New Vote o Video from Local Presidents

[Bob Owens]

Should the judge abrogate the contract....I sense a battle ahead in the courts should a 6 year TERM ALSO BE IMPOSED.

The Judge doesnt impose new contracts, he allows the company to impose terms but the company can not say see you in six years because then according to the RLA they would be refusing to bargain and they really would have no choice other than releaseing us to self help.

 

[Bob Owens]

Yes....it's going to be a battle royale...The company believes 6 years will be the term, the union believes otherwise.

Whatever the term of the contract, and even if we switch unions, we are stuck with the contract til expiration.

The company has never once claimed that in negotiations, they know that they can not set the term of a contract , they can only ask the judge to abrogate. People are confusing "terms" with contract.


Over 3000 hits so far.

 

[FWAAA]

One might argue that the airline/parcel carrier with the least number of mechanics makes the highest salary!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Just sayin"

Exactly. And as I and others have posted for a long time, there appears to be a correlation between the position on that chart and the amount of heavy overhaul performed at each carrier. UPS performs none, WN just a little bit. B6 does none. As you move right on the chart, the airlines do more inhouse overhaul.

 

[Bob Owens]

Well it looks like AA wont be laying off any pilots or flight attendants any time soon, whether or not they accept the deals.

Yet mechanics are being told they need to be afraid. If you want to save a job dont work OT. Thats one major difference between us and pilots, they can only make them work so many hours, mechanics can work 80 hours a week, or more. In other words if one mechanic works 80 hours then they can layoff another mechanic.

Yesterday I noticed that we have guys with 600 hours OT, and JFK tends to be behind the system in OT. The companys business plan , including the 1800 or so they say they want to layoff if this thing happens to pass, is built around mechanics being willing to work double digit rates of OT. If everyone stopped working OT they couldnt lay anyone off. Wouldnt that make more sense than agreeing to concessions?

The Early Out is going to be there no matter what. The company insisted that we keep in inthere so they could charge us the value of it even though they would offer it anyway. Look around you, if they have any hair at all some of its grey. With no ready supply of mechanics they need to start getting young blood in here. the other thing is with no ready supply of mechanics they could not withstand a strike. Another reason why they are so determined to lock us down for six years.

Is our head count going to go down? Most likely yes, and this puts AA at a huge disadvantage. With a declining headcount its harder to get young blood in the door. They have been going around to schools telling kids that there will be plenty of jobs for them when they get out. Unlike when we were young they will be able to walk out of school and into a major, however the wages are much-much worse than they were, even when you compare them to what we were making at the places we went to get experience. They wont stay, what do they have to look forward to? The possibility that if they put in five years or so at AA they can get a real job at UPS or Southwest? Most will realize there simply isnt enough opportunity to get a job there and will leave the industry faster that the schools can pump them out. This has happened before. AA pay lagged the industry by a wide margin in the late 80s, not nearly as wide as it does now, and USAIR, United, and even Ozark were sucking mechanics out of AA faster than AA could hire them. I was white slipped every day, five days a week because guys would not even make it past the first Gen Fam class. They were offering us $100 for every guy we could get to fill out an application. Who knows, we may see this again.

 

[AA89]

The values assigned to the time off categories are dubious. If you value your time off on holidays, and you don't work them so you can spend the day off with your family and friends, then you don't earn all that extra pay shown on the chart. You just get the day off, with pay. If you don't get sick, and you go to work and do your job, then that line item is irrelevant, no matter where you work.

Yes, time off has real value to individuals, but you can't spend that "value" on mortgage payments or rent or utilities or food or property taxes or insurance. Banks don't allow you to claim it when you want to borrow money. It's time off, not income.

Since the holiday pay shown above is not guaranteed (unless you work at an airline where every AMT always works all the holidays), then you might as well add potential overtime opportunities to the chart. Just like holiday pay, it's extra money for extra work.

Yes, AA's pay and benefits are at the bottom of the airlines shown on the chart. Notice that the chart doesn't include Republic/Frontier or any other regional airlines, no matter the size of those regionals, even where those regional mechanics are represented by unions. Looks like about 17,000 maintenance and related at various airlines are more highly compensated than at AA. How many are paid less?

One might argue that the airline/parcel carrier with the least number of mechanics makes the highest salary!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Just sayin"

Exactly. And as I and others have posted for a long time, there appears to be a correlation between the position on that chart and the amount of heavy overhaul performed at each carrier. UPS performs none, WN just a little bit. B6 does none. As you move right on the chart, the airlines do more inhouse overhaul.

