Acft 702

allegheny1

Member
Oct 1, 2002
84
0
Today acft 702 was ferried via phx to the goodyear graveyard.
I guess management still believes it will win an appeal or they don t
believe our mechanics can accomplish the checks as we all have stated.

I believe it was taken to the desert in order to slap us all upside the head
like we were bad step children.

what do you think
 
As I see it....willnotworkforfree is either most correct?...or more time and resources has just been mis-utilized yet again.

If my friend is not correct? Here's what we have.


(1) 4.0 hours have been wasted off this aircrafts life cycle. by being flown to GYR for what apparent reason?

(2) Fuel was wasted flying it to GYR.

(3) Storeage fees have been wasted , where as the Acft could have just sat on hangar ramp space that we already pay for in either CLT or PIT.

(4) The flight crews time was wasted...as was their return "Dead Head" to CLT or PIT

Anyway you slice it...The compnay is going to continue to play their games...all the while Dave is calling for the internal fighting to end...and re-focus on fighting the true enemy (The Competition)....Nice try Dave....but again , YOU have raised the bar of hostilities here.

I also see this as a possible breach/violation of the CBA contracts established with ALPA and the others regarding Maintaining a fleet of 279 Acft.

The verbage is indicative of 279 Acft including spares and Acft in Maintenance...lets review.


(1)Acft 702UW is now no longer part of the "Active Fleet" do to being timed out...it's simply not active.

(2) Acft 702UW is not a "Spare"....a spare denotes being a useable/available Acft...which 702 is clearly not at this point...it is also not sitting in a place to be drawn back into use as a spare implies. The Acft is not even advantagious to be robbed for spare parts while sitting in GYR.

(3) The Acft cannot be considered an Acft in maintenance either....The judge has ruled that the work is that of the USAIrways IAM Membership...so no 3rd party in GYR or anywhere else can work it.

BY and large...money time and effort has been wasted again...We are not dealing with honest or intelligent people here. We are in fact dealing with people whom will take every opprotunity to increase an already hostile enviroment....all the while the buzzards are circling.

Dave needs to wake up...and come to terms with this fact. "We are not the enemy"...but he's making us out to be via his own actions...and seeking advice of people whom view labor as the enemy.

I hope the money wasted on playing musical airplanes is not needed to fight WN and the others..if it is? We need to be braced for a complete loss of everything we hold sacred regarding our futures here.

Lets keep in mind this fact also...We are facing the busy Thanksgiving period quickly...but we will lose the chance to make revenue with yet one less Aircraft...How interested in profit making does this sound????
 
AOG-N-IT said:
As I see it....willnotworkforfree is either most correct?...or more time and resources has just been mis-utilized yet again.

If my friend is not correct? Here's what we have.


(1) 4.0 hours have been wasted off this aircrafts life cycle. by being flown to GYR for what apparent reason?

(2) Fuel was wasted flying it to GYR.

(3) Storeage fees have been wasted , where as the Acft could have just sat on hangar ramp space that we already pay for in either CLT or PIT.

(4) The flight crews time was wasted...as was their return "Dead Head" to CLT or PIT...

--------------------------------------------------


...(3) The Acft cannot be considered an Acft in maintenance either....The judge has ruled that the work is that of the USAIrways IAM Membership...so no 3rd party in GYR or anywhere else can work it...
All the money "wasted" might be counterbalanced by the insurance premiums saved by taking the aircraft physically off the property and into desert storage. As I have been told, if the airplane sits on USAirways ramp space, the insurance is paid as if it's an active aircraft. In the desert, the premiums go way down, and the company may be required to by the lease to send them to drier climates if they are to be idled for extended periods.

Also, I don't think the judge ruled any such thing as you maintain. He simply stopped the progression of the contract maintenance in acknowledgement of some possible merit to the IAM claim. The restraining order simply called a halt while the legal situation is sorted out. Whether the IAM prevails, or not, remains to be seen. The judge simply realized that the IAM members MAY be in the process of being illegally harmed by the outsourcing, so he stopped it. The T in TRO stand for "temporary," I do believe.

In the meantime, Siegel has no other choice than to park the Airbuses as they come up for overhaul. He can't send them to Alabama per the court order, and he can't let the IAM work on them in house without doing harm to the company's position. The only answer is to park them.
 
You may have a point on Insurance issues NYC.

