The Ultimate In Outsourced Work

[will fix for food]

Then why doesn't American Eagle pay for their OWN Management?

If you look at the Corporate Management Ladder, nearly ALL highly paid Corporate Management are placed directly on AA payroll, yet Eagle uses all of the folks for their operation.

Look at this Corporate Ladder

Of course Eagle is profitable, AA funds their complete Management structure.

Are you telling me Eagle only needs three Corporate Officers and AA needs the rest.

That is bogus and unfair.

OK, I just had to repost this one more time because I think it is so incredibly laughable that you think that a few corporate officers wages would affect the bottom lines of two multi-billion dollar companies so completely as to make one profitable and one not. I mean their pay would have to be astronomical! You are really something Dave.

BTW, you might want to modify that "complete management structure" statement.
All of the supervisors on up to the managers at my station are on the Eagle payroll.

 

[limit]

"Why is it that "Who Does the Heavy Maintenance" on these jets is never a contractual dispute or issue with the TWU at AA?"

American Eagle mechanics work on the American Eagle planes. You have as much right to them as we have to working on the 777. If you guys really wanted to work on them you had at least the last 15 years to try and force the union and the company to accept a single seniority list. It was in your hands, not ours, we don't have the numbers for that kind of clout.

You are missing the point here.

We (the twu mechanics) could not force the
Union (twu) and/or the company to accept anything.
The twu mechanics have been helpless to the decisions
of the twu international, that runs this fiasco of a union.
It was n e v e r in our hands (the mechanics).
The twu never allowed us that luxury.
This is one of the reasons we want to change unions.
You do agree we should be able to do so if we choose, dont you?

 

[Decision 2004]

OK, I just had to repost this one more time because I think it is so incredibly laughable that you think that a few corporate officers wages would affect the bottom lines of two multi-billion dollar companies so completely as to make one profitable and one not. I mean their pay would have to be astronomical! You are really something Dave.

BTW, you might want to modify that "complete management structure" statement.
All of the supervisors on up to the managers at my station are on the Eagle payroll.

I believe their pay is astronomical.

That is exactly the point.

We'll give you the Supervisor and Managers alright.

But what about the upper and most expensive structure?

 

[will fix for food]

This is one of the reasons we want to change unions.
You do agree we should be able to do so if we choose, dont you?

Of course I do.

 

[will fix for food]

OK Dave, I'll bite.

I clicked on the link you provided and saw all the names. Obviously Bowler, Henderson and Snook are Eagle, but how many of the other names on that list make decisions that affect Eagle?

 

[Decision 2004]

OK Dave, I'll bite.

I clicked on the link you provided and saw all the names. Obviously Bowler, Henderson and Snook are Eagle, but how many of the other names on that list make decisions that affect Eagle?

I wasn't in particular talking about decision making.

I was talking legal, marketing, hub allocation, human resources, website developement, real estate, planning, purchasing, revenue management, strategy and support, ect. and the resources and staff required to maintain those departments that Eagle surely uses on a daily basis.

Look I am not picking a fight with those at Eagle, I hope each of you the best, just pay your fair share is all I ask.

It just seems to me that AA concessions are funding the Eagle massive expansion. Just like Sabre in the 1980's. Next thing you know, Eagle will be spun-off and the pocket liners will be rich and leave the workers hanging once again.

 

[will fix for food]

"I wasn't in particular talking about decision making.

I was talking legal, marketing, hub allocation, human resources, website developement, real estate, planning, purchasing, revenue management, strategy and support, ect. and the resources and staff required to maintain those departments that Eagle surely uses on a daily basis."


Well all those departments make decisions that affect Eagle, so yes you are talking about decision making. Those departments make decisions to (hopefully) maximize the profits of AMR's core business, the airline group of American and American Eagle. You obviously believe that the cost of maintaining those departments is borne exclusively by the revenues produced from American Airlines passengers. So my question is; Why do you think that? Do you have some sort of documents that show this to be true or are you just guessing it because it says American on those employees ID's. I know that American charges Eagle for other services provided, I don't know why those would be any different.


"Look I am not picking a fight with those at Eagle, I hope each of you the best, just pay your fair share is all I ask."


You made this same statement back in September 2003. I asked you then to provide some documentation to prove that American gives Eagle free services. I am still waiting.


