More Time for Judge Lane

[Birdman]

Moved

 

[TWU informer]

So what "you" heard is right and the language in the LBO is wrong. Nice Bob. The majority of the work that is done in TAESL is for AA. That work is considered in-house and not part of the equation just like it is now or the OSS % would be ~20%. Keep lying Bob. That's all you know how to do now to deflect the failings in your logic.

Can you read? If and When TAESL goes, they both go.

The work done for third parties (including work done at TAESL when AA is not the immediate customer) counts as an offset to the man hours in the numerator and is excluded from the denominator. When work is done at TAESL, and AA is the immediate customer, that work will be treated as AA work performed in-house.

 

[Overspeed]

Your comprehension seems to be deteriorating. Maybe its the stress and panic of being proven wrong so often lately.
On the outsourcing, read the very first sentance, ALL OF IT. "work covered under this agreement" the company took the position that all that work that we do not currently do is not work under the agreement. They made it clear it was 35% in addition to what we outsource now.

WN costs total maintenance costs on 737s is lower than ours, agreed, once again -volume.

the reason you cite for disagreeng with number 4 was number 3. WN not only plays Vendor against vendor they also play vendor against in house. If a vendor hears capacity is tight and thinks he can squeeze them they just tell them they will do it in house.

What was I supposedly cherry picking? You know you claim you have as many years as I do, well for the first half of our careers all we heard was Crandall compare us to WN, now, when they make $10hr more than us plus all the other stuff all of a sudden we cant compare ourselves to them anymore. Besides my post wasnt comparing our wages and the part on WN started with "Southwest is an odd case". In your hysteria you must have missed that.

Bob you are wrong on scope. It says the preceding 12 months and that formula doesn't stay in perpetuity it is in force only as long as the work that was outsourced before is still here. As it goes away it is not grandfathered in to new work. The new work comes under the 35% man hour formula. You are wrong on this one buddy. The 10% is only temporary until it is phased out.

Not volume. Only three lines of HC is high volume out of 621 aircraft. Okay your volume argument makes sense how? Short answer, it doesn't.

3 lines of heavy check is leverage? Uh, no. WN is going to say if you don't give us a good price we will do it in our three lines of HC? Okay that makes no sense.

Okay so WN wages are no longer a comparison? Then why did you bring them up?

 

[TWU informer]

The 10% is only temporary until it is phased out.

Dufus, the contract will be amendable before it is phased out. And it is far more than 10% right now.

You are barking up a tree with no cat in it.

Regardless I bet there is no procedure other than the typical TWU taking the company word on any of these figures.

You are going to bleed to death and you are having an arguement over which color of band-aid to use on the wound.

 

[Overspeed]

Can you read? If and When TAESL goes, they both go.

The work done for third parties (including work done at TAESL when AA is not the immediate customer) counts as an offset to the man hours in the numerator and is excluded from the denominator. When work is done at TAESL, and AA is the immediate customer, that work will be treated as AA work performed in-house.

Read, "...including work done at TAESL when AA is not the immediate customer..." It's right in front of you. Read what you post. The AA work is counted as insourced so not 20% but 10% and the 10% goes away as it is phased out. It does not remain in perpetuity. You are still wrong and are double counting. The new outsourcing percentage was to be 35% of man hours and the 10% OSS based on MX spend is to be phased out.

 

[Overspeed]

Dufus, the contract will be amendable before it is phased out.

You are barking up a tree with no cat in it.

Regardless I bet there is no procedure other taking the company word on any of these figures.

Thank you. You agree with me now on the language.

I never said how fast the work will be phased out. It is the fact that it will and the new percentage is 35% of man hours not 55% as was stated. 757s, MD80s, and 767s will be over 25 years old in six years. They will mostly be gone and be replaced by 737NGs, A320s, and 787s in six years. Now if you are now saying we will be getting a three year or less agreement then you might be right. I'm not holding my breath on that prediction but good luck.

 

[TWU informer]

Thank you. You agree with me now on the language.

I never said how fast the work will be phased out. It is the fact that it will and the new percentage is 35% of man hours not 55% as was stated. 757s, MD80s, and 767s will be over 25 years old in six years. They will mostly be gone and be replaced by 737NGs, A320s, and 787s in six years. Now if you are now saying we will be getting a three year or less agreement then you might be right. I'm not holding my breath on that prediction but good luck.

IF the current percentage of outsourced work is 20%, then yes the amount will be 55%. The current 20% plus the new 35% equals 55% even when I use my calculator to add it up.
Unless you have a current MANHOUR number, which I bet nobody in the TWU has, then who knows what the actual number will initially be. My understanding is that there is zero quantification on the current total amount (%) of work leaving. There is not even an agreement if the current scope is in Dollars or Manhours. So who knows?

 

[Tex-Mech]

Thank you. You agree with me now on the language.

I never said how fast the work will be phased out. It is the fact that it will and the new percentage is 35% of man hours not 55% as was stated. 757s, MD80s, and 767s will be over 25 years old in six years. They will mostly be gone and be replaced by 737NGs, A320s, and 787s in six years. Now if you are now saying we will be getting a three year or less agreement then you might be right. I'm not holding my breath on that prediction but good luck.

Where does it say that the A320's and 787's will be maintained by AA mechanics. Or are we supposed to take the company's good word on that again.

