Outsourced Work - TULSA

[Buck]

Someone needs to scold those who are not sticking to the topic.

 

[Birdman]

True it has not been tested in BK. I would hope it never is. Yes it can be changed with the stroke of pen but it has not and therefore is the best out there.

LOL, can you say "side letter of agreement"?

The non-union DL airframe overhaul mechanics that were laid off would have loved it though when their work was outsourced to AVEOS and ST Aero. And DL now has over 1,000 unlicensed mechanic helpers in ATL Base. DL management can do anything they want at any time.

You act as though there have never been layoffs at AA, the TWU never agreed to SRP/OSM, and the Delta mechanics have no choice in being non union. You should take that comedy routine on the road.

 

[TWU informer]

""

You are awesome! You missed the point. I posed cases where the TWU language is strong and also others where the language is inferior. I was not saying, "Look at them they suck more than us." To the contrary, the TWU has stood the test of time and won. The TWU language is solid and you can't accept it. A simple, "Thank you TWU for protetcing my job so I can blog would be sufficient."

One-fifth of the people are against everything all the time.

I wonder if one fifth of the fleet service clerks will be against outsource of their fueling and cabin cleaning?
Talk about TWU Outsourcing...holy cow. I think they have put a 1200 job number on that one.

The tentative agreement also gives American additional productivity and better aligns our work rules with all other airlines through outsourcing the dayline cabin cleaning and fueling work. The employees currently performing these jobs will be reassigned to other duties. The productivity improvements and savings provided through the outsourcing helps fund the structural increases and the other economic enhancements, while ensuring that we remain competitive.

I bet you have some lame excuse other than blame the TWU on this one too?

 

[Overspeed]

I wonder if one fifth of the fleet service clerks will be against outsource of their fueling and cabin cleaning?
Talk about TWU Outsourcing...holy cow. I think they have put a 1200 job number on that one.



I bet you have some lame excuse other than blame the TWU on this one too?

1) Well that's why we have a TA voting process.

2) So the Joint Committee agreed to what Southwest and UPS do (offset the higher wages of Line and a small amount of Base AMTs) by offsetting higher wages for a one group by outsourcing some work and the TWU sucks. I agree that concept may is lame but the TWU didn't start that.

 

[Overspeed]

Apparently you have never been through bankruptcy before.

We negotiated for several months, US was not interested in anything except what they presented to us as the Negotiating Committee, our CBA was abrogated in court as US wanted to lay off 46% or the M&R workforce and terminate the pension, something we could not agree too.

We gave them a full comprehensive proposal, except pension termination and they were not interested at all, they didnt want to "manage" people.

Better go read up in Section 1113 of the bankruptcy code and educate yourself.

Oh I have but apparently you haven't. Just because you propose a plan does not mean it has to be accepted. The BK judge has the ultimate say and you must not have laid out a convincing enough argument in court.

Here for you to educate yourself. And Buck now I will get back on topic.

Since the enactment of §1113, courts have developed a nine-point test for determining motions to reject CBAs under that section. See In re Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 50 B.R. 969, 974-75 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1985), aff’d., 52 B.R. 997 (W.D. Pa. 1985). Bankruptcy courts consistently apply these nine factors when deciding §1113 motions. See Truck Drivers Local 807 v. Carey Transp. Inc., 816 F.2d 82, 92 (2d Cir. 1987); Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America, 791 F.2d 1074, 1080 (3d Cir. 1986). These nine factors are:

(1) The debtor must make a proposal to modify the CBA or obtain concessions from the union;

(2) The debtor’s proposal must be based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time the proposal is made;

(3) The proposal must be necessary to the debtor’s reorganization;

(4) The proposal must treat fairly and equitably creditors, the debtor and all other affected parties; and

(5) The debtor must provide the union with relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.

After making a proposal and before the hearing:

(6) The debtor must meet at reasonable times with the union; and

(7) The debtor must negotiate in good faith with the union in an attempt to reach mutually satisfactory modifications of the CBA.

