Outsourced Work - TULSA

[MCI transplant]

<_< ------ Informer, If you had to choose, what would it be, if it came down to either farming out the 757 overhaul , and, or, further work to Temco, or reopen MCIE? ------- And yes, I know this is vary unlikely!----- Just curious! And, what the TWU isn't telling you is, I heard that there is talk of farming out 737 work to Temco also!

<_< ------ Thank you Informer! --------- Highspeed! Same question???? And what I'm hearing about the 737's, is there anything to that? If so, can you give us a number, and what kind of work are we talking here?

 

[Birdman]

And what I'm hearing about the 737's, is there anything to that? If so, can you give us a number, and what kind of work are we talking here?

737 support is expanding rapidly in Tulsa. Retro is being reinstated on a heavy lines next turn dispite the previous 2 year moratorium. Sounds like manAAgement has made a firm commitment to handle 73's in house.

 

[Buck]

Ok Buck, my apologies then.
Your 13 word question failed to convey any connection.

Ok I will attempt to be more explicit in the future. What were everyones position concerning any outsourcing and the scope of the contract during the AMFA drives, Where there any similarities between the outsourcing and or the negotiations by the TWU then and now? Has the outsourcing committee change much? Are there any negotiators that are on the committee now that were on it in 2003? Where the goals of the RO committee the same as they were in 2003 as they are now. It would seem that there is still a lot of work going out the door that could be kept in house. I know of one person who posts here who states that there is plenty of work going out the door in the machine shop areas. Has this work been going out since 2003?

 

[MCI transplant]

737 support is expanding rapidly in Tulsa. Retro is being reinstated on a heavy lines next turn dispite the previous 2 year moratorium. Sounds like manAAgement has made a firm commitment to handle 73's in house.

<_< ------- I hope so birdman! I hope so!----- Remember the 737 was "supposed to be" based at MCIE. But that changed overnight!

 

[Overspeed]

For clarification the TWU scope language is definitely much stronger than any other union in existence to date. I have heard some arguments such as System Protection is the only thing that keeps work in house. If that was the case, AA could have allowed the work force to downsize through attrition and then started outsourcing work due to lack of TWU people to do the work. What stops AA from doing that?

The TWU agreement as well as letters from Smith, Allen, and Baker determine what AA can contract out and the system for unusual circumstances. Sometimes disagreements like the 757 C Check work go to arbitration. Yes AA has contracted out work and it was permitted under the TWU agreement but the contract and letters make it very limited and short term in regards to work that is customarily done in house. For example, when the 737 CFM56 j-hook issue was overwhelming the shop and no amount of OT would cure the problem.

AA was faced with parking aircraft and losing revenue so they initiated discussion with the TWU on how to keep that work in-house. The problem was acute and short term so a very small number of engines were above the current in-house capabilities says the arbiter. Several engines were outsourced and the engines that the company didn't have meaningful discussions were sent out. TWU grieved it and won compensation and a cessation of any further outsourcing of CFM56s. No TWU worker was laid off and OT did not change due to the outsourcing. The TWU scope clause worked.

The 777 gear work was outsourced as well but also limited in scope to set number of ship sets. The arbitrator ruled the Baker letter process was followed and the TWU discussed with AA on how to meet the 60 turn time window to keep up with the demands of the airline. The shop worked to reduce the turn time to 60 days but could not be consistent. AA could not be forced to park aircraft to keep the work in house under the scope clause. So a very small number of gears were outsourced only and no others once the shop caught up. No one was laid off and OT remained at the same level.

So outsourcing does occur but rarely when it comes to work customarily done by the TWU mechanics. Not so with AMFA scope language. NWA outsourced everything, UAL outsourced all airframe overhaul, and Alaska outsourced all heavy overhaul. None of that work has come back. The TWU scope clause is strong as some work can be contracted out but it is very restricted and must be brought back in line with the existing practice.

 

[wrencher]

<_< ------- I hope so birdman! I hope so!----- Remember the 737 was "supposed to be" based at MCIE. But that changed overnight!

Yes then they shut MCIE down and a year later outsource the work to timco. Just read overspeed's response, as long as the TWU get's compensated everything is ok and if not we will just send the stuff we can't win to the arbitator and blame it on the process. Oh by the way overspeed not eveyone has system protection.

