TWU negotiations.........what?

[Bob Owens]

Gee Eric.....If AA wants FDX and SWA staffing levels, then IT IS THEIR DECISION!!!!
I am sure they can figure out how to get rid of OH!
Tell me why they haven't even attempted this transition?
And please, don't blame the contract!

A trip to the bankruptcy court would be all behind us now!

That recent WSJ article about the Aircraft Painting companies gave us a glimpse as to why AA still does their OH, because for all their BS about "higher labor" costs etc its much cheaper to do it in house. According the the WSJ airlines pay between $50,000 to $200,000 for a paint job, AA has polished skin but they have three different colored strips, which drives up the price. Add in that competitors have to fly the planes to where those shops are and you are probably talking at a minimum of $100,000 per plane for a paint job.

AA has a crew of maybe 5 OSMs work 8 days to repaint their MD-80s and they use rollers, cutting down the waste and avoiding most of the EPA stuff. Even if you figure in $10/hr on top of the OSM rate for benni's you are still looking at less than $10,000 for labor plus a few buckets of paint. It probaly costs AA less for the whole job than competitors spend flying their plane to the paint shop. So yea, the competitor, all things being equal would have $10,000 less in labor costs but they pay an extra $90,000 for the same result, a paint job.

AA has said they have the highest labor costs, they have never said that doing OH in house costs more. Why do you think that is?

 

[AV1]

That recent WSJ article about the Aircraft Painting companies gave us a glimpse as to why AA still does their OH, because for all their BS about "higher labor" costs etc its much cheaper to do it in house. According the the WSJ airlines pay between $50,000 to $200,000 for a paint job, AA has polished skin but they have three different colored strips, which drives up the price. Add in that competitors have to fly the planes to where those shops are and you are probably talking at a minimum of $100,000 per plane for a paint job.

AA has a crew of maybe 5 OSMs work 8 days to repaint their MD-80s and they use rollers, cutting down the waste and avoiding most of the EPA stuff. Even if you figure in $10/hr on top of the OSM rate for benni's you are still looking at less than $10,000 for labor plus a few buckets of paint. It probaly costs AA less for the whole job than competitors spend flying their plane to the paint shop. So yea, the competitor, all things being equal would have $10,000 less in labor costs but they pay an extra $90,000 for the same result, a paint job.

AA has said they have the highest labor costs, they have never said that doing OH in house costs more. Why do you think that is?

Bob,
I find your posts of late to be very informative and beneficial to the membership. Now if you could do something about the people that constantly divide the membership. Can't say the name for fear of being sent to the cornfield but lets just say I am HOPEFUL that this can happen.

 

[TWU informer]

Bob,

Why don't you make your post real informative and beneficial to the membership and release the proposal?

Why on earth can't a dues paying member of the TWU have a copy of the current proposal?

Secret Negotiations have gotten us nowhere.

Secret Negotiations are disgusting.

Nothing has changed except a few names on the party line towing roster.

 

[eolesen]

Nice duck, cant answer the question so make a snyde remark.

Why should AA have to staff like FDX and SWA? Maybe they should switch to Freight and do away with first and business class?

Bob, you know better than that. If you want FDX pay, you gotta play by their playbook, too.

In maintenance, that means outsourcing good portions of overhaul and most of the backshops as well.

We all know the only thing industry leading that the TWU is interested in is protecting the industry leading headcount at AMR, regardless what it does to real wages.

 

[enough already]

Bob,

Why don't you make your post real informative and beneficial to the membership and release the proposal?

Why on earth can't a dues paying member of the TWU have a copy of the current proposal?

Secret Negotiations have gotten us nowhere.

Secret Negotiations are disgusting.

Nothing has changed except a few names on the party line towing roster.

You're out of order Brother!! 😛

 

[Hopeful]

Bob,
I find your posts of late to be very informative and beneficial to the membership. Now if you could do something about the people that constantly divide the membership. Can't say the name for fear of being sent to the cornfield but lets just say I am HOPEFUL that this can happen.

Hmmmmmm,,,, let me see......You must be referring to me! HAR HAR HARDY HAR HAR!

You need to do your research and you will find in my posts that i have never advocated getting rid of OH.
Now I assume you were referring to my response to eolesen about his remarks regarding SWA and FDX wages and staffing levels.
If you had known where I stand regarding this issue, you would have NOT read too much into my post.
Eolesen and a few others here ALWAYS like to say that if we want SWA and FDX wages, then we should get rid of OH, thus eliminating 1000's of jobs. He was challenging Bob Owens on that topic.
My response to eolesen was essentially that if the company wanted to get rid of OH, it is THEIR decision. And to date the have not done so. I asked him why.
And you now assume that I am dividing the membership.
No one has divided the bases vs the line stations that the TWU.

 

[Interested]

You're out of order Brother!! 😛

ED Wilson has come back!!!!

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob,

Why don't you make your post real informative and beneficial to the membership and release the proposal?

Why on earth can't a dues paying member of the TWU have a copy of the current proposal?

Secret Negotiations have gotten us nowhere.

Secret Negotiations are disgusting.

Nothing has changed except a few names on the party line towing roster.

Well its better than Continental but not as good as Southwest. Thats what I've told our members and they are OK with the deal that when we give it to the company they will get it as well.

My guess is that once we get past Articles 11 and 12 and get to the Economics that the company will want it all before they agree to any, so it will come out.

