TWU-IAM Finally Getting Ready for JCBA Negotiations

1AA and WeAAsles,
The comps to other airlines are never straightforward. Part of SW lower headcount per aircraft was driven by the fact they were getting like 50 aircraft a year. New planes like cars have a heavy maintenance honeymoon for the first five to seven years. That equates to low outsourcing and low in house MX staff just because those planes are new. WN does outsource more and they always have since the time they started ops. DL and UA comps are better but keep in mind, do any of us know the maintenance program? While the FAA and OEM dictate the requirements, how they are flowed in to an approved 121 program varies greatly. Just look at what we know here at AA. LUS and LAA operate the NB Airbus fleet and the two programs are very different. LUS does Phase Cs on the line and it looks as though LAA is moving in that direction but key point is two airlines, same plane, and different programs. These differences drive different HC.
 
1AA,
I know we didn't get much of a raise after 2003 concessions through 2012 however we did get almost nine years of pension credit and that is worth quite a bit to those of us that wanted to keep the pension. Those other airlines that gave up HC also gave wages and their pensions as well. Unfortunately we also ended up in BK and lost the rest of what we had kept. Should we have stuck to our guns and refused concessions? It's all Monday Morning QB stuff now.
 
Overspeed said:
1AA and WeAAsles,
The comps to other airlines are never straightforward. Part of SW lower headcount per aircraft was driven by the fact they were getting like 50 aircraft a year. New planes like cars have a heavy maintenance honeymoon for the first five to seven years. That equates to low outsourcing and low in house MX staff just because those planes are new. WN does outsource more and they always have since the time they started ops. DL and UA comps are better but keep in mind, do any of us know the maintenance program? While the FAA and OEM dictate the requirements, how they are flowed in to an approved 121 program varies greatly. Just look at what we know here at AA. LUS and LAA operate the NB Airbus fleet and the two programs are very different. LUS does Phase Cs on the line and it looks as though LAA is moving in that direction but key point is two airlines, same plane, and different programs. These differences drive different HC.
 
1AA,
I know we didn't get much of a raise after 2003 concessions through 2012 however we did get almost nine years of pension credit and that is worth quite a bit to those of us that wanted to keep the pension. Those other airlines that gave up HC also gave wages and their pensions as well. Unfortunately we also ended up in BK and lost the rest of what we had kept. Should we have stuck to our guns and refused concessions? It's all Monday Morning QB stuff now.
And now the IAM sees our frozen pensions in their sights. No thanks. The IAM pension fund is a loser. The frozen pension we have has less restrictions and is being managed by a company that is still funding it through record breaking profits. Where does the IAM pension fund get their money from if they start to fall short? Will they reevaluate the fund when it goes short and reduce payouts again? Then claim it is 110% funded? Or will they dump it on the PBGC? The IAM plays with numbers to make us think their pension is fully funded. But what they failed to tell us is that it is fully funded when they went with a smaller glass of water. What happened to the original glass of water? It was only half full or empty so they went to a smaller glass and now it is full of water and WALLA! They claim they are fully funded. Again NO THANKS to the IAM pension whether it be in replacement of out current 401K match or a hostile take over of our company managed frozen plan.
 
On a side note just for the moment for those who are interested.
 
Following this utterly unproductive negotiation session, we advised the Company that we were going to utilize the remainder of the day and the following day to work as a Committee.
 
The next session is scheduled for February 19, 2015, and we will work on Maintenance Control specific items. We would like to thank those who took their time to observe these negotiations. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact your representative. We also appreciate your support.
 
Sincerely,
Your Negotiating Committe

http://www.amfa32.com/index.cfm?zone=/unionactive/view_article.cfm&homeID=466724
 
1AA said:
And now the IAM sees our frozen pensions in their sights. No thanks. The IAM pension fund is a loser. The frozen pension we have has less restrictions and is being managed by a company that is still funding it through record breaking profits. Where does the IAM pension fund get their money from if they start to fall short? Will they reevaluate the fund when it goes short and reduce payouts again? Then claim it is 110% funded? Or will they dump it on the PBGC? The IAM plays with numbers to make us think their pension is fully funded. But what they failed to tell us is that it is fully funded when they went with a smaller glass of water. What happened to the original glass of water? It was only half full or empty so they went to a smaller glass and now it is full of water and WALLA! They claim they are fully funded. Again NO THANKS to the IAM pension whether it be in replacement of out current 401K match or a hostile take over of our company managed frozen plan.
Bingo.
 
The post of the thread.
 
