Consumer Reports raises concerns about outsourced airline maintenance

[commavia]

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.

Please - feel free to go over it.

I have had to listen to plenty of "moral superiority" on AA's alleged myriad of lax maintenance procedures and issues with the FAA from certain other unnamed posters over and over again. I've had enough "depth of intelligence" on the issue, so I personally would love to hear your or other perspectives.

 

[Birdman]

Please - feel free to go over it.

I have had to listen to plenty of "moral superiority" on AA's alleged myriad of lax maintenance procedures and issues with the FAA from certain other unnamed posters over and over again. I've had enough "depth of intelligence" on the issue, so I personally would love to hear your or other perspectives.

Feel free to remove the obscurity of your comments as I'm not really sure where your coming from. I recently posted in regard to the aux pump fiasco and thought I made my position clear, as I was at the time an MD-80 avionics technician. If I didn't make myself clear I will clarify. Below was that exchange.
-----------------------------
View PostWorldTraveler, on 17 May 2011 - 07:43 PM, said:
Chris, the M80 wiring bundle issue was the biggest maintenance issue that affected the public in US aviation in the past 10 years and AA blew it. Trying to tell the world that everyone else is wrong when AA failed so badly at what should have been a fairly straightforward AD is beyond explanation.
-----------------------------
My response:
Your wording is a very poor assessment of what many of us know to be the truth. In reality what we had was the greatest overblown, much ado about nothing, nitpicked AD in the entire history of aviation. Arpey simply overreacted by grounding the fleet. The wiring was perfectly safe even though the string ties may have been a fraction of an inch off and a few clamps may have been slightly positioned contrary to the finite details of the AD. The FAA inspectors couldn't even agree on the AD, requiring many of the reworked harnesses to be reworked again at another station.

 

[commavia]

Feel free to remove the obscurity of your comments as I'm not really sure where your coming from. I recently posted in regard to the aux pump fiasco and thought I made my position clear, as I was at the time an MD-80 avionics technician. If I didn't make myself clear I will clarify. Below was that exchange.
-----------------------------
View PostWorldTraveler, on 17 May 2011 - 07:43 PM, said:
Chris, the M80 wiring bundle issue was the biggest maintenance issue that affected the public in US aviation in the past 10 years and AA blew it. Trying to tell the world that everyone else is wrong when AA failed so badly at what should have been a fairly straightforward AD is beyond explanation.
-----------------------------
My response:
Your wording is a very poor assessment of what many of us know to be the truth. In reality what we had was the greatest overblown, much ado about nothing, nitpicked AD in the entire history of aviation. Arpey simply overreacted by grounding the fleet. The wiring was perfectly safe even though the string ties may have been a fraction of an inch off and a few clamps may have been slightly positioned contrary to the finite details of the AD. The FAA inspectors couldn't even agree on the AD, requiring many of the reworked harnesses to be reworked again at another station.

That was all I was interested in - I was simply saying that I have had to repeatedly listen to the analysis of a certain other poster - quoted - and I was interested in reading your perspective (I must have missed the thread that you quoted above).

 

[eolesen]

Commovia, it's easy to miss things these days when you have 1000 line responses to sift thru.

those costs do exist for sure but he also acts as if other carriers aren't contributing anything to their employees' retirement which is clearly not true.

No, WT, I never said that.

I know this will come as a shock to you, but DL doesn't dominate my every thought, nor do they make up the benchmark for every metric.

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.

 

[Bob Owens]

I can understand your problems.

Besides the arguement of restoring our wages and benefits to pre-2003 levels, and sham behind "shared sacrifice", what other compelling arguements have you, and the union presented the company to convince the company to bargain in good faith?
I'm suggesting that you put yourself in managements shoes for a minute. The idea of outsourcing maintenance is hanging in the wings....what reasons would you want to hear from the labor side that would sway your decisions to keep any maintenance in-house?
The reason I'm bringing this up is because at UAL, NW, UPS, and even WN, the labor groups obviously couldn't sway managements decision to keep OH in house, and for the exception of UAL and NW, labor relations at WN & UPS are very good.

As a labor organization, that's really what we are up against. We must provide the company compelling reasons on why they should keep the TWU, as the contractor of choice, over the 3P hack shops, right?

If it's strictly money, you lose. If it's more about quality and quantity, you may have a case, but not a very strong case.

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.

 

[Hopeful]

Commovia, it's easy to miss things these days when you have 1000 line responses to sift thru.



No, WT, I never said that. But the fact is that AA is still opening pensions for all of its employee base, with the exception of agents and management hired after 2000.

