Article 4 Industry Comparable Pay rate

[Chuck Schalk]

 
Whose CBA and amount of outsourcing was used by the company's lawyers to show that the TWU CBA was better than industry average? It was the CBAs at UA, AS, WN, US, and non-union DL that the company's lawyers presented in court that showed that the TWU CBA provided much greater levels of insourcing at higher overall cost than any of the previously noted airlines. The TWU CBA kept jobs inhouse at $33/hour where other union and non-union simply let that work go to low wage MROs. To me the biggest concession was rolling over on tens of thousands of overhaul AMT jobs by the IBT and AMFA so that a few thousand AMTs could get between $38 and $42. Like I said, AMFA represented over 25,000 members and now has around 3,000. Where are the AMT jobs that they fiercely defended? Yes the TWU had jobs stripped out of their CBA scope in BK but nowhere near as many on straight up numbers, percentage, or ratio basis as AMFA.
 
AMFA is the union of more unemployed airline AMTs than any other union hands down. That is the biggest concession
 
This is the TWU CBA you speak of being so great and while you are at it tell us how great that the company has alot of work done in london and south america on american airlines aircraft which is not included in your TWU precious outsourcing claim.  It is a hidden secret that the TWU knows about but don't talk about.
 
  
basically there is no limit on outsourcing under the TWU language!!!!! nice job overspun
 
The below is from our 2012 TWU Aircraft maintenance and Related Contract Article 1.
 
[SIZE=10pt](E)[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] The Company and the Union agree to limit the percentage of all outsourced Aircraft-related Maintenance to not exceed 35%, subject to exclusions or modifications described elsewhere in this agreement. Further, the parties also agree that no more than 15% of Line Maintenance work will be contracted out. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]The percentage set forth in [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]paragraph (E)[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] above may be exceeded in the event: (i) the Company’s then-present employees do not have the normal time and/or skills to perform the work (provided that the manpower shortage is not a result of the Company’s failure to reasonably anticipate and address its headcount requirements); or (ii) the Company’s equipment or facilities are insufficient or are being fully utilized at the time the Company contracts out the work. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]It is the company’s current plan to contract out additional Base work, including the following: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]B777 Main Base Visit [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]B767 SIP, Fail Safe [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]B757 Heavy Check [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]B757 Mid Check [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Main Cabin Extra Special Visits – All Fleets [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]B737 Air Data Probe ASB/AD (portion of fleet) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Peak Base Visits regardless of fleet or engine type; for example, where a full check line cannot be supported [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Associated back shop work in support of the above. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Window shop and Blade and Vane Shop. [/SIZE]
 

 

[Overspeed]

 

 
Whose CBA and amount of outsourcing was used by the company's lawyers to show that the TWU CBA was better than industry average? It was the CBAs at UA, AS, WN, US, and non-union DL that the company's lawyers presented in court that showed that the TWU CBA provided much greater levels of insourcing at higher overall cost than any of the previously noted airlines. The TWU CBA kept jobs inhouse at $33/hour where other union and non-union simply let that work go to low wage MROs. To me the biggest concession was rolling over on tens of thousands of overhaul AMT jobs by the IBT and AMFA so that a few thousand AMTs could get between $38 and $42. Like I said, AMFA represented over 25,000 members and now has around 3,000. Where are the AMT jobs that they fiercely defended? Yes the TWU had jobs stripped out of their CBA scope in BK but nowhere near as many on straight up numbers, percentage, or ratio basis as AMFA.
 
AMFA is the union of more unemployed airline AMTs than any other union hands down. That is the biggest concession
 
This is the TWU CBA you speak of being so great and while you are at it tell us how great that the company has alot of work done in london and south america on american airlines aircraft which is not included in your TWU precious outsourcing claim.  It is a hidden secret that the TWU knows about but don't talk about.
 
  
basically there is no limit on outsourcing under the TWU language!!!!! nice job overspun
 
The below is from our 2012 TWU Aircraft maintenance and Related Contract Article 1.
 