 

[TWU informer]

For clarification the TWU scope language is definitely much stronger than any other union in existence to date. I have heard some arguments such as System Protection is the only thing that keeps work in house. If that was the case, AA could have allowed the work force to downsize through attrition and then started outsourcing work due to lack of TWU people to do the work. What stops AA from doing that?

NOTHING STOPS AA FROM DOING THAT! In fact that is what is happening right now. Just check your membership reduction since 2003.

And show me proof that "TWU scope language is stronger than any other union in existence"

The TWU agreement as well as letters from Smith, Allen, and Baker determine what AA can contract out and the system for unusual circumstances. Sometimes disagreements like the 757 C Check work go to arbitration. Yes AA has contracted out work and it was permitted under the TWU agreement but the contract and letters make it very limited and short term in regards to work that is customarily done in house. For example, when the 737 CFM56 j-hook issue was overwhelming the shop and no amount of OT would cure the problem.

With the number of spares out on the ramp, it is just a matter of time before another management crisis hits and more have to be outsourced. Just wait and see. I will even give you a clue. The issue will be Life Limtied Parts in the CFM Engines.

AA was faced with parking aircraft and losing revenue so they initiated discussion with the TWU on how to keep that work in-house. The problem was acute and short term so a very small number of engines were above the current in-house capabilities says the arbiter. Several engines were outsourced and the engines that the company didn't have meaningful discussions were sent out. TWU grieved it and won compensation and a cessation of any further outsourcing of CFM56s. No TWU worker was laid off and OT did not change due to the outsourcing. The TWU scope clause worked.

Unless of course you are in the back shops doing the component rework. Sure the Engine Shop AMT's still got O.T to do the J-Hook and Top and Bottom Case. But those that work in the back shops lost 11 engines worth of work, which created less work, less overtime, and then to top that they were cut out of the remedy of the award. Does the TWU represent everyone fairly? Or just a select few? The Engine Shop AMT worked overtime during the outsourcing and then got 100 hours of OT pay to boot via the award. The back shop AMT's got a Rock. NO OT, NO WORK, AND NO AWARD. So the scope clause worked for who?

The 777 gear work was outsourced as well but also limited in scope to set number of ship sets. The arbitrator ruled the Baker letter process was followed and the TWU discussed with AA on how to meet the 60 turn time window to keep up with the demands of the airline. The shop worked to reduce the turn time to 60 days but could not be consistent. AA could not be forced to park aircraft to keep the work in house under the scope clause. So a very small number of gears were outsourced only and no others once the shop caught up. No one was laid off and OT remained at the same level.

So Basically your best scope clause BS means the only way to keep your work is to kiss managements ass. Great

So outsourcing does occur but rarely when it comes to work customarily done by the TWU mechanics. Not so with AMFA scope language. NWA outsourced everything, UAL outsourced all airframe overhaul, and Alaska outsourced all heavy overhaul. None of that work has come back. The TWU scope clause is strong as some work can be contracted out but it is very restricted and must be brought back in line with the existing practice.

So now it is back to the old and tired TWU arguement. Which amounts to "My scope clause sucks, but not as bad as others"
How long do you think playing that fiddle works in the eyes of the membership? Come down to my work area, where we were cut out of the award of the grieveance and our contribution to the engine overhaul was minimized at best. Tell that crap your spewing to those workers overspeed. Bring a Shield and a Guard.

 

[Kev3188]

For clarification the TWU scope language is definitely much stronger than any other union in existence to date.

Laughable at best.

 

[MCI transplant]

Yes then they shut MCIE down and a year later outsource the work to timco. Just read overspeed's response, as long as the TWU get's compensated everything is ok and if not we will just send the stuff we can't win to the arbitator and blame it on the process. Oh by the way overspeed not eveyone has system protection.

<_< -------What's iroic wrencher is the fact that if ever the TWU is put in the same position as ex TWAers, with another Airline buyout/merger, their senority would be protected under new laws put into place because of the AA/TWA debockel!!!

 

[Overspeed]

NOTHING STOPS AA FROM DOING THAT! In fact that is what is happening right now. Just check your membership reduction since 2003.

