AA MD80s to be gone by end of 2017

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

is he?

OK you made your point.
 
We are on the same page now.
 

He is not, not that it's in any way relevant.  But thanks for diverting yet another thread with meaningless red herrings.

(EDIT) Eh he posted that before I hit submit.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

He is not, not that it's in any way relevant.  But thanks for diverting yet another thread with meaningless red herrings.

It is a question of motivation. Your motivation to be precise.
 
I think WT made a pretty good point.

 

[commavia]

I asserted that the deal made was a good one.  If you don't agree, or think that this assertion is invalid because I am not an AA employee - then fine.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

I asserted that the deal made was a good one.  If you don't agree, or think that this assertion is invalid because I am not an AA employee - then fine.

I am not questioning the quality of the deal. I am questioning the means used to fund it.
 
I am also questioning what motivation you have to come on here and point out to us what a great job AA management did negotiating said deal, especially when you know where they got the money for it.
 
The only logical reason I can think of is you are here to elicit a reaction. 

 

[commavia]

Indeed I do know "where they got the money" - the vast majority of the "deal" has, to date, been funded with debt raised on the capital markets.  Now, as I said, if you disagree, because of the status of your pension and/or for some other reason, and think AA would have been, and would be, better off to have skipped the fleet replacement and continued flying 30-year-old MD80s and 767s, then fine.  People can disagree.
 
But once again, perhaps we can dispense with the divining or jumping to conclusions as to my "motivation."  I was sharing my opinion - the only "reaction" it was meant to "elicit" was discussion.  Seeing as this is a discussion forum, I'm not sure what the problem is.

 

[WorldTraveler]

except it isn't just about 30 year old M80s.

AA clearly needed to buy SOME airplanes.

AA's fleet plans EVEN BEFORE THE MERGER showed that AA would significantly reduce the age of its fleet.

They would be trading future maintenance jobs for higher debt that has to be serviced as a cost that reduces what can be spent on employees.

AFTER the merger, AA gained access to a younger fleet thru US.

perhaps ALL of the fleet acquisition deals cannot be modified but it isn't necessary to jump to having the youngest fleet among the big 4 when other carriers have lower fleet costs on multiple levels even with older fleets.

Expensive spending on fleet replacement only increases debt for AA while gaining little benefit for AA in a highly consolidated industry.

AA could very likely cut its fleet replacement plans in half or by a third, end up average in fleet age and costs, and not risk eliminating thousands of maintenance positions.

 

[Kev3188]

Seeing as this is a discussion forum, I'm not sure what the problem is.

That's lost on some people...

 

[Bob Owens]

They would be trading future maintenance jobs for higher debt that has to be serviced as a cost that reduces what can be spent on employees.

 

Or maybe they have to settle for just being "Profitable" and not shoot for the "most profitable" (ie "competitive").  "Can" is a disingenuous term in the context you use it. Its a choice, and they will always find some excuse why they "cant" pay us. We have to tell them what we need if they want us to fix their planes, not ask them what they feel like paying us for it or what they "can" pay us that wont interfere with their objective of being " the most profitable". 
 
We know there will be fewer maint jobs with newer airplanes, and yes the fact is that the old planes saved them a lot of money even though they spent more on maint and fuel, a point I brought up repeatedly on this forum and in negotiations, a point that company sucks like Videtich and Overspeed kept avoiding or tried to dismiss, the question is will the supply of new mechanics even keep up with the reduced demand?  It doesn't look like it will. While the overhaul bases will likely continue to shrink the only A&P mechanics you will see on the Unemployment lines will be those who don't want to work or move to the work. The industry is relying on old men working far too many hours a week to keep their planes safe. Most errors happen when guys are working OT and the more OT, the more errors. With the pensions gone, retiree medical gone, health benefits mostly covered by the users, minimal sick time and few Holidays its cheaper to hire more people than it is to pay 20% of hours worked at OT rates. Benefit costs, which at one time was accepted as nearly as much as the hourly rate is down to less than10%, OT is still paid at a premium of 50%.   So it would be cheaper to hire more people and reduce the OT, but they cant find them, will need 20 more in NY due to transfers to MIA and resignations, the only place they can get mechanics is Eagle and OH, soon those wells will be dry. As soon as guys come off probation they have their transfers in. Headcount is down to around 7500, (so we lost around 10,000 jobs since 2001)thats including Cleaners etc, In Title I they have hired 155 since AA filed BK. 69 A&Ps in NY. 31 Cleaners in Tulsa, no A&P. The other 50 are spread out in other high cost areas such as LAX, DCA, PHL, BOS and ORD. In Title II they are losing guys as fast as they can hire them.
 
So the loss of the MD-80s by end of 2017 may not be good news for Tulsa but even new planes break and manufacturers projections for minimal maintenance have been known to become "modified" once things start breaking.
 