[SIZE=10pt](E)[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] The Company and the Union agree to limit the percentage of all outsourced Aircraft-related Maintenance to not exceed 35%, subject to exclusions or modifications described elsewhere in this agreement. Further, the parties also agree that no more than 15% of Line Maintenance work will be contracted out. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]The percentage set forth in [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]paragraph (E)[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] above may be exceeded in the event: (i) the Company’s then-present employees do not have the normal time and/or skills to perform the work (provided that the manpower shortage is not a result of the Company’s failure to reasonably anticipate and address its headcount requirements); or (ii) the Company’s equipment or facilities are insufficient or are being fully utilized at the time the Company contracts out the work. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]It is the company’s current plan to contract out additional Base work, including the following: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]B777 Main Base Visit [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]B767 SIP, Fail Safe [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]B757 Heavy Check [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]B757 Mid Check [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Main Cabin Extra Special Visits – All Fleets [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]B737 Air Data Probe ASB/AD (portion of fleet) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Peak Base Visits regardless of fleet or engine type; for example, where a full check line cannot be supported [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Associated back shop work in support of the above. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Window shop and Blade and Vane Shop. [/SIZE]
 

 

 
Not true. All work done by non-TWU represented people is considered outsourced work. Again you reveal what an incompetent union rep you were when you told us to vote no on the 2010 TA. You never really read the contracts. The LHR AA employees are not represented by the TWU and therefore considered outsourced costs under the formula. Only TWU represented employees work is considered insourced. The loop hole you speak of doesn't exist. Your lies about the TWU 2010 TA has resulted in thousands AMTs not making $38 and hour four years ago.
 
The calculation of the percentage of work being outsourced is given by:
 
Outsourcing % = Outside Service Costs ÷ (Direct Labor Cost + Direct Material Cost + Outside Service Costs), where:
 
"Outside Service Costs" is the amount charged by the external service vendor for aircraft-related maintenance, and the Direct Labor and Direct Material costs incurred for work performed by non-TWU AA employees, except where excluded pursuant to paragraph e(2), below.
 
"Direct Labor Cost" is the sum of all salaries and benefits costs of the TWU Title I employees without any accounting adjustments for capital, contract or other credits.
 
"Direct Material Cost" is the materials expense recognized in the accomplishment of aircraft-related maintenance events performed by AA TWU employees. Capitalized material is excluded; Shop Supplies will be included.

 

[Realityck]

The twu has carved out a path of concessions over the last 20 years that resulted in concessions not only for us at American Airlines but concessions for every other employee at all the legacy carriers. The greatest twu concession was the creation of the eight and a half hour day followed by the B scale from there the list goes on and on paving the way to the worst pay and benefits in the industry. Great Job TeAAm TWU

 
 
 
 
[SIZE=24pt] A           ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION[/SIZE]
[SIZE=24pt]   P [/SIZE]
      [SIZE=24pt]A[/SIZE]                                                                        [SIZE=14pt]December [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]14,1992[/SIZE]
 
 
[SIZE=14pt]Mr. O. V. Delle-Femine [/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]National Director [/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]Aircraft [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mechanics Fraternal Assoc. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]P. O. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Box [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]39[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]Fayetteville, GA [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]30214 [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Delle-Femine:[/SIZE]
 
