Keep AA planes maintained by AA

[Bob Owens]

 
 

 
So you are saying all foreign and non-AA mechanics are inferior? I did not vote for outsourcing at all. Voting no would have stopped outsourcing in BK? How? Did any other airline stop outworking in BK?
 

Once again spin, where did I say that?  You voted for outsourcing by voting YES for the contract. By voting YES you will never have the answer to that question. Outworking?
 
 

Read the report again. The NTSB concluded that the procedure was adopted and not opposed except by DAC who did not even view the procedure end to end. Bob read it. The NTSB stated that the mechanics never said they were opposed to the procedure.
 

 
I didt say the NTSB report said that, I said that mechanics I spoke to who did the job said they were opposed to doing it that way.Are you sure that the report said "that the mechanics never said they were opposed to the procedure" or did ithe report not say anything as far as how the mechanics felt about doing it that way?  Once again you quote what you what you wanted things to say, not what they actually said. Either way, like I said that's what I was told by Tony Russo who claimed that he was one of those who worked on it. This was back in the 80s.
 
 

Concessions are not good. They were forced upon us. The scenario of voting no and waiting for the judge to decide our fate is deeply flawed and has no basis in fact. All other airlines in BK who sought abrogate the contracts ended up with the Company having the upper hand on MX. Overhaul always got screwed.
 

 
None of them went in at the bottom of the industry, in fact no other workgroup at AA went in at the bottom. In the BK agreement narrowbody pilots would have been paid Eagle rates, by voting no they kept AA rates and remain well placed among their peers. By holding out they improved their deal, and they weren't at the bottom and didn't come out at the bottom, sure the company moved the numbers around to save face but the fact is they came out with a better deal because they held out, they certainly didn't lose anything.
 
We showed the company that by eliminating the penalty on the first two days they would save $7million a year, the company ignored that, but insisted on crew chief evaluations which costs them at least $1500 per CC. If every mechanic put in for and interviewed for a CC job at Dallas it could cost them $300,000 to fill each CC position. That concession didn't save them a penny but it diminished the value of seniority and being in a Union.
 
  Perhaps if we had voted No we could have eliminated those two concessions and used the $7million to "buy back' doubletime on the five Holidays we still get, but instead we came out with the worst contract ever.
 
Our OH did get screwed, the company has the ability to outsource all of it. There isn't the same excess capacity out there to do OH as there was in 2003-06 (other than AA nobody has laid off any mechanics in years)  so that's why AA still hasn't approached the 35% spend, when new aircraft come on line OH will continue to shrink. The company admitted that they did not want to get their cost savings from outsourcing because there really wasn't much they would save outside of the widebodies, which they got. they admitted that they would not save money by outsourcing narrowbody because capacity was tight and they would have to pay a premium to outsource that work, so we got to keep it till it goes away, but they get to keep the concessions long after that.
 
 Read the law, the facts are not what you claim they are. The company has to show that the contracts are onerous, 99% of the time its easy to do because companies usually don't go into BK with labor contracts that are at the bottom of the industry, and even with AA it was only the mechanics who were at the bottom. We were the first to agree to concessions when we were already giving AA the lowest average rates among the legacies. The only argument AA could have made was the language keeping work in house, but that argument could have been easily dismissed with the information they themselves gave us, that even if AA had the language to send that work out, with OSMs, all the other concessions and tight capacity they would not realize savings by sending the narrowbody work out.  
 
 

Europe has most of their airframe overhaul done by low wage labor in former Eastern Block countries and the Philippines. If you would read more and educate yourself instead of spouting BS of what you think you know then you would not post incorrect information.
 

What was incorrect? I never said that they did their OH in house, I said they have better working conditions and pay than we do.
 
 

Part 66 would have brought the wages you wanted to line mx people who sign the log book. Contact AA's QC staff, the only reason why mechanics are required to have A&P's is because the GPM requires it which is what AA submitted to the FAA for 121 certification.  AA used to have non-A&Ps on the line and still could if they want to. You know that.
 

I knew you would be in favor of that. You really hate the profession don't you? Giving the carrier the right to certify mechanics with non-portable certificates makes it a non-starter for me. I say keep it issued by the FAA and portable.
 
I asked Bill Obrien at AMT magazine that question years ago, he said that while the FARS do not require it the likelihood that the FAA would approve a maintenance program where non-A&Ps were debriefing Flight crews and reviewing the Log books is extremely remote. If they could, then why don't they? Why doesn't anybody? yes AA had Radio men sign the log book, for items related to maintenance of the radios. AA has a hard enough time staying compliant WITH A7Ps, imagine the oversight they would have without them?
 
