TUL mechs

[Chuck Schalk]

 
How do you balme aircraft not needing overhauls due to being replaced by newer aircraft to the the TWU?
 
TUL would have shrunk with or without the new CBA. The difference is under the original "ask" the company wanted to outsource closer to what has been the industry standard (closer to 50%). Those airlines that outsource around 50% for your information are represented by the IBT and AMFA, not the TWU.

The ask of 50% is BS and a throw away number at that. It used a numbers game to make it look better than it is. Example:  advertisment of 50% off manufacturers listed price is BS yet makes it appear you will recieve 50% off when it is actually much less from the retail price.
The TWU is no different with the numbers game, it is all in our contract numbers upon numbers which decieve the reality.
 
If Tulsa was to shrink with or without the CBA then why didn't the TWU and John hewitt say that before the vote? Another act to decieve the members into false sense of security by voting yes even though the TWU knew differently. your statement only proves what has been said over and over again.

 

[Chuck Schalk]

OVERSPUN-    
 
apparently you did not read our scope language in the TWU CBA.   The company has the right to outsource more than 35% and beyond with no limit in language. Read below from article 1-scope TWU CBA.   open ended language as typical with the TWU.
 
Article 1- Recognition and Scope   Page # 7
 
 
(e) Contracting Out of Work. To allow the company certain flexibility in outsourcing Aircraft-related Maintenance, the company and the Union have agreed to establish limits on the amount of work the company may outsource, including the work that is currently outsourced.
 
shall be defined as work involving the maintenance, repair, servicing, overhaul, inspection or modification of engines, components or aircraft. The Company and the Union agree to limit the percentage of all outsourced Aircraft-related Maintenance to not exceed 35%, subject to exclusions or modifications described elsewhere in this agreement. Further, the parties also agree that no more than 15% of Line Maintenance work will be contracted out.
 
You did not read the following in Article 1- scope page #8 of the CBA
 

(2) The percentage set forth in paragraph (e) above may be exceeded in the event: (i) the Company’s then-present employees do not have the normal time and/or skills to perform the work (provided that the manpower shortage is not a result of the Company’s failure to reasonably anticipate and address its headcount requirements); or (ii) the Company’s equipment or facilities are insufficient or are being fully utilized at the time the Company contracts out the work.
 

may be exceeded has no limit cap under this article!    great protection language!
 
Tulsa members have your shop steward explain this!!!

 

[swamt]

The one thing Overspeed continuously fails to mention (just like others at times)  is the contracts that were nego and agreed to at SWA were done so long before the AMFA was on property, and it was all mostly done by the ibt not AMFA.  Once again you are trying to put it off on AMFA when in fact it was all nego and agreed to by the teamsters who were here prior to AMFA.  keep trying OS you make yourself look like a fool the more you post.
 
Since AMFA has been here, they have in fact brought in more maint than the ibt and th iam combined, period.  ibt 2 lines of maint for over 30 years.  AMFA doubled that in as little as 8-10 years.  And he says AMFA is a farm out union, which they are the exact opposite.  Gather all the facts before you post OS, N M just keep posting, your doing fine...

 

[Overspeed]

So you should not fear an AMFA vote if you are so confident they would be rejected.

 
There won't be a vote.

 

[Overspeed]

The one thing Overspeed continuously fails to mention (just like others at times)  is the contracts that were nego and agreed to at SWA were done so long before the AMFA was on property, and it was all mostly done by the ibt not AMFA.  Once again you are trying to put it off on AMFA when in fact it was all nego and agreed to by the teamsters who were here prior to AMFA.  keep trying OS you make yourself look like a fool the more you post.
 
Since AMFA has been here, they have in fact brought in more maint than the ibt and th iam combined, period.  ibt 2 lines of maint for over 30 years.  AMFA doubled that in as little as 8-10 years.  And he says AMFA is a farm out union, which they are the exact opposite.  Gather all the facts before you post OS, N M just keep posting, your doing fine...

 
Okay so AMFA "added" so much work after the IBT left? SWA had 380 aircraft and two lines inhouse before AMFA and now has four with 601. Two lines more and the fleet almost doubled? Ahhh that's not adding work, that's keeping pace with fleet size. Yes I agree, gather the facts before posting.

