Tex-Mech
Veteran
Now for the rest of the article...
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0504/att-0218/02-Global_Economy_Journal-Vol-5-1-Bina-Finzel.pdf
TWU negotiations.........what?
- Thread starter Chuck Schalk
- Start date
Now for the rest of the article...
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0504/att-0218/02-Global_Economy_Journal-Vol-5-1-Bina-Finzel.pdf
Frank Szabo
Veteran
There really is a bottom line here.
A "craft" union sounds fine on the surface, but then again, so does a trade union. They're all supposed to work for their members' benefit - right? Yes, they are.
What is supposed to happen and, due to the faults built into people by human nature, what actually happens are two different things. Those with the firey rhetoric that want to represent others in order to "Right the Wrongs" are not immune to being bought off by the enemy. Boys and girls, may I assure you that Benedict Arnold is alive and well?
Unless a simple process is built into a union's constitution outlining a SIMPLE way to remove the inevitable trash, this will continue unabated. Even though AMP has a process to remove non-performing officers, it's still a complicated process. The TWU also has such a process, heavily weighted to the benefit of the International.
The US Constitution has processes for redress also. Writing to your representative/senator (the suggestion box), voting the bastards out of office (the ballot box), and when all else fails, the US Constitution allows one additional step by virtue of the Second Amendment (the cartridge box) for the people to regain control of their country.
I'm not suggesting adding a "Second Amendment" to a union contract but - no union/association has yet addressed, to my satisfaction, a positive way to remove the trash that always seems to accumulate in the upper offices that isn't a multi-year process. The best I've heard yet is to make the union "leaders" stand for election YEARLY, as well as the union itself - the members affirming yearly whether or not their representation is doing its job.
If the big boys are doing their jobs, they will have no problem staying in power but - that doesn't seem to be what they have in mind, does it?
I'm a mechanic who is tired of hearing managements excuses. If you want to lick thier boots while hiding behind your alias go ahead. management has made the decisions that put the company where it is, not me, so if they cite how much money is made in Cargo as an excuse as to why they cant pay me to do the same job, with the same skills and liability that mechanics at those carriers have I'm going to turn it back on them.
Their post BK wages are pretty much the same or more than ours arent they? And, both USAIR and UAL are in negotiations for a new deal arent they? UAL turned down a TA that provided more Holidays, Sick days, and vacation than our TA. USAIRS current agreement provides them an automatic 3% raise if they dont have a new TA within one year of applying for mediation and they automatically applied for mediation as of July 1, this past Friday. So two out of three of the BK carriers that are left are also in Mediation as well, in other words they arent willing to settle for what they are currently making either. The third BK competitor is Nonunion and they already pay more than AA. Are you saying that we should be willing to accept the same pay, and less benifits and poorer working conditions than carriers that went bankrupt and not consider what carriers that did not go BK pay? Are you saying that we should base our deal that goes forward as far as 2015 on open agreements that were set in BK a decade ago and are in currently in Mediation?
Is that good or bad? Under Management Rights anything thats not explicitely forbidden in the contract is allowed. What prevents AA from sending work that they are currentlly sending out, overseas? I recalll shipping our engines overseas for OH for several years out of JFK. Show me the language that prevents AA from sending out OH work that we cant handle overseas or that compells them to keep such outsourced work in the United States.
The fact is I appluad the IBT for putting in such language, even though you bash the same language at UPS. I think that AMFA gave SWA a concession but who knows what was said since SWA and UPS are the only two carriers that had that language, nobody else did, including AA. Should the guys at SWA negotaite for TIMCO? I would say that there was a moral component to it, that for the craft they profess to support they should have kept the language that kept it stateside but we certainly arent in any position to throw stones at their decision to allow jobs at Timco to be sold out in favor of jobs at SWA.
The fact is that we do have work being performed on AA aircraft outside the bargaining group but that work is still considered to be "In house". In fact the 3P work they do is also considered to be Insourced and they do a lot more 3P work per capita than we do stateside. So it distorts our formula for insorced vs outsourced work.
