Stock Clerks are very important to the repair process but this one is not as important as he thinks - Stock Clerks are not held responsible for thier errors like a A&P now are they. They make a mistake and bring out the wrong part it is the mechanic that hangs for it if it is installed not them. So yes I give a damn when some one who is not held responsible is passing judgement on those who lay thier careers on the line each and everytime they sign a logbook. So let me know when you are puckered up and I will been over so you can kiss the brown eye.
IAM Labor Agreement successor?
- Thread starter Solidarity
- Start date
AIRWOMAN
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2005
- 3,440
- 0
I don't know how things are run or set up on the east but I do know about the west side. And if things go the way they appear to be, then the east side may fall in line with the west's way of handling the effectivity of parts.
On the west side, the part is looked up in the IPC, SR's, TR's, SB's, EO's, etc. are possibly looked into also. The PN is crossed to an M&E number. The M&E number is ordered and the tech goes to the warehouse to pick up the part. The M&E number that was ordered was pulled from the shelf or bin by the clerks. The clerk does not verify that the tech ordered the correct and effective part. He supplies what was ordered.
There have been issues with effectivity but the west has a dedicated engineering group that works closely with a multitude of groups upstairs to audit and ensure that the multiple PN's which are fully interchangeable AND effective, are under a single M&E. That group has been dedicated to this task for over 4 years now and without much doubt, will continue their work when the east and west operations fully merge.
So it is TOTALLY and EXCLUSIVELY the technicians responsiblity to ensure that the effective part is installed on the aircraft. The FAA won't come looking for the stock clerk/warehouse attendant when investigating the installation of a non effective aircraft part. They'll be looking for the tech that signed his or her name to the log book or non routine or whatever task paperwork was used.
Your statement regarding the shipment of the O2 generators is accurate in a sense, but those generators were not installed as a functioning unit on that doomed flight. There was no log book signed. They were cargo. And if my memory serves me, the label was inaccurate.
On the west side, the part is looked up in the IPC, SR's, TR's, SB's, EO's, etc. are possibly looked into also. The PN is crossed to an M&E number. The M&E number is ordered and the tech goes to the warehouse to pick up the part. The M&E number that was ordered was pulled from the shelf or bin by the clerks. The clerk does not verify that the tech ordered the correct and effective part. He supplies what was ordered.
There have been issues with effectivity but the west has a dedicated engineering group that works closely with a multitude of groups upstairs to audit and ensure that the multiple PN's which are fully interchangeable AND effective, are under a single M&E. That group has been dedicated to this task for over 4 years now and without much doubt, will continue their work when the east and west operations fully merge.
So it is TOTALLY and EXCLUSIVELY the technicians responsiblity to ensure that the effective part is installed on the aircraft. The FAA won't come looking for the stock clerk/warehouse attendant when investigating the installation of a non effective aircraft part. They'll be looking for the tech that signed his or her name to the log book or non routine or whatever task paperwork was used.
Your statement regarding the shipment of the O2 generators is accurate in a sense, but those generators were not installed as a functioning unit on that doomed flight. There was no log book signed. They were cargo. And if my memory serves me, the label was inaccurate.
delldude
Veteran
dude...a hot stores guy will help prevent a mech from getting in hot water and you know it....
also in the end it isn't the stores guy who is responsible for correct part usage.....its the mech who should use current and approved data.....
back off the guy...you know i'm right...
That is not true.
And to AW,
I am talking about an incident on US Airways, not Valujet where functioning O2 Generators were shipped on a passenger flight.
The clerk is responsible for the DOT hazmat paperwork, proper shipping labeling and container.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
I understand this is the TWU's position, however, it would be extremely unlikely that the TWU's contract would prevail. A new precedent would have to be set regarding case studies for that to happen. The TWU has a duty to protect its membership and one way they are doing it is to argue against the IAM's abrogated bankrupt contract. Is it admirable? Yes. Will their position be successful? No.
Again, I find no NMB case study to support a successful argument along those lines. Unfortunately, the IAM's abrogated bankrupt contract will most definately be the baseline used. It's in case study and that's where Harbison, and everyone else is coming from.
At any rate, ALL workers will be much better off to have the IAM eliminated first.
regards,
I have to admit that you finally got something right.
Guys argue the points not the source. Just because 700U often resorts to such tactics it doesnt justify anyone else sinking to the same level.
As I said Stock Clerks are a important part of the operation but they do not get held anywhere near the standards of a A&P. I have a problem with anyone that is not capable of wearing a A&P's shoes telling them what is best for them. Everytime a A&P signs a logbook even if the aircraft doesn't fly they have put thier career and livelyhood on the line and possibly thier freedom. He has no bussiness telling any A&P what is best for them, he is not in and can not step into thier shoes. The Stock Clerk is not responsible for the parts going on the aircraft.
allstrike
Veteran
- Oct 12, 2005
- 759
- 4
