Keep AA planes maintained by AA

[lineguy43]

Statements like that are why non A&Ps should never be allowed to take management positions in aircraft maintenance. How long did it take for the faulty repair to kill over 200 people? Nearly two decades. So as we speak they could be slapping a patch somewhere in El Salvador or Asia that will kill you ten years from now, maybe they did one five years ago that will kill you tomorrow. You don't understand that when we do a permanent repair its supposed to be as good as original. What we do we carry for life. As long as its flying, not just this fiscal year or this quarter. Our responsibility does not end when we punch out or move to another job. You wouldn't understand that.

Totally agree with this statement. A mistake by an AMT can go on for years until it rears its head. The JAL 123 747 crash that had the bulkhead replaced after a tailstrike that Boeing repaired incorrectly flew high density high cycle routes for over 7 years before the bulkhead let go rendering the 747 uncontrollable killing over 500 people. People seem to forget that there are quite a few disasters in our history caused by poor maintenance.

 

[Overspeed]

You are such a putz. Once again using a strawman and implying I said something I didn't just to set yourself up for some point you want to make and throw in a petty jab. I read the report, and many others. I'm well aware of the "chain of events" that leads to most disasters. Whats your point? Are you claiming that Eoleson and FWAAA are right and we should not be concerned that they are shipping that work overseas? Is that why you would rather push an agenda where we lower our wages to compete with outsourced maintenance instead of citing quality of work? My point was that the mechanics who worked on it said they would rather do it the way they did dozens of them and remove the engine, then remove the pylon. I spoke to guys who were on it, did you?

I think a blaket statement that overseas maintenance is bad and wrong is misleading. I read the report and many AMTs familiar with the process. The issue was the forklift and not changing the pylon engine combo.

I also know many mechanics in Europe, Japan, Canada, and Australia and more often than not the testing is harder there than here in the US. AA was even dropped from EASA 145 in Europe because AA training was inferior. You are wrong, foreign maintenance is not the problem, inconsistent standards are.

 

[MetalMover]

I think a blaket statement that overseas maintenance is bad and wrong is misleading. I read the report and many AMTs familiar with the process. The issue was the forklift and not changing the pylon engine combo.

I also know many mechanics in Europe, Japan, Canada, and Australia and more often than not the testing is harder there than here in the US. AA was even dropped from EASA 145 in Europe because AA training was inferior. You are wrong, foreign maintenance is not the problem, inconsistent standards are.

I have to agree with Overspeed on this one......The forklift was left in place with a load on it for an extended period of time. Maybe not the SOLE cause, but surely it played a major role in the failure. Of the documentaries I have seen and NTSB public documents, this was cited as a major factor.
So they stopped removing the engine with the pylon AND stopped using a forklift! We haven't had a repeat of this nature.
So which action prevented further engine separations from wings?

 

[Bob Owens]

Never said it didnt. Overspeed is claiming that the guys didnt object to the proceedure and it wasnt a factor. If the idea of removing them as a unit instead of individually wasnt a factor then tell me how you would remove them as a unit without using a forklift?

Cracks were found on other aircraft where this proceedure was used, did the same thing happen there? Did those forklifts also malfunction and bleed down placing an overload on the pylon or was the proceedure in its entirety wrong? I dont think that using a forklift was ever considered normal proceedures for removing DC-10 engines, most engines need to be rolled slightly to be aligned with the mounts, this would be difficult with a forklift, the only exception would be #2 where the forklift was used to lift the whole basket up, but the final few inches were always brought up with come alongs. The forklift was not used to mate the surfaces.

Don't fall for Overspeeds Strawman spin tactics, where did I say that all overseas maint is bad or the forklift was not a factor? He is a master at spinning things and its why he is otherwise known as Overspin. What Overspeed left out of his post was how AA pays their mechanics in Europe a lot more than what AA pays their mechanics here in the US and he didn't even address what I did write. He didn't come op with a counterpoint to what I wrote, as usual, he erected a strawman and countered a statement he made. If you look at his post this is a very common tactic he uses to avoid issues he can not defend, then he will demand answers to anything he asks.