They pay as much as 50% on some of their earnings, that does not mean that 50% of their earnings go towards taxes. They have progressive taxation. Throw in what their taxes cover and compare that to what we pay out in total for those same things and you will see that they can afford more time off for vacations and Holidays than we can. They can expect to retire at a younger age and live longer as well. Factor in that we pay for medical coverage and large deductables, what we pay for prescriptions, college for our kids, insurance, how much we have to put away for retiree medical, our 401Ks because our pension system is unreliable, property taxes, Fica etc and you will find that although we earn a lot less we pay a lot more for those same things. God help you if you have a special needs or sick child or a sick parent, or spouse, any money you do manage to save by working 50 to 60 hours a week with a lot less vacation than our peers over there, will be gone.
No it did not because the info that was sent was incomplete, it only included the carriers the compant wants to talk about.
When did I say that? The table position I support would pay us less than SWA but more than the carriers that went BK but are also in negotiations.
No I told them they should vote NO and demand something better, something that does not give the company what they forgot to get in 2003, that would provide Retro, that would provide a duly deserved improvement to our lives.
No I dont. Besides Jet Blue is non-union, why do you suppose that is? In fact the company has never even proposed that. Instead they propose lowest in the industry pay with the ability to sell off as much as 25% of the value of the maintenance operation in any given year. What percentage of the value of the maintenance operation do you think Tulsa is?The TA included a wage adjustment provsion that, tied with the change of the MRT window, would have provided AA with nearly a $1.50 cost advantage in MAX pay over even their BK competitors, and an even greater advantage in average pay after SMAs and OSMs are calculated in.
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
'
Great read.
A great article is in Social Policy which discusses "Walmartization" of the airline industry. It was wrtitten by the head of the SEIU Andy Stern who has some good ideas in my opinion. http://www.seiu32bj.org/ne/pc/businessweek.asp "To Stern and his NUP colleagues, the lesson is elementary: Unions can't lift workers into the middle class unless they control a significant chunk of the labor market, either geographically or by industry. Hence their focus on membership density. It's not enough, they say, to simply increase their absolute numbers. Unions must think strategically, targeting whole areas and industries and coordinating their efforts against market forces that drive companies to undercut each other."
Think about this. The American labor movement has been here before in a very similar industry - railroads. Eugene Debs proposed a single railway union over a century ago. He realized that if an industry has fragementation in to smaller and smaller organized labor groups, the possibility of of having one labor group pitted against another will continue. We need to unify all like unions in to a coordinated body either through the AFL-CIO or the TTD.
A new union will only make matters worse and breed further finger pointing and disunity. Who wins in that scenario? Management and the shareholders. They reap greater profits and we the "greedy" unions take the hit. The middle class was the largest when we had powerful unions and the wealth this today's generation of robber barons was created off the backs of those union workers of the past century. Unions became complacent and we let the laws change to allow the current environment.
Want to stop future concessions? Then get unified and organize the un-organized.
Great read.
A great article is in Social Policy which discusses "Walmartization" of the airline industry. It was wrtitten by the head of the SEIU Andy Stern who has some good ideas in my opinion. http://www.seiu32bj.org/ne/pc/businessweek.asp "To Stern and his NUP colleagues, the lesson is elementary: Unions can't lift workers into the middle class unless they control a significant chunk of the labor market, either geographically or by industry. Hence their focus on membership density. It's not enough, they say, to simply increase their absolute numbers. Unions must think strategically, targeting whole areas and industries and coordinating their efforts against market forces that drive companies to undercut each other."
Think about this. The American labor movement has been here before in a very similar industry - railroads. Eugene Debs proposed a single railway union over a century ago. He realized that if an industry has fragementation in to smaller and smaller organized labor groups, the possibility of of having one labor group pitted against another will continue. We need to unify all like unions in to a coordinated body either through the AFL-CIO or the TTD.
A new union will only make matters worse and breed further finger pointing and disunity. Who wins in that scenario? Management and the shareholders. They reap greater profits and we the "greedy" unions take the hit. The middle class was the largest when we had powerful unions and the wealth this today's generation of robber barons was created off the backs of those union workers of the past century. Unions became complacent and we let the laws change to allow the current environment.
Want to stop future concessions? Then get unified and organize the un-organized.
You just gave yourself away as a 514 lackey.
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
First, the difference is a pure cargo outfit does not have the same overhead as a primarily passenger airline that sells excess belly capacity on their aircraft. That has nothing to do with a mechanic's skills at all. Secondly, pure cargo is under very different regs than a Part 121 carrier. Passenger outfits have more regulations because they carry people which are more important than boxes but because of more regulation and the overhead to handle them, that increases costs. People are more sensitive to ticket prices because they have limited cash and when you buy a ticket you are moving them. That's all they carry about. When you ship a box that carries say car parts that when the person who ordered them can make a lot of money, the customer who buys the travel space on the airplane is less sensitive to price but more to the fact they want to get it there. So economics is the key here. Passenger airlines carry people which cost more to fly but the people won't pay that much and cargo carries boxes that are less important personally but more important financially to the purchaser of the flying the cargo. See things at the macro level.
