Mechanics Say "no More!

[local 12 proud]

No, the compassionate side of me would just hate to see all youguys lose your job...

[post="243893"][/post]​

Sorry Busdriver Im not buying that load, In fact I would say you indeed have something to worry about or you would'nt be trying to convince the Mechanics they are making a huge mistake and about to lose it all. Like Ive previously stated Busdrvr, The mechanics have many skills that can be transferred to another technical field and make wages that are comparable to aviation, most stay for the Love of It. Take what little pay and bennies are left then you can let the chinese or any other third world maintain those birds but from my experience seeing first hand the substandard work that comes from such places, I for one will be driving and not flying!..........good luck to you busdrvr if and when you return to aviation.

 

[Busdrvr]

Bob,

1. Very unlikely, the possible (possible not probable, since you already had a TA)outcome of this stategy is the judge giving the compnay whatever they request on a temp basis while they discuss things. The company will get the cuts. But then if they get the cuts, will AMFA walk or not?

2. ROFLMMFAO!!!

3. To what? Dream weaver.... In the meantime, UAL burns cash and loses financial backing.... Yeah, good idea.

4. That'll really help out the UAL route structure. And more unemployed Mechs will help the bargaining power...

5. Bob, when you go buy a car, do you let the dealer sell you one with the option to raise the price every year for the 5 year term of the loan? Yet you expect some money men to agree to finance UAL's BK exit under the condition that the Mechs can come back in a year, BEFORE the money men have been paid back, and demand more pay? Or better yet STRIKE a year from now? It's not hard to see why the folks with the big bucks got that way and you didn't....

6. and UAL runs out of money and liquidates.

7. put down the communist manifesto. It's not some vast consipiracy. It's this irrational line of thinking that I fear permeates the Union and leads them to make some seriously flawed and uninformed opinion.

"By the way the Country Club is not really my scene."

then tip him well when he's getting your drinks at Denny's

I do agree 100% with your notion of treating MX the same as fuel. I'll let you in on a secret though. the Airlines don't just buy extra fuel to burn in a barrel because union rules dictate it. They buy just what they need and do so at the cheapest price they can find. If UAL has the cheapest MX cost in the Business, then I say you shouldn't take a cut. But again, it's not about payrates, it's about payrolls. If UAL is paying more to keep it's jets maintained than it's competition, then it's the same as paying more for fuel. It's got to be made up somewhere. If you want industry wide standards on MX and pay, BRING IT ON. But I did notice you never answered when I asked how many Mechs per jet UAL has compared to other airlines. you know the answer?

 

[Busdrvr]

I for one will be driving and not flying!..........

[post="243901"][/post]​

Then I'll see you on the highway because I made that call months ago.

 

[UAL_TECH]

That remains to be seen. I'm not saying that it can't or won't happen and, like you, I've gone into this prepared for it but I think we have called their bluff finally and although they would have us believe that we can be 'slaughtered' in an instant I have to step back and remember that in my 16 years here I have NEVER witnessed United management succeed at ANYTHING.

I may be wrong but when the judge tossed the pilot's agreement a few weeks ago I sensed that management lost confidence (even if only for a moment) and suddenly they were not so anxious to take their dog and pony show into the courtroom. They had it all ready with the 45 expert witnesses and the, now familiar, 'Perfect Storm' PowerPoint presentation and all. I know they wanted to do it but they backed down. The judge may not be on our side but I have a feeling that Glenn and company are walking on thin ice with him. We'll see.

Anyway, in the coming weeks we'll be labeled as greedy, stupid, suicidal and a host of other uncomplimentary terms and we may end up on the street but you gotta admit that the imagined look on Tilton's face today must have been, well....

PRICELESS!!

[post="243418"][/post]​

I'd give up my 'success sharing' check to see that as well!!!

We most certainly will be called every name in the book, mostly by the ignorant.

Take Care,
B) UT

 

[Bob Owens]

=Busdrvr,Jan 31 2005, 01:27 AM]Bob,

1.  Very unlikely, the possible (possible not probable, since you already had a TA)outcome of this stategy is the judge giving the compnay whatever they request on a temp basis while they discuss things. 

Now you can read the Judges mind? Probable, based on what? The workers, the ones who actually have to work and produce for the company have spoken, they said no.

