The company offered $2.55 line and steadily refused to consider GEO even though its much less money and more palatable to the base. I think their motive is that they want to encourage higher paid experienced base mechanics to migrate to the line so they can backfill the base spots with low paid OSMs.
IMO the company has never had a plan to lay off 4500 heads. They admitted in court that they never even put the work out for bids. Other articles cite the shortage of skilled workers that has been described as the greatest threat to the MRO industry. If they cant maintain staff to do what they have now how could they take on AA's work? While the widebodies may go away (internationally-keyword "may")and cause a few hundred riffs, if any at all once regular attrition and an Early Out kick in, I think that AAs next dilemma is how can they introduce young blood into maintenence? I think that AA plans to end up with a ratio of around the same as other legacies (which will slowly increase as companies find the most cost effective balance between insourcing and outsourcing) but the reduction in headcout will be primarily through attrition, there very well may be 4500 less of us here in 2018 but if AA does not find a way to get workers to leave faster than the work they will end up with a workforce in 2018 where the average age is around 60 years of age!!
That drives up costs and leaves the carrier in a very bad spot. They are on track to end up with an excess of older workers and a shortage of younger workers which would become extremely severe by the mid 2020s. They need to offer early outs to avoid this, its not something we should consider financing from our side of the table.
