UAL Contract Proposal Info

[Bob Owens]

 
 
 
I like the $80K buyout option which indicates to me they want to outsource more. I suppose we could propose such an option to buy down the overhaul base capacity that most of you want to get rid of. 
 

No its because UAL would rather clear the recall list and start hiring new hires instead of calling people back at top rates. Some of their new hires will undoubtably come from AA.
 

The SK pay at 100% and 1600 hour max looks good as well too. It is a better deal than ours except for no new work being brought back in. It seems the IBT is fine with the status quo on outsourcing even though they said they are bringing new work back in-house.
 

Their language limits narrowbody outsourcing to Domestic MROs, so they have been bringing work back in anyway and will continue. They are also building new hangars in EWR and IAD. If they were planning on outsourcing more why would they be building two new hangars?

 

[Overspeed]

No its because UAL would rather clear the recall list and start hiring new hires instead of calling people back at top rates. Some of their new hires will undoubtably come from AA.
 
Their language limits narrowbody outsourcing to Domestic MROs, so they have been bringing work back in anyway and will continue. They are also building new hangars in EWR and IAD. If they were planning on outsourcing more why would they be building two new hangars?

 
Very broad assumptions. I did not know you were in on UAL's business plan. My assumption that UAL is "buying down" their employee roster is based on their last early out they did in the UAL/IBT CBA. They did not add new overhaul work although they built a  hangars for the new 787 phase checks. So what? That is not overhaul work? It's line work. AA built hangars in DFW to handle the MD11, was that because of the TWU? No AA bought a new airplane and needed a place to fix it. 

 

[Overspeed]

Yes you lie, because the company changed the window where MRT would be paid, they adjusted it so they could still have 24 hour coverage and not pay anyone the MRT, so that knocks your $38 to $36 and change for the line guys. Then you left out the $2/hr that guys in OH would not be getting, that's knocks them down to $34 and change, or pretty much what they are getting now. Are you claiming they changed the start times just for shits and giggles?
 
 
You left out the fact that the US/IAM Contract may still be in place at the time of the Mid Term Wage Adjustment. So it would be $42.16(UA) + $39.29(DL) + $35(US) = 116.45 /3= $38.81  So we could very well still be $3.24 less than UAL with less vacation, less holidays, less sick time, no allowances for tools , shoes etc, no 1.75x for FT, no doubletime etc. US will not be "us" until single carrier status has been put in place, that could take years. It could easily take 22 months.
 
Look at page 4, Time paid not worked, currently UAL get almost double what we get, in total $15/hr more, most of which would remain even with the Mid term wage adjustment. In fact look at any page and you will see us at a distant bottom in pretty much every category, depressing.  
 
Look at the early out, more than double what AA offered.
 
The deal looks good compared to ours, but only because ours is soooo bad, but after DOS they only go up 6% more over the next four years years, and they are going after some of the concessions we gave;.  
-eliminate laundry Allowance
-Overtime by qualifications
-eliminate moving provisions
-eliminate per diem mileage reimbursement
 
-they get roll into the IBT pension-cost neutral, no improvement. Looks like the IBT is looking to take the mechanics pensions to bail out their troubled pensions.

 
Ok, Bob. You are always right in your mind.
 
You are arguing for overhaul in this post yet you argue for the SWA contract which just doesn't have anywhere near the overhaul capacity AA does under the TWU contract. Make up your mind.
 
700UW already beat you to the punch. Yes the IAM/US agreement may still be in place when the wage adjustment kicks in.

 

[Rogallo]

 
Ok, Bob. You are always right in your mind.
 
 

And so are you!......and me too!!!

 

[Topcat187]

Industry is looking to AA and laughing, thanks to TWU. We are so far from our airlines colleagues that is not funny. Removing Videtich and Gless is not enough to repair the damage.

 
 
I agree, the AA CBA is a joke!

 

[Overspeed]

And so are you!......and me too!!!

 
Point taken

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Just so you know, the company's proposal is concessionary for the majority of mechanics here, from day 1.
 
The proposed changes to our medical alone are huge, and the paltry raise doesn't begin to cover the expense, nevermind additional costs going forward.