            [SIZE=14pt]As [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]senior member of [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Allied Pilots Association (APA) Board of[/SIZE] [SIZE=14pt]Directors, I[/SIZE] [SIZE=14pt]consider your November 17, 1992 letter to APA President [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]LaVoy [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]nothing more [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]than [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]a personal, [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]political [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]attack on behalf of Messrs. Martin Seham and David W. Gould, APA’[/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]S [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]VicePresident. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]It [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]is [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]unthinkable that you have the audacity [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]question the prerogative and right of the President of APA [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]change General Counsel. Your intrusive meddling [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]into [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]APA's affairs, business, and [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]policy is a [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]most appallingly deceitful and cowardly [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]act. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]When [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]did [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]our President or Association [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]ever [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]question or meddle [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]your association's [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]affairs?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=14pt]         Since you have decided to interfere by making erroneous and [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]disparaging [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]political [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]statements [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]against [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]our President and Association, [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]allow [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]me [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]respond. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Delle-Femine, there [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]are [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]six billion [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]people [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]this [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]world. It [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]is [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]an [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]amazing [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]coincidence [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]me [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]that [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]you courtesy-copied [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]your letter [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]only [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to David [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]W. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Gould, the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]only [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]person who has stated [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]his [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]intentions [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]lead the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]recall of President [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]LaVoy. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]The [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Vice President has neither a [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]legal [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]say [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]in, [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]nor [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]a [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]vote [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]selection of APA's General Counsel. This [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]being the case[/SIZE][SIZE=14pt], the sole purpose for copying [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Gould [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]is [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]obvious [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]even the most naive [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]political [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]observer: [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]help [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]him [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]undermine President [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]LaVoy.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=14pt]         This is not the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]first [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]time [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Gould has [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]been the ringleader of a political circus. During [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]a [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Department [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]of Labor-supervised election,[/SIZE][SIZE=14pt] Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Gould [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]tried [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]seat [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]himself [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]prior [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to the election certification, even though [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]premature-seating [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]was [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]ruled out [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]order by the parliamentarian and the chair. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]That [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]fiasco cost the membership [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]approximately [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]$50,000 for the special [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Board [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Meeting [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Gould's adherents [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]called.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=14pt]         Currently, [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the smoke screen for [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Gould's divisive political agenda [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]is [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]General [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Counsel [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]issue. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Once again, [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]membership [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]will [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]foot [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the bill for [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Vice [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]President Gould's [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]politica1 activities. Confrontational behavior and zealous, self-righteous ranting seems [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]have [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]become [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Gould's trademark.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=14pt]Let's examine Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Seham's [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]record a little more [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]closely; [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]unlike [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]you, [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]I [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]was [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]there.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=14pt]                                                      1983 [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]CONTRACT[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=14pt]After deregulation, the APA leadership had it's first chance [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]show [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]their [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]negotiating skills and determination.  With [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Seham's counsel and help, they created the most anti-union “B Scale” ever devised. The A-Scale pilots' pay would be subsidized [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]by [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the B-Scale pilots, or, [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]as [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Seham said, the A-Scale pilots kept their present level of-pay [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]and [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]benefits "all at [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]cost [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]reduced salaries for newly-hired pilots." Essentially, the negotiators and [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Seham agreed [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]that [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]professional pilots at American Airlines were worth [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]less [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]than [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]half of [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]their [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]current [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]wages. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Next [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]came the classic management tactic of [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]"divide [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]and conquer” [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the form of Supplement B, written by [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Seham. Basically, Supplement B stipulates that A-Scale and B-Scale pilots shall never be equal. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Seham drafted management’s [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]dream[/SIZE] [SIZE=14pt]come true - a [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]permanently [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]divided union at a time the Company was under no [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]financial [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]difficulty.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=14pt]                                                      1987 CONTRACT[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=14pt]Having set the stage [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]1983, the big payoff for management [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]was [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the 1987 contract. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]With [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the union now [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]divided, APA [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]negotiators [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]agree [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]gut our work rules,  [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]granted [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]a less than one and one-half [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]percent [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]pay [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]raise [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]per [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]year [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]for [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the A-Scale pilots, [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]and [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]compensation [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]for [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the B-Scale pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]far [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]below the market level. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]As [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]icing on [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]cake, they [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]gave away our [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]scope [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]clause, [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]allow management [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]buy and operate commuter airlines flying [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]up [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]seventy-seat [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]aircraft. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]The Company [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]was [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]an excellent financial position after APA negotiated a contract [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]that [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]put our pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]behind in [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]pay [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]and benefits [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]everyone [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]except Continental Airlines, so senior [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]AMR [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]management rewarded itself with a lucrative stock bonus plan. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Seham called it a victory; for whom [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]was [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]it a [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]victory?[/SIZE]
 