I would rather have it out there but you have to remember that we have entered into federal mediation and in order to progress to the point of self help, where real bargaining begins and the company finally has something at stake, you have to play by their rules. As I've told my members , when Labor goes to Federal Mediation under the RLA it would be like you going to your "in-laws" for mediation over marital problems, the mediators interests, no matter how fair minded and objective they may be as individuals, are much more line with the other side than yours. In our case we got the Father-in-law, a decent guy who as a man can see things from our perspective, but as the law is written his interests coincide with the carrier, fleet on the other side has the dreaded "Mother-in-Law", she obviously hates labor and was involved in the eight year long AMTRACK fiasco. I would hate to be in that scene. Staying legal under her reign will undoubtably lead to defeat. There isnt even the slightest glimmer of objectivity with her, may as well just have Arpey sitting in her place, might even be better off, and I only sat in on a couple of her "sessions" or "esbats" before that became clear to me.

Right now the mediators intent is to foster dialogue, something thats been missing for the last three years where committee members could not speak in front of the company and negotiations was nothing more than brief exchanges of proposals. If we went and released everything at this point we could be "put on ice", I dont think we want that, so despite the fact that I agree that everything should be out there, and will eventually, and that, generally, it works in our best interests to have it out there, in my judgement I have to agree that putting it out there at this point in time would do more harm than good. Whats the harm at this point of not releasing it?

I realize there are risks that it could be watered down, earlier this month I'd expressed concerns over that because of the timing of the M&R Presidents meeting with the company then the meetings with the Economist the union hired. I was wrong, the information from the meeting with the company wasnt doom and gloom, in fact it showed that we are in a better bargaining position, they are looking to add 900 heads to M&R next year. The Economist, well I still have issues with him.

So take it for what its worth, given the history we have with this Union you have every right to be cautious and suspicious, I, like many who came before me ran with the intent to change things, many have failed, many became what they campaigned against. Will I succeed where others have failed? Time will tell, but as far as my name being just a new one towing the party line I have to disagree, I think many others would as well, especially those that are. I will say that my objectives havent changed, and I havent heard anything like what you are saying come from the people who put me here and have known me, in some cases, over 30 years. One of the changes that I helped put in place at the local level was recall, so if my members felt that I should put this info out now, and I refused, they have the right to pulll me out. So yes, I'm going against our platform position on transparancy, and doing so in my opinion for cause, if the members dissagree they have recourse through one of the other parts of our platform , accountability, they can recall me at any time.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, you know better than that. If you want FDX pay, you gotta play by their playbook, too.

Well as soon as thats true for Exxon, the PONY, Boeing, etc etc I'll agree to that. You say they make up the rules, well you say that because you are non-union. Good to see that you finally admitt that unions are needed to ensure fairness in the workplace. With a union the rules are negotiated.

In maintenance, that means outsourcing good portions of overhaul and most of the backshops as well.

Why, so they can ferry their planes to Mississpippi and pay anywhere from $50K to $200K to get their planes painted instead of doing it for around $10k while its already in OH? So they can pay some chop shop a ton of money to do a half assed OH and then expect their low paid line mechanics to clean them up? You seem to forget that most of our backshops are manned by OSMs who earn around the same as what the guys in the chop shops earn.

We all know the only thing industry leading that the TWU is interested in is protecting the industry leading headcount at AMR, regardless what it does to real wages.

Well, I've already stated that my objective is to get us good pay, even at the expense of future growth. I've told our area director not to hire anybody because our guys need the OT to survive. So I really am not concerned with raising dues revenue through more heads. I'd rather be a part of a lean, well paid and motivated workforce than a part of the many miserable. As far as the TWU as a whole, as you are well aware, there's a drive for another Union, right now the focus is on keeping what they have, not selling out for more heads, and the only way to do that would be to get a good contract.

 

[Birdman]

I've told our area director not to hire anybody because our guys need the OT to survive. So I really am not concerned with raising dues revenue through more heads. I'd rather be a part of a lean, well paid and motivated workforce than a part of the many miserable.

Most of us want to make more money for either survival or to pursue the American dream. The letter to our manager, and offer to increase productivity, was in part an effort to preserve O.T. but also to thwart their desire to shuffle mechanics from dock to dock. There are other reasons I won't go into. I and many others believe the culture that has produced quality and ontime performance is one that has taken pride and ownership as a singular team. I'm dumbfounded as to why manAAgement would want to change a culture of success.

 

[Bob Owens]

Most of us want to make more money for either survival or to pursue the American dream. The letter to our manager, and offer to increase productivity, was in part an effort to preserve O.T. but also to thwart their desire to shuffle mechanics from dock to dock. There are other reasons I won't go into. I and many others believe the culture that has produced quality and ontime performance is one that has taken pride and ownership as a singular team. I'm dumbfounded as to why manAAgement would want to change a culture of success.

They dont want to change the culture, just your living standards, they want to see how low you will go.

 

[Kev3188]

So I really am not concerned with raising dues revenue through more heads. I'd rather be a part of a lean, well paid and motivated workforce than a part of the many miserable.

As would I, and (I'm guessing) many others. 10 guys making $20 is much better than diluting down to 20 making $10. The problem is that unions like the TWU, IBT, IAM, etc. bet the other way...

 

[Bob Owens]

As would I, and (I'm guessing) many others. 10 guys making $20 is much better than diluting down to 20 making $10. The problem is that unions like the TWU, IBT, IAM, etc. bet the other way...

And thats why the labor movement is dying in this country, the unions look at us the same way the company does, like widjets, a commodity to be sold for their benifit. Workers dont need unions to "discount" their labor, we can do that all by ourselves as individuals without unions.

 

[787nightmare]

And thats why the labor movement is dying in this country, the unions look at us the same way the company does, like widjets, a commodity to be sold for their benifit. Workers dont need unions to "discount" their labor, we can do that all by ourselves as individuals without unions.

Bob, the day the members union sees you the same way as the company does...well, you're late in showing the "union" the door and getting new representation.

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

Bob, the day the members union sees you the same way as the company does...well, you're late in showing the "union" the door and getting new representation.

New representation is on its way.