How many contracts have been abrogated so far? Didnt the unions already meet the condition of negotiating and giving the company what they wanted over a year ago? How many times is considered reasonable? Management said "we need this in order to be profitable", the workers gave it and now they are saying we need more. Are the workers responsible for the performance of the company? When successful airlines like SWA pay their mechanics over $7/hr more how can UALs mechanics contracts be considered "onerous" when in fact they are already giving UAL discounted labor?

I actually read the printers case and others where contracts were abrogated, and the contracts had things like the company had to employ typesetters for equipement that was made obsolete by technology. It was clear the terms of the contract were onerous, it did not mean that the employees were required to provide a competative edge through lower labor costs but that the company did not have to keep terms that clearly made the company unable to compete-"onerous terms".

If UAL, USAIR, AA, and DL can only survive by being subsidized through having the mechanics provide discounted labor, and by doing so it prevents SWA and NWA from expanding, and they pay full rate for mechanics labor then arent mechanics better served by withdrawing their labor and allowing those that can pay to expand?If they cant pay, isnt it true that as a profession mechanics need to see those airlines cease operations to provide those who can the opportunity to expand and hire more mechanics at the better rate?

Will we all find jobs at those airlines? Probably not. But at the rate we are going how many of us plan on staying anyway. Its a gamble, take a chance to win, or settle for losing less. But the fact is that knowing that we are prepared to face that scenario it may just make those running the game reconsider their tactics.

People like you are putting a lot of effort into saying mechanics cant win. I think the message is "We dont care. Either way we lose. By accepting the terms YOU are getting what you want. By voting no you are not. We wont "win" but we are going to take this whole thing down with us, now is that what YOU want?"

The company will get the cuts.  But then if they get the cuts, will AMFA walk or not?


That will be up to them, but it will be an option, one that gives them leverage. Do you really think that if they simply give in that the airline will not come back for more?

3. To what?  Dream weaver....  In the meantime, UAL burns cash and loses financial backing.... Yeah, good idea. 

Fine, then GE can and all the other creditors can take their assetts back and try to get a better deal somewhere else. The fact is even USAIR keeps getting backing even though they continue to burn cash. Why is that? Could it be that while these creditors may be exposing themselves to risk on the one hand they are raking in cash on the other?


5. Bob, when you go buy a car, do you let the dealer sell you one with the option to raise the price every year for the 5 year term of the loan? 

Well If I buy a car every year he does have that option doesnt he? Are we paid for our labor in advance or as the company uses it. Do I have the option of saying that the hour of labor I sold the company 5 years ago has been changed and now the company owes me for that hour of labor? Your example is rediculous.

Yet you expect some money men to agree to finance UAL's BK exit under the condition that the Mechs can come back in a year, BEFORE the money men have been paid back, and demand more pay? 

Sure, why not? First of all they get paid interest and the loan is attached to assetts.

Or better yet STRIKE a year from now?  It's not hard to see why the folks with the big bucks got that way and you didn't....

Yea so? Under the RLA strikes are rare besides does it really matter? In the past even though 2 or three year contracts were the norm usualyy one work group or the other had contracts due. So creditors always faced the possibility that on any given year the airlines may face a strike, whether it was the APLA, AFA, IAM, TWU or AMFA.

6. and UAL runs out of money and liquidates.

Maybe, maybe not. The mechanics at UAL have made their choice, NO more concessions, find another way to make money. Maybe they need better lease rates or better loan rates. Maybe its time that the workers got together so that all the big boys in the background who have been raking in the cash that our labor provides will have to consider how their interests are served when all their assetts, that are spread out through various airlines, are sitting on the ground instead of moving people and cargo.

7. put down the communist manifesto.  It's not some vast consipiracy.  It's this irrational line of thinking that I fear permeates the Union and leads them to make some seriously flawed and uninformed opinion.


Sure it is. A corporation is a conspiracy by definition. A group of people coming together to act in concert but limit their liability for the acts they committ.

Are you claiming that corporations do not conspire to lower labor rates? That they passively accept what the market dictates or do they try to manipulate the market to suit their interests? What is Aircon.org?And why do so many airlines contribute money to it?


then tip him well when he's getting your drinks at Denny's

We dont have Denny's around here. Besides if he is working at Dennys he will probably be repairing the cash register, heating system, telephone, computer or something else. Not waiting tables.