                                                      [SIZE=14pt]1990 CONTRACT[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=14pt]By [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]this time, senior A-Scale pilots at AAL were[/SIZE] [SIZE=14pt]flying [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]"wide-body" [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]aircraft [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]for [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]narrow-body [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]pay rates, B-Scale was on the verge of being institutionalized, and management intended [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]"re- vamp" our medical benefits, once [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]again [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]at [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the expense of the new-hire pilot. Through a grassroots campaign, which climaxed [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the firing of our negotiating committee, we [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]turned [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]things around. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]In [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the middle of a recession and war, we negotiated [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]best contract [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]seven years, while [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Seham had to be dragged along throughout [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]entire process.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=14pt]         LUMP SUM ARBITRATION: [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Seham lost the Lump Sum Benefit arbitration award on [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]merits of the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]ease. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]The arbitrator awarded the benefit “[/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]only" [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to pilots hired prior [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to 1983 due [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Supplement B, [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]which [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]was [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]drafted [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]by [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Seham. Four [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]years [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]after  [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]creating [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the B-Scale, one more wedge [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]was [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]driven into the membership [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]by [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. Seham's hand. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]It [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]was [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]President LaVoy, while a member of [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]new [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]negotiating committee, who [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]was [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]able [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]secure the Lump Sum Benefit for [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]all [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]pilots and [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]bring [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the members together, not Mr. Seham.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=14pt]         MIA TDY: [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Seham lost the MIA TDY arbitration [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]case [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]that [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]was [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]initiated [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]by [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the [/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]         former president.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=14pt]         APA EAGLE STRUCTURE: Under Mr. Seham's counsel [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]1986, the former[/SIZE][SIZE=14pt] negotiating committee gutted our scope [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]clause [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]allow [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Company [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]buy [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Eagle commuter airlines. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Later in [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]1987, [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]former APA [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]president [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]appointed an Ad Hoc [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]committee (two of the members were also negotiators), [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]determine [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]if [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Eagle [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]should [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]be [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]AP[/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]A [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]members [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]and sit [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]on [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]APA [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Board [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]of Directors. With the advice [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]and [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]couns[/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]el of [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Seham, [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]they [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]took [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Eagle [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]pilots and created the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]structure [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]currently[/SIZE] [SIZE=14pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]place.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=14pt]         APA DRUG TESTING AGREE'MENT:         With Mr. Seham's [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]counsel, [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]his [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]son [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]helped [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]negotiate our [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]drug testing [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]agreement. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Seham [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]boasted [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]how [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]his son did a [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]“bang [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]up [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]job". The Sehams did a bang up job [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]all r[/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]ight, but tor managemcnt, not the pilots. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]The [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]agreement must be an [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]historic first[/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]The union [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]actually [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]negotiated [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]fire it's own [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]pilots.  [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]The agreement includes no rehabilitation for it’s pilots as [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]does [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]other airlines, and[/SIZE][SIZE=14pt] is [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]far [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]more restrictive [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]than [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]government [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]regulation [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]itself.  Management loved [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]it [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]so [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]much, [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]they [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]gave this agreement, paid [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]for [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]by [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]our members, to all other [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]employee groups.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=14pt]Do you [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]think [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. Crandall is relieved [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]because [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]he [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]does [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]not have to face "the man who beat [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]him [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]at [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]every [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]turn"?  [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Sir, [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]all [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]I [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]can say [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]is, [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]you [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]don't [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]know [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. Crandall. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]It [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]is [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]my [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]opinion [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]that [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]he [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]would love [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]keep [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Mr. [/SIZE]

 

[DallasConehead]

Heresy!!! Crucify him!!!

 

[AANYER]

Overspeed and Realityck,
 
You both are brain dead and dysfunctional, just a few short years ago, we at AA had over 18,000 AMTs and counting. We are now down to about 7,500 AMTs and counting in reverse. Our numbers are dwindling like the last few tortoise on the Galapagos Islands.  The reason for this is solidly and squarely pointed at the TWU.  They have sold the good folk in Tulsa a pipe dream about jobs for lower pay.  Guess what, the TWU was hood winked by the company again for the umpteenth time.  The company bated them, they took it, then the company still continued to outsource the jobs. They knew that the AMT numbers will continue to dwindle, but they just want to collect those dues for a few more years.  We once had almost 40,000 TWU jobs at AA, However, we are now down to @ 24,500 TWU jobs.  More importantly, only 7,500 of those jobs are AMTs.  Whenever there are layoffs at AA, the TWU ensures that the AMTs are decimated more so than any other group. What is evident is that our AMT brethren in Tulsa is now aware of the TWUs' trickery.
 
AMFA Now More Than Ever

 

[swamt]

Oh no.  Don't think so.  They think the TWU saved and preserved jobs.  Just because more jobs were not cut and "AGREED TO" by the TWU.  I think the fellas are starting to see the realization in Tulsa now.  The writing is on the wall.  It is time to fire the TWU at AA.   There is no company out there that would keep a company or employees that have returned the results that the TWU has returned to it's dues paying members for the last 3 decades PERIOD!!!

 

[Overspeed]

Oh no.  Don't think so.  They think the TWU saved and preserved jobs.  Just because more jobs were not cut and "AGREED TO" by the TWU.  I think the fellas are starting to see the realization in Tulsa now.  The writing is on the wall.  It is time to fire the TWU at AA.   There is no company out there that would keep a company or employees that have returned the results that the TWU has returned to it's dues paying members for the last 3 decades PERIOD!!!

 
Too bad the former AMFA dues paying members from NWA, UAL, and AS can't vote to fire AMFA for their superior job protection performance.
 