 

Yes I supported Bobby. He asked for a pause and that the unions, not PWA, drive any change in regulations regarding duty time.
 

Why a pause, did he not have time to review it? And what follow-up proposal did he submit?

I also support the FAA's step to test pilots and controllers testing for sleep apnea. I would like that extended to mechanics as well.
 

But you voted to do away with shift premiums as well.

 

[Overspeed]

Once again spin, where did I say that?  You voted for outsourcing by voting YES for the contract. By voting YES you will never have the answer to that question. Outworking?
 
 
I didt say the NTSB report said that, I said that mechanics I spoke to who did the job said they were opposed to doing it that way. Once again you quote what you what you wanted people to say, not what they actually said.
 
None of them went in at the bottom of the industry, in fact no other workgroup at AA went in at the bottom. In the BK agreement narrowbody pilots would have been paid Eagle rates, by voting no they kept AA rates and remain well placed among their peers. By holding out they improved their deal, and they weren't at the bottom and didn't come out at the bottom, the company moved the numbers around to save face. We showed the company that by eliminating the penalty on the first two days they would save $7million, the company ignored that, but insisted on crew chief evaluations which costs them at least $1500 per CC.
 
Our OH did get screwed, the company has the ability to outsource all of it. There isn't the same excess capacity out there to do OH as there was in 2003-06 (other than AA nobody has laid off any mechanics in years)  so that's why AA still hasn't approached the 35% spend, when new aircraft come on line OH will continue to shrink. The company admitted that they did not want to get their cost savings from outsourcing because there really wasn't much they would save outside of the widebodies, which they got. they admitted that they would not save money by outsourcing narrowbody because capacity was tight and they would have to pay a premium to outsource that work, so we got to keep it till it goes away, but they get to keep the concessions long after that.
 
 Read the law, the facts are not what you claim they are. The company has to show that the contracts are onerous, 99% of the time its easy to do because companies usually don't go into BK with labor contracts that are at the bottom of the industry, and even with AA it was only the mechanics who were at the bottom. We were the first to agree to concessions when we were already giving AA the lowest average rates among the legacies. The only argument AA could have made was the language keeping work in house, but that argument could have been easily dismissed with the information they themselves gave us, that even if AA had the language to send that work out, with OSMs, all the other concessions and tight capacity they would not realize savings by sending the narrowbody work out.  
 
 
What was incorrect? I never said that they did their OH in house, I said they have better working conditions and pay than we do.
 
 
I asked Bill Obrien ay AMT magazine that question years ago, he said that while the FARS do not require it the likelihood that the FAA would approve a maintenance program where non-A&Ps were debriefing Flight crews and reviewing the Log books is extremely remote. If they could, then why don't they? Why doesn't anybody? yes AA had Radio men sign the log book, for items related to maintenance of the radios.
 
 
Why a pause, did he not have time to review it? And what follow-up proposal did he submit?
But you voted to do away with shift premiums as well.

 
I voted for less outsourcing than SWA, UA, and DL.
 
And the NTSB interviewed all the relevant people and they concluded that no one objected to the procedure other than DAC engineers. Are you saying the report is wrong?
 
Uh yes airline mechanics that worked at the airlines that went BK did go to either the bottom or had most of their overhaul outsourced. Read the 1113c's of those carriers.
 
Outsource all of it? Time will show that you are wrong. 35% is not all. UA and SWA outsource over 50% and they still have some overhaul and in UA's case almost all engines in-house. The numbers don't support your argument.
 
The information AA gave the court showed that they wanted industry standard outsourcing. That is more than what they got with the BK CBA. Industry standard is around 45%.
 
Again you admit you want to surrender overhaul jobs so your wages will be higher. That's union?
 
He is correct but hangar mechanics can be utilized without needing an A&P. That is over 50% of the line operation. Are they next under your "top pay for Bob" scenarios?
 
I don't know Bobby that well but the idea was to open any NPRM to more study. Look at what the Aussie's did. They have studies that support the assertion that AMTs on shift for more than 12 hours show signs of fatigue similar to being intoxicated. I would fully support stricter duty restrictions including hours worked at second jobs.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
I voted for less outsourcing than SWA, UA, and DL.
 