"It just seems to me that AA concessions are funding the Eagle massive expansion. Just like Sabre in the 1980's. Next thing you know, Eagle will be spun-off and the pocket liners will be rich and leave the workers hanging once again."


Again a rehash of the previous thread. And again, according to Bowler, Eagle is carrying the expansion debt on it's own books. Your concessions are going to fix up your own house. Sorry. As far as a possible spin-off, I would imagine that it would be either to get around SCOPE restrictions or to raise cash to pay down debt or both. The question would then be what debt? Conventional wisdom at Eagle says the pension obligations....YOUR pension obligations. We don't get a pension.

 

[Decision 2004]

You win.

I am wrong!

 

[Bob Owens]

The question would then be what debt? Conventional wisdom at Eagle says the pension obligations....YOUR pension obligations. We don't get a pension. [/color]

Hey didnt Jim Little negotiate your no-pension contract?

What is the duration of your contract? Isnt it something like twelve years with "openers" in between?

When are you guys starting an AMFA drive?

 

[will fix for food]

You win.

I am wrong!

No kidding.

 

[Drip E. Kwill]

You win.

I am wrong!

You knew you were wrong when you initially posted, but that's your style, how sad.

 

[will fix for food]

Hey didnt Jim Little negotiate your no-pension contract?

What is the duration of your contract? Isnt it something like twelve years with "openers" in between?

When are you guys starting an AMFA drive?

"Hey didnt Jim Little negotiate your no-pension contract?"


He sure did and he did an exceedingly average job of it. I don't think JL was looking to break any new ground on our behalf. Even now as far as the pension goes the only small jet operator that I know of that gives any sort of pension to it's mechanics is Air Wisconsin.


"What is the duration of your contract? Isnt it something like twelve years with "openers" in between?"


It was five years and was ammendable last April. The twelve year contract you are refering to is for the ALPA represented Eagle pilots. Yep, ALPA f----d them pretty good. That's why I have to laugh whenever I read or hear someone say that we should have a union as good and as strong as ALPA. All those people know is the 777 captain pay rates and don't realize that for every 777 captain there are 10 ALPA represented RJ drivers that are barely making enough to stay off food stamps.


"When are you guys starting an AMFA drive?"


It's simmering on the back burner now. If and when you guys make the jump I am sure it will give it a kick start but I don't think there is a big rush to sign cards this late in negotiations. Obviously if they bring back something insulting the cards will get signed, if it's decent, they won't.

 

[James T. Kirk]

Name: Observer
Employer: AA
Location: ORD
Date: Saturday, May 01, 2004
Time: 05:47 AM


Comments
Please give the unknowing some info. Many of the supporters of the association here at AA espouse that under the IAM there was 100% contracting out and that the 38% language you have now was an improvement. Not being familiar with your previous contract, my only knowledge was that while amts were not on layoff, contracting out was allowed and if there was a layoff then no more contracting out was permitted until the amt's were recalled. I would appreciate any insight on this issue.

When the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) and Northwest Airlines (NWA) reached a tentative agreement, one of the prouder points of the AMFA negotiating committee was the 38% subcontracting limit where we would finally have a grip on subcontracting. If NWA exceeded the subcontracting limit, there would be a penalty of 100% of the dollar amount of the excedent. AMFA leadership also stated many times that the previous International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers (IAM) agreement did nothing to stop the subcontracting of our work.

The subcontracting language in the previous IAM agreement was simple, all negotiated work as describe in article 2 (Scope of agreement) was our work to be performed by IAM Mechanics and related personnel, period. Nothing in the agreement allowed the Company to subcontract our work. Article 2(F) created a committee to review current subcontracted work. Its goal was to return work back to its IAM members without relinquishing, any right(s) of the Union to file a grievance. Article 2(F)a states:

“… to provide advice to management as to what work could be returned to Company premises to be performed by the Company’s IAM represented employees. …â€

NWA violated the IAM agreement on subcontracting issues. The IAM filed grievances when our work was subcontracted. There were arbitrations over the issue. The IAM won some and lost some, this did not deter the IAM in filing other subcontracting grievances.

When presenting an issue to an arbitrator, the many variables considered by the arbitrator in deciding the grievance include: profitability, overtime, laid off employees, cost of doing the work in-house, is it good business, and so on. One of the biggest factors is the arbitrator himself. Is he pro-labor or pro-business? It has been our experience that most arbitrators are self-employed, pro-business, and believe that the Company has the right to run their business as they see fit.