Fact is that under the TWU scope protection by any measure more jobs are done inhouse where under AMFA scope clauses. AA would love to have the AMFA scope clause in place here. Why? UAL has four to five dock lines under the legacy AMFA scope clause. If that were in place at AA all TUL airframe would be gone just leaving DWH. How about AMFA's WN scope clause at AA? Well no engine overhaul at all, no PALM, and four lines of airframe overhaul. WN outsources more than 60% of their maintenance while AA even under the BK langauge can't go above 35%.
 
AMFA provides more low wage MRO jobs than any other union, hands down.
 
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2012%2012%20Month%20Documents/Employees%20and%20Productivity/MX/Percent%20of%20Maintenance%20Expenses%20Outsourced.htm

 

[1AA]

Overspeed and Realityck,
 
You both are brain dead and dysfunctional, just a few short years ago, we at AA had over 18,000 AMTs and counting. We are now down to about 7,500 AMT's and counting in reverse. Our numbers are dwindling like the last few tortoise on the Galapagos Islands.  The reason for this is solidly and squarely pointed at the TWU.  They have sold the good folk in Tulsa a pipe dream about jobs for lower pay.  Guess what, the TWU was hood winked by the company again for the umpteenth time.  The company bated them, they took it, then the company still continued to outsource the jobs. They knew that the AMT numbers will continue to dwindle, but they just want to collect those dues for a few more years.  We once had almost 40,000 TWU jobs at AA, However, we are now down to @ 24,500 TWU jobs.  More importantly, only 7,500 of those jobs are AMTs.  Whenever there are layoffs at AA, the TWU ensures that the AMTs are decimated more so than any other group. What is evident is that our AMT brethren in Tulsa is now aware of the TWUs' trickery.
 
AMFA Now More Than Ever

Over 10,000 AMT jobs gone and Overspeed says that AMFA has more unemployed AMTs in the industry. Really??? He mentioned UAL losing AMFA but yet the IBT has not been able to get a contract hammered out in 6 plus years. I bet if the TWU was negotiating at UAL/CAL a record industry concessionary contract would be in place.
Where did those 10,000 jobs go? Laid off? Doubt it more like the jobs were transfered over to fleet or outsourced in house through another company doing our work right in out own face.

 

[WeAAsles]

According to a January 2012 TWU report, the amount of heavy maintenance work performed outside of the United States has increased from 26 percent in 1999 to 40 percent of all heavy aircraft maintenance work. Currently, American Airlines does 90 percent of its aircraft maintenance in house, while the company's competitors on average perform nearly 50 percent of their heavy aircraft maintenance. (TWU cites federal government statistics available here.) According to the TWU, 25,000 U.S.-based airline mechanic jobs have been outsourced in the last decade alone.

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/12916/more_u.s._aircraft_are_being_repaired_abroad._are_airlines_sacrificing_safe

 

[WeAAsles]

[SIZE=10pt]Northwest had 4.0 maintenance workers per aircraft in 2009, the fewest of any network airline. Northwest's spending for outsourcing declined from 65.9 percent of total spending in 2008 to 59.8 percent in 2009.  American Airlines had 20.8 maintenance workers per aircraft in 2009, the most of any network airline. American's spending for outsourcing was 23.3 percent of total maintenance spending in 2009, the lowest percentage spending share of the network carriers.

http://avstop.com/news_may_2010/airline_pilot_and_aircraft_maintenance_employment_down.htm[/SIZE]
 

 

[Chuck Schalk]

 
Not true. All work done by non-TWU represented people is considered outsourced work. Again you reveal what an incompetent union rep you were when you told us to vote no on the 2010 TA. You never really read the contracts. The LHR AA employees are not represented by the TWU and therefore considered outsourced costs under the formula. Only TWU represented employees work is considered insourced. The loop hole you speak of doesn't exist. Your lies about the TWU 2010 TA has resulted in thousands AMTs not making $38 and hour four years ago.
 
 
Exactly my point Overspun,   LHR does our work and because it is not in our contract it doesn't matter you say?
That is our work period. so don't put it in the contract and it does not exist under the TWU magic!   you really are stretching to make your argument and you fall so short.   
 

