I was referring to MRO's south of the border and no, AA's AMT's are not superior to other AMT's in this country. Many who are not familiar with aircraft overhaul have no idea how complex repairing aircraft can be and how imperative reading and understanding the manuals are. It's not realistic to consider anyone without a firm grasp of the english language could, with just third world common sense, properly perform maintenance without manual guidance. I have no doubt that many south of the border who work on American carriers aircraft cannot read and understand the same manuals that are, by FAA mandate, required to use in every inspection, repair, adjustment, replacement, or testing of every component. I've addressed the safety issue on another post and won't repeat it again.
Mechanics don't justify costs or manage the maintenance packages of our aircraft. We go to work and are given a task to perform. We research the manuals and do whatever necessary to bring the aircraft up to a serviceable standard. I challenge you to produce data that would support you statement that AA is in more trouble with the FAA due to lax or substandard maintenance practices. Don't make me go over the aux pump wiring fiasco again either.
Birdman,
The key point here is that other carriers do manage to run acceptable and safe operations, even if they do outsource.
While I would like to agree that having been educated in English as your native language should give an American worker an advantage over their counterparts overseas, you do realize that literacy in the US is at one of the lowest levels among major industrialized countries, don’t you?
Further, many foreigners are studying English and are a lot more fluent in English than a lot of Americans want to believe. There are English schools EVERYWHERE in developing countries. People there understand that the key to getting ahead in the world of business often involves being able to communicate in English.
Finally, while it is true that there needs to be complete compliance with the manuals that are written, it is also true that there is a great deal of manual, repetitive work which someone who has a limited grasp of English can be taught to do even if they don’t have the skills to read a manual or diagnose problems – or put something back together again. Much of the savings done overseas comes from doing repetitive work. And there are still trained mechanics who do higher level work.
Remember that airlines like Gol, TAM, Aeromexico and others all have robust maintenance operations, are south of the border, and there people work for a whole lot less than US workers. Just because work is done “south of the border” and that could mean HKG or China too, doesn’t mean there aren’t people who can do the same job you do. It also doesn’t guarantee that every person who touches a plane in the US knows what they are doing either.
Keeping it all in perspective certainly will help win whatever arguments you want to make…. There are plenty of skilled workers in the world, even if they don’t have US passports or make anywhere near what US workers make.
How many new hires at DL, US, or UA have a pension? Every new hire at AA since 2000, with the exception of agents and management, starts vesting in one. And yes, AA has new hires in every workgroup except pilots.
But the fact is that the obligation to fund a pension lives on beyond the lifespan of the employee. The obligation to fund a 401K ends on the last day of that employee's retirement.
AA could wind up being like GM, where the number of retirees exceeds active employees...
As for health care... the fat lady hasn't sung yet on Obamacare, so anything announced so far is just an announcement. Nothing has changed in any of the CBA's, and frankly, United Healthcare doesn't control that. AA is self funded. They determine coverage eligibility and limits.
So you pick out a point in time and assert that AA employees are better just because they have something which you perceive to be better, when the reality is:
1. AA’s financial situation is far from stable. Arguing that what anyone has at AA is permanent is highly risky.
2. Other airlines, once again, do provide significant pension benefits, even if they are not defined benefit plans. I would strongly bet that you are not accruing benefits under a defined benefit plan right now; the vast majority of the US population is now covered by defined contribution plans and in some cases those provide superior benefits. For one thing, employees with DC plans never have to worry about the company taking those benefits away or defaulting on them; they belong to the employee from the minute they are paid. In the airline industry, that alone is a huge benefit.
3. How many agents have you excluded from the comparison and why are they not covered? Is it perhaps because they don’t have a CBA that provides for something that is not in line with the market and which is highly susceptible to be revoked anyway?
4. Most companies that have been around for multiple generations have more retirees than active employees. Given that the network carriers are 80 plus years old and employees can generally retire after 30 years of service, it is quite likely that there are more retirees than active employees.
5. As much as you would like to brag about how valuable those DB plans are to AA employees, you might note that Wall Street analysts repeatedly note that they are a major source of AA’s indebtedness – which means there is a very good chance it will have to be dumped unless they can get the same type of deal DL and NW got – which incidentally also involved freezing those pensions.
6. Most large companies have self-funded healthcare…. I would presume you would know that when you have tens of thousands of employees, it is quite possibly to fairly accurately predict healthcare expenses and budget accordingly.
7. Whatever happens with nationalized healthcare will affect far more than just AA.
There is nothing wrong with being proud of “your” company but you really do need to understand the context of business from more than just the perspective of AA if you want people to recognize you as having something valid to say.
At this point, under these conditions, there really isnt any purpose in trying to convince the company of anything. They are satisfied with the performance of their workforce and thanks to the RLA the Union is prohibited from encouraging the workforce to pressure the company. The status quo is just fine with them, and why shouldnt it be? Their revenues have increased by $5 billion over 2003 with 40,000 less workers and 200 less airplanes. They brag about how over the last five years they've sunk over $5 billion in upgrades to the operation, there executives get bonuses when they come in last place and show losses.
At this point the challenge is to get released, then the company faces the prospect of massive interuptions, then they will be motivated to move. Are you ready to rumble?
The company made their choice as far as 3P years ago, they continue to insource work and rehire workers that dont have system protection. I believe they currently have around 2000 workers without system protection on the Title I. Those workers are here because the company sees a benefit.
Bob,
The problem is that you can’t seem to recognize that the options are not simply wait for the NMB to release you or burn the place down.
If you were a leader, you would be able to recognize that the future of your profession in general and labor unions as a whole require you to be able to think bigger than the 2 inch square box that was invented for you (labor) decades ago. It is precisely because you are still stuck in that 2 inch square box that all of these mechanics who care very much about their profession are genuinely concerned about their future… and they should be.
It is clear that unless you can figure out how to adapt and change (and I see little reason to believe you can), then you need to go along with the rest of the people who are stuck in a time that passed by about 30 years ago.
