Layoffs in PHX

[1AA]

At AA they are known as Aircraft exterior cleaners. It goes back to the days of aircraft polishers. When I hired in back in the 80's we had a significant amount of Exterior cleaners. Over time the numbers reduced due to retirements. Some were crossed over to cabin service but still had the title of exterior cleaners. I do not know how many are still employed under the same title but AA has stopped hiring cleaners under that title group for some time now. We also have building cleaners but AA outsourced them with the 95 contract. I believe that there may be some left at the main base. All gone at the line stations.

 

[Vortilon]

They aren't in the same class and craft, never seen it happen.

 
 
You might not have seen it happen on your side.  I work with guys who hired on at AA as aircraft exterior cleaners while they were going to Spartan in Tulsa and started gaining seniority for the AMT title group long before they received their FAA A&P licenses.  More recently, during the last AMFA card drive at AA, the NMB had the TWU along with AA survey the system for FSCs that did any kind of job function on aircraft that could be considered as exterior cleaning.  This would serve to further water down the vote.  DFW for example was allowed to add something like 150 clerks to the list of eligible voters.  MIA IIRC, was allowed over 300 to be included.  So, there goes any notion of the NMB or AA management being unbiased.  Never mind the fact that the TWU, along with AA management attempted to include: dead people, retired people, and, management types to the eligible voters list. Meanwhile, the NMB sat by and said "prove that they are not eligible".  So, yes it happens.

 

[Overspeed]

Vortilon,
The NMB determines class and craft. The way the seniority lists are maintained is a union thing. The IAM, TWU, IBT, and AMFA all handle seniority differently. The exterior cleaners you cite are in the Title I seniority group at AA and that is why they accrued seniority differently. There are pros and cons to this. If you were an AMT and got laid off you would have an option to bump a cleaner to stay in your station so more options to prevent moving may be desirable. Then you have the scenario you point out where someone accrues Title I time without holding a license enabling them to come in to the AMT group with more seniority prior to entering the AMT group. How often does this happen? There are only about 170 cleaners out of 8,000 AMTs and CCs?
 
FSCs are added in if they do maintenance functions. Lav servicing is considered an aircraft maintenance and related function and therefore in our class and craft. I guess we could argue that lav service people should be Title I and in the M&R book? Then the lav guy would be accruing Title I seniority, get their A&P and bump a person who was an AMT the whole time but maybe one day less than the guy who was dumping lavs for twenty years.
 
The way to resolve this would be during a class and craft hearing and have those functions pulled out by the NMB. I believe AMFA has tried that in past organizing drives and failed to convince the NMB.

 

[WeAAsles]

 
 
You might not have seen it happen on your side.  I work with guys who hired on at AA as aircraft exterior cleaners while they were going to Spartan in Tulsa and started gaining seniority for the AMT title group long before they received their FAA A&P licenses.  More recently, during the last AMFA card drive at AA, the NMB had the TWU along with AA survey the system for FSCs that did any kind of job function on aircraft that could be considered as exterior cleaning.  This would serve to further water down the vote.  DFW for example was allowed to add something like 150 clerks to the list of eligible voters.  MIA IIRC, was allowed over 300 to be included.  So, there goes any notion of the NMB or AA management being unbiased.  Never mind the fact that the TWU, along with AA management attempted to include: dead people, retired people, and, management types to the eligible voters list. Meanwhile, the NMB sat by and said "prove that they are not eligible".  So, yes it happens.

Since today is the last day for you to submit your cards to the NMB to be received by tomorrow to have your group added to the ballot as an intervenor, I want to ask you something. Since Harry Lombardo won the election have you seen or even heard any official type of communication that has been any attempt at all by the International to prevent you from getting what you want as a collective group for representation? Have any of the things you quoted been happening this time? Did Harry and the IEC also remove from the ATD some people that you have been saying for years that you have issues with? That was something you guys wanted and were very happy about it seemed.

And if you are going to make a comment about Sean Doyle being in the ATD when it should be a Maintenance President maybe you should ask your own President why that is? Have you ever bothered to try and find out or do you just take it as your own opinion that it's some type of nefarious plot against you? You may want to start doing some research into that one?

Maybe it's time for some of you guys to remove your blinders and notice what's going on?

 

[WeAAsles]

The way to resolve this would be during a class and craft hearing and have those functions pulled out by the NMB. I believe AMFA has tried that in past organizing drives and failed to convince the NMB.

One of the members of this Forums group put out a petition to the DOL it was I believe to try and do just that. I signed that petition because even though I'm a FSC I think some people who are reported as part of your Class and Craft should be separated out. Either given their own designation or absorbed into Fleet? 

Some of the jobs you guys do, no we don't belong there IMO. Even if another FSC on this Forum was talking about wanting more of your jobs the other day which I don't support. 

 

[1AA]

http://www.petition2congress.com/17114/airline-maintenance-safety

 

[Buck]

So fleet service clerks and mechanics use to be under the same contract ?...... No!

Voted on as one contract no separation. ..........the core principle of the TWU is one of a socialistic endeavor to bring those under unionism into a collective force to fight for the workers rights and safety concerns without regard for a groups skill. In the past, yes the total TWU at AA use to vote as one unionized workforce. Today the mechanics are told that the have separate contracts. The may negotiate in this manner,m but in the end AA tells the TWU how much of the pie is left after the FA's and Pilots, because traditionally the TWU negotiates last. This may have something to do with the mechanics being the lowest paid of the majors airlines. One item that AA has always held over the TWU workforce is the defined pension which of course now gone or in the frozen state.

 

[MetalMover]

 
FSCs are added in if they do maintenance functions. Lav servicing is considered an aircraft maintenance and related function and therefore in our class and craft. I guess we could argue that lav service people should be Title I and in the M&R book? Then the lav guy would be accruing Title I seniority, get their A&P and bump a person who was an AMT the whole time but maybe one day less than the guy who was dumping lavs for twenty years.
 
 

Where is it considered a maintenance function? Related? Then why not cabin cleaning? Why not anyone who touches an aircraft?
Now, EXTERIOR cleaners were considered maintenance RELATED....I will admit I really never understood why.
Keep in mind LAV SERVICING is NOT aircraft maintenance. Engine OIL SERVICING is not even classified as MAINTENANCE but SERVICING.

 

[Overspeed]

MetalMover,
Ever read the work cards on lav leaks? An external lav leak has caused engines to fail on tail mounted aircraft. Lavs are part of aircraft maintenance including servicing. Have you done the OSP cards? Oil servicing is part of aircraft maintenance.

 

[MetalMover]

MetalMover,
Ever read the work cards on lav leaks? An external lav leak has caused engines to fail on tail mounted aircraft. Lavs are part of aircraft maintenance including servicing. Have you done the OSP cards? Oil servicing is part of aircraft maintenance.

The actual servicing of the lavs in not aircraft maintenance. Otherwise mechanics would be servicing the lavs. Of course I have done the OSP. What line mechanic hasn't. Do you know there are stations where fleet services the oils?
Our instructors travel to these stations to teach them the oiling, and how to set the cockpit up to ride brakes for A/C movement. 
Now, are you aware of DUAL MAINTENANCE AND THE EFFECTS ON ETOPS OPERATION? If oiling both engines were considered MAINTENANCE, the aircraft would need an ETOPS restriction every time BOTH engines are oiled. And that would be EVERY ETOPS check. 
Do you realize how that would impact EVERY ETOPS flight?  It is not the same as say replacing both the left and right hand IDG's. 
Read the GPM, replenishment of fluids in not considered MAINTENANCE.