Welcome to my world.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #215
MetalMover said:
So would you be happy if AA outsource more heavy maintenance so the rest of us could get more in our paycheck? Do you realize that we once had nearly 12500 mechanics. We are now down to 7600 including cleaners and OSMs..
That's about 40%---FORTY PERCENT.....I didn't see my salary go up to compensate for all those jobs...So the TWU has agreed to givebacks since 1983 to prevent job loss...How do you explain the 40% loss?
And AGAIN I will remind you that the job losses started BEFORE bankruptcy.....BEFORE....
 
Once again the mechanics do not progress for a couple of reasons....Up until now, the TWU has been able to pass any POS contract with the help of the TUL vote.....Those days are nearing an end. Then add in those at the line stations who drink the TWU kool aid that they're contracts are job savers...... Do you not see the pattern here?
Contract after contract they have force fed us BS to save jobs only to have outsourcing increased and jobs losses anyway.. 
 
Not at all. I do, however, understand how wages have remained lower than other airlines and it's a combination of many factors. One factor is that there are more jobs within AA and that has cost, then there has been little opportunity to negotiate other contracts since the 2003 concessions. Negotiations stalled in 2008 and no progress was made, I suspect the same thing will happen now.
 
If you look at the other airlines and in other title groups, the drop in personnel has been felt in all areas. The AMT's in AA under the TWU are not the only group that has lost numbers and lost in the values of their contracts. It has been an industry-wide happening.
 
Yes, I see a pattern. The pattern is that you continue to blame everyone around you including your own mechanics in TUL and those on the Line that don't agree. (We can add those to the list of who to blame, in your point of view).
 
Job losses have happened everywhere, and even the valiant fight by the AMFA NWA guys resulted in job losses, thousands of job losses. The BK's for the legacy carriers resulted in job losses and much more than we've had here. The change in the industry forced upon us by the 9/11 terrorist acts resulted in job losses.
 
If you can take us to a place where the arguments you bring didn't happen, then I'd be more inclined to agree. But to argue all these happened here and making it seem like it's an isolated occurrence makes an agreement difficult.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #216
MetalMover said:
 
 
That's another problem. You seem to believe that some of us are absolute TWU cheerleaders. Far from it, but if there is going to be a change in the guard then you need to show me that the replacement will be better than the current. You won't do that with the generic, "anything is better," because the facts of the matter don't bear that out. It's easy to call for change and bring down the TWU, but without a viable replacement that talk can only do more than good. Some of you are focused on change that you take little time to analyze what that really means.   Why would I choose to stay with a union that continually screws my workgroup? You know what our alternative is...Since we can't get there yet, YOU will never know what we may achieve with them. Then again, since your in a different title group, I don't need to show you anything that applies to my title group. 
 
You bring up that I want to stay with the TWU despite losing Cabin? I want to stay with the TWU because there is no alternative that would have kept Cabin. As a matter of fact, Cabin jobs started to be lose in the industry in the late 90's when Delta got rid of that department from one day to the next. Since then, it has been a slow death with the TWU not letting go of that department until it was taken away in the BK. We kept that department longer than any other legacy airline. So why would I make a change when change isn't any better?  How do you know? Has your group ever tried looking into different representation?
 
Prove you wrong on the negotiations? No. I don't have to. However, since the Maintenance Presidents have had a full voice in their negotiations the blame has gone from the Fleet Presidents to the International. Then blame is also placed on certain maintenance Presidents like Luis, Zimmerman, Gilboy...or the ATD, like Videtich, Gless....or the Int'l, like Little, Gordon...then it was the financial experts like Donnelly and Tom Roth....or the lawyers, like Sharon Levine, Rosen....or the BK Court and Judge Lane....the point is that the mechanics have always pointed a finger at others while they complain about their situation.....You can continue to look to fix what happened in '83, in the 90's, in 2003, in 2008 and in the BK, but as long as look backwards you won't see what's in front of you. The issues we face are being faced by every other airline and every other union. You guys want to make a change just because it has to be better, while other of us want to see who has been better off before we make a change....and today, no one is better off.
So we should just forget the TWU has given away maintenance work to your work group and to outsourcing. Just forget that it was done but yet NO gains were made in lieu of those concessions?
 
As far as you pay. Be truthful. In order to get compensation like at other airlines, you'll need to shed the same assets those other workforces had to shed in place of the compensation. How do other airlines pay for those raises? They pay them to less people. It's quite simple. If you want more pay, it will cost you some jobs. It's simple arithmetic. I just responded to you in another post that we have lost about 40% of mechanics since the high of about 12500. We are down to 7600 including OSMs and cleaners thanks to outsoucing and shifting of some work to fleet service.  I never made a dime more because of lost work! You fail to see the trend of the TWU agreeing to outsourcing more and more work yet we get NOTHING in return. That is what you fail to see.
 