Yes and also as you move to the right you will see an airline that "insources" 25% of the overhaul that it does at 30% less than that top wage, wants to increase that "insourcing" to 40% and increase outsource mx to 35% of future mx spend. Thats gotta be worth something in the total outsourcing comparison .
And AA wants to pay the remaining mechanics $5 an hour less than similar operations? Genius............

No Vote Here !!!

 

[strikeforce]

You dont get it, the language in the deal will allow them to do everything that you say we should fear and we arent even getting credit for the savings. Remember 2003? They eliminated 5000 jobs but we only got credit for 1200. The fleet may have shrunk but their revenues soared. Now we are faced with a new Fleet that not only is projected to have a 10 year holiday on heav maint but that there is no language saying that we ever will do those overhauls. Even if we do get the work they wont need as many workers. So as the MD-80s and 757s go away the company will, by virtue of its 35% of Maintenence spend language, be able to outsource way more than 4500 jobs- thats why they are demanding we give up system protection as well. Now you may claim that the 35% keeps us below UAL, but UAL has language that keeps its narrowbody OH in the US, we dont, AA can ship ALL their outsourcing overseas. Because UAL confines NB to the US they are being forced to bring more work back in house, AA wont have that restriction, with the agreement you advocate they can outsource overseas which would allow a much larger volume of work to be outsourced before they hit the 35% cap, because that 35% cap formula include Line maintenance, and lets not forget that if they bail out of TAESL they can adjust the cap "accordingly". Line maint outsourcing has a 15% cap, so in reality the amount of outsoucing for OH is unlimited. If they do as you mentioned a while back, and do more work on the line, such as sectional checks that would allow them to outsource even more OH, and if they can outsource it overseas that would allow them to outsource it at much greater rate than one for one with the line. What is WNs "maintenance spend " ratio? If Teasl goes away, and the company determines that TAESL made up 20% of the "spend" our cap would go up to 55%. At 55% maint spend AA could outsource all their OH and without system protection they could have us down to 3500 mechanics. So our ratio of mechanics to airplanes would be lower than UALs but those of us who didnt get laid off, (possibly)you and I, would be making a lot less money too.

By saying YES we are putting in place everything AA needs to get rid of OH and we are giving them six years to do it. If we vote no they can abrogate and do it if they can find places to send the work but dont have the luxury of six years to do it. They still have to strike a deal.

I think the company knows exactly the amount of "maint spend" that they are going to outsource in the near term....and I'm sure long-term....why isn't someone from the union getting those numbers??? I think that's the least you and other officers can do to alleviate the nerves of lots of amt's wondering if they're gonna be riffed. If you know for sure that 767 and 777's heavy's are gone....how much "maint spend" do those two aircraft represent in the overall maint. costs??? Throw in the elimination of the S80's and 757's......and it's pretty clear that OH "maint spend" will decrease by 70 or 80 percent. The 737's will be the only aircraft around needing heavy "C"s long-term. They represent around 20% of fleet, right?? It wouldn't be far fetched to see 6K or 7K amt's riffed by the time this POS t/a becomes amendable....

 

[1AA]

I think the company knows exactly the amount of "maint spend" that they are going to outsource in the near term....and I'm sure long-term....why isn't someone from the union getting those numbers??? I think that's the least you and other officers can do to alleviate the nerves of lots of amt's wondering if they're gonna be riffed. If you know for sure that 767 and 777's heavy's are gone....how much "maint spend" do those two aircraft represent in the overall maint. costs??? Throw in the elimination of the S80's and 757's......and it's pretty clear that OH "maint spend" will decrease by 70 or 80 percent. The 737's will be the only aircraft around needing heavy "C"s long-term. They represent around 20% of fleet, right?? It wouldn't be far fetched to see 6K or 7K amt's riffed by the time this POS t/a becomes amendable....

Now how does one try to explain this to a YES voter?
The union leadership at Tulsa tells a different story.
The line station presidents including AFW are in agreement
that this LBO V2.0 needs to be voted down.