BK wages at the other airlines are not higher than ours in most cases. In fact, the net of lost jobs, no pension, and higher benefit costs puts all of them behind us. Using your methods of comparison misleads people in to thinking that all AMTs at AA can get exactly what a much smaller group gets. That's not being honest with your members. If we had CO's contract, we would have 50% less airframe heavy check AMT's, no engine shop AMT's, and very little component overhaul AMT's - AA would have to layoff about 5,000. If we had UA's contract, we would have 100% less airframe heavy check AMT's, keep the engine shop, keep most component AMT's - AA would have to layoff about 3,000 AMT's. If we had DL's plan we would have 100% less airframe heavy check AMT's. keep the engine shop, keep most componet AMT's. UPS contract, we would have 80% less airframe heavy AMT's, no engine shop AMT's, and hardly any component AMT's. SWA and Jetblue have no engine and component overhaul and less than 25% of their airframe overhaul in-house. NOtice a trend here in your comparisons Bob? You want the other airlines' wages but you didn't tell anybody how they got it. The outsourcing of overhaul funds the line AMTs paychecks. Hmmmmmm....Bob, don't you work the line...
Bob you way under value the current scope language. The CR Smith letter interpretation has always been that the Company cannot farm out more than their current practice. If we go on strike and seek self-help that could probably change.
You have to compare those you compete against. Even during the APA PEB the panel dismissed the comparisons to cargo airlines. I hope you're more prepared than you sound during negotiations. If this is your argument during a PEB we are screwed. Not comparing BK carriers? They should be able to pay more for wages than us, they offloaded their pension obligations and wiped out a huge chunk of debt payments. That is the inherent problem isn't it? How do you get top total compensation for the group we have and not make the total cost of M&E higher than the ones you compare too? Remember, revenue is based on what the market will bear and that may not be able to cover the operating costs you propose under your wage demands.
So you are not proposing top pay. Why does your tag line sign "Number two won't do" if you are proposing number two now? You recommended a No vote based on what then? A better pension? Oh wait we have that. More in-house work? Oh wait we have that. Top retiree medical plan? Oh wait, we have that and would still have had it under the TA only the funding option changed. Number two pay? Oh wait, that was in the TA and you told us to vote no. Great recommendation Bob.
Tex-Mech
Veteran
You really going there with Debs. The ARU only lasted a year till it was disbanded following the Pullman strike and Debs going to jail. But on the Debs note, there is no comparison between the current crop of labor leaders and Eugene Debs.
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
Nope, definitely not 514 or a lackey. Nice try. Can we start a pool?
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
Yep I went there! What is your opinion on organizing the people our jobs get outsourced too? It would do two things, raise the median standard of benefits for all (bring up the bottom not lower the top compensation) and cut off the cheap pool of labor for narrow body overhaul.
Next we would need to pressure politicians to make a set of FAA standards that requires all outsourcers of maintenance to follow the same rules. There are two primary advantages (if you want to call it that) of outsourcing overseas, no direct US oversight and lower wages. Did you read that OIG report on foreign repair stations? They sometimes only get onsite inspections once very five years!!! TUL and AFW get hit constantly. I say fine, FAA inspect all the time but do the same thing to any business that touches a US registered aircraft that once to fly over the US. One standard for all. If you can't run your business like that than try a new business.
Tex-Mech
Veteran
Yeah, and when we elect a Democrat for President along with the democrats getting hold of both the Senate and House, we will get what you are asking with the FAA. Oh wait, we did all that and it didn't happen. What you are saying is all fine and good, but it is part of the same recycled agenda that we get every ten years. Just like this new One World Union stuff. It is the same stuff from 12 years ago, just different faces.
So while your intentions may be good, there will be someone on this board 10 years from now stating the same things that you just said. From a common sense standpoint, of course we should cut off the supply of cheap labor, but from a reality standpoint that will not happen because those who are really in charge want the endless supply of cheap labor.