Yet wrangling over terms such as" temporary" is pointless....The Acft was moved in a wastefull manner pending the final court ruling on the subject...and by heading to GYR , only further leads us to believe that more than ST Aerospace was involved in negotiations for our work to begin with.

The storage issues are understood..I've been there and done that. But storage benefits only come from "Long Term" storage fees and climate scenarios. keep in mind...this acft was to have spent it's entire life cycle in the eastern US , where salt air and humidity is already a regular companion of our fleet.

You also completely missed the breakdown of possible contract verbage violations ..as their agreed upon verbage implied yet again.

Defend these actions all you want....We are all going to suffer from the ramifications regardless.

To expand on your insurance cost savings theory...No savings were realized when we parked multiple engine-less B757's on the CLT ramp as we awaited engines from Rolls-Royce that we had failed to pay the bills for....nor did we achieve any insurance breaks as DC-9's / MD-80's languished on the ramp in PIT..then we also never saved an insurance penny as B737-300/400's waited in a tmed out condition for space in over-haul either.

Basically your theory doesn't hold water...it's a coporate mistake and game being played...and nobody is going to benefit from within in light of this stall. Well GYR is going to profit..but that does not aid our bottom line , now does it ????
 
With ACFT 702 being parked in the graveyard, does that mean we are down to 278 aircraft in the fleet? also I would like to know if the brain-trustees in ccy will do if they lose the appeal? By the way when is the judge suppose tor ule on the appeal
issue?
 
Looks like we have a few spare aircraft. April 2003

http://www.visitingphx.com/gyrphotos4.html


From right to left, the nose of ex-Continental DC-10, N35084 , the tails of an Aloha Boeing 737-200,
a US Airways Airbus A320, three United Boeing 737-300's, and two US Airways Airbus A319's
are all in a row on the Timco ramp in April 2003.
 
robbedagain said:
With ACFT 702 being parked in the graveyard, does that mean we are down to 278 aircraft in the fleet? also I would like to know if the brain-trustees in ccy will do if they lose the appeal?  By the way when is the judge suppose tor ule on the appeal
issue?
Robbed,

It means we are down to 277. Acft 700 is in work at ST Mobile Aerospace via the judges ruling. So we can't count that persay.

Acft 701 languishes in Mobile...not as Active , not as a Spare...nor is it in Maintenance.

Acft 702 has just joined the mix in the void.


Should the letter of the CBA agreements be followed ?...as ALPA , IAM and AFA have signed off on...as has U itself , I clearly see a violation of those agreements..We can only hope that the various Unions lawyers see it and act upon this in an alike manner.

Wroungfully Shuddered Acft only add to the imbalance of employee to Acft ratios that U and so called experts claim we have already.....however U has directly contributed to this imbalance in an illegal manner as I see it anyway.
 
nycbusdriver said:
Also, I don't think the judge ruled any such thing as you maintain. He simply stopped the progression of the contract maintenance in acknowledgement of some possible merit to the IAM claim. The restraining order simply called a halt while the legal situation is sorted out. Whether the IAM prevails, or not, remains to be seen. The judge simply realized that the IAM members MAY be in the process of being illegally harmed by the outsourcing, so he stopped it. The T in TRO stand for "temporary," I do believe.
The judge issued a preliminary injunction, not a temporary restraining order. The judge additionally refused to stay said injunction pending an emergency appeal.

This means (prelim versus TRO) that the IAM is likely to prevail on the merits of the case. It also means that (not staying his own order) that the judge believes that he won't be overturned (federal judges are very picky about this). Taken together, it indicates that the IAM's case has enough merit to solidly sway a federal judge.

The possibility exists that if the 3rd circuit feels the same way that you could see the preliminary injunction converted to a permanent injunction. While it would thwart Dave and Dave's plan to end-run around the CBA, it would probably be in the company's favor--as the preliminary injunction would probably stay in place pending a full hearing/trial on the matter, which could take months (if not years) and thus prohibit US from overhauling any of the Airbi.
 
ClueByFour said:
nycbusdriver said:
Also, I don't think the judge ruled any such thing as you maintain. He simply stopped the progression of the contract maintenance in acknowledgement of some possible merit to the IAM claim. The restraining order simply called a halt while the legal situation is sorted out. Whether the IAM prevails, or not, remains to be seen. The judge simply realized that the IAM members MAY be in the process of being illegally harmed by the outsourcing, so he stopped it. The T in TRO stand for "temporary," I do believe.
The judge issued a preliminary injunction, not a temporary restraining order. The judge additionally refused to stay said injunction pending an emergency appeal.