 

[MetalMover]

Just so you know, the company's proposal is concessionary for the majority of mechanics here, from day 1.
 
The proposed changes to our medical alone are huge, and the paltry raise doesn't begin to cover the expense, nevermind additional costs going forward.

Sounds like the era of Gordon Bethune group hugs are over!

 

[Show me the money]

The paranoia that everyone is out to get overhaul needs to settle down. Tulsa sighned their own execution order with last agreement with no scope. Those are the facts. The buyout is for the most part a chance to get younger and have less expensive workers for the short term. Right now the current age of most mechanics is the highest it has ever been. Layoffs only up the age and is very costly to bring workers back. Parker himself acknowledged this very point in an interview some time ago. If 80,000 was offered I believe the sound of people heading for the door would be deafening.

 

[dfw gen]

five years to me age and one years severance would do me.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
Very broad assumptions. I did not know you were in on UAL's business plan. My assumption that UAL is "buying down" their employee roster is based on their last early out they did in the UAL/IBT CBA. They did not add new overhaul work although they built a  hangars for the new 787 phase checks. So what? That is not overhaul work? It's line work.

I think I have just as much right to make assumptions as you do, once again, one set of rules for Overspin and one for everyone else? Just a counter view if what may be driving the much more generous EO that UAL is offering. Didn't AA offer a package in 1995 so they could up "system attrition" enough to take full advantage of their NEW SRP program? AA didn't lay off after they offered the package, they increased headcount. Didn't Aa also offer a package back in the 80s so they could take better advantage of the B scale contract they were able to get? Perhaps UAL is hoping the $100K they are offering would drive enough YES votes to get the contract passed plus create vacancies that can be filled with new hires at lower wages and no bitter history with the carrier? But the last reason I could think of to offer that much money is to prepare for more layoffs. Why not just keep the money and layoff anyway?  
 
Do you feel that adding more line work is bad? Two hangars worth of line work which will add hundreds of jobs is now a bad thing because its 'line work"? Would the profession be better off to turn down additional A&P jobs on the line and hold out for OH work where its much easier to fill those jobs with Non-A&Ps?
 
If they are bringing enough work back in house without the draconian concessions that we gave, shouldn't that be thought of as a good thing? You are aware of the fact that there are hundreds more A&Ps doing line work in local 591 than there is doing OH in 514 aren't you?
 
Oh, by the way, I was informed today that AA is running their I-cks, basically a B-check on just the Interior, out of Brazil with non-A&P mechanics, you voted to allow that. Great job Overspin, even UPS, SWA, UAL and US would not allow that. Maybe Delta  and Jet Blue get away with that crap but not too many Unionized carriers can get away with that . I bet they wish they had more mechanics that think like you.

 

[Overspeed]

I think I have just as much right to make assumptions as you do, once again, one set of rules for Overspin and one for everyone else? Just a counter view if what may be driving the much more generous EO that UAL is offering. Didn't AA offer a package in 1995 so they could up "system attrition" enough to take full advantage of their NEW SRP program? AA didn't lay off after they offered the package, they increased headcount. Didn't Aa also offer a package back in the 80s so they could take better advantage of the B scale contract they were able to get? Perhaps UAL is hoping the $100K they are offering would drive enough YES votes to get the contract passed plus create vacancies that can be filled with new hires at lower wages and no bitter history with the carrier? But the last reason I could think of to offer that much money is to prepare for more layoffs. Why not just keep the money and layoff anyway?  
 
Do you feel that adding more line work is bad? Two hangars worth of line work which will add hundreds of jobs is now a bad thing because its 'line work"? Would the profession be better off to turn down additional A&P jobs on the line and hold out for OH work where its much easier to fill those jobs with Non-A&Ps?
 
If they are bringing enough work back in house without the draconian concessions that we gave, shouldn't that be thought of as a good thing? You are aware of the fact that there are hundreds more A&Ps doing line work in local 591 than there is doing OH in 514 aren't you?
 