You can have the lofty expectations you want, but you also have to conscience of the situation. Didn't the mechanic leadership tell their members in 2011 to not accept the TA because it was substandard and the threats of BK were BS because they had $4B in the bank? Yes. they did. They were wrong and they filed. Again in BK, it was told that we should vote no on the TA and let them abrogate because they will come back with a better deal. They were wrong again. The APA turn their deal down only to come back with the same 17% cuts as everyone else. At that time, those that were wrong pointed fingers again. Bottom line, they were wrong. Thanks to TUL mainly and some line stations who succumbed to threats is why the contract was voted in. Majority rules but it was a very close vote. Once again TUL is able to deliver for the TWU.
 
So having said all of this, you still criticize mechanics' desire for change. 
 
 
What is the alternative? What work group hasn't dealt with job losses? What unions has not been forced to accept job losses and other concessions? None of them, that's who. If there was a change to be made it would involve going to a better place and that place has not been presented.
 
Some other groups have not looked to make a change, but you can be sure they have looked to see how others fared and the results of that speak volumes. There is no place we'd be better, because all the other places have positives and their negatives and when you balance all that out, making a change only creates more uncertainty and doesn't really takes us to greener pastures.
 
So, in reading your responses is it accurate to say that outsourcing would be a better pill for you to swallow as long as you got more pay out of it? That seems to be what you're saying. Is that an incorrect characterization?
 
I've never criticized anyone for change. I simply don't see a better alternative to change or avoid all the complaints you have. I don't see another representative body that will deliver something different. Those members in TUL vote and make decisions based on what they see. If they see their jobs will be eliminated and they make choices based on that then that's their choice. To condemn anyone for making a choice while at the same time not living under the consequences of that choice is short-sighted.
 
Maybe you're correct and soon the TUL vote will be less than the Line vote, at that time a decision can be made by the Line guys which could get them a raise while it cuts more jobs from TUL. If that's the end game, then it will be very apparent to everyone what the true motivation for all the anti-TWU screaming....."See you later, but give me mine."
 
NYer said:
 
What is the alternative? What work group hasn't dealt with job losses? What unions has not been forced to accept job losses and other concessions? None of them, that's who. If there was a change to be made it would involve going to a better place and that place has not been presented. We won't know until we try...But you would never take that chance.
 
Some other groups have not looked to make a change, but you can be sure they have looked to see how others fared and the results of that speak volumes. There is no place we'd be better, because all the other places have positives and their negatives and when you balance all that out, making a change only creates more uncertainty and doesn't really takes us to greener pastures. Some of us are willing to take that chance.
 
So, in reading your responses is it accurate to say that outsourcing would be a better pill for you to swallow as long as you got more pay out of it? That seems to be what you're saying. Is that an incorrect characterization?  Yes it is an incorrect characterization. My point about outsourcing is that the outsourcing has increased, jobs have been lost and yet we have NO increase in compensation to show for it. So when someone brings up the fact that  AA has the highest ratio of mechanics per aircraft, my answer to them is outsourcing has not benefitted AA mechanics in any way, shape, or form. I never advocated increasing outsourcing to up my pay.
 
I've never criticized anyone for change. I simply don't see a better alternative to change or avoid all the complaints you have. I don't see another representative body that will deliver something different. Those members in TUL vote and make decisions based on what they see. If they see their jobs will be eliminated and they make choices based on that then that's their choice. To condemn anyone for making a choice while at the same time not living under the consequences of that choice is short-sighted. So it is ok for TUL to vote based on their wants and needs, but when the line people strive for change and their desire to rid themselves of the TWU it is somehow different?
 
Maybe you're correct and soon the TUL vote will be less than the Line vote, at that time a decision can be made by the Line guys which could get them a raise while it cuts more jobs from TUL. If that's the end game, then it will be very apparent to everyone what the true motivation for all the anti-TWU screaming....."See you later, but give me mine." Why not? that's what TUL has been doing to line people for decades. Why don't you have a problem with that? Also, do you realize that the need for OH will be diminished through attrition? The new aircraft coming on line, namely airbuses most likely will NEVER see the heaviest of maintenance checks. By the time they are due,  those aircraft will be turned in for shiny new models.
 
WeAAsles said:
 
So are you advocating losing another several thousand mechanics so that we ALL may share in higher wages?

No but some of your peers would have no problem with that.
Maybe you have no problem with it as well. Why the concern of mechanics to aircraft ratio? Why not fleet service ratio per aircraft or flight?

