Who's really on top?

[Bob Owens]

Simple. ASM cap on RJ's.

AA's only able to put out about 25% of their network out for bid. Industry average is 40%.

Another one is the annual departures cap for outsourcing.

It might mean fewer union jobs, but the reality is that the RJ & airport staffing outsourcing gives flexibility to DL, UA, and CO, and allows them to serve a lot more tiny destinations than AA can. And they've got far more extensive domestic networks as a result.

Here's the language.

This will confirm our discussions leading to signing of the agreement dated August 15,
360 1995, in which we discussed provisions for the future schedules of commuter air
361 carriers relative to American Airlines.
362
363 It is agreed that, beginning with twelve (12) month period following August 15, 1995,
364 and each twelve (12) month period thereafter, the total number of available seat miles
365 (ASM’s) which may be scheduled by all commuter air carriers owned by AMR or feeding
366 American may not exceed six (6) percent of the total ASM’s scheduled by American.
367 This limitation will not apply to ASM’s scheduled by such commuter air carriers on new
368 service on a route, which American has not served since March 1, 1993.
369
370 No aircraft type currently in the American Airlines fleet, or inactive aircraft type
371 previously in the American Airlines fleet and still under the Company’s control, and no
372 current orders or options for an American Airlines aircraft type will be transferred to or
373 operated by a commuter air carrier either owned by AMR or feeding American Airlines

This only stops them from taking more than 6% of their current ASMS and giving it to another carrier that they own. So, where's the restriction on RJs serving tiny cities??

Heres the staffing language;


(d) The Company will continue to assign American Airlines TWU represented
88 employees in classifications, consistent with its established practices, as designated by
89 the Company to all stations wherein such TWU represented employees are assigned
90 currently with 1460 and above annual departures and will staff new cities (those not
91 currently staffed by the TWU) at or over 3650 annual departures. The Company will
92 also restaff former TWU staffed cities with 1460 and above annual departures.

This langauge really doesnt cover us, its in our contract but they can put a FSC there and satisfy the agreement, we dont have A&Ps in most stations with under 5000 annual departures, never mind 3650 despite this language. Plus this language was an industry leading concession when put in place, along with many others that have put billions into AA over the years. This language may provide a small amount of job protection, not much, just a little, in exchange the company recieved industry leading concessions, it certainly doesnt put AA at much of a disadvantage.

So are you saying that with those two concessions AA would be willing to give us $46.99 plus all the vacation, sick sime, holidays, tool allowances, IOD time, contractual CS policy, dual pensions etc etc that UPS is offering?

 

[Hopeful]

Simple. ASM cap on RJ's.

AA's only able to put out about 25% of their network out for bid. Industry average is 40%.

Another one is the annual departures cap for outsourcing.

It might mean fewer union jobs, but the reality is that the RJ & airport staffing outsourcing gives flexibility to DL, UA, and CO, and allows them to serve a lot more tiny destinations than AA can. And they've got far more extensive domestic networks as a result.

The bottom line is that AA would love to remove the cap. But they have shown they are stilling willing to give us NOTHING in return. You have stated in other threads that if we want the wages of SWA and UPS, we should agree to the scope and language of those carriers' contract.
The problem is the company has never made that offer.
You see, they want the low cost carrier work rules and language, but have not changed their bargaining position one millimeter.
So what you are saying might be open to many mechanics, the company maintains that they will give us nothing in return.
And not to bite your head off, but please do not reply with the paltry lump sum they offered us. that's a week and half's pay for me.
And the profit sharing? no thanks, they offer beans.
You would think if the company wanted these changes so badly they would offer us a radical breakthrough contract in exchange...

Where is it?

 

[Hopeful]

e.

Is a $2000 raise really going to fix your outlook?...

Sorry, but the reason nobody focuses on the exec compensation component of labor costs is because it isn't large enough to skew the numbers as you're alleging.

Or maybe the management defenders like to use a different math.
They like to say all management Level 6 and higher are sharing $300,000,000.00 ( an example) with the L6 getting the least..
But if we used the same formula for ALL employees, it would cost $1 billion....(an example.)

The bottom line is you and others try to minimize and rationalize executive bonus/pups, whatever by quoting the number of people affected.
But because the number of non-important, non management , worthless employees are far greater, we don;t need to share the wealth because we don;t care if an employee jumps ship, just an executive.