Oh, by the way, I was informed today that AA is running their I-cks, basically a B-check on just the Interior, out of Brazil with non-A&P mechanics, you voted to allow that. Great job Overspin, even UPS, SWA, UAL and US would not allow that. Maybe Delta  and Jet Blue get away with that crap but not too many Unionized carriers can get away with that . I bet they wish they had more mechanics that think like you.

 
That's true we all have the right to make assumptions. 
 
Almost every manager I spoke with shortly after the first wave of early outs in 1995 said it was a mistake. Too many fresh new mechanics without anyone to show them the ropes was a mistake. We all suffered as well as the new hires by not having those old salts show them the ropes. Back filling with lower paid, less skilled mechanics drove AA to over compensate by hiring too many people to make up for the lack of experience and skill.
 
Perhaps UA is offering enough yes votes to cram a POS contract down the remaining people's throats. Management isn't looking to make people happy, the are trying to get just enough votes to pass. 
 
Adding more work is never bad but they are adding that due to growth and the addition of the 787. It was not contractual scope language that drove that. Remember the 787 is advertised as 50% fewer labor hours than the aircraft it replaces. More work on the line but a lot less at the base. It's the maintenance program that is driving where the work goes, not the union.
 
So that being said, the draconian measures already happened when all the AO was outsourced during the BK. 
 
We are not 514 versus 591 members. We are all TWU members. Are 514 members second class members to you that deserve to be ditched to line your pockets?
 
Like I said, I voted for less outsourcing than all the carriers you mentioned. Have you looked at how many licensed A&P's are doing the HC's on the 747 and 777's for UA in AMECO? None. How many licensed A&Ps are doing the HC's on SWA aircraft in El Salvador? Almost none. How many licensed A&Ps are doing the work on DL MD80s at Aeromexico in GDL? Practically none. 
 
AMECO Beijing http://av-info.faa.gov/repairstation.asp?certno=XYJY995L
 
Aeromexico GDL http://av-info.faa.gov/repairstation.asp?certno=ASMY152F
 
Aeroman http://av-info.faa.gov/repairstation.asp?certno=RJEY598H

 

[Bob Owens]

 
That's true we all have the right to make assumptions. 
 
Almost every manager I spoke with shortly after the first wave of early outs in 1995 said it was a mistake. Too many fresh new mechanics without anyone to show them the ropes was a mistake. We all suffered as well as the new hires by not having those old salts show them the ropes. Back filling with lower paid, less skilled mechanics drove AA to over compensate by hiring too many people to make up for the lack of experience and skill.
 
Perhaps UA is offering enough yes votes to cram a POS contract down the remaining people's throats. Management isn't looking to make people happy, the are trying to get just enough votes to pass. 
 

 
That's if the Union agrees to bring it back. Just enough votes to pass? That's a strategy based upon a company controlling a union, its wrong for a Union to bring a contract back that can only be passed by using fear tactics and having guys who are leaving the company be the deciding factor, it means that as soon as those folks leave the majority that remains voted against the deal. That's what "company Unions" do.
 
 

Adding more work is never bad but they are adding that due to growth and the addition of the 787. It was not contractual scope language that drove that. Remember the 787 is advertised as 50% fewer labor hours than the aircraft it replaces. More work on the line but a lot less at the base. It's the maintenance program that is driving where the work goes, not the union.
 

 
So what you are saying is that you favor the Union driving work away from the line and to the base? Show me the language that stops AA from doing C-checks at JFK or PS checks in Tulsa. I didn't say the Union was driving anything over there, the point is they are adding work despite what you claim is their inferior language and much better compensation, and the work they are adding will be at premium rates, not OSM rates.
 
 

So that being said, the draconian measures already happened when all the AO was outsourced during the BK. 
 

 
Sure, because by the time that happened, AA, Delta, US, NWA and UAL had dumped thousands of mechanics on the unemployment lines and the AARs and TIMCO's had all the labor they needed, UA could do it then, what they couldn't do was establish an OSM program that made up 20% of the OH workforce like AA had without ever going BK, AA cant, they admitted during negotiations that capacity was tight with narrow-body OH. they could not have outsourced all of it even if they wanted to, but instead we not only gave concessions that brought our rates closer to the MRO,s but gave them the language to take advantage of any ramped up capacity down the road at their leisure.
 

