Overhaul spin off and TWU bottom line

[Ed Norton]

I wonder how the TWU's dues collection business would suffer if AA does spin off overhaul. A spin off would remove those workers from the Railway Labor act and put them under the National Labor Relations Act. So called "right to work" laws would now apply in TULE and AFW. Would AA stab its lackey union in the back like that? Say it ain't so!

 

[The Goose]

I wonder how the TWU's dues collection business would suffer if AA does spin off overhaul. A spin off would remove those workers from the Railway Labor act and put them under the National Labor Relations Act. So called "right to work" laws would now apply in TULE and AFW. Would AA stab its lackey union in the back like that? Say it ain't so!

Good point. Perhaps the boyz in NYC are being taken for a ride also, but it's probably consensual. Remember - the twu is trying to organize Continental's ramp - that must be the replacement dues income they're planning on.

 

[TWU-GOTTA-GO]

I wonder how the TWU's dues collection business would suffer if AA does spin off overhaul. A spin off would remove those workers from the Railway Labor act and put them under the National Labor Relations Act. So called "right to work" laws would now apply in TULE and AFW. Would AA stab its lackey union in the back like that? Say it ain't so!

Already has been determined by the NMB with this Dalfort case, and we would remain under the RLA.

http://www.nmb.gov/representation/deter2000/27n037.html

BTW...any spinoff would probably include all of maintenance, not just overhaul in my opinion.

 

[eolesen]

Perhaps a slight technicality... this determination is eight years old, and a lot has changed...

Both DalFort and the IBT agree that aircraft repair is work traditionally performed by employees in the airline industry. United Air Lines, Inc., 22 NMB 12 (1994); Federal Express Corp., 20 NMB 360 (1993); Northwest Airlines, Inc., 18 NMB 357 (1991); United Airlines, Inc., 6 NMB 134 (1977). Accordingly, the first part of the two-part is met.

Now, you only have a few airline employees actually performing repair functions. Arguably, less than half of the MRO work on US registered aircraft is done by employees of the company operating the aircraft. I wouldn't bet money either way on how the NMB would rule on a challenge, but there's probably room for some consideration in the other direction.

 

[Ed Norton]

Already has been determined by the NMB with this Dalfort case, and we would remain under the RLA.

http://www.nmb.gov/representation/deter2000/27n037.html

BTW...any spinoff would probably include all of maintenance, not just overhaul in my opinion.

Is'nt there some requirement that AA must have line maintenance "in house?"

I'm sure AA would try to find away around that Dalfort ruling. Then again it does have a vested interest in keeping its running dog lackey union around. :down:

 

[eolesen]

The FAA requires that a carrier ensures that aircraft be maintained in compliance with their maintenance program, but aside from oversight, there's nothing which states that the work has to be done by the carrier's employees. As I said in another thread, PeopleExpress never had its own line mechanics. They had maintenance supervisors who could work on aircraft if necessary, but whose primary function was to oversee the FBO's and other AMT's contracted to provide line maintenance. I doubt that's changed.

 

[MCDP]

The FAA requires that a carrier ensures that aircraft be maintained in compliance with their maintenance program, but aside from oversight, there's nothing which states that the work has to be done by the carrier's employees. As I said in another thread, PeopleExpress never had its own line mechanics. They had maintenance supervisors who could work on aircraft if necessary, but whose primary function was to oversee the FBO's and other AMT's contracted to provide line maintenance. I doubt that's changed.

You are correct. There are more than a few carriers out there with no AMT's of their own, just maintenance reps that can work an an aircraft if they have to, but otherwise just supervise the contract people.

 

[Vortilon]

The FAA requires that a carrier ensures that aircraft be maintained in compliance with their maintenance program, but aside from oversight, there's nothing which states that the work has to be done by the carrier's employees. As I said in another thread, PeopleExpress never had its own line mechanics. They had maintenance supervisors who could work on aircraft if necessary, but whose primary function was to oversee the FBO's and other AMT's contracted to provide line maintenance. I doubt that's changed.

FAR 121 105:

Each certificate holder conducting domestic or flag operations must show that competent personnel and adequate facilities and equipment (including spare parts, supplies, and materials) are available at such points along the certificate holder's route as are necessary for the proper servicing, maintenance, and preventive maintenance of airplanes and auxiliary equipment.

Good luck getting enough qualified AMTs to work for a maintenance vendor for contractor wages and benefits.

Even NWA is suffering with new company hires (scabs). Imagine the quality an outfit like Timco or Jett Care could attract with their amazing wage and benefits packages - no flight benefits either!

There are jobs with a lot better benefits and hours / conditions then AMTs are subjected to. Many of these other jobs pay as much or more, and the ones that don't - well thats where you look at the non wage issues.

My part time job has medical and dental and vision benefits that make American Airlines coverages look non existant.
I don't pay a dime for any of the coverages either.

 

[TWU informer]

Actually I think a more recent case favoring Overhual remaining under the RLA after Spin-off would be the 2001 AMFA filing at American Eagle. RAMCI was determined into craft or class of Eagle eligibility list.

