More Time for Judge Lane

[Shafted]

Wrong, read the language carefully. its 35% above what they do now which is either 10%, or 20% counting Taesl. That work is not part of the equation. How long have you been working for this company? I was there and I heard the companys intent. The 10% thats already outsourced is not counted as our work or part of the manhours and if Taesl is shut down that work would be outsourced and not counted either. So that puts the total for outsourcing at between 45% and 55% if Taesl shuts down. Thats not spin, thats AA sneaking through language where we are lead to believe it says one thing and after the fact they say it means something else, such as "system attrition", "Me Too", "one time layoff" etc etc.





No you just want to make it our problem by saying we should accept less because of it and spare the shareholders from their responsibilities.




Whose language, ours or the pilots?





For us the Truth started coming out Friday, it will continue this week. What happens on the 22nd of June will likely have nothing to do with the truth. IMO there will be another deal before then.

Bob, are there talks of them shutting down TAESL, now or in the near future?

 

[Overspeed]

Wrong, read the language carefully. its 35% above what they do now which is either 10%, or 20% counting Taesl. That work is not part of the equation. How long have you been working for this company? I was there and I heard the companys intent. The 10% thats already outsourced is not counted as our work or part of the manhours and if Taesl is shut down that work would be outsourced and not counted either. So that puts the total for outsourcing at between 45% and 55% if Taesl shuts down. Thats not spin, thats AA sneaking through language where we are lead to believe it says one thing and after the fact they say it means something else, such as "system attrition", "Me Too", "one time layoff" etc etc.





No you just want to make it our problem by saying we should accept less because of it and spare the shareholders from their responsibilities.




Whose language, ours or the pilots?





For us the Truth started coming out Friday, it will continue this week. What happens on the 22nd of June will likely have nothing to do with the truth. IMO there will be another deal before then.

I did read it. It says 35% of the total manhours not 35% plus 10% of maintenance spend. The old language has been removed. Tell the truth Bob.

I have worked here 28 years now.

Making money is the shareholders responsibility. That is why the company filed to reorganize to make money again. They say they can't run it and make money under the existing contracts and practices. They would rather outsource and write a check so that someone else can deal with handling the labor issues. Nowhere does the BK law say that AA has to manage the way you want them too. That's why we are probably going to get shafted in BK court.

The pilots. If the ASM cap goes away I highly doubt AA will fly 787s and A320s under the AE banner. AA will probably get the ASM cap removed like all the other airlines.

 

[TWU informer]

I did read it. It says 35% of the total manhours not 35% plus 10% of maintenance spend. The old language has been removed. Tell the truth Bob.

Here is the language and the text in RED clearly states that work that was contracted within the 12 month period preceding the effective date is excluded. To me, that means 35% on top of what is out 12 months prior to effective date of agreement. That would be 35% PLUS just exactly as Bob Owens has stated.

Language:
The Company may contract out up to 35% of the total aircraft-related maintenance work covered by this Agreement. Further, the Company may not outsource more than 15% of its aircraft-related Line Maintenance work. "Aircraft-related maintenance" shall be defined as maintenance work on engines, components and aircraft. The contracted-out percentage will be measured by the number of aircraft-related maintenance man hours outsourced divided by the total number of aircraft-related maintenance man-hours performed in the service of American Airlines and TAESL(in-sourced and outsourced) in any given year. Man hours associated with rework will be included in the calculation, unless that rework involves work that is excluded from the calculation. Excluded from both the numerator and denominator shall be: (i) aircraft-related maintenance work that was contracted out within the 12-month period preceding the effective date of this Agreement; (ii) aircraft-related maintenance work customarily outsourced (e.g., warranty work); and (iii) the man-hours associated with the transitional expense of the disposition of engines, components and aircraft. Aircraft-related maintenance work performed at International locations by third parties or AA employees shall be considered outsourced work

. 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]

OS doesnt want to hear it if it doesnt come from the company or the internationjal. He cites LCCs (which used to pay much less than us) and then claims that outsourcing saves money. What he leaves out is one of the advantages of size is volume of work, which makes doing the work in house more cost effective. Large carriers should have lower total costs, Thats one of the driving forces behind all these mergers, efficiencies gained through size, synergies. Will their labor costs be higher, yes of course because ther are more workers but total unit costs should be lower. In other words they should be able to produce a seat cheaper, especially when the wages become inverted and the smaller carriers pay more. He makes it sound like the smaller carriers simply pass cost savings from outsourcing on to their workers, hardly, smaller carriers pay more because their workers tend to be younger and therefore more likely to leave for better wages if they dont. The fact is we dont know if there are or will be any cost savings when all is said and done as far as outsourcing, AA would be bidding into a market at a time where capacity is tight due to the growing shortage of mechanics, so the odds of them paying more are pretty good.


