JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[AANOTOK]

if the BAGSMASHERS want to vote let them. There is no unity in the TWU or IAM. This ASSociation is nothing else then our beloved Unions trying to keep your money without your say...

This coming from a bulb changer who said "BAGSMASHERS" were overpaid anyway. Yea brother, you're the voice of unity, aren't ya.
Thanks for the ringing endorsement, makes the decision so much easier.

 

[Kev3188]

if the BAGSMASHERS want to vote let them. There is no unity in the TWU or IAM. This ASSociation is nothing else then our beloved Unions trying to keep your money without your say...

*Spoiler alert*

You're not helping.

 

[ATD]

Next time you see a flight come in watch "Fleet Service" every bag is handled so rough that,  bags should have the right to file for structural abuse. I think the name fits, It is not used in a disparaging meaning.

 

[bob@las-AA]

Next time you see a flight come in watch "Fleet Service" every bag is handled so rough that,  bags should have the right to file for structural abuse. I think the name fits, It is not used in a disparaging meaning.

 
and your the head for the "PETB", people for the ethical treatment of bags. Give me a break dude, what was that mass APU outage that seemed to plague all the 80s a couple a months ago? Was that the AMTs trying to bloat their worth to the company? The only thing the AMTs did was pi$$ of the passengers. No-wounder the AA brand leaves a sower taste in the traveling public's mouth.  

 

[Kev3188]

Next time you see a flight come in watch "Fleet Service" every bag is handled so rough that,  bags should have the right to file for structural abuse. I think the name fits, It is not used in a disparaging meaning.

Sure it is. Your being smug about it doesn't change that.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Due to potential scope issues for MX, if we compare American MX with UA or WN or DL and if Parker uses a similar model, then MX will lose scope. If that becomes true, then the TWU/IAM will have to show that Fleet lost scope [or it will be accused of showing favor to fleet], in order to potentially appease MX. IMO, this is the big elephant in the room that nobody really wants to consider. I don't see any way out of negotiations if Fleet is attached at the hip with MX. The MX craft is under severe pressure, whereas the Fleet craft does not face the same competitive pressures.

regards,

 

[WeAAsles]

Due to potential scope issues for MX, if we compare American MX with UA or WN or DL and if Parker uses a similar model, then MX will lose scope. If that becomes true, then the TWU/IAM will have to show that Fleet lost scope [or it will be accused of showing favor to fleet], in order to potentially appease MX. IMO, this is the big elephant in the room that nobody really wants to consider. I don't see any way out of negotiations if Fleet is attached at the hip with MX. The MX craft is under severe pressure, whereas the Fleet craft does not face the same competitive pressures.regards,

Well if I go by how most of the Mechanics on Forums page react to us maybe you're right and we should leave them to dangle in the wind? I mean it's painfully apparent that they really don't want us to try and stick together and help them. Maybe you're right Tim and it's a losing battle anyway?

I'm wondering if AA does go the route of those other airlines how many people are going to be unemployed? Thousands I would suspect.

Oh well maybe?

 

[WeAAsles]

700 maybe Tim is right on this one though? I mean check out this article from Aviation Week. Using a rational mind they are correct. We're not seeing too many planes fall out of the sky in America. Perhaps the company is right and as a cost cutting measure they should be in line with the other airlines and get rid of some of these jobs? Why should we be tied to the tail of a pretty ugly dog?

"What was the purpose of Vanity Fair’s December issue article blasting outsourced maintenance? James B. Steele’s “Disturbing Truth About How Airplanes Are Maintained Today” reads like a vendetta against outsourcing. He simplifies it to—U.S. airlines are contracting out maintenance offshore to cut costs and this results in unsafe aircraft.
 
He fails to point out that the U.S. airline industry has experienced its safest period lately, which has happened during increased contract maintenance.
 
Steele seemed to have an agenda, and his article is “rife with other omissions, inaccuracies and inconsistencies,” writes ARSA executive VP Christian Klein. For instance, “Steele points to lost jobs but fails to mention that the thousands of repair stations in the United States employ 200,000 people, four times more than work as U.S. airline mechanics. Nor does he mention that the civil aviation maintenance industry contributes $43 billion per year to the U.S. economy,” writes Klein on the association’s website.
Is the Vanity Fair article a propaganda tool?"

http://aviationweek.com/mro/vanity-fair-airline-industry-unsafe

And then you need to read the comments on the piece and that can really put things into perspective. Maybe this jargon they spout is all just propaganda?

 

[700UW]

Well since you all make DOUBLE the average wage for a ramp rat, let doug cut your jobs and give the money to mechanics to bring more work back.

 

[WeAAsles]

Well since you all make DOUBLE the average wage for a ramp rat, let doug cut your jobs and give the money to mechanics to bring more work back.