I do agree 100% with your notion of treating MX the same as fuel.  I'll let you in on a secret though.  the Airlines don't just buy extra fuel to burn in a barrel because union rules dictate it.  They buy just what they need and do so at the cheapest price they can find. 

What do you call hedging? Isnt it possible that they could end up agreeing to pay more than they would without hedging? Now, tell me about the union rules that dictate that airlines buy more labor than they need.


If UAL has the cheapest MX cost in the Business, then I say you shouldn't take a cut. 


They dont have the most expensive either, so why should they take paycuts? You say they should work for less, I say they should get what SWA gets. What makes you more right than I? The fact that SWA manages better does not mean that they should pay more for labor. Poor management should not be rewarded with lower labor rates.

But again, it's not about payrates, it's about payrolls. 

No its about payrates. Payrolls is a management function, payrates are the concern of workers. How the company manages their payrolls is up to them, how much we charge per unit of labor is up to us.

If UAL is paying more to keep it's jets maintained than it's competition, then it's the same as paying more for fuel.

So if management is incompetant and can not get the same amount of value out of and hour of labor its the workers fault? No its managements fault.

It's got to be made up somewhere. 

Maybe they need to get rid of more management. Why should the workers have to make up for managements shortcomings?Maybe instead of paying more for management at UAL than SWA they should be paying less.

If you want industry wide standards on MX and pay, BRING IT ON.

Sure. Lets go.

But I did notice you never answered when I asked how many Mechs per jet UAL has compared to other airlines.  you know the answer?

No, and is that the only thing that matters? UAL has more 747s and other large aircraft that require more mechanics. They have more ETOPS, again more mechanics. How about mechanics per ASM?

If UAL has more mechanics doing more work in house then if they are properly managed they should be able to pay their workers more and still save vs outsourcing because there is no profit built in for having the work accomplished.

Is it true that UALS maintenance costs went up after they closed in house facilities and outsourced the work? Isnt it true that by outsourcing UAL has less control over costs and quality?

 

[Busdrvr]

"No, and is that the only thing that matters? UAL has more 747s and other large aircraft that require more mechanics. They have more ETOPS, again more mechanics. How about mechanics per ASM?"

AMR has more trashy old MD-80s. UAL's fleet probably requires less mx hours per flight hour. that's one of the points of buying new stuff. But since you brought it up. What are the numbers per ASM?


If UAL has more mechanics doing more work in house then if they are properly managed they should be able to pay their workers more and still save vs outsourcing because there is no profit built in for having the work accomplished.

Yeah right. Whatever.

Is it true that UALS maintenance costs went up after they closed in house facilities and outsourced the work? Isnt it true that by outsourcing UAL has less control over costs and quality?

Let me "splain" it to you Bob. MX costs can show up in TWO places on the income statement. One, MX is obvious. the other is SALARIES. When MX was shifted to outside vendors and D&R was ended (thanks to the last rejected contract... ), UAL paid MORE for MX, but SAVED even more on SALARIES.

"When successful airlines like SWA pay their mechanics over $7/hr more how can UALs mechanics contracts be considered "onerous" when in fact they are already giving UAL discounted labor?"

How many Mechs does SWA have per ASM? How many Cabin cleaners?

"and by doing so it prevents SWA and NWA from expanding, and they pay full rate for mechanics labor then arent mechanics better served by withdrawing their labor and allowing those that can pay to expand?"

That's rich!! does NWA do D&R? Do they outsource anything? Why haven't you quit yet? Lead by example Bob.

 

[Bob Owens]

Busdrvr,Jan 31 2005, 03:12 PM]
"No, and is that the only thing that matters? UAL has more 747s and other large aircraft that require more mechanics. They have more ETOPS, again more mechanics. How about mechanics per ASM?"

But since you brought it up. What are the numbers per ASM?

It was a question not a challenge. If you had the mechanics per aircraft ratio then its reasonable to expect you would also have the ASM ratio. By the way you never did put it up.

If UAL has more mechanics doing more work in house then if they are properly managed they should be able to pay their workers more and still save vs outsourcing because there is no profit built in for having the work accomplished.

Yeah right. Whatever.