 

[Bob Owens]

I think a blaket statement that overseas maintenance is bad and wrong is misleading. I read the report and many AMTs familiar with the process. The issue was the forklift and not changing the pylon engine combo.
I also know many mechanics in Europe, Japan, Canada, and Australia and more often than not the testing is harder there than here in the US. AA was even dropped from EASA 145 in Europe because AA training was inferior. You are wrong, foreign maintenance is not the problem, inconsistent standards are.

How much Overhaul work have we outsourced to Europe, Japan, Canada or Australia? I don't think any of those countries are considered to be low wage, good thing because the contract you promoted and voted in favor of allows AA to outsource whatever line maintenance, including B-checks, ECO etc to any of those countries. Even the UPS contract that pays their guys over $52/hr is more restrictive than that. I'd bet that most if not all start their workers with more than just one week of Vacation and pay as well or better than what AA pays mechanics here in the US. I doubt that on average their mechanics lay out $7000 on medical like we do if we buy Insurance and are covered under the AA plan. You blast the guys at SWA for allowing a limited amount of their outsourced work to go overseas to low wage counties then you promoted a deal that would allow AA to send all of their outsourced work to any place they chose to. You just cant do enough to please AA management can you?

Yes inconsistent standards are a problem, but are you working to bring our standards up to those of Europe, or ours down to third world? Wouldn't you agree that Duty Time limits would also be considered an important standard to establish? Yet, Jim Little decided that the TWU was to be the only union that would stand with the airline lobby group A4A against establishing a more realistic duty time limit for mechanics . Jim was not an Aircraft mechanic and the International never sought any input from the Presidents on the position they took, but we had Bobby Gless, Don Videtich, Dave Moses, Bob Vanderloo all on the International dole looking out for our interests right? Bobby Gless on behalf of the International testified against imposing tighter duty time limits. You come here and talk about inconsistent standards yet you have promoted lowering standards across the board, against duty time limits, in favor of giving up vacation time, in favor of extended shifts at straight time pay, in favor of paying more for medical, in favor of losing sick time and getting half pay for the first two days out sick, it seems to me that your goal is to lower our standards to those of the third world and not bring them up to ours and definitely not bring ours up to the people you know in Europe, Canada, Japan or Australia. Your actions have widened the gap between us and those people and narrowed the gap between us and people in El Salvador. Congratulations on destroying the profession.

 

[Overspeed]

 
Continental was also using the forklift procedure.
 
I think United was not.

 
 You are correct, United used a hoist

 

[Overspeed]

How much Overhaul work have we outsourced to Europe, Japan, Canada or Australia? I don't think any of those countries are considered to be low wage, good thing because the contract you promoted and voted in favor of allows AA to outsource whatever line maintenance, including B-checks, ECO etc to any of those countries. Even the UPS contract that pays their guys over $52/hr is more restrictive than that. I'd bet that most if not all start their workers with more than just one week of Vacation and pay as well or better than what AA pays mechanics here in the US. I doubt that on average their mechanics lay out $7000 on medical like we do if we buy Insurance and are covered under the AA plan. You blast the guys at SWA for allowing a limited amount of their outsourced work to go overseas to low wage counties then you promoted a deal that would allow AA to send all of their outsourced work to any place they chose to. You just cant do enough to please AA management can you?

