The TWU AAdvantage

[aircraft_artificer]

The previous posts address many issues.
Pay - Why is pay so important an issue? The general public view regards AMT(Aviation Maint. Tech.) pay as very "good". Ask anyone you know. The fact is that AMT pay for the training and responsibility bestowed upon them is substandard to say the least. Especially when compared to other types of employment. IE A sanitaion engineer(garbage man) in Chicago can make as much $25 pr hr. This list goes on. IE A technical career, Elevator Tech $40 pr hr.
Read this
http://amfa2000.org/ma_grease.shtml
It may help to get a better understanding.
Responsibility?
http://amfa2000.org/ma_creed.shtml
Public opinion?
http://amfa2000.org/ma_just.shtml

Union vs Non Union
DAL went to great lengths to keep the unions out. They had to "match" or beat the "others" pay in order to stop the union drive at their company. Make no mistake they did not offer these wages willingly. Need more proof? Look at what happened with ALPA and pilot wages after the UAL pilots agreed to their contract.

Cargo vs passenger
Though the passenger carriers say "They are cargo they are different." One has to wonder about the philosophy of this statement. If people are more important then why is it that UPS pays more for its AMT's than the passenegr carriers? Here are some facts regarding that.
"BOTH" cargo and passenger operate under FAR Part 121 "Air Carrier". So much for the govt saying there is a difference.
Both share the same flight rules, airspace, airports, and maint requirements.
Both have the same possibilities of collateral damage when they come down.
Last but certainly not least, "BOTH" have human beings with families and loved ones at the controls. It makes no difference to an AMT or the govt. if one life or 500 lives are at stake the responsibility is the same.

AMFA vs industrial union
AMFA has taken great pride in trying to represent the needs of the AMT. This despite roadblocks put up by industrial unions, the companies, and the govt. The industrial union doctrine is "strength in numbers", they also have the doctrine that when in negotiations "slow down and hurt the company(though this cannot be "officially" said due to the Railway Labor Act it is heavily implied)" to make them pay you more. AMFA doctrine is to show the company you are worth the increase in pay with quality workmanship and ethics. They simply state "Prove you are an asset to the company." The FAA does not support technicians in any way. Read the latest DOT IG report. It states that the FAA oversees maint operations less than 4% of the time. There are currently over a dozen whistleblower cases filed on behalf of AMT's due to the fact that, even after going through proper FAA procedures, had to go outside this entity for merely "doing their job".

On that note
For years aviation has viewed maint as a liability that has to be endured. This thought process has to be changed to the original thought in aviation as maint being an asset that supports the asset of the aircraft. Without the aircraft there would be no business. The aircraft is a machine that must be maintained to higher standards than most due to the environment they operate in. Disagree? Think about when you take your vehicle in for service. Most of the public view it as a problem, or hinderance. Yet they realize that without it they cannot get to work, so "It must be done." Some realize this but most don't. Safety aspect? Don't get that vehicle serviced and you end up on the side of the road or worse. Yet the fact remains it is an asset that allows you to commute to the place that provides your income and supports your lifestyle.

Many of you know who Wilbur and Orville were. But...
http://amfa2000.org/ma_forgot.shtml

Do you know who their technician was? As we approach the centennial of powered flight almost no one can name the person responsible for allowing this to happen. His name was Charles Taylor. He developed and machined the first engine for an aircraft in only three months. Why have you not heard of him? He desired obscurity. He did not want the limelight he was satisfied with knowing what he had accomplished on his own. Charles Lindberg's technician earned "HALF" of what the pilot made. That number is now dwindled to less than 20% of the pilot pay.

Though this has been long maybe it will help those with questions get a better understanding. If you remember nothing else remember this,
If the pilot screws up "the pilot dies", if the mechanic screws up "the pilot dies". Think about it.

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 7/30/2003 6:09:40 AM KCFlyer wrote:




I stand corrected...It's not JUST the money, but this is the umpteenth thousandth post about how much less TWU represented unions are paid. It may not JUST be the money, but judging from the threads it would appear to represent about 90% of the issues, 8.5 percent make up a personal thing about a guy named Jim, and 1.5% about the class and craft. Is that better?

----------------​

yes

 

[FWAAA]

----------------
On 7/29/2003 4:49:48 PM Bob Owens wrote:

----------------
On 7/29/2003 4:38:33 PM FWAAA wrote:



My bad - I thought it was all about the money.
That figures.
Since your post detailed how much less you make than at AMFA-represented carriers (although by and large, the IBT actually negotiated the best deals), of course I thought it was about the money. How much less money will you accept if everyone shows you more respect?

