no, but maybe it's time fleet and the other work groups go to the bottom, so WE can keep work in-house. And, why should I take a cut in pay to save jobs? Why should an A&P take a cut in pay to save title II? Why should I take a cut in pay to save any other work group??
Well my answer is why should any group take a cut in pay? Productivity is waay waay up, revenue is way up, yea Fuel took a big chunk of the extra revenue but they arent the only ones at the trough, all the big players are taking bigger shares than ever before then saying there's nothing left for us.
Overspeed, who claims to be a line CC out of DFW, my guess is he doesnt actually clock in and work at DFW, says that we all should be willing to work for much much less than our peers at the airports we work at across the country because "we do more work in house". Well is that a valid arguement? Should we be willing to steeply discount our labor, (I'm not talking small change here, I'm talking big bucks, just the Holidays alone takes around $4000/year out of our pockets, then looking at the wages, sick time, medical etc etc it gets even worse), to maintain a volume of work that nobody else has and is the only real arguement the company has for abrogation?
AA has thrown out a number of 4500 from M&R. Is it realistic? I doubt it, especially as far as Title II. In many stations there really is no option, look at the Northeast, if they outsourced the work the companies that do that work pay as much or more than AA does, so it would cost them more or they would not get the performance they get now. In some stations the guys would likely be hired by the vendor and top out higher than at AA. That said there is work that the company would outsource, and maybe they should but I think the numbers they threw out there were for shock value, so they could come back and say that they backed off and agreed to meet the Unions demands to mitigate the job losses and sell that as a concession off their ASK.
If all their competitors are outsourcing work that we still do at current levels in house and they are making profits then what is the business arguement for keeping work to a BK Judge?
What this comes down to is do we keep work in house at current levels of employment (especially Tulsa) at any price? AFW is slated to be closed, all we can do is preserve their right to bump. BK or not, we in the high cost areas can not pay any price, we need financial relief. BK does change some things, the Judge most likely will abrogate the deals if they are put in front of him and he will do so based upon the companies claims, true or not, that the contract is onerous mainly because the terms require AA to keep work in house that competitors can outsource. If a deal gets put before the company where line guys end up with a lower hourly rate than they would have recieved in the TA and the base guys end up closer to the line pay than they would have under the TA my guess is that the company will allow the offer to become public, then reject it, and move to abrogate. Why? Because then the company would be in a perfect position to go non-union. Here's why.
Sure Overspeed will say "Its all Bobs fault" but most wont care, all they see is T-W-U. Most of the guys dont know who I am but they all know the TWU. So they put this offer in front of the company and the company decides, no, they want the ability to outsource like others do. They go to the Judge who abrogates the contract. Now the company, even though they have already imposed new terms, asks for release as per section 6, remember there is no contract at this point, no Article 38 either. Instead of negotiating at the table they tell the line guys that "if you had no union, and the company had the flexibility of Delta or Jet Blue that they would be willing to pay the line guys like Delta or Jet Blue". After the 30 days they are officially released to self help by the NMB, they could chuck the term sheet and make new terms for the line and could then turn around and pay all Tulsa OSM wages and tell both the line and base that if they dont perform they will outsource their work. How would the guys react to such an offer at this point? How should they react? Would the guys in Tulsa strike in protest of the pay cuts, would the line guys strike in protest of the pay raise or fight to go the bottom of the industry to keep the Tulsa headcount the majority? Is there really any question?
Of course there's always the chance that AA would accept the offer and the line guys would once again be screwed but being that the line guys are a part of the daily operation of the company, they are already seeing slim pickins as far as new hires, probably will have trouble retaining talent on the floor and the company already showed what they were willing to give in the TA, I dont think the company would be very happy with how their operation performed with bottom of the industry paid line mechanics.
This is probably why other Unions opted to cut loose the work . They probably saw the potential for busting the union completly and instead of losing all the dues they only lost half. The leaders of those unions, after years of adversarial relationships with the carriers would have expected such a move, our leaders, on the other hand, would probably be completely caught off guard by a move to oust the TWU by American Airlines.
Over the years I've seen the company fire several guys, most got their jobs back, of those who did, and were good ambitious workers, they eventually quit the company on their own. When they were out they saw that there was life after AA and in many cases realized that while we have slid back so far, most others moved past us. The hardest part is leaving, and that is looking easier and easier here on the line.
I realize that in Tulsa this is still a very good job, even at OSM rates they would still be living better than we are in places like NY or LAX but we are in BK and what are the company's striongest points for abrogation? The law says that the agreements must be onerous, in that it prevents the company from successfully reorganizing. What parts of our contract could concievably be considered onerous?
Wages?-No, we are at the bottom
Sick Time?-No, we are at the bottom
Holidays?-No, we are at the bottom
IOD time?, No we are near the bottom
Medical Benefits?-No- we are at best average for the industry we are in
Hours of work?-no, at industry standard
Overtime?-No-we are below industry standrad-no 2x
Job Security-NO as far as the date, yes as far as the number of people protected
Pension-? Yes, most of our peers no longer have a DB pension.
Retiree Medical ?Yes, most of peers do not have Retiree Medical anymore
Scope?- Yes the requirement to maintain more work in house than competitors have is a slam dunk for abrogation. If the Union argues that they spread the costs out among the whole work group the company could, ironically, argue that by paying the line guys so much below market rate that they feel they would not get acceptable performance.
To me the only chance of avoiding abrogation is to give relief on the Articles that would be harder to defend, that means the DB Pension, Retiree Medical and outsourcing what every one else outsources. We may be headed towards abrogation no matter what we put forward but there are two strategic considerations here, you need the Tulsa base in order to pass a vote, you need the line mechanics to operate the airline. If you are looking to bust the union you dont need the vote you need to keep your airline going. If we make the mistake of putting forth a proposal that leaves the line guys way below industry standard in order to preserve headcount, then I could easily see the Union busting scenario play out.