Attitude Adjustment - Think About It
- Thread starter RV4
- Start date
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/12/2003 6
17 PM Steiner wrote:
Maintenance needs annual proficiency testing like the pilots have to go through, or recurrent license testing. The A&P ticket shouldn't be good for life. Too many fakes out there. (But as we have seen with FAR part 66 revision, too many groups lobbied that the increased safety would affect their costs. Bummer.)
----------------
[/blockquote]
Sounds reasonable to me, but you will probably never see it happen as it would thin the ranks everywhere, airlines included. As we all know,when it gets down to it it is all about the signature and not so much about the quality of the work. This mentality will only change if and when there is sufficient public outcry to make the government and/or airlines take notice. Of course this will only happen after a particularly bloody accident which can be directly traced to shoddy maintenance.
On the other hand it can be argued that if you have your A&P license at all that you must be competent due to the rigorous testing process. Sometimes I have to wonder though if we all took the same test........
----------------
On 1/12/2003 6
17 PM Steiner wrote: Maintenance needs annual proficiency testing like the pilots have to go through, or recurrent license testing. The A&P ticket shouldn't be good for life. Too many fakes out there. (But as we have seen with FAR part 66 revision, too many groups lobbied that the increased safety would affect their costs. Bummer.)
----------------
[/blockquote]
Sounds reasonable to me, but you will probably never see it happen as it would thin the ranks everywhere, airlines included. As we all know,when it gets down to it it is all about the signature and not so much about the quality of the work. This mentality will only change if and when there is sufficient public outcry to make the government and/or airlines take notice. Of course this will only happen after a particularly bloody accident which can be directly traced to shoddy maintenance.
On the other hand it can be argued that if you have your A&P license at all that you must be competent due to the rigorous testing process. Sometimes I have to wonder though if we all took the same test........
KCFlyer
Veteran
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/12/2003 8:17:11 AM Hopeful wrote:
KCFLYER: I think you missed my point. No one is doubting that sacrifices have to be made by all. But why does the immediate solution always point to wages?
You got me there. As I said earlier, wage concessions alone will not save any airline.
Why does bankruptcy judge allow "bonuses" for new CEOs and then order paycuts for the workforce? To get the best man for the job? Carty himself has said that by foregoing all 3% raises due in February,it will only save $130,000,000. ONLY SAVE $130,000,000! It either means that more paycuts are around the corner and/or major work rule changes must take place.
You got me there too...I've never understood the "retention bonuses" paid to U executives. If they were that good, why are their companies in bankruptcy court
For instance, in the aircraft maintenance end of it, it means shutting down at least one major overhaul facility and contracting out more and more of the heavy checks. As United has stated, most of that work will not stay in the good ol US of A. "Them jobs are a goin cross the border and overseas"!
It ain't just the airlines. You drive a foreign or domestic car? Chances are good your Chevy was built in Mexico by a guy paid $5 a day. Too bad the price of the car doesn't reflect that.
In the Pilot end of it, it might mean flying many more hours than now flown and changing the "SCOPE" claus which affects ALL employees.
And please don't preach to me about "leaving the company, starting my own so I can pay myself "obscene" management wages. I am about 10 years away from retirement and will be here till the end if necessary.
I'm not preaching about leaving. But the **** "kool-aid" comments to anyone who might happen to agree with anything managment means the person is not looking at the whole picture. Perhaps one change that could take place is to stop making managment your adversary, and make them your team member. Let your adversaries be the other airlines.
I do not fault executives for being hightly compensated! I fault them when they grant themselves OVER INFLATED salaries. And when this vicious cycle of downsizing and mass layoffs have ended, maybe years from now, and the majors have become leaner and more efficient, the board of directors can give the CEO another $100,000,000.00 in stock options as an "atta boy," give him more retirement credit than actually time worked, while the people whose jobs they slashed and lives they changed can open the newspaper one day, read the business section, and say "Yep, That CEO deserves all that $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"
Funny you don't fault executives for being highly compensated....I do. If an executive didn't have a hand in starting the company, then they shouldn't make any more than 10 times what the lowest paid worker makes.
----------------
[/blockquote]
----------------
On 1/12/2003 8:17:11 AM Hopeful wrote:
KCFLYER: I think you missed my point. No one is doubting that sacrifices have to be made by all. But why does the immediate solution always point to wages?