Doesn't the public already hold airplane mechanics in high regard?
​

Well you are part of the public, your posts dont imply that you hold us in high regard. The fact is what you are paid is a reflection of what the person paying thinks you are worth. AA management feels that their mechanics are worth much less than any of the other major carriers.
My posts focus on AMR's inability to continue to pay its employees under the former wage scales. I hold airplane mechanics in high regard .
Sometimes employees are paid less than they are "worth" not to dis them but because the employer just can't afford to keep paying them more. Is it possible that AA couldn't afford to pay you your old wage?
Does the identity of their union have anything to do with it?
Of course it does. Look at what a job ALPA has done with the pilots image. As unbeleivable as it sounds AA spent more on building up the public image of mechanics than the TWU,IAM,IBT and even AMFA put together. Remember that commercial with the Crew Cheif " Even a junior mechanic can put this plane out of service".(Sure he could but he might not pass probation.) AMFA had the excuse of their limited resources but what was the other unions excuse? Lack of interest. However as AMFA grows they will have more resources. UAL will make a big difference, plus it looks like USAIR may be next. If the numbers of cards collected are accurate there is a good chance that AMFA has nearly 50% already after all the retirements and resignations are taken into account (assuming that most of the signed cards are not from those workers). With the additional 20 million in concessions that the company is demanding through health benifit cuts (works out to approximately an additional $1000 cut in gross pay/year for each member) you can expect to see a flood of more cards. Wait till the company comes back for the pension!
Are you talking about the spot with the ORD mechanic walking thru the terminal in the morning? If so, Excellent commercial - one of my favorites.
You know, if AA had slashed your pay while not cutting other groups' pay, then I'd agree with you. AA would have dissed you. But everyone suffered. The pilots and the rampers and the gate agents and the FAs. You might disagree that everyone else shouldered their fair share of the cuts - and you might be right. And if so, make sure you address that unfairness when your contract reopens.

----------------
​

 

[FrugalFlyer]

----------------
On 7/29/2003 5:42:10 PM Bob Owens wrote:
On 7/29/2003 5:29:13 PM FrugalFlyer wrote:
I'm not saying that airline workers, autoworkers, doctors, professors, etc. are whiners and complainers, on the contrary, they have my respect due to the work they do
----------------​

You claim to respect their work but you dont want them to get a fair price for their labor. Thats contradictory. Respect and fairness go hand in hand. If you respect someone you would treat them fairly.

----------------

Bob,
I don't think I said that I don't want airline workers to get a fair price for their labor. All I'm saying is that to me, and probably to a lot of others, a worker gains respect according to the work they do, not whether they are IAM, TWU, UBT, AFMA, left-handed-bagpipe-player-retrained-as-airline-worker-association, etc.

Let me use another example: I respect Roger Clemens for what he accomplished as a baseball player, not as a member of the MLB Players Association.

 

[j7915]

----------------
On 7/29/2003 4:54:14 PM FrugalFlyer wrote:

----------------

On 7/29/2003 432 PM RV4 wrote:

----------------

On 7/29/2003 4:17:12 PM FrugalFlyer wrote:


Why do you need a union to bolster the professional image of a mechanic or any other airline worker?  Can't you do that yourself?  Whatever happenned to personal responsibility?


----------------​

Read this:


http://www.amfanatl.org/Pages/08_NWA_Archi...xh/peb320nw.PDF


----------------​

RV4,

Honestly, I was going to read it, but the document / PDF file shows up as 143 pages so I didn't bother (I'm too lazy to).

Can you give me the gist of it in a couple sentences, because I'm curious why one needs a union to bolster the image of professionalism?



----------------​

I have always heard that the great AMFA mantra is that the union is nothing but the bargaining agent.

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 7/30/2003 9:54:02 AM FWAAA wrote:

Since your post detailed how much less you make than at AMFA-represented carriers (although by and large, the IBT actually negotiated the best deals), of course I thought it was about the money. How much less money will you accept if everyone shows you more respect?
Your paycheck is a reflection of what your employer feels you are worth, thats how they show respect.

My posts focus on AMR's inability to continue to pay its employees under the former wage scales. I hold airplane mechanics in high regard .
AA's inability to pay, if this inability truly existed is not the fault of the employees or what they are getting paid. If all these other carriers can pay more then AA management is doing something wrong yet people such as yourself defend the outrageous salaries they make because we need to "retain" these executives.
​

Sometimes employees are paid less than they are "worth" not to dis them but because the employer just can't afford to keep paying them more. Is it possible that AA couldn't afford to pay you your old wage?
Does AA go to the oil company and say "I cant afford to pay what everyone else pays"? Do they tell the airports that they will pay less for landing fees? If AA cant afford to pay they should close their doors. AA made a choice, they want to sell their tickets cheaper than other airlines so they can gain market share. The employees should not be forced to fund AA's greed.
You know, if AA had slashed your pay while not cutting other groups' pay, then I'd agree with you. AA would have dissed you. But everyone suffered. The pilots and the rampers and the gate agents and the FAs. You might disagree that everyone else shouldered their fair share of the cuts - and you might be right. And if so, make sure you address that unfairness when your contract reopens.
Our cuts put us below all those other airlines, including SWA. The company claimed that we had to compete with SWA however we are the only group that is expected to work for 20% less with less holidays, sick time vacation etc than our counterparts at SWA. Some of these other groups and our executives make more than their counterparts at SWA. The fact is that we were already giving the company a break as far as compensation, work rules and benifits before all this happened, that should have been taken into consideration.If the other groups are making more than their counterparts at SWA then yes, we were forced to bear an unfair burden.

