AAR to hire 200 mechanics, thanks to Delta

[tech2101]

CVG and JFK are not going to see PSV lines. CVG is basicly aone bay hangar. It fits one widebody or a couple of narrowbodies on a stagger. As for JFK I don't think we have any hangar facilty to use. Anything that requred a hangar is either ferried to BOS or they rent from AA. Engine changes are done on the open ramp. Getting a workforce for a PSV line in JFK would be very tough. We are having a hard enough time finding mechanics to staff the line station. BOS has a similar hangar to CVG, plus the high cost of living like JFK so nothing goes there. I'm not sure about SLC. About the only place we have any space is MSP. Management has said they have no desire to add anymore hangar space in the system.

What about DLH? Does NWA still own that beautiful facility?

 

[Kev3188]

I don't think we do... The better question might be: Can we get it back-either by buying it outright or on a lease- and would the costs (both implicit and explicit) be worth it?

 

[Singleflyer]

Kev,

I think re-opening that facility would be a great PR move in MN. They were quite pi$$ed when NW closed it. I believe it did allot of work on the A320sl. and it would be a boost of employment in that area.l

As far as the costs, I don't have a clue

 

[strfyr51]

Well, in a perfect world everyone would work 9 to 5 Mon. through Fri.

If someone wants a job and needs the money, they should be willing to work whatever hours given them !

*****************************************************************************************
Having weekends off is overrated! Even as a mechanic I worked rotatng days off. So now I've moved up to a Tech Ops controller? And I'm working Not ONLY rotating Days OFF (6 on 3 off) but Rotating shifts as well (Mid-Afternoon-Days).
And to be honest? It's OK! But however good it ISN'T?? It Sure Beats Unermployment By $87.6K+.. Guys who want to work?? WILL WORK!! Simple as that.

 

[Kev3188]

*****************************************************************************************
Having weekends off is overrated!

Yup... I've always preferred having a partial weekend (when it's been available). For that matter, 9-5 is a terrible shift as well. To each his own, I suppose...

 

[WorldTraveler]

Management has said they have no desire to add anymore hangar space in the system.

That is the key sentence right there... and it basically means that DL will do what it can in the space it currently has.

The costs of reopening a hangar undoubtedly would far exceed the benefits that could accrue by doing more work there.
Given that DL is doing a huge amount of mod work across the fleet, the hangar facilities are probably running busier than they would on an ongoing basis once the fleet upgrades are completed - even with some of that work being sent out to contractors.

As for the MSP facillities, DL got what it want w/ the preferred lease terms at MSP by guaranteeing the current level of flights and employment. MSP would certainly be a great location for add'l support facilities for DL - if they were needed but it goes back to the MD88's statement above that the cost-benefit analysis for reopening or adding any new hangar space probably is not worth it. Since the 320/319 fleet is stable or shrinking as retirements occur - and as M90s are added to the fleet - any new facilities would likely cover increased work on growing fleets. I would like to know where work on the PMNW fleet is done now - same contracts as PMNW?

Part of the explicit decision in the Pan Am acquisition was to NOT acquire any of PA's maintenance facilities at JFK - both due to facility and human resource reasons. The fact that DL runs a major int'l operation without maintenance facilities at JFK seems odd but it is undoubtedly cheaper to rent facilities when needed - which obviously helps both AA and DL - w/o running regular maintenance work through a hangar.

I still would like to know how much work on the PMNW fleet - outside of heavy overhauls - are being done in-house somewhere at DL, including engine and component overhauls which I presume were sent out previously. I believe DL has said that it has added PMNW engine and fleet types to its outsourcing capabilities so I presume at least some of that work is done in-house.

 

[RDU Jetblast]

Maybe, as a public service we should try and organize a nationwide canvassing of A&P schools in major Urban areas and let these kids know what they are getting into. Show them how much wages and benifits have declined, the instability of the job due to the portability of assetts and how the government helps the carriers supress our wages while violating our basic rights by extracting our bodily fluids for analyisis without cause.