And show me proof that "TWU scope language is stronger than any other union in existence"



With the number of spares out on the ramp, it is just a matter of time before another management crisis hits and more have to be outsourced. Just wait and see. I will even give you a clue. The issue will be Life Limtied Parts in the CFM Engines.



Unless of course you are in the back shops doing the component rework. Sure the Engine Shop AMT's still got O.T to do the J-Hook and Top and Bottom Case. But those that work in the back shops lost 11 engines worth of work, which created less work, less overtime, and then to top that they were cut out of the remedy of the award. Does the TWU represent everyone fairly? Or just a select few? The Engine Shop AMT worked overtime during the outsourcing and then got 100 hours of OT pay to boot via the award. The back shop AMT's got a Rock. NO OT, NO WORK, AND NO AWARD. So the scope clause worked for who?



So Basically your best scope clause BS means the only way to keep your work is to kiss managements ass. Great



So now it is back to the old and tired TWU arguement. Which amounts to "My scope clause sucks, but not as bad as others"
How long do you think playing that fiddle works in the eyes of the membership? Come down to my work area, where we were cut out of the award of the grieveance and our contribution to the engine overhaul was minimized at best. Tell that crap your spewing to those workers overspeed. Bring a Shield and a Guard.

The TWU scope language has been tested in a PEB and held. When the APA went on strike and Clinton imposed a PEB the APA challenged the TWU scope clause. AA wanted to buy RJs and the APA wanted them flown by their pilots. AA stated during negotiations that this would cost too much since if the aircraft were AA mainline they would have to be under all of AA's higher cost operational structure. APA countered and used the TWU scope clause to attack. The APA argued that since the F100 and RJ were not in AA's fleet at the time the TWU negotiated their contract the work could be outsourced. The PEB panel disagreed and said that was a faulty interpretation of the TWU scope clause and dismissed their arguments. That was over ten years ago and AA now does more work in house then at the time the PEB met and the UAL AMFA language didn't stop all their outsourcing, or the NWA outsourcing, or the Alaska outsourcing, or the Southwest outsourcing. UPS new contract allows more outsourcing of line work overseas. Southwest new contract expands outsourcing to foreign repair stations in El Salvador. There's your proof.

LLPs were due in record numbers on the JT8D and we made it through that. Now that you now I am sure you are working on a plan right now.

You make an excellent argument for labor loaning from the back shops to the engine shops. How about offloading the work that does not require a high degree of knowledge in the CFM shop like QEC build up or maybe building up to loaned out mechanics from the back shops?

You call it kissing ass but I call it showing demonstrating the real reason why AA has to keep the work in house. The skill and knowledge that our organized labor people provide over the outsourcing route. We can do the work with higher quality, lower cost, and faster turn times because we know the work better than a part time mechanic at a do it all outsourcing shop.

If our scope clause "sucks" as you put it would you like the ones they have at Southwest (cap on the number of mechanics per aircraft), UAL (A cash penalty for outsourcing over the agreed upon limit that they weakly defended and let the work go), Alaska where the shut down and entire overhaul base and let all their overhaul go, or NWA where they let everything go?

AA now does more work in house than anybody in the US. Yeah, the TWU scope language sucks. You are too smart for me.

 

[Vortilon]

The TWU scope language has been tested in a PEB and held. When the APA went on strike and Clinton imposed a PEB the APA challenged the TWU scope clause. AA wanted to buy RJs and the APA wanted them flown by their pilots. AA stated during negotiations that this would cost too much since if the aircraft were AA mainline they would have to be under all of AA's higher cost operational structure. APA countered and used the TWU scope clause to attack. The APA argued that since the F100 and RJ were not in AA's fleet at the time the TWU negotiated their contract the work could be outsourced. The PEB panel disagreed and said that was a faulty interpretation of the TWU scope clause and dismissed their arguments. That was over ten years ago and AA now does more work in house then at the time the PEB met and the UAL AMFA language didn't stop all their outsourcing, or the NWA outsourcing, or the Alaska outsourcing, or the Southwest outsourcing. UPS new contract allows more outsourcing of line work overseas. Southwest new contract expands outsourcing to foreign repair stations in El Salvador. There's your proof.

