Aircraft Maint Attrition

[Hopeful]

.

2003 forced a lot of us to decide if it was more important to work for an airline or to pay our bills. At some point, you realize that the pride you get from your chosen career and the love of aviation still isn't paying the bills. Six (almost seven) years later you realize you're still not looking at new contracts, and the idea of restore or retro look worse.

The irony of this is when we debate CEO/exec compensation, the defenders cite the "market" and "perfomance" as the determining factor as to how much to pay them. Then when we debate A&P compensation, the critics cite the "market" and how many A&P's are willing to work for less until there is a shortage of experienced mechanics.

Well, guess what? That shortage is entering the early stages and instead of increasing compensation for mechanics, the airlines, namely AA, are looking to put more non-licensed mechanics to perform A&P license required functions. There is no desire on the part of airline management to entice mechanics to work for them.
So I ask you, eolesen, why does the market rate apply to exectutives but not the rest of the work force?

Also, there has been defense of the 3P mechanics being equally qualified. Having said that, how do you feel about non-licensed mechanics working on your aircraft at the line stations?

 

[The Goose]

The irony of this is when we debate CEO/exec compensation, the defenders cite the "market" and "perfomance" as the determining factor as to how much to pay them. Then when we debate A&P compensation, the critics cite the "market" and how many A&P's are willing to work for less until there is a shortage of experienced mechanics.

Well, guess what? That shortage is entering the early stages and instead of increasing compensation for mechanics, the airlines, namely AA, are looking to put more non-licensed mechanics to perform A&P license required functions. There is no desire on the part of airline management to entice mechanics to work for them.
So I ask you, eolesen, why does the market rate apply to exectutives but not the rest of the work force?

Also, there has been defense of the 3P mechanics being equally qualified. Having said that, how do you feel about non-licensed mechanics working on your aircraft at the line stations?

One thing is for certain - as long as there are people in executive union positions lining up to sell their souls to Jim Little, the rest is immaterial.

 

[eolesen]

The irony of this is when we debate CEO/exec compensation, the defenders cite the "market" and "perfomance" as the determining factor as to how much to pay them. Then when we debate A&P compensation, the critics cite the "market" and how many A&P's are willing to work for less until there is a shortage of experienced mechanics.

Well, guess what? That shortage is entering the early stages and instead of increasing compensation for mechanics, the airlines, namely AA, are looking to put more non-licensed mechanics to perform A&P license required functions. There is no desire on the part of airline management to entice mechanics to work for them.
So I ask you, eolesen, why does the market rate apply to exectutives but not the rest of the work force?

Market rates apply equally to all work, Hopeful. You just don't get to be selective in what constitutes your peers -- it's not just UPS and Southwest, but it's also the guys working in what you consider chop shops in Alabama, Costa Rica, and Shannon.

It's an unshakable fact some work can be moved, and some can't. Maintenance, revenue accounting, planning, revenue management, IT, and telesales are all portable. With portable work, the definition of the market grows along with where the work can be done. Airport ops aren't transportable. The work has to be done where the passengers are. So those guys have more real pricing power than the guys turning wrenches.

Also, there has been defense of the 3P mechanics being equally qualified. Having said that, how do you feel about non-licensed mechanics working on your aircraft at the line stations?

Being licensed doesn't mean qualified any more than being qualified means being licensed.

Guys like PTO are licensed. Guys like AMFA Dave aren't. Which do you consider more qualified at what they do?

And, yes, to the extent of the overlap where the work being done by a licensed worker can also be done LEGALLY by an unlicensed worker (either directly or under guidance), that has to also be considered when evaluating the market price.

I know you guys take pride in your work, and don't want the job description watered down. But if the regulations allow for unlicensed workers to be doing the same work, don't blame the airline for considering all legal options.

 

[Boomer]

eolesen posted:
"...It's an unshakable fact some work can be moved, and some can't. Maintenance, revenue accounting, planning, revenue management, IT, and telesales are all portable. With portable work, the definition of the market grows along with where the work can be done. Airport ops aren't transportable. The work has to be done where the passengers are. So those guys have more real pricing power than the guys turning wrenches..."

"...And, yes, to the extent of the overlap where the work being done by a licensed worker can also be done LEGALLY by an unlicensed worker (either directly or under guidance), that has to also be considered when evaluating the market price.