After the above steps are satisfied, courts have the authority to grant a rejection motion only if:

(8) The union has refused to accept the debtor’s proposal without good cause; and

(9) The balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of the CBA.
See In re Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, 50 B.R. at 974-75 (citing to Code §1113). All nine of these factors must be satisfied before a CBA can be rejected.

 

[TWU informer]

1) Well that's why we have a TA voting process.

2) So the Joint Committee agreed to what Southwest and UPS do (offset the higher wages of Line and a small amount of Base AMTs) by offsetting higher wages for a one group by outsourcing some work and the TWU sucks. I agree that concept may is lame but the TWU didn't start that.

There you go again with tired old arguement that the TWU might suck but not as bad as others suck.

I agree with you on the concept of others, but instead the TWU started lower payscales like B-Scales, OSM/SRP/Junior Mechanics, workers paying for medical and LTD, and gave away 50 years of negotiated contract gains to save more jobs, which through attrition the company got the head count anyway and based on two recent grievance decisions really have little protection to the jobs supposedly saved. And that started other carriers wanting the same, which those union fought off and then those airlines went bankrupt. That concessionary direction the TWU has lead since even before I became a member 28 years ago. In other words the TWU has been the leader in placing negative pressures on the profession using the concept they do lead with.


You are the one claiming TWU outsources less and has stronger scope language than any union in existence. Now you flip-flop and defend outsourcing jobs and once again blame some group other than your paid negotiators. Again, why do you not hold the TWU to the same standards you advocate or wish to hold other unions? Is it something about defending the TWU regardless of how stupid or wishy wash it makes you sound, that you feel a requirement to do? Or is it something you have been appointed to do, and get some compensation to keep propogating? How much do they pay you to propogate this B/S anyway?

 

[Overspeed]

There you go again with tired old arguement that the TWU might suck but not as bad as others suck.

I agree with you on the concept of others, but instead the TWU started lower payscales like B-Scales, OSM/SRP/Junior Mechanics, workers paying for medical and LTD, and gave away 50 years of negotiated contract gains to save more jobs, which through attrition the company got the head count anyway and based on two recent grievance decisions really have little protection to the jobs supposedly saved. And that started other carriers wanting the same, which those union fought off and then those airlines went bankrupt. That concessionary direction the TWU has lead since even before I became a member 28 years ago. In other words the TWU has been the leader in placing negative pressures on the profession using the concept they do lead with.


You are the one claiming TWU outsources less and has stronger scope language than any union in existence. Now you flip-flop and defend outsourcing jobs and once again blame some group other than your paid negotiators. Again, why do you not hold the TWU to the same standards you advocate or wish to hold other unions? Is it something about defending the TWU regardless of how stupid or wishy wash it makes you sound, that you feel a requirement to do? Or is it something you have been appointed to do, and get some compensation to keep propogating? How much do they pay you to propogate this B/S anyway?

Not that others suck more than us argument. Bottom line is I don't agree with the practice of horsetrading jobs. That fact is that outsourcing of maintenance is not only permitted by the FAA but it is promoted as well. Regulators have created the environment that allows rampant outsourcing of jobs. It started in 1978 with airline deregulation and has gotten worse. The TWU has made choices based on the industry at the time they were negotiating. The current result is that the path the TWU has chosen is providing superior results to our members.

1) AA has more overhaul AMTs making $30 plus an hour whether you look at it in sheer numbers or Base AMTs per aircraft
2) AA still has a DB Plan that has not been frozen, terminated, assumed by the PBGC, or had to have their union step up to fill in (And the IAM did do the best they could under the circumstances by protecting their members with IAM Nat'l Pension Fund)
3) AA has more AMTs per aircraft working on the Line than anyone whether you look at in AMTs per departure or aircraft
4) AA outsources the least amount of aircraft maintenance work than anyone whether you look at in percentage of maintence dollars, man hours of work, total shops, or type of work than any other major airline

I do hold the TWU to the same standards. Yes I want all the work in house if it is possible. Yes I don't want wages and benefits cut. I work with my TWU reps, fellow brothers and sisters, and management (did your skin crawl). Sometimes the choices both stink but I am not willing to go to BK. I pay attention and when our UAL, CAL, US, America West, DL, and NWAfriends got hammered in BK by the "benevolent" judge I have to say, "I can't take that ride."