This means (prelim versus TRO) that the IAM is likely to prevail on the merits of the case. It also means that (not staying his own order) that the judge believes that he won't be overturned (federal judges are very picky about this). Taken together, it indicates that the IAM's case has enough merit to solidly sway a federal judge.

The possibility exists that if the 3rd circuit feels the same way that you could see the preliminary injunction converted to a permanent injunction. While it would thwart Dave and Dave's plan to end-run around the CBA, it would probably be in the company's favor--as the preliminary injunction would probably stay in place pending a full hearing/trial on the matter, which could take months (if not years) and thus prohibit US from overhauling any of the Airbi.
and if they go below the magical 279 number are they not in violation again?
 
Go to www.cactuswings.com for an inventory of the airline in the desert, Goodyear, AZ appears to be the holding area for U airbus.
 
...not sure how the other labor groups see this? but from my seat it looks like a clear violation of the CBA's

279 has clearly dropped to 277..........and without the judges allowance of 700 continuance of it being worked by ST Aerospace..that figure would be 276 instead of the agreed upon 279.

I hope the legal eagles for all the represented employee's are watching this...and are equally prepared to act on this continued violation of our agreements immediately.

Siegel and crew are going to continue to push the envelope until someone slams the door on them for good !

I can only continue to hope that Dr. Bronner will eventually see that his RSA money is intrusted to people whom have no clue on running an airline beyond providing lousy service and alienating it's loyal employees.

It's past due for these people to leave us !!

Dave..."You are the weakest link" Good-Bye !!!
 
airknocker said:
Go to www.cactuswings.com for an inventory of the airline in the desert, Goodyear, AZ appears to be the holding area for U airbus.
airknocker,

Those are the airbus aircraft that were returned to the leasing company during BK. Those do not figure into our 279 figure that was agreed upon. We curently have no ties to them at all.

The only thing that can bring them back is renued leasing agreements with the lessor , whom I believe is Phillip Morris Tobacco Company ?
 
ClueByFour said:
nycbusdriver said:
Also, I don't think the judge ruled any such thing as you maintain. He simply stopped the progression of the contract maintenance in acknowledgement of some possible merit to the IAM claim. The restraining order simply called a halt while the legal situation is sorted out. Whether the IAM prevails, or not, remains to be seen. The judge simply realized that the IAM members MAY be in the process of being illegally harmed by the outsourcing, so he stopped it. The T in TRO stand for "temporary," I do believe.
The judge issued a preliminary injunction, not a temporary restraining order. The judge additionally refused to stay said injunction pending an emergency appeal.

This means (prelim versus TRO) that the IAM is likely to prevail on the merits of the case. It also means that (not staying his own order) that the judge believes that he won't be overturned (federal judges are very picky about this). Taken together, it indicates that the IAM's case has enough merit to solidly sway a federal judge.

The possibility exists that if the 3rd circuit feels the same way that you could see the preliminary injunction converted to a permanent injunction. While it would thwart Dave and Dave's plan to end-run around the CBA, it would probably be in the company's favor--as the preliminary injunction would probably stay in place pending a full hearing/trial on the matter, which could take months (if not years) and thus prohibit US from overhauling any of the Airbi.
U probably won't want to bring in any of the 'buses while argueing in court....if they did let the mechanics start to work on them.....so much for the "no facilities"arguement.
so where does davey go from here?10 buses due by spring and no end in sight for relief from the courts....so does 269 ring a bell? can we expect a end around on the cba's now too?
 
nycbusdriver said:
Also, I don't think the judge ruled any such thing as you maintain. He simply stopped the progression of the contract maintenance in acknowledgement of some possible merit to the IAM claim. In the meantime, Siegel has no other choice than to park the Airbuses as they come up for overhaul. He can't send them to Alabama per the court order, and he can't let the IAM work on them in house without doing harm to the company's position. The only answer is to park them.
Um NO!!!! I believe the judge ruled AGAINST US Airways and US Airways is appealing. They TRIED to go ahead with their own distorted view and do their own thing anyway and the judge STOPPED them.

He did not claim that "there might be some merit".....

He outright said "US Airways...YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!!!!