 

Yes, when there wasn't enough capacity out there to do all our narrowbodies you voted for less outsourcing than SWA, UA, and DL along with less pay, less vacation, les Holidays, less sick time, less IOD time, less training pay, less medical coverage, less pension, less seniority protection, less of everything else as well.
 
 

And the NTSB interviewed all the relevant people and they concluded that no one objected to the procedure other than DAC engineers. Are you saying the report is wrong?
 

No, once again for at least the third time I'm saying what I was told by someone who was there. Are you saying that every thing is included in every NTSB report?
 

Uh yes airline mechanics that worked at the airlines that went BK did go to either the bottom or had most of their overhaul outsourced. Read the 1113c's of those carriers.
 

We agreed to do both.
 

Outsource all of it? Time will show that you are wrong. 35% is not all. UA and SWA outsource over 50% and they still have some overhaul and in UA's case almost all engines in-house. The numbers don't support your argument.
 

Most of it. the 35% is not overhaul, its total spend, so they could easily outsource well above 35% of OH and still stay under the 35%, as new aircraft come on line they can eliminate even more of OH without affecting where they are in relation to the cap. How many carriers increased their outsourcing of OH to all of it?
 

The information AA gave the court showed that they wanted industry standard outsourcing. That is more than what they got with the BK CBA. Industry standard is around 45%.
 

And if RR decides they want out they get to raise it to 45%.
 
 

Again you admit you want to surrender overhaul jobs so your wages will be higher. That's union?
 

You say surrender, I say fight.  that's what Unions do. If Unions simply decide how to split the pie as determined by the company, instead of negotiate the size of the pie, then they really aren't needed.
 
 
 

I don't know Bobby that well but the idea was to open any NPRM to more study. Look at what the Aussie's did. They have studies that support the assertion that AMTs on shift for more than 12 hours show signs of fatigue similar to being intoxicated. I would fully support stricter duty restrictions including hours worked at second jobs.
 

But at the same time you vote to eliminate vacations, sick time, Holidays and pay and you supported Bobby Gless' position to do nothing as far as duty times. You were against the proposed limits because Pratt And Whitney came up with them yet you support FAR 66 which would allow the company to issue non-portable certificates that are equal to our FAA certificates. Seems like typical Don Videtich, Jim Little doubletalk to me. Like how Don said we should not hire the same economist as the APFA yet defended that the TWU hired ECLAT, the economist the company used to sell the union on Concessions, and even took Donnelly on full time as the TWU Economist.
 
I met Rojer Hughs a while back in DFW, he was discussing Human Factors and the need for stricter duty times to improve safety. I told him that the FAA has if anything helped the carriers to lower wages to the point where in order to maintain an acceptable lifestyle mechanics have been forced to work excessive hours, while I support stricter duty times, if the FAA doesn't help with the wages mechanics will simply work other jobs and report to work in the same condition the FAA is trying to correct. He agreed that the problem is more complex than it appears and that declining wages are what's driving many of the other issues. And you have been a proponent of driving wages down for the false promise of saving jobs.

 

[700UW]

OS,
 
You do realize that 35% of your whole maintenance budget is a huge amount of outsourcing.
 
At US we have only 50% of billable hours of HMV are allowed to be outsourced, as a matter of fact US just brought back in-house the 757s, 767s and A330s.
 
No line checks can be farmed out nor any RON Line MTC.
 
And if parts are shipped to an AOG aircraft at a non-mtc station a US Mechanic must be sent to change the parts.
 
And the only reason we have outsourcing at US is because of the former IBT/HP CBA where all there HMVs were outsourced.

 

[Tex-Mech]

OS,
 
You do realize that 35% of your whole maintenance budget is a huge amount of outsourcing.
 
At US we have only 50% of billable hours of HMV are allowed to be outsourced, as a matter of fact US just brought back in-house the 757s, 767s and A330s.
 
No line checks can be farmed out nor any RON Line MTC.
 
And if parts are shipped to an AOG aircraft at a non-mtc station a US Mechanic must be sent to change the parts.
 
And the only reason we have outsourcing at US is because of the former IBT/HP CBA where all there HMVs were outsourced.

 
I disagree with your assessment of outsourcing at AA, because it is actually a lot worse than you say.
 

 
e) Contracting Out of Work. To allow the company certain flexibility in outsourcing Aircraft-related Maintenance, the company and the Union have agreed to establish limits on the amount of work the company may outsource, including the work that is currently outsourced. "Aircraft-related Maintenance" shall be defined as work involving the maintenance, repair, servicing, overhaul, inspection or modification of engines, components or aircraft. The Company and the Union agree to limit the percentage of all outsourced Aircraft-related Maintenance to not exceed 35%, subject to exclusions or modifications described elsewhere in this agreement. Further, the parties also agree that no more than 15% of Line Maintenance work will be contracted out.
 
