MetalMover
Veteran
- Sep 16, 2013
- 3,543
- 2,410
It looks like 7 day coverage comes into the picture...But they are still offering SIS....DallasConehead said:
The article mentions involuntary reductions....
What if there are no SIS takers?
Bye bye Tulsa
- Thread starter brownmech
- Start date
The article mentions involuntary reductions....
What if there are no SIS takers?
AA Tulsa Mechanic
Senior
- Jul 18, 2008
- 307
- 95
They have already said if no sis is taken there will be NO layoffs this year.
BigMac
Veteran
2003 Deja vu
The TWU and American Airlines promised jobs for a yes vote. It was on paper, in the paper, on the news..blah blah blah.
Remind me again..how many was RIFd in 2003?
Yet, we were "promised".
SOSDD
The ole bump, transfer, SIS, 7 day coverage, workin mids game.
Que Será Será
The TWU and American Airlines promised jobs for a yes vote. It was on paper, in the paper, on the news..blah blah blah.
Remind me again..how many was RIFd in 2003?
Yet, we were "promised".
SOSDD
The ole bump, transfer, SIS, 7 day coverage, workin mids game.
Que Será Será
Another great move by the TWU. Trading work rules for "Promises" from people who have never kept a promise in their miserable lives. I love how they are touting the benefits of Obama Care for the Stand insteads. I predict there will be more work outsourced and that will cause another "Surplus" later on this year and there will be layoffs. If it is around 400 then you know we have been had again. And you thought the TWU couldn't give anything else away? Sign those AMFA cards Tulsa.
La Li Lu Le Lo
Veteran
- May 29, 2010
- 7,414
- 2,649
When you're right you're right.OldGuy@AA said:
7 day coverage does not create work, its a way of dealing with having more work than you can accomplish in 5 days. Not exactly rocket science. But still, the company plays the same games over and over again and some people fall for it over and over again. They are outsourcing and going to seven day coverage so what does that tell you? It sure as hell doesn't mean that at this time the total workload the company has is decreasing. But we do know in the future it will. So if we know that over the next few years the workload will decrease what does increasing capacity now mean? It means we get to the low point that much quicker.
The company wanted 7 day coverage in the bases since negotiations, why? Because its a more efficient use of the facilities. In other words in theory they can get more work done over the same time span in the same amount of space (overhead) that's already paid for. (The pencil pushers assume that people produce the same no matter how they feel they are treated)
Ironically by accomplishing more work in less time, over the long run it will accelerate the shrinking of Tulsa, and it makes it more likely that there will be bigger RIFs in the future. The reason is because workload will diminish as the MD-80s go away and are replaced by new aircraft. If you accelerate the rate at which the MD-80s get cleaned up to be returned to the lessor you are moving the time up where your labor is no longer needed in Tulsa, the only other way they could do this is by working more OT, but this lets them get there without OT, or less of it. Instead of Junior guys going out and filling vacancies on the line they will be working straight time with the senior guys in Tulsa and every hour they work is one less hour the senior guys have in Tulsa. Outsourcing the component work frees up more people to get work that's more difficult to outsource-MD80 Airframe, and allows the company to get rid of these planes as fast as they can get new ones. So if you accelerate the rate to the point where attrition and early outs cant keep pace with the fall in demand then they will have layoffs. Instead of a slow drop, a soft landing, it will fall off a cliff.
Everything about this deal serves the company perfectly, and in the long run hurts the membership. With way below market rates and only one week of vacation AA isn't attracting qualified candidates to fill mechanics positions on the line, so when they need guys on the line, they can simply outsource more component work, or go back to a five day line, sending the bottom guys in Tulsa who now have another year or so under their belt, and have more of an attachment to the company, they hope, out to the line to fill vacancies. The shortage out on the line is there, but its not critical, this deal allows the company to retain the Junior workers they hope will relocate till it becomes critical to use them to fill vacancies on the line. By no means did this secure jobs beyond the retirement of the MD-80s and 757s.