When AA was able to lower their in house costs through things like SRPs(OSMs) it gave them a cost advantage over other carriers that enjoyed the benefit of volume. Competitors did not outsource to compete with the LCCs they outsource as a means to try and get their costs closer to ours.

I worked for LCCs, OS admits he hasnt, so I heard the other side of the arguement. I heard how they could not pay what the majors pay because the majors have the advantage of size and the synergies that produces. We heard how they dont have the volume of work to run in house OH effeciently and that because of that they had to outsource their OH and essentailly share whatever profits there were with the vendor.

Southwest is an odd case, they have the volume of work yet still outsouce. But SWA has several things going for it that others, such as AA doesnt have.
1) SWA uses the most popular airliner ever built, therefore there are more places that work that fleet type. That gives it plenty of choices as far as vendors.
2) SWA has a large fleet of that common type thus they can get volume discounts when they bid the work out.
3) SWA has a large fleet so they use many vendors and can put vendors in competition with each other
4) SWA maintains enough in house to use as leverage against vendors in order to get the best price.
5) SWA has a long history with these vendors so they get the best price
The advantage of a single fleet type drives all of those points.

AA has none of those things, so they would probably pay considerably more than SWA does. When you look at the aircraft the company is keeping, in both the Mar 22 and Apr26 proposals its clear that AA has aircraft that nobody really wants to do, MD-80s and 757s. Nobody is going to ramp up for them either because those are fleets that are going away, and if they do they bwill jack up their price. Also what OS leaves out is there is no language that states that the Airbus and 787 work is ours, so when the MD-80s and 757s go away the pie from which that 45% outsoucing cap applies to shrinks, and the jobs go away if the pie shrinks. Right now they still have the volume of work to do those aircraft efficiently, as they are phased out the jobs will go with them, whether or not attrition keeps pace we dont know, but the number of heads in OH will shrink and the YES vote would not have prevented that, in fact it would allow the company to layoff workers with system protection as well.

Very simplistic analysis. The in-house labor costs are only a factor if your total maintenance costs exceed your competitors total maintenance costs. WN has lower total maintenance costs per aircraft, flight hour, and cycle than AA on the 737 fleet. Run the numbers. Only DAL and PHX do heavies for WN although I heard MDW may be ramping up to do LC. Stiil WN does all their engines through GEES of which AA does almost all CFMs in-house. WN uses three vendors - ATS, AAR, and Aeroman for LC and HC that they don't do in-house. CO on the other hand does all the 737 and most of their 757 in-house except for engines. They do it with less headcount than us though because they work with management to run the LC/HCs leaner. Tell the whole story Bob. The LCCs do leverage lower outside labor costs to their advantage, it's the truth.

The majors all outsource 40% to 50% of their work now Bob. Have you worked for an LCC in the last ten years? No. The argument has changed because the FAA handed out 145 certifications like candy the last twenty years. They leverage their lower cost outside work and maintain sufficient in-house capacity to maintain some control over their operation strategically. Again, tell the whole story.

If you read this blog a DL mechanic noted that DL is spending money on upgrading Aeromexico to handle the 757s and 767s by 2014. They are pulling their work out of China and ST Aero. That will open up capacity for AA. AAR just leased the old NWA facility and there is more capacity. Aeroman is adding bays as we speak.

I agree with most of what you said on WN except number 4. WN actually play vendor against vendor on airframe overhaul for price.

Single fleet does give WN huge advantages over a mixed fleet airline which is why WN should not be used as a comparison on costs for mixed fleet operators. We should use our competitors like UA, DL, and US on maintenance costs because that is who will go to head to head with on a mixed fleet basis. You are cherry picking facts again to fit your arguments.

