2015 AMT Discussion

700UW,
How do you come up with that AA can outsource more than 35% whenever they choose in the scope clause? It says that nowhere in the language. It also does not say 35% of the whole MX budget. It has specific langauge that defines what costs are included in the calculation (Direct labor, material, and outside services which is not the whole MX budget smart guy). Why do you have to resort to distortions to make your arguments. The fact is that there more total work outsourced and the IAM language you cite in the US/IAM CBA that you claim is superior in protecting jobs is flat out wrong. AA currently has over 13 AMTs per aircraft while US has less than 9 per aircraft. Using the US scope language that you claim is better, AA would have to layoff 2,800 AMTs (4 per aircraft) just to get to the IAM's killer scope language.
 
But I forgot, AMTs getting laid off is "trimming the fat," right?
 
Overspeed said:
700UW,
How do you come up with that AA can outsource more than 35% whenever they choose in the scope clause? It says that nowhere in the language. It also does not say 35% of the whole MX budget. It has specific langauge that defines what costs are included in the calculation (Direct labor, material, and outside services which is not the whole MX budget smart guy). Why do you have to resort to distortions to make your arguments. The fact is that there more total work outsourced and the IAM language you cite in the US/IAM CBA that you claim is superior in protecting jobs is flat out wrong. AA currently has over 13 AMTs per aircraft while US has less than 9 per aircraft. Using the US scope language that you claim is better, AA would have to layoff 2,800 AMTs (4 per aircraft) just to get to the IAM's killer scope language.
 
But I forgot, AMTs getting laid off is "trimming the fat," right?
Click to expand...
C.L.D. perhaps?
 
blue collar said:
The IAM was also unable to bring it back in house.
Click to expand...
50% of billable hours of heavy maintenance was BROUGHT back in-house in the 2008 Transition Agreement, before that the company could outsource all Airframe Overhaul.
 
700UW said:
50% of billable hours of heavy maintenance was BROUGHT back in-house in the 2008 Transition Agreement, before that the company could outsource all Airframe Overhaul.
Click to expand...
As I said, the IAM was unable to bring the work back in house also. They got 50% in house, but gave up the 100% of Airbus in house.
 
Real tired said:
Ah yes, the good old Bill Franke era at AWA.
 
Don't forget, he was Doug Parkers boss, trainer and mentor.
 
They always hated maintenance at AWA, didn't they?
Click to expand...
Yes they did and did every thing to stop the AMT'S from going Union.
The FRIST Union vote failed by 8 votes this was after the company went to all the mechanics and related with information on why not to vote union and the boneheads bought into it.
Less than 30 days later most of the related and back shops and 400 AMT'S from the hanger were on the street 2 weeks before Christmas.
The company outsourced just about everything.
By the time we got the IBT voted in there was not much left.
The IBT went to work first trying to get jobs back and they did, They fought for every little thing that they could with nothing to bargain with, As in nothing left, it was all outsourced before they were put on as our union.
The IBT put in our contract :lf a job is done inhouse once it stays in house.
This alone brought back B-Checks and many other jobs and AMT'S.
So like I said 700UW LIES.
I was on that pony ride.
Have a blessed day my brothers.
 
blue collar said:
As I said, the IAM was unable to bring the work back in house also. They got 50% in house, but gave up the 100% of Airbus in house.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that?
 
PIT has been doing the airbus since we won the arbitration, CLT did the 737s, and now both CLT and PIT do the narrowbody airbus and on occasion CLT does a the A330, they did the HMV on the 332 that was hit by the truck.
 
So now who isnt being truthful?
 
HP farmed out C-checks and D/Q checks, they were not brought in-house.
 
You clearly stated we didn't get the Airbus and work which is not true at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
2016 Stores/MLS Discussion
Replies
0
Views
2K
Shafted
S
Ken MacTiernan
AMT Day 2015
Replies
2
Views
2K
CactUS4Ever
CactUS4Ever
K
  • Locked
M & E T/A discussions.
Replies
0
Views
4K
Kieran
K
Eagle
2015 Fleet Service thread
220 221 222
Replies
3K
Views
239K
WeAAsles
WeAAsles
D
Me too clause in TA for pay?
Replies
1
Views
1K
700UW
700UW

Latest posts

Back
Top