New IAM DL 142 Update
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
delldude
Veteran
my my...looks like Fred's efforts have not gone unoticed by the NMB...finally we will see that in fact what Fred Said was the truth 
this suddenly explains a recent surge in anti-IAM newbie posts...andy must have some spare time.... :unsure:
this suddenly explains a recent surge in anti-IAM newbie posts...andy must have some spare time.... :unsure:
This the normal process. Nothing less nothing moremy my...looks like Fred's efforts have not gone unoticed by the NMB...finally we will see that in fact what Fred Said was the truth
this suddenly explains a recent surge in anti-IAM newbie posts...andy must have some spare time.... :unsure:
Just more drabble from O'dribble -- this is not holding up any recall - the company is not prepared to bring any additional work back in house yet.
- Thread Starter
- #6
Funny awa, how can you be wrong again?
The 757 check from Mobile Aerospace is coming back in-house to PIT with two tracks.
The 50% of the 737s outsourced to Mobile are coming back in-house to CLT.
Don't let the facts get in your way!
The 757 check from Mobile Aerospace is coming back in-house to PIT with two tracks.
The 50% of the 737s outsourced to Mobile are coming back in-house to CLT.
Don't let the facts get in your way!
delldude
Veteran
did he do it again 700?:blink: :unsure:Why is it being delayed by the NMB, did someone file a protest that the cards turned in were fraud???
Why is it we only get info from an update, how can we be sure that it is truthfully what the NMB has ruled( a third party verification would be nice)but I am sure the IAM would NEVER lie or twist the truth to gain an advantage.
I dont think the IBT would file a challenge to the cards so it must have been the IAM.
Again, the IAM said that they would allow the NMB to rule on a case by case precedence, so if they decide to pull out the stock and put in with the stocks here, then they must agree to it.
Why is it we only get info from an update, how can we be sure that it is truthfully what the NMB has ruled( a third party verification would be nice)but I am sure the IAM would NEVER lie or twist the truth to gain an advantage.
I dont think the IBT would file a challenge to the cards so it must have been the IAM.
Again, the IAM said that they would allow the NMB to rule on a case by case precedence, so if they decide to pull out the stock and put in with the stocks here, then they must agree to it.
delldude
Veteran
I'd like to present this award for educated informative
and truthful postings to awacontract.
Hey - just what I was told by Clemmer week before last - if it doesn't meet your approval - PO
then if what you say is accurate then there are no jobs being held up by anyone - oh wait that would make yours and Dribbles claims inaccurate - so which is it?
then if what you say is accurate then there are no jobs being held up by anyone - oh wait that would make yours and Dribbles claims inaccurate - so which is it?