So do Cargo carriers pay less for landing fees? How about fuel? Why should labor be expected to subsidize the cost structure for passenger carriers? You sound more like management than union to me.
"See things at the macro level".
So in other words remove the individual worker from the equation and look at the workers as a commodity to be bartered and sold by the seller for the benifit of the seller, in this case the TWU, where volume discounts should apply. Should I sell 10 widgets for $1 and end up with $10 or sell a dozen for $11 and end up with $11 if production(representation) cost differences between the two are negligible? Is that how it goes? The big picture!
"Net of lots jobs", arent you supposed to be negotiating for those who are here now? Was this factor considered when we were the leaders in outsourcing?
Really? Well for 70 years the larger the carrier the better the pay was the norm. UPS is larger than FED-EX and UPS workers generally earn more. Economies of scale kick in with a well managed company which usually allow them to produce a product cheaper and pay their workers more, or earn higher profits. Its funny how the story has changed over the years, back when we were the leader among the legacy carriers in outsourcing we never heard these arguements and when UAL outsourced their maintenance costs went up. The fact is that AA has had a permanent competative edge in Maintenance since 1995 when AA got SRPs, prior to that the TWU gave AA the first B-Scale with 12 years to the top, the only reason why it was knocked down is because AA kept losing mechanics to competitors. Management used to give us $100 for each application we turned in, the guys would get hired, sit through a few weeks of training and quit. When things collapsed after 9-11 AA already had their low cost mechanics in place, competitors would have had to cut workers pay by half in order to compete with AA, so they outsourced instead. Besides our table position would only give a small group pay that compares and would still leave AA with cost advantage as far as labor costs per worker over competitors that are not in negotiations or Non-Union.
No they wouldnt, they might be able to, I'd have to check and see what they have as far as layoff protection, I though it was DOS, but who says they can get it done cheaper? Lets face it, actions speak louder than words, AA has brought more work in house than the contract required. One poster claimed that the ratio of mechanics per airplane has gone up since 1995, not down. I dont think that current members want to sacrifice a decent standard of living so AA can bring in more work and hire more dues payers. The fact is that AA attrits out between 400 to 500 mechanics a year. I'd rather see the wages and benefits restored at the expense of not seeing those vacancies filled.
Current practice does not include the 787 or the A-319.
Sure Like SWA and Jet Blue , what you really cant do, and we are, is looking forward and comparing ourselves to what our Competitors who are in negotiations are paying and not what they are asking for, if available. Pattern bargaining in this industry has always been to look at what the top is, that was usually the most recently signed agreement, and top it.
Last time I looked Delta's pension obligation is more than AAs. Management stated that they considered the move to a DC plan to be Cost neutral, that it would actually cost them more now but over time is expected to save them money.
We arent looking for top total compensation, we are looking to be put at the top of carriers that are in negotiations that also went BK, whose workers also expect financial relief as shown by the rejection of the TA at UAL, and behind Southwest. As said before pattern bargaining in this industry would likely bring those carriers rates above ours. As far as total costs other carriers can expect to see their costs for outsourcing rise as growth returns to the industry and many of the providers of OH, having problems recruiting and retaining workers, raise wages and pass those costs on to the airline. Many of these providors pay more than what AA pays OSMs.
Well if the banks are willing to provide them enough to buy all these airpplanes then I'm not going to lose too much sleep worrying about where they will come up with the $190 million a year for us.
Number two has many different connotations.
The TA would have eliminated the Pension for New Hires, They in turn would likely vote ours away before we get to retire.
"Only the funding option has changed", what a crafty way of putting that! So I have the option to stay with what we have now instead of using sick time? NO . The option is instead of us paying a couple of bucks per paycheck and the company paying a couple of bucks per paycheck for coverage when we retire we would have to bank enough sick time to pay for it or have the "option" to not have coverage. Wow great deal!! . We would have to pay the equivelent of around $700 per month in sick time and we would only get Eight days a year to fund the bank. Compare that to Continental who at equal rates of pay would only have to pay the equivelent of $420/month and they get 12 sick days a year to fund the bank along with a rapid reacrual clause if they suffer a severe illiness or injury. So if you get hurt and use up all your sick time, where we have one of the lowest accrual rates in the industry, you as Jim Weel said "Face a life decision". AA admitted that this concession would net them $57.5 million because they would get to pocket the match that we paid into for 20 years.
