AMFA......read on

[1AA]

 
Lowering expectations...nice.
 
AMFA lost more jobs because they could not enforce the IAM contract language that was in place. They even lost more work once they "fixed" the contract. UAL AMFA rep Prisco even stated that the fight for overhaul is over when AMFA lost the remaining airframe overhaul work. That's why the UAL AMTs tossed AMFA because thet never delivered on their promises. The IBT at least stopped the bleeding.
 
What about AS? The overhaul work was protected under the IBT agreement and then when AMFA came in, AS management moved on OAK base. End result, AMFA whined it was the IBT's fault even though that work was protected under the CBA.
 
There are no more jobs that will be lost due to outsourcing under the CBA. Any additional jobs that are lost from here on out are due to over all work load dropping on the base side. Why? Because new planes don't need overhauls and they don't need overhauls as often as MD80s. New planes are a double whammy on work load which is why AAG bought them. They use less fuel and require less maintenance. It's why you trade in the 1990 Taurus for the new Hybrid Fusion. Yes it's a car payment but the aggreagte cost of not having to overhaul the engine, trans, suspension, and the double the gas consumption makes more sense in the long run.

Fix that broken record please especially that part about losing jobs.

 

[scorpion 2]

 
Lowering expectations...nice.
 
AMFA lost more jobs because they could not enforce the IAM contract language that was in place. They even lost more work once they "fixed" the contract. UAL AMFA rep Prisco even stated that the fight for overhaul is over when AMFA lost the remaining airframe overhaul work. That's why the UAL AMTs tossed AMFA because thet never delivered on their promises. The IBT at least stopped the bleeding.
 
What about AS? The overhaul work was protected under the IBT agreement and then when AMFA came in, AS management moved on OAK base. End result, AMFA whined it was the IBT's fault even though that work was protected under the CBA.
 
There are no more jobs that will be lost due to outsourcing under the CBA. Any additional jobs that are lost from here on out are due to over all work load dropping on the base side. Why? Because new planes don't need overhauls and they don't need overhauls as often as MD80s. New planes are a double whammy on work load which is why AAG bought them. They use less fuel and require less maintenance. It's why you trade in the 1990 Taurus for the new Hybrid Fusion. Yes it's a car payment but the aggreagte cost of not having to overhaul the engine, trans, suspension, and the double the gas consumption makes more sense in the long run.

If no additional jobs will be lost except the ones related to the MD 80 retirements then why the need to change the scope language? The company could have taken more concessions else where and not changed the scope since changes to our scope added to the overall concessions? Why would the company throw us a bone and say they really wont outsource 35% of their  maintenance budget,,, they just wanted to make it look like our concessions were more so we could get a bigger stock allocation? You are dreaming.    

 

[JABORD]

 
I still believe this says it all!!

 

[Overspeed]

If no additional jobs will be lost except the ones related to the MD 80 retirements then why the need to change the scope language? The company could have taken more concessions else where and not changed the scope since changes to our scope added to the overall concessions? Why would the company throw us a bone and say they really wont outsource 35% of their  maintenance budget,,, they just wanted to make it look like our concessions were more so we could get a bigger stock allocation? You are dreaming.    

 
Incorrect. The 35% is real and the company can outsource 35% of a reduced maintenance expense on top of the cost savings with the MD80.
 
In the future as aircraft get older then the increased maintenance cost will be subject to the same 35% outsourcing. The importance of that is even if the airline never grows, new work will be added inhouse at 65% whihc will mean jobs will be added under a scenario that invloves zero growth. Not true with AMFA at WN, new overhaul is only added contractually if they add more aircraft. That's weak.

 

[swamt]

 
Incorrect. The 35% is real and the company can outsource 35% of a reduced maintenance expense on top of the cost savings with the MD80.
 
In the future as aircraft get older then the increased maintenance cost will be subject to the same 35% outsourcing. The importance of that is even if the airline never grows, new work will be added inhouse at 65% whihc will mean jobs will be added under a scenario that invloves zero growth. Not true with AMFA at WN, new overhaul is only added contractually if they add more aircraft. That's weak.

And you still don't get it that it is 35% of spend, which can in fact and will be alot more than 35% of maint.   Since you brought it up,  AMFA's language to this date has doubled heavy maint, AMFA's added language also has added double the mechanics, more than doubled back shop work, added "C" check lines and still adding "C" check lines currently, made outsourcing to overseas where the membership will have to approve it again, SWA mechanics also enjoy good pay and bennies as well as enjoys as much as 9 weeks off (including the holidays) not including sick time.  What were you saying about weak?  I just don't see it, keep posting O/S...

