers/shale people were coming back to wreck havoc upon opec and pump up airline profits.

we knew this, the fear mongers used the spike for their own reasons. unfortunately, aa also jumped on this to cut ord-asia flights...

aa has a dilemma, ua is fighting us on the ord-china routes and 'dormancy' issues. with oil more likely to get to $50/bbl than $55/bbl, this may force aa to resume the china flights? aa currently uses one 787 for an ord-cun route and i don't believe we bought these super-duper fuel efficient wide-body planes to fly this route.

it seems as though every time you peel back a layer of the aa onion, it's as if our mngt. team is mediocre, at best.

aa purchases around 1 billion gallons of jet fuel every quarter. a little over 4 billion gallons a year. if jet fuel falls .50 cents lower over a year, the company will have an additional $2 billion dollars in profits in one year, that came out of nowhere. the assoc. needs to know this as the mediator needs to know this, as airline analysts already know this.

my suggestion to aa - hedge 5% of fuel costs to fix those costs to ord-asia. if you can't make money flying to china with jet fuel at $1.80 a gallon, something is seriously wrong.

other suggestion to aa and the twu - if aa and the usps want to randomly drug test FSCs, then the twu should agree to modify testing, only if aa agrees to give us back mail work. no mail = no tests, see you in court. maybe even tie lav service to this. no mail & lavs = no tests.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Hopeful
Another TWU Warning!
Replies
1
Views
1K
RV4
R
F
AA threatens to file BK if pilots get injuction to hold voting till they see final language
Replies
1
Views
1K
RV4
R
U
Iam Negotiations
4 5 6
Replies
88
Views
9K
delldude
delldude
C
Cost Reduction
Replies
5
Views
2K
28yrsnojob
2
A
What the APA legal team had to say
Replies
3
Views
1K
Cleared Direct
C

Latest posts

Back
Top