If that's the case, it's a great deal for AA...
Yes it is a great deal for AA, the only problem for us is AA uses all the costs related to that production against us in Negotiations.
All those engines we rebuild have associated costs and dont add one ASM to our calculation but those costs get charged against the ASMs. Same goes for all the rest of the 3P work. In Europe our mechanics do more 3P work than AA work and they earn around $12/hr more than we do, so figure for every 10 mechanics they have over there they add at least $1,000,000/year in labor costs to the total. Sure they add revenue but AA doesnt like to talk about their revenue, only costs, in fact they admit that they have a "Revenue Premium", They only want to talk about how our Labor costs stick out compared to competitors who outsource most of their work and do very little 3P work. I've been told that Delta does a lot of 3P work but they also act like a middle man, they contract to do a check, then outsource much of the work to other vendors, so it may look like they do a lot of 3P work and still have much fewer mechanics than AA but thats due to this little slight of hand. The same source also told me that a while back a customer (Spanish airline?)objected to that and demanded that all of the work be done by Delta Mechanics and that threw Delta for a loop because they werent prepared for that.
For three years management has refused to give us cost outs, in fact they accepted the Unions cost outs on the proposal "as is", didnt challenge one figure, even though there is at least one blatent error. (Hmm, makes you wonder doesn't it?) So the labor costs for all those Engines we build for all those other carriers gets tapped onto AA labor costs, same for materials etc, once again distorting the figures, those costs inflate our Maintenance materials and Labor CASMs. So when we bring up the fact that we make much less than others they insist that we should not look at the obvious (what we are paid per hourand instead look at a total thats totally distorted because of our much higher rates of doing work in house along with the 3P work we do. On top of all that they are also used to inflate the so called "$600 Million Labor Cost Disadvantage".
Things as they are I'd rather that AA give up the 3P work, not hire the 900 heads they are looking to add, and give us a better wage. In reality those things probably enable AA to pay us more but they refuse to acknowledge that and instead spin the advantage around and make it look like a disadvantage so I say "Get rid of it". If they did that then truer numbers would be out there and they would have a harder time justfying their insistance that we accept being at the bottom of the list of Bankrupt carriers. For the most Junior guys who may end up getting laid off (doubtful because the company claims they do not staff for 3P work anyway) they wont have to wait long if they want to come back because there's a long list of guys that want to get out once we get a contract.
I'm more than willing to do 3P work, bring in extra revenue for the company, allow the company to utilize us more efficiently with out adding extra heads, and help AAs bottom line, but not if they turn around and use it against me, play with the numbers saying "we employ more mechanics than any other carrier, therefore you should work for less than any other carrier" (What am I a f*cking widget?), "Our labor costs are higher than any other carrier so you have to work for less so we can match their labor costs (despite the fact their competitors dont do as much 3P work and send out the majority of their own work) and "Our CASMS are not competative and when you look at the costs related to that Labor costs stands out compared to our competitors (even though they run their business differently) so we cant pay you a decent wage". The saying is "dont piss on my back and tell me its raining". If these things are going to get thrown into the costs then used against me, when in fact I'm helping to generate even more revenue, then srew it, I don't want it.
The company admitted that of the $600 million they claim they are disadvantaged that only around $100 million of that is from M&R. Thats only around 1300 mechanics, around the same number of people we have without system protection right now, so its not our contract that puts them at a disadvantage, if a disadvantage really exists at all, its their choice. The fact that the number is so small if anything reveals that AA's actual maintenance costs, once you factor in how much we do in house and out the 3P and all the optional stuff they are doing are probably very competative. UAL claimed that their outsourced maintenance costs alone was 13% of the companys total operating costs in 2007, they still do 59% (as of 2010 assuming that has not changed significantly)of their overhaul in house and once they finish the merger with CO will have 2760 base mechanics (we have 5776). If 41% (2010)of their maintenance costs makes up 13% of their total operating costs in 2007-before fuel went up then maintenance costs then their total maintenance costs once you add in the 59% they spend in house would come out to around 30% of total costs. I beleieve that even in 2007, with all the 3P and optional work (wingletts, new interiors etc) taken out, our total maintenance costs were less than 30% of our total operational costs.