"Number two" just like the 1995 "ME TOO" clause. The devil was in the details. The figure included MRT, which would be $1.50 an hour. The language also adjusted the window where MRT would be paid enabling the company to have 24 hour coverage and not pay anybody MRT. So AA had a built in $1.50hr cushion built in before the clause could be effective.
You look at the thousands of mechanics that AA employs as a liability for the company. I dont, I look at them as a huge assett. Neither of us knows at which point in house is cost effective, and apparently neither does the company but we both know that with events like the Hailstorms in DFW and the tail slide on the MD-80s that having the capacity to make those repairs was only made possible by having the OH capacity we do. We also know that our turn times in OH are better and that there is a shortage of A&Ps out there, so as other carriers see their workforce attrit out they will have to continue to raise wages in order to attract the fewer and fewer available mechanics there are to be had. We already see where Jet Blue has raised their top pay to $40/hr, we hear Gordon Clark talk about how hard it is to organize 3P shops because the workers dont stay.
So we can either look at a large AMT workforce as a liability, as you do, a liability that warrants a discounted rate on labor, or as an assett that has value.
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
Bob, your spin sounds good to you but it only works in your mind.
Cargo carriers operate in a different environment and sad but true, we subsidized people's airplane tickets. They don't care about us they just want to get to Vegas on the cheap.
Just looking at the end to end process of how the business works in reality. Outsourcing has inherent "advantages" (Wall Street term) and BK let the other guys shed that part of overhead.
The point being, you can't cherry pick someone's contract. You have to look at the sum of all its parts.
The Pilots tried that in the PEB to argue why they should get more money and how to pay for it. The APA (craft union) argued that AA could pay for higher wages for them because the TWU scope clause didn't cover new fleet types not online yet they don't get to fly them. PEB said nice try but that is like saying new aircraft have glass cockpits and since APA pilots only fly analog gauge aircraft now in service. So yes, the 787 and A319 would be covered under TWU scope language, its been tested and the precedent has been set. (Read the APA PEB document)
SWA and Jetblue outsource all engine and airframe overhaul Bob. Again, full cost of contract.
DL pension obligation more than AA/TWU? They terminated/froze their pensions in BK? Are you serious?
The banks aren't lending AA money. GECAS did for the 737 and 787s on the condition we buy GEnX and CFMs for future aircraft with their financing. Good deal for GECAS, they get the interest and sell us the engines and parts. The new A320s will probably come from the leasing market according to AW&ST. The leasing market is picking up again and good deals are out there. Number two has different connotations? Yes it does. So what is your definition?
"The TA would have eliminated pensions for new hires." Didn't you say in this same answer that you are negotiating for those now on the property? So which one is it?
Everyone always looks at the all-in-rate when comparing. Labor is an asset if you make it one. How about capitalizing on that and writing it in to the contract?
Oh, and have a Happy 4th. We get to voice our opinions because we live in the USA. Let's all celebrate it! Safely PLEASE.
We? Oh yes I see you said "subsidized", past tense.
If its so advantageous then why didnt AA, SWA and the rest of the industry do it? Obviously there are disadvantages to it.
Sure we can, the company does it all the time. Just like they compare us to carriers that went through BK and leave out the fact that the shareholders of AA, their Boss, did not see their equity wiped out. There has to be value in that. Yet now AA comes back and says they want to shed prefunding, and take away the Pension from new hires which would put the future of our pensions at risk. They also wanted to be able to sell off up to 25% of the operation on any given year, and with system protection frozen at 2000 only if other groups agreed to the ASM increase,(otherwise it stays at 1998), the number who are unprotected grows with every retiree thats replaced by a new hire.
So tell me, in your opinion, under the terms of the rejected TA would the selling of the Tulsa base fall under a major or minor dispute?
Well SWA and Jet Blue al;ways did. Jet Blue didnt raise their mechanics pay because they get to farm out that work, they raised it because they were having trouble recruiting and retaining people. Is it the full cost of the contract we look at or the full cost of maintenance? Because outsourcing almost certainly reduces labor costs but whether or not it reduces maintenance costs is a question that even Arpey could not answer.
You are on the same mailing list as me. It was sent out around a month ago, it listed the pension obbligations of several carriers.
Ok, Financial Institution, an organization that lends money and charges interest if that makes you happy.