I know this will come as a shock to you, but DL doesn't dominate my every thought, nor do they make up the benchmark for every metric.

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.

Personally, I may be considered a sell-out, but i have no problem with new hires not getting something I was promised when I got hired. Every person has the right to accept or decline employment based on what the company is offering.
Sadly, the day of the defined pension is going the way of the dinosaur. Not many, if any, a company offers one. At least a potential employee knows what he or she is getting into.
If pensions and IN-sourcing maintenance are the bane of AA, then offer a decent proposal to CURRENT employees and change the rules for new hires.
This is not the "I GOT MINE" disease that people might think, just a reality check to protect the current workforce.

I do not wish to see any current employee pay any price anywhere in the system as we all accepted employment with AA under agreeable terms.

New hires will have that same choice!

 

[FWAAA]

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.

Everyone probably knows what you meant, but that should read "last day of employment" or "first day of retirement."

AA could wind up being like GM, where the number of retirees exceeds active employees...

AA is getting very close to that point now; the aanegotiations.com website says that there are 128,524 participants in the DB pension and as of 12/31/10, AA (mainline AA only, not AMR) had 66,500 FTE employees. Of course, with part-timers, there were probably more total employees than that number.

 

[strikeforce]

Everyone probably knows what you meant, but that should read "last day of employment" or "first day of retirement."



AA is getting very close to that point now; the aanegotiations.com website says that there are 128,524 participants in the DB pension and as of 12/31/10, AA (mainline AA only, not AMR) had 66,500 FTE employees. Of course, with part-timers, there were probably more total employees than that number.

I get the feeling from many on this forum that it's somehow the mechanics fault that AA's in this precarious position compared to other carriers. Look, unless management wises up and get's a spine, and starts managing this company by making tough decisions, we will continue to go down the road to desperation. I don't think there's one AA employee on this forum that want's AA to fail, is there? I don't!

As a labor organization and craft & class, mechanics have a duty to uphold the profession by protecting wages & benefits that are in line with our responsibilities. I mean, we too can become a 3P hack shop, and get paid $2 an hour, and diminish the value of our craft. Is this what we want as licensed aircraft mechanics?

Now, I totally understand that by protecting the profession it may mean a loss of jobs, and it very well may be my job, but I've always believed in paying the ones still standing good wages & benefits, and when others return, they too will return to high wages and good benefits.

So, if the guys on this forum are correct, and AA really can't compete against their competitors, then AA should do the right thing, as a business, and streamline the operation in order to compete, but PAY the mechanics still standing the wages & benefits other carriers like WN, UPS, and FED EX are paying. I think it's the only fair way of moving forward! Therefore, the ball is in management's hands, not the mechanics.

 

[eolesen]

No, it's not just the mechanics fault.

More than half the active posters here are mechanics, perhaps 25% are fleet service, pilots, or flight attendants, and the remainder are outsiders or AAlumni.

It's pretty normal to have discussion drift and stay on issues centered around the majority. I've been in groups with majority pilots or majority management, and the same thing happens (no, we don't all bash the mechanics...).

Having said that, it is true that on a headcount basis, it's hard not to look at how large a role insourcing plays in the imbalance when comparing against other airlines.

I think the TWU might disagree with the notion that management can simply streamline the operation and ask them for forgiveness later. If that were the case, AMR would have done what DL did, which was to do a hybrid of insourcing and outsourcing.

Better pay for fewer people makes perfect sense (it's what we do in the outside world), but Chicken Little (somewhat ironic given the AMT day menu, eh?) and the TWU fat cats apparently want to preserve the current dues teat at all costs, including your take-home pay.

If Bob is right about the AMT shortage, there should be little to fear except Little himself.

 

[WorldTraveler]

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.

 

[eolesen]

bab·ble   
[bab-uhl] Show IPA
verb, -bled, -bling, noun
–verb (used without object)
1. to utter sounds or words imperfectly, indistinctly, or without meaning.
2. to talk idly, irrationally, excessively, or foolishly; chatter or prattle.
3. to make a continuous, murmuring sound.

 

[FWAAA]

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.

You may be right, but I don't recall many analysts claiming specifically that AA's DB plans are a "major source of AA's indebtedness." If they repeatedly say it, do you have a recent story link to share?

AMR's total cash outlay each year, on average, for its DB plans is less, as a percentage of total compensation, and less, as a per-employee dollar amount, than WN spends on its Defined Contribution plans. That's in part because of the somewhat favorable investment experience of AA's plans.

