Tulsa Op Ed

[Bob Owens]

http://www.tulsaworl...13_CUTLIN901424

I'm guessing that this is an attempt to gain support for a revote on the measure that was rejected by the people of Tulsa as far as the corporate welfare AA was looking for.

I agree that we need a level playing feild, but what Jim is complaining about he is guilty of. By granting AA below Market Rate mechanics labor he has created an unlevel playing feild that works to the detriment of every licenesed A&P in the Airline Industry. As rising fuel and labor costs abroad are driving corporations to bring work back to the United States he helped push through the worst contract in the industry, a contract that puts working mechanics below even their non-union peers in the airline industry who have the IBT or AMFA by a wide margin, by a narrow margin compared to the IAM.

Southwest now sends many planes to El Salvador for heavy maintenance, as does US Airways and Jet Blue. Delta sends planes to Mexico and China. United has planes repaired in China at a facility, AMECO, where the ratio of workers to licensed mechanics is 500 to 1.

Hmm, and where has AA been sending their 777s since they laid off half of AFW?

The Transport Workers Union has fought to keep work in-house and in Tulsa at American Airlines. Through negotiations and by proposing measures of efficiency, we reduced involuntary layoffs by 90 percent from the number initially demanded by management and we have contract language that guarantees at least 65 percent of the money AMR spends on maintenance will remain in-house. We also have negotiated provisions with US Airways to keep maintenance in-house if that airline merges with AMR. The measures we gained at the bargaining table are unprecedented in the history of airline bankruptcies - far better than agreements reached by the Teamsters, AMFA or the Machinists unions at other airlines.

Far better? For who? The Company, the Union, or the people who have to live under the worst terms in the industry? If you had your pick of agreements to work under would you pick the one that offers the least pay, the least vacation, the fewest Holidays, the least amount of sick time, the worst OT rules and the most expensive medical but requires the company to keep 65% of the spend (subject to exclusions and revision should RR back out of TAESL)? Or one that pays a lot more?

Did the number get reduced because of negotiations or because the number was BS from the start? Did AA have anyplace to send all that work? Apparanetly not, because they are holding guys that put in for the EO and SIS because they are short handed on the line.

Giving an employer a deep discount on mechanics labor, which is becoming scarce is not good bargaining, its selling out. Nobody except AA is reducing their mechanics headcount, if we had forced AA to layoff from the bottom AA would have lost their youngest workers most of which would have little difficulty finding new jobs at rates that compare with what they are making.

 

[FWAAA]

Little is concerned that Aeroman is going to keep expanding its SAL maintenance base exponentially (as has been the case during the past decade). Aeroman has built a lot of new hangar space in the past ten years or so. Having worked very hard to trade pay for jobs, Little now wants to preserve as many of those low-paid jobs as possible. For the AA personnel in Tulsa who aren't in a hurry to leave AA (and want to keep their low-paid AA jobs), some corporate welfare thrown AA's way by the taxpayers of Tulsa is a good thing. Sure, the AA employees will pay some of it, but their non-AA neighbors will pay most of it (in the aggregate).

 

[Lloyd Grey]

http://www.tulsaworl...13_CUTLIN901424

I'm guessing that this is an attempt to gain support for a revote on the measure that was rejected by the people of Tulsa as far as the corporate welfare AA was looking for.

I agree that we need a level playing feild, but what Jim is complaining about he is guilty of. By granting AA below Market Rate mechanics labor he has created an unlevel playing feild that works to the detriment of every licenesed A&P in the Airline Industry. As rising fuel and labor costs abroad are driving corporations to bring work back to the United States he helped push through the worst contract in the industry, a contract that puts working mechanics below even their non-union peers in the airline industry who have the IBT or AMFA by a wide margin, by a narrow margin compared to the IAM.





Hmm, and where has AA been sending their 777s since they laid off half of AFW?






Far better? For who? The Company, the Union, or the people who have to live under the worst terms in the industry? If you had your pick of agreements to work under would you pick the one that offers the least pay, the least vacation, the fewest Holidays, the least amount of sick time, the worst OT rules and the most expensive medical but requires the company to keep 65% of the spend (subject to exclusions and revision should RR back out of TAESL)? Or one that pays a lot more?

Did the number get reduced because of negotiations or because the number was BS from the start? Did AA have anyplace to send all that work? Apparanetly not, because they are holding guys that put in for the EO and SIS because they are short handed on the line.

Giving an employer a deep discount on mechanics labor, which is becoming scarce is not good bargaining, its selling out. Nobody except AA is reducing their mechanics headcount, if we had forced AA to layoff from the bottom AA would have lost their youngest workers most of which would have little difficulty finding new jobs at rates that compare with what they are making.

In my opinion, the TWU has always worked to the detriment of licensed A&P mechanics. We had license premiums for a reason.
- Giving skill pay (or whatever they called it) to non-licensed assemblers and OSM/SRPs for instance, just to be fair is a prime example. Divide they "pie" however you want. What they should have done is put that money in the A&Ps paychecks and encourage the rest to go to A&P school.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Little is concerned that Aeroman is going to keep expanding its SAL maintenance base exponentially (as has been the case during the past decade). Aeroman has built a lot of new hangar space in the past ten years or so. Having worked very hard to trade pay for jobs, Little now wants to preserve as many of those low-paid jobs as possible. For the AA personnel in Tulsa who aren't in a hurry to leave AA (and want to keep their low-paid AA jobs), some corporate welfare thrown AA's way by the taxpayers of Tulsa is a good thing. Sure, the AA employees will pay some of it, but their non-AA neighbors will pay most of it (in the aggregate).

and Americans are finding it harder and harder to justify helping out companies, in part because Americans' own economic situation continues to deteriorate and in part because companies have not been loyal to Americans.
If companies can't make it on their own, they shouldn't expect to turn to others to win in the marketplace.

Just like 700, Little wants to harp on heavy maintenance as the yardstick regarding whether a company succeeds in maintenance. AA's network competitor 800 miles east on I-20 now employs more maintenance personnel than AA and none of them are unionized. And DL obtains 1/4 of its total maintenance budget from insourced revenue.
Little doesn't want to admit that other carriers - esp. non-union ones -really do win at insourcing.

Little should have been working w/ AA to use AA's maintenance capabilities to win... but he didn't do that.

One person who commented on the article recognized the truth.