The calculation of the percentage of work being outsourced is given by:
Outsourcing % = Outside Service Costs ÷ (Direct Labor Cost + Direct Material Cost + Outside Service Costs), where:
"Outside Service Costs" is the amount charged by the external service vendor for aircraft-related maintenance, and the Direct Labor and Direct Material costs incurred for work performed by non-TWU AA employees, except where excluded pursuant to paragraph e(2), below.
"Direct Labor Cost" is the sum of all salaries and benefits costs of the TWU Title I employees without any accounting adjustments for capital, contract or other credits.
 
"Direct Material Cost" is the materials expense recognized in the accomplishment of aircraft-related maintenance events performed by AA TWU employees. Capitalized material is excluded; Shop Supplies will be included.
 
In order to reflect the benefit to the TWU of performing work on non-AA operated aircraft, the parties agree that the above-defined Labor Cost and Material Cost is intended to include such costs even when incurred in the performance of non-AA aircraft-related maintenance, including at TAESL, so long as such work is performed by TWU represented employees in accordance with the rates of pay, rules, and working conditions in the TWU/AA Agreement. It is the parties’ intention that work performed by persons on the American Airlines Transport Workers Union Title I seniority list, including at TAESL or other entity, is considered in-sourced work.
 
In the event that the TAESL joint venture shrinks by 25% or more versus the full year 2011 period, or is terminated, the outsourcing limits will be adjusted accordingly. Further adjustments will be made at each additional shrinkage of 25%, or more, versus the full year 2011 period.
 
American Airlines will, from time to time, return aircraft, engines or other components that may require work to be done pursuant to the original terms of the lease or other financing agreement. The Company may enter into an agreement with the lessor to reduce or eliminate that requirement. In that case, the aircraft will be returned without the work being accomplished. If at a future date the lessor or other party chooses to accomplish some or all of the eliminated work, such work is not covered under the provisions of this agreement, provided the aircraft is not returned to the service of American Airlines following completion of the eliminated work. In the event the Company reacquires the aircraft through a leasing arrangement, the portion of the lease payments attributable to maintenance, commonly known as "maintenance reserves", will be included as outsourced work at the time the aircraft is returned to service. In the event the Company reacquires the aircraft through a purchase agreement, the increased value of maintenance life remaining on the aircraft will be considered to be outsourced work at the time the aircraft is returned to service.
 
The parties also agree that, in the event that the Company is willing to make what it believes is a significant investment to increase or improve its in-house capacity, the TWU and the Company will discuss whether a further adjustment of the outsourcing calculation is warranted.
 
(1) It is understood that nothing in this Article requires the maintenance of the present volume of work.
(2) The percentage set forth in paragraph (e) above may be exceeded in the event: (i) the Company’s then-present employees do not have the normal time and/or skills to perform the work (provided that the manpower shortage is not a result of the Company’s failure to reasonably anticipate and address its headcount requirements); or (ii) the Company’s equipment or facilities are insufficient or are being fully utilized at the time the Company contracts out the work.
(3) The Company will provide the Director of the Air Transport Division, in January and July of each year, a report which indicates the percentage of total Aircraft-related Maintenance work and the percentage of Line Maintenance work that has been contracted out under paragraph (e) above in the prior 12-month period. Not less than 120 days after the effective date of this agreement the Company will provide the Director of the Air Transport Division with a list of all work currently contracted out that exceeds $1MM in annual spend with a supplier.
(4) The time limit for grievances filed under Article 29(d) involving contracting out will be 90 days from the date the report was received.

 
So the more parts, gloves, rags, drill bits, etc. we use, the more outsourcing they can do.  Direct Labor Cost + Direct Material Cost + Outside Service Costs divided by the outside service cost.
 
The more outsourcing they do, the more outsourcing they are allowed. 
 
Exclusion of the Company’s then-present employees do not have the normal time and/or skills to perform the work (provided that the manpower shortage is not a result of the Company’s failure to reasonably anticipate and address its headcount requirements
 
There are no requirements for the work to be done in-house on overtime, or any requirement to give us the training to do the work. 
 