LLPs were due in record numbers on the JT8D and we made it through that. Now that you now I am sure you are working on a plan right now.

You make an excellent argument for labor loaning from the back shops to the engine shops. How about offloading the work that does not require a high degree of knowledge in the CFM shop like QEC build up or maybe building up to loaned out mechanics from the back shops?

You call it kissing ass but I call it showing demonstrating the real reason why AA has to keep the work in house. The skill and knowledge that our organized labor people provide over the outsourcing route. We can do the work with higher quality, lower cost, and faster turn times because we know the work better than a part time mechanic at a do it all outsourcing shop.

If our scope clause "sucks" as you put it would you like the ones they have at Southwest (cap on the number of mechanics per aircraft), UAL (A cash penalty for outsourcing over the agreed upon limit that they weakly defended and let the work go), Alaska where the shut down and entire overhaul base and let all their overhaul go, or NWA where they let everything go?

AA now does more work in house than anybody in the US. Yeah, the TWU scope language sucks. You are too smart for me.

All I'm saying is," The AMP can't get in soon enough".

It will be nice to rid ourselves of these sorry TWU apologists.

 

[Birdman]

Southwest new contract expands outsourcing to foreign repair stations in El Salvador. There's your proof.

It also expands inhouse heavy maintenance, adding a fourth line that pays about $10 more per hour than the AA mechanic doing the exact same work on the 737. We seem to have fundamental differences in philosophy as many of us want to protect wages and benefits, not only for ourselves, but for those who will take our places after retirement. The union elites want to sacrifice higher wages and benefits for more employees. The fact is, as Bob has stated repeatedly, the compAAny got lower wages and less employees through a system protection revision to 9/24/98 (title1) and could exercise Article 1.e.(2) any time they want.

"It is understood that nothing in this Article requires the maintenance of the present volume of work."

 

[Bob Owens]

The TWU scope language has been tested in a PEB and held.

A PEB is not an Arbitrator nor is it a court. A PEB does not make legal rulings nor are its findings binding.

From their website;

The President may create an emergency board to investigate and report on a dispute over the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Under the Railway Labor Act, the President may exercise his discretion to create an emergency board when the labor dispute threatens "substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service."

Creation of an emergency board delays a strike, lockout or other form of self-help, generally for 60 days. The emergency board has 30 days to issue its report. Generally, emergency boards provide recommendations for settlement of the dispute. After the emergency board reports to the President, the parties to the dispute have another 30 day cooling off period to consider the recommendations of the emergency board and to reach an agreement.

If no agreement is reached at the end of the cooling off period, then the parties may engage in self-help, including strikes, lockouts and unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employment.

http://www.nmb.gov/mediation/pebothr.html

More from the NMB;
1. Q: What are the functions of emergency boards?
A: Each emergency board's role is defined by the executive order creating the board. Typically, each emergency board is charged with investigating and reporting to the President about a specific labor dispute or labor disputes. Emergency Boards often include recommendations for settlement in their reports to the President.

2. Q: Who are the members of emergency boards?
A: The members of emergency boards are appointed by the President. Typically, they are professional arbitrators with experience in labor disputes. In recent years, most members of emergency boards have been members of the National Academy of Arbitrators.

So while the PEB opinion could be used to bolster our arguement its not a legal ruling. AA may claim they said what they did because of the System protection, that if they got rid of the heavies and replaced them with RJs they would still have all those workers from AA on payroll.

That was over ten years ago and AA now does more work in house then at the time the PEB met and the UAL AMFA language didn't stop all their outsourcing, or the NWA outsourcing, or the Alaska outsourcing, or the Southwest outsourcing. UPS new contract allows more outsourcing of line work overseas. Southwest new contract expands outsourcing to foreign repair stations in El Salvador. There's your proof.

UAL was under the IAM at the time the company started outsourcing, and that was in Bankruptcy.

True, AMFA did not stop NWA or Alaska from outsourcing.

SWA was outsourcing before AMFA got there, from what I was told the trade off to bring more work in house was to allow some of the work that was outsourced to go overseas. The IBT had allowed outsourcing but kept it in the US, I think they have similar language at UPS. Does SWA have more mechanics employed today than they did in 2001? I believe the answer is yes, and at top rates. Does AA? NO.

