Receiving and dispatch

atabuy

Senior
Oct 13, 2002
419
0
When we speak about ineficiencies of work rules I guess R&D is the one that really sticks out the most in my mind.
>From a mechanics point of view, giving this job up creates many hardships for those affected.
Since line stations do all checks after the planes are done for the day, it means all maintenence work is on midnights.
To handle any gripes on days or afternoons you need a lot of seniority to bid these shifts.
R&D allows more mechanics to get off midnights and live normal lives. Unless they go to the maintenence bases.
I understand their reluctance to give this up.
>From the companies veiwpoint and also mine, this is a place where we are paying millions of dollars for nothing.
This job can be done by other work groups who are already there.
A union guy told me there are 280 mechanics who fall under R&D through out the system.
If you round off mech. wages with benefits to 100,000 a year without overtime, the company is spending 28,000,000 per year that would be profit if another group did R&D along with their other duties.
Maybe there could be a compromise here which would let all win.
Mechanics would do ramp duties along with the R&D until attrition takes over.
Anyone have any ideas about this.
Another thing to think about here is the fact that this is a very small fraction of the mechanics ranks. Most mechanics would not vote to save this job. The ones affected are the line stations.
 

mwa

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
190
8
You are proposing a that another group will do this free? And you assume incorrectly that each mechanic receives 100k compensation.
 

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
MWA,

I think you misunderstood him. I believe he said that when you take the average mechanic salary and add in the costs of benefits, it comes to around 100K, which is probably a pretty good estimate.
 

Steiner

Advanced
Aug 21, 2002
161
0
www.usaviation.com
How about the mechanics give up receive and dispatch in exchange for the pilots letting Atlas Air or Polar supply flight crews for the international flights?
 

ualdriver

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
509
0
Well Steiner, there's a couple of flaws in that inflamatory statement:

1) You're pitting employee groups against each other, yet again. Have you learned anything from our history?

2) Pilots are licensed to fly aircraft. Licensed pilots are needed to fly airplanes. Mechanics are licensed to repair and maintain aircraft. Licensed mechanics are not needed to push back airplanes.

A proper inflamatory analogy would have read: the mechanics will give up pushback/receipt as soon as the pilots give up flying some UAL aircraft. But even that argument would have been poor because we already have, and probably will some more.....
 

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
I agree with ualdriver. There is absolutely no logical reason to have licensed mechanics doing receipt and dispatch in today's airline environment. It is a highly inefficient use of more expensive resources (mechanics) that are better suited to doing what they're licensed to do: repair and maintain aircraft.

Unfortunately, giving up receipt and dispatch may mean the elimination of several jobs. As hard as that is on those affected, these are exactly the kinds of inefficiencies that UA needs to get rid of once and for all, if we're going to be successful in turning this company around.
 
OP
A

atabuy

Senior
Oct 13, 2002
419
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/14/2002 10:39:08 AM mwa wrote:

You are proposing a that another group will do this free? And you assume incorrectly that each mechanic receives 100k compensation.
----------------
[/blockquote
mwa,
Each mech makes 100,000 with benefits.
Ramp and cleaners can do R&D as part of the job without increasing manpower.
A savings of 28,000,000 without doing anything but changing a work rule.

As I stated, they could be prtected through attrition.
Just one way to save. There are many others.
 

gatemech

Senior
Aug 24, 2002
356
5
www.usaviation.com
Eliminating receipt & dispatch would affect lots of jobs. I have no problem in giving it back as long as the company brings back the farmed out work. Too much work is going out.
 

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
If you want the outsourced work brought back in house, than your union must work with the company (as I suspect they're doing) to get rid of inefficiencies in order to bring costs down. If it's too expensive to keep doing the work in-house and they can outsource it cheaper, in this environment, what do you think they're going to do?
 

gatemech

Senior
Aug 24, 2002
356
5
www.usaviation.com
You get what you pay for. How efficient is it when you spend a couple of days fixing the screw ups from the OSV. How much does it cost to keep an aircraft out of service for two days? It may look good on paper but it's not saving money. I don't have the figures I just see what is happening.
 

Steiner

Advanced
Aug 21, 2002
161
0
www.usaviation.com
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/14/2002 5:32:43 PM UAL777flyer wrote:

If you want the outsourced work brought back in house, than your union must work with the company (as I suspect they're doing) to get rid of inefficiencies in order to bring costs down. If it's too expensive to keep doing the work in-house and they can outsource it cheaper, in this environment, what do you think they're going to do?
----------------
[/blockquote]

Why can't this arguement be applied to the pilot's group as well?
 

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
Are you talking about the RJ issue? That problem is simple economics. When Contract 2000 took effect, it significantly drove up costs, so much so that many markets were no longer profitable. This is what I mean about accepting the ramifications of actions. A group cannot reach for the stars in getting an industry leading contract and then question the bad things that develop because of it. Everything has consequences. I don't like RJ's any more than the next guy. I wish all the growth was on the mainline side. But it comes down to simple economics. If a market is consistently losing money, it is irresponsible to keep flying mainline jets there.
 

Rhino

Senior
Aug 20, 2002
308
0
Using mechs for R&D is stupid. Probably not as stupid as the 737 FEs the pilots had for so long.

This is a silly argument anyway. UAL unions have now given management the same opprotunity to make rational business decisions that US unions gave their management.

Don't expect mechs to be pushing jets in 2003.
 

wts54

Senior
Sep 16, 2002
374
0
www.usaviation.com
Giving up R+D result in the loss of more than a couple of hundred jobs.I
think it could be done by attrition.
Funny isnt it the pilots and others thinking of ways for the mechanics to help the company survive.Clean up your own house first.I suggest we all
could work for SWA wages and workrules.Dont choke on your coffee
gentlemen.
Oh yes UAL777FLYER I think it would be much cheaper to start outsourcing
pilots and maybe cap your wages at lets say $125,000 per year if we did
that the company would sure save a huge amount.$250,000 a year for someone to pilot a plane is surely to much money wouldnt you agree?
Maybe we could find some third world pilots who would work for much less
and probably not send meters to the company complaining that there is no
caramel topping on their cheesecake because you know you are supposed to get the same meal as business class as the 777 driver stated in said meter.You will need a least two ramper more than likely for them to do R+D.
Also R+D done by ramp at DEN is one thing because of a straight back push.
Lets see how much damage is done when in LAX pushing a plane tailout down the alley then do a 180 to turn it nose out.After awhile one assumes they
would be able to they will have to learn like I did.
.
9.gif']
 

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
wts54,

You should spend more time getting your facts straight instead of making inaccurate assumptions, such as me being a pilot.

Also, your scenario doesn't hold water. How many airlines are still doing receipt and dispatch with their own licensed mechanics? How many have hired third-world pilots to fly their airplanes?