In the new AMFA agreement, article 2 is basically the same as the previous IAM agreement except for two major changes. Article 2 (F) created a committee to review current subcontracted work. The new language does not include the goal that would return work back to its AMFA members.

The other major change to article 2 is the addition of paragraph (F)3, which defines the allowable subcontracting limits for four separate categories: Airframe and Engine Component, Plant Maintenance, Facilities Maintenance and Ground Operations Cleaners.. Although each category has it’s own limits, I will address the Airframe and Engine Component category. Article 2(F)3,a,1,a states the following:

“Airframe, Engine and Component Subcontracting Outside Vendor Labor dollars (less labor from in sourced work, not including in sourced LMO labor) shall not exceed thirty-eight (38) percent of total labor dollars spent on Outside Vendor Labor plus in-house Labor.â€

Taking this language literally, you could assume that NWA could not subcontract more than 38% of our work, however, contractual language always intertwines with other parts of an agreement, as it does in this case. When you examine the language closely, article 2(F)3,b, defines “Outside Vendor Labor†and “In-house Labor†Our current subcontracting language is completely based on “total labor dollarsâ€. Labor costs at Repair Stations are generally lower than NWA. In fact Repair Stations like the new EADS Aeroframe Services’ facility in Lake Charles, LA, now performs maintenance on Airbus aircraft. Sonny Stern, sales director for EADS Aeroframe Services’ is quoted in the November, 2001 issue of Overhaul & Maintenance magazine that “the facility is earmarked to work on airplanes from the Americas†and blatantly states that it costs major U.S. airlines “roughly double what it costs us†for touch labor. “That’s the lureâ€. NWA generally subcontracts our work because they believe it can be done cheaper. If this is true, than theoretically, compared to the labor costs at NWA, the 38% Subcontracting limit may be more than just 38% of our work.

For example:

Assuming the total labor dollars spent by NWA on Outside Vendor Labor plus in-house Labor totaled one hundred dollars ($100.00), NWA would be allowed to subcontract $38.00 (38% of $100.00). Assume that the total labor cost per hour for one NWA technician is one dollar ($1.00). As stated by Sonny Stern, EADS Aeroframe Services’ (paraphrasing), the labor costs at the Lake Charles facility is half of what it is at major U.S. airlines. Using the above assumption, this would indicate that their total labor cost per hour is fifty-cents ($0.50). Therefore, for every dollar ($1.00) that NWA spends for a technician to perform one (1) hour of maintenance, a subcontractor, like EADS Aeroframe Services’, would be able to perform two (2) hours of the same work.

Assuming it is true that subcontracting facilities can perform maintenance at half the cost of U.S. major airlines, the example above indicates, that NWA would be allowed to subcontract 76% of our work and stay within the contractual limit of 38%, of the total labor dollars spent on Outside Vendor Labor plus in-house Labor. In addition, article 2(F)3,c, gives NWA numerous exceptions to the 38% subcontracting limit that “…shall not apply…â€.

If NWA subcontracted more than 38% of the total labor dollars, not including the exceptions, there would be a violation of article 2(F)3,d and I believe that AMFA would file a grievance.

“If the Company exceeds subcontracting limits, the Company will compensate the Association 100 percent of the dollar amount of the excedent.â€

In our opinion, NWA would exercise their right to present the facts to an arbitrator before paying a penalty. NWA would argue that the listed exceptions are not all-inclusive and therefore, would have the right to add additional exceptions. The statement “includes the following†located in Paragraph (F)3,c,1 will be at the center of attention. An arbitrator will decide if “includes the following†is an all-inclusive list of exceptions or not.

If AMFA is successful and the arbitrator rules in our favor, who wins? The monetary settlement does not go to our members that are laid off, it does not return our members back to work. The monetary settlement goes to the AMFA National (per national policy). So, who really wins? According to our national policy, the only real winners are the AMFA National.

The bottom line, like it or not, there is no limit on how much NWA can subcontract, there is only a penalty for anything subcontracted over the 38%. It would have been in our best interest if the negotiators had listened to some of the former representatives and negotiated language on a man-hour-to-man-hour scenario rather than dollar-to-dollar. A man-hour-to-man-hour scenario would have truly limited subcontracting and protected all of our jobs.

