Outsourcing at AA

Are you claiming that 787s won't get a heavy check for 11 years after delivery? AA gets its first 787 in late 2014, so I would expect a heavy check within about six years of that, or by late 2020.

Well....first external structural inspection at 6 yrs & first internal inspection at 12 yrs. See link below, pg 23, middle area.
Upside to extensive use of CFRP & new technology(to the airline industry)employed on that plane. Now...if they can "exorcise" the gremlins out of that plane.

http://www.boeing.co...06_article4.pdf

If link doesn't work, just Google "787 heavy check", look for Boeing link.
 
Well....first external structural inspection at 6 yrs & first internal inspection at 12 yrs. See link below, pg 23, middle area.
Upside to extensive use of CFRP & new technology(to the airline industry)employed on that plane. Now...if they can "exorcise" the gremlins out of that plane.

http://www.boeing.co...06_article4.pdf

If link doesn't work, just Google "787 heavy check", look for Boeing link.

Thanks. The link worked fine. So perhaps 12 years before an inspection of the interior of the carbon-fibre hull? Impressive!
 
Are you claiming that 787s won't get a heavy check for 11 years after delivery? AA gets its first 787 in late 2014, so I would expect a heavy check within about six years of that, or by late 2020.
Boeing has stated that the first structure inspection (visual) will not be due for six years and the first heavy will be due in 12 years. Boeing further states that each check will drop by 20% in labor hours per check and 65% in total labor hours over the life of the aircraft as compared to a 767. The claim that the TWU scope clause will drive job loss is wrong. The real driver is the new aircraft technology coming out.

So based on Boeing estimates the first LC should be in 2020 and the first HC should be 2026.
 
You dont know what the JCBA language will be for the merger, at US only 50% of billable hours of heavy maintenance can be outsourced. Line cant be outsourced, nor line checks, A, B, Weekly, and Daily.

The AA/TWU outsourcing language is much worse, 35% of total maintenance budget.

I certainly hope the IAM's language is kept, more jobs and more job security.

Wrong, the A320 family under go a series of c-checks . its C-1 through C-12,which the the last one is a week, the S-check which is the heavy check is done after 6 years.
Basing the A320 off of AA MP. AA has not traditionally done a Phase C type program. We put the down in TUL for a LC every 18 to 24 months and a HC every six years approximately.

The TWU language caps line at 15% of line MX labor, material, and OSV spend.
 
Wrong, the A320 family under go a series of c-checks . its C-1 through C-12,which the the last one is a week, the S-check which is the heavy check is done after 6 years.

The phase c is how US does it, not everyone. The way it is maintained is however the airline decides in their mx program.
 
The claim that the TWU scope clause will drive job loss is wrong. The real driver is the new aircraft technology coming out.

When most of us talk about job losses we think of people we know losing their jobs, through layoffs. Even when we had system protection we had job losses, but the jobs that were lost were usually through attrition, people voluntarily leaving, we lost at least 3500 jobs from 2003 to 2011 even though the company had offered recall to everyone by 2011.

Nobody claimed that the Scope was "driving" job losses, instead its been said correctly that the new scope, which no longer has any system protection "will allow" the company to layoff as far as they want, which currently is capped at 35% of the spend, not 35% of the hours. 35% of spend could easily allow the company to outsource more than 50% of the hours and thus eliminate 50% or more of the workers at AA. If we had system protection still in place they could still eliminate jobs, like they did above and beyond the layoffs from 2003 to 2012 but they would have to do it through buyouts, SIS or some other incentive if attrition wasn't fast enough.

Either way, if the company wants to eliminate jobs we have never had language to prevent that and still don't.

So when you talk about how the 35% cap will be saving jobs you aren't talking about the guys who are here, it does nothing to protect most of them, you are talking about the kid who isn't even in A&P school yet, and saying that the guy who is here, who, in addition to taking pay cuts and getting the worst deal in the industry gets laid off as well, should think that this is good language because some day in the far off future AA will have to bring work back in house because they have outsourced more than 35% of the spend (or more than half the jobs), that is if the language survives the next round of negotiations which is doubtful and RR continues their partnership with AA even though AA has not opted RR for their new aircraft.

