gonzo
Veteran
- Oct 17, 2005
- 902
- 0
Outsourcing The Airbus
- Thread starter justaumechanic
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- #17
Who is ranting besides you 700..
I am stating simple facts as I see them from my view point.
The company clearly has no intention of honoring the S check agreement.
This was clearly shown when the IAM announced that 500 mechanics would
be recalled when the 88 airbus aircraft at AWA would be brought in-house
and 50% of their 737's. The company response was immediate, no that is
not what is going on and you can not dispute that 700.. The IAM's
statement was in the Morning and by early afternoon the company had
a news release saying the union was in error..
The union should have no negotiations with the company, no transition,
nothing.. Why should they according to you.. The current IAM CBA is
the surviving document according to you so why should there be any
discussions going on at all? There is no need..
There was no transition agreement with Piedmont or PSA.. It was clearly
understood, you will be under out contract, end of story. So why is there
any discussions with the company now? There should be none. The IAM and
the company signed the CBA, its closed according to you.. That is the
position the union should take with the company.. But it is not is it.
NO the IAM is in discussions with the company on a formal transition
agreement. Why is that? Because the set in stone CBA is not quite as
set in stone as you would lead everyone to believe.
The company does not intend to honor the scope of the agreement.. Doug
and buddies want the Scope that exists in the AWA CBA with the teamsters,
they want that CBA to survive and they are going to fight tooth and nail
to make sure they do.. And the IAM.. So long as they get to be the surviving
union they will be more than happy to take the AWA contract as written.
You failed to inform everyone that the outsourced cost of an Airbus S check is approx. $225,000 per aircraft. The cost to produce the same product in-house is slightly over $320,000 per aircraft. This is excluding the cost of materials which is the same either in-house or vendored. Currently 3 S checks in hangar 5 in PIT, about 5 aircraft a month produced at slightly less than $100,000 per aircraft.. Do the math 700..
It comes out to about 6 million dollars a year more to do the work in-house vs vendoring it out. If you care to dispute those numbers you can ask both the company and the union. Those numbers are almost right on the mark.
So the company has to fork out over 6 million a year for the current US Airways fleet of Airbus and lets be truthful, they can get the 737's done quite a bit cheaper than the Airbus.
So the simple fact is money. Its all about the money and you know it. The company is run by the people that control and provide the money. And they
have no intention of spending any more than they have to. The higher cost of doing the work in-house, the cost of facilities and cost of benefits.. Add to that they do not get penalty payments from the in-house work.
No, Doug and pals have no intention of honoring your precious CBA that the IAM had shoved down their throats. Doug is still upset over Lakefields bowing
to buy union peace.. The company won and he let it slip away.. Your words when you spout off about the scope language.
An orderly disposal of the PIT facilities will begin in the next 12 months. Bank on it.
I am stating simple facts as I see them from my view point.
The company clearly has no intention of honoring the S check agreement.
This was clearly shown when the IAM announced that 500 mechanics would
be recalled when the 88 airbus aircraft at AWA would be brought in-house
and 50% of their 737's. The company response was immediate, no that is
not what is going on and you can not dispute that 700.. The IAM's
statement was in the Morning and by early afternoon the company had
a news release saying the union was in error..
The union should have no negotiations with the company, no transition,
nothing.. Why should they according to you.. The current IAM CBA is
the surviving document according to you so why should there be any
discussions going on at all? There is no need..
There was no transition agreement with Piedmont or PSA.. It was clearly
understood, you will be under out contract, end of story. So why is there
any discussions with the company now? There should be none. The IAM and
the company signed the CBA, its closed according to you.. That is the
position the union should take with the company.. But it is not is it.
NO the IAM is in discussions with the company on a formal transition
agreement. Why is that? Because the set in stone CBA is not quite as
set in stone as you would lead everyone to believe.
The company does not intend to honor the scope of the agreement.. Doug
and buddies want the Scope that exists in the AWA CBA with the teamsters,
they want that CBA to survive and they are going to fight tooth and nail
to make sure they do.. And the IAM.. So long as they get to be the surviving
union they will be more than happy to take the AWA contract as written.
You failed to inform everyone that the outsourced cost of an Airbus S check is approx. $225,000 per aircraft. The cost to produce the same product in-house is slightly over $320,000 per aircraft. This is excluding the cost of materials which is the same either in-house or vendored. Currently 3 S checks in hangar 5 in PIT, about 5 aircraft a month produced at slightly less than $100,000 per aircraft.. Do the math 700..
It comes out to about 6 million dollars a year more to do the work in-house vs vendoring it out. If you care to dispute those numbers you can ask both the company and the union. Those numbers are almost right on the mark.
So the company has to fork out over 6 million a year for the current US Airways fleet of Airbus and lets be truthful, they can get the 737's done quite a bit cheaper than the Airbus.
So the simple fact is money. Its all about the money and you know it. The company is run by the people that control and provide the money. And they
have no intention of spending any more than they have to. The higher cost of doing the work in-house, the cost of facilities and cost of benefits.. Add to that they do not get penalty payments from the in-house work.
