AA vs. SWA - Maintenance

[Buck]

----------------
On 6/22/2003 4:53:28 PM KCFlyer wrote:

----------------
On 6/22/2003 4:48:59 PM Buck wrote:




No I understand your point. The AMFA constitution limits the organization from doing just that. The members must decide. Even if the leadership of a local or at the national level attempt to implement a "business" increase it must be voted on per the constitution. If the leadership steps over this boundry they can be removed from office by the membership. This method has been removed from the TWU.

----------------​

I respectfully submit to you that when the "business" of the union becomes severely impacted, you will see one of two things - an ammendment to their constitution, or the failure of their business.

----------------​

I agree, however it is the structure of the subject business that determines the course of action. The AMFA has provided within it''s constitution the means of dealing with any of this type of situation. The structure of the TWU limits the memberships rights to democracy through a direct vote of the membership. The failure of a "business", is what is happening at an ever increasing number of those airlines where the workers are unionized by an industrial union. The membership is becoming tired of their collective voice being ignored and are seeking to change their way of doing "business".

 

[Buck]

----------------
On 6/22/2003 331 PM KCFlyer wrote:

----------------
On 6/22/2003 2:52:23 PM Buck wrote:

When income drops something has to give? Of course it does, you lay people off and or the airline raises fares. If the public does not like it they do not have to fly. It will work itself out.​

----------------​

YOu miss my point. I''m not talking about the airline. I''m talking about the business of the union. When income falls because the membership is laid off, something has to give. How many votes will the AMFA allow before they either raise dues on their own, or before the AMFA becomes more focused on "job security"? How long will AMFA be willing to operate at a reduced income level while waiting for a vote. Will the shorfall in dues come from an affected airline, or will the increase be spread accross the other airlines? It''s admirable that a union purports to be their for mechanics. But never forget that they are a business - just like AA. When the "customers" are faced with increased fees, what option will they have?

----------------​

No I understand your point. The AMFA constitution limits the organization from doing just that. The members must decide. Even if the leadership of a local or at the national level attempt to implement a "business" increase it must be voted on per the constitution. If the leadership steps over this boundry they can be removed from office by the membership. This method has been removed from the TWU.

 

[MCI transplant]

----------------
On 6/22/2003 9:43:18 AM AAmech wrote:


What in the heck are you talking about?  Im commenting about how AA seems to have a much more efficient system to link up the proper paperwork with the planes undergoing maint checks. 

----------------​

Friend! Are you a dreamer! From someone who has been outside your system, and is now learning it,I''ve got one thing to say about A.A.''s maintenance paper work! It SUX!!! It appears to be writen by someone that has no idea what a real airplane looks like!(E-58-4''s!)Ba,Humbug!!!We''re routinely making corrections to paper work that Tulsa, and AFW have been using for years! Enginering red lines all over the place!!!Oh, I know I''ll get slamed for saying it,but it''s the truth!

 

[Buck]

----------------
On 6/22/2003 7:06:10 PM MCI transplant wrote:

----------------
On 6/22/2003 9:43:18 AM AAmech wrote:



What in the heck are you talking about?  Im commenting about how AA seems to have a much more efficient system to link up the proper paperwork with the planes undergoing maint checks. 

----------------​

Friend! Are you a dreamer! From someone who has been outside your system, and is now learning it,I''ve got one thing to say about A.A.''s maintenance paper work! It SUX!!! It appears to be writen by someone that has no idea what a real airplane looks like!(E-58-4''s!)Ba,Humbug!!!We''re routinely making corrections to paper work that Tulsa, and AFW have been using for years! Enginering red lines all over the place!!!Oh, I know I''ll get slamed for saying it,but it''s the truth!

----------------​

You may get slammed, but american does have way to much paperwork and it takes forever to get a response out of engineering. I do not blame the engineers, it is the company. I am going to guess, but it could be ( from listening to the engineers ) that they are the lowest paid in the industry. Few stay on.

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 6/22/2003 9:16:40 PM Buck wrote:

To get back on topic, why is it that SWA is able to pay it''s mechanics somewhere around 17% higher than American?

----------------​

Because all those years ago, you all would NEVER have considered a "Southwest style" contract. You wouldn''t have a pension, you blamed them for "dragging downt the industry" and mocked them for not going after an "industry leading contract". Southwest lives in the good times as if they were bad times - that''s exactly opposite of what you want....as long as the company is making money SHOW ME DA MONEY. Southwest mechanics have a stake in the profitablity of their company. To even suggest a similar deal at any of the other airlines would have resulted in mutiny.

