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

[toroshark]

I think you were smart to vote yes. It wasn't a great deal but the offers don't seem to be getting any better. Might be a lesson for the future, as a release looks very unlikely at this point.

I think that you are also a jack ass.

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

I think you were smart to vote yes. It wasn't a great deal but the offers don't seem to be getting any better. Might be a lesson for the future, as a release looks very unlikely at this point.

ff,

Voting yes on the t/a was a bad idea. It was not a great deal it was a PIECE OF CRAP! That t/a was the second half of what AA wanted had they ever gone to a bankruptcy judge. Things aren't getting better you say? Okay, when YOU have a direct say in what YOU get for pay and benefits then YOU can roll over and expose the white underbelly of the craft YOU entered.

So a release looks very unlikely, again read my above comment. MY craft & profession deserves to be fought for. MY craft & profession carries a responsibility YOU would never understand because YOU do not sign your name for the safety of people traveling at 32,000 feet.

AA wants labor peace? Then AA management needs to be completely replaced with people who 1) understand how to run an airline and 2) VALUE the respect of their workforce.

 

[eolesen]

Will 30 feet suffice?

Nope. His window is on the sixth floor. At least 60-70 feet off the ground if not more. HR and IT will see it, but I don't think it will impress them much.

 

[eolesen]

AA wants labor peace? Then AA management needs to be completely replaced with people who 1) understand how to run an airline and 2) VALUE the respect of their workforce.

Ken, are you looking for respect or a contract?...

As I said in the other thread, put down the pitchforks, get some marriage counseling, and then professional advice on exactly what is sustainable...

Respect will return once all three sides stop being so damn defensive, and everyone realizes that it's until liquidation shall you part.

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

Ken, are you looking for respect or a contract?...

As I said in the other thread, put down the pitchforks, get some marriage counseling, and then professional advice on exactly what is sustainable...

Respect will return once all three sides stop being so damn defensive, and everyone realizes that it's until liquidation shall you part.

Eric,

Respect comes in many forms. What I am talking about is the total lack of respect the company has for my craft and class.

Company: "Okay guys and girls. Here is our t/a (2010). This is what we think you are worth. Never mind the sacrifices you made to save the airline. This is our bottom line offer."

AMTs: "NO!"


Company: "Well, we reconsidered our bottom line offer. We think you are worth even less. Here's our proposal (2011)."

Professional advice on what is sustainable? How long can we sustain losing money while management takes millions of dollars for ruining the airline and labor relations. Liquidation you say? Okay, liquidate. No bravado here just reality. I am tired of being lied to and disrespected. I do not trust the company as long as they treat my profession the way they do. As for pitchforks the company was the first to pick one up... and they (with the help of the twu) stuck it dead center in my craft's arse!

 

[Birdman]

Ken, are you looking for respect or a contract?...

As I said in the other thread, put down the pitchforks, get some marriage counseling, and then professional advice on exactly what is sustainable...

Respect will return once all three sides stop being so damn defensive, and everyone realizes that it's until liquidation shall you part.

I believe both sides should open up to realistic compromise. The compAAny desperately needs productivity gains coupled with a cost neutral agreement and the union members want meaningful compensation increases. AA wants to increase productivity, 40% they say, on bases through the 7 day coverage method while adding hundreds of heads. Would I be labeled a lunatic if I said that a/o could increase it's productivity by 100% without adding heads if sensible work ethics were restored and backed by the union? What is the economic value of those gains? If the majority in a/o would just truthfully reflect on how much they actually work, minus the extended breaks, lunches, down times, worthless meetings, late starts and early finishes, and extended idle conversations with coworkers, we would have to admit we could get twice as much done in a weeks time. I'm not talking about a careless frantic pace, but a concerted effort to get things done. And what I mean by "backed by the union" is, the union would fully support AA's right to hold those accountable who are not willing to work in an ethical manner and the mechanics would have to get over this "I'm untouchable" attitude if they wanted to keep their jobs. Trust is the greatest hinderance to achieving meaningful progress, but without it we're doomed to failure. Will the two party's promptly step up to the plate and hammer out "out of the box solutions" or will we continue on this unsustainable course? I fear the latter.

