2015 AMT Discussion

bigjets said:
Not expecting much from the twu side of the association, but looking forward to what the IAM can do for us at AA. If they can do this with Hawaiian, think what they can do for us at AA, the biggest airline in the world with a CEO who says he wants to compensate employees.
Too bad the IAM didn't want to take a vote for represtation, they probably would have won.
Did you ever ask what kind of prep work was done before the TWU negotiators (people) did before they met with their IAM counterparts? Maybe how much money and resources were used to get these guys up to snuff so to say?

If you are a TWU member it may be a question you should ask?

I know for a fact that the IAM side was very pleasantly surprised by the level of preparedness that was accomplished when they first met. And also we know from Isoms statement that the company may have also been surprised by what the Association presented to them.

I "think" personally our groups were far more prepared than the Pilots, FA's and Agents were. I also think going in last this time is going to give us the better position to argue for more? The industry is seeing more dramatic improvements happen every day. I'm sure that the company knew oil was going to drop but I don't think even they thought it would be this dramatic?

The futures market is not calling for oil to go up again to $60.00 till 2024. I'm not sure how this Paris accord that came out yesterday will effect that? But I think airlines will be given a waver to transition away from fossil fuels until a reliable alternative can be found. Can the industry invent an electric engine that can charge fast and how often will those batteries need to be replaced from overusage?

Anyway I think everyone who sits at those tables across from the company and Jerry Glass is more than prepared this time to handle that.
 
dvlhog212 said:
Some folks just can't stay out of the AMT thread.
Go start your own Country Club and if you can skirt Federal Laws you can get in all the white people you want.

In the meantime do you have anything intelligent to add?
 
WeAAsles said:
Go start your own Country Club and if you can skirt Federal Laws you can get in all the white people you want.

In the meantime do you have anything intelligent to add?
Please don't try to turn this into a racial thing.  There's enough going on at work without this.
 
Roadking5560 said:
Please don't try to turn this into a racial thing.  There's enough going on at work without this.
It's certainly not a racial thing but it is a class thing.

Or once again that shining example of elitist mentalities.
 
My question to 700, is O/S correct and you are wrong in regards to the POR and the ability to unfreeze the pension? Simple question at that!
 
It would have to go back to court to modify the POR and would need the creditors and the judge to approve it, along with the PBGC.
 
In summary, it is possible to unfreeze the TWU defined benefit pension plan. Is it probable? The odds are against it.
 
In my opinion could the Association ask to unfreeze the TWU defined benefit plan for the over 50 active members to protect them and ask for a 401(k) accelerator (higher defined contribution) for those age 45 to 49, and an increase in defined contribution and match for those under age 45?
 
The IAMNPF should be an option for those who wish to continue or are comfortable with the risk.
 
700UW said:
It would have to go back to court to modify the POR and would need the creditors and the judge to approve it, along with the PBGC.
OK fine we all agree with you. We will make a note of it for future reference. Merry Christmas.
 
What's the thought on the Association proposal to adopt the IAM scope language? If the language is adopted intact there AMT head count will drop. I did see they want to bring more work in-house. The will need to tweak that MHs outsourced down to about 30% to maintain head count.
 
The IAM langauge does a better job than the TWU scope for line work but allows more overhaul to be outsourced. Under the IAM language less than 700 AMT jobs are still in-house with all engine overhaul outsourced. So applying the Association's scope proposal AA could outsource all the remaining engine work (CFM56 and CF6-80) in TUL but bring back the scheduled line work now done in GRU. GIG. EZE. SCL, and LHR.
 
The legacy AA light C checks are slowly being converted to phase C in the line stations (read the latest newsletter about Airbus bridging). Between the adoption of the IAM scope clause and the new phase C how many jobs will be left in TUL? Based on the current size of PIT which has been shrinking, should we expect the future of TUL head count is around 1,000?
 
as we have seen references to Tulsa staying open and the capacity available, what are the capabilities of Charlotte? ( please add other stations ) 
 
So should the IAM members get the company to take back over the terminated plan if you get yours unfrozen?

What's fair is fair.
 
Overspeed said:
What's the thought on the Association proposal to adopt the IAM scope language? If the language is adopted intact there AMT head count will drop. I did see they want to bring more work in-house. The will need to tweak that MHs outsourced down to about 30% to maintain head count.
 
The IAM langauge does a better job than the TWU scope for line work but allows more overhaul to be outsourced. Under the IAM language less than 700 AMT jobs are still in-house with all engine overhaul outsourced. So applying the Association's scope proposal AA could outsource all the remaining engine work (CFM56 and CF6-80) in TUL but bring back the scheduled line work now done in GRU. GIG. EZE. SCL, and LHR.
 
The legacy AA light C checks are slowly being converted to phase C in the line stations (read the latest newsletter about Airbus bridging). Between the adoption of the IAM scope clause and the new phase C how many jobs will be left in TUL? Based on the current size of PIT which has been shrinking, should we expect the future of TUL head count is around 1,000?
PMUS has more than 700 mechanics, it's around 3,000..

The 675 number is the protected headcount in CLT and PIT heavy.
 
CLT has a five bay heavy maintenance hangar and only three bays are being used. The shops are all upstairs in the hangar and can reopened if needed.

Has an offsite engine and composite shop. And also had a line hangar.

Under the parking lot has all the foundation, electrical and plumbing as needed to construct a new hangar if necessary
 
700UW,
One the pension, that's the difference between a freeze and a termination. A termination is final. The Association could always ask to start a new defined benefit pension plan not open to the risks of a multi-employer one. Go for it.
 
On scope differences, the head count per aircraft at AA stands at around 15 to 1 while US stands at 10 to 1. Implementing the IAM scope clause as written would close the South American and LHR work down bring back about 250 jobs while dropping about a thousand legacy AA overhaul jobs. That's a swag but regardless of the language (MHs or percentage of expense) what the members understand is if they are working or not and for how much. The IAM BK scope clause without changes would result in more TUL jobs lost while gaining line jobs back.
 
CLT nor does any other US Airways station do heavy engine overhaul. A "shop" does not imply overhaul. Call it what it is. The US operation has no heavy engine overhaul and hasn't for sometime. An engine overhaul shop employs more AMTs, machinists, cleaners, platers, inspectors, and stock clerks than the repair "shop" that is in CLT today. Recognize the difference. You make a good case for why AMTs complain about industrial unions not understanding why we want people understand our profession to negotiate our contract.
 
But I must consider the source of the person trying to explain the IAM CBA scope clause and how it impacts maintenance jobs. 700UW is the one who said laying off/shutting down TAESL was "trimming the fat."
 

Latest posts

Back
Top