 

[Overspeed]

Here is the language and the text in RED clearly states that work that was contracted within the 12 month period preceding the effective date is excluded. To me, that means 35% on top of what is out 12 months prior to effective date of agreement. That would be 35% PLUS and Bob Owens has stated.

Language:
The Company may contract out up to 35% of the total aircraft-related maintenance work covered by this Agreement. Further, the Company may not outsource more than 15% of its aircraft-related Line Maintenance work. "Aircraft-related maintenance" shall be defined as maintenance work on engines, components and aircraft. The contracted-out percentage will be measured by the number of aircraft-related maintenance man hours outsourced divided by the total number of aircraft-related maintenance man-hours performed in the service of American Airlines and TAESL(in-sourced and outsourced) in any given year. Man hours associated with rework will be included in the calculation, unless that rework involves work that is excluded from the calculation. Excluded from both the numerator and denominator shall be: (i) aircraft-related maintenance work that was contracted out within the 12-month period preceding the effective date of this Agreement; (ii) aircraft-related maintenance work customarily outsourced (e.g., warranty work); and (iii) the man-hours associated with the transitional expense of the disposition of engines, components and aircraft. Aircraft-related maintenance work performed at International locations by third parties or AA employees shall be considered outsourced work

. 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.

Exactly. The work 12 month preceding which is work that is getting phased out over time as the fleet renewal program advances. That is not on top of but will be phased out over time and new work will be include in the new formula. Thanks for clarifying that point.

 

[Overspeed]

Not looking good in court.


But the judge reiterated that he's not going to go back to 2003 as he looks at the case:

"I think that's the same argument you just made because you're asking me by using the words give up, you're asking me to use 2003 as the baseline and you're asking me then historically go back and look at all stakeholders from 2003.
"And I understand what I have is the bankruptcy. ... I'm not saying that 2003 is not relevant historically speaking, as a general matter. But what I'm saying is when you begin to provide deltas of here's what our numbers are, here's where our sacrifices are and begin to make that explicit argument, I just think it's untenable. I don't think it's what I'm supposed to be doing.
"I don't know anything in the case law where I'm asked to look at that delta going back almost a decade and how I'm supposed to figure that out, and how that would be any different than in analyzing the industry standard going back more than a decade, what were they doing at United, what were they doing at Delta, what were they doing at Northwest."​

And another Last Best Offer is on the way? From Jim Little,

"Beginning next week, we will enter into 1113 litigation settlement mediation with the company. Judge Sean Lane in an unprecedented move enrolled the assistance of another federal bankruptcy judge, James M. Peck. This court assisted process will be for both our members who rejected the company’s offers so we can try to obtain for them an equitable and ratifiable contract, and for the units that voted “yes,” in order to enforce their "me too" clauses. Judge Lane also moved the court deadline with approval of the debtors from June 6 to June 22."

 

[TWU informer]

Exactly. The work 12 month preceding which is work that is getting phased out over time as the fleet renewal program advances. That is not on top of but will be phased out over time and new work will be include in the new formula. Thanks for clarifying that point.

So it is as Bob says, 35% on top of the OLD WORK being farmed out.

And Until the old fleets are phased out we will be at 35% plus all work currently being outsourced.

Do I understand that you are braggin about this issue? As if it is some win?

Next you will bragging about having two maintenance bases shuttered.

I signed my yellow AMFA card!

 

[Overspeed]

So it is as Bob says, 35% on top of the OLD WORK being farmed out.

And Until the old fleets are phased out we will be at 35% plus all work currently being outsourced.

Do I understand that you are braggin about this issue? As if it is some win?

Next you will bragging about having two maintenance bases shuttered.

I signed my yellow AMFA card!

Not bragging, clarifying. It is not as Bob says in fact it is only temporary. The cap is 35% of total manhours and the old formula is being phased out in the 4/26 LBO language. It's still better than the UA cap which is unlimited outsourcing and four lines at WN. Their scope language is so much better. AA has less than 621 aircraft, if we had the WN scope clause we would get three lines for heavy maintenance. Awesome.