Yes inconsistent standards are a problem, but are you working to bring our standards up to those of Europe, or ours down to third world? Wouldn't you agree that Duty Time limits would also be considered an important standard to establish? Yet, Jim Little decided that the TWU was to be the only union that would stand with the airline lobby group A4A against establishing a more realistic duty time limit for mechanics . Jim was not an Aircraft mechanic and the International never sought any input from the Presidents on the position they took, but we had Bobby Gless, Don Videtich, Dave Moses, Bob Vanderloo all on the International dole looking out for our interests right? Bobby Gless on behalf of the International testified against imposing tighter duty time limits. You come here and talk about inconsistent standards yet you have promoted lowering standards across the board, against duty time limits, in favor of giving up vacation time, in favor of extended shifts at straight time pay, in favor of paying more for medical, in favor of losing sick time and getting half pay for the first two days out sick, it seems to me that your goal is to lower our standards to those of the third world and not bring them up to ours and definitely not bring ours up to the people you know in Europe, Canada, Japan or Australia. Your actions have widened the gap between us and those people and narrowed the gap between us and people in El Salvador. Congratulations on destroying the profession.

 
You make a blanket statement that AA airplanes should only be maintained by AA which devolved to include air crashes. I pointed out that you are making statements that are inconsistent with the NTSB's findings. The engine removal was driven by an ECO for the spherical bearings and a that the airline industry embraced a procedure that was meant to reduce the work needed to do the task with no intent to reduce safety. Multiple breakdowns in how the process was approved, performed, and back checked. It was a tragedy that resulted in loss of life and if you actually read the report thoroughly you might earn something.
 
Did you support proposed Part 66? 
 
So now we are back to attacking people instead of the problem of inconsistent standards. Where every thread ends with you Bob.

 

[1AA]

Aviation Industry in Need of Wake Up Call over Safety
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aviation-industry-wake-call-over-221400928.html

 

[Bob Owens]

 
You make a blanket statement that AA airplanes should only be maintained by AA which devolved to include air crashes.

I titled the thread that AA planes should be maintained in house by AA and cited an example of crash in Asia that was the result of poor maintenance. The contract that you endorsed and voted for allows our work to be sent to such places.
 

I pointed out that you are making statements that are inconsistent with the NTSB's findings.
 

 
Which statement was that?
 
 

The engine removal was driven by an ECO for the spherical bearings and a that the airline industry embraced a procedure that was meant to reduce the work needed to do the task with no intent to reduce safety. Multiple breakdowns in how the process was approved, performed, and back checked. It was a tragedy that resulted in loss of life and if you actually read the report thoroughly you might earn something.
 

 
I read the report  a long time ago, what I said about that case was that the mechanics on the job objected to doing it that way but were instructed to do so. As you cited it was an approved procedure (unlike covering the damaged skin on the case I cited). Once again I spoke to mechanics who worked on that engine change, did you? How does that conflict with anything that's in the NTSB report? It doesn't.
 
 

Did you support proposed Part 66? 
 
 

 
No, did you? That proposal would have allowed carriers to issue their own non-portable certificates. It may work in Europe but they have strong labor laws and strong Unions there-don't see any workers over there with only one week of vacation for five years or paying on average $7000 for Medical.Don't see them lowering wages and benefits to the extent we do even though its just as easy to fly overhaul to Asia or South America from Europe as it is from the US. I prefer to keep certification with the government and portable from one employer or industry to the next rather than allowing private employers to control the process and lock us in with non-portable certificates. Just because they have it in Europe that doesn't mean that particular PART would be an improvement in standards for us, sure the carriers would love to have that control, and more than likely that's why you probably will try and spin it to make it look like its a move to the European model, just like how you spin that concessions are good for us,  but in this country where airlines are run much more wrecklessly and the option to go Bankrupt whenever you feel like screwing over you workers exists we don't need for changes to take place that would diminish our portability, we need changes that will place more restrictions on the carriers.
 
Did you support the actions of Bobby Gless when he was the only Union representative who spoke against having stricter duty time limits on mechanics? I answered yours, will you do the same?
 
 

So now we are back to attacking people instead of the problem of inconsistent standards. Where every thread ends with you Bob.
 

No we are back to you spinning things and me stopping the spin which is where every thread with you starts and ends. Once again, as usual you don't address any questions presented to you and then go ahead and ask questions so you can try and steer the conversation to where you want it to be and avoid addressing inconvenient topics such as the fact that it was changes to the contract that you voted in favor of that allows any and all outsourced work to go wherever AA wants it. You are trying to say that we need the government to undo what you would not fight to stop. Sure consistant standards would be nice, certainly makes for a convenient excuse at present for yes voters, but in the meantime you go against any changes that would make things harder for the carriers and better for mechanics.