Are 514 members second class members to you that deserve to be ditched to line your pockets?
 

 
That's your position not mine. 514 members have seniority and the right to bump, just like the members of 530 had, just like the guys in AFW had, just like the mechanics at BDL  had when they closed that station and scores of others through the years, were they all second class members since we didn't do whatever it took to keep those stations staffed? this is the airline industry, nobody ever said to expect to never get laid off . Why is it that you claim that everyone everywhere else has to live under a set of rules where Tulsa must be preserved at ANY cost to everybody else? Nobody anywhere else gets or expects such selfless sacrifices. If AA chooses to close Tulsa they will, no matter what we give up, but with people like you around all they have to do is threaten it and you will give them anything they want, except of course, IIRC, dues checkoff, that you would strike for.
 
 

Like I said, I voted for less outsourcing than all the carriers you mentioned. Have you looked at how many licensed A&P's are doing the HC's on the 747 and 777's for UA in AMECO? None. How many licensed A&Ps are doing the HC's on SWA aircraft in El Salvador? Almost none. How many licensed A&Ps are doing the work on DL MD80s at Aeromexico in GDL? Practically none.
 

 
Fact is you voted to increase the amount AA could outsource, and you voted away system protection as well.  Spin spin spin but the truth is plain to see, are the places where they send their 777s much different than the places we send ours? You voted to give AA everything they wanted, they didn't want more than they got, they got more than they even asked for, even Burdette looked puzzled when Don came out with his 35% total spend offer.  Don changed it from 45% billable man-hours to 35% total spend (subject to exclusions) which can easily be a lot more than 45% of hours if they ship it all overseas which our contract allows, and like you, he spun it as a gain for us.  How many times have you blasted the mechanics at SWA for allowing a limited number of planes to go overseas only to see you vote to allow all AA's outsourced work to go overseas? The fact is that the 'caps" gave AA more than what they felt they could exploit in the current market, winning language for even more would have been pointless because they would not be able to take advantage of it, if we had agreed to 90% of total spend our headcount today would be no different than it is now but throw out a number that looks lower, even though its measuring something differently and let people like you make the argument that other concessions were a worthwhile expense for that lower number. In other words pay for something that we would have kept anyway.
 
  The two hangars that UAL are building in EWR and IAD will be staffed with A&P mechanics, all line mechanics are A&Ps, but you want to drive work to the bases away from the line where they can do the work with unlicensed OSMs, and all the licensed A&Ps should be willing to give even more concessions to make that happen right? 
 
One thing I will give the guys at UAL credit for is that their language says they have to keep the larger narrow-body fleet in the US, unlike ours where when the Airbus fleet comes of age there is nothing stopping AA from sending AA narrow-body planes to the same places you are talking about, and as you yourself have admitted the mid term wage adjustment will allow them to ship a LOT more billable hours out, more than the 45% cap on hours would have allowed.
 
Speaking of Don, is he back to work? One would think that he would be eager to dive right back in there and work under the deal he crafted right?

 

[Overspeed]

 
That's if the Union agrees to bring it back. Just enough votes to pass? That's a strategy based upon a company controlling a union, its wrong for a Union to bring a contract back that can only be passed by using fear tactics and having guys who are leaving the company be the deciding factor, it means that as soon as those folks leave the majority that remains voted against the deal. That's what "company Unions" do.
 
 
 
So what you are saying is that you favor the Union driving work away from the line and to the base? Show me the language that stops AA from doing C-checks at JFK or PS checks in Tulsa. I didn't say the Union was driving anything over there, the point is they are adding work despite what you claim is their inferior language and much better compensation, and the work they are adding will be at premium rates, not OSM rates.
 