Of course, since Delta has no union we wouldnt expect those guys to exercise their rights because in a non-union shop the only rights you have are the rights to do whatever Delta wants you to do or leave. Just ask Ellen Simonetti.

Several years ago I did a leafletting campaign at two schools in NY telling those students what they had to look forward to. Needless to say there was a lot of interest, many thanked me, but the students became irate at the school and its faculty. Our station manager sat on the Board of one of the schools and he called me into the office to let me know he had heard about it, and wasnt pleased. Said I nearly caused a riot. I told him sometimes the truth hurts(the bottom line of A&P schools that lie to students).


DL88, does Delta still hold the leases to the old Pan Am facilities at JFK?

I think the word is out. The last stats I received from my alma mater, ERAU, in the 80's there were over 1000 AMT Students. Today, there is less than 300. That speaks volumes on the state of the industry.

 

[WoRkInG]

Well, in a perfect world everyone would work 9 to 5 Mon. through Fri.

If someone wants a job and needs the money, they should be willing to work whatever hours given them !

Well in the real world people take in consideration working hours and wages even though they "need" money. I would think if you go to school to get certified to work on a aircraft and have respect for the skills and knowledge you obtained that a company like delta would understand to stay compeitive you have to have compeitive wages.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Well in the real world people take in consideration working hours and wages even though they "need" money. I would think if you go to school to get certified to work on a aircraft and have respect for the skills and knowledge you obtained that a company like delta would understand to stay compeitive you have to have compeitive wages.

With all due respect, unless DL cannot fill the positions it currently has or expects to have in the near future, it is paying the market wage. This is a class example of supply and demand.
With a PUBLISHED unemployment rate of 10% (actual levels are much higher since people drop off the unemployment roles after a certain period of time), there is absolutely no power for employees in much of any industry to demand wage increases right now... there are people with all kinds of experience and training that are employed whether the gov't lists them as such or not.

 

[RDU Jetblast]

With all due respect, unless DL cannot fill the positions it currently has or expects to have in the near future, it is paying the market wage. This is a class example of supply and demand.
With a PUBLISHED unemployment rate of 10% (actual levels are much higher since people drop off the unemployment roles after a certain period of time), there is absolutely no power for employees in much of any industry to demand wage increases right now... there are people with all kinds of experience and training that are employed whether the gov't lists them as such or not.

I no longer work for Delta, I took voluntary furlough in '94. The great inequity that I saw was, given the same seniority, a well qualified CAT III cone head, who could also do service checks , engine changes, and tire changes was paid the same as a mechanic who did the bare minimum. If there was a pay difference wilth experience and qualifications, AMT's would be motivated the be technically competitive and would work for the higher wages.

The other problem ,with the industry as a whole is, if an AMT from another major was vetted through the hiring process and found current in training and experience, that mechanic would start at the bottom of the payscale-rookie pay.

Here in the outside world, I can almost always command a higher wage based on experience, education and training without starting out with rookie pay.

And finally, if you stay at the bare min level too long -maybe you should be fired. pruning the ranks is always necessary to stay lean and fit as an organization.

 

[Bob Owens]

With all due respect, unless DL cannot fill the positions it currently has or expects to have in the near future, it is paying the market wage. This is a class example of supply and demand.
With a PUBLISHED unemployment rate of 10% (actual levels are much higher since people drop off the unemployment roles after a certain period of time), there is absolutely no power for employees in much of any industry to demand wage increases right now... there are people with all kinds of experience and training that are employed whether the gov't lists them as such or not.

Thats part of the problem, you seem to think that all they need to do is "fill the position", not get somebody who can actually fix airplanes.

The fact is regardless of the overall employment situation if there's a shortage of people with the required skillsets they have bargaining power, isnt that why you claim executives get paid so much?