 

[swamt]

I titled the thread that AA planes should be maintained in house by AA and cited an example of crash in Asia that was the result of poor maintenance. The contract that you endorsed and voted for allows our work to be sent to such places.
 
 
Which statement was that?
 
 
 
I read the report  a long time ago, what I said about that case was that the mechanics on the job objected to doing it that way but were instructed to do so. As you cited it was an approved procedure (unlike covering the damaged skin on the case I cited). Once again I spoke to mechanics who worked on that engine change, did you? How does that conflict with anything that's in the NTSB report? It doesn't.
 
 
 
No, did you? That proposal would have allowed carriers to issue their own non-portable certificates. It may work in Europe but they have strong labor laws and strong Unions there-don't see any workers over there with only one week of vacation for five years or paying on average $7000 for Medical.Don't see them lowering wages and benefits to the extent we do even though its just as easy to fly overhaul to Asia or South America from Europe as it is from the US. I prefer to keep certification with the government and portable from one employer or industry to the next rather than allowing private employers to control the process and lock us in with non-portable certificates. Just because they have it in Europe that doesn't mean that particular PART would be an improvement in standards for us, sure the carriers would love to have that control, and more than likely that's why you probably will try and spin it to make it look like its a move to the European model, just like how you spin that concessions are good for us,  but in this country where airlines are run much more wrecklessly and the option to go Bankrupt whenever you feel like screwing over you workers exists we don't need for changes to take place that would diminish our portability, we need changes that will place more restrictions on the carriers.
 
Did you support the actions of Bobby Gless when he was the only Union representative who spoke against having stricter duty time limits on mechanics? I answered yours, will you do the same?
 
 
No we are back to you spinning things and me stopping the spin which is where every thread with you starts and ends. Once again, as usual you don't address any questions presented to you and then go ahead and ask questions so you can try and steer the conversation to where you want it to be and avoid addressing inconvenient topics such as the fact that it was changes to the contract that you voted in favor of that allows any and all outsourced work to go wherever AA wants it. You are trying to say that we need the government to undo what you would not fight to stop. Sure consistant standards would be nice, certainly makes for a convenient excuse at present for yes voters, but in the meantime you go against any changes that would make things harder for the carriers and better for mechanics.

Very typical Overspeed, Bob.

 

[PA28-180]

I have some pretty strong evidence gathered to support Bob.Smart phone pictures of some really bad practices from our new contractors.Really bad! I suspect most carriers will pay steep fines in the future.The FAA is so far off course,I ask one inspector about Haeco he said it was a good operation! Then I ask if he had ever been there answer NO!

 

[Overspeed]

I titled the thread that AA planes should be maintained in house by AA and cited an example of crash in Asia that was the result of poor maintenance. The contract that you endorsed and voted for allows our work to be sent to such places.
 
 
Which statement was that?
 
 
 
I read the report  a long time ago, what I said about that case was that the mechanics on the job objected to doing it that way but were instructed to do so. As you cited it was an approved procedure (unlike covering the damaged skin on the case I cited). Once again I spoke to mechanics who worked on that engine change, did you? How does that conflict with anything that's in the NTSB report? It doesn't.
 
 
 
No, did you? That proposal would have allowed carriers to issue their own non-portable certificates. It may work in Europe but they have strong labor laws and strong Unions there-don't see any workers over there with only one week of vacation for five years or paying on average $7000 for Medical.Don't see them lowering wages and benefits to the extent we do even though its just as easy to fly overhaul to Asia or South America from Europe as it is from the US. I prefer to keep certification with the government and portable from one employer or industry to the next rather than allowing private employers to control the process and lock us in with non-portable certificates. Just because they have it in Europe that doesn't mean that particular PART would be an improvement in standards for us, sure the carriers would love to have that control, and more than likely that's why you probably will try and spin it to make it look like its a move to the European model, just like how you spin that concessions are good for us,  but in this country where airlines are run much more wrecklessly and the option to go Bankrupt whenever you feel like screwing over you workers exists we don't need for changes to take place that would diminish our portability, we need changes that will place more restrictions on the carriers.
 
