does it really take an a/p license to park a plane..or push it back for that matter..mechanics all went to school to learn a trade..according to you 30% dont use it...before us/pi merger there was no recieve and dispatch.. a part time ramp agent could park and launch an aircraft with pi..or a ramp lead with us..and as far as utility goes..except for us maintenance bases,,there was none...ramp also did that along with flt crews and catering..
Is receive and dispatch gone, or utility contracted out. Either/Or?, can''t be Both/And
- Thread starter sdavis29
- Start date
Some workrules might go because unfortunately my fellow employees are running scared. What pisses me off is that I heard that the IAM for the first time is specifically talking about this with the company. Yes, receive and dispatch is the Bullseye.
I''m utterly disgusted with fellow employees who are now divided and saying they might give in to receive and dispatch. They don''t care that this will cause a job loss of probably 30% of our mechanics. Looks like everyman for himself and solidarity is dead.
These are the same ones who signed amfa cards not to long ago. And most have over 20 years of seniority.
If Dave wants to contract out utility I bet it would pass. Most mechanics would rather that happen than lose receive and dispatch. Plus we are the majority.
As always,
Love Joesy
I''m utterly disgusted with fellow employees who are now divided and saying they might give in to receive and dispatch. They don''t care that this will cause a job loss of probably 30% of our mechanics. Looks like everyman for himself and solidarity is dead.
These are the same ones who signed amfa cards not to long ago. And most have over 20 years of seniority.
If Dave wants to contract out utility I bet it would pass. Most mechanics would rather that happen than lose receive and dispatch. Plus we are the majority.
As always,
Love Joesy
There is a saying that two sets of eye's are better than one! I am one of those mechanics who does nothing more than R & D, and over the years many times we have found problems that have been missed during the pilots walkaround. Recently we have been told by a certain few that we are lookig to hard. I don't believe we would loose 30% of our mechanics but I do believe our mtc delays would skyrocket and saftey would be compromised if R & D was given up. Anyone care to put a price on those two items?
UAL777flyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 730
- 0
joesy,
Some love. Using mechanics to park and push back aircraft is a waste of resources. Did you go to school for your A & P license only to end up parking aircraft? Mechanics belong in the hangar or out on the line repairing and maintaining aircraft. Functions like R & D, de-icing, etc., are better served with ramp or fleet service employees. Your company is on death's doorstep and is teetering close to potential liquidation. Your costs are still too high and yet your attitude is still to hold on for dear life to antiquated and costly featherbedding like R & D. It is truly unfortunate that giving up R & D will mean job losses. But the mere fact that many mechanics are tied up performing this function clearly highlights the very problem you're trying to correct. It's time to come in from the 1970's and realize that these work rule/staffing requirements no longer work. Mark my words. They will slowly, but surely become a thing of the past. An airline either adapts and overcomes, or it simply dies. You need to face up to the reality that one way or another, you're going to lose jobs. That's what happens when a struggling company needs to become more efficient. It's basically doing the same or more with less. And it's necessary for your company's survival.
Some love. Using mechanics to park and push back aircraft is a waste of resources. Did you go to school for your A & P license only to end up parking aircraft? Mechanics belong in the hangar or out on the line repairing and maintaining aircraft. Functions like R & D, de-icing, etc., are better served with ramp or fleet service employees. Your company is on death's doorstep and is teetering close to potential liquidation. Your costs are still too high and yet your attitude is still to hold on for dear life to antiquated and costly featherbedding like R & D. It is truly unfortunate that giving up R & D will mean job losses. But the mere fact that many mechanics are tied up performing this function clearly highlights the very problem you're trying to correct. It's time to come in from the 1970's and realize that these work rule/staffing requirements no longer work. Mark my words. They will slowly, but surely become a thing of the past. An airline either adapts and overcomes, or it simply dies. You need to face up to the reality that one way or another, you're going to lose jobs. That's what happens when a struggling company needs to become more efficient. It's basically doing the same or more with less. And it's necessary for your company's survival.
wings396
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,672
- 1,122
I agree that it was foolish of the company to have mtc park and pushback in the first place...as stated above anyone with minimal training can do it. In the station that I was in at the time of the PI merger, we hired over 20 additional mechanics to perform a task that we had done for years with ease...a big waste to say the least...
UAL777flyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 730
- 0
I have nothing but the highest respect for the professional work airline mechanics do. But this whole another set of eyes argument doesn't hold water in my view. Many other airlines have gotten rid of mechanic R & D and they are not suffering because of it. Will there be a learning curve? Absolutely. It'll take people time to learn the new function. Just like it would for de-icing or something else. The second set of eyes argument is nowhere near enough justification to have mechanics performing R & D when the costs are astronomical.