Now that was your best response yet! Are you a teenager, if so then I mistakenly though I was debating an adult

Let me "splain" it to you Bob. MX costs can show up in TWO places on the income statement. One, MX is obvious. the other is SALARIES. When MX was shifted to outside vendors and D&R was ended (thanks to the last rejected contract... ), UAL paid MORE for MX, but SAVED even more on SALARIES.

We would have to see the statements. Both before and after. Do you have them? Other considerations would also have to be factored in such as the reduced fleet etc.

"When successful airlines like SWA pay their mechanics over $7/hr more how can UALs mechanics contracts be considered "onerous" when in fact they are already giving UAL discounted labor?"


That's rich!! does NWA do D&R?

AA doesnt. Neither does SWA. Dont know about NWA. Whats the point?

Maybe thats why UAL has more mechanics per aircraft. At AA there has been talk about giving it back to maintenance in some stations because of the delays they are experiencing when half the FSC dont bother to show up for work.

Do they outsource anything?

Who doesnt?

Why haven't you quit yet?

Quit? Why? Let jerks like you have the day? I'd rather fight. I'll fight until I see there is no reason left to fight.

Lead by example Bob.

I have. Have you?

 

[mweiss]

I think the message is "We dont care. Either way we lose. By accepting the terms YOU are getting what you want. By voting no you are not. We wont "win" but we are going to take this whole thing down with us, now is that what YOU want?"

Funny thing...this is exactly what happened at the end of EA. If it's such a successful strategy, why are we still having this discussion two decades later?

Sure it is. A corporation is a conspiracy by definition.

Hmmm...how about you look up the definition of conspiracy? There are two definitions. The more common one refers to secret agreements to do unlawful acts. There is a secondary, less common, definition that refers to harmonious acts to achieve a common goal, but it's much less common. From where I sit, it looks like you're taking advantage of definitional confusion.

Are you claiming that corporations do not conspire to lower labor rates?

They do so in the same way that unions conspire to raise them. Should this be a surprise? Or do you think that you should get a special pass?

 

[Bob Owens]

mweiss,Jan 31 2005, 04:45 PM]
Funny thing...this is exactly what happened at the end of EA. If it's such a successful strategy, why are we still having this discussion two decades later?

After EAL the rate of concessions declined. I havent met any ex-EAL worker who feels they made the wrong choice.

They do so in the same way that unions conspire to raise them. Should this be a surprise? Or do you think that you should get a special pass?

Just acknowledging the facts. Seems that Busdrvr thinks that there is no conspiracy. By the way are you taking advantage of definitional confusion?

 

[mweiss]

After EAL the rate of concessions declined.

Let's see...it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that, shortly after EA's demise, the economy saw the greatest expansion in the history of the United States, would it?

By the way are you taking advantage of definitional confusion?

[post="244111"][/post]​

No...just pointing out where you are.

 

[Bob Owens]

Let's see...it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that, shortly after EA's demise, the economy saw the greatest expansion in the history of the United States, would it?

[post="244138"][/post]​

Actually no. The economy went into recession. The EAL guys started coming to AA in 1989. We got rid of B-scale and got parity with vacation etc. In 1992 the industry claimed that they lost more money that year than they made in the prior 50 years.

 

[mweiss]

Actually no. The economy went into recession.

In 1991, perhaps triggered by the increase in spot fuel prices resulting from Gulf War I.

The EAL guys started coming to AA in 1989.

So? EA was still flying and dealing with wage concessions after 1989. You were talking about their disappearance as being the cause of a drop in concession rate.

In 1992 the industry claimed that they lost more money that year than they made in the prior 50 years.

[post="244273"][/post]​

So? What's your point?

 

[Bob Owens]

mweiss,Feb 1 2005, 04:18 PM]
So? EA was still flying and dealing with wage concessions after 1989. You were talking about their disappearance as being the cause of a drop in concession rate.

Well actually I was referring to the stand that EAL workers took. When they actually officially ceased operations is of no significant importance to union airline workers.

Once again you claim to be a mind reader.

So? What's your point?

The point is you obviously misunderstood what I was referring to. After the EAL workers took a stand the confidence of other union members improved. While they did not win, they effectively achieved a draw. Both sides lost. Mutually Assured Destruction is a lot better than just getting your a$$ kicked.