U.S. House looking deeper into maintenance outsourcing

[JimJimmyJim]

Ask yourself this question...Do you think AA chooses to keep most of its maintenance work in house just to preserve jobs? Do you think it's possible that AA does most work at home because the 2003 concessions which are still in full force have made it cost advantageous to do so?

Don't get me wrong, I like the fact AA has chosen this path, but I truly doubt they do so just to save jobs. AA, like any other corporation's main responsibility is to make money for itself and shareholders.
Look at UAL...Filed for bankruptcy protection. They raped employees beyond belief and shed thousands upon thousands of jobs. They send they work over seas......And they've been losing billions since.

AA likes to have control over their maintenance. They want to know when that plane is getting out of the barn. They don't want to have other companies holding their asssets. AA likes having control. We know they don't care about our jobs.

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

I wouldn't go so far as to say AA doesn't care about your jobs. I think it does, and in this instance caring about your jobs and generating extra revenue (outside work brought in) went nicely hand-in-hand.

UAL is a useful comparison. They are a ship that just can't seem to be righted, no matter what the management does. I see the destructive path laid out by some of the current union leaders as heading straight for that same destination. I'd hate to see AA go that way.

 

[Hopeful]

I wouldn't go so far as to say AA doesn't care about your jobs. I think it does, and in this instance caring about your jobs and generating extra revenue (outside work brought in) went nicely hand-in-hand.

UAL is a useful comparison. They are a ship that just can't seem to be righted, no matter what the management does. I see the destructive path laid out by some of the current union leaders as heading straight for that same destination. I'd hate to see AA go that way.

But the paths of executive greed are the same. Only the workers suffer.

 

[JimJimmyJim]

I wouldn't go so far as to say AA doesn't care about your jobs. I think it does, and in this instance caring about your jobs and generating extra revenue (outside work brought in) went nicely hand-in-hand.

UAL is a useful comparison. They are a ship that just can't seem to be righted, no matter what the management does. I see the destructive path laid out by some of the current union leaders as heading straight for that same destination. I'd hate to see AA go that way.

If AA cared about it's workforce they would share the gain. They would settle contracts with there workers and thank us for keeping them out of bankruptcy 6 years ago. If management can compensate themselves as they have for the last 6 years, why not labor. The problem with people like you is you just don't get it. You'll pay your auto dealer $70 an hour to work on your car that, you can pull over, but you want your AMT to make as little as possible, along with all other labor groups, so you can have a dirt cheap price to fly.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Ask yourself this question...Do you think AA chooses to keep most of its maintenance work in house just to preserve jobs? Do you think it's possible that AA does most work at home because the 2003 concessions which are still in full force have made it cost advantageous to do so?

Don't get me wrong, I like the fact AA has chosen this path, but I truly doubt they do so just to save jobs. AA, like any other corporation's main responsibility is to make money for itself and shareholders.

My $0.02 is that one of the reasons that AA has kept maintenance in-house is that it is 1 more piece of furniture that it has an option of burning to keep the house warm, so to speak (if $$$ situation get really bad). On the other hand, look how well selling / spinning off maintenence (and regional carrier and FF loyalty program) has worked for AC: great for shareholders/holding company, disaster for the airline.

 

[Hopeful]

My $0.02 is that one of the reasons that AA has kept maintenance in-house is that it is 1 more piece of furniture that it has an option of burning to keep the house warm, so to speak (if $$$ situation get really bad). On the other hand, look how well selling / spinning off maintenence (and regional carrier and FF loyalty program) has worked for AC: great for shareholders/holding company, disaster for the airline.

You could very well be right. My point was that AA, and any corporation for that matter, does not exist solely to employee people. Provide a product, make a profit and make it attractive to investors.

AA is no different.

 

[700UW]

FWAA,

You site LH, and other airlines who perform their own mtc in their countries, not outsourced to MROs, big differance.

 

[FWAAA]

FWAA,

You site LH, and other airlines who perform their own mtc in their countries, not outsourced to MROs, big differance.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Lufthansa Technik and ST Engineering are the largest MROs in the world, and LH overhauls planes in HAM, BUD, SNN, MNL and PEK. ST Engineering has locations all over the world. LH maintains its own planes in Germany and overhauls lots of others' airplanes in various locations. My point was that lots and lots of airplanes are maintained elsewhere and among those airplanes, hull losses are probably no higher than airplanes maintained in the USA by TWU members.

 

[Hopeful]

I'm not sure what your point is.

Lufthansa Technik and ST Engineering are the largest MROs in the world, and LH overhauls planes in HAM, BUD, SNN, MNL and PEK. ST Engineering has locations all over the world. LH maintains its own planes in Germany and overhauls lots of others' airplanes in various locations. My point was that lots and lots of airplanes are maintained elsewhere and among those airplanes, hull losses are probably no higher than airplanes maintained in the USA by TWU members.

But fear not, when fatal accidents do occur and foreign repair is the cause, the lawyers will be sure to make that an issue.

 

[eolesen]

But fear not, when fatal accidents do occur and foreign repair is the cause, the lawyers will be sure to make that an issue.

Red herring.

If an incident with injuries or fatalities occurs and it's somehow related to maintenance, I can pretty much guarantee the lawyers are going to make an issue out of it regardless where and by whom the plane was maintained.

 

[Hopeful]

I'm sure Eric will tell me that his FAA sources say differently.


It's all about the bottom dollar......Until a lawyer argues the case and brings to light that an accident may have occurred because an airline gave it's maintenance to the lowest bidder.

 

[eolesen]

They already did that twice in the past decade or so, Hopeful.

"Lowest bidder" was an issue in both the Valujet case, and the Air Midwest crash at CLT where the B1900's rigging was found to have not been set correctly.

 

[Hopeful]

They already did that twice in the past decade or so, Hopeful.

"Lowest bidder" was an issue in both the Valujet case, and the Air Midwest crash at CLT where the B1900's rigging was found to have not been set correctly.

Yes, imagine that... mechanics screwed up.....I wonder what his salary was for having made so fatal a mistake.

 

[Rogallo]

So is salary directly related to competance?

 

[Hopeful]

So is salary directly related to competance?

Of course it is....That's why AA pays its executives in order to retain the "key" talent!

How about the recent Buffalo crash...The co-pilot worked part time in a diner.....not too competent by listening to some of the voice recordings.


Yea salary is directly related to competence.



That logic applies to executives. so it's only fair that it applies to lowly mechanics.