 

[Buck]

----------------
On 6/22/2003 9:06:58 PM will fix for food wrote:

----------------
On 6/22/2003 11:58:12 AM Buck wrote:


I will be the first to admit that I know little about the financial side of the equation.

----------------
​

Well then I suggest you do a little research. Go run up ten credit cards to their maximum limit. Throw those ten credit card''s minimimum payments into your budget and see what happens to the rest of your bottom line. This is what A/A has done.

I read somewhere that SWA pays for their planes up front and does not finance them, i.e., no credit card debt. That may be why they have more cash to spend in other areas.(payroll)

----------------​

So what you are pointing out is that the company mismanaged itself?
So the answer was to intimidate the workforce to prevent bankruptcy. Yet SWA is able to mamnage thier company. To get back on topic, why is it that SWA is able to pay it''s mechanics somewhere around 17% higher than American?

 

[will fix for food]

----------------
On 6/22/2003 11:58:12 AM Buck wrote:

I will be the first to admit that I know little about the financial side of the equation.

----------------​

Well then I suggest you do a little research. Go run up ten credit cards to their maximum limit. Throw those ten credit card''s minimimum payments into your budget and see what happens to the rest of your bottom line. This is what A/A has done.

I read somewhere that SWA pays for their planes up front and does not finance them, i.e., no credit card debt. That may be why they have more cash to spend in other areas.(payroll)

 

[RUM@AA]

----------------
On 6/22/2003 2:18:21 PM KCFlyer wrote:




​

<
----------------

But what happens down the road when every airline has AMFA representing their mechanics, and in order to protect wages and benefits, the AMFA fights to have the source of their income laid off

----------------
This has got to be the stupidest thing I''ve ever heard. AMFA FIGHTS TO GET PEOPLE LAID OFF???? Next you''ll be telling us that AMFA fights to get it''s members fired. Then you''ll be saying AMFA HATES IT''S MEMBERS. WAKE UP!!!
The airline industry cycles with the economy. When business is down, people SHOULD get laid off. When business comes back up, employees return to work for a good wage. That''s how it should be and that''s how it always was, until now. Now that the TWU has screwed it up. That''s right, people get laid off. Low seniority people. That''s what seniority is supposed to be for. But the TWU doesn''t respect seniority because most people with seniority have been around long enough to know the TWU SUCKS! Four screwings since 1985 and four constitutional conventions have proven it to me.

 

[Buck]

----------------
On 6/22/2003 9:30:02 PM KCFlyer wrote:

----------------
On 6/22/2003 9:16:40 PM Buck wrote:

To get back on topic, why is it that SWA is able to pay it''s mechanics somewhere around 17% higher than American?

----------------​

Because all those years ago, you all would NEVER have considered a "Southwest style" contract. You wouldn''t have a pension, you blamed them for "dragging downt the industry" and mocked them for not going after an "industry leading contract". Southwest lives in the good times as if they were bad times - that''s exactly opposite of what you want....as long as the company is making money SHOW ME DA MONEY. Southwest mechanics have a stake in the profitablity of their company. To even suggest a similar deal at any of the other airlines would have resulted in mutiny.

----------------​

All those years ago? All I ever wanted was to be compensated equally with my peers in the industry. From 1983 on the mechanics at AA have had two or more payscales for their mechanics. The average wage for mechanics at AA has been the lowest in the industry since the introduction of the B-scale. It is the industrial union on the property that has negotiated wages for other ground workers that have exceeded their peers at Southwest. This is an issue with the mechanics at AA. We are asking to be seperated from the other ground workers and be recognized for our skill, just as Southwest has recognized their mechanics. Your threat of my "pension"? If we as a unionized workforce continue to take concessions in our wages, are we not conceding our pension also? I will take a Southwest contract over mine today and their union representitive too. I do not recall that I dragged down or mocked them in anyway. How do you know what I want? I do not look for the raise when the company is making money or losing it. My position is that I want to recognized as my peers are in this industry. It is the company of AA that has stated over and over again, that we need to be like Southwest. If that is truly what AA needs to do, then what are they waiting for? But no the TWU has devised a plan to keep more dues paers and lower their maintenance costs by lowering wages. While Southwest has stated that they are going bring their work in house and continue to compensate their mechanics.

