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

[Buck]

M&R Negotiations Update - 07/01/11
By: AlanOn: 07/01/2011 1102In: M&R Committee Updates
Dear Brothers and Sisters;

We thought it would be appropriate that we send out a brief update to the membership on where we are at in the mediation process. One of the reasons for the update is there has been information circulated to some of our members in the system urging members to send emails to our International President asking him to take certain actions.

The email request was the opinion of its author it was not from the M&R Negotiating Committee. We must clarify that any requests for International support must come from the Local leaders that make up the TWU M&R Negotiating Committee who are actually doing the bargaining. Any such requests from the committee will have the support of the International.

Hearing from the membership is important, as each respective local already has in place forums, meetings to get that necessary feedback. Make use of the current local forums/meetings to share your views; it is imperative that those processes are the communication mechanisms used. The last thing we need to have is all of our ideas or strategies (sometimes internal disagreements) being telegraphed for the company to view. Again, please keep that in mind, and regardless of our individual views, let us always speak with “One Strong, Determined, and Fearless Voice” to American Airlines management and the public.

As far as where we are in the process we have scheduled internal meetings next week (July 6th and 7th) with the entire M&R Negotiating Committee to discuss the following:

The Table Team will conduct a comprehensive debrief for the entire Negotiation Committee on the status of open articles.

Conduct an updated strategy session in preparation for the next mediation session scheduled for July 11-15, 2011.

Unity and solidarity is the best route to achieve the agreement we know – and management knows – that we all deserve. Stay informed.

We would like to take this opportunity to wish you and your family a safe Fourth (4th) of July.


In Solidarity,

Your TWU M&R Negotiation Committee

 

[Frank Szabo]

@ Bob Owens:

Regardless of having proved or disproved anything re: the cost of overhaul, one of the first things I learned when hiring on at American was time and control of maintenance operations was paramount. A manufacturing facility will live and die by the standard hour (man hours expended on a given task) but an airline operates on elapsed time - a major difference/discipline.

40 man hours to do a given job can entail one shift using 5 people (assuming they aren't stepping on each other) or one shift for 5 days. Either way in the manufacturing world the cost is the same.

An aircraft sitting on the ground has a cost per hour much as a piece of machinery does in a shop - trouble is, the aircraft costs a helluva lot more to idle and it makes sense to throw an enormous amount of manpower at a problem to fix it where this would be sacrilege in manufacturing - that's why there are lines ops.

Overhaul, while a different story, still allows the company to retain control of their work and not get in a bidding war re: the use of someone else's facility and personnel to accomplish any given job in a given time frame - the tools, facility, and people are there waiting on a shirt to say "do it". Not having to compete/bid for time to stay on schedule is as priceless to the airline as is line ops.

Actual cost is nearly impossible to measure as would be the value of cost avoidance by having both line and overhaul in place. The airline boys are unable to do this calculation so the "burden of proof" is dumped on the negotiators with an added "up yours" attitude from the shirts and ties.

.. and remember: the sole function of a tie is to contain the foreskins of management.

 

[Buck]

Labor Relations

 

[Bob Owens]

@ Bob Owens:

Regardless of having proved or disproved anything re: the cost of overhaul, one of the first things I learned when hiring on at American was time and control of maintenance operations was paramount. A manufacturing facility will live and die by the standard hour (man hours expended on a given task) but an airline operates on elapsed time - a major difference/discipline.

40 man hours to do a given job can entail one shift using 5 people (assuming they aren't stepping on each other) or one shift for 5 days. Either way in the manufacturing world the cost is the same.

An aircraft sitting on the ground has a cost per hour much as a piece of machinery does in a shop - trouble is, the aircraft costs a helluva lot more to idle and it makes sense to throw an enormous amount of manpower at a problem to fix it where this would be sacrilege in manufacturing - that's why there are lines ops.

Overhaul, while a different story, still allows the company to retain control of their work and not get in a bidding war re: the use of someone else's facility and personnel to accomplish any given job in a given time frame - the tools, facility, and people are there waiting on a shirt to say "do it". Not having to compete/bid for time to stay on schedule is as priceless to the airline as is line ops.

Actual cost is nearly impossible to measure as would be the value of cost avoidance by having both line and overhaul in place. The airline boys are unable to do this calculation so the "burden of proof" is dumped on the negotiators with an added "up yours" attitude from the shirts and ties.