The belief when I left AFW and from talking to friends in Tulsa who were sold this, is that the percentage that can be outsourced is 35% of the amount of work we do in house which is not true.  They think its a percentage of AA work, but it's a percentage that even includes the contractors work.  Being that they are paid much less than AA mechanics and includes the cost of our parts in the mix, in theory they could be doing well over the 35% of actual work on the planes and be under the cap by a large margin.

 

[swamt]

And it wasn't AA who started the outsourcing trend to El Salvador...that was SWA sending their B737s there years ago. China? That was started by NWA, UA, and CO. Wonder what's the common denominator...none of those airlines mechanics were represented by the TWU when the work was outsourced. 
 
The issue isn't the union, it's the FARs that allow it. Clear your head Bob and think.

Wrong again OS. SWA did not start the outsourcing trend to Elsolvador. There were airlines (I think US, and poss. United, but not positive) already there and been there for some time. Matter fact when SWA did start to look at them for maint. they had no room due to all the other airlines already there. They had to expand to make room for SWA and others. I think even JB is now there...

 

[swamt]

I voted for less outsourcing than SWA, UA, and DL.
 

You are so wrong again. No you didn't OS. I will only speak about SWA and not UAL and DL. This contract that you just voted yes for has way more outsourcing than SWA has ever, EVER voted for in a contract PERIOD!!! Matter fact AMFA and SWA has successfully nego to bring in house several lines of maint as well as much more work in house to our shops. Here is your quote as you wrote it; I voted for less outsourcing than SWA, UA, and DL. SWA mechanics have never voted for more outsourcing, period. I know what your going to post next, so I will let you.

 

[swamt]

I disagree with your assessment of outsourcing at AA, because it is actually a lot worse than you say.
 
 
So the more parts, gloves, rags, drill bits, etc. we use, the more outsourcing they can do.  Direct Labor Cost + Direct Material Cost + Outside Service Costs divided by the outside service cost.
 
The more outsourcing they do, the more outsourcing they are allowed. 
 
Exclusion of the Company’s then-present employees do not have the normal time and/or skills to perform the work (provided that the manpower shortage is not a result of the Company’s failure to reasonably anticipate and address its headcount requirements
 
There are no requirements for the work to be done in-house on overtime, or any requirement to give us the training to do the work. 
 
The belief when I left AFW and from talking to friends in Tulsa who were sold this, is that the percentage that can be outsourced is 35% of the amount of work we do in house which is not true.  They think its a percentage of AA work, but it's a percentage that even includes the contractors work.  Being that they are paid much less than AA mechanics and includes the cost of our parts in the mix, in theory they could be doing well over the 35% of actual work on the planes and be under the cap by a large margin.

You are correct. And I believe Bob Owens has been saying this from the very beginning. The TWU wanted the membership to think it was 35% of total maint. With all the componets that are included to reach the 35%, it could very well reach and actual 65% of total maint is outsourced. Bob has said this a long time ago before you guys started even voting on this crap. It's all bean counters confusing math to get it to pass the membership. If people would just read the contract instead of believing what they are told they would be better prepared, but most all are completely LAZY and want everything SPOON FED to them and this is what they get.

BTW Overspin, notice just how many times it states that the union (TWU) and the company "AGREED TO"!! Now will you finally admit that the union did in fact "agree" to the concessions and all the job losses, then came out and worked soooo hard to sell it to the membership? Well, they did just that, and now you guys are seeing the results of your misguided and failure to double check your company union that likes to agree to everything the company wants. You too will continue to see the agreement the TWU made with the company in the future as Tulsa is reduced to record low headcount by 2017, and I believe that will conclude the 65% reduction in membership (so far) from the great representation by the TWU...

 

[swamt]

OS,
 
You do realize that 35% of your whole maintenance budget is a huge amount of outsourcing.

Obviously he believes what the TWU is telling him. He's too lazy to do his own research of the facts.

 

[Overspeed]

OS,
 
You do realize that 35% of your whole maintenance budget is a huge amount of outsourcing.
 
At US we have only 50% of billable hours of HMV are allowed to be outsourced, as a matter of fact US just brought back in-house the 757s, 767s and A330s.
 
No line checks can be farmed out nor any RON Line MTC.
 
And if parts are shipped to an AOG aircraft at a non-mtc station a US Mechanic must be sent to change the parts.
 
And the only reason we have outsourcing at US is because of the former IBT/HP CBA where all there HMVs were outsourced.