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 6/22/2003 11:39:00 PM RUM@AA wrote:

This has got to be the stupidest thing I''ve ever heard. AMFA FIGHTS TO GET PEOPLE LAID OFF???? Next you''ll be telling us that AMFA fights to get it''s members fired. Then you''ll be saying AMFA HATES IT''S MEMBERS. WAKE UP!!!

Yes, they do. If a company offers to not lay off if the union accepts concessions, and the union dismisses that, then they are indeed fighting to get people laid off. But nobody has addressed my hypothetical situation...what if an airline is showing a profit, but profits are in a downward trend and they begin to implement proactive cost cutting measures. What will the AMFA say when the company lays off while still showing a profit. You accept layoffs in the downturns, so if a company sees a downturn in the future and opts to nip it in the bud, will AMFA applaud those actions, or will they balk because the company is still showing a profit...because fewer dues paying members equates to a reduction in income for the business side of the union. Will they fight to have the airline wait until hard times hit to begin layoffs (penalizing the stockholders) or will they agree to help the airline maintain profits (benefiting the shareholders)?

When the business side of the union sees their revenues decline during one of these "cycles" in the industry, one has to wonder how long before they start fighting for job security and consider discussing concessions. Your dues are their income. Fewer dues paying members equals lower income. I do not know of any business that will accept lower income for any extended period of time. And AMFA, TWU, IAM and any other union are all businesses.


----------------​

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 6/22/2003 9:30:02 PM KCFlyer wrote:


Because all those years ago, you all would NEVER have considered a "Southwest style" contract.&nbsp; You wouldn''t have a pension, you blamed them for "dragging downt the industry" and mocked them for not going after an "industry leading contract".&nbsp; Southwest lives in the good times as if they were bad times - that''s exactly opposite of what you want....as long as the company is making money SHOW ME DA MONEY.&nbsp; Southwest mechanics have a stake in the profitablity of their company.&nbsp; To even suggest a similar deal at any of the other airlines would have resulted in mutiny.&nbsp;&nbsp;

----------------​

Well I dont know where you are coming up with all this "you" stuff. Who are "you" and how would you know what we asked for or what we were offered.

As far as living in the "bad" times, you are obviously unaware of the fact that during the last round of "bad times" the mechanics agreed to a concessionary 6 year contract. They never got to share in the good times. In 1995, the year the contract was signed, AA showed record profits and went on to leapfrog profits yearly afterwards. In the meantime mechanics saw their real wage plummet.

Is it unreasonable for an aircraft mechanics to expect a good wage?

Should aircraft mechanics bear the responsiblity of poor management?

If SWA, a no frills, low cost carrier can pay their mechanics $35/hr then why cant a full service airline that is 10 times bigger pay the same? If SWA is operating like they are in the bad times and paying $35/hr and we are making $30 then how can you say that our expectations are too high?

 

[AAmech]

----------------
On 6/22/2003 7:06:10 PM MCI transplant wrote:

----------------
On 6/22/2003 9:43:18 AM AAmech wrote:



What in the heck are you talking about?&nbsp; Im commenting about how AA seems to have a much more efficient system to link up the proper paperwork with the planes undergoing maint checks.&nbsp;

----------------​

Friend! Are you a dreamer! From someone who has been outside your system, and is now learning it,I''ve got one thing to say about A.A.''s maintenance paper work! It SUX!!! It appears to be writen by someone that has no idea what a real airplane looks like!(E-58-4''s!)Ba,Humbug!!!We''re routinely making corrections to paper work that Tulsa, and AFW have been using for years! Enginering red lines all over the place!!!Oh, I know I''ll get slamed for saying it,but it''s the truth!

----------------​

Now I''m not going to defend the paperwork! I have also worked with MUCH better systems. What I mean is that the proper paperwork almost always arrives with the plane. Now the Documents and the Computer system themselfs really do SUCK!! Why can''t AA use standard terminology like "Non-Routine" and "Routine" card? Instead we have E-58''s and Pattern. And just try and get Engineering or whoever to change some paperwork. It like pulling teeth! And we could go on all day about the ancient and difficult to learn Computer systems. I''m surprised we don''t have "Wang" terminals in the hanger.

 

[FWAAA]

----------------
On 6/23/2003 5:46:45 AM Bob Owens wrote:

Is it unreasonable for an aircraft mechanics to expect a good wage?

Should aircraft mechanics bear the responsiblity of poor management?

If SWA, a no frills, low cost carrier can pay their mechanics $35/hr then why cant a full service airline that is 10 times bigger pay the same? If SWA is operating like they are in the bad times and paying $35/hr and we are making $30 then how can you say that our expectations are too high?


----------------​

Each and every WN employee works more (gives more of themselves) than employees at the other airlines. Their pilots fly more hours than any other airline. Their flight attendants clean the airplanes between flights. Their mechanics do more work with fewer bodies (and outsource the expensive stuff). And you''re wondering why WN is making money and no other (forget B6 for the moment) major airline is??

Why can''t AA afford to pay you $35?? Quite a few reasons (some of which you have been in denial over for the last few months). Can AA afford to pay you $35? No. AA almost ran out of money and almost filed for Ch 11 two months ago.

You would never have considered working for WN and would never have signed the same contract as they did at AA. Yet here you are, having lost (yes, LOST) the race and you''re crying that you want what they have. Well, you should have signed up with a winner, not a loser. If WN is so great now, why don''t you quit and go work for WN?

Oh, that''s right - you don''t want to lose all your seniority and other benefits.

You work for "Almost (Out of Business) Airlines" and you''re whining that you don''t work for Southwest "The Clear Winner Airlines." Get over it.

Sure it''s management''s fault, but crying about poor management isn''t magically going to allow AA to pay you what WN pays its help.

Face it - they guys who repair airplanes are never going to be rich. The guys who repair video conferencing devices, on the other hand . . .

 

[Buck]

----------------
On 6/23/2003 938 AM FWAAA wrote:

----------------
On 6/23/2003 5:46:45 AM Bob Owens wrote:

Is it unreasonable for an aircraft mechanics to expect a good wage?

Should aircraft mechanics bear the responsiblity of poor management?

If SWA, a no frills, low cost carrier can pay their mechanics $35/hr then why cant a full service airline that is 10 times bigger pay the same? If SWA is operating like they are in the bad times and paying $35/hr and we are making $30 then how can you say that our expectations are too high?


----------------​

Each and every WN employee works more (gives more of themselves) than employees at the other airlines. Their pilots fly more hours than any other airline. Their flight attendants clean the airplanes between flights. Their mechanics do more work with fewer bodies (and outsource the expensive stuff). And you''re wondering why WN is making money and no other (forget B6 for the moment) major airline is??

If the mechanics ar SWA do more work for less and outsource all their expensive work with fewer bodies, then why does AA not do something about that. It would be very inefficent to continue with to many employees.

Why can''t AA afford to pay you $35?? Quite a few reasons (some of which you have been in denial over for the last few months). Can AA afford to pay you $35? No. AA almost ran out of money and almost filed for Ch 11 two months ago.

If cost per seat mile is close then why cannot salaries for each work group be comparable?

You would never have considered working for WN and would never have signed the same contract as they did at AA. Yet here you are, having lost (yes, LOST) the race and you''re crying that you want what they have. Well, you should have signed up with a winner, not a loser. If WN is so great now, why don''t you quit and go work for WN?

It is not that WN is so great, it is that AA is always attempting to compare AA to them and asking us to give. Now that the heavy maintenance is heading in house, WN costs will rise. So why can AA not pay it''s mechanics the same as WN?

Oh, that''s right - you don''t want to lose all your seniority and other benefits.

Defend the management all you want, we as mechanics in TUL are working leaner and no one has said a word about paying us comparable to WN.

You work for "Almost (Out of Business) Airlines" and you''re whining that you don''t work for Southwest "The Clear Winner Airlines." Get over it.

Sure it''s management''s fault, but crying about poor management isn''t magically going to allow AA to pay you what WN pays its help.

Face it - they guys who repair airplanes are never going to be rich. The guys who repair video conferencing devices, on the other hand . . .

It is about cost and demand. If AA can get the TWU to concede to lower their costs, why would they want to pay more, right?

----------------​

 

[KCFlyer]

Buck and Bob, during your last contract, if the TWU would have presented you with the exact same contract that was in place at Southwest (their old contract, not the current one negotiated by the Teamsters), the AMFA would have already been voted in. You would have run the TWU out of town back then. Seems foolish now, but back then you would have never stood for it, although hindsight is 20/20.