----------------
​

----------------​

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 7/30/2003 7:55:06 AM aircraft_artificer wrote:


Union vs Non Union
DAL went to great lengths to keep the unions out. They had to "match" or beat the "others" pay in order to stop the union drive at their company. Make no mistake they did not offer these wages willingly. Need more proof? Look at what happened with ALPA and pilot wages after the UAL pilots agreed to their contract.
Delta pilots are in ALPA. One of the few unions on the property.

Cargo vs passenger
Though the passenger carriers say "They are cargo they are different." One has to wonder about the philosophy of this statement. If people are more important then why is it that UPS pays more for its AMT's than the passenegr carriers? Here are some facts regarding that.
"BOTH" cargo and passenger operate under FAR Part 121 "Air Carrier". So much for the govt saying there is a difference.
Both share the same flight rules, airspace, airports, and maint requirements.
Both have the same possibilities of collateral damage when they come down.
Last but certainly not least, "BOTH" have human beings with families and loved ones at the controls. It makes no difference to an AMT or the govt. if one life or 500 lives are at stake the responsibility is the same.
Thats our arguement but the Unions we have in place would never support it. THats one of the reasons why mechanics all need to get into one union.

AMFA vs industrial union
AMFA has taken great pride in trying to represent the needs of the AMT. This despite roadblocks put up by industrial unions, the companies, and the govt. The industrial union doctrine is "strength in numbers", they also have the doctrine that when in negotiations "slow down and hurt the company(though this cannot be "officially" said due to the Railway Labor Act it is heavily implied)" to make them pay you more. AMFA doctrine is to show the company you are worth the increase in pay with quality workmanship and ethics. They simply state "Prove you are an asset to the company." The FAA does not support technicians in any way. Read the latest DOT IG report. It states that the FAA oversees maint operations less than 4% of the time. There are currently over a dozen whistleblower cases filed on behalf of AMT's due to the fact that, even after going through proper FAA procedures, had to go outside this entity for merely "doing their job".
Industrial unions can be very productive. The UAW and the Longshoremans union are examples of good insustrial unions. However if several industrial unions from other industries carve up an industry between them,the unions "share" of of the industry is dependant upon the company they have members in. If the union helps to give that company a competative advantage through lower labor costs (ie lower compensation for its members) then the "union" stands to benifit. So the union does well if the company does well, even if it is at the expense of the members. When a union lacks accountability to the members its easy for them to pursue policies that put the members interests behind that of the leaders of the orgainzation.
As the decline progresses naturally each group within the union turn on each other to get as much of the shrinking peice of the pie that the union and the company makes available. Since the association with other types of workers is no longer benificial, since they have become competitors instead of associates due to the union/company alliance, the next logical step is try and gain representation where the representative organization is primarily driven to meet the members needs and not the company's..

On that note
For years aviation has viewed maint as a liability that has to be endured. This thought process has to be changed to the original thought in aviation as maint being an asset that supports the asset of the aircraft. Without the aircraft there would be no business. The aircraft is a machine that must be maintained to higher standards than most due to the environment they operate in. Disagree? Think about when you take your vehicle in for service. Most of the public view it as a problem, or hinderance. Yet they realize that without it they cannot get to work, so "It must be done." Some realize this but most don't. Safety aspect? Don't get that vehicle serviced and you end up on the side of the road or worse. Yet the fact remains it is an asset that allows you to commute to the place that provides your income and supports your lifestyle.
Well actually all labor costs are considered a liability(expense is a better term). Like an ex CEO once said "I want to manage airplanes, not people".

Many of you know who Wilbur and Orville were. But...
http://amfa2000.org/ma_forgot.shtml

Do you know who their technician was? As we approach the centennial of powered flight almost no one can name the person responsible for allowing this to happen. His name was Charles Taylor. He developed and machined the first engine for an aircraft in only three months. Why have you not heard of him? He desired obscurity. He did not want the limelight he was satisfied with knowing what he had accomplished on his own. Charles Lindberg's technician earned "HALF" of what the pilot made. That number is now dwindled to less than 20% of the pilot pay.

Though this has been long maybe it will help those with questions get a better understanding. If you remember nothing else remember this,
If the pilot screws up "the pilot dies", if the mechanic screws up "the pilot dies". Think about it.
Both bear a high amount of responsibility, however the pilots penalty for screwing up is more severe.





----------------
​