 
 
Sure, because by the time that happened, AA, Delta, US, NWA and UAL had dumped thousands of mechanics on the unemployment lines and the AARs and TIMCO's had all the labor they needed, UA could do it then, what they couldn't do was establish an OSM program that made up 20% of the OH workforce like AA had without ever going BK, AA cant, they admitted during negotiations that capacity was tight with narrow-body OH. they could not have outsourced all of it even if they wanted to, but instead we not only gave concessions that brought our rates closer to the MRO,s but gave them the language to take advantage of any ramped up capacity down the road at their leisure.
 
 
That's your position not mine. 514 members have seniority and the right to bump, just like the members of 530 had, just like the guys in AFW had, just like the mechanics at BDL  had when they closed that station and scores of others through the years, were they all second class members since we didn't do whatever it took to keep those stations staffed? this is the airline industry, nobody ever said to expect to never get laid off . Why is it that you claim that everyone everywhere else has to live under a set of rules where Tulsa must be preserved at ANY cost to everybody else? Nobody anywhere else gets or expects such selfless sacrifices. If AA chooses to close Tulsa they will, no matter what we give up, but with people like you around all they have to do is threaten it and you will give them anything they want, except of course, IIRC, dues checkoff, that you would strike for.
 
 
 
Fact is you voted to increase the amount AA could outsource, and you voted away system protection as well.  Spin spin spin but the truth is plain to see, are the places where they send their 777s much different than the places we send ours? You voted to give AA everything they wanted, they didn't want more than they got, they got more than they even asked for, even Burdette looked puzzled when Don came out with his 35% total spend offer.  Don changed it from 45% billable man-hours to 35% total spend (subject to exclusions) which can easily be a lot more than 45% of hours if they ship it all overseas which our contract allows, and like you, he spun it as a gain for us.  How many times have you blasted the mechanics at SWA for allowing a limited number of planes to go overseas only to see you vote to allow all AA's outsourced work to go overseas? The fact is that the 'caps" gave AA more than what they felt they could exploit in the current market, winning language for even more would have been pointless because they would not be able to take advantage of it, if we had agreed to 90% of total spend our headcount today would be no different than it is now but throw out a number that looks lower, even though its measuring something differently and let people like you make the argument that other concessions were a worthwhile expense for that lower number. In other words pay for something that we would have kept anyway.
 
  The two hangars that UAL are building in EWR and IAD will be staffed with A&P mechanics, all line mechanics are A&Ps, but you want to drive work to the bases away from the line where they can do the work with unlicensed OSMs, and all the licensed A&Ps should be willing to give even more concessions to make that happen right? 
 
One thing I will give the guys at UAL credit for is that their language says they have to keep the larger narrow-body fleet in the US, unlike ours where when the Airbus fleet comes of age there is nothing stopping AA from sending AA narrow-body planes to the same places you are talking about, and as you yourself have admitted the mid term wage adjustment will allow them to ship a LOT more billable hours out, more than the 45% cap on hours would have allowed.
 
Speaking of Don, is he back to work? One would think that he would be eager to dive right back in there and work under the deal he crafted right?

 
I stated what management is looking for. Yes unions should look to get the majority to pass a contract. Passing by a wide margin would mean the union got a good deal. 
 
No that's not what I am saying. I said new aircraft like the 787 do not follow the traditional split in what is base or line work. I am doing a simple comparison of how many AO lines we have compared to AA. Under the TWU CBA we have almost ten times as much AO work in-house even after BK. (AA over 30 lines of AO and MOD compared to UA 3 lines at SFO)
 
Capacity was tight in TUL? I heard that was due to the lines running over on span time.
 
I get vilified for standing up for OH. Many people on this blog advocate outsourcing overhaul because that's what all the other airlines do. You know, the airlines represented by the IBT and AMFA.
 
I did state the SWA allowed work to go to El Salvador. I was pointing out how a supposedly strong union - AMFA - was unable to prevent work from being outsourced to a foreign country when the company was making money hand over fist. Where was the strike?
 
I don't want to push work the base or the line. I want it kept in-house. The work UA will be doing in IAD and EWR would not be done in a TUL environment. The 787 won't hit the base for 12 years at any airline. So no I am not advocating line give up concessions to drive that work to the base because it would never be done at the base.
 