In the end, the new AMFA negotiated language hurts all of us. It allows NWA to subcontract our negotiated work, while our members are being laid off. On the other hand, the IAM subcontracting language, though not bullet proof, protected the membership and did not give any rights to NWA to subcontract our negotiated work.

Did the IAM win all the subcontracting grievances? No, but they did win when IAM members were laid off. Those members, not the union, received any monetary settlement. The injured party is the laid off member, not the Union! Think about it!

Because of the IAM's arbitration, when the company farmed work out in violation of the previous contract language, affected members received their lost pay and the bargaining unit work returned to them. Following are excerpts from these awards:

Arbitrator, Levi Hall, ruled in 1965:

“The agreement has been violated. The record, however, is silent as to any actual damages sustained by the Petitioners. There is a legal maxim that `there is no wrong without a remedy.’ To protect the rights under the agreement, the petitioners are entitled to at least nominal damages ... .â€

Arbitrator, Ronald Haughton, ruled in May 1967:

“The company violated the contract, the question of damages must be considered. Since it has not been shown that any Northwest Airlines Personnel suffered any loss of time or wage … the award simply will be that the protested work be returned to the bargaining unit.â€

Arbitrator, Benjamin Rubenstein, ruled in April 1974:

“NWA did breach Article II © of said agreement when it contracted out to the Boeing Company certain crown skin project work … the approximate number of hours devoted by Boeing employees … to accomplish the crown skin project work … shall be reconstructed and divided among NWA mechanics as determined by the parties at their existing straight time hourly rate.â€

Arbitrator, Gamser’s decision quoted as follows in Arbitrator Rehmus’ ruling:

“ … work performed at company bases is specified to come within the jurisdiction of the IAMAW and be covered by its agreement … and is obvious from … clear language and intent of the Agreement.†The Company was directed to assign to IAMAW members work that had been performed by another union for over 20 years.

Arbitrator, Charles Rehmus, ruled in 1983:

“A reasonable interpretation of the contract in this case is made clear by prior decisions of the System Board. The parties have had twelve (12) previous decisions on the company’s right to contract out work, eight (8) upholding that right and four (4) denying it. The twelve previous decisions … constitute their body of law on whether there exist implicit contractual restraints on the contracting out of work described as within the scope of the bargaining unit, for prior Board decisions are described as `final and binding’ and precedent - setting upon the parties. The contracting out … had a significant adverse impact upon the bargaining unit members in that it permitted their numbers to be reduced … gradual erosion of the bargaining unit took place beginning shortly after the subcontract occurred. The subcontract, while it may not have caused it, clearly assisted such erosion to continue. The work subcontracted here is core, routine work which the contract mandates shall be done by the bargaining unit. The company’s decision denied unit members the right to continue to do work which they had always routinely performed, the subcontract contributed to erosion of the bargaining unit; indirectly but nonetheless inevitably.â€

“Grievance No. 10783 and all other pending grievances relating to the contracting out of the work … at the Honolulu base are sustained. This work shall be returned to members of the bargaining unit as expeditiously as possible.â€

With this background, it is difficult to understand how we have arrived at a position where the company is contracting out our work and laying off our members. Unfortunately, now we have to deal with new AMFA contract language, language that is untested in arbitration and it is already in dispute. Even worse, is the fact that the agreement is in dispute at a time when so many jobs are dependent on it. With so many jobs in jeopardy, what is needed, is well established and tested language as contained in the previous contract. We NOW have subcontracting language that ALLOWS FAR MORE WORK TO BE FARMED-OUT than we were led to believe at contract ratification. One thing for sure, at this point, we have no iron clad language, nor do we have layoff protection that we were led to believe existed. I believe that if we did, we would not be having this dispute. The only decent thing to do for the laid off employees, at this point, is to expedite all disputed issues to arbitration as quickly as possible in order to determine what is going to happen to their jobs so they can get on with their lives.

 

[Rusty]

Name: Observer
Employer: AA
Location: ORD
Date: Saturday, May 01, 2004
Time: 05:47 AM

Sounds like another twu cultist here at AA spewing more lies and crap. Why do I think this is written by Jerry Sowell(sp) an x-iam officer. I am sure as soon as we kick out the twu we will hear the same kind of rhetoric!!!

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

So CAPTAIN KIRK,

Why couldn't the almighty IAM stop Northwest from farming out their DC-10s to Signapore or engines to Pratt+Whitney? Be careful what you say captain,you're being watched!