You cannot just simply blame the company for allowing it. Mechanics doing R & D was born of the regulated era, when airlines passed along their costs to the consumer. That is where all the featherbedding comes from. Unions knew they could get away with inflating their contracts with such inefficiency (to fatten the rolls, so to speak), because airline managements would simply petition the CAB (prior to DOT) for fare increases to cover it. That was how the game was played. But once de-regulation hit, airlines were restricted in their ability to pass along cost to the consumer because airlines were now forced to compete against each other for revenue at the lowest possible cost. But unions held onto these sacred cows because getting rid of them meant lots of job losses. I can certainly understand that. But we're in a completely different time now. Things have changed forever. Either rules like this need to go, or the airlines in question will go. It's that simple. There is simply no tolerance for that kind of inefficiency anymore. The depressed revenue stream won't support it. I sympathize with anyone whose job would be lost because of it, but these are things kinds of things that simply must be changed if your airline is to have a future.
But please do not hang onto the safety will be compromised argument. There are plenty of airlines that do R & D without mechanics and their safety records have not suffered. As I stated earlier, with any new function, there will be a learning curve. But I seriously doubt US Airways safety record is going to suffer.
You cannot just simply blame the company for allowing it. Mechanics doing R & D was born of the regulated era, when airlines passed along their costs to the consumer. That is where all the featherbedding comes from. Unions knew they could get away with inflating their contracts with such inefficiency (to fatten the rolls, so to speak), because airline managements would simply petition the CAB (prior to DOT) for fare increases to cover it. That was how the game was played. But once de-regulation hit, airlines were restricted in their ability to pass along cost to the consumer because airlines were now forced to compete against each other for revenue at the lowest possible cost. But unions held onto these sacred cows because getting rid of them meant lots of job losses. I can certainly understand that. But we're in a completely different time now. Things have changed forever. Either rules like this need to go, or the airlines in question will go. It's that simple. There is simply no tolerance for that kind of inefficiency anymore. The depressed revenue stream won't support it. I sympathize with anyone whose job would be lost because of it, but these are things kinds of things that simply must be changed if your airline is to have a future.
But please do not hang onto the safety will be compromised argument. There are plenty of airlines that do R & D without mechanics and their safety records have not suffered. As I stated earlier, with any new function, there will be a learning curve. But I seriously doubt US Airways safety record is going to suffer.
pitguy
Veteran
- Aug 21, 2002
- 1,509
- 0
It is hard to believe any further cuts are needed when our maintenance management has taken very little cuts. We have almost as many supervisors as leads and not that many less managers. Why not cut some excess management employees. If the players at the top do not want to tweak this place correctly then just through the white sheet over it now and call it DOA instead of trying any more revival ploys. I am not giving any more until they start to doing their share.
I am all for cutting the fat and believe that in many areas we have way to many Management people, however, is this or any more employees being cut going to save the airline?
If we could make the people we have working now do the job they are intended to do, we wold do just fine. Cutting more, or paying them less will save nothing.
If we could make the people we have working now do the job they are intended to do, we wold do just fine. Cutting more, or paying them less will save nothing.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/15/2002 3:34:07 PM UAL777flyer wrote:
I have nothing but the highest respect for the professional work airline mechanics do. But this whole another set of eyes argument doesn't hold water in my view. Many other airlines have gotten rid of mechanic R & D and they are not suffering because of it. Will there be a learning curve? Absolutely. It'll take people time to learn the new function. Just like it would for de-icing or something else. The second set of eyes argument is nowhere near enough justification to have mechanics performing R & D when the costs are astronomical.
You cannot just simply blame the company for allowing it. Mechanics doing R & D was born of the regulated era, when airlines passed along their costs to the consumer. That is where all the featherbedding comes from. Unions knew they could get away with inflating their contracts with such inefficiency (to fatten the rolls, so to speak), because airline managements would simply petition the CAB (prior to DOT) for fare increases to cover it. That was how the game was played. But once de-regulation hit, airlines were restricted in their ability to pass along cost to the consumer because airlines were now forced to compete against each other for revenue at the lowest possible cost. But unions held onto these sacred cows because getting rid of them meant lots of job losses. I can certainly understand that. But we're in a completely different time now. Things have changed forever. Either rules like this need to go, or the airlines in question will go. It's that simple. There is simply no tolerance for that kind of inefficiency anymore. The depressed revenue stream won't support it. I sympathize with anyone whose job would be lost because of it, but these are things kinds of things that simply must be changed if your airline is to have a future.
But please do not hang onto the safety will be compromised argument. There are plenty of airlines that do R & D without mechanics and their safety records have not suffered. As I stated earlier, with any new function, there will be a learning curve. But I seriously doubt US Airways safety record is going to suffer.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Well boys I have said this before but here goes AA was one of the first to get rid of R&D and have just recently discovered that having a mechanic at the gate to meet the plane reduces delays.