You got me there. As I said earlier, wage concessions alone will not save any airline.
Why does bankruptcy judge allow "bonuses" for new CEOs and then order paycuts for the workforce? To get the best man for the job? Carty himself has said that by foregoing all 3% raises due in February,it will only save $130,000,000. ONLY SAVE $130,000,000! It either means that more paycuts are around the corner and/or major work rule changes must take place.
You got me there too...I've never understood the "retention bonuses" paid to U executives. If they were that good, why are their companies in bankruptcy court
For instance, in the aircraft maintenance end of it, it means shutting down at least one major overhaul facility and contracting out more and more of the heavy checks. As United has stated, most of that work will not stay in the good ol US of A. "Them jobs are a goin cross the border and overseas"!
It ain't just the airlines. You drive a foreign or domestic car? Chances are good your Chevy was built in Mexico by a guy paid $5 a day. Too bad the price of the car doesn't reflect that.
In the Pilot end of it, it might mean flying many more hours than now flown and changing the "SCOPE" claus which affects ALL employees.
And please don't preach to me about "leaving the company, starting my own so I can pay myself "obscene" management wages. I am about 10 years away from retirement and will be here till the end if necessary.
I'm not preaching about leaving. But the **** "kool-aid" comments to anyone who might happen to agree with anything managment means the person is not looking at the whole picture. Perhaps one change that could take place is to stop making managment your adversary, and make them your team member. Let your adversaries be the other airlines.
I do not fault executives for being hightly compensated! I fault them when they grant themselves OVER INFLATED salaries. And when this vicious cycle of downsizing and mass layoffs have ended, maybe years from now, and the majors have become leaner and more efficient, the board of directors can give the CEO another $100,000,000.00 in stock options as an "atta boy," give him more retirement credit than actually time worked, while the people whose jobs they slashed and lives they changed can open the newspaper one day, read the business section, and say "Yep, That CEO deserves all that $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"
Funny you don't fault executives for being highly compensated....I do. If an executive didn't have a hand in starting the company, then they shouldn't make any more than 10 times what the lowest paid worker makes.
----------------
[/blockquote]
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/12/2003 6:58:47 PM will fix for food wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/12/2003 617 PM Steiner wrote:
Maintenance needs annual proficiency testing like the pilots have to go through, or recurrent license testing. The A&P ticket shouldn't be good for life. Too many fakes out there. (But as we have seen with FAR part 66 revision, too many groups lobbied that the increased safety would affect their costs. Bummer.)
----------------
[/blockquote]
Sounds reasonable to me, but you will probably never see it happen as it would thin the ranks everywhere, airlines included. As we all know,when it gets down to it it is all about the signature and not so much about the quality of the work. This mentality will only change if and when there is sufficient public outcry to make the government and/or airlines take notice. Of course this will only happen after a particularly bloody accident which can be directly traced to shoddy maintenance.
On the other hand it can be argued that if you have your A&P license at all that you must be competent due to the rigorous testing process. Sometimes I have to wonder though if we all took the same test........
----------------
[/blockquote]
NHBB: He is still around.
Proficiency testing of A&P mechanics, is fine. But why are baggage handlers not drug tested as A&P's are?
----------------
On 1/12/2003 6:58:47 PM will fix for food wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/12/2003 6
17 PM Steiner wrote: Maintenance needs annual proficiency testing like the pilots have to go through, or recurrent license testing. The A&P ticket shouldn't be good for life. Too many fakes out there. (But as we have seen with FAR part 66 revision, too many groups lobbied that the increased safety would affect their costs. Bummer.)
----------------
[/blockquote]
Sounds reasonable to me, but you will probably never see it happen as it would thin the ranks everywhere, airlines included. As we all know,when it gets down to it it is all about the signature and not so much about the quality of the work. This mentality will only change if and when there is sufficient public outcry to make the government and/or airlines take notice. Of course this will only happen after a particularly bloody accident which can be directly traced to shoddy maintenance.
On the other hand it can be argued that if you have your A&P license at all that you must be competent due to the rigorous testing process. Sometimes I have to wonder though if we all took the same test........
----------------
[/blockquote]
NHBB: He is still around.
Proficiency testing of A&P mechanics, is fine. But why are baggage handlers not drug tested as A&P's are?
Fleet Service are drug tested. All you have to do is a little aircraft damage, and you'll be peeing in a bottle ASAP.
