ASMs

[eolesen]

Exactly! Why haven't that they?

Gee, can you show me where in Article 1(e) the company has the freedom to do that? I don't see it, but I'm not a mechanic, so maybe you can point out the loophole which would suddenly allow work to go to HKG or SJO. Right now, it looks like the amount of contract work can't exceed the current rate, which is presently just some engine and component work.

106 (e) Contracting Out of Work. In the interest of providing stable employment, but
107 nevertheless to permit the Company to maintain and continue the development of air
108 transportation under applicable laws, the Company will perform aircraft and aircraft
109 component maintenance and overhaul, and other related work, as its present
110 employees have the normal time and the skills to perform, and for which the Company
111 can reasonably make available the necessary facilities.
112
113 (1) Additionally, it is agreed that the Company may continue to contract out
114 work not exceeding the scope of its present contracting out practices. The
115 Company will provide to the Union, in January and July of each year, a report,
116 which indicates the extent of the aircraft maintenance work, which has been
117 contracted out as a percentage of the total aircraft maintenance expense in the
118 preceding six (6) months for purposes of ensuring consistency with this
119 obligation.
120
121 (2) It is understood that nothing in this Article requires the maintenance of the
122 present volume of work.
123
124 (3) At the request of the Director of the Air Transport Division, discussions
125 may be initiated with the Vice President – Employee Relations, quarterly or on
126 reasonable request, to ascertain by type of aircraft, engine, or component part
127 the amount and type of work which has been contracted out during the previous
128 calendar quarter.
129
130 (4) The parties agree, that in response to an expressed Union concern over
131 the practices of the Company in the matter of subcontracting aircraft and aircraft
132 component maintenance and overhaul work and consistent with the provisions of
133 Article 1(e), Contracting Out of Work, of the Agreement, it is agreed that the
134 Company will advise the Director of the Air Transport Division, Transport
135 Workers Union, in a quarterly listing of the total volume of work sub-contracted
136 under Repair Outside (RO) practices, Cross Servicing, Base Maintenance, and
137 Line Maintenance Service Agreements.
138
139 (a) It is the intention of the Company to insure that the predominant
140 volume of work under Cross Service, Base Maintenance and Line
141 Maintenance Service Agreements be performed by the Company
142 employees. It is further understood, in no event, that the volume of work
143 be less than equal to the work performed by other carriers for American
144 Airlines under Cross Service, Base Maintenance and Line Maintenance
145 Service Agreements. The ratio of mechanic work performed in terms of
146 man-hours will be reflected quarterly, in writing, to the Union.
147
148 (5) The time limit for grievances filed under Article 29(d) involving contracting
149 out will be six (6) months from the date on which the contracting out commenced,
150 or in the case of a substantial expansion of prior contracting out, six (6) months

 

[Hopeful]

​

Gee, can you show me where in Article 1(e) the company has the freedom to do that? I don't see it, but I'm not a mechanic, so maybe you can point out the loophole which would suddenly allow work to go to HKG or SJO. Right now, it looks like the amount of contract work can't exceed the current rate, which is presently just some engine and component work.

Again you don't follow....AA had the chance to file bankruptcy and do all the things the anti unionistas hope they would do.
And again, AA agreed to these workrules many moons ago and want us to help eliminate thousands of peoples jobs just so AA stock price can increase.

 

[eolesen]

Oh, I get it just fine. You want it both ways --- you expect pay increases to reflect and offset current day realities affecting your household income, yet you also want to retain workrules which no longer reflect current day realities yet negatively impact the company's income.

There's a balance to be struck there. You keep saying the company took everything away in 2003, yet you also admit there was so much more they could have taken.

I happen to agree that AMR should have just filed, executed the Vermont plan, and be done with it.

But they didn't. And a lot of you stayed employed in the following seven years.

What the Vermont plan was proposing would have probably worked out far better for the company in the long run, and maybe the employees. Finding a job in 2003 would have been a lot easier than what it would be today.

 

[Bob Owens]

Gee, can you show me where in Article 1(e) the company has the freedom to do that? I don't see it, but I'm not a mechanic, so maybe you can point out the loophole which would suddenly allow work to go to HKG or SJO. Right now, it looks like the amount of contract work can't exceed the current rate, which is presently just some engine and component work.

If you read on you will see where the company can contract out more than that verse implies and in this industry things change constantly, nothing in there says we get new work.

