AMR Files 1133 motion

[High Speed Steel]

i think thats their objective. They will try to recruit kids directly from A&P schools, info I've recieved indicates they are already setting things up for that. As UAL and other carriers get what AA has had since 1995 AA will try and expand the use of OSMs to keep their competative edge. You have to remember an OSM in Tulsa has a higher standard of living than a Line Mechanic in New York.($50 000 in Tulsa is the same as $88,000 in New York http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salary=50000&city1=54075000&city2=53651000 ) UAL will not be able to staff their SFO base with low cost mechanics like AA could staff Tulsa. I still have not seen where outsourcing is cheaper, the Timco experiment seems to have turned out to be a dismal failure.

A lot has been made of the proposed job cuts, to me I dont think the numbers will be nearly as high as what they are saying, I dont think they really want to pay others to do what they can do in house with what they hope will be OSMs. I dont see AA actually outsourcing as much as they say in the ask, I see them wanting to use OSMs and the ability to threaten to outsource to drive productivity up and keeping wages low across the system. If AA actually cut all the jobs they said they wanted to they would lose the leverage they have used to get concessionary contracts. From the ATD and the company and overspeed every time we bring up what competitors pay we are told that "we do overhaul in house". Well if they did outsource OH and cut nearly 4000 jobs then they would be no different than any of their competitors and have no arguement to continue to keep our wages and benefits at the bottom of the industry.

Bob, tell us how you really feel. You support outsourcing all AA Overhaul.....

 

[iluvaa]

Really at this point who cares what Bob thinks about all this like he or anyone can do a damn thing about it but quit

 

[787nightmare]

FWAAA covered it best. I can't think of any better way of laying this situation out. Here it is again.

"Bob Owens, on 31 March 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:
The fact is it is the work, not the business model. We sell A&P labor on heavy turbine aircraft, Does Exxon alter the price oif fuel based upon the business model or profitability of the consumer?"

FWAAA:
Good point - with some very minor variations, the price of jet fuel, on any given day, is the same no matter where in the world it is purchased. Nevertheless, you aren't arguing that all holders of A&P tickets be paid the same, no matter their employer or where they live, are you? That's basically the problem at AA right now - and that leads to higher pay in some parts of the country and ridiculously lower pay in other parts, like where you live. AA's current $33.28/hr (or whatever the actual number is - I used AA's number) is about 10% lower than jetBlue's top rate, and that makes no sense.

There have been a lot of news articles lately that gasoline prices are not uniform across the US. In fact, they're significantly cheaper right now in OK and TX than they are in CA or NYC (where current prices are very high). There are several reasons for that - including the transportation costs to move gasoline from the areas where it's refined to the areas where many more people live (the Northeast and the west coast). We all know that real estate prices are higher in many parts of the country that are not OK or TX. Auto insurance and real property taxes tend to be low in those two states. Lots of things tend to be cheaper in those two states.

So should every A&P holder employed by AA make the same money no matter where they live? I'd argue that the correct answer is "no," as those who like living in the low-cost areas (OK and TX) are willing to work for less money. Not because they have no self-respect or are lousy union men and women, but because even the current pay affords them a superior lifestyle in their region of the US. Of course, there's no argument that the exact same wage (paid to the NYC AMTs) affords them an inferior standard of living in NYC, where prices are very high compared to OK and TX. Same thing in BOS or CHI or MIA or PHL or WAS or SAN or SFO or other higher-cost parts of the country.

Yes, you all sell labor on heavy turbine aircraft. But as we've discussed, some of your coworkers face competition from ultra-low-cost providers. That would be your coworkers in OK and TX, many of whom perform scheduled maintenance that, because of the mobile nature of the airplanes, can be performed virtually anywhere in the world with runways and hangar space and a workforce that possesses some wrenches and manuals. For good or bad, that competition is located in places where men and women are willing to work for a mere fraction of what you're willing to accept. That's the nature of C checks and heavy C checks. Those can be performed almost anywhere in the world.