 
Oh I agree it is a lot of outsourcing. Not as much as most others. AA was looking for industry standard on outsourcing based on maintenance spend which is about 45%. While the TWU formula is different it is just a different way of looking at it. Unfortunately MH can be manipulated as well. Who sets the labor hours for jobs at US? Is it by check? Do you labor on and of jobs?
 
I think AA mechanics in Europe are doing ETOPS on US.
 
What? The IBT allowed work to be outsourced? That's not what they told us during their card drive here.

 

[Overspeed]

Obviously he believes what the TWU is telling him. He's too lazy to do his own research of the facts.

 
Oh I do. SWA is above 45% of its maintenance budget which is way more than any other airline even non-union ones. Way to go AMFA.

 

[Overspeed]

 
I disagree with your assessment of outsourcing at AA, because it is actually a lot worse than you say.
 
 
So the more parts, gloves, rags, drill bits, etc. we use, the more outsourcing they can do.  Direct Labor Cost + Direct Material Cost + Outside Service Costs divided by the outside service cost.
 
The more outsourcing they do, the more outsourcing they are allowed. 
 
Exclusion of the Company’s then-present employees do not have the normal time and/or skills to perform the work (provided that the manpower shortage is not a result of the Company’s failure to reasonably anticipate and address its headcount requirements
 
There are no requirements for the work to be done in-house on overtime, or any requirement to give us the training to do the work. 
 
The belief when I left AFW and from talking to friends in Tulsa who were sold this, is that the percentage that can be outsourced is 35% of the amount of work we do in house which is not true.  They think its a percentage of AA work, but it's a percentage that even includes the contractors work.  Being that they are paid much less than AA mechanics and includes the cost of our parts in the mix, in theory they could be doing well over the 35% of actual work on the planes and be under the cap by a large margin.

 
You are correct so it would be in the union's best interest to do work at lower cost regardless of whether its less labor or material. The lower cost we do it in-house, the less AA can outsource. If we milk OT, waste material on G jobs, and do slow downs AA can outsource more.
 
So what is "normal"? The APA made the same argument with the PEB in that they rationalized the new aircraft delivered after the 1995 CBA was ratified were not considered "normal" work under our scope clause. The PEB likened that to saying that any airplane purchased after the APA contract was signed was also not covered under the APA scope clause can be outsourced flying. The APA backed off. Bottom line, the term "normal" refers to buying a bunch of new hangars, test cells, and specialized training beyond normal fleet training. 

 

[Bob Owens]

 
 
I think AA mechanics in Europe are doing ETOPS on US.
 
 

Now Overspin, you should know better than that. first off those mechanics are not in our contract group, and most likely they are glad about that because they get paid a lot more than we do and have much better benefits than we do. The fact is that the contract you voted YES for allows them to do any check, not just PS or Acks but even B-checks, and ECOs and not because they ran out of time, they can schedule any line maintenance they want overseas as long as the don't go over 15% of Total spend, they can also send that work to South America as well. B-checks at Aeroman? nothing stopping them, thanks to you. Even the UPS contract does not allow that. In other words our line maint has the worst scope clause in the industry.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
You are correct so it would be in the union's best interest to do work at lower cost regardless of whether its less labor or material. The lower cost we do it in-house, the less AA can outsource. If we milk OT, waste material on G jobs, and do slow downs AA can outsource more.
 
 

So in other words you are bragging that you voted in Union Busting language. You vote in wage rates so low the guys need to work OT then you tell them they should work harder and smarter to save the company money so they outsource less.  Sure what you are saying may have been in Don Videtich's best interests when he had his Union job earning $150k but its not in the best interest of the workers who in real terms are earning around half what the were ten years ago, in other words they need to work twice as many hours to be where they were ten years ago. You seem to forget that its the members labor that being sold, not the unions, and the members interests that the Union is supposed to look after. Lower wages and less benefits for everyone is not in the interest of either.  

 

[Bob Owens]

 
Oh I do. SWA is above 45% of its maintenance budget which is way more than any other airline even non-union ones. Way to go AMFA.

They have a lot of old planes, old planes drive up maintenance costs, even at AA where we gave up pretty much everything- pay, vacation, Holidays, Sick time etc, -our maintenance costs where still among the highest in the industry if not the highest, on the flip side AA was devoting a lot less money towards aircraft payments than their peers with newer fleets. Just like the fact that I spend probably a lot more than what my neighbor spends on maintenance of her car, and I do the work myself, in house if you will, while she outsources it all, but I don't have any car payments. In the end much less of my total budget goes towards my car compared to her.