Did you support the actions of Bobby Gless when he was the only Union representative who spoke against having stricter duty time limits on mechanics? I answered yours, will you do the same?
 
 
No we are back to you spinning things and me stopping the spin which is where every thread with you starts and ends. Once again, as usual you don't address any questions presented to you and then go ahead and ask questions so you can try and steer the conversation to where you want it to be and avoid addressing inconvenient topics such as the fact that it was changes to the contract that you voted in favor of that allows any and all outsourced work to go wherever AA wants it. You are trying to say that we need the government to undo what you would not fight to stop. Sure consistant standards would be nice, certainly makes for a convenient excuse at present for yes voters, but in the meantime you go against any changes that would make things harder for the carriers and better for mechanics.

 
So you are saying all foreign and non-AA mechanics are inferior? I did not vote for outsourcing at all. Voting no would have stopped outsourcing in BK? How? Did any other airline stop outworking in BK?
 
The statement that AMTs at AA stated the procedure was bad. The ECO was done in LAX, did you work there? I also spoke to mechanics who did the ECO and I was baffled originally why you would pull the whole pylon/engine combo as that seemed a pain. They described it and said it was easier and faster than doing each separately to do the ECO. Again you make stuff up.
 
Read the report again. The NTSB concluded that the procedure was adopted and not opposed except by DAC who did not even view the procedure end to end. Bob read it. The NTSB stated that the mechanics never said they were opposed to the procedure.
 
Concessions are not good. They were forced upon us. The scenario of voting no and waiting for the judge to decide our fate is deeply flawed and has no basis in fact. All other airlines in BK who sought abrogate the contracts ended up with the Company having the upper hand on MX. Overhaul always got screwed.
 
Europe has most of their airframe overhaul done by low wage labor in former Eastern Block countries and the Philippines. If you would read more and educate yourself instead of spouting BS of what you think you know then you would not post incorrect information.
 
Part 66 would have brought the wages you wanted to line mx people who sign the log book. Contact AA's QC staff, the only reason why mechanics are required to have A&P's is because the GPM requires it which is what AA submitted to the FAA for 121 certification.  AA used to have non-A&Ps on the line and still could if they want to. You know that.
 
Yes I supported Bobby. He asked for a pause and that the unions, not PWA, drive any change in regulations regarding duty time.
 
I also support the FAA's step to test pilots and controllers testing for sleep apnea. I would like that extended to mechanics as well.

 

[Overspeed]

Your actions have widened the gap between us and those people and narrowed the gap between us and people in El Salvador. Congratulations on destroying the profession.

 
And it wasn't AA who started the outsourcing trend to El Salvador...that was SWA sending their B737s there years ago. China? That was started by NWA, UA, and CO. Wonder what's the common denominator...none of those airlines mechanics were represented by the TWU when the work was outsourced. 
 
The issue isn't the union, it's the FARs that allow it. Clear your head Bob and think.

 

[700UW]

Wrong,  HP had been sending planes to Aeroman way before WN.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
And it wasn't AA who started the outsourcing trend to El Salvador...that was SWA sending their B737s there years ago. China? That was started by NWA, UA, and CO. Wonder what's the common denominator...none of those airlines mechanics were represented by the TWU when the work was outsourced. 
 
The issue isn't the union, it's the FARs that allow it. Clear your head Bob and think.

I never said AA started the outsourcing trend, but they started a whole series of other concessions instead, and that left competitors with little choice other than outsourcing to try and get close to AA's maint cost per hour.
 
You certainly omit a lot of History, and for good cause.
 
