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?