 

[eolesen]

Hopeful, I'm not trying to minimize or justify the pups -- you guys are the ones making it into a much bigger issue than it really is in comparison to the rest of what's going on. Any organization that focuses on 2% of its cost problem while ignoring the other 98% deserves what they accomplish... Nothing.

Sure, it's a hot button issue and complaining about executive pay is all the rage these days, but in the end, all you wind up accomplishing is wasting a lot of time and energy for no measurable result.

 

[Hopeful]

Hopeful, I'm not trying to minimize or justify the pups -- you guys are the ones making it into a much bigger issue than it really is in comparison to the rest of what's going on. Any organization that focuses on 2% of its cost problem while ignoring the other 98% deserves what they accomplish... Nothing.

Sure, it's a hot button issue and complaining about executive pay is all the rage these days, but in the end, all you wind up accomplishing is wasting a lot of time and energy for no measurable result.

There ya go again....."It's only 2% of the cost problem"...
One person getting $4 million a year is a drop in the bucket based on the total earnings.... But offering tens of thousands of employees a 3% lump sum payment brings into another level.

It is beyond me that a Arpey or any other CEO can earn $4 million a year in total compensation and expect the average worker to be happy with a 3% lump sump annual payment.

There is something very wrong with this picture.

 

[Bob Owens]

Hopeful, I'm not trying to minimize or justify the pups -- you guys are the ones making it into a much bigger issue than it really is in comparison to the rest of what's going on. Any organization that focuses on 2% of its cost problem while ignoring the other 98% deserves what they accomplish... Nothing.

Sure, it's a hot button issue and complaining about executive pay is all the rage these days, but in the end, all you wind up accomplishing is wasting a lot of time and energy for no measurable result.

Well if 2% is negligible then why dont they give us everything that UPS gets? It would only increase costs by around 1.5%.

 

[Hopeful]

Sure, it's a hot button issue and complaining about executive pay is all the rage these days, but in the end, all you wind up accomplishing is wasting a lot of time and energy for no measurable result.

You say you're not justifying their pay, but in the same breath you can't understand all the outrage over just a little 2% of costs..

How much do you figure my $.41 cents and hour I got for a few years is compared to AMR's total earnings?

 

[Birdman]

It seems new developments have arisen in regard to "who's really on top". This weeks CribNotes featured our heavy C 757 line and I quote, "Over the last five months, Dock 5D has recorded an average turntime of 16.5 dock days (21.5 calendar days) per check. Manager Greg Bentley points out that, “Industry peers Delta and United aver-age about a 30 day turntime for „Heavy‟ B757 checks, so AA has an industry leading turntime in the United States, al-though we still have room for improvement.” We've been told over and over we're the only ones doing inhouse heavy maintenance. Well, the truth is we are not and we provide a very good value to AA compared to our competitors. Also, AA is participating in a program, supposedly sponsored by Boeing, that is in the process of comparing our maintenance cost with other major airlines. So far it appears the rest of the industry is giving pause to their current level of outsourcing, realizing while costs up front may be lower than inhouse, by the end they wind up paying significantly more. Quality is a major issue. Once their vendors complete a check, they spend many more days in their own facilities performing maintenance and completing unfinished repairs. It is my belief that AA values the control they maintain over their own aircraft and will continue well into the future. If the TWU would reject the rhetoric coming from manAAgement and actually represent our profession they might be worth keeping. Unfortunately they won't.

 

[Bob Owens]

It seems new developments have arisen in regard to "who's really on top". This weeks CribNotes featured our heavy C 757 line and I quote, "Over the last five months, Dock 5D has recorded an average turntime of 16.5 dock days (21.5 calendar days) per check. Manager Greg Bentley points out that, “Industry peers Delta and United aver-age about a 30 day turntime for „Heavy‟ B757 checks, so AA has an industry leading turntime in the United States, al-though we still have room for improvement.” We've been told over and over we're the only ones doing inhouse heavy maintenance. Well, the truth is we are not and we provide a very good value to AA compared to our competitors. Also, AA is participating in a program, supposedly sponsored by Boeing, that is in the process of comparing our maintenance cost with other major airlines. So far it appears the rest of the industry is giving pause to their current level of outsourcing, realizing while costs up front may be lower than inhouse, by the end they wind up paying significantly more. Quality is a major issue. Once their vendors complete a check, they spend many more days in their own facilities performing maintenance and completing unfinished repairs. It is my belief that AA values the control they maintain over their own aircraft and will continue well into the future. If the TWU would reject the rhetoric coming from manAAgement and actually represent our profession they might be worth keeping. Unfortunately they won't.