The work that AA's AMTs perform in NYC generally must be performed in NYC, so the plane can be airworthy the next morning or in 30 minutes or less or ASAP. Same story in all the other big cities. That's the nature of line maintenance. It has to done in the big cities where the airplanes are. There is no option to fly the plane to SAL or HKG or SIN to perform line maintenance. You in NYC don't really provide the same exact same service to AA as most of the guys in OK or TX.

The bottom line is that most of the AMTs in OK and TX do not provide the same service to AA that the line mechanics do. They tend to perform routine, scheduled maintenance and those on the line perform as-needed maintenance (plus the routine checks that are more economical to perform at the line stations).

So how to solve the problem? Get released, go on strike until AA raises the top pay for A&P ticket holders to $45/hr or more? I don't see that happening as long as everyone in OK and TX gets to tag along for the ride. AA ain't going to pay those in OK or TX that kind of money when AA knows that many in OK or TX will do what they do for $10/hr to $15/hr less than $45/hr. Thing is, except for WN and UPS (the outliers), every other big commercial airline's A&Ps currently make between almost $33/hr (UA) and $36.65/hr (B6) with CO close behind B6. Everyone is within an approximate 10% band. That's a smaller price variation than the domestic gasoline situation, where prices vary by almost a dollar right now depending on location. That's a much smaller variation that the disparity between pilot and flight attendant pay - where those near the top (AA) currently get more than 25% more than those near the bottom (US).

I don't know how you will solve that dilemma. I know how UA, NW and DL did it."

 

[FWAAA]

I dont believe you did.
The judge ruled that in BK when a contract is abrogated that legally it "never existed" so there is no status quo to violate, do you agree with that ruling and why?

That's not what the court ruled. The only part of the opinion that mentions "never existed" is in this portion of the concurring opinion:

The majority opinion is the first to hold that the status quo obligation perishes with the underlying agreement.   True, the Supreme Court has said that the status quo provisions are inapplicable where no collective bargaining agreement had ever existed between the parties.   See Williams v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 315 U.S. 386, 400-03, 62 S.Ct. 659, 86 L.Ed. 914 (1942).   But the Court subsequently limited even this exception;  it operates only where (in contrast to our case) “there was absolutely no prior history of any collective bargaining or agreement between the parties on any matter.” Shore Line, 396 U.S. at 157-58, 90 S.Ct. 294;  see also Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1253 (2d Cir.1992).

Thus, in Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Ass'n v. Atlantic Coast Airlines, Inc. (“Atlantic Coast I ”), we concluded that a “newly certified union that has no collective bargaining agreement with the carrier is not entitled to a status quo freeze under the [RLA].” 55 F.3d 90, 94 (2d Cir.1995).   The holding of Atlantic Coast I rested on the fact that no agreement had ever existed between the parties, and, for that reason, the status quo provisions had never applied.   There is therefore no basis for the majority's view that an existing status quo can “terminate,” and the authorities cited by the majority furnish no support for this idea.3

Neither the majority opinion nor the concurring opinion said that abrogation means the contract "never existed."

Termination is one thing but for the court to claim that a contract that was in place and amended numerous times over decades never existed is really out there, besides wouldnt that really be an annulment of a contract and arent contracts usually annulled only if they were enterred into illegally or fraudulently? What is your legal opinion of the ruling? Isnt the court in effect revealing a bias against collective bagainings right to exist?

Nope. The court didn't claim that the NW AFA FA contract never existed.

Prior to 1113, bankrupt airlines had summarily rejected labor agreements under section 365. Generally, bankruptcy law permits debtors to reject all executory contracts (except certain railroad labor agreements). Congress enacted section 1113 in an attempt to make it slightly tougher to reject labor agreements. Under the holding of the NW AFA appellate opinion, abrogation is not a unilateral action - and employees are not free to exercise self-help. Although there's some appeal to the notion that abrogation should permit the employees to strike, that would make it difficult (if not impossible) for a bankrupt airline to reduce its labor costs. Of course, affected employee groups would obviously prefer that bankrupt employers not be able to abrogate labor agreements, but other creditors would obviously prefer that everybody (including employees) share in the cost reductions.