UPS is getting $50/hr, from what I've read the new agreement places more restrictions on where the do Maintenance, not less.

So you trashed the IAM, IBT and AMFA but you left out the fact that we have lead the industry in concessions, created multple pay levels or in house outsourcing which other unions found so unacceptable that the only alternative was to go BK and send the work out. Who was wrong? Us for undermining the rest of the industry or them for not willingly allow the profession to be destroyed?

What is stopping AA from sending those 757s to El Salvador instead of TIMCO? Please show me the language that prevents AA from sending the work overseas. The fact is you cant, I recall preparing our Airbus engines to be shipped overseas for OH a few years back, but after 97.

I remain convinced that System Protection remains the most important component as far as job security in the contract. A lot was given up to get it, the eight hour day,that concession equated to a 6% paycut, along with other concessions. We should not rely on claims that other clauses in our contract provide us more security than System Protection and we should remain committed to rolling it up to DOS like we have for all the other contracts except for 2003 when we rolled it back.

Your answer should be simple. Produce the verbage and the arbitrated cases that support your opinion. I dont know of any significant change in our scope since I was preparing Airbus engines for shipment to Europe, or APUs to Garret or when TWA worked our 747s or when we shipped 727s to Delta or when outside vendors worked our entertainment systems, or when they outsouced line maintenence at BDL and scores of other stations that were once staffed by AA mechanics, etc etc. The contract says they have to discuss it with us first, but discuss does not mean that we get the work, I beleieve we have to prove we can do it cheaper.


We need to roll up system protection to DOS and that will keep the work in house. Like I've said, the flaw with system protection is that it degrades over time. People leave, new people are hired without it creating the opportunity to outsource. Thats what our objection was in 2001 when we were pushing for stricter SCOPE language

The fact that despite having around 2000 people without system protection we continue to insource additional new work tells me that we do it cheaper in house, not that we have an excellent Scope clause. The fact that the company is seeking language that allows them to send work back out after we bring it in indicates that the language is good enough to protect current work but "new work" is a different story.

With all these new planes coming in and MD-80s and 757s going away we need to push system protection up to DOS. If not then I could see the company cutting heads as the MD-80s and 757s are retired. most of the reduction would be through attrition, meaning system protected workers retiring. Then the company would be using the new work for new aircraft as leverege for their next round of concessionary demands.

 

[Overspeed]

It also expands inhouse heavy maintenance, adding a fourth line that pays about $10 more per hour than the AA mechanic doing the exact same work on the 737. We seem to have fundamental differences in philosophy as many of us want to protect wages and benefits, not only for ourselves, but for those who will take our places after retirement. The union elites want to sacrifice higher wages and benefits for more employees. The fact is, as Bob has stated repeatedly, the compAAny got lower wages and less employees through a system protection revision to 9/24/98 (title1) and could exercise Article 1.e.(2) any time they want.

"It is understood that nothing in this Article requires the maintenance of the present volume of work."

Using your rationale the TWU can get you that deal. Four lines for 600 aircraft and outsource the rest of airframe, almost all components, and all engines to get $10 an hour more for the remaining 600 to 700 Base AMTs. Arpey is waiting for that deal right now.

 

[Overspeed]

A PEB is not an Arbitrator nor is it a court. A PEB does not make legal rulings nor are its findings binding.

From their website;


http://www.nmb.gov/mediation/pebothr.html



So while the PEB opinion could be used to bolster our arguement its not a legal ruling. AA may claim they said what they did because of the System protection, that if they got rid of the heavies and replaced them with RJs they would still have all those workers from AA on payroll.




UAL was under the IAM at the time the company started outsourcing, and that was in Bankruptcy.

True, AMFA did not stop NWA or Alaska from outsourcing.

SWA was outsourcing before AMFA got there, from what I was told the trade off to bring more work in house was to allow some of the work that was outsourced to go overseas. Does SWA have more mechanics employed today than they did in 2001? I believe the answer is yes, and at top rates. Does AA? NO.

UPS is getting $50/hr, from what I've read the new agreement places more restrictions on where the do Maintenance, not less.