The fact of the matter is that they continue to insource more than have to contractually, and AA is not alone, so does CAL, UAL and even SWA. Many have found that outsourcing produces more costs than it saves, a lesson that CR Smith and Eddie Rickenabacker could have told the psuedo airline people we have today running the industry.

 

[Boomer]

Gee, can you show me where in Article 1(e) the company has the freedom to do that? I don't see it, but I'm not a mechanic, so maybe you can point out the loophole which would suddenly allow work to go to HKG or SJO. Right now, it looks like the amount of contract work can't exceed the current rate, which is presently just some engine and component work.

Eolesen,
Your reading of the contractual realtionship between AMR and the TWU is worse than deliberately misleading: it is dangerous for anyone to rely on your interpretation. Using your post, I’ve taken the liberty of dividing the sections to explore the actual language versus what you have portrayed.
___________________________
I)

121 (2) It is understood that nothing in this Article requires the maintenance of the
122 present volume of work.

If the present volume of work is not contractually linked to the fleet size, the company that owns the metal, and the maintenance of metal flying on behalf of the company: there is no gaurantee that anyone at AA under the TWU will be contractually obligated to perform that work.
___________________________
II)

124 (3) At the request of the Director of the Air Transport Division, discussions
125 may be initiated with the Vice President – Employee Relations, quarterly or on
126 reasonable request, to ascertain by type of aircraft, engine, or component part
127 the amount and type of work which has been contracted out during the previous
128 calendar quarter


Nothing in the preceeding paragraphs states that the discussions that “may” be initiated, on reasonable request, are the basis upon which a grievance will be successful: it is all hat and no cattle. Although the ATD Director may beg the company for a discussion: nothing states that it would be material in a grievance over the issue.
___________________________
III)

130 (4) The parties agree, that in response to an expressed Union concern over
131 the practices of the Company in the matter of subcontracting aircraft and aircraft
132 component maintenance and overhaul work and consistent with the provisions of
133 Article 1(e), Contracting Out of Work, of the Agreement, it is agreed that the
134 Company will advise the Director of the Air Transport Division, Transport
135 Workers Union, in a quarterly listing of the total volume of work sub-contracted
136 under Repair Outside (RO) practices, Cross Servicing, Base Maintenance, and
137 Line Maintenance Service Agreements.

The company agrees to tell the union their interpretation of the work performed by an OSV without any definintion that is agreed upon as to what actually constitutes that work. Without a defined contractual obligation about what is or is not union work: union members are left to arbitrate the meaning of outsourcing without arbitration of the actual outsourcing.
____________________________
IV)

139 (a) It is the intention of the Company to insure that the predominant
140 volume of work under Cross Service, Base Maintenance and Line
141 Maintenance Service Agreements be performed by the Company
142 employees. It is further understood, in no event, that the volume of work
143 be less than equal to the work performed by other carriers for American
144 Airlines under Cross Service, Base Maintenance and Line Maintenance
145 Service Agreements. The ratio of mechanic work performed in terms of
146 man-hours will be reflected quarterly, in writing, to the Union.

The union and the company agree that ONLY 51% OF THE VOLUME OF WORK UNDER THE CROSS SERVICE, BASE MAINTENANCE AND LINE MAINTENANCE SERVICE AGREEMENTS will be performed by company employees: it does not cover the union employees only at AA in the US and it does not gaurantee the present volume of work.
_____________________________

Regards,
Boomer

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

I guess that along with the 1200 unprotected employees AMR could save some money and do a little outsourceing. I wonder why they choose not to... coulld it cost more in the long term... management at its finest

 

[Bob Owens]

Eolesen,
Your reading of the contractual realtionship between AMR and the TWU is worse than deliberately misleading: it is dangerous for anyone to rely on your interpretation. Using your post, I’ve taken the liberty of dividing the sections to explore the actual language versus what you have portrayed.

The union and the company agree that ONLY 51% OF THE VOLUME OF WORK UNDER THE CROSS SERVICE, BASE MAINTENANCE AND LINE MAINTENANCE SERVICE AGREEMENTS will be performed by company employees: it does not cover the union employees only at AA in the US and it does not gaurantee the present volume of work.
_____________________________

Regards,
Boomer

Maybe Listerine can wash away the bitter taste of that SCOPE lesson for E.