In contrast, the underfunded percentage of the NW and DL DB plans has been much higher than the underfunded percentage at AA. Even though DL has more time to make up those contributions (because it froze the plans), last time I looked, the makeup contributions plus the DL cash contributed to the Defined Contribution plans of the DL employees is a larger total proportional cash drain than the AA DB cash contributions.

If AA finds itself in Ch 11, I wouldn't be surprised to see the plans frozen and perhaps even pushed off onto the PBGC. But I don't see the pension as one of the top compensation issues currently facing AA - AA isn't going to file Ch 11 just so it can terminate the DB plan.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I get the feeling from many on this forum that it's somehow the mechanics fault that AA's in this precarious position compared to other carriers. Look, unless management wises up and get's a spine, and starts managing this company by making tough decisions, we will continue to go down the road to desperation. I don't think there's one AA employee on this forum that want's AA to fail, is there? I don't!

As a labor organization and craft & class, mechanics have a duty to uphold the profession by protecting wages & benefits that are in line with our responsibilities. I mean, we too can become a 3P hack shop, and get paid $2 an hour, and diminish the value of our craft. Is this what we want as licensed aircraft mechanics?

Now, I totally understand that by protecting the profession it may mean a loss of jobs, and it very well may be my job, but I've always believed in paying the ones still standing good wages & benefits, and when others return, they too will return to high wages and good benefits.

So, if the guys on this forum are correct, and AA really can't compete against their competitors, then AA should do the right thing, as a business, and streamline the operation in order to compete, but PAY the mechanics still standing the wages & benefits other carriers like WN, UPS, and FED EX are paying. I think it's the only fair way of moving forward! Therefore, the ball is in management's hands, not the mechanics.

thankfully, there are people here who understand what needs to be done... you need to get your peers on board and then get union leadership that will represent you with a plan that will accomplish something instead of crying about why the government won't let them tear the company apart.
but strike, to you and others that argue (I don't keep track of who has exactly what positions so you is generic) that US based English speaking mechanics are necessary because they need to follow FAA directives to the letter, don't you think it is more than just a tad hypocritical to make that statement when AA got smacked badly - what still stands as the largest proposed aviation maintenance fine in US history - for not following the letter of an AD? Even if you argue that AA got approval and there were massive communications problems between the FAA adn AA (highly probable) don't you think that if AA had just followed the AD as written, there would have been no problem at all?

No, it's not just the mechanics fault.

More than half the active posters here are mechanics, perhaps 25% are fleet service, pilots, or flight attendants, and the remainder are outsiders or AAlumni.

It's pretty normal to have discussion drift and stay on issues centered around the majority. I've been in groups with majority pilots or majority management, and the same thing happens (no, we don't all bash the mechanics...).

Having said that, it is true that on a headcount basis, it's hard not to look at how large a role insourcing plays in the imbalance when comparing against other airlines.

I think the TWU might disagree with the notion that management can simply streamline the operation and ask them for forgiveness later. If that were the case, AMR would have done what DL did, which was to do a hybrid of insourcing and outsourcing.

Better pay for fewer people makes perfect sense (it's what we do in the outside world), but Chicken Little (somewhat ironic given the AMT day menu, eh?) and the TWU fat cats apparently want to preserve the current dues teat at all costs, including your take-home pay.

If Bob is right about the AMT shortage, there should be little to fear except Little himself.

this is logical and accurate... it shows that if you have unresponsive labor leaders, the damage to the company adds up quickly. If you have responsive unions (ala WN) or employees who choose no unions (DL) then the company can move forward w/ what makes sense for the company. In both cases, they also seem to have much happier people than AA.
The notion that doing the right think for the company and the employee ARE connected at some companies.

bab·ble   
[bab-uhl] Show IPA
verb, -bled, -bling, noun
–verb (used without object)
1. to utter sounds or words imperfectly, indistinctly, or without meaning.
2. to talk idly, irrationally, excessively, or foolishly; chatter or prattle.
3. to make a continuous, murmuring sound.

... and then you have stuff like this which only is a diversion for when you are caught writing stuff which isn't true.... the obvious solution is simply to know your subject before you speak. If it's accurate, it will stand up. If it's in error, someone will find it.... and for you, that someone is likely to be me.

You may be right, but I don't recall many analysts claiming specifically that AA's DB plans are a "major source of AA's indebtedness." If they repeatedly say it, do you have a recent story link to share?

AMR's total cash outlay each year, on average, for its DB plans is less, as a percentage of total compensation, and less, as a per-employee dollar amount, than WN spends on its Defined Contribution plans. That's in part because of the somewhat favorable investment experience of AA's plans.