So our ratio might best that of DL's? We are down to 7600 hundred INCLUDING ohm's and cleaners. We were near 12500 or thereabouts.....Where was my raise when the TWU was agreeing to more and more outsourcing?

AA concessions in 03, OAL BK's in the intervening years, and finally AA BK November 2011.
 
Oh you mean the same structural raises given to ALL TWU workers? Losing 40% of mechanics since the high should have given us way more than those paltry increases.

 
Why doesn't AA outsource ALL of fleet service so the rest of us may reap the rewards? Does that sound good to you?


We've had our fair share of outsourcing as well just to inform you. Would you like it if they outsource all of us so you can get a raise? Sorry if I'm not willing to vote myself out of a job for your "skilled" brethren.
 
I never advocated outsourcing in order to UP my pay. But when fleet service begins posting the mechanic to aircraft ratio, maybe it is time to look at fleet service ratio per aircraft or flight. Why stop with the mechanics? Tell me are you willing to outsource more maintenance work and lay off thousands more mechanics since fleet service is so consumed with our ratio?
 
 
MetalMover said:
 
 


So are you advocating losing another several thousand mechanics so that we ALL may share in higher wages?

No but some of your peers would have no problem with that.
Maybe you have no problem with it as well. Why the concern of mechanics to aircraft ratio? Why not fleet service ratio per aircraft or flight?

So our ratio might best that of DL's? We are down to 7600 hundred INCLUDING ohm's and cleaners. We were near 12500 or thereabouts.....Where was my raise when the TWU was agreeing to more and more outsourcing?

AA concessions in 03, OAL BK's in the intervening years, and finally AA BK November 2011.
 
Oh you mean the same structural raises given to ALL TWU workers? Losing 40% of mechanics since the high should have given us way more than those paltry increases.

 
Why doesn't AA outsource ALL of fleet service so the rest of us may reap the rewards? Does that sound good to you?


We've had our fair share of outsourcing as well just to inform you. Would you like it if they outsource all of us so you can get a raise? Sorry if I'm not willing to vote myself out of a job for your "skilled" brethren.
 
I never advocated outsourcing in order to UP my pay. But when fleet service begins posting the mechanic to aircraft ratio, maybe it is time to look at fleet service ratio per aircraft or flight. Why stop with the mechanics? Tell me are you willing to outsource more maintenance work and lay off thousands more mechanics since fleet service is so consumed with our ratio?
 
 



I have no problem with what your work-group chooses to do but I just honestly can't stand people who are disingenuous. You guys want to keep ignoring and twisting the facts to suite your particular false narrative hoping that others take up the torch and run with you. So I personally think you're looking to try and take advantage of any naive readers you might be able to sway. That just doesn't sit right with me bro.

As far as posting those ratio's, sorry if it bothers you by posting MIT data that gives the clear reality better than the pulpit you stand on. Kind of sucks I guess that it's out there huh?

They don't have the ground handling numbers BTW. I've been very seriously trying to find data on that so I can see the picture clearer for my own group. Unlike some people in your group I'm not afraid of seeing or having the truth posted. I actually think it would be a good thing.
 
MetalMover,
I hear the same thing on NB Airbuses. The LAA 321s are on shorter leases and I understand it is because the 321NEO won't come on line until 2017. Once the older LAA and LUS 321s reach the end of their leases in 10 years expect to see them swapped out for 321NEOs. AA needed to replace the 757s but we all know the current 321 doesn't have the range however Airbus is shopping the 321LR to AA I read in AWST.
 
Combine LAA switching over to the LUS Phase Check program then we should expect that what TUL is used to seeing will fall off in the way of AMT HC. The TUL AMTs may find themselves doing the LCs they used to do in TUL in JFK, MIA, LAX, DFW, ORD, PHX, PHL, CLT, or SFO. When the 514 members vote or place items on the list for the negotiating committee they should really think about that maybe over a thousand of them may be working alongside the line AMTs in high COLA cities.
 
One item no one has mentioned is who is doing the V2500 work? With JT8D, RB211, and CF6 work falling off due to retirements of MD80, 757, and 767-300s PALM should and TAESL will shrink as well. The new gen GENx,, GE90, and V2500 the shop visits will drop dramatically compared to the volumes on those older engines. Another reason why TUL and TAESL will shrink.
 
The negotiating committee hopefully has their eye on the MX program future and how it will impact the membership. Eyes must be on the future to prevent us from getting screwed.
 
Come on TWU!!!
 