.. and remember: the sole function of a tie is to contain the foreskins of management.

Exactly. My problem is that Don and some others have built their approach under the assumption that doing OH in house is a negotiating liability without any proof or way to prove it. That further concessions are needed to "save these jobs". That we cant expect to earn what other mechanics at other carriers earn because they dont do OH in house like we do. The fact is even with all the available data, and everything is never available, as OH facilities dont just put out what they charge the airlines like K-mart puts in the Sunday circular, the costs are negotiated or bid between vendors and that information is usually priviledged. I doubt that carriers could legally share that information even with each other. AA could go to Timco and get a very different price than SWA gets for pretty much the same work. Why? Because if Timco feels they have enough work they will charge more to bring in the AA work. One justification is maybe Timco feels if they take on the AA work they will have to increase the amount of OT they pay in order to squeeze AA in, after all they do this work for profit, AA does it in house so they dont have to provide other companies a profit which would come directly out of AA's earnings. If you have the volume of work, doing it in house should be cheaper. The question is where is the break even point due to the difference in wages that the airlines pay and those of an MRO after what the MRO charges, and all the control factors are put in? It was reported to me, admittedly heresay, UPS told their guys their figure was $41/hr if they wanted OH work brought in house, they opted for $50 and to continue outsourcing. (I wonder if the MROs give passenger airlines a discount since they arent as profitable as cargo Carriers? I doubt it, we are the only ones that do that.) Disregarding the heresay keep in mind that if UPS decided to insource they would have to aquire the equipment, facilities and most importantly, personell with the skillsets needed. AA already has all that, and from what we hear the facilities, and much of the equipment at the Tulsa OH base is provided by the City of Tulsa at very favorable rates. Granted $41 is pure heresay,and the rest was conjecture which will undoubtably drive Overspeed and DUKE crazy because it came from me and doesnt enforce their agenda but both of them seen to have accepted that Overhaul is a huge negotiating liability, so much so that we have to accept less compensation than our peers doing the same work without ever presenting proof, in other words based on the same things, heresay and conjecture.

 

[Frank Szabo]

Exactly. My problem is that Don and some others have built their approach under the assumption that doing OH in house is not cost effective, that its a negotiating liability without any proof or way to prove it. That further concessions are needed to "save these jobs". The fact is even with all the available data, and everything is never available, as OH facilities dont just put out what they charge the airlines like K-mart puts in the Sunday circular, the costs are negotiated or bid between vendors and that information is usually priviledged. I doubt that carriers could legally share that information even with each other. AA could go to Timco and get a very different price than SWA gets for pretty much the same work. Why? Because if Timco feels they have enough work they will charge more to bring in the AA work. One justification is maybe Timco feels if they take on the AA work they will have to increase the amount of OT they pay in order to squeeze AA in, after all they do this work for profit, AA does it in house so they dont have to provide other companies a profit which would come directly out of AA's earnings. If you have the volume of work, doing it in house should be cheaper. The question is where is the break even point due to the difference in wages that the airlines pay and those of an MRO after what the MRO charges, and all the control factors are put in? It was reported to me, admittedly heresay, UPS told their guys their figure was $41/hr if they wanted OH work brought in house, they opted for $50 and to continue outsourcing. (I wonder the MROs give passenger airlines a discount since they arent as profitable as cargo Carriers? I doubt it, we are the only ones that do that.) Disregarding the heresay keep in mind that if UPS decided to insource they would have to aquire the equipment, facilities and most importantly, personell with the skillsets needed. AA already has all that, and from what we hear the facilities, and much of the equipment at the Tulsa OH base is provided by the City of Tulsa at very favorable rates. Granted thats all pure heresay, conjecture and surmising which will undoubtably drive Overspeed and DUKE crazy but both of them seen to have accepted that Overhaul is a liability without ever presenting proof, in other words based on the same thing.

There was an article in the Tulsa World (a rather liberal rag, in my opinion) re: what AA "extracted" from the city in 2003. Lowered water rates, something about electric, lower lease payments, and other stuff I can't recall - it was in the paper and should be in its archives for those curious enough to look it up.