 

[chellow]

Any one knows the first day that ANFA can file at AA?

 

[1AA]

Depends on how many cards we have collected.
The one year lock out ends August 21.
Will we have enough cards by then?

 

[swamt]

 
Lowering expectations...nice.
 
AMFA lost more jobs because they could not enforce the IAM contract language that was in place. They even lost more work once they "fixed" the contract. UAL AMFA rep Prisco even stated that the fight for overhaul is over when AMFA lost the remaining airframe overhaul work. That's why the UAL AMTs tossed AMFA because thet never delivered on their promises. The IBT at least stopped the bleeding.
 
What about AS? The overhaul work was protected under the IBT agreement and then when AMFA came in, AS management moved on OAK base. End result, AMFA whined it was the IBT's fault even though that work was protected under the CBA.
 
There are no more jobs that will be lost due to outsourcing under the CBA. Any additional jobs that are lost from here on out are due to over all work load dropping on the base side. Why? Because new planes don't need overhauls and they don't need overhauls as often as MD80s. New planes are a double whammy on work load which is why AAG bought them. They use less fuel and require less maintenance. It's why you trade in the 1990 Taurus for the new Hybrid Fusion. Yes it's a car payment but the aggreagte cost of not having to overhaul the engine, trans, suspension, and the double the gas consumption makes more sense in the long run.

And what happened to the over 18,000 jobs at AA under the TWU?  AA was at over 18,000 mechs at one time.  Currently they are under 8,000.  And I believe there will more reduction lowering the numbers again.  So tell us chief,  what ever happend to well over 50% of the TWU at AA???
 

If no additional jobs will be lost except the ones related to the MD 80 retirements then why the need to change the scope language? The company could have taken more concessions else where and not changed the scope since changes to our scope added to the overall concessions? Why would the company throw us a bone and say they really wont outsource 35% of their  maintenance budget,,, they just wanted to make it look like our concessions were more so we could get a bigger stock allocation? You are dreaming.    

There is always reasons in the co minds and this is why the language changes are needed, and ONCE AGAIN the union is selling and pushing it.  Generally, when there is larger than usual increases, bonuses and added benefits, they are to buy off for some other reason(s).  And please note how this was not shown by the union on the contract changes.  I believe 700 was the one bringing this one out to the open.  I think this maybe where the focus needs to be, study it and ask questions of your union.  If they beat around the bush, delay or even lie about it then run like mad and vote this offer down.  Something does not smell right, and it looks like the union is hiding it,   Hmmmmm...

 

[700UW]

Hey Overspun,
 
Currently in SFO  mechanics at UA over overhauling an Airbus A320.

 

[swamt]

Depends on how many cards we have collected.
The one year lock out ends August 21.
Will we have enough cards by then?

The membership better hope so.  I believe this will be the last time.  If this alliance gets in the membership will be finished.  I honestly hope you guys get it done.  

 

[1AA]

The membership better hope so.  I believe this will be the last time.  If this alliance gets in the membership will be finished.  I honestly hope you guys get it done.

We keep saying the last time but the twu keeps screwing around more and more every time and then we just sign cards again. We must file by August this time around. I just can not see how everybody is fed up and not willing to sign a card to get rid of the twu. With the alliance in the mix and single carrier status looming ahead we will have our work cut out if we as a group fail. AMFA can not help us at AA if we can not take the first step and help ourselves. Come August we will see how things look.

 

[1airborne]

The membership better hope so.  I believe this will be the last time.  If this alliance gets in the membership will be finished.  I honestly hope you guys get it done.  

 
I hope all the cards collected will be in the city that they need to file in, so the TWU doesn't try to pull a fast one like last time.
 
1airborne

 

[Rogallo]

IMHO.....They already have something up their sleeve!

 

[southwind]

My question concerning AMFA is, surely they knew NW airlines, had a fly by night school out west ,giving away A&P tickets to anyone with a heartbeat, who would cross the picket line when need be.
Wouldn't it have been better for the amt's to have some kind of work slow down vs. a strike?

 

[700UW]

Slow downs are "illegal "and at the end of the 30 cooling off period NW was free to impose a new CBA which they did.

Educate yourself.