So they are not subject to the Random Drug Testing program, only when they bang something up? How about Alcohol Testing?
KCFlyer
Veteran
FSC's are not under random testing, and usually only get tested if they damage something. They also could get tested if management suspects you of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Also you had better only be taking drugs that have been prescribed to you. They used to check FSC's randomly when they checked A/C engine oil, but we don't do that anymore.
- Thread Starter
- #40
[BR][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/12/2003 11:52:16 AM will fix for food wrote: [BR][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/11/2003 4:23:05 PM RV4 wrote: [BR][BR]Only thing slowing them is our labor agreements and job security clauses. [BR][BR][/FONT][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR][BR]Can you expand on this? Where specifically do you see the problems and how would you fix them? [BR][BR]----------------[BR][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]The TWU Job Security Clause guarantees full or part time employment and pay to everyone on the active as of March 1st, 2001. [BR][BR]This leaves AA with little ability to reduce headcount as the fleet is reduced. In addition, AA has spent about $300,000.00 moving about 20 Building Cleaners from RDU to TUL/JFK and now JFK/LGA to Tulsa due to work being contracting out. These dollars include $12,500.00 special moving allowance on top of regular moving allowances.[BR][BR]Look for AA to "Move the work to the people" instead of the people to the work. This will likely cause problems for TWA employees since they were not on the active payroll until April 10th, 2001 and TWA MD-80s are rumored to be headed for Tulsa Base.[BR][BR]Also, watch for National War Emergency and/or grounding of Aircraft for safety reasons, these items are just two out of about 5 that will void this job security clause. Airbus ****pit door modification parts availability issues come to mind when thinking about grounding aircraft for safety reasons.[BR][BR]The problem as I see it would be that AA does NOT want to unemployee A&P Licensed Mechanics while keeping non-licensed OSM's. [BR][BR]AA needs to reduce head count along with reductions in fleet size, but the current job security restrictions leave them with very few options as of now.
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/12/2003 11:52:16 AM will fix for food wrote: [BR][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/11/2003 4:23:05 PM RV4 wrote: [BR][BR]Only thing slowing them is our labor agreements and job security clauses. [BR][BR][/FONT][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR][BR]Can you expand on this? Where specifically do you see the problems and how would you fix them? [BR][BR]----------------[BR][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]The TWU Job Security Clause guarantees full or part time employment and pay to everyone on the active as of March 1st, 2001. [BR][BR]This leaves AA with little ability to reduce headcount as the fleet is reduced. In addition, AA has spent about $300,000.00 moving about 20 Building Cleaners from RDU to TUL/JFK and now JFK/LGA to Tulsa due to work being contracting out. These dollars include $12,500.00 special moving allowance on top of regular moving allowances.[BR][BR]Look for AA to "Move the work to the people" instead of the people to the work. This will likely cause problems for TWA employees since they were not on the active payroll until April 10th, 2001 and TWA MD-80s are rumored to be headed for Tulsa Base.[BR][BR]Also, watch for National War Emergency and/or grounding of Aircraft for safety reasons, these items are just two out of about 5 that will void this job security clause. Airbus ****pit door modification parts availability issues come to mind when thinking about grounding aircraft for safety reasons.[BR][BR]The problem as I see it would be that AA does NOT want to unemployee A&P Licensed Mechanics while keeping non-licensed OSM's. [BR][BR]AA needs to reduce head count along with reductions in fleet size, but the current job security restrictions leave them with very few options as of now.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/13/2003 9
59 AM bagsmasher wrote:
FSC's are not under random testing, and usually only get tested if they damage something. They also could get tested if management suspects you of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Also you had better only be taking drugs that have been prescribed to you. They used to check FSC's randomly when they checked A/C engine oil, but we don't do that anymore.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I would say that many field trips to repair structure are form exactly that, Fleet banging the aircraft. I am not saying that they are alone guilty.
----------------
On 1/13/2003 9
59 AM bagsmasher wrote: FSC's are not under random testing, and usually only get tested if they damage something. They also could get tested if management suspects you of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Also you had better only be taking drugs that have been prescribed to you. They used to check FSC's randomly when they checked A/C engine oil, but we don't do that anymore.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I would say that many field trips to repair structure are form exactly that, Fleet banging the aircraft. I am not saying that they are alone guilty.
Similar threads
- Locked