The Airport Authoriity Trust pays for most everything the company wants in the way of machinery but they did stumble on a huge mill drug up from AFW (I understand). It sits in a hole in the Turbine Building the size of a rather large swimming pool and is use to machine landing gear - 767, 777, etc. Machinery is owned mostly by the City of Tulsa.

The company pays for raw material purchased, discounted utilities, wages, and facility/machinery repairs - otherwise, not much else.

 

[strikeforce]

Exactly. My problem is that Don and some others have built their approach under the assumption that doing OH in house is a negotiating liability without any proof or way to prove it. That further concessions are needed to "save these jobs".

This debate regarding the costs of OH are beginning to get a little clearer, but I have to ask you Bob.....Every job, whether it's cutting grass, installing a water heater or fixing an airplane, has a cost factor. In negotiations, the TWU is essentially bidding for that work, right? Although we are employees of AA, we are not guaranteed employment. The union is a contractor bidding on work for AA. The TWU has bid $39 an hour for OH work and $41 an hour for Line work. That's it. That's the unions cost of doing business with AA. Now, AA feels it's too much, but won't give the union a number or cost for doing that work. Don't let them fool you....they have a number or cost....and that cost was "the rejected T/A". One way or another AA will not pay more than that rate.

When you fix your roof or siding.....do you get estimates from contractors? Are you going to pay the highest estimate?

I'm sure that AA did their homework and asked other carriers what they're paying to outsource their OH, and Bob you might be right....AA is paying a cheaper rate to do the work in-house. Problem is....as a union we're subsidizing through concessions the cost of doing business with AA in order to save jobs. Therefore, Don's right.

The TWU is a business first and union last, jobs means dues, but as a craft, is this the proper way to go......jobs over higher wages & benefits and maybe less jobs?????? I'm going to pick the latter because even if my number is picked for layoff....at some point down the road I will be recalled to higher wages and benefits. That should have been the case in 2003. Again, I'm just sayin!!!!

Just another way of looking at things.

 

[Overspeed]

There was an article in the Tulsa World (a rather liberal rag, in my opinion) re: what AA "extracted" from the city in 2003. Lowered water rates, something about electric, lower lease payments, and other stuff I can't recall - it was in the paper and should be in its archives for those curious enough to look it up.

The Airport Authoriity Trust pays for most everything the company wants in the way of machinery but they did stumble on a huge mill drug up from AFW (I understand). It sits in a hole in the Turbine Building the size of a rather large swimming pool and is use to machine landing gear - 767, 777, etc. Machinery is owned mostly by the City of Tulsa.

The company pays for raw material purchased, discounted utilities, wages, and facility/machinery repairs - otherwise, not much else.

And this is where you guys get wrapped around the axle of looking just at it from a labor cost perspective. What about overhead, regulations, time the aircraft is in base for maintenance (not making revenue), quality (does that aircraft fly when its supposed to), benefits, taxes, etc... So Don is wrong because he looks at the whole picture? Take off the blinders and look at the whole world.

 

[Frank Szabo]

This debate regarding the costs of OH are beginning to get a little clearer, but I have to ask you Bob.....Every job, whether it's cutting grass, installing a water heater or fixing an airplane, has a cost factor. In negotiations, the TWU is essentially bidding for that work, right? Although we are employees of AA, we are not guaranteed employment. The union is a contractor bidding on work for AA. The TWU has bid $39 an hour for OH work and $41 an hour for Line work. That's it. That's the unions cost of doing business with AA. Now, AA feels it's too much, but won't give the union a number or cost for doing that work. Don't let them fool you....they have a number or cost....and that cost was "the rejected T/A". One way or another AA will not pay more than that rate.

When you fix your roof or siding.....do you get estimates from contractors? Are you going to pay the highest estimate?

I'm sure that AA did their homework and asked other carriers what they're paying to outsource their OH, and Bob you might be right....AA is paying a cheaper rate to do the work in-house. Problem is....as a union we're subsidizing through concessions the cost of doing business with AA in order to save jobs. Therefore, Don's right. As a craft is this the proper way to go......jobs over increased wages & benefits and maybe less jobs?????? I'm going to pick the latter because even if my number is picked for layoff....at some point down the road I will be recalled to higher wages and benefits. That should have been the case in 2003. Again, I'm just sayin!!!!

Just another way of looking at things.

