4 ms·
Without knowing the details I suspected unions would be partially responsible. I know that the incidence of 'accidents' spikes remarkably around negotiation ti
by brc 11y ago
Without knowing the details I suspected unions would be partially responsible. I know that the incidence of 'accidents' spikes remarkably around negotiation time. The last time I read about this, the airline was fighting the unions when suddenly two 747s 'accidntally' collided while under tow in lax. What a surprise.
- ubernostrum 11y agoUnions in negotiation, in the airline business, don't crash planes into each other, and you should feel ashamed for suggesting that they would. The actual common tactic is using a variant of work-to-rule. Normally, maintenance crews can "backfill" their bureaucracy a bit after the physical work on an aircraft is done, which means the plane is going back into service while they file the paperwork. During a protest action, instead they refuse to release the plane for service until every last bit of relevant paperwork has been filled out, signed, stamped, filed in triplicate and multiple receipts issued for it, which can involve tracking down a lot of people all over the airport to fill out and sign things. Which is technically what the procedures require, but basically never happens outside of a time when the maintenance union wants to gain leverage over the airline. If you've ever been on a flight which had minor maintenance done at the gate, and then sat for 45 minutes while they "waited on the logbook", that was likely a work-to-rule action by the union.