 

[Frank Szabo]

Eric,

Respect comes in many forms. What I am talking about is the total lack of respect the company has for my craft and class.

Company: "Okay guys and girls. Here is our t/a (2010). This is what we think you are worth. Never mind the sacrifices you made to save the airline. This is our bottom line offer."

AMTs: "NO!"


Company: "Well, we reconsidered our bottom line offer. We think you are worth even less. Here's our proposal (2011)."
... snip

The company decided it needed to hire more people, further diluting any offer it had previously made.

 

[strikeforce]

Nope. His window is on the sixth floor. At least 60-70 feet off the ground if not more. HR and IT will see it, but I don't think it will impress them much.

30 feet will definitely bring media coverage. Something AA will not like.

 

[Frank Szabo]

I believe both sides should open up to realistic compromise. The compAAny desperately needs productivity gains coupled with a cost neutral agreement and the union members want meaningful compensation increases. AA wants to increase productivity, 40% they say, on bases through the 7 day coverage method while adding hundreds of heads. Would I be labeled a lunatic if I said that a/o could increase it's productivity by 100% without adding heads if sensible work ethics were restored and backed by the union? What is the economic value of those gains? If the majority in a/o would just truthfully reflect on how much they actually work, minus the extended breaks, lunches, down times, worthless meetings, late starts and early finishes, and extended idle conversations with coworkers, we would have to admit we could get twice as much done in a weeks time. I'm not talking about a careless frantic pace, but a concerted effort to get things done. And what I mean by "backed by the union" is, the union would fully support AA's right to hold those accountable who are not willing to work in an ethical manner and the mechanics would have to get over this "I'm untouchable" attitude if they wanted to keep their jobs. Trust is the greatest hinderance to achieving meaningful progress, but without it we're doomed to failure. Will the two party's promptly step up to the plate and hammer out "out of the box solutions" or will we continue on this unsustainable course? I fear the latter.

A wonderful idea and a truthful assessment - what a shame it does nothing to generate the numbers of dues-paying members the TWU International infestation requires to continue in its lifestyle. Something tells me Little Jimmy wouldn't go for this.

Perhaps if the company were to grow a set and explain to the TWU - nah, never happen.

 

[Bob Owens]

Here are the "work rule improvements and contract flexibility" that were exchanged for a "cost neutral contract". Allowing even more heavy overhaul lines to go to a country where a ten year experienced mechanic makes $5 an hour and an "OSM" makes $2 an hour.

www.kirotv.com/news/27915082/detail.html

I guess they felt that if it goes to Timco, where they hire illegal aliens who probably came from the same country they now send it to what's the difference? UAL and USAIR (both AFL-CIO by the way) have been sending heavy checks overseas for years and USAIR pay is the bottom of the barrel.

Their "cost neutral" contract put them at over $10/hr more than us. With more vacation, more sick time, more IOD time more Holiday pay and better retiree health coverage than the last two AA offers. I think there was also an agreement to bring more work in house, so they let SWA send work from Timco to El Salvador but they got more work in house. My bet is that SWA fluffed up the concessions value for Wall Street wheras AA undervalues the concessions and over values what they offer. In the cost out they added millions for the increase in MRT even though they demanded language that would allow them to have 24 hour coverage without paying anyone. So instead of a couple of thousand mechanics seeing an extra dollar they most likely would have taken a 50 cent paycut. They even added millions for profit sharing for each year of the agreement despite the fact they havent shown consistant profits in years.

 

[Bob Owens]

Those numbers don't add up. In 2007, UAL spent $1.166 billion on Aircraft maintenance materials and outside repairs. That amounted to just 6.1% of its $19.106 billion of total operating expenses. No doubt someone has misinterpreted the 13% figure. Perhaps total maintenance expenses were 13% of total operating expenses? Even that would seem high, since that would mean another $1.318 billion in maintenance wages, which is unbelievable considering that total wage and salary expense in 2007 was just $4.261 billion. In 2007, UAL employed just 5,551 mechanics and related. If each one of those guys cost UAL $100k (I doubt they were that expensive), then UAL's inhouse AMTs cost UAL another $555 million.