I know you guys take pride in your work, and don't want the job description watered down. But if the regulations allow for unlicensed workers to be doing the same work, don't blame the airline for considering all legal options..."
________________________________

The totality of Aircraft Line Maintenance cannot be moved; it is a necessary service produced, controlled and delivered at a service delivery point. In my locale, many of the International Airlines have begun to replace outsourced aircraft line maintenance with their own employees resulting in job losses by AMTs, many of them employed at AA, with this change. When inquiries are made as to why they made this decision to hire their own employees versus continuing with outsourced aircraft line maintenance employees: they cite the fact that with insourcing their line maintenance they receive greater control over the process and delivery of the product resulting in better operational stability and as a result better financial performance.

In my opinion, given more than twenty years of airline employment and a past as an internal auditor with a fortune 500 company: while aircraft line maintenance can be outsourced under legal means under the FAR's, the question that beancounters never struggle with is whether or not is should be outsourced. The balance between what could be done versus what should be done is not a decision beancounters usually choose to become involved. The decision to outsource is usually left to the higher levels of management that are more reactive to the short term demands for improvement in service levels and financial performance to which their compensation is coupled.

With respect to combining, at the Air Carrier Line Maintenance level, both the certificated and un-certificated Line Maintenance employees: a number of questions are not being asked:

A) Legal:
1)Given at American Airlines: all Line Maintenance AMTs were required to be certificated;

a) What are the operational implications from forcing those that are hourly unionized employees to manage the activities of those that are un-certificated: could they be deemed management no longer covered by union contract?

B) Will the certificated be required to sign for the maintenance actions of the un-certificated without actually having observed each and every maintenance activity performed: is the certificated employee sanctionable by the authority having jurisdiction for maintenance activities performed by the un-certified?

c) If the certificated are required to observe each and every maintenance activity of the uncertificated before being allowed to sign off that activity: where is the savings and can the fact that either the certificated employee and/or the airline received and economic benefit from the situation become a legal basis for a lawsuit?

d) What are the legal implications to the certificated for signing off the activites of the un-certificated with respect to both the airline that forced the transaction and to the certificated employee: does the airline fully indemnify the certificated employee by fully accepting total liability for all actions by both classes of employees and how does that affect the ability of the airline to insure themselves?

e) What are the litigation risks from shifting from a system wherein all Aircraft Maintenance Line AMTs' were certificated, required by their individual certifications to individually certify that all maintenance activities were performed in accordance with all applicable regualtions with respect to OSHA, EPA, FAA, TSA, State and Local Regulation?

f) What are the direct and indirect costs of changing the corporate structure to insulate themselves from all of the above?

2) FAA requirements for 121 Air Carriers

a) What has AMR spent in complying with the current FAA required Line Maintenance initiatives?

B) What has AMR been fined, or suffered operational losses from, for failure to comply with operational Line Maintenance initiatives?

B) Human Factors

1) Will operations for aircraft line maintenance be adversly affected by having the equivalent of a Permanent Laborer Class being inserted into Certificated AMT's?

2) What are the dynamics between a Laborer Class performing the tasks the certificated are unwilling to perform and being paid a vastly lower wage scale given that they "may" be assigned tasks the certificated slough off?

3) How diligent will the certificated be in managing the task performance of the un-certificated given that those individuals never aspired to becoming management in the first place?

4) How do the certificated judge performance of the un-certificated given that they work in the same space and both are considered unskilled labor?

5) How do the un-certificated judge or report the performance of the certificated given that they work in the same space and both are considered unskilled labor?

C) ETC....ad infinitum...

 

[TWU informer]

Topic Attrition

Earlier I promised some accurate attrition data.

These are numbers I documented over time from the on-line seniority list.
All numbers are Title One Totals

11/07/2006 System Total 10,070 Tulsa Total 3716

12/07/2006 System Total 10,054 Tulsa Total 3762

01/02/2007 System Total 10,048 Tulsa Total 3762

02/16/2007 System Total 10,018 Tulsa Total 3743

04/13/2007 System Total 9,985 Tulsa Total 3784

06/12/2007 System Total 10,027 Tulsa Total 3772

10/24/2008 System Total 10,148 Tulsa Total 3676

02/18/2009 System Total 9,722 Tulsa Total 3557

04/30/2009 System Total 9,737 Tulsa Total 3548

11/07/2006 System Total 9,620 Tulsa Total 3521


Those are directly recorded over time from the published list.