That's what I've said for a long time - the TWU was more than happy to negotiate lesser pay for us in return for more dues coming in for them. The helluvit is, that's what the membership told them to do via a questionaire. They've no gotten rather comfortable with the extra income our cuts provided them and they aren't interested in giving anything back.

What's wrong with this picture?

 

[Chuck Schalk]

Ref: Strikeforce
I'm sure that AA did their homework and asked other carriers what they're paying to outsource their OH, and Bob you might be right....AA is paying a cheaper rate to do the work in-house. Problem is....as a union we're subsidizing through concessions the cost of doing business with AA in order to save jobs. Therefore, Don's right.

what part of maintenance/OH is being subsidized? if that is the goal of the owners of the contract then they should detail that instead of using the negotiating committee as the fall guy for this. I always hear the blame on the Presidents for voting for the concessions.
I have not seen a breakdown of what part of maintenance requires subsidizing even though it has been asked for. Where are the cost disadvantages and where do we make money? all we are told is that there is a cost disadvantage.

 

[Frank Szabo]

And this is where you guys get wrapped around the axle of looking just at it from a labor cost perspective. What about overhead, regulations, time the aircraft is in base for maintenance (not making revenue), quality (does that aircraft fly when its supposed to), benefits, taxes, etc... So Don is wrong because he looks at the whole picture? Take off the blinders and look at the whole world.

I made a comment day or three ago re: the other factors that go into the "cost" calculation - I do understand it, numbnuts.

I apologize for expecting you to have the ability of remembering back more than a few seconds about something else that was said.

I do realize, however, that for a company/union butt-snokeler, recall/honesty are sometimes fleeting qualities.

 

[Buck]

I heard somewhere that the lease alone at TULE is around.... $1 a year. The rest of the story has been posted.

 

[Frank Szabo]

I heard somewhere that the lease alone at TULE is around.... $1 a year. The rest of the story has been posted.

Not sure re: the $1.00, but it ain't much.

 

[strikeforce]

Ref: Strikeforce
I'm sure that AA did their homework and asked other carriers what they're paying to outsource their OH, and Bob you might be right....AA is paying a cheaper rate to do the work in-house. Problem is....as a union we're subsidizing through concessions the cost of doing business with AA in order to save jobs. Therefore, Don's right.

what part of maintenance/OH is being subsidized? if that is the goal of the owners of the contract then they should detail that instead of using the negotiating committee as the fall guy for this. I always hear the blame on the Presidents for voting for the concessions.
I have not seen a breakdown of what part of maintenance requires subsidizing even though it has been asked for. Where are the cost disadvantages and where do we make money? all we are told is that there is a cost disadvantage.

The part that's being subsidized is the use of non-licensed workers.....i.e. OSM's & SRP's.

Chuck, the last T/A had ASM's....airline support mechanics....the union negotiators agreed to these non-licensed helpers....thank god the membership didn't buy into this additional concession. Don and Co. DID!!!!!
The union keeps providing AA with lower overall wages.....for every retiree going out the door....a lower wage worker is entering. Therefore, when you factor in all of the non-licensed workers against the topped out guys....AA overall labor cost is going down. It has to be, and until someone shows me otherwise I won't believe it. Now, is AA still at a cost disadvantage compared to the BK carriers who outsouce their OH, maybe, but it's pretty close and it's getting closer. But, someone within the company has been able to keep persuading the finance guys....the moneymen....that in-house is more cost effective than outsourcing, otherwise OH would be GONE!!!

I can probably tell you who???? The TWU!!!!!

It is what it is....brother!!

 

[Buck]

The part that's being subsidized is the use of non-licensed workers.....i.e. OSM's & SRP's.

Chuck, the last T/A had ASM's....airline support mechanics....the union negotiators agreed to these non-licensed helpers....thank god the membership didn't buy into this additional concession. Don and Co. DID!!!!!

How do you have non-licensed ASM's when the FAA has stated that no one can sign for any work but their own. I as a C/C have no plans on signing for another individuals work.

It is what it is....brother!!


Hey a slogan, neat!

 

[strikeforce]

How do you have non-licensed ASM's when the FAA has stated that no one can sign for any work but their own. I as a C/C have no plans on signing for another individuals work.

It is what it is....brother!!


Hey a slogan, neat!

Ok! I meant the rejected T/A.

These were non-licensed workers on the docks....I believe 20% of the dock could have been ASM's.

Well guess who's signing for them?????