 

[Overspeed]

 
OVERSPUN-    
 
apparently you did not read our scope language in the TWU CBA.   The company has the right to outsource more than 35% and beyond with no limit in language. Read below from article 1-scope TWU CBA.   open ended language as typical with the TWU.
 
Article 1- Recognition and Scope   Page # 7
 
 
(e) Contracting Out of Work. To allow the company certain flexibility in outsourcing Aircraft-related Maintenance, the company and the Union have agreed to establish limits on the amount of work the company may outsource, including the work that is currently outsourced.
 
shall be defined as work involving the maintenance, repair, servicing, overhaul, inspection or modification of engines, components or aircraft. The Company and the Union agree to limit the percentage of all outsourced Aircraft-related Maintenance to not exceed 35%, subject to exclusions or modifications described elsewhere in this agreement. Further, the parties also agree that no more than 15% of Line Maintenance work will be contracted out.
 
You did not read the following in Article 1- scope page #8 of the CBA
 

(2) The percentage set forth in paragraph (e) above may be exceeded in the event: (i) the Company’s then-present employees do not have the normal time and/or skills to perform the work (provided that the manpower shortage is not a result of the Company’s failure to reasonably anticipate and address its headcount requirements); or (ii) the Company’s equipment or facilities are insufficient or are being fully utilized at the time the Company contracts out the work.
 

may be exceeded has no limit cap under this article!    great protection language!
 
Tulsa members have your shop steward explain this!!!
 

 
Yes have the TUL stewards explain it. Chuck makes up his own interpretations that are completely false.
 
The langauge covers peak work exceeding normal capacity. If the fleet grows to 1000 then normal would be facilities and people to do the work within the 35% cap language.

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

 
Okay so AMFA "added" so much work after the IBT left? SWA had 380 aircraft and two lines inhouse before AMFA and now has four with 601. Two lines more and the fleet almost doubled? Ahhh that's not adding work, that's keeping pace with fleet size. Yes I agree, gather the facts before posting.

O/S
 
If AMFA is an outsourcing Union then why would they bring any work in?
 
Wouldn't it be beneficial to the Line members to get more money as you and other TWU supporters say?
 
Adding any work is just that,  just like keeping the pension for a few more yrs, only to lose it. It's all in how you LQQK at it isn't it?
 
The TWU has Failed its members, this is what many here at AA believe. Changing the ATD members was just a ploy, keeping the dues coming in is/was the goal.

 

[Chuck Schalk]

 
Yes have the TUL stewards explain it. Chuck makes up his own interpretations that are completely false.
 
The langauge covers peak work exceeding normal capacity. If the fleet grows to 1000 then normal would be facilities and people to do the work within the 35% cap language.

I only copy and paste CBA  language,  the language speaks for itself not my interpretation

 

[Bob Owens]

  The difference is under the original "ask" the company wanted to outsource closer to what has been the industry standard (closer to 50%). Those airlines that outsource around 50% for your information are represented by the IBT and AMFA, not the TWU.

the company said they wanted a cap of 45% man hours outsourced of current work. They already could outsource 50 % of new work. They admitted that they didn't want to reach the savings goal through outsourcing because they would not be able to realize the savings because narrow body outsourcing was tight and they would have to pay a premium. Then Don threw 35% of spend and the company jumped on it. 35% of spend is well in excess of 50% manhours. By switching to 35% Don was able to spin this as a reduction in the cap when in fact it was an increase in the cap without us getting the dollar value for the increased outsourcing cap.

 

[scorpion 2]

We heard a rumor last week that when the MD80 fleet gets down to 90 aircraft that that work would be outsourced. One thing that wasn't mentioned earlier is that any work that needs to be performed on any lease return aircraft or engine can be outsourced and wont contribute to the 35% cap as long as it doesn't come back to us.  The scope is full of loop holes and to throw a 35% number out there without mentioning those exclusions is deceitful at best. As for a shop stewards answering a scope question, are you kidding?  
 