So you trashed the IAM, IBT and AMFA but you left out the fact that we have lead the industry in concessions, created multple pay levels or in house outsourcing which other unions found so unacceptable that the only alternative was to go BK and send the work out. Who was wrong? Us for undermining the rest of the industry or them for not willingly allow the profession to be destroyed?

What is stopping AA from sending those 757s to El Salvador instead of TIMCO? Please show me the language that prevents AA from sending the work overseas. The fact is you cant, I recall preparing our Airbus engines to be shipped overseas for OH a few years back, but after 97.

I remain convinced that System Protection remains the most important component as far as job security in the contract. A lot was given up to get it, the eight hour day,that concession equated to a 6% paycut, along with other concessions. We should not rely on claims that other clauses in our contract provide us more security than System Protection and we should remain committed to rolling it up to DOS like we have for all the other contracts except for 2003 when we rolled it back.

Your answer should be simple. Produce the verbage and the arbitrated cases that support your opinion. I dont know of any significant change in our scope since I was preparing Airbus engines for shipment to Europe, or APUs to Garret or when TWA worked our 747s or when we shipped 727s to Delta or when outside vendors worked our entertainment systems etc etc. The contract says they have to discuss it with us first, but discuss does not mean that we get the work, I beleieve we have to prove we can do it cheaper.


We need to roll up system protection to DOS and that will keep the work in house. Like I've said, the flaw with system protection is that it degrades over time. People leave, new people are hired without it creating the opportunity to outsource. Thats what our objection was in 2001 when we were pushing for stricter SCOPE language

The fact that despite having around 2000 people without system protection we continue to insource additional new work tells me that we do it cheaper in house, not that we have an excellent Scope clause. The fact that the company is seeking language that allows them to send work back out after we bring it in indicates that the language is good enough to protect current work but "new work" is a different story.

With all these new planes coming in and MD-80s and 757s going away we need to push system protection up to DOS. If not then I could see the company cutting heads as the MD-80s and 757s are retired and later using the work for new aircraft as leverege for their next round of concessionary demands.

1) While the PEB makes recommendations that are not legally binding they are however made by people that are very well educated in the legal process as neither of us our not. I will go with their assessment as the APA lawyers did not press the issue and backed off the argument. Especially after the panel posed the response that the APA position could be applied to the APA as well.

2) If the aircraft were AA they would be employees working on AA payroll. APA was arguing that AA/APA pilots should fly the planes and all other jobs would be done by AE people.

3) At UAL the AMFA added new "stronger" language that was going to stop further outsourcing. That did not stop UAL did it?

4) Never said Southwest wasn't outsourcing. It just was expanded to include going down to El Salvador where all of us can agree does not pay AMFA Southwest wages. That is a labor cost offset that allows the four lines staffed by AMFA AMTs making $40 plus to have the remaining work done by sub $20 people most without licenses.

5) So TWU has the lead in concessions? What about the biggest concession of all? Increased and in some case unlimited outsourcing? TWU is definitely the worst union when it comes to allowing outsourcing.

6) Never said AA couldn't do it cheaper when looking at the entire value that the in-house work labor work force can provide. You can get a higher wage for your members provided they produce higher quality (rated by a something other than you say so), fewer out of service than the other guy, much faster turn times, change only the parts that are required (no shotgun maintenance), fewer placards (more fuel saving items repaired faster), and reapir more instead of replace just to name a few.

7) You are quite right on the newer aircraft driving a lower demand for labor. 787s don't need a C check for 12 years instead of 6. CFM56 engines stay on wing longer than than JT8Ds and RB211s. If the engines run twice as long on wing you will need twice the number of engines to equal the same volume of work in the shop. So those LLPs mentioned by TWU Informer will probably be offset by the lack of JT8D production. Yes there is less work for the Base on the horizon.

8) Read the UPS/IBT clauses regarding line work overseas. The work that can be outsourced overseas on the line is based on the amount of flying time the aircraft spends flying overseas. If that were applied at AA think of the 767 and 777 fleet flying in South America, Asia, and Europe. 767 B Check in SCL? 777 B Check in PEK? Hmmm...don't think I want that deal.