In contrast, the underfunded percentage of the NW and DL DB plans has been much higher than the underfunded percentage at AA. Even though DL has more time to make up those contributions (because it froze the plans), last time I looked, the makeup contributions plus the DL cash contributed to the Defined Contribution plans of the DL employees is a larger total proportional cash drain than the AA DB cash contributions.

If AA finds itself in Ch 11, I wouldn't be surprised to see the plans frozen and perhaps even pushed off onto the PBGC. But I don't see the pension as one of the top compensation issues currently facing AA - AA isn't going to file Ch 11 just so it can terminate the DB plan.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/270933-is-amr-s-equity-practically-worthless?source=yahoo
how 'bout this
They note (obviously using AMR provided data) that AMR's benefit plans are in fact more than 8 billion dollars underfunded... so again I wouldn't get real excited about touting a benefit that in fact is so far underfunded that it can't possibly survive.
That may in fact be why AA's cash outlays are so much less. And DL and WN are both meeting their retirement funding obligations.. in DL's case for old DB and current DC plans.
It isn't because of AA's superior investments but instead because DB plans allow you to push back (ala the US government) obligations while DC plans have to be paid at the time the benefit is accrued.
Arguing that AA employees are better compensated based on a benefit which they do not fund as well as someone else and will likely lose is not even logical.

 

[strikeforce]

but strike, to you and others that argue (I don't keep track of who has exactly what positions so you is generic) that US based English speaking mechanics are necessary because they need to follow FAA directives to the letter, don't you think it is more than just a tad hypocritical to make that statement when AA got smacked badly - what still stands as the largest proposed aviation maintenance fine in US history - for not following the letter of an AD? Even if you argue that AA got approval and there were massive communications problems between the FAA adn AA (highly probable) don't you think that if AA had just followed the AD as written, there would have been no problem at all?

I'm not sure what English speaking mechanics, and following AD's have to do with 3P hack shops. I'm only familiar with AA's policy regarding AD's. I'm pretty familiar with the MD-80 wiring harness fiasco that grounded the fleet. First, let me set the record straight......engineering writes all the AD's for AA. Many times the AD's, as written, contain grey areas that leads to interpretations by mechanics. Some contain incorrect verbage, and or, are just plain wrong. As a result of paperwork issues, many of these AD's are accomplished incorrectly, but accomplished as written, only to find out later that it was done incorrectly. Many times, engineering has to correct the paperwork before THEY get it right. With the wiring problem, the FAA sampled several MD-80's and found problems with wire wraps and ties. They gave AA time to correct the problems during this spot check. Again, engineering went back and re-issued the AD, and again, engineering didn't get it right. The FAA did another sample check of the previously inspected aircraft and found more issues. That's when AA grounded the fleet. The FAA was furious at this point, and many FAA inspectors stood over mechanics in ORD to make sure it was done right. To my amazement, engineering got it wrong again. Management and the FAA squabbled over paperwork verbage and illustrations. Let me just say this......the mechanics followed the AD's, as written, every step of this fiasco. This was an engineering problem, not a mechanics failure to follow the paperwork issue.

BTW, Dan Garton, SVP of Customer Service, blamed the mechanics for not following the paperwork, and not engineering. The TWU leadership let the mechanics hang out to dry.......not one time did our leadership come to the defense of the AMT's. Our leaders should have demanded that AA fire Garton for making those slanderous remarks in the MEDIA, and they didn't. What Garton did was an absolute slap in the face, and our union just sat there and didn't do a damn thing about it.

 

[Bob Owens]

I'm not trying to burn anybody's buns here. There are many dynamics to "maintenance costs" as Bob has pointed out many times. How each airline calculates and reports costs, i.e. outside contract work revenue/manpower needs, maintenance programs/procedures, etc., from what I'm hearing varies from airline to airline. You can't compare apples to oranges if that is truly the case. I believe a detailed breakdown of how expenses are reported would be the only way to put this debate to rest. Those have not been produced.

And they never will so we have to judge by their behavior. Over the last eight years AA has been bringing work back in house, not sending more out. What does that tell us? it tells us that when all the other carriers started outsourcing it more than likely drove up prices, and that its cheaper for AA to do it in house. Thats why other carriers have agreed to bring more work back in house, making it look like a win for the union.

In 2002 AA had a huge advantage over its principle competitor, UAL. AA had its maint base in TULsa, fuel was pretty cheap and AA had 20% OSMs. UAL had its biggest base in SFO and they didnt have low cost mechanics. There's no way UAL could close that gap in house, they had no choice but to send it out.