One of the things Tulsa needs to remember is how the twu used the numbers game at the base to screw the line.  The worm has turned and now they will have the the same mentality that screwed the line turning their sights on them. Same union but looking down the other end of the barrel.  A+P jobs were decimated in Tulsa due to SRP/OSM programs. Sure some of the  work stayed in house but A+P jobs were outsourced "in house".  If Tulsa doesn't wake up and fire the twu we might all be OSM's after the next contract. 

 

[Bob Owens]

We heard a rumor last week that when the MD80 fleet gets down to 90 aircraft that that work would be outsourced.
 

Doubtful unless they want the capacity for other aircraft.

 

[Overspeed]

the company said they wanted a cap of 45% man hours outsourced of current work. They already could outsource 50 % of new work. They admitted that they didn't want to reach the savings goal through outsourcing because they would not be able to realize the savings because narrow body outsourcing was tight and they would have to pay a premium. Then Don threw 35% of spend and the company jumped on it. 35% of spend is well in excess of 50% manhours. By switching to 35% Don was able to spin this as a reduction in the cap when in fact it was an increase in the cap without us getting the dollar value for the increased outsourcing cap.

 
I asked similar questions before and it was explained to me like this. How do you track internal versus external man hours when you don't even track your own man hours? When is the last time any mechanic punched in and out on a job? Spend is the only thing you can track accurately with the info available.
 
And you believed the NB outsourcing capacity was tight? Have you not read the trades? In AWST the MRO people were ecstatic when they heard AA filed BK and would be outsourcing a ton of work. Do you live in a bubble? And besides the truth was that AA just announced the largest plane order ever and would soon have the youngest fleet in the industry. They didn't need to worry about NB capacity because new planes don't need overhauls for years.

 

[Overspeed]

We heard a rumor last week that when the MD80 fleet gets down to 90 aircraft that that work would be outsourced. One thing that wasn't mentioned earlier is that any work that needs to be performed on any lease return aircraft or engine can be outsourced and wont contribute to the 35% cap as long as it doesn't come back to us.  The scope is full of loop holes and to throw a 35% number out there without mentioning those exclusions is deceitful at best. As for a shop stewards answering a scope question, are you kidding?  
 
One of the things Tulsa needs to remember is how the twu used the numbers game at the base to screw the line.  The worm has turned and now they will have the the same mentality that screwed the line turning their sights on them. Same union but looking down the other end of the barrel.  A+P jobs were decimated in Tulsa due to SRP/OSM programs. Sure some of the  work stayed in house but A+P jobs were outsourced "in house".  If Tulsa doesn't wake up and fire the twu we might all be OSM's after the next contract. 

 
Lease return work isn't considered outsourced of the work is done after it is given back and no longer an AA aircraft. If the plane comes back however it is considered outsourced work and is considered part of the percentage.
 
Were A&P jobs not decimated at NW? DL? UA? AS? when they were just outright outsourced instead of kept inhouse? Would it have been better if the TWU had just said we want only A&P jobs in TUL and then allowed work that SRPs do outsourced?

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

 
I asked similar questions before and it was explained to me like this. How do you track internal versus external man hours when you don't even track your own man hours? When is the last time any mechanic punched in and out on a job? Spend is the only thing you can track accurately with the info available.
 
And you believed the NB outsourcing capacity was tight? Have you not read the trades? In AWST the MRO people were ecstatic when they heard AA filed BK and would be outsourcing a ton of work. Do you live in a bubble? And besides the truth was that AA just announced the largest plane order ever and would soon have the youngest fleet in the industry. They didn't need to worry about NB capacity because new planes don't need overhauls for years.

 
O/S
 
Just how are You going to Spin this to the Tulsa mechanics?
 
It won't be the TWU's fault, I'll bet.

 

[Chuck Schalk]

 
Lease return work isn't considered outsourced of the work is done after it is given back and no longer an AA aircraft. If the plane comes back however it is considered outsourced work and is considered part of the percentage.
 
Were A&P jobs not decimated at NW? DL? UA? AS? when they were just outright outsourced instead of kept inhouse? Would it have been better if the TWU had just said we want only A&P jobs in TUL and then allowed work that SRPs do outso

no I would rather we had strong outsource restriction language rather than the typical after thought language we have in our contracts time after time. The TWU always has an excuse why the language is so weak but the bottom line is we lose the work year after year