 

[WorldTraveler]

I no longer work for Delta, I took voluntary furlough in '94. The great inequity that I saw was, given the same seniority, a well qualified CAT III cone head, who could also do service checks , engine changes, and tire changes was paid the same as a mechanic who did the bare minimum. If there was a pay difference wilth experience and qualifications, AMT's would be motivated the be technically competitive and would work for the higher wages.

The other problem ,with the industry as a whole is, if an AMT from another major was vetted through the hiring process and found current in training and experience, that mechanic would start at the bottom of the payscale-rookie pay.

And part of that is structural with the airline industry which is heavily seniority based, meaning that there are not the incentives to improve oneself as much as there are incentives just to "hang on"... and at the same time, there are significant barriers to movement within the industry other than within one's own company and class/craft.

Here in the outside world, I can almost always command a higher wage based on experience, education and training without starting out with rookie pay.

absolutely... again structural w/ the airline industry and other heavily seniority based industries.

And finally, if you stay at the bare min level too long -maybe you should be fired. pruning the ranks is always necessary to stay lean and fit as an organization.

I completely agree. I believe DL has adopted that type of mindset fairly aggressively post bankruptcy among management and adminstrative personnel.... CO and AMR have done it more aggressively at the mgmt level for years but to be honest, few airlines do it at the frontline level.

Thats part of the problem, you seem to think that all they need to do is "fill the position", not get somebody who can actually fix airplanes.

The fact is regardless of the overall employment situation if there's a shortage of people with the required skillsets they have bargaining power, isnt that why you claim executives get paid so much?

There is nothing in what I said that implies that DL or any airline must simply fill positions. Market forces very much include skills and competencies as part of the process of establishing compensation levels.
As for executive compensation, despite what some on these forums want to believe, a great deal of compensation for executives throughout corporate America is considered "at risk" which means if they don't meet certain targets, the executive will not receive the highest levels of compensation.
Part of what is happening in the US right now is that corporate profits are increasing even though the unemployment level remains stubbornly high - and that is a common phenomenon after a period of recession - when restructructuring occurs. What is lacking in the US right now is that the overall economy is not growing so there are fewer people doing larger quantities of more productive work - which depresses wages because there are an excess of highly qualified people that could be part of the labor creating new companies and growing the economy - but that part of the recovery has yet to occur in the US.

 

[RDU Jetblast]

It might be better if seniority only counted for vacation, days off, and shift bids. And maybe not so much for vacation. Out here, it is not done.

 

[WorldTraveler]

It might be better if seniority only counted for vacation, days off, and shift bids. And maybe not so much for vacation. Out here, it is not done.

Remember that the airline industry is heavily unionized and even though DL is not, it has and likely will continue to have personnel procedures more like its union peers than non-union companies elsewhere in industry.
I suspect that DL has thought more than once about how much or how little similarity they want between themselves and other airlines.....even if there are union differences.

Remember that labor procedures with respect to mergers for airlines is still the same regardless of whether an airline is unionized or not and that could very much come into play should DL ever acquire another airline - or potentially be acquired.

 

[Bob Owens]

And part of that is structural with the airline industry which is heavily seniority based, meaning that there are not the incentives to improve oneself as much as there are incentives just to "hang on"... and at the same time, there are significant barriers to movement within the industry other than within one's own company and class/craft.

The reality is that companies will often simply get rid of the highset paid or most potentially costly employees, thats why people formed unions and embraced the seniority system. It was in fact a response to the cruel unfair practices of corporations and how they treated their workers. Most aircraft mechanics continually improve as they go though their career and take pride in what they do, its the greed of corporations who expect us to produce more while they give us less that causes the conflicts you are seeing where workers come to work and do the minimum.

I completely agree. I believe DL has adopted that type of mindset fairly aggressively post bankruptcy among management and adminstrative personnel.... CO and AMR have done it more aggressively at the mgmt level for years but to be honest, few airlines do it at the frontline level.

Delta adopted the tactics of Theodore Roosevelt, they give their workers some of the benifits of being in a union without having a union.