700 I'm talking about just comparing us to the other 3 major carriers. Under that metric right now we are fairly comparable in jobs. But I don't think as a shareholder and someone who wants to see the company do well financially so we can capitalize on that again in the future, it's fair that AA should carry so much dead weight for maintenance especially if they want to be paid what the other airlines get.

It's just a competitive disadvantage wouldn't you say?

 

[700UW]

Go ask DL they bring in over $1 billion a year profits from maintenance, can't say that about fleet?

 

[Tim Nelson]

Well since you all make DOUBLE the average wage for a ramp rat, let doug cut your jobs and give the money to mechanics to bring more work back.

700, it doesn't take long for you to start talking down to rampers. Once again, you are incorrect though. American rampers are the least paid when compared to our peers. Remember, you rely on information from the BLS which show rampers average at around $12. Same thing shows pilots around $32,000. If you step into reality though, you would have to acknowledge that when we talk about $30 wage, we are talking about top out wages that are common with our peers. That said, our peers, i.e., Southwest, Delta, United, [similar to the true up comparables], we are about 25%
underpaid at $24. I like our position of raising the bar, in which case we ought to push the bar above $30.

At any rate, you aren't in negotiations either, but one doesn't have to be in negotiations to get a clear and present understanding of the comparables in this industry that Parker talks about
religiously. I think my point is historical and currently accurate regarding Fleet comparables, and also MX comparables. And the AA MX have about 8,000 workers I believe in Tulsa doing heavy maintenance but mostly sitting around, and that doesn't compare to United, Southwest, or Delta. I support our mechanics and think they shouldn't lose any work, however, my support ceases when it becomes a drag to fleet which has much better comparables.

If you have something to add about the topic that I missed, then please chime in, otherwise, I'll take it that you acknowledge that AMR has thousands of more MX than United or Southwest and that Parker will want to address that.

Again, apples [Fleet] and oranges [MX], as I don't believe there will be any favorable outcome for MX anytime soon. Could I be wrong? Of course. Maybe Parker even tosses in more scope but I've heard him in video after video speaking in language that uses comparable data from other major airlines.

regards,

 

[700UW]

Delta has more mechanics than AA and makes over $1 billion in profits from maintenance. UA also turns a profit from their engine shop, see maintenance can make money without a passenger, can't say that about fleet.

 

[WeAAsles]

I mean when you look at 2014 data there were 17.4 "In House" maintenance personnel per aircraft. Delta had 11.4 United had 10.5 and SWA (ick) an abysmal 3.5 in house maintenance workers per aircraft.

That's 6 more people per aircraft that AA employs over the next nearest competitor. So if AA 942 mainline aircraft in service today then that means that they also employ roughly 5,652 more people then maybe they need?

The mechanics want to look after their own skin so what's wrong with us maybe thinking similar to the way they do?

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2014%2012%20Month%20Documents/Employees%20and%20Productivity/Individual%20Employee%20Data/American%20Airlines%20Employee%20Data%20and%20Analysis.htm

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/default.html

 

[Jester]

Due to potential scope issues for MX, if we compare American MX with UA or WN or DL and if Parker uses a similar model, then MX will lose scope. If that becomes true, then the TWU/IAM will have to show that Fleet lost scope [or it will be accused of showing favor to fleet], in order to potentially appease MX. IMO, this is the big elephant in the room that nobody really wants to consider. I don't see any way out of negotiations if Fleet is attached at the hip with MX. The MX craft is under severe pressure, whereas the Fleet craft does not face the same competitive pressures.

regards,

This idea of one union representing both MX and fleet never made much to me as a ramper as few things annoy MX more is when they feel we have a better deal relatively speaking.  I recall talking to an old PanAm mechanic who told me that ramp agents were being paid more than licensed mechanics (not sure it is true), and there was a great deal of resentment about it.  Not that I blame them, but what ramper is going pass up more money?  
 
I believe the IAM side of the Association will attempt to hold back on Fleet Service if their contract gets too close to the MX total compensation contract, as not to alienate the MX side.  I have always thought that a split for Fleet to go with the TWU and the MX to go with IAM made the most sense.
 

700 I'm talking about just comparing us to the other 3 major carriers. Under that metric right now we are fairly comparable. But I don't think as a shareholder and someone who wants to see the company do well financially so we can capitalize on that again in the future, it's fair that AA should carry so much dead weight for maintenance especially if they want to be paid what the other airlines get.

It's just a competitive disadvantage wouldn't you say?

Which brings up a "Big Picture" question of helping the company, but at what expense to co-workers, because you raise the spector of the importance of corporate financial well-being and competitive metrics?  For example, if I observed better ways to staff operations and to have less down time, thus better staffing utilization, but it would require lay-offs or hours reductions, would that be ethical or leave it to the Stupidvisors and (Mis)managers to figure it out?