 

[Chuck Schalk]

According to a January 2012 TWU report, the amount of heavy maintenance work performed outside of the United States has increased from 26 percent in 1999 to 40 percent of all heavy aircraft maintenance work. Currently, American Airlines does 90 percent of its aircraft maintenance in house, while the company's competitors on average perform nearly 50 percent of their heavy aircraft maintenance. (TWU cites federal government statistics available here.) According to the TWU, 25,000 U.S.-based airline mechanic jobs have been outsourced in the last decade alone.

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/12916/more_u.s._aircraft_are_being_repaired_abroad._are_airlines_sacrificing_safe
 
NOt true, there is work that is being performed without being recorded as outsourced due to language technicality.

 

[Chuck Schalk]

 
Too bad the former AMFA dues paying members from NWA, UAL, and AS can't vote to fire AMFA for their superior job protection performance.
 
Fact is that under the TWU scope protection by any measure more jobs are done inhouse where under AMFA scope clauses. AA would love to have the AMFA scope clause in place here. Why? UAL has four to five dock lines under the legacy AMFA scope clause. If that were in place at AA all TUL airframe would be gone just leaving DWH. How about AMFA's WN scope clause at AA? Well no engine overhaul at all, no PALM, and four lines of airframe overhaul. WN outsources more than 60% of their maintenance while AA even under the BK langauge can't go above 35%.
 
AMFA provides more low wage MRO jobs than any other union, hands down.
 
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2012%2012%20Month%20Documents/Employees%20and%20Productivity/MX/Percent%20of%20Maintenance%20Expenses%20Outsourced.htm
 
wrong again genius,  what part about may be exceeded don't you understand?  see language of the the TWU contract:
 
 
The below is from our 2012 TWU Aircraft maintenance and Related Contract Article 1.
 
[SIZE=10pt](E)[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] The Company and the Union agree to limit the percentage of all outsourced Aircraft-related Maintenance to not exceed 35%, subject to exclusions or modifications described elsewhere in this agreement. Further, the parties also agree that no more than 15% of Line Maintenance work will be contracted out. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]The percentage set forth in [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]paragraph (E)[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] above may be exceeded in the event: (i) the Company’s then-present employees do not have the normal time and/or skills to perform the work (provided that the manpower shortage is not a result of the Company’s failure to reasonably anticipate and address its headcount requirements); or (ii) the Company’s equipment or facilities are insufficient or are being fully utilized at the time the Company contracts out the work. [/SIZE]

 

[Overspeed]

Over 10,000 AMT jobs gone and Overspeed says that AMFA has more unemployed AMTs in the industry. Really??? He mentioned UAL losing AMFA but yet the IBT has not been able to get a contract hammered out in 6 plus years. I bet if the TWU was negotiating at UAL/CAL a record industry concessionary contract would be in place.
Where did those 10,000 jobs go? Laid off? Doubt it more like the jobs were transfered over to fleet or outsourced in house through another company doing our work right in out own face.

 
Uh, your ignorance is showing. Two things, AA got smaller yet the AMT jobs per aircraft stayed stable so that means head count shrunk as expected when the fleet shrunk. Look at the stats. And that work load drops as new aircraft replace old ones that require more work.
 
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2012%2012%20Month%20Documents/Employees%20and%20Productivity/MX/Average%20In%20House%20Maintenance%20Employees%20per%20Aircraft.htm
 
Look at the pre and post AMFA numbers for UA and NW. Where the heck did all those people go? That's a ton of jobs, way more than were lost at AA over the same period that you claim that the TWU did worse.
 
The new CBA does allow for more work to be outsourced but far less than is outsourced under any scope clause at any other unionized airline period.

 

[Overspeed]

 

 
Not true. All work done by non-TWU represented people is considered outsourced work. Again you reveal what an incompetent union rep you were when you told us to vote no on the 2010 TA. You never really read the contracts. The LHR AA employees are not represented by the TWU and therefore considered outsourced costs under the formula. Only TWU represented employees work is considered insourced. The loop hole you speak of doesn't exist. Your lies about the TWU 2010 TA has resulted in thousands AMTs not making $38 and hour four years ago.
 
 
Exactly my point Overspun,   LHR does our work and because it is not in our contract it doesn't matter you say?
That is our work period. so don't put it in the contract and it does not exist under the TWU magic!   you really are stretching to make your argument and you fall so short.   
 

 

 
 You didn't understand the Art 1 language, that is exactly THE point. It does matter and it is measured and limited.
 
No stretch, you just again proved that you will say anything to get AMFA in. The truth is that the scope language under the TWU CBA even after BK keeps more work inhouse than any other CBA.