There is nothing in what I said that implies that DL or any airline must simply fill positions. Market forces very much include skills and competencies as part of the process of establishing compensation levels.

Seems to me that most of the compensation levels (of todays airline workers)were not set by "market forces" but rather BK court rulings. Todays airline worker wages are not the result of Market Forces where capital, aligned in corporations, bargained against workers, alligned in unions, but rather "Command Forces" where the government through its courts stood on the side of Capital, against workers, and mandated that the Unions could not withdraw their labor, while the government set labor compensation rates based solely upon the desires of the airlines with no consideration for the workers needs and desires. What we are starting to see now is the backlash, new entrants arent there, despite record unemployment, the Market forces are reacting against the Command forces.

As for executive compensation, despite what some on these forums want to believe, a great deal of compensation for executives throughout corporate America is considered "at risk" which means if they don't meet certain targets, the executive will not receive the highest levels of compensation.

Yes, they may have to make do with a measly $750,000/year to $1million in base pay if they dont meet those objectives. If we dont meet what the company requires from us we are terminated, so I guess you can say all our compensation is "at risk" as well.

Part of what is happening in the US right now is that corporate profits are increasing even though the unemployment level remains stubbornly high - and that is a common phenomenon after a period of recession - when restructructuring occurs. What is lacking in the US right now is that the overall economy is not growing so there are fewer people doing larger quantities of more productive work - which depresses wages because there are an excess of highly qualified people that could be part of the labor creating new companies and growing the economy - but that part of the recovery has yet to occur in the US.

Profits and wages have an inverse relationship. Thats been a part of economic theory for over 100 years. I agree that we are seeing corporations squeeze their employees to produce more, in part with the threat that they will be replaced if they dont, but all things run their course, with us the job cuts and compensation cuts started in 2002, its run its course, there may be plenty of skilled accountants, lawyers, managers and other office workers out there at the moment but there arent a lot of A&Ps out there looking for work. We saw it with the recall at AA, Delta is seeing it, AAR is seeing it, the well has run dry. By increasing productivity while the pool of people who cant consume increases it leads to more unemployment, not less. Thats what happened in this industry, productivity increased, jobs decreased. The airlines ability to squeeze more productivity out of us through threats and intimadtion has run its course, they arent going to get any more out of us than they are now (at these wages) and they cant threaten us anymore(we dont care). We know there's no big supply of mechanics left out there. One of the few carriers out there thats been growing (sans aquisitions) is JEt Blue, they hire right out of school and they just raised their pay in high cost areas to $38 in order to attract mechanics. No union there, just plain old "market forces" with no NMB or BK court interference.

As far as a growing economy, consumption drives the economy, as long as we keep most of the money in the hands of those who have no pent up consumption needs/desires, those that do need/desire cant meet those needs or desires by consuming. So what we need to do is tax the rich more and assist unions in getting raises for workers with pent up demand (which will draw some of the trillions these corporations are now sitting on back into the economy) and get the money in the hands of those who will drive consumption up, this can be done through higher wages (worker gains primarily through Unions and increasing minimum wage provisions)) and/or government handouts to those without jobs (UI, welfare etc-from Taxes), or government works projects (taxes) this would allow those with pent up consumption demands/desires to increase consumption, which would drive increased production, which would increase the demand for more workers which would drive down unemployment. The arguement that the way to reduce unemployment is that more TAX cuts for Corporations and the rich are needed so the rich can invest is absurd, corporate America is already sitting on trillions of dollars, they arent short of capital so the lack of investment capital isnt an issue, yet they wont hire, why? Because there isnt enough demand to justify hiring more and they are getting increased productivity out of the workers they have, production is meeting demand, so why hire? So if we want to reduce unemployment worker productivity must be curtailed, not increased, and demand must increase. Even though the top 1% have a greater percentage of the total wealth of the nation than they've ever had they arent consuming more, and most of the other 99% cant afford to consume more, reducing the tax burden on the rich wil not help reduce unemployment, in fact it will continue to drive it higher.