To compare, AMR spent $1.057 billion on Aircraft maintenance materials and outside repairs in 2007, less than UAL (no kidding, given UAL's level of outsourcing). That amounted to just 4.8% of AMR's total operating expenses of $21.970 billion in 2007. AMR had probably about double the number of mechanics and related in 2007, and if each one cost AMR $100k (again, an overly generous estimate), then AMR spent about $1.1 billion on its inhouse AMTs.

Bottom line: No way did UAL spend 13% of its operating expenses on total maintenance, let alone on outsourced maintenance. Your claimed percentages don't add up. UAL spent 26% of its operating expenses on total maintenance in 2007? Not a chance in hell. 26% would equal $4.967 billion, just a few dollars less than UAL spent on fuel that year. Nope, UAL did not spend nearly $5 billion on maintenance in 2007. Thanks for playing.



I don't doubt that. UAL cut loose thousands of AMTs in OAK and IND. The ones that went to work for AAR in Indy might return, but perhaps they value stability over a crappy UAL that let them go several years ago.

AAR took over the Indy facility yet they cant staff the place. You would think there would be plenty there since UAL once had thousands.

The numbers are from UAL however their numbers are probably as reliable as AA's.
It comes from the pie chart on page 11 of the UAL Labor Platform put out April 29 2009. It says " Maintenence and Related purchased services 13%". The file is too big to post here.

 

[Bob Owens]

Did ya happen to know about a section in their contract that allows maintaining 3 heavy checks and adding a fourth when the fleet exceedes 621, not to mention job security for current employees? And to boot they even get to start negotiating another contract next year. I couldn't care less what third world MRO's pay their mechanics as they can not compete with our turn times or quality, and we're not even close to our full potential.

I agree, and thats with a pissed off workforce. Its been my opinion that raises would be cost neutral because most of the guys would put out more. While the labor costs may still go up a little, the real savings are having even faster turn times, less material waste, fewer dealys and fewer cancellations. My guess is that at least 20% of all maintenence related delays and cancellations are the result of the poor morale and the reluctance of mechanics to give that little extra to fix it quickly or at all. As a result AA has to maintain a larger staff than they would if they paid better.

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

"Trust is the greatest hinderance to achieving meaningful progress, but without it we're doomed to failure. Will the two party's promptly step up to the plate and hammer out "out of the box solutions" or will we continue on this unsustainable course? I fear the latter."


Trust you say? Trust who? The company who sang "shAAred sAAcrifice" only to be shown this was a LIE. Or trust the twu who did not share this heavy burden because they, like management, are unaccountable?

Trust? Okay, I will trust Bob Crandall, Herb Kehler, Gordon Bethune, C. R. Smith.

Trust? People like AArpey, brundage, Reding, lorenzo... never!

Management has finally gotten me to a point where I will never believe a word they say or print or sign their name to. The same goes for the twu. However, I will ALWAYS trust my signature because my signature helps create the product that AA sells. NOTHING will compromise that.

Trust? Well, that requires principles.

 

[iluvaa]

I believe both sides should open up to realistic compromise. The compAAny desperately needs productivity gains coupled with a cost neutral agreement and the union members want meaningful compensation increases. AA wants to increase productivity, 40% they say, on bases through the 7 day coverage method while adding hundreds of heads. Would I be labeled a lunatic if I said that a/o could increase it's productivity by 100% without adding heads if sensible work ethics were restored and backed by the union? What is the economic value of those gains? If the majority in a/o would just truthfully reflect on how much they actually work, minus the extended breaks, lunches, down times, worthless meetings, late starts and early finishes, and extended idle conversations with coworkers, we would have to admit we could get twice as much done in a weeks time. I'm not talking about a careless frantic pace, but a concerted effort to get things done. And what I mean by "backed by the union" is, the union would fully support AA's right to hold those accountable who are not willing to work in an ethical manner and the mechanics would have to get over this "I'm untouchable" attitude if they wanted to keep their jobs. Trust is the greatest hinderance to achieving meaningful progress, but without it we're doomed to failure. Will the two party's promptly step up to the plate and hammer out "out of the box solutions" or will we continue on this unsustainable course? I fear the latter.