 

[Bob Owens]

I think the company knows exactly the amount of "maint spend" that they are going to outsource in the near term....and I'm sure long-term....why isn't someone from the union getting those numbers??? I think that's the least you and other officers can do to alleviate the nerves of lots of amt's wondering if they're gonna be riffed. If you know for sure that 767 and 777's heavy's are gone....how much "maint spend" do those two aircraft represent in the overall maint. costs??? Throw in the elimination of the S80's and 757's......and it's pretty clear that OH "maint spend" will decrease by 70 or 80 percent. The 737's will be the only aircraft around needing heavy "C"s long-term. They represent around 20% of fleet, right?? It wouldn't be far fetched to see 6K or 7K amt's riffed by the time this POS t/a becomes amendable....

The spend will change, as the spend goes down, such as when new aircraft come, they can layoff people and it does not even affect the formula. Thats why I cant understand those who say that voting YES will save jobs. We are voting away all system protection and the more they lower costs the more people they can get rid of.

IF AA spend $1 billion on Maint they can outsource $350 million, and just keep enough mechanics to do the work that eats up the other $650 million. $650 million in just salaries would be roughly 6500 mechanics, of course thats not including parts and materials which could make that number vary a lot but this is just an illustration.

If AA decreases their Maintenance spend because of new aircraft and outsourcing to foreign countries and low wages to us to $500,000,000 then they would only have to keep $325 million in house and they could shed another 3200 mechanics.

I'm not saying those are actual numbers but the example illustrates why we need system protection and that without it there is no saving of jobs. Unlike UAL we are allowing the company to ship all fleets overseas. With their low ratse its concieveable that the company could grow their Line maint a little and get rid of all of Overhaul over the next six years, and if this passes we would have handed it to them without a fight. While some on the line may not think this is the worst thing taht could happen we are letting them do this while we get the worst pay, and the worst working condistions in the Industry.

What this comes down to is time. If we vote YES we are giving the company all the time they need to outsource as much as they like, they could layoff back as far as they want in the meantime and the more they layoff and outsource overseas, and the more new airplanes they get the more heads they can cut if they wanted to.The more they lower costs the more they can layoff. Right now they are limited because of availability, capacity is tight in the MRO market, if they abrogate they still have to deal with us or risk a strike. The International needs to do what it can to move the Section 6 process along so that we are free to self help as soon as possible should the court abrogate. We need to get released and secure a deal before AA can find places to do the work. Do I think we will get to strike? NO, if we get released we would most likely end up in a PEB which is a lot better place to be than an 1113 Hearing because in the 1113 the question before him is will abrogating the deal help the company achieve its objectives, no matter how absurd those objectives are, (unless he feels that management is leading the company into a war with its workers that would destroy the company and reduce the creditors likelyhood of getting any equity) whereas in a PEB they look at the industry and compare what each party is seeking and trys to come up with a settlement that meets both parties needs. Is it a gamble? Sure but measure what we could lose compared to what we could gain. They could impose the Mar 22 term sheet (till we strike a new deal) and we could have the opportunity to end up in a PEB or, we could be locked into the bottom of the industry for at least six more years while they cut as many heads as the market can absorb. If we say NO, more than likely they wont be able to go much past what they say they want to cut in the LBO-2 before we get released (If the International or whoever is representing us would demand it for a change), so we could negotiate and get full value for all the jobs they are going to el;iminate instead of being told a year or two down the road when guys with 1995 seniority are getting their RIF notices "You agreed to this, look at the langauge , 35% of maintenance spend, if you dont like it grieve it", and just like in 2003 when they laid off more than was agreed to, more than we got credit for,we would lose.

 

[amt66]

The spend will change, as the spend goes down, such as when new aircraft come, they can layoff people and it does not even affect the formula. Thats why I cant understand those who say that voting YES will save jobs. We are voting away all system protection and the more they lower costs the more people they can get rid of.

IF AA spend $1 billion on Maint they can outsource $350 million, and just keep enough mechanics to do the work that eats up the other $650 million. $650 million in just salaries would be roughly 6500 mechanics, of course thats not including parts and materials which could make that number vary a lot but this is just an illustration.

If AA decreases their Maintenance spend because of new aircraft and outsourcing to foreign countries and low wages to us to $500,000,000 then they would only have to keep $325 million in house and they could shed another 3200 mechanics.

I'm not saying those are actual numbers but the example illustrates why we need system protection and that without it there is no saving of jobs. Unlike UAL we are allowing the company to ship all fleets overseas. With their low ratse its concieveable that the company could grow their Line maint a little and get rid of all of Overhaul over the next six years, and if this passes we would have handed it to them without a fight. While some on the line may not think this is the worst thing taht could happen we are letting them do this while we get the worst pay, and the worst working condistions in the Industry.

