As usual cherry picking for the company I see.You leave out the fact that the company changed the window where night shift pay would apply, under their new formula they could change the start times and have 24 hour coverage and not pay anyone the premium. Retiree medical. They could have guys working at midnight only getting 1 cent an hour shift differential and guys starting work before 5 am not getting any differential. Rapid recovery? No, there was a provision where if someone was out of work for a single illness 45 days or more they would reinstate the sick bank that time lost upon retirement. At our peers with rapid re-accrual they could use it as sick time as well and it didn't have to be at least 45 days. Its rare that someone is out that long for a single illness. Odds are if they are out that long they will not live to collect retiree medical anyway. And that was only from 5/5/2010 going forward, anyone who had a catastrophic illness or injury prior to then was screwed. As far as the Bridge, at 49 it would cost you all the funds you had in the prefunding plan for 840 credits. At 240 credits per year it would have cost me $14,000 for 3.5 years of coverage. That's only because I was Grandfathered in at low prefunding rates, others could be paying several times that. Those under 45 who paid into the fund for up to 14 years would simply lose their prefunding match. The fact is the company knew that the plan they were proposing would make it impossible for most to retiree at 55. In their Q&A they said the average employee had 540 hours of sick time, so even with the 840 hour bridge that would only bring them up to 1380 hours, they would still need 1020 hours and they were only bumping the accrual rate to 8 days per year or 64 credits per year. So on average a worker who was 49 with 540 hours would need 16 years going forward of perfect attendance to retire at 55. Lets look at a 49 year old who had perfect attendance for 25 years. He would have 1200 hours, plus the 840 he paid at least $14000 for, he would have 2040 hours, if he had perfect attendance till he was 55 he still would be short by 40 hours. It gets worse for each year on down to 45 where all his prefunding monies would buy him just two years of coverage. Even if he had perfect attendance his entire career he would be short by an even wider margin than the 49 year old. You would have needed nearly four years of perfect attendance for each year of coverage. At 8 days per year anyone hired after 2010 would need 37.5 years of perfect attendance to get retiree medical. Do the math, at an average age of 25 that makes them 62.5 years old. And we lost the $25/day we got for unused sick time. Those hired from 2003 would need as much as 40 years of perfect attendance because from 2003 on we only got 5 days per year, and on average we used 5.1. Once again at SWA they would only need 12.5 years of perfect attendance to accumulate enough credits to cover them from 55. 12.5 years vs 40 years. yea , that's similar!? At least according to Overspin.
Outsourcing at AA
- Thread starter Duke787
- Start date
comatose
Senior
Can you seriously use the word gainfully? Tell me what we have gained?
And secondly to call yourself a mechanic is an embarassssment to the rest.
I wouldn't trust you changing the oil in my car much less working on an airplane.
Here are the mechanics who would not have received the MRT , ALL Title II mechanics (appx 2000) ALL OH mechanics,(Appx 6500), ALL Line mechanics who did not start their shifts between 2000 and 0400. (anywhere from 1500 to 3500) The company could change the start time to 19.59 and have day shift start at 0401 and not pay anyone night shift. So anywhere from 10000 to 12000 would not be getting the MRT. Line premium, only Line A&Ps get the $2.55 Line Premium so by excluding all of T-II (they were offered $1.95) and all of OH that also excluded the majority of the mechanics. So tell us how you figure "therefore a majority of the mechanics"?
OOps. Forgot one last thing about Retiree Medical, the Max Accrual of hours was only adjusted to 2000hrs, but in order to retire at 55 you would need 2400 hours to bring you to 65. So in other words even if you started at 18 years of age and had perfect attendance for 37 years you still would not be able accumulate enough sick time to retire at 55. So how is this similar to SWA? Nobody who was under 50 on DOS would be able to accumulate enough credits to retire at 55 and have coverage till Medicare kicked in.
Overspin: "They are similar"."http://media.photobu...am/outhouse.gif
http://www.motherjon...h/stone-mansion
http://www.motherjon...h/stone-mansion
NYer
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2010
- 4,167
- 905
There is not one union that have been able to prevent what's been happening in this industry for the last 30 years. Not one. In the meantime, many other groups have been able to realize what is achievable and what is not therefore they have gained in other areas. Drawing lines in the sand over the last few contract negotiations has allowed time to pass, while we adhere to the losses subjected to all other unions, but not gaining anything in return. Again, slow progress, is progress.
Trying to hold onto something that has been lost in the airline industry and has been a trend even with unionized government workers is not a manner to move forward. If we want to fight for those things and if we want to make a stand then let's do it....but to then also complain there are no gains, is just a little ridiculous.
It's like getting into a bar fight with someone and then expect them to cover your tab.
How dare you contradict the TWU about not outsourcing and saving jobs!!!!!
Talking about A319s
The company hasn’t specified where those new Airbus planes will be maintained. The company’s primary overhaul facility, with more than 6,000 employees, is located in Tulsa.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/post.aspx/Airbus_319_marks_turning_point_for_American_Airlines/61-21376
Wouldn't that be contradictory to the TWU talking point of "The TWU saved overhaul" the talking point should be,
"AA kept as much OH as it wanted to, we have no control over that"
The company hasn’t specified where those new Airbus planes will be maintained. The company’s primary overhaul facility, with more than 6,000 employees, is located in Tulsa.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/post.aspx/Airbus_319_marks_turning_point_for_American_Airlines/61-21376
Wouldn't that be contradictory to the TWU talking point of "The TWU saved overhaul" the talking point should be,
"AA kept as much OH as it wanted to, we have no control over that"
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
The TWU never said there would be no outsourcing. The contract clearly stated that CFPs would be outsourced. The statement that jobs were saved is when you compare what the ask was and what the reality is. AA wanted to got to 45% or what United, US, and Delta have which would have equated to 4,500 jobs approximately. The 35% cap brings us to about 2,500 jobs due to outsourcing. Any future job reductions will be directly related to new fleet maintenance requirements and not outsourcing.
Newer aircraft these days have better technology and much improved structural assemblies. Fuselages now can go more hours between overhauls and systems are more reliable. With the new deals AA acquired with this new massive order many aircraft will not see any kind of major overhaul for several years. So when the 757's and MD-80's get replaced one for one with new aircraft what will AA do with all the extra heads in overhaul? Will AA create a MRO and start performing contract maintenance?
With the 767's and 777's being outsourced the only logical answer is a reduction of the head count for overhaul. I read something back when AA placed this massive order that when a aircraft is due for a heavy check AA will simply swap it out for a new replacement. I believe that was in reference to the Airbus aircraft not the Boeing ones. AA already has a deal to have the new generation 737's overhauls to be done by Boeing or some other company. So if this all goes into place where are the job savings the TWU promised if we voted YES?
With the 767's and 777's being outsourced the only logical answer is a reduction of the head count for overhaul. I read something back when AA placed this massive order that when a aircraft is due for a heavy check AA will simply swap it out for a new replacement. I believe that was in reference to the Airbus aircraft not the Boeing ones. AA already has a deal to have the new generation 737's overhauls to be done by Boeing or some other company. So if this all goes into place where are the job savings the TWU promised if we voted YES?