No, Doug and pals have no intention of honoring your precious CBA that the IAM had shoved down their throats. Doug is still upset over Lakefields bowing
to buy union peace.. The company won and he let it slip away.. Your words when you spout off about the scope language.
An orderly disposal of the PIT facilities will begin in the next 12 months. Bank on it.
DR.EVIL
Advanced
- Mar 23, 2004
- 198
- 0
You are the IAM and you will get to vote on any changes to the CBA.
And if you vote the wrong way, we will keep voting until the company and union get the results they want. :down:
So what exactly are you negotiating anyway? Or is that a secret too. The iam has a history of secrecy. You always use that phoney confidentiality statement line. It's not a law that you have to sign one. You do it so you can make your little back door deals. Every time a question is asked we get the runaround. I know more about AMFA negotiations than I do my own. Whats up with that? You should inform the membership daily in writting exactly what was discussed at each session but you don't. Represent your membership as a union should not as a company lap dog!!!! We pay the dues! Perhaps the company pays you more? The End
MOC A320
Advanced
- Aug 14, 2005
- 116
- 0
DR.EVIL
Advanced
- Mar 23, 2004
- 198
- 0
Your mistaken, he draws a check from the iam, it should not be hard to figure out by looking at all his posts.
Dr.,Your mistaken, he draws a check from the iam, it should not be hard to figure out by looking at all his posts.
I certainly understand that. He is obviously an iam stooge. The "you" I refered to was the iam not necessarily him but I wouldn't rule it out. The End
I thought work was already being done in canada ,I recently flew through PHL with one of the alabama guys ,when asked he said they were flying to both places to represent usairways
Acft 678 (A330-300) is already in work in YUL...and it's behind schedule already. Seems as if ACTS (Air Canada Technical Services) doesn't have their actual ACT together.
There was too a intergration agreement with the PSA and PI Mergers.
The S-checks on the US fleet is still done in-house.
The final offer was voted on by the membership and forced upon them by Judge Mitchell and the company, not the IAM.
My salary is not paid by the IAM.
But hey don't let the facts get in the way of your rants.
And Gonzo, it was never answered.
The S-checks on the US fleet is still done in-house.
The final offer was voted on by the membership and forced upon them by Judge Mitchell and the company, not the IAM.
My salary is not paid by the IAM.
But hey don't let the facts get in the way of your rants.
And Gonzo, it was never answered.
Incredibly Canada may be our most viable opposition. ACE Aviation is one of the NEW USAIRWAYS biggest investors, with all but one from Canada, the other from France, they would love to cut health benefits and tell all concerned, as an employee we could garner Canadian/French benefits....YeeHoo...welcome to the paper trail, as I have friends who have had their employment benefits affected by the sale of a US company to a Canadian concern. (Penney's did this and it cost my friend 56,000 a year for health insurance because he had had a heart valve replaced....the company told him to move to Canada and wait 2 years for the procedure....too bad they canceled his insurance, but insurance is free in Canada, or so they told this guy. Canada is waiting to reap the rewards of the USA's cluster ---- in airline maintenance, customer service, FA's, Pilots, mechanics,.....and on and on ...every job in the aviation industry....We must work together to show an allegiance of solidarity...
wouldn't you need to be the surviving union to negotiate the transistion agreement I think your getting ahead of your self we the teamster awa mech are meeting with parker on wed this coming week maybe we'll check up on your comments!
Attachments
gonzo
Veteran
- Oct 17, 2005
- 902
- 0
I have noticed that every time you get in a "bind" about the IAM contract you use the "forced upon them by Judge Mitchell and the company, not the IAM" excuse?
Why don't you just say, "this is OUR contract". Why do you feel that you need to always excuse the IAM contract. It seems you are having a hard time accepting the fact that it is yours and there is nothing you can do about it. Not until 2009.
Hey gonzo, don't let the facts get in your way.
Were you at negotiations in CCY?
You were not and I was.
This was a final offer given to the IAM and its membership by the company after our CBA was abrogated by Judge Mitchell. In order to keep labor peace and not have the ATSB pull the financing, the company gave the Negotiating Committee the final offer and the Judge agreed to hold off the enforcement of the abrogation until the membership voted on the final offer. The union has a responsibility to bring it out to the membership, the membership could have voted it down and voted to strike, but they chose to ratify and now we all have to live with it.
But since you are the typical ibt supporter who likes to spew mistruths and misinformation I would not expect you to actually post what transpired.
Were you at negotiations in CCY?
You were not and I was.
This was a final offer given to the IAM and its membership by the company after our CBA was abrogated by Judge Mitchell. In order to keep labor peace and not have the ATSB pull the financing, the company gave the Negotiating Committee the final offer and the Judge agreed to hold off the enforcement of the abrogation until the membership voted on the final offer. The union has a responsibility to bring it out to the membership, the membership could have voted it down and voted to strike, but they chose to ratify and now we all have to live with it.
But since you are the typical ibt supporter who likes to spew mistruths and misinformation I would not expect you to actually post what transpired.