What this comes down to is time. If we vote YES we are giving the company all the time they need to outsource as much as they like, they could layoff back as far as they want in the meantime and the more they layoff and outsource overseas, and the more new airplanes they get the more heads they can cut if they wanted to.The more they lower costs the more they can layoff. Right now they are limited because of availability, capacity is tight in the MRO market, if they abrogate they still have to deal with us or risk a strike. The International needs to do what it can to move the Section 6 process along so that we are free to self help as soon as possible should the court abrogate. We need to get released and secure a deal before AA can find places to do the work. Do I think we will get to strike? NO, if we get released we would most likely end up in a PEB which is a lot better place to be than an 1113 Hearing because in the 1113 the question before him is will abrogating the deal help the company achieve its objectives, no matter how absurd those objectives are, (unless he feels that management is leading the company into a war with its workers that would destroy the company and reduce the creditors likelyhood of getting any equity) whereas in a PEB they look at the industry and compare what each party is seeking and trys to come up with a settlement that meets both parties needs. Is it a gamble? Sure but measure what we could lose compared to what we could gain. They could impose the Mar 22 term sheet (till we strike a new deal) and we could have the opportunity to end up in a PEB or, we could be locked into the bottom of the industry for at least six more years while they cut as many heads as the market can absorb. If we say NO, more than likely they wont be able to go much past what they say they want to cut in the LBO-2 before we get released (If the International or whoever is representing us would demand it for a change), so we could negotiate and get full value for all the jobs they are going to el;iminate instead of being told a year or two down the road when guys with 1995 seniority are getting their RIF notices "You agreed to this, look at the langauge , 35% of maintenance spend, if you dont like it grieve it", and just like in 2003 when they laid off more than was agreed to, more than we got credit for,we would lose.

95 sen? It's going to get to 93 . I'm voting know like I did last time but your not being honest with yourself if you think a no vote is going to keep system protection. The term sheet the judge will impose clearly eliminates that

 

[Duke787]

In the litature that was spread out in our break rooms, it said if we vote this LBO down, AA will layoff 4600 mechs, if that is the case don't we have 4600 too many mechs. Also didn't our lawyer say to vote in a consensual agreement, well when we get one, we should vote it in.

 

[amt66]

In the litature that was spread out in our break rooms, it said if we vote this LBO down, AA will layoff 4600 mechs, if that is the case don't we have 4600 too many mechs. Also didn't our lawyer say to vote in a consensual agreement, well when we get one, we should vote it in.

Yes they did however for those that are left we can't live under these conditions so it's better to vote no. Don't worry in a few years everybody should be back under much better conditions thanks to the no vote!!

 

[strikeforce]

The spend will change, as the spend goes down, such as when new aircraft come, they can layoff people and it does not even affect the formula. Thats why I cant understand those who say that voting YES will save jobs. We are voting away all system protection and the more they lower costs the more people they can get rid of.

IF AA spend $1 billion on Maint they can outsource $350 million, and just keep enough mechanics to do the work that eats up the other $650 million. $650 million in just salaries would be roughly 6500 mechanics, of course thats not including parts and materials which could make that number vary a lot but this is just an illustration.

If AA decreases their Maintenance spend because of new aircraft and outsourcing to foreign countries and low wages to us to $500,000,000 then they would only have to keep $325 million in house and they could shed another 3200 mechanics.

I'm not saying those are actual numbers but the example illustrates why we need system protection and that without it there is no saving of jobs. Unlike UAL we are allowing the company to ship all fleets overseas. With their low ratse its concieveable that the company could grow their Line maint a little and get rid of all of Overhaul over the next six years, and if this passes we would have handed it to them without a fight. While some on the line may not think this is the worst thing taht could happen we are letting them do this while we get the worst pay, and the worst working condistions in the Industry.