 
The FARs you speak of have been in place for decades, it was changes in Union Contracts primarily that allowed work to be outsourced, and outsourced overseas. You leave out the fact that back in 1995 we were the only Union to agree to low cost mechanics in OH, that gave AA lower maintenance costs that they were able to put in place with expansion and through attrition, other Unions didn't give that, or deicing , or receive and Dispatch , away until they were in Bankruptcy. We gave AA concessions when they didn't need them. The SRP concession upset the balance of the whole industry. Outside of BK  UAL, US and other carriers had no way to get the concessions that AA had in place without even the threat of bankruptcy, and AA was the number 1 carrier in the industry at the time. How could they expect a mechanic making $35/hr in their shops to accept $20/hr like we paid our OSMs? Not gonna happen, so they went BK and outsourced it in order to try and line up their total costs for maint with those at AA. Then before the ink was dry on their concessions in BK we agreed to an understated undervalued 25% in compensation cuts without even going into Bankruptcy. That sent US back into BK and the UAL creditors committee rejected the TA where they went with a 14% paycut and left most of the benefits and workrules intact. Both of those groups exited two rounds of BK with more vacation, and more Holidays at higher rates than we did before we even went into BK. we gave away everything to save the pension and overhaul, now they are both gone and we still didn't get back the stuff we gave to keep it, stuff our peers never gave up.
 
 Sure it would be great to legislate protections in place that would prohibit outsourcing, even though non-union workers would benefit from those changes as well. But really, what has the Union done to push for those changes? I have seen where they told us to support workers in Wisconsin and Ohio, where they asked us to Lobby for card check, lobby against stricter duty time limits for mechanics, and even lobby so AA would not have to fund the pension despite the fact that our concessions more than paid for any contributions they should have made. As a result our pension was underfunded even though we gave them the money by working an extra week for free and 5 Holidays at straight time and the remaining five for time and a half instead of doubletime and a half.
 
We have known about those FARS for decades but the effort to change them have been superficial at best. Up until Bankruptcy and SRPs most unions relied on contracts to keep the work in house or at least in the US. In fact United, UPS and SWA all have limits on what can be outsourced overseas, we don't. You claim that inconsistent standards are the problem, yet you supported all the concessions at AA that have established standards inconsistent with the rest of the domestic Industry long before foreign maintenance became an issue, when we agreed to give up receive and dispatch and let Fleet do it, we changed the standards, when we agreed to let Fleet do Deicing, we changed the standards, when we agreed to pay for our own LTD, we changed the standards, when we agreed to contribute to our medical we changed the standards, when we agreed to let AA staff the shops with SRPs, we changed the standards, when we agreed to have one week less vacation than pretty much everyone else in any industry, we changed the standards, when we agreed to have only five sick days we changed the standards, when we agreed to give up Holidays, we changed the standards, when we agreed to training on straight time off shift we changed the standards, when we agreed to no doubletime we changed the standards. Your peers that you mentioned in Canada, Europe, and Australia have all those things and they face the same threats we do with foreign outsourcing and inconsistent standards, which as you pointed out are higher than ours, even most of our peers here in the US have them? US is a low cost competitor to mechanics in Europe and we are a low cost competitor of our peers among legacy carriers. Who doesn't have higher standards than we do?  Probably those who you speak of in El Salvador, and you chose not to fight for any of it, to give it away willingly and then sit back and blame the FARs that existed long before outsourcing became the issue it is now.  You need to clear your head and look in the mirror, then you will see where the problem lies.
 
 
You have come here and accused me of always putting blame elsewhere, well isn't that what you are doing? You are asking the government to do the job of protecting airline mechanics, a job the Unions used to do and still collect dues to do. If we can get them to do it great but has there really been a sincere effort to do that? At least I always Voted NO against giving everything away and lowering standards, I didn't vote YES then complain and blame the FARs or Bankruptcy.
 
If you aren't willing to fight for anything why would you expect politicians to do it for you? At the end of the day it all boils down to the fact that you voted to allow it.