"Southwest Airlines Mechanics shall continue to perform the existing three Heavy lines
that are currently being conducted at Southwest Airlines facilities. Upon reaching a net
fleet size of 621 airplanes the Company will add a fourth line of heavy maintenance.'

 

[TWU informer]

Not bragging, clarifying. It is not as Bob says in fact it is only temporary. The cap is 35% of total manhours and the old formula is being phased out in the 4/26 LBO language. It's still better than the UA cap which is unlimited outsourcing and four lines at WN. Their scope language is so much better. AA has less than 621 aircraft, if we had the WN scope clause we would get three lines for heavy maintenance. Awesome.


"Southwest Airlines Mechanics shall continue to perform the existing three Heavy lines
that are currently being conducted at Southwest Airlines facilities. Upon reaching a net
fleet size of 621 airplanes the Company will add a fourth line of heavy maintenance.'

There is always someone or something else worse than the TWU in your mind. You never compare apples to apples, you just pick the flyshit out of pepper in a futile attempt to defend that failing TWU.

In my mind, at this present moment I do not work at WN, I work at AA and pay the TWU to represent me.

And the TWU continues to fail. And you continue to deflect attention from that fact.

The membership has tired to this deflect and blame tactic, and the proof is coming soon.

 

[Mr Red]

Time to stop beating a DEAD HORSE Sign AMFA cards today !!!

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, are there talks of them shutting down TAESL, now or in the near future?

Company would not committ either way, only that if it goes away thats another 10% on top of the 10% they do now thats not included in the ask.

 

[Overspeed]

Company would not committ either way, only that if it goes away thats another 10% on top of the 10% they do now thats not included in the ask.

That's another lie. The work that is done by TAESL for other airlines is not included in the calculation. You lie all the time Bob.

TWU Informer quoted that in his earlier response.

Using the Big Lie technique I see. "Primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

 

[Bob Owens]

Very simplistic analysis. The in-house labor costs are only a factor if your total maintenance costs exceed your competitors total maintenance costs. WN has lower total maintenance costs per aircraft, flight hour, and cycle than AA on the 737 fleet. Run the numbers. Only DAL and PHX do heavies for WN although I heard MDW may be ramping up to do LC. Stiil WN does all their engines through GEES of which AA does almost all CFMs in-house. WN uses three vendors - ATS, AAR, and Aeroman for LC and HC that they don't do in-house. CO on the other hand does all the 737 and most of their 757 in-house except for engines. They do it with less headcount than us though because they work with management to run the LC/HCs leaner. Tell the whole story Bob. The LCCs do leverage lower outside labor costs to their advantage, it's the truth.

The majors all outsource 40% to 50% of their work now Bob. Have you worked for an LCC in the last ten years? No. The argument has changed because the FAA handed out 145 certifications like candy the last twenty years. They leverage their lower cost outside work and maintain sufficient in-house capacity to maintain some control over their operation strategically. Again, tell the whole story.

If you read this blog a DL mechanic noted that DL is spending money on upgrading Aeromexico to handle the 757s and 767s by 2014. They are pulling their work out of China and ST Aero. That will open up capacity for AA. AAR just leased the old NWA facility and there is more capacity. Aeroman is adding bays as we speak.

I agree with most of what you said on WN except number 4. WN actually play vendor against vendor on airframe overhaul for price.

Single fleet does give WN huge advantages over a mixed fleet airline which is why WN should not be used as a comparison on costs for mixed fleet operators. We should use our competitors like UA, DL, and US on maintenance costs because that is who will go to head to head with on a mixed fleet basis. You are cherry picking facts again to fit your arguments.

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 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 Owens]

That's another lie. The work that is done by TAESL for other airlines is not included in the calculation. You lie all the time Bob.

TWU Informer quoted that in his earlier response.

Using the Big Lie technique I see. "Primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

I was there, were you? Thats what they said, multiple times across the table. If they decide to close Taesl it would add another approximately 10% to the total for maintenance being outsourced and it would not be included in the 35%.

 

[Overspeed]

I was there, were you? Thats what they said, multiple times across the table. If they decide to close Taesl it would add another approximately 10% to the total for maintenance being outsourced and it would not be included in the 35%.

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.