So gues what we now have a new fangled thing called gate manning this where a mechanic meets every inbound and does a walk around kinda like R&D except now we have the mechanic and the FSC doing the job of what was once just he mechanics job. two to do ones job that will save you some money go gitem boys.
With all dew respect to U managment it did take about 12 years for AA to figure out their screw up and attempt to fix it. I bet they saved a ton in the mean time!
----------------
On 11/15/2002 3:34:07 PM UAL777flyer wrote:
I have nothing but the highest respect for the professional work airline mechanics do. But this whole another set of eyes argument doesn't hold water in my view. Many other airlines have gotten rid of mechanic R & D and they are not suffering because of it. Will there be a learning curve? Absolutely. It'll take people time to learn the new function. Just like it would for de-icing or something else. The second set of eyes argument is nowhere near enough justification to have mechanics performing R & D when the costs are astronomical.
You cannot just simply blame the company for allowing it. Mechanics doing R & D was born of the regulated era, when airlines passed along their costs to the consumer. That is where all the featherbedding comes from. Unions knew they could get away with inflating their contracts with such inefficiency (to fatten the rolls, so to speak), because airline managements would simply petition the CAB (prior to DOT) for fare increases to cover it. That was how the game was played. But once de-regulation hit, airlines were restricted in their ability to pass along cost to the consumer because airlines were now forced to compete against each other for revenue at the lowest possible cost. But unions held onto these sacred cows because getting rid of them meant lots of job losses. I can certainly understand that. But we're in a completely different time now. Things have changed forever. Either rules like this need to go, or the airlines in question will go. It's that simple. There is simply no tolerance for that kind of inefficiency anymore. The depressed revenue stream won't support it. I sympathize with anyone whose job would be lost because of it, but these are things kinds of things that simply must be changed if your airline is to have a future.
But please do not hang onto the safety will be compromised argument. There are plenty of airlines that do R & D without mechanics and their safety records have not suffered. As I stated earlier, with any new function, there will be a learning curve. But I seriously doubt US Airways safety record is going to suffer.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Well boys I have said this before but here goes AA was one of the first to get rid of R&D and have just recently discovered that having a mechanic at the gate to meet the plane reduces delays.
So gues what we now have a new fangled thing called gate manning this where a mechanic meets every inbound and does a walk around kinda like R&D except now we have the mechanic and the FSC doing the job of what was once just he mechanics job. two to do ones job that will save you some money go gitem boys.
With all dew respect to U managment it did take about 12 years for AA to figure out their screw up and attempt to fix it. I bet they saved a ton in the mean time!
A&P Tech
Safety won't be compromised if we don't do R&D. The a/c are repaired at night. All that is done during the day is gate calls and a quick daily check on the a/c. There will still be mech's there to do on call maint. All the other airlines carry the same staffing rules.
Safety won't be compromised if we don't do R&D. The a/c are repaired at night. All that is done during the day is gate calls and a quick daily check on the a/c. There will still be mech's there to do on call maint. All the other airlines carry the same staffing rules.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/15/2002 3:15:48 PM PITMTC wrote:
A&P Tech
Safety won't be compromised if we don't do R&D. The a/c are repaired at night. All that is done during the day is gate calls and a quick daily check on the a/c. There will still be mech's there to do on call maint. All the other airlines carry the same staffing rules.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I am aware that all the workload is done on the RON. Many times on the walk around things have been found by maintenance that was not found by the pilot doing his pre-flight. To me that is compromising safety. With the elimination of most of the out stations, the aircraft are not really receiving the attention they should be.
----------------
On 11/15/2002 3:15:48 PM PITMTC wrote:
A&P Tech
Safety won't be compromised if we don't do R&D. The a/c are repaired at night. All that is done during the day is gate calls and a quick daily check on the a/c. There will still be mech's there to do on call maint. All the other airlines carry the same staffing rules.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I am aware that all the workload is done on the RON. Many times on the walk around things have been found by maintenance that was not found by the pilot doing his pre-flight. To me that is compromising safety. With the elimination of most of the out stations, the aircraft are not really receiving the attention they should be.
wings396
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,672
- 1,122
It is funny that you bring up the safety issue...mtc could do a walk around while the a/c is at the gate without having to park and push it.When we did the pushbacks I was actually told by mtc that if I spotted anything wrong with the a/c such as a leak etc. to let the crew report it not the ramp...they said we were not qualified to report any problems that we spotted..now this is a safety issue to you...I am not a mechanic by trade, but I sure know what a leak looks like.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #15
that may be true, but speaking from experience i can tell you that there were many times especially around shift change where there was no mechanic to be found..ramp agts and sometimes even customer sevice in the jetway would guide in the plane. i am sure that any ramper or pilot who reads these can attest to that..i also know that ops has had to radio more than once that pushback is needed at such and such gate..rampers all already at the plane..close it up and push