And I don't get paid by anyone to post here.

 

[Overspeed]

LOL, can you say "side letter of agreement"?


You act as though there have never been layoffs at AA, the TWU never agreed to SRP/OSM, and the Delta mechanics have no choice in being non union. You should take that comedy routine on the road.

Yes I can say LOA. That's how the TWU got the Special Severance for those AMTs cut right after 9/11 and the way the recent +30 AFW OSMs that went to JFK to upgrade to AMTs back to AFW in less than the contractual limit.

See members like LOAs more than they know. Because if they did not exist, everything would go to arbitration and the outcome is not predictable or immediate. No LOAs? Yes you could have that but there are a way more good things than bad that come out of them. And that's no joke.

 

[FWAAA]

For nearly 10 years on this website, the consensus has been that outsourced overhaul is perhaps cheaper initially, but of such low quality so as to negate the initial cost savings (as all the chop shop mistakes have to be addressed by inhouse repair prior to return to service). If that's true, isn't this outsourcing of the four 757s a good thing? Won't it confirm the widely-held belief that Tulsa is overall cheaper because of the higher quality/faster turnaround?

 

[Frank Szabo]

For nearly 10 years on this website, the consensus has been that outsourced overhaul is perhaps cheaper initially, but of such low quality so as to negate the initial cost savings (as all the chop shop mistakes have to be addressed by inhouse repair prior to return to service). If that's true, isn't this outsourcing of the four 757s a good thing? Won't it confirm the widely-held belief that Tulsa is overall cheaper because of the higher quality/faster turnaround?

It could be good, could be bad, ugly, neutral or simply used as a bargaining tool by the company. Odds are AA's mechs won't be allowed a look-around when they're returned as the aircraft were signed off as airworthy. "If the paper's right, the ship is tight". Right?

I've no doubt the rumor will be started, regardless of the condition the aircraft are returned in, as to how good a job Timco did.

If that's the case, they can lay everyone in TULE off and pay them severance - you know that'll be cheap.

 

[700UW]

Oh I have but apparently you haven't. Just because you propose a plan does not mean it has to be accepted. The BK judge has the ultimate say and you must not have laid out a convincing enough argument in court.

Here for you to educate yourself. And Buck now I will get back on topic.

Since the enactment of §1113, courts have developed a nine-point test for determining motions to reject CBAs under that section. See In re Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 50 B.R. 969, 974-75 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1985), aff’d., 52 B.R. 997 (W.D. Pa. 1985). Bankruptcy courts consistently apply these nine factors when deciding §1113 motions. See Truck Drivers Local 807 v. Carey Transp. Inc., 816 F.2d 82, 92 (2d Cir. 1987); Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America, 791 F.2d 1074, 1080 (3d Cir. 1986). These nine factors are:

(1) The debtor must make a proposal to modify the CBA or obtain concessions from the union;

(2) The debtor’s proposal must be based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time the proposal is made;

(3) The proposal must be necessary to the debtor’s reorganization;

(4) The proposal must treat fairly and equitably creditors, the debtor and all other affected parties; and

(5) The debtor must provide the union with relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.

After making a proposal and before the hearing:

(6) The debtor must meet at reasonable times with the union; and

(7) The debtor must negotiate in good faith with the union in an attempt to reach mutually satisfactory modifications of the CBA.

After the above steps are satisfied, courts have the authority to grant a rejection motion only if:

(8) The union has refused to accept the debtor’s proposal without good cause; and

(9) The balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of the CBA.
See In re Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, 50 B.R. at 974-75 (citing to Code §1113). All nine of these factors must be satisfied before a CBA can be rejected.

Once again you dont comprehend, Judge Mitchell sided with the company and abrogated our CBA and distressed terminated our pension.

The Judge's responsibility is to the creditors and to ensure the POR is successful, something you dont know about, now do you?