Ok I'll clarify, I'm against lowering compensation and giving concessions to hire more people, even if it means the company doesnt replace people who attrit out. I'm OK with that in exchange for higher compensation for those who here, and those who eventually get hired in the future. I think we are responsible for maintaining the quality of the job, not the quantity. We may end up smaller but everyone here will be hapier and more than likely increased productivity would offest most of the cost, like SWA. Or are you one of those who claims that our language makes us unproductive?
Thanks, and I'm guessing you agree that the right to express our opinion applies to elected officers as well? And enjoy the rest of your Vacation and I'll see you on Wednesday .
Frank Szabo
Veteran
Isn't the TWU the group wanting to hire more people so as to collect more in dues?
Most businesses have a pretty fair idea re: the amount of heads needed to do a given amount of work and I think American is in that group. With the "union" wanting more people to pay dues and perfectly content with the company paying less per head via concessions, one might say we've had our own type of "inflation" - spreading "X" amount of dollars around amongst more people than needed to do a given number of tasks.
Again - present to the company that we want the 2001 contract back (as a minimum). Then ask what conditions and workrules they'd have to have in order for that to come about. Most certainly, a hiring spree to add needless heads would not be one of their "needs". Nobody has to agree to anything - just explore. Then, tell the membership what the answer was.
Most assuredly, Little Jimmy wouldn't like it all, which is why it makes perfect sense to ask. What's the little prick going to do - remove you again? CAN you even ask that question with Fat Don in the room?
AA is supposed to retain the right to manage (or mismanage) the company, as they see fit. Over time, we've given them everything else, why not this also?
(my apologies to all the pricks out there for using you in referring to Little Jimmy).
ps - I know you read this, Bob - no answer?
Most unions like to see their dues revenue go up, but I cant say if thats the reason why there has been a consistant campaign, from the low table position, to the monthly comments on Bankruptcy and fuel prices, to lower expectations.
Will Little remove me? He said he would not try to change me back in 2009. Thats all I can say.
I suppose we could ask but the fact is no matter what work rules we agreed to the company would not be willing to restore even the 2001 contract without facing an ultimatum. Why should they? They want to get the workrule changes for free. The question is if they change the workrules in the book without giving us adequate compensation is that going to really have the desired effect on the floor? How did all the workrule changes that were put in back in 2003 work out in Tulsa? Can you see a huge increase in productivity compared to prior to 2003? I know when I was on the floor I worked harder and was more focused in 2002 than I was in 2003 on. While my productivity increased on paper due to rising revenues I didnt work harder and the company probably would have made even more money had they left our compensation intact. The stress, lack of focus and fatigue probably cost the company more than they saved, its not intentiional but when you feel you are getting screwed and have to work more hours for the same amount of money solutions to their problems just dont seem to appear as quickly. Three of the of the dirty dozen factors kick in -distraction, stress and fatigue. Whereas in 2002 I would volunteer to help out or would go out and clear off the lifts for the night guys I would instead just wait for an assignment. For some reason management feels they can beat increased productivity out of us if they change the rules. I dont see it.
All we keep hearing is "We have Overhaul" so we cant expect a decent contract. I've never seen where they proved that doing it in house costs them more than if they sent it out. I see time and time again with our Title II guys in BOS where they prove that they can do things in house cheaper, faster and better. From what I hear the City of Tulsa gives AA the space for a song and that its common to see plates attached to lots of expensive equipment saying "Property of the City of Tulsa Oklahoma" on them. These things would bring down Tulsa over head even more so is OH such a burden as some make it out to be, or like I asked Overspeed is it an assett? Is AA getting its cake and eating it to, getting a total cost advantage by doing it in house then spinning around and using it to get discounted labor on top of that? They turn around and say that the total cost of our contract, as Overspeed alluded to, costs them more than what their compeitors pay, they leave out they employ a lot more people, get a lot more done and dont pay out nearly as much to Maintenance providers as their competitors. Of course Overspeeed knew that as well but it didnt fit into his spin. The fact is I dont know the answer as far as cost because I dont have access to the info and there are so many variables, I dont think any one person does because many of the numbers and the details as to how those numbers are derived are business secrets. So Arpey probably wasnt lieing when he said that the jury was still out as to whether or not insourcing put Aa at a disadvantage. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that AA isnt seeing the full benifit of quality inhouse OH because of the poor morale, both on the bases and on the line. With so much revenue at stake on just one lost trip I believe the poor morale costs a lot more than they saved by screwing us. They have pipe dreams if they think that workrule changes and the paltry increases they are offering will change that.