WeAAsles said:
I have no problem with what your work-group chooses to do but I just honestly can't stand people who are disingenuous. You guys want to keep ignoring and twisting the facts to suite your particular false narrative hoping that others take up the torch and run with you. So I personally think you're looking to try and take advantage of any naive readers you might be able to sway. That just doesn't sit right with me bro.

As far as posting those ratio's, sorry if it bothers you by posting MIT data that gives the clear reality better than the pulpit you stand on. Kind of sucks I guess that it's out there huh?

They don't have the ground handling numbers BTW. I've been very seriously trying to find data on that so I can see the picture clearer for my own group. Unlike some people in your group I'm not afraid of seeing or having the truth posted. I actually think it would be a good thing.
What facts are being twisted? Why the obsession with mechanic-to-aircraft ratio? Ratios don't bother me,,,But if you want to discuss them, then let's talk about the fleet service group. If you are insinuating that AA needs less mechanics to get a lower ratio, then maybe we need less fleet service employees as well.
 
Overspeed said:
MetalMover,
I hear the same thing on NB Airbuses. The LAA 321s are on shorter leases and I understand it is because the 321NEO won't come on line until 2017. Once the older LAA and LUS 321s reach the end of their leases in 10 years expect to see them swapped out for 321NEOs. AA needed to replace the 757s but we all know the current 321 doesn't have the range however Airbus is shopping the 321LR to AA I read in AWST.
 
Combine LAA switching over to the LUS Phase Check program then we should expect that what TUL is used to seeing will fall off in the way of AMT HC. The TUL AMTs may find themselves doing the LCs they used to do in TUL in JFK, MIA, LAX, DFW, ORD, PHX, PHL, CLT, or SFO. When the 514 members vote or place items on the list for the negotiating committee they should really think about that maybe over a thousand of them may be working alongside the line AMTs in high COLA cities.
 
One item no one has mentioned is who is doing the V2500 work? With JT8D, RB211, and CF6 work falling off due to retirements of MD80, 757, and 767-300s PALM should and TAESL will shrink as well. The new gen GENx,, GE90, and V2500 the shop visits will drop dramatically compared to the volumes on those older engines. Another reason why TUL and TAESL will shrink.
 
The negotiating committee hopefully has their eye on the MX program future and how it will impact the membership. Eyes must be on the future to prevent us from getting screwed.
 
Come on TWU!!!
Good point. Point being the need for heavy checks will be reduced through attrition. Just read the contract language regarding outsourcing. 
 
MetalMover said:
What facts are being twisted? Why the obsession with mechanic-to-aircraft ratio? Ratios don't bother me,,,But if you want to discuss them, then let's talk about the fleet service group. If you are insinuating that AA needs less mechanics to get a lower ratio, then maybe we need less fleet service employees as well.

Again you're back to twisting things. I'm not insinuating anything. I'm just pointing out facts that are easily available to search for if people are interested in that sort of thing.

If Mechanics give up more jobs, then those who are left will be payed more.
If Fleet Service Clerks give up more jobs, then those who are left will be payed more.

How's that?
 
WeAAsles said:
Again you're back to twisting things. I'm not insinuating anything. I'm just pointing out facts that are easily available to search for if people are interested in that sort of thing.

If Mechanics give up more jobs, then those who are left will be payed more.
If Fleet Service Clerks give up more jobs, then those who are left will be payed more.

How's that?
That's is the point.....Jobs have been lost for all groups. But salaries have not gone up as a result. The only salary increases we see are paltry step increases. For all the concessions we have given ALL our salaries should be at top of industry.
 
MetalMover said:
That's is the point.....Jobs have been lost for all groups. But salaries have not gone up as a result. The only salary increases we see are paltry step increases. For all the concessions we have given ALL our salaries should be at top of industry.
But are we also comparing ourselves to ALL the concessions and give backs that our peers in the industry have gone through as well? That's why I put up the fact that at least in your group you have far more jobs then anyone else in the industry. Doesn't that count for anything?

Would you have rather'd AA went through bankruptcy back in 03 and thrown our pensions on the PBGC? That's exactly what would have happened since it happened to our peers who went through that process way before we did. It happened to too many of our peers who went through BK before we even took our concessions in 03. Eastern, Pan Am, TWA.

Do we ever care or pay attention to history?

And just so you know, yes I appreciate the pension that I can more than likely still rely on when I retire.

http://www.pbgc.gov/wr/trusteed/plans/plan-19922400.html

http://www.pbgc.gov/wr/large/usairways/index.html

This didn't exist back in 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_Protection_Act_of_2006

And because of that law this happened.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2006-08-07-air-pensions-usat_x.htm

And finally this.

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20120307/NEWS03/120309919
 

Latest posts

Back
Top