I sat in the courtroom, sat at US headquarters trying to work a deal out, and they wanted nothing to do with it.

The last in line in fairness in bankruptcy is the employees.

But your an armchair QB, I lived it twice, have you?

 

[Overspeed]

For nearly 10 years on this website, the consensus has been that outsourced overhaul is perhaps cheaper initially, but of such low quality so as to negate the initial cost savings (as all the chop shop mistakes have to be addressed by inhouse repair prior to return to service). If that's true, isn't this outsourcing of the four 757s a good thing? Won't it confirm the widely-held belief that Tulsa is overall cheaper because of the higher quality/faster turnaround?

Cheaper can be quantified several ways.

1) What is the total cost to do the check?
2) Can they turn the aircraft faster? Do you need it faster?
3) What is the dependability of those aircraft when they come out of heavy? How do you measure it? (If it's on delays, cancels, and OTS AA is the worst in the industry. This is counter to the argument that AA in-house maintained aircraft are better than the best guys Southwest with damn near everything outsourced)

There are many facts however brought up by PBS Frontline, NPR, and Consumer Reports that say the outsourcing issue is a ticking time bomb though. While none of us wants aircraft to fall out of the sky, I hope that the FAA can get their act together soon and make a single standard for maintenance.

 

[Bob Owens]

The terminated plan was substantially reduced under the PBGC, at 50 I would have gotten around a lot more than I will get now, I will collect $563 a month at 50 from the PBGC, if I wait till I am 65 I will get $1,000, my pension was reduced 50% to 75% from what it would have been under the plan before it was terminated.

I left so I dont know what the multiplier is for the current IAMNPF for the M&R. But yes they will get to collect both.

50? You guys get to retire at 50?
Essentially your pension was frozen, not reduced correct? Your credited years stopped when the Judge terminated the plan. In other words you will get from the PBGC when you retire at 65 what you would have recieved if you quit the company the year they went BK?

So from what I'm reading here is that UAL, NWA and USAIR ground workers are all still going to get a pension from the company, these pensions will all be less than what they expected as they were all frozen, either by the company or by virtue of it being turned over to the PBGC. If you had 20 years in the pension when they froze it then worked another 10 years till you retired your pension will be based on 20 years, not 30. Howver in the meantime there was either another DB, as in the case of the IAM plan or a DC as in UAL.

We have been told that everybody except Continental lost their pensions in BK. Well while getting cheated out of the higher years prior to retiring, which is where the numbers get better, sucks, its not quite accurate that you lost your pensions. If you are able to get a match like WN and a salary like WN which would allow you to sock away the max in a 401K its possible to replace that lost income. Now that the company no longer has the pensions to hold over your head there should be nothing holding you back.

 

[Birdman]

Yes I can say LOA. That's how the TWU got the Special Severance for those AMTs cut right after 9/11 and the way the recent +30 AFW OSMs that went to JFK to upgrade to AMTs back to AFW in less than the contractual limit.

See members like LOAs more than they know. Because if they did not exist, everything would go to arbitration and the outcome is not predictable or immediate. No LOAs? Yes you could have that but there are a way more good things than bad that come out of them. And that's no joke.

I didn't say there should be no LOA, but that your so called "iron clad" language can be changed at the drop of a hat, even to the point of a contract abrogation before the amendable date, as with what occurred in 2003.

 

[700UW]

No Bob, it was not frozen, it was terminated. Only terminated pensions get turned over to the PBGC. Our pension was terminated and reduced.

We had an 85 point plan, at least age 50 and 35 years or service, I was fortunate and grandfathered in to be able to retire at 50 if I chose.

You collect at 65 the years of service and your multiplier if its over the PBGC amounts it is reduced. Mine was reduced severly at age 50 and about 50% at age 65.

You can collect at 50 as that was the terms of the plan.

The company is not paying us our pension, it will come from the PBGC and the IAMNPF, not from US.

The pension is based on the years of service up to when it was terminated, for example, mine is from 1989 till 2005, so I will collect 16 years of service.