 

[Boomer]

Topic Attrition

Earlier I promised some accurate attrition data.

These are numbers I documented over time from the on-line seniority list.
All numbers are Title One Totals

11/07/2006 System Total 10,070 Tulsa Total 3716...
...11/07/200( Addition By Conntributor: Year 2009) System Total 9,620 Tulsa Total 3521


Those are directly recorded over time from the published list.

If the certificated and un-certificated are mixed at the FAR Part 121 Air Carrier, Aircraft Line MaintenanceLevel: what is the recall protocal for furloughed certificated Unionized AMTs' given that their positions are now un-certificated?

What is the legal liability for any Union that allows same union members of a different classification to assume positions within a classification that formerly required certification?

Where is the Duty For Representation, DFR, legal liability triggered when a Union substantially changes the contractual terms with respect to pay, hours of work and working conditions in favor of Union Dues paying members and the current Representation?

 

[Hopeful]

Being licensed doesn't mean qualified any more than being qualified means being licensed.

Guys like PTO are licensed. Guys like AMFA Dave aren't. Which do you consider more qualified at what they do?

And, yes, to the extent of the overlap where the work being done by a licensed worker can also be done LEGALLY by an unlicensed worker (either directly or under guidance), that has to also be considered when evaluating the market price.

I know you guys take pride in your work, and don't want the job description watered down. But if the regulations allow for unlicensed workers to be doing the same work, don't blame the airline for considering all legal options.

So, I guess we won't be needing licensed heart and neuro surgeons soon because the OR nurse and PA have watched open heart and brain surgery a thousand times and they can step right in.

One thing about the need for a license. When the mechanic screws up and causes an accident and or death from an accident, that license makes him/her liable. If he/she was not licensed, AA will now assume the liability under their certificate.

 

[eolesen]

Boomer, I don't disagree with you about line maintenance. But that's not where the cost differential is the greatest. It's in overhaul, which you know damn well is why line pay isn't what it is at UPS or WN.

Hopeful, nice attempt at taking things to the extreme. The way some of you seem to want it, everyone in a hospital or urgent care clinic would be a MD, including the people who swap out linens and bedpans.

Take a look at the study in the link below, and you'll see arguments which say that licensing may actually be part of the problem with health care costs in the US:

http://www.aier.org/ejw/archive/do-economi...&format=raw

The study also claims there's nothing legally preventing a licensed opthamologist from performing cardiac or neuro surgery, or a podiatrist from doing breast implants on the side.

Fact is that not everything healthcare related requires a doctor. How many babies are delivered by midwives these days? How many people go into urgent care centers and clinics and never see a doctor? Go outside the US, and there are thousands of clinics which don't even have licensed staff, yet aspects of the of diagnosis, care and treatment they receive is probably on par with county-run hospitals in Dallas or Chicago.


Bringing it back to airlines.... read the paper above, and it's not out of the question that the same arguments could apply to airline labor. Start substituting "AMA" with "airline labor unions" and replace physician with AMT, and it's not too far of a stretch....

 

[Hopeful]

Hopeful, nice attempt at taking things to the extreme. The way some of you seem to want it, everyone in a hospital or urgent care clinic would be a MD, including the people who swap out linens and bedpans.

Don't put words in my mouth....I specifically referred to surgeons...

Ultimately management will lobby for non licensed mechanics to replaced licensed ones and keep a few license holders around for their signature. I will never sign for any one else's work...

And contrary to your feelings, my signature in a log book is pretty valuable also.

And the way some of you seem to want it is to exempt the upper crust of management from any burden affecting their compensation. After all, isn't it an executive who wants to denigrade any profession lower than his/hers? All in the name of maximizing profits?


This whole argument of yours debunks the "market" factor in determining pay. It applies only to the executive class in this country.
Instead of preventing the shortage of mechanics, the airlines will lobby to have anyone work an aircraft.
But the liability will lie squarely on the airlines' operating certificate.

 

[The Goose]

Don't put words in my mouth....I specifically referred to surgeons...