 

[700UW]

I have to disagree, I have seen Sharon in court and she tore some US' executives new rears, but we all know the process is in favor of the company.

She did a good job for the IAM when we had our emergency cuts hearing, section 1113 e

 

[eolesen]

I get where you're going with the gas price argument, but as an aside, don't forget one of the biggest reasons prices vary isn't necessarily transportation, but state taxes....

State  Exise    Other     Total    Rank
NY       8.1     40.9      49.0       1
CA      35.7     12.9      48.6       2 
CT      25.0     23.6      48.6       2
HA      17.0     30.1      47.1       4
MI      19.0     20.4      39.4       5
NC      38.9      0.3      39.2       6
IL      19.0     19.9      38.9       7
IN      18.0     20.9      38.9       7
WA      37.5      0.0      37.5       9
FL       4.0     31.0      35.0      10
WV      20.5     12.9      33.4      11
NV      23.0     10.1      33.1      12
RI      32.0      1.0      33.0      13
WI      30.9      2.0      32.9      14
PA      12.0     20.3      32.3      15
ME      30.0      1.5      31.5      16
OR      30.0      1.0      31.0      17
GA       7.5     21.9      29.4      18
MN      28.0      0.1      28.1      19
OH      28.0      0.0      28.0      20
KY      26.4      1.4      27.8      21
MT      27.0      0.8      27.8      21
NE      26.7      0.9      27.6      23
VT      19.0      7.1      26.1      24
ID      25.0      0.0      25.0      25
KS      24.0      1.0      25.0      25
UT      24.5      0.0      24.5      27
SD      22.0      2.0      24.0      28
DC      23.5      0.0      23.5      29
MA      21.0      2.5      23.5      29
MD      23.5      0.0      23.5      29
DE      23.0      0.0      23.0      31
ND      23.0      0.0      23.0      31
CO      22.0      0.0      22.0      33
IA      21.0      1.0      22.0      33
AR      21.5      0.3      21.8      35
TN      20.0      1.4      21.4      36
AL      16.0      4.9      20.9      37
LA      20.0      0.0      20.0      38
TX      20.0      0.0      20.0      38 
VA      17.5      2.3      19.8      40
NH      18.0      1.6      19.6      41
AZ      18.0      1.0      19.0      42
NM      17.0      1.9      18.9      43
MS      18.0      0.8      18.8      44
MO      17.0      0.3      17.3      45
OK      16.0      1.0      17.0      46
SC      16.0      0.8      16.8      47
NJ      10.5      4.0      14.5      48
WY      13.0      1.0      14.0      49
AK       8.0      0.0       8.0      50

 

[topDawg]

AA is claiming that they are obligated to do "heavy maintenance" in-house, with over 1200 unprotected title 1. Not all of it.

Then they claim "Because American has by far the oldest fleet among the network carriers, it has more heavy maintenance requirements than its competitors." Not our fault.

Then they claim "The work can be done more timely and more cost-efficiently by FAA-approved maintenance vendors to whom American’s competitors have turned." Prove it.

uh...bull crap.

It may be short term cheaper....but it takes longer(3 weeks in house 2 months by a vendor.) and then comes back to its base to sit in the hangar for a month fixing all the crap they didn't fix in Mexico.

but what do I know....I have watched a Atlanta based airline change vendors 3 times in 5 years and finally get to the point where they build their own vendor in Mexico just because of this. smh....sad times we live in.

 

[TWU informer]

The fight over rejecting American Airlines' labor contracts begins April 23 in a New York City bankruptcy court, and will not finish until the second half of May.

The parties in the case agreed Monday to begin the hearings on April 23, nearly four weeks after American filed its motions March 27 to throw out its existing contracts with the Transport Workers Union, Allied Pilots Association and Association of Professional Flight Attendants.

Here's a preliminary schedule, based on some assumptions:

* Monday, April 23: The two sides issue opening statements, and American then presents its case, taking up to one week and finishing by Friday, April 27.

* The unions then have two weeks to prepare their side. That would take mean they start presenting their case on Monday, May 14, taking up to one week.