The "Spin-Off" would have to remain a seniority flow thru system to protect the dues collection agency commonly referred to as the TWU. And you can bet the pay and benefit sacrfice to insure TWU seniorty flow through would be substanitial.

Of course since my "credibility" is in question due to labeling a TWU stooge and stooge, and a AA management lackey and lackey, and a Company boot licker a boot licker, then someone may want to verify these facts with documents to insure that I am not attempting to deceive.

http://www.nmb.gov/representation/deter2001/28n066.html

The Carrier asserts that RAMCI employees are part of the Eagle system. Eagle states that RAMCI employees work exclusively on Eagle aircraft, are trained by Eagle employees, are subject to the same management and labor relations policies as Eagle employees, and may exercise their seniority to flow back and forth in the Eagle system. In addition, Eagle asserts there are interlocking boards of directors and officers between Eagle and RAMCI.



Eagle also argues that AMFA's showing of interest must be more than 50 percent because all the mechanics on the Eagle system are currently represented. Regarding AMFA's arguments concerning the maintenance bases, Wings West Aviation Services, Inc. (WWASI), and Eagle Aviation Services, Inc. (EASI), the Carrier asserts that AMFA should not be permitted to use the Board's merger procedures to expand the scope of its application.

WWASI and EASI do share corporate officers and directors with Eagle and RAMCI. Management officials from WWASI and EASI provided evidence that they direct and control the WWASI and EASI employees in the performance of their jobs, in the maintenance of discipline and in the resolution of employee complaints. Rates of pay, hours, and working conditions at WWASI and EASI are not the same as on Eagle and RAMCI. Eagle's Employee Relations Counsel, Robert Granger, does not have any labor relations contact with EASI and WWASI.

 

[Bob Owens]

Perhaps a slight technicality... this determination is eight years old, and a lot has changed...



Now, you only have a few airline employees actually performing repair functions. Arguably, less than half of the MRO work on US registered aircraft is done by employees of the company operating the aircraft. I wouldn't bet money either way on how the NMB would rule on a challenge, but there's probably room for some consideration in the other direction.

Who would challenge it? The TWU-NO, the company-? maybe, but probably not. They are used to the RLA and are no doubt happy with the lack of enforcement and favorable rulings on the part of the NMB of the RLA.

The Carrier asserts that RAMCI employees are part of the Eagle system. Eagle states that RAMCI employees work exclusively on Eagle aircraft, are trained by Eagle employees, are subject to the same management and labor relations policies as Eagle employees, and may exercise their seniority to flow back and forth in the Eagle system. In addition, Eagle asserts there are interlocking boards of directors and officers between Eagle and RAMCI.

Niether Tulsa, MCI or AFW work exclusivley on AA aircraft.

Arent the boards of American and Eagle interlocking as subsidiaries of AMR? Yet we are different workgroups with different contracts contracts within the same classification. Technically, if thats the decision of the NMB Eagle and AA mechanics should be under the same agreement.

Eagle also argues that AMFA's showing of interest must be more than 50 percent because all the mechanics on the Eagle system are currently represented. Regarding AMFA's arguments concerning the maintenance bases, Wings West Aviation Services, Inc. (WWASI), and Eagle Aviation Services, Inc. (EASI), the Carrier asserts that AMFA should not be permitted to use the Board's merger procedures to expand the scope of its application.

Seems like they are argueing from both sides, on the one hand they should be under the RLA because of the same management but they shouldnt allow that fact to allow the union to include them in the class and craft as the RLA dictates!

 

[Ed Norton]

Who would challenge it? The TWU-NO, the company-? maybe, but probably not. They are used to the RLA and are no doubt happy with the lack of enforcement and favorable rulings on the part of the NMB of the RLA.



Niether Tulsa, MCI or AFW work exclusivley on AA aircraft.

Arent the boards of American and Eagle interlocking as subsidiaries of AMR? Yet we are different workgroups with different contracts contracts within the same classification. Technically, if thats the decision of the NMB Eagle and AA mechanics should be under the same agreement.




Seems like they are argueing from both sides, on the one hand they should be under the RLA because of the same management but they shouldnt allow that fact to allow the union to include them in the class and craft as the RLA dictates!

Bob, you know as well as I do that government regulatory agencies are there to protect the interests of the corporate elite. That once in a while they do something to protect the working class' interest is sheer coincidence. The rules are meant to benefit the elite. Period. :down:

 

[TWU informer]

I agree. The decision would be made without regard to previous decisions. Case by Case, and even the who the investigator is matters.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, you know as well as I do that government regulatory agencies are there to protect the interests of the corporate elite. That once in a while they do something to protect the working class' interest is sheer coincidence. The rules are meant to benefit the elite. Period. :down:

The only time that they do something to protect the working class is when the working class makes it clear that if they dont the consequences will be dire.

Look at history, reforms only followed outrage and riot and lawlessness. Power never gives up anything unless they are forced to, then they make it look like they did it for the good of mankind.

As I've said many times before if we confine ourselves to their rules we can only lose. If Rosa Parks hadnt disobeyed the law blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus.

What "they" want they are getting, the only way things will improve is if they dont get what they want anymore.