Its a shell game, we are sold system protection when the Airline is expanding, because we will not need it during the life of the agreement, so in effect its worthless but it is given a value and we are charged for it and pay for it with something tangible such as losing the first year on our pension, or flex benefits, or straight time for training, or prefunding retiree medical or having less sick time or less vacation,or B scale, if the company decides they do need to lay off you will come back and tell us to roll the date back, like in 2003, then you come and sell this 35% cap in place of system protection and act like its an industry leading deal, which it isn't, because its spend, not billable hours. This deal will allow the company to layoff as many as they want, with system protection they had to stop at 1998. The time the next negotiations start AA may be down to 6500 mechanics or so and looking to hire, not because of our scope, but for the same reason Delta will be doing the same thing, they will need to maintain their operation. I have no doubts that you will be out here trying to sell system protection again, and remove the 35% cap, of course since we will be getting system protection we will have to give some other concession in addition to the 35% cap which at that time you will admit is useless anyway, therefore has no value. These concessions will keep the average mechanic at AA at the bottom of the industry although they may adopt some sort of a premium that would go to very few people so you could come here and claim that the deal doesn't leave us at the bottom of the industry. Deals such as the limited premiums in the 2010 deal where with changes to shift start times the company could eliminate paying anyone the premium but it would still be in the book thus allowing you to come here and claim we have the best deal in the industry, only nobody actually gets that deal, what they get is the worst deal with less vacation, fewer holidays, less sick time, less IOD time and higher out of pocket medical costs and of course a lower pension based on their lower pay. Or the company could use the threat of changing the start times and eliminating the premium as a means to try and drive higher productivity, like they do now with the 4-10s.
 
Boeing has stated that the first structure inspection (visual) will not be due for six years and the first heavy will be due in 12 years. Boeing further states that each check will drop by 20% in labor hours per check and 65% in total labor hours over the life of the aircraft as compared to a 767. The claim that the TWU scope clause will drive job loss is wrong. The real driver is the new aircraft technology coming out.

So based on Boeing estimates the first LC should be in 2020 and the first HC should be 2026.
If the new scope wont drive job losses than why did it get changed? Are you saying the new language is better than the old?
 
If the new scope wont drive job losses than why did it get changed? Are you saying the new language is better than the old?
Not at all. The old language was keeping 90% of the work in-house when you count TAESL as in sourced.

The new language caps the spend at 35%. The point being made is the new aircraft have no overhaul work to apply outsourcing caps to. New aircraft drive down work load on the base side no matter what language you have. The best would be to have job protection with good scope language. They work hand in hand. One backstops the work going out and the other the jobs. Neither one on its own is best. The new scope language will flex as the fleet grows or shrinks.

At UA they negotiated only three lines regardless of fleet size and that outsourcing cannot drive layoffs. The AMFA agreement at least had a spend cap but the IBT chose to let that go in 2012. Now UA can increase outsourcing spend as long as it does not result in a RIF. All future fleet growth can now be outsourced under the IBT language. With the TWU scope future fleet growth maintenance spend on outsourcing is capped at 35%.
 
Not at all. The old language was keeping 90% of the work in-house when you count TAESL as in sourced.

The new language caps the spend at 35%. The point being made is the new aircraft have no overhaul work to apply outsourcing caps to. New aircraft drive down work load on the base side no matter what language you have. The best would be to have job protection with good scope language. They work hand in hand. One backstops the work going out and the other the jobs. Neither one on its own is best. The new scope language will flex as the fleet grows or shrinks.

At UA they negotiated only three lines regardless of fleet size and that outsourcing cannot drive layoffs. The AMFA agreement at least had a spend cap but the IBT chose to let that go in 2012. Now UA can increase outsourcing spend as long as it does not result in a RIF. All future fleet growth can now be outsourced under the IBT language. With the TWU scope future fleet growth maintenance spend on outsourcing is capped at 35%.
Funny, when the same thing happened (new aircraft) at NWA with AMFA's 38% cap, you TWU stooges printed negative attack after negative attack. Just like NWA shut down ATL and Diluth, TWU has lost MICE and AFW. Yet, now you justify the same scenario as success. Just great leadership no doubt. I bet you own some swamp land in Arizona also, don't you? Just wait until the Line AMT's become the majority, then you will really have something to defend in the overhaul world. Stupid is, as Stupid does, and your leading it.
 
Funny, when the same thing happened (new aircraft) at NWA with AMFA's 38% cap, you TWU stooges printed negative attack after negative attack. Just like NWA shut down ATL and Diluth, TWU has lost MICE and AFW. Yet, now you justify the same scenario as success. Just great leadership no doubt. I bet you own some swamp land in Arizona also, don't you? Just wait until the Line AMT's become the majority, then you will really have something to defend in the overhaul world. Stupid is, as Stupid does, and your leading it.
When did NWA replace almost its entire fleet of aircraft when AMFA was there? Never. The 38% cap was negotiated when? Outside of BK brother. The TWU cap was negotiated in BK and was 35%. In 2001 the TWU secured the same wage increase as NWA and kept outsourcing at 10% when you include TAESL. That's way better than AMFA.

The point be made is that in BK the TWU has been successful in capping work at 35% compared to AMFA's ill-fated strike resulting in outsourcing of all overhaul and all but two line stations. The AMFA back-to-work agreement resulted in a pay cut of 25% as well. AMFA had a big win in BK didn't they at NWA. Huge win!

Try telling the whole story.
 