* American then has a chance to reply to the unions' presentations. That would begin on Monday, May 21.

* The judge has 30 days from the time the hearings begin to issue a ruling. That would take it to Wednesday, May 23. However, the two sides have agreed to delay that deadline by two weeks. That would be D-Day, June 6, for U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane to rule.

 

[Birdman]

I believe this is well within the compAAny's comfort zone considering their consultants have just began their task of running the show. It is also apparent that the term sheets are not realistic considering their movement "towards" the TWU's position.

 

[TWU informer]

I believe this is well within the compAAny's comfort zone considering their consultants have just began their task of running the show. It is also apparent that the term sheets are not realistic considering their movement "towards" the TWU's position.

The Term Sheet is working as planned with only ONE UNION on the property.

How many guesses would you need to name the ONE?

 

[FWAAA]

I believe this is well within the compAAny's comfort zone considering their consultants have just began their task of running the show. It is also apparent that the term sheets are not realistic considering their movement "towards" the TWU's position.

Lots of posts in the past several months that the company isn't bargaining "in good faith" unless it moves toward the employees' position (despite that NOT being an accurate statement of the legal definition of "good faith" negotiation).

Now, according to your post above, movement by the company toward the employees is evidence that the term sheets "are not realistic?" If the company had not budged an inch and was sticking to the term sheets in a "take it or leave it stance," would that be evidence that the term sheets "were realistic?"

 

[enough already]

Lots of posts in the past several months that the company isn't bargaining "in good faith" unless it moves toward the employees' position (despite that NOT being an accurate statement of the legal definition of "good faith" negotiation).

Now, according to your post above, movement by the company toward the employees is evidence that the term sheets "are not realistic?" If the company had not budged an inch and was sticking to the term sheets in a "take it or leave it stance," would that be evidence that the term sheets "were realistic?"

You tell us, compAAny man.

 

[paul1]

Lots of posts in the past several months that the company isn't bargaining "in good faith" unless it moves toward the employees' position (despite that NOT being an accurate statement of the legal definition of "good faith" negotiation).

Now, according to your post above, movement by the company toward the employees is evidence that the term sheets "are not realistic?" If the company had not budged an inch and was sticking to the term sheets in a "take it or leave it stance," would that be evidence that the term sheets "were realistic?"

the term sheet is a joke, but that is the term sheet they filed with the court, so thats what the company is going to get. Guys are going to vote no just out of angry. They screwed us in 2003 and blame us according to there filings. Since 2003 I think we had 2 or 3 1.5% pay raises since 2008 not a fricken dime. In the last t/a we where getting aleast raise that was far below what we gave up so the company could waste billions and award themselfs nicely.

What' the worst that can happen? I file my own BK, Like the 4000 guys in tulsa and afw are going to be doing

 

[Birdman]

Lots of posts in the past several months that the company isn't bargaining "in good faith" unless it moves toward the employees' position (despite that NOT being an accurate statement of the legal definition of "good faith" negotiation).

Now, according to your post above, movement by the company toward the employees is evidence that the term sheets "are not realistic?" If the company had not budged an inch and was sticking to the term sheets in a "take it or leave it stance," would that be evidence that the term sheets "were realistic?"

Many of us thought that even though AA has all the leverage in bk that the pension freeze would be an act fulfilling their obligation to "bargain in good faith". Any other "movement" is simply rumor, but, they put out a term sheet that they claimed matched their competitors business plans to lower maintenance costs so yes, not taking a "take it or leave it stance" at this point verifies there is not only a shortage in MRO capacity to replace their own supposed high cost maintenance, but also a shortage of skilled AMT's at the MRO's. I'll say it again, if your in your 40's it's time to cut your losses at AA and better yourself somewhere else because there will be layoffs in the future.

 

[texasreb]

The Term Sheet is working as planned with only ONE UNION on the property.

How many guesses would you need to name the ONE?

That is because we are not Americans biggest savings. I have flown Southwest Airlines many times and have seen how the air crew works. The pilots take tickets and the flight attendants clean cabins. Just some of the savings over there.