Well under the 35% spend rule you could get a 30% raise and reduce outsourcing if you can do the work more efficiently in-house. Lower cost labor can be achieved with higher wages if those people are more productive.
 
I haven't seen him at work either. I'm sure Peterson can find out since he is based here to. 

 

[comatose]

 
That's if the Union agrees to bring it back. Just enough votes to pass? That's a strategy based upon a company controlling a union, its wrong for a Union to bring a contract back that can only be passed by using fear tactics and having guys who are leaving the company be the deciding factor, it means that as soon as those folks leave the majority that remains voted against the deal. That's what "company Unions" do.
 
 
 
So what you are saying is that you favor the Union driving work away from the line and to the base? Show me the language that stops AA from doing C-checks at JFK or PS checks in Tulsa. I didn't say the Union was driving anything over there, the point is they are adding work despite what you claim is their inferior language and much better compensation, and the work they are adding will be at premium rates, not OSM rates.
 
 
 
Sure, because by the time that happened, AA, Delta, US, NWA and UAL had dumped thousands of mechanics on the unemployment lines and the AARs and TIMCO's had all the labor they needed, UA could do it then, what they couldn't do was establish an OSM program that made up 20% of the OH workforce like AA had without ever going BK, AA cant, they admitted during negotiations that capacity was tight with narrow-body OH. they could not have outsourced all of it even if they wanted to, but instead we not only gave concessions that brought our rates closer to the MRO,s but gave them the language to take advantage of any ramped up capacity down the road at their leisure.
 
 
That's your position not mine. 514 members have seniority and the right to bump, just like the members of 530 had, just like the guys in AFW had, just like the mechanics at BDL  had when they closed that station and scores of others through the years, were they all second class members since we didn't do whatever it took to keep those stations staffed? this is the airline industry, nobody ever said to expect to never get laid off . Why is it that you claim that everyone everywhere else has to live under a set of rules where Tulsa must be preserved at ANY cost to everybody else? Nobody anywhere else gets or expects such selfless sacrifices. If AA chooses to close Tulsa they will, no matter what we give up, but with people like you around all they have to do is threaten it and you will give them anything they want, except of course, IIRC, dues checkoff, that you would strike for.
 
 
 
Fact is you voted to increase the amount AA could outsource, and you voted away system protection as well.  Spin spin spin but the truth is plain to see, are the places where they send their 777s much different than the places we send ours? You voted to give AA everything they wanted, they didn't want more than they got, they got more than they even asked for, even Burdette looked puzzled when Don came out with his 35% total spend offer.  Don changed it from 45% billable man-hours to 35% total spend (subject to exclusions) which can easily be a lot more than 45% of hours if they ship it all overseas which our contract allows, and like you, he spun it as a gain for us.  How many times have you blasted the mechanics at SWA for allowing a limited number of planes to go overseas only to see you vote to allow all AA's outsourced work to go overseas? The fact is that the 'caps" gave AA more than what they felt they could exploit in the current market, winning language for even more would have been pointless because they would not be able to take advantage of it, if we had agreed to 90% of total spend our headcount today would be no different than it is now but throw out a number that looks lower, even though its measuring something differently and let people like you make the argument that other concessions were a worthwhile expense for that lower number. In other words pay for something that we would have kept anyway.
 
  The two hangars that UAL are building in EWR and IAD will be staffed with A&P mechanics, all line mechanics are A&Ps, but you want to drive work to the bases away from the line where they can do the work with unlicensed OSMs, and all the licensed A&Ps should be willing to give even more concessions to make that happen right? 
 
One thing I will give the guys at UAL credit for is that their language says they have to keep the larger narrow-body fleet in the US, unlike ours where when the Airbus fleet comes of age there is nothing stopping AA from sending AA narrow-body planes to the same places you are talking about, and as you yourself have admitted the mid term wage adjustment will allow them to ship a LOT more billable hours out, more than the 45% cap on hours would have allowed.
 
Speaking of Don, is he back to work? One would think that he would be eager to dive right back in there and work under the deal he crafted right?

 
Heard he is on med leave. Hurt his back lifting shrimp and smoking stogies.