We have tripled our productivity, and thats before the synergies kick in with a joint agreement which will reduce headcount and OT, yet our pay is around 50% in real terms what it used to be. (The Capitalist promise to workers that workers will see increased living standards with increased productivity is an obvious casualty of the end of the Cold War.)
 
Its time to take back. Delta plus 7 plus 4 tied down to a five year deal with pitiful increases is unacceptable, especially when you look at the fact that Delta employees earned 16% Profit sharing and even with the Profit sharing added in Delta workers are still being screwed by getting paid 30% less in real terms than they were prior to Bankruptcy.  Going by the Flight attendants deal in 2020 we would be making what the Delta mechanics are making now. (Do you think that Delta workers will not see regular pay rate increases over the next five years and keep the unions out?) No thanks. The fact is Delta's deal sucks, mechanics who quit Delta are all over the airport working for other carriers, some even quit and came to AA just to show how bad it is. Delta Plus is not what we are looking for, and management doesn't have to worry, whatever we get Delta will surely match to keep the Unions out so management cant complain that what we need will put them at a "competitive disadvantage". Delta workers aren't nearly as happy as you make them out to be. Like us most are old and looking to ride it out till they can retire so they stay, but if they want us to fix things they are going to have to start paying. In 2001, when in real terms we were paid a lot better than we are now we saw a 35% pay increase, in reality we need nearly a 100% pay increase to bring us back to where we were, anything less than that is us showing restraint.
 
 
(2001 effectively brought our pay rates back to where they were in real terms in the early 80s, however benefits were better. Now benefits have been stripped to the bone, figure the loss of the pension alone means we have to set aside $20,000 per year in order to replace the Income our pension would have provided -as older workers we were at the point where the resulting entitlement accellerated.  We also lost $12000 per year for retiree medical if purchased from the company. Then add in $1500 to $3000/year depending on how many years with the company for Lost Vacation, another $4000 for lost Holidays, then if you want to use Donnelly Math $3000/year for sick time (but with Donnelly math its only worth a few hundred when they take it away but thousands when you ask for it back).   

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

That was a good post Bob however, I think you summed it up more precisely before.
 
http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/57335-a-looming-amt-shortage/

Shortage of mechanics? No just a shortage of people willing to put up with the bulls hit for what they are offering.

 
Anyway +1.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Bob,
your argument about reduced pay relative to BK is just as valid for pilots... they argue that point all the time.

BK simply knocked the top end off the highest paid workers. that happened to be mechanics and pilots.

I'm not saying that DL employees don't leave... but the airline seniority based pay system - DL or otherwise, strongly removes incentives to switch carriers after too many years.

and if AA's intent is to reduce the total number of mechanics and replace some of that cost savings with lower operating costs (which are a whole lot less because of low fuel prices) then at some point AA either has to hire mechanics as airplanes age or they have to keep buying new airplanes which permanently increases AA's debt load relative to other carriers who manage to offset the fuel cost savings with lower costs elsewhere, including more efficient inhouse maintenance.

 

[Bob Owens]

I'm not saying that DL employees don't leave... but the airline seniority based pay system - DL or otherwise, strongly removes incentives to switch carriers after too many years.

 

True, but everyone gets older and eventually leaves, so seniority may keep the guys over 50, they wont exactly run out and jump through hoops to fix anything either, Union or Non-union, but the young will continue to leave, not just Delta but the industry altogether.  Older workers may be trapped but seniority based pay wont keep the young guys who don't see good pay at the end. So what they are ending up with is old bitter workers who have no intentions on taking the time and making the effort to train younger workers who wont stay anyway. They may get away with it with new fleets but as they age expect delays and cancellations to increase. 
 
We recently had two guys in their mid-40s, with 20 years at AA, quit and go to the Long Island Railroad. My guess is that at least 50% of the mechanics in NY are not from NY and are looking to leave ASAP, the other 50% are well over 50 and just looking to ride it out till they can retire. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

and your perspective is because there are government or limited access jobs where mechanics can work where pay is high and where those companies can easily pass along labor costs to passengers.

There are relatively few employers like that and it doesn't exist to that same degree elsewhere in the US.

Trying to staff airline positions has always been a challenge in high cost parts of the US.

that in part is why DL decided not to take the Pan Am hangar as part of the asset sale and why all US airlines have their maintenance and hub operations more heavily concentrated in lower cost parts of the center of the US.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

I asserted that the deal made was a good one.  If you don't agree, or think that this assertion is invalid because I am not an AA employee - then fine.

 
commavia: Trying to discuss anything with fa la li la brings this old saying to mind:
 

“you can’t teach a pig to dance; it’s a waste of your time and it irritates the pig.”
 

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

 including more efficient inhouse maintenance.

You show me ANY other maintenance facility in the WORLD that can turn an aircraft as fast as Tulsa while maintaining such a high quality standard.
 
Put up or shut up.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

commavia: Trying to discuss anything with fa la li la brings this old saying to mind:

Again Glenn..... grow up.