Rumor Control early out pkg?

[eolesen]

No early outs, certainly not at the system level It's not needed, and it isn't something Parker's needed to do in the past. There may be a few cities who are overstaffed post integration, but that's not going to justify the expense of an early out when there are vacancies elsewhere.

 

[skinvalve]

The recently ratified IAM M&R TA has a Voluntary Early Out Program (VEOP).

 

[700UW]

Isn't that only if a layoff is needed?

 

[2ndGENAMT]

Early Out packages are for employees who's paid representatives have secured them some form of job protection! So no package for those represented by the TWU.

 

[2ndGENAMT]

Let's see the airline is short of pilots and is hiring FAs, and mechanics off the street hardly sounds like AA needs to shed the work force.

Let's see the airline is short of pilots and is hiring FAs, and mechanics off the street hardly sounds like AA needs to shed the work force.

True but the only cities hiring AMTs off the street are high cost of living areas where AMTs are leaving for better pay in or out of the industry.
Another failure by the TWU to secure a minimum of $50 per hour for guys in cities like New York,BOS,SFO,LAX by dividing the membership.

 

[WNMECH]

but at some point AA employees will say they are tired of being lower paid to avoid layoffs.
 

 
Not if they are represented by the TWU.
They have been selling that to AA employees for years.

 

[Rogallo]

 
Not if they are represented by the TWU.
They have been selling that to certain AA employees for years.

 
Just my 2¢

 

[FWAAA]

wonderful... but in the latest quarterly report, AA had more mainline employees for the revenue generated than their peers at other airlines. The formula to justify the extra headcount used so far has been exactly what was used at US - lower compensation instead of fewer but higher paid employees.

Parker has a window where he can get by with lower salaries but at some point AA employees will say they are tired of being lower paid to avoid layoffs.

I am hoping for your sakes that natural attrition and early out packages will account for the vast majority of the reduction in workforce numbers that has to take place in order to bring your pay up.

I applaud you for narrowing the focus to mainline employees, which takes the huge number of employees at the AAL wholly-owned regionals out of the equation.   
 
Your assertion doesn't account for differing levels of outsourcing at AA, US, DL WN or UA.   Mainline pilots and FAs cannot be outsourced but maintenance, fleet and agents can (and are) outsourced.    Is AA/US overstaffed if the total employment figures are adjusted for different outsourcing levels?    I'm not asking this in a passive/aggressive manner because I know the answer  -  I haven't analyzed it and honestly don't know.   Do you?   

For example,  WN outsources more maintenance than most (nearly all engines are power by the hour and all heavy overhaul except for the 3-4 lines at DAL).   On the other hand,   I don't think WN outsources fleet or agents.
 
I think the numbers are available for different work groups at the various airlines - but has anyone looked to see which groups are "overstaffed?"  

 

[eolesen]

That's part of the problem in looking at revenue per employee and other stats like those on Swelbar's site.

In maintenance, there's no one formula to apply for outsourcing. Same thing in ground handling.

If you can't normalize it, don't use it for comparisons.

 

[comatose]

 
Just my 2¢

 
Be careful telling the TWU you have two cents, they might seek 15% of that leaving you with 1.7 cents.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I applaud you for narrowing the focus to mainline employees, which takes the huge number of employees at the AAL wholly-owned regionals out of the equation.   
 
Your assertion doesn't account for differing levels of outsourcing at AA, US, DL WN or UA.   Mainline pilots and FAs cannot be outsourced but maintenance, fleet and agents can (and are) outsourced.    Is AA/US overstaffed if the total employment figures are adjusted for different outsourcing levels?    I'm not asking this in a passive/aggressive manner because I know the answer  -  I haven't analyzed it and honestly don't know.   Do you?   

For example,  WN outsources more maintenance than most (nearly all engines are power by the hour and all heavy overhaul except for the 3-4 lines at DAL).   On the other hand,   I don't think WN outsources fleet or agents.
 
I think the numbers are available for different work groups at the various airlines - but has anyone looked to see which groups are "overstaffed?"

.

statistics do directly compare mainline to mainline

 

[737823]

Isn't that only if a layoff is needed?

You mean you don't know the details of the very agreement your organization has been pushing?

Josh

 

[eolesen]

statistics do directly compare mainline to mainline

Except that they don't. As one example. there are locations where US has one mainline flight a day, and they're staffed by mainline employees, yet the staffing level is set to handle RJ's across their full schedule.

The ASM's get credited to the regional, the headcount is carried by the mainline.

 

[FWAAA]

.statistics do directly compare mainline to mainline

I apologize for being dense, but your cryptic phrase doesn't appear to address my points.   I'm not saying that to be obtuse.  
 
Another example is all the insourced maintenance activity of your former employer.   While it's great for DL mechanics to have lots of work maintaining other airlines' planes, the fte numbers for insourced maintenance shouldn't be counted (just like the insourced mx revenue/expenses are backed out when comparing DL unit revenue and unit expense).   AA/US is just slightly larger than DL, yet because of much lower maintenance outsourcing at the combined new AA (compared to DL), it looks like new AA has far too many mechanics and related per airplane compared to DL.   
 
So a cursory glance would lead one to believe that new AA is objectively "overstaffed" in maintenance yet a more detailed analysis might reveal that it's not.    On a subjective level, perhaps AA is overstaffed and should outsource more maintenance, but that's not my point.   Bob Owens has, in the past, made the same point that I'm making - AA's lower outsourcing will obviously mean there are more mechanics per plane than most other airlines.   That's worked for AA when combined with the very low AA wages for AMTs compared to WN, UPS, FedEx and even B6.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Except that they don't. As one example. there are locations where US has one mainline flight a day, and they're staffed by mainline employees, yet the staffing level is set to handle RJ's across their full schedule.

The ASM's get credited to the regional, the headcount is carried by the mainline.

incorrect.

DOT statistics show employee headcount for mainline vs. consolidated system and subsidiaries on an annual basis and a number of airlines show even on a quarterly basis - or in SEC filings.

Traffic is ALWAYS reported by the operating carrier.

It is absolutely industry practice to show full-time employment count by operating carrier with the capacity that is flown by each operating carrier.

The only meaningful difference is insourcing vs. outsourcing. We've been thru this before in the maintenance discussions.

Yet the difference between AA's mainline headcount and that of its peers is more than 10K employees. Even when adjusted for the difference in size, AA has close to 10K more employees than its big 4 peers.

Even if you factor in AA's lower level of total maintenance outsourcing - which was about 30% prior to the merger - it would have required AA to have had a maintenance workforce almost as large as DL's entire maintenance workforce in order to provide an equal comparison.

Given that US outsourced a higher percentage of maintenance on a dollar basis than AA, DL, or UA, AA's average is probably a lot closer to DL's ~40% or so than AA's premerger ~30%.

Parker may well not do early packages and allow normal attrition to bring down headcount or else resort to layoffs.

What is clear is that AA's RASM growth is not high enough to justify maintaining the capacity AA is flying and no business on a sustained basis can keep employees on the payroll that cannot be productively put to work.