Thanks, you said clearly what I've been trying to say for quite some time. In house doesnt cost them more in the long run. So we dont need to give them this huge, $10/hr discount-plus inferior benifits. I remember years ago when I worked for carriers that outsouced their heavy checks, they came back worse than they went in.

 

[Birdman]

Thanks, you said clearly what I've been trying to say for quite some time. In house doesnt cost them more in the long run. So we dont need to give them this huge, $10/hr discount-plus inferior benifits. I remember years ago when I worked for carriers that outsouced their heavy checks, they came back worse than they went in.

I know you've been an advocate for the truth for some time now and that Arpey knew full well "the jury" was not out on costs. If the TWU could refrain from cowering to every word the compAANy speaks we might actually get a non-concessionary contract.

 

[frontline]

I don't understand you guys who think the TWU is cowering to the company. TWU asked the mediators for release to cooling off and strike. How is that cowering?

 

[jetmechjer]

I don't understand you guys who think the TWU is cowering to the company. TWU asked the mediators for release to cooling off and strike. How is that cowering?

Months ago all the local presidents did a road show to all the stations. During that road show they exclaimed we will not bring back a concessionary contract!!!! What the hell is this garbage they brought back??? They also talked about the many stike issues!!! Well I see at least 3 of them on the current T/A. Lost over $7 an hour over 7 years ago and they are offering us a few bucks??? This T/A screams anti union and yet the international backs it. I guess I would too if I were making 120 to 200 thousand a year!! Let those peasants eat cake!!!! Screw them I got mine...........Thats the Amerikan way!!! We all know it is a fact that the international forced this vote and they own the contract and even if every mechanic voted no that Chicken Little can over ride all of us for our good and accept any offer!! Sounds real Democratic to me??? Socialistic is more like it!! Jimmy, Don and Gless have forgetten where they came from and have no idea what we real workers are going thru. VOTE NO!!!! WE DID NOT WAIT 7 YEARS FOR THIS INSULT!!!! CALL JIMMY, DON AND BOBBY AND TELL THEM TO STAY THE HELL OUR OF OUR NEGOTIATIONS!!! THEY NEED TO STOP PEDDLING CONCESSIONS THAT THEY WILL NEVER LIVE BY!!!

 

[Tex-Mech]

I don't understand you guys who think the TWU is cowering to the company. TWU asked the mediators for release to cooling off and strike. How is that cowering?

Cowering is accepting a concessionary contract that will result in major layoffs for us. Standing up to them is bringing back a deal that has no concessions added to it. The few dollars an hour thrown in might be real nice for those who are left.

 

[The Goose]

I know you've been an advocate for the truth for some time now and that Arpey knew full well "the jury" was not out on costs. If the TWU could refrain from cowering to every word the compAANy speaks we might actually get a non-concessionary contract.

If the TWU is cowering, I'd hazard a guess Little and cabal are being paid quite handsomely by AMR to do so.

 

[Birdman]

Thanks, you said clearly what I've been trying to say for quite some time. In house doesnt cost them more in the long run. So we dont need to give them this huge, $10/hr discount-plus inferior benifits. I remember years ago when I worked for carriers that outsouced their heavy checks, they came back worse than they went in.

More evidence to substantiate what we all know to be true lies in the recent attendance of a 737 manager and his counterparts to a Boeing sponsored TOPICS (Technical Operations Performance Improvement and Cost Solutions) Conference in Miami. Boeing link here http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_01_10/2/ . It was noted that Americans 737 maintenance costs were in line with all the other participants in attendance with one exception. American produced their aircraft in less time. Not many people are aware of Americans participation in the TOPICS program and even less will admit that AA runs a very competitive maintenance operation. It would be appropriate for management to congratulate, and reward its employees for a job well done.