Recently, TUL cut the overhaul time for a heavy "C" check on a narrowbody aircraft roughly in half.Everyone is proud of our Union Brothers and Sisters in TUL for reaching the goals they set for themselves.
Prior to that accomplishment, the same sources reported that each day an MD-80 was OTS cost the compAAny some $10,000.00 in revenue per day.
Some six months ago, several of us asked why AA maintained far more Overhaul Infrastructure than needed; no one bothered to answer.
With the recent accomplishment of our Union Brothers and Sisters in TUL, we again ask why we can now do the same job in half the time but we have 30% more Overhaul Bases which are each operated at only 66% efficiency each?
With the recent 50% reduction in narrowbody heavy "C" check turn times, we can realize some 9 days of revenue production over the some 80 MD-80s that must turn a heavy "C" check every five years, spread over a MD-80 fleet of some 400 aircarft.
Given the numbers used in the AA/TWU puff piece, that equates to $90,000.00 revenue over 80 MD-80s yielding $7.2 Million in cost reductions/revenue generation.
Given the committment towards a $500,000,000.00 cost reduction/revenue generation: you Union Brothers and Sisters in TUL are 0.0144 on the way towards realizing our goal.
Cutting the turn time of a narrow body fleet in half, using the compAAny numbers for revenue lost: your best efforts achieved 1.44%of the goal over the most labor intensive portion of the work.
Do ya think the compAAny numbers might be a "little" skewed?
[post="273164"][/post]