Overspeed said:
The new language caps the spend at 35%. The point being made is the new aircraft have no overhaul work to apply outsourcing caps to. New aircraft drive down work load on the base side no matter what language you have. The best would be to have job protection with good scope language. They work hand in hand. One backstops the work going out and the other the jobs. Neither one on its own is best. The new scope language will flex as the fleet grows or shrinks. ,,,,,
When did NWA replace almost its entire fleet of aircraft when AMFA was there? Never. The 38% cap was negotiated when? Outside of BK brother. The TWU cap was negotiated in BK and was 35%.
So between the two statements you are admitting that a 35% cap on spending does not really offer our OH guys any real protection, that system protection, which you have supported giving up, along with a cap would protect current workers and ensure that in the future the company continues to hire, that with new Aircraft and total spending going down there really isn't anything in our language preventing the company from outsourcing all their work and laying them off to do so , and outsourcing it all overseas to China or El Salvador or wherever they want to, should they choose to? You need to try telling the whole story, you say no matter what language you have new aircraft will drive workload down on the base side. The fact is the company used fear targeted at the bases to get a deal put in place where they would agree to give up language where even if they had less work they would have had to keep them, YOU advocating giving that up claiming that the 35% was an adequate replacement. Now you even admit that doing so put people who were not at risk -at risk, and the company can lay off people that are here, people who have already suffered through 10 years with the least amount of Vacation, fewest Holidays, fewest sick days and bottom of the industry pay rates. people who were told that if you give up as much as we did outside of BK then we would not lose what we kept if we went BK, we ended up losing both. And you supported that. No wonder to hide under an alias. Deceptive personailites don't change so easily I guess. What sort of guarantee do we have that once the company has reached their 35% cap that during the next round of negotiations the workers who remain on payroll would not be willing to give up the cap in exchange for system protection back and the return of some of the things that make this the worst deal in the industry such as but not limited to; less vacation, less Holidays, less sick time, less IOD time, no double time, straight time for training, employee funded LTD, most expensive Health Care, lowest Field trip pay rates after 12 hours, no laundering of uniforms, no reimbursement for Passport or safety shoes, no contractual CS policy, permanent "bad boy" documentation retained in employees files, and that's all stuff from before BK, stuff that many of our peers who went BK either never lost or have regained since, never mind what we lost in BK? If the 35% hampers the companies plans in any way do you really think that guys who are left would not be willing to expand on the 35% to get what amounts to thousands of dollars a year in compensation for the hours they work? Negotiated 35%? It wasn't negotiated, that was the companies number, they picked it because they knew it would suit what they wanted to do, they admitted that if they tried to outsource as much as some of their peers did in BK that they would not see the savings because our wages were so low and they would have to pay a premium to the Vendors who are already having their own problems retaining staff. Tell the whole story.
 
Not at all. The old language was keeping 90% of the work in-house when you count TAESL as in sourced.

The new language caps the spend at 35%. The point being made is the new aircraft have no overhaul work to apply outsourcing caps to. New aircraft drive down work load on the base side no matter what language you have. The best would be to have job protection with good scope language. They work hand in hand. One backstops the work going out and the other the jobs. Neither one on its own is best. The new scope language will flex as the fleet grows or shrinks.

At UA they negotiated only three lines regardless of fleet size and that outsourcing cannot drive layoffs. The AMFA agreement at least had a spend cap but the IBT chose to let that go in 2012. Now UA can increase outsourcing spend as long as it does not result in a RIF. All future fleet growth can now be outsourced under the IBT language. With the TWU scope future fleet growth maintenance spend on outsourcing is capped at 35%.
 
Not at all. The old language was keeping 90% of the work in-house when you count TAESL as in sourced.

The new language caps the spend at 35%. The point being made is the new aircraft have no overhaul work to apply outsourcing caps to. New aircraft drive down work load on the base side no matter what language you have. The best would be to have job protection with good scope language. They work hand in hand. One backstops the work going out and the other the jobs. Neither one on its own is best. The new scope language will flex as the fleet grows or shrinks.

At UA they negotiated only three lines regardless of fleet size and that outsourcing cannot drive layoffs. The AMFA agreement at least had a spend cap but the IBT chose to let that go in 2012. Now UA can increase outsourcing spend as long as it does not result in a RIF. All future fleet growth can now be outsourced under the IBT language. With the TWU scope future fleet growth maintenance spend on outsourcing is capped at 35%.
Huge concessions were keeping the work in house not the scope. There was enough holes in the old language to outsource any new aircraft coming on line. The company got everything they wanted for now and to try and say the twu did better than anyone else in bankruptcy is laughable. How about bragging about something that is proven true, like the fact we gave up more out of bankruptcy than any union on the planet in 2003!
 
Huge concessions were keeping the work in house not the scope. There was enough holes in the old language to outsource any new aircraft coming on line. The company got everything they wanted for now and to try and say the twu did better than anyone else in bankruptcy is laughable. How about bragging about something that is proven true, like the fact we gave up more out of bankruptcy than any union on the planet in 2003!
Wrong.

http://www.twufacts.org/Portals/5/PDFs/Bankruptcy%20Comparison.pdf
 

Latest posts

Back
Top