What this comes down to is time. If we vote YES we are giving the company all the time they need to outsource as much as they like, they could layoff back as far as they want in the meantime and the more they layoff and outsource overseas, and the more new airplanes they get the more heads they can cut if they wanted to.The more they lower costs the more they can layoff. Right now they are limited because of availability, capacity is tight in the MRO market, if they abrogate they still have to deal with us or risk a strike. The International needs to do what it can to move the Section 6 process along so that we are free to self help as soon as possible should the court abrogate. We need to get released and secure a deal before AA can find places to do the work. Do I think we will get to strike? NO, if we get released we would most likely end up in a PEB which is a lot better place to be than an 1113 Hearing because in the 1113 the question before him is will abrogating the deal help the company achieve its objectives, no matter how absurd those objectives are, (unless he feels that management is leading the company into a war with its workers that would destroy the company and reduce the creditors likelyhood of getting any equity) whereas in a PEB they look at the industry and compare what each party is seeking and trys to come up with a settlement that meets both parties needs. Is it a gamble? Sure but measure what we could lose compared to what we could gain. They could impose the Mar 22 term sheet (till we strike a new deal) and we could have the opportunity to end up in a PEB or, we could be locked into the bottom of the industry for at least six more years while they cut as many heads as the market can absorb. If we say NO, more than likely they wont be able to go much past what they say they want to cut in the LBO-2 before we get released (If the International or whoever is representing us would demand it for a change), so we could negotiate and get full value for all the jobs they are going to el;iminate instead of being told a year or two down the road when guys with 1995 seniority are getting their RIF notices "You agreed to this, look at the langauge , 35% of maintenance spend, if you dont like it grieve it", and just like in 2003 when they laid off more than was agreed to, more than we got credit for,we would lose.

The company danced with the TWU, APFA, and APA for over 4 years.....what makes you so sure that AA will come running to the table if the membership votes "NO"???

I guess that's the big unknown in your quest to move from the bottom. I would believe AA would want to keep you at the bottom, and knowing your already at the bottom....the company is going to dance like their on "dancing with the stars"....or should I say, "dancing with the TWU"....like they've never danced before. I just don't agree that the company will just drop everything and start up Section 6....just to appease M&E. I'm betting you may see LBO 3, 4, or 5 before Section 6.

 

[2ndGENAMT]

95 sen? It's going to get to 93 . I'm voting know like I did last time but your not being honest with yourself if you think a no vote is going to keep system protection. The term sheet the judge will impose clearly eliminates that

The Judge doesn't impose anything! I say look AA in the eye and see who blinks first..

 

[Bob Owens]

Now how does one try to explain this to a YES voter?The union leadership at Tulsa tells a different story.The line station presidents including AFW are in agreementthat this LBO V2.0 needs to be voted down.

I think they really want to believe that the company still only wants to screw the line guys and will leave them be if they vote YES. They need to look at what the company is saying and how that can play out.

In 2003 MCI thought the same thing.

35% of "Maint Spend" Outsourced15% cap on Line maint outsourced, that counts towards the 35% but I will have to read it again, does it mean that 15% of line maint can be outsourced or that of the 35% that up to 15% can be from the line? heres the difference, if 15% of line maint spend can be outsourced that brings it down to 5% of the Total Maint spend can be from the line, leaving the other 30% from OH.

On the other hand the whole 35% can come from OH if the company chooses that. If the line makes up one third of the maintenance spend that means they can outsource more than half of OH with the 35% cap. That agrees with what management has been saying to the line, that if we vote yes, where we give away System Protection and explicetly allow more than half of OH to be outsourced that the line would become the majority, but we would still be stuck at the bottom for at least 6 more years.

They throw out the wage adjustment after three years as the means to get to the middle of bottom half but with only 5 holidays and less vacation and sick time we would still be waay behind everyone else.

Ream told the guys at JFK Earlier this week that the company wants to pay the line what other carriers pay their line mechanics(he lied, Holidays, vacation and sick time are all part of pay and he does not want to give us what everyone else has) but he wants to also pay overhaul what other airlines pay their overhaul (well thats not true either, he doesnt want to pay out OH mechanics what other airlines pay their OH mechanics, he wants to pay them MRO rates and keep the mark up).

 

[1AA]

In the litature that was spread out in our break rooms, it said if we vote this LBO down, AA will layoff 4600 mechs, if that is the case don't we have 4600 too many mechs. Also didn't our lawyer say to vote in a consensual agreement, well when we get one, we should vote it in.

It's a catch 22. If Tulsa votes it in then we have NO Article 42. Layoffs coming at companies discretion. So layoffs are coming anyway. 4200 layoffs? No way. There is overtime up the wazoo at the class 1 stations. You can not tell me that there is no overtime in Tulsa. Can someone explain this logic to the guys in Tulsa that are voting yes? Please use common sense here. Vote NO and lets continue to negotiate. The clock is ticking in our favor not the company. The company needs us to move the metal.