Ultimately management will lobby for non licensed mechanics to replaced licensed ones and keep a few license holders around for their signature. I will never sign for any one else's work...

And contrary to your feelings, my signature in a log book is pretty valuable also.

And the way some of you seem to want it is to exempt the upper crust of management from any burden affecting their compensation. After all, isn't it an executive who wants to denigrade any profession lower than his/hers? All in the name of maximizing profits?


This whole argument of yours debunks the "market" factor in determining pay. It applies only to the executive class in this country.
Instead of preventing the shortage of mechanics, the airlines will lobby to have anyone work an aircraft.
But the liability will lie squarely on the airlines' operating certificate.

Not that I approve of the airlines' strategy, but this has already been going on for years at various places within and without AA.

I've always understood (but have no idea as to the truth) the FAA requires only one license-holder to operate as a "supervisor" of sorts over not more than 12 mechanics. If true, this isn't an issue of legalities, as far as implementation, but certainly is an issue regarding public relations.

How do you think the flying public would react to an advertisement from, say - Delta, noting that American or any other airline no longer requires licensed mechanics to work on their aircraft? This will have to implemented quietly with agreements amongst all airlines, so as not to give another a leg up or start a PR nightmare for the company (which I personally believe is long overdue).

American (in Tulsa) already sends their tooling people to do aircraft work on a regular basis, mainly because the majority of the Spartan School of Aeronautics graduates can't - tool & die people, with a couple of exceptions, only have drivers licenses - one fellow I'm aware of has an Amateur Radio License and another fellow, an FFL, but only two or three airmens' tickets in the entire shop.

This is nothing more than another part of the never-ending push by management-types and their minions to marginalize the lifetimes of knowledge held by the trades when, by rights, management's ability and willingness to suck-start a Harley-Davidson for a paycheck and bonus is what should be discounted.

 

[Bob Owens]

Boomer, I don't disagree with you about line maintenance. But that's not where the cost differential is the greatest. It's in overhaul, which you know damn well is why line pay isn't what it is at UPS or WN.

Well thats not how AA looks at it. From what I was told the company objected to Regional pay and in 2003 the company focused their cost cutting on the line through things like Shift pay, holiday pay etc. The companys position has not changed. The company doers not look at line maintenance as being any different than OH, they expect to get them both at the same price, regardless of location as well.

Take a look at the study in the link below, and you'll see arguments which say that licensing may actually be part of the problem with health care costs in the US:

One thing you can be sure of is that licensing came about because of abuse and a need to set minimum standards on who could practice medicine. From an economists point of view snake oil salesmen would eventually go out of business as people realized the snake oil didnt deliver what was promised, therefore no legislative action should be required because the market would eventually corect itself. But reality and economic theory are often at odds with each other.

Bringing it back to airlines.... read the paper above, and it's not out of the question that the same arguments could apply to airline labor. Start substituting "AMA" with "airline labor unions" and replace physician with AMT, and it's not too far of a stretch....

Even if that were so what you are referring to is just commentary, not fact.

 

[Bob Owens]

Market rates apply equally to all work, Hopeful. You just don't get to be selective in what constitutes your peers -- it's not just UPS and Southwest, but it's also the guys working in what you consider chop shops in Alabama, Costa Rica, and Shannon.

Thats right Hopeful, we dont get to determine who our peers are, Eoleson does.

Eoleson,Do you consider people from Costa Rica that do what you do your peers? Do you aspire to beat them when pricing your labor?If you want to expand the market to include chop shops in Alabama and Costa Rica, not major airlines that fly heavy turbine aircraft, then we should also include those industries that may not require an A&P but do often hire them. Do that and SWA looks stingy. As you can see from those who left the industry it didnt take them long to surpass what they were earning at the airlines. The guys in high cost areas tend to do even better.

It's an unshakable fact some work can be moved, and some can't. Maintenance, revenue accounting, planning, revenue management, IT, and telesales are all portable. With portable work, the definition of the market grows along with where the work can be done. Airport ops aren't transportable. The work has to be done where the passengers are. So those guys have more real pricing power than the guys turning wrenches.

A broken airplane isnt transportable. You cant call a tow truck and have them pull the plane to El Salvador every time it breaks or you want to do an SIC, ECO or a 100 hour check.

Being licensed doesn't mean qualified any more than being qