🌟 Exclusive Amazon Black Friday Deals 2024 🌟
Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁
Alaska contract preamble
- Thread starter Chuck Schalk
- Start date
-
- Tags
- amfa contract
comatose
Senior
Whom did you ask? Were you on the negotiation committee?
Highlighted in pink just for you.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure the TWU language is air tight for the company. The company wrote it and the International groveled at their feet.
Remember your just a term D mechanic.
I am not associated nor do I support the democratic party. I am an independent. I do live in a state that is controlled by the GOP and I see, hear and read what they have done, do and are doing to give tax money to corporate America while hurting the middle class of America. I also grew up in the second most liberal state in the country. There have been two times in U.S. history where the GOP controlled all three houses in Washington. The first was Herbert Hoover that brought on the Great Depression and the second was W. Bush that brought on the mess we are in now. This is documented history, but I am sure Fox News would have a different take on it. That being said, I have no illusions that anyone in Washington is looking out for me or has my back. I do realize that the GOP considers me the enemy since I am a member of a union and work for hourly pay. I do not wish to make political statements or try to push either party’s agenda. I feel that as a working man in America that I have no party. I am also not that great at putting my thoughts into words, but the point I have been trying to make (not anyone’s fault for not understanding but mine) is that we have lost something that, to me, was very valuable. Right now our pension is frozen. I could be terminated in the future and it could disappear for all we know. Ask the people from Pan Am where their pension went. I am trying to say that, for me at least, retirement is now out of the question. I am sure that I am not the only one. I did not put a lot into the 401K during my AA career as I had kids and couldn’t afford to. After 2003 I really couldn’t afford to so I have not accumulated much money in mine. I don’t think I am the lone ranger here either. World Traveler confuses me when he says that pensions were for people who spent their whole career in one place. I have been here 27 plus years and others have been here longer. How long do you have to be here to have it considered a career? If you look at the seniority list the majority has spent their entire working career at AA. Are pensions expensive for companies? Yes they are. Will Horton and company get a pension when they retire? Yes. Will Jim Little and company get a pension? Yes they will. I do understand the idea that the 401K is mine and can’t be taken away and I do understand that the pension was held over our heads for a long time. But in my opinion trading a defined pension plan for a lousy 5.5% company match 401K was not a fair or smart trade. Especially when you consider that AA will put 14% into the pilot’s 401K with no input from pilots required. But I guess what I am really trying to say that for older TWU employees that have had the pension they counted on frozen (or terminated) that our retirement has been terminated. Younger workers can accumulate some money in their 401K over many years. Will it be enough for them to retire? Time will tell but my gut tells me no. If any of this makes me a liberal and a conspiracy theorist then so be it. I can live with that. But I also value your opinion and enjoy your posts. I agree with you on most occasions as well.
AA-MRO.COM
Senior
- Mar 12, 2012
- 425
- 472
The overhaul will all be gone before this agreement is up. You will not be doing any overhaul on any of the " biggest aircraft order in history"
The 767 757 and MD-80 will all be replaced by the "biggest aircraft order in history'
You will be on the outside looking in because you voted yes.
Its just a matter of time before they start replacing your current overhaul argument with outsourcing
As Chuck cited "work covered under this agreement". Are the Airbus's covered under this agreement? Going by past practice, No, because its not work they currently do in house. When Burdette was asked point blank if we would be doing the OH on those planes he refused to answer the question, he dodged around it and said that AA mechanics would work whatever AA flies, what he did not say was that AA mechanics would be doing the OH. So, does that work fall within the 35%? That will be the question put before an Arbitrator some day, and the Union will lose.
So right now AA can outsource up to 35% (subject to exclusions that would allow them to exceed that cap and subject to the partnership with RR remaining intact, if RR backs out then more than likely that number jumps up to at least 45%) of work that was covered under the contract and 100% of work that is not covered under the contract.
Burdette only committed to having AA/TWU mechanics work every fleet type AA flies, so if AA mechanics are doing the line maintenance and outsourcing all the OH, like they did with the 747 SPs they got from TWA, under pre-concessionary BK language, then he has lived up to his word, in his mind.
So you claim that you asked whomever you like but when the contract includes all those terms such as "subject to" or "work covered under this agreement etc then the burden of proof is on the union to prove that the company agreed to whatever it is you are claiming they agreed to, and the record does not support your claims. It contradicts the rest of the language where the company made it clear that they want to be able to do what their competitors can do. Even with past practice the company can claim that they always had the right to outsource, especially new work, such as they did with the 747SPs, they also outsourced A-300 engines, the 757 APUs, the 727s they sent to Delta, that "system protection " was what really limited their ability to outsource new work because if they outsourced too much they would have to pay guys to do nothing because they could not lay them off, but we agreed to get rid of system protection AND outsource up to 35% of the spend of what we were doing in house, work that was captured under the language of the old contract. And you voted for this! If this deal did protect jobs as you claim then why would the company have insisted on getting rid of system protection?
Material. Now this has never been clarified, so if AA buys the material and a vendor installs it that value is included on the in sourced side of the ledger? What is the purpose of including materials along with the labor? If anything it hurts us as it would allow the company to outsource more than 35% of the labor expense by spending more on materials. They could decide to stock up on materials one year in order to outsource more labor that year. This could come into play as MD-80s start going away at a faster rate.
I think you expressed yourself quite clearly and most hourly workers would agree completely.
Kev3188
Veteran
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #42
sorry to break it to you but pilots have long enjoyed compensation far higher than other airline employees. Not saying it is fair or right, but it is the job market.
Also, some airlines do provide some small level of 401k contribution for non-pilot personnel regardless of what the employee does.
It is a little hard to accept that AA or any major company does not believe it has an obligation to provide some level of retirement benefits to its non-pilot employees. Do whatever you can to get the match the company is offering.
Ok I think we all know pilots make more money. But when you figure that into the equation, 14% of a much bigger number is a whole lot more than 5.5% of a much smaller number. To put it another way: If we were to get 14% company contribution that would be much less than what the pilots get. I am by no means trying to say that we should get the same amount of money in retirement as pilots. I think most understood that, but you seem to have missed the point. 5.5% match is not at all generous and is quite low compared to most other companies I am familiar with. The bottom seems to be 6.5%. It is hard to accept that our Union is so inept that they cannot even get us a decent match. Just another reason to kick them out.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #44
...which is why I said ....
the pilots were determined to make sure they got pension on par w/ their peers elsewhere in the industry, most of whom have terminated pensions. Thus, the pension contribution rates are high when you factor in that AA pilot pensions will not be terminated but frozen.
Every workgroup has market pay which is used as the basis for comparison. AA pilots did not suffer some of the same cuts that pilots at other airlines suffered but they did manage to obtain defined contribution funding comparable to peers at other airlines.
That is the market, fair or not.
the pilots were determined to make sure they got pension on par w/ their peers elsewhere in the industry, most of whom have terminated pensions. Thus, the pension contribution rates are high when you factor in that AA pilot pensions will not be terminated but frozen.
Every workgroup has market pay which is used as the basis for comparison. AA pilots did not suffer some of the same cuts that pilots at other airlines suffered but they did manage to obtain defined contribution funding comparable to peers at other airlines.
That is the market, fair or not.
Please clarify. How was the language intended? If the "intended" part is not written into the CBA how do you fight this in arbitration? Not trying to be arguementative but I don't understand how we can win? Before we had the C.R.Smith Letter, Jane Allen Letter and the Baker Letter to accompany article 1. Now we have none of these letters. Thanks.
Kind Regards,
Harvey West