 

[TWU informer]

Another interesting tid-bit to hash over is that the language doesn't designate the MANHOURS as being TWU Union Manhours, so the over manned management staff will be included in the formula, along with the MANHOURS of Union Officers and every form of a manhour that produces nothing like operational center Tech CC's. An OSM Manhour is the same value as a fully allocated AMT. A stock clerk is a manhour. A parts washer is a manhour. A group of four TWU sympathizers playing dominoes at break is 4 manhours. Every Hour spent in Traning and not working is a Manhour. 100 AMT's go give blood on the clock, that is 100 hundred manhours, so outsource 35 manhours of our work.

That sounds like a fair deal? Right

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob you are wrong on scope. It says the preceding 12 months and that formula doesn't stay in perpetuity it is in force only as long as the work that was outsourced before is still here. As it goes away it is not grandfathered in to new work. The new work comes under the 35% man hour formula. You are wrong on this one buddy. The 10% is only temporary until it is phased out.

Not volume. Only three lines of HC is high volume out of 621 aircraft. Okay your volume argument makes sense how? Short answer, it doesn't.

3 lines of heavy check is leverage? Uh, no. WN is going to say if you don't give us a good price we will do it in our three lines of HC? Okay that makes no sense.

Okay so WN wages are no longer a comparison? Then why did you bring them up?

Sad, so sad, EAP has helped many people in your state of mind. Not to worry, the sun will rise tomorrow, gauranteed.

 

[FWAAA]

You guys continue to argue over outsourcing percentages. Bob Owens has said that outsourced overhaul is not cheaper than in-house heavy checks (despite the TWU admitting in its legal filings that outsourced overhauls would save AA money).

Furthermore, Bob continues to claim that there is not sufficient capacity anywhere in the world to perform any substantial percentage of heavy checks for AA. If Bob Owens is correct, then the outsourced percentage sought by AA doesn't matter, since there's no way AA could possibly outsource all the work it claims it wants to contract out.

So why not offer to permit unlimited outsourcing? The world lacks sufficient capacity to perform even half of AA's heavy checks, right? So offer unlimited outsourcing to AA in exchange for whatever it is that you really don't want to give up? If Bob is right, you have nothing to fear, right?

 

[Tex-Mech]

Another interesting tid-bit to hash over is that the language doesn't designate the MANHOURS as being TWU Union Manhours, so the over manned management staff will be included in the formula, along with the MANHOURS of Union Officers and every form of a manhour that produces nothing like operational center Tech CC's. An OSM Manhour is the same value as a fully allocated AMT. A stock clerk is a manhour. A parts washer is a manhour. A group of four TWU sympathizers playing dominoes at break is 4 manhours. Every Hour spent in Traning and not working is a Manhour. 100 AMT's go give blood on the clock, that is 100 hundred manhours, so outsource 35 manhours of our work.

That sounds like a fair deal? Right

So UB would be manhours. For every 3 people off the clock on UB, 1 job gets outsourced.

 

[Overspeed]

So UB would be manhours. For every 3 people off the clock on UB, 1 job gets outsourced.

YES!!!! That is a true statement

 

[Overspeed]

You guys continue to argue over outsourcing percentages. Bob Owens has said that outsourced overhaul is not cheaper than in-house heavy checks (despite the TWU admitting in its legal filings that outsourced overhauls would save AA money).

Furthermore, Bob continues to claim that there is not sufficient capacity anywhere in the world to perform any substantial percentage of heavy checks for AA. If Bob Owens is correct, then the outsourced percentage sought by AA doesn't matter, since there's no way AA could possibly outsource all the work it claims it wants to contract out.

So why not offer to permit unlimited outsourcing? The world lacks sufficient capacity to perform even half of AA's heavy checks, right? So offer unlimited outsourcing to AA in exchange for whatever it is that you really don't want to give up? If Bob is right, you have nothing to fear, right?

UA has that now.

 

[Birdman]

You guys continue to argue over outsourcing percentages. Bob Owens has said that outsourced overhaul is not cheaper than in-house heavy checks (despite the TWU admitting in its legal filings that outsourced overhauls would save AA money).

Is the information that the TWU has seen to substantiate those claims so confidential that it cannot be shared? If so what's so important about those revelations?

Furthermore, Bob continues to claim that there is not sufficient capacity anywhere in the world to perform any substantial percentage of heavy checks for AA. If Bob Owens is correct, then the outsourced percentage sought by AA doesn't matter, since there's no way AA could possibly outsource all the work it claims it wants to contract out.

Rumor has it Timco wants nothing to do with our demanding standards. Wouldn't the compAAny have more leverage, since they know we don't believe a word they say, just reveal who has claimed they would be able to handle the work?

So why not offer to permit unlimited outsourcing? The world lacks sufficient capacity to perform even half of AA's heavy checks, right? So offer unlimited outsourcing to AA in exchange for whatever it is that you really don't want to give up? If Bob is right, you have nothing to fear, right?

They proposed 35% or whatever it is, not us. I thought they had the leverage in BK to get whatever they wanted. I believe they want to do the majority of what they have now, have the contractual leverage to layoff at will as the fleet renews and the checks get extended, and have enough mechanics left over to cover hailstorms, birdstrikes, AD mods, and light checks. It's just a shame they can't run their maintenance programs like the MRO's, pay enough to keep the good help, retain the control they desire, and make a few bucks like Delta TechOps.