You hit the nail on the head we have to be willing to do our jobs in a timely manner, by taking proper brakes and lunches and B.S ing less. and the company needs to follow the system in place to get rid of some cancers every dock has. but for that i want some improvement in wages and bennies. we can always blame the company but we do have to admit we have some issues on our side to

 

[Bob Owens]

I believe both sides should open up to realistic compromise. The compAAny desperately needs productivity gains coupled with a cost neutral agreement and the union members want meaningful compensation increases. AA wants to increase productivity, 40% they say, on bases through the 7 day coverage method while adding hundreds of heads.

The 40% figure is for productive capacity from the base, not neccisarily a productivity increase from the workers. I think this is the wrong approach and I think you hit the nail on the head below.

Would I be labeled a lunatic if I said that a/o could increase it's productivity by 100% without adding heads if sensible work ethics were restored and backed by the union? What is the economic value of those gains? If the majority in a/o would just truthfully reflect on how much they actually work, minus the extended breaks, lunches, down times, worthless meetings, late starts and early finishes, and extended idle conversations with coworkers, we would have to admit we could get twice as much done in a weeks time. I'm not talking about a careless frantic pace, but a concerted effort to get things done.

So, contractually what needs to be changed to do those things? Nothing. While we look at management as a monolithic structure the fact is they are more divided than we are. You have operational guys who actually have to produce the product, often came through the ranks and know the process and the variables, then you have the finance guys who control everything based on theories and what they were taught in business school, and for the last thirty years everything is cost, cost ,cost. The operations guys let the rank and file get away with the extended breaks and wasted time because they know what they are dealing with, a pissed off workforce. They fear that applying more pressure would result in a decrease of actual output. The finance guys cant figure out why when they keep decreasing compensation their numbers arent getting better and the operations guys are afraid to tell them.

The 7 day demand is a perfect example. Assuming they dont address the previous points you made, they want to hire more people and have the line run 7 days but they havent fully staffed the other 2 shifts, if they did so they could probably double the output.

And what I mean by "backed by the union" is, the union would fully support AA's right to hold those accountable who are not willing to work in an ethical manner and the mechanics would have to get over this "I'm untouchable" attitude if they wanted to keep their jobs. Trust is the greatest hinderance to achieving meaningful progress, but without it we're doomed to failure. Will the two party's promptly step up to the plate and hammer out "out of the box solutions" or will we continue on this unsustainable course? I fear the latter.

If the company treated us fairly then the members would be self monitoring like they are at WN. Management has proven to be untrustworthy. The fact is that the Union should not manage the workforce, Management must do that. If they dont enforce the rules consistantly, instead of just when they want to target someone, you cant expect the Union to allow that to happen. Of all the problems that you listed the remedy does not require any contractual changes. The guys are simply doing what the company is doing, seeing how little they can give and get away with it. The company initiated this contest and they can put an end to it, nobody wenbt into this profession with the thought "I'm going to waste time", most went in because they liked the challenge of working on aircraft and it paid well.

I've said before that AA can have a cost neutral contract, but they have to pay for it. That may sound contradictory but its not, wages have to go up substantially but as people retire the company should not replace them. So the company would have to look at this as a long term fix, they would have to be patient, as they've asked us to be. For every guy that retires the savings supplies the increased compensation for who remain and they can do this until they reach max productivity. I agree with you, we could probably meet or exceed the 40% productivity increase without hiring anyone. Increased productivity and committment from a better paid workforce would result in fewer delays, cancellations, quicker turn times and better fleet utilization, if you want proof look at WN and UPS. Managements position is completely unrealistic, they want each and every one of us to produce like SWA but accept getting paid less than USAIR because there are more of us. Their idea of "cost neutral" is if you want a higher salary you have to pay for it with fewer vactions or higher medical costs, they demand that productivity gains be for free.

That simply will not fly. I'm willing to work outside the box, not be put in one.