The company is sitting pretty. When you want something from the base with no resistance you simply announce a false RIF, make up a bunch of numbers, throw them out there and make it sound believable, (like the "White spaces" scam of 2009 in Negotiations) you say things that don't add up but they are so panicked they don't bother to question the obvious. If we are having a RIF because workload has diminished how does adding capacity via a seven day line generate more work? PFM. So they get to put in the seven day line, which the contract allows, with not only no resistance but the full support of the union and the Junior guys who think they averted a RIF, even though by doing so they will burn through the work quicker and there is nothing in the pipeline to keep the place open once they do. Sure if they wanted to they could accelerate the pace by laying off and running OT like they used to do in the old days, but that creates several other problems, one, a layoff would cut their younger more productive lower paid workforce, so it would raise costs, it would also require a lot of OT, again raising costs beyond the savings of reducing heads.
So the company didn't work with the Union to save jobs, the Union worked with the company to reduce costs and accelerate the closing or reduction of Tulsa by increasing capacity. Instead of the Junior workers possibly getting laid off now and finding employment with a competitor and retaining recall rights to AA, permanent headcount reductions will come sooner and more senior workers will be hit sooner and harder rather than later when the work dries up. The company got to keep its youngest, lowest paid workers on the property instead of losing them to competitors and AA will get to the point where they will no longer need Tulsa that much sooner without paying tons of OT. So instead of younger workers facing a temporary job loss now, or bumping (filling vacancies ) on the line (I thought they had 400 guys already qualified and ready to go?) or using this as an opportunity to try a job somewhere else while still having recall back to AA, older workers in Tulsa will face permanent job loss that much sooner.
The company wanted 7 day coverage in the bases since negotiations, why? Because its a more efficient use of the facilities. In other words in theory they can get more work done over the same time span in the same amount of space (overhead) that's already paid for. (The pencil pushers assume that people produce the same no matter how they feel they are treated)
Ironically by accomplishing more work in less time, over the long run it will accelerate the shrinking of Tulsa, and it makes it more likely that there will be bigger RIFs in the future. The reason is because workload will diminish as the MD-80s go away and are replaced by new aircraft. If you accelerate the rate at which the MD-80s get cleaned up to be returned to the lessor you are moving the time up where your labor is no longer needed in Tulsa, the only other way they could do this is by working more OT, but this lets them get there without OT, or less of it. Instead of Junior guys going out and filling vacancies on the line they will be working straight time with the senior guys in Tulsa and every hour they work is one less hour the senior guys have in Tulsa. Outsourcing the component work frees up more people to get work that's more difficult to outsource-MD80 Airframe, and allows the company to get rid of these planes as fast as they can get new ones. So if you accelerate the rate to the point where attrition and early outs cant keep pace with the fall in demand then they will have layoffs. Instead of a slow drop, a soft landing, it will fall off a cliff.
Everything about this deal serves the company perfectly, and in the long run hurts the membership. With way below market rates and only one week of vacation AA isn't attracting qualified candidates to fill mechanics positions on the line, so when they need guys on the line, they can simply outsource more component work, or go back to a five day line, sending the bottom guys in Tulsa who now have another year or so under their belt, and have more of an attachment to the company, they hope, out to the line to fill vacancies. The shortage out on the line is there, but its not critical, this deal allows the company to retain the Junior workers they hope will relocate till it becomes critical to use them to fill vacancies on the line. By no means did this secure jobs beyond the retirement of the MD-80s and 757s.
The company is sitting pretty. When you want something from the base with no resistance you simply announce a false RIF, make up a bunch of numbers, throw them out there and make it sound believable, (like the "White spaces" scam of 2009 in Negotiations) you say things that don't add up but they are so panicked they don't bother to question the obvious. If we are having a RIF because workload has diminished how does adding capacity via a seven day line generate more work? PFM. So they get to put in the seven day line, which the contract allows, with not only no resistance but the full support of the union and the Junior guys who think they averted a RIF, even though by doing so they will burn through the work quicker and there is nothing in the pipeline to keep the place open once they do. Sure if they wanted to they could accelerate the pace by laying off and running OT like they used to do in the old days, but that creates several other problems, one, a layoff would cut their younger more productive lower paid workforce, so it would raise costs, it would also require a lot of OT, again raising costs beyond the savings of reducing heads.
So the company didn't work with the Union to save jobs, the Union worked with the company to reduce costs and accelerate the closing or reduction of Tulsa by increasing capacity. Instead of the Junior workers possibly getting laid off now and finding employment with a competitor and retaining recall rights to AA, permanent headcount reductions will come sooner and more senior workers will be hit sooner and harder rather than later when the work dries up. The company got to keep its youngest, lowest paid workers on the property instead of losing them to competitors and AA will get to the point where they will no longer need Tulsa that much sooner without paying tons of OT. So instead of younger workers facing a temporary job loss now, or bumping (filling vacancies ) on the line (I thought they had 400 guys already qualified and ready to go?) or using this as an opportunity to try a job somewhere else while still having recall back to AA, older workers in Tulsa will face permanent job loss that much sooner.
La Li Lu Le Lo
Veteran
- May 29, 2010
- 7,414
- 2,649
When you're right you're right.Bob Owens said:
Another fine example of the AA/TWU conglomerate "Working Together".
The senior people are the ones that really have something to lose.
Remind me how many times the senior TWU members have thrown the junior TWU members under the bus during contract negotiations? I have lost count.
I have been thrown under the bus every contract. I have missed out on pay raises to fund 5 and 5 early outs. I have also lost pay and benefits to "Save" jobs. The only thing common is that the TWU pushed these lousy deals and used fear in one case and in the other catered to a certain group to get it passed. Sometimes they use both as in the 2012 debacle that is now our contract. If you are currently employed at AA you have been thrown under the bus. Anyone who benefitted from any of the atrocious contracts that the TWU was proud to push for is gone. I am still confused as to how the TWU can pull off a snow job on so many under informed people in Tulsa. But Tulsa won't matter soon.La Li Lu Le Lo said:
MetalMover
Veteran
- Sep 16, 2013
- 3,543
- 2,410
Good post....I just don't understand how ANY member could still defend the TWU after all that they did to get us to where we finds ourselves today.OldGuy@AA said:
La Li Lu Le Lo
Veteran
- May 29, 2010
- 7,414
- 2,649
I will not dispute what you say OldGuy@AA.OldGuy@AA said:
I can only share my experience to communicate why I feel this way.
When I hired in they had Junior Fleet Service at TULE. Which is no doubt an example of senior people throwing junior people under the bus for some kind of benefit.
Junior Fleet Service Clerks carried 70 percent of the workload for 1/3 of the pay with 30 percent of the people..
When TULE 514 stated they had a deal to keep 60 percent of Fleet at TULE (and offer an early out IIRC) that sealed the deal with the top 50% vote wise. One employee even took it upon himself to inform us how great the overtime was going to be once we were gone. I guess he got what he wanted........ he just did not know he would be throwing bags to get it.
My shop presented the attitude that lower seniority was really nothing more than a workhorse that could be transitioned to layoff fodder.
That being said what Bob is saying about seven day coverage was informative, and truthful.
I agree with him 100%. I found Bob's analysis about seven day coverage to be flawless.
Overtime changes things a bit, which is what led to my last comment. I know Bob never said anything about the company offering overtime with current employment capacity but, that possibility should be considered.
If I was a junior employee looking at a relocation or layoff I would not be turning down overtime to preserve jobs for the higher seniority. I would work as much as I could to mitigate the impact of the layoff for myself and my family.
I certainly would not turn down overtime to preserve the mechanic version of the 60%ers.
Flying low
Veteran
- Jul 19, 2011
- 629
- 232
To many that are afraid of "change"MetalMover said:
99Roadstar
Member
- Jul 12, 2011
- 46
- 59
There is not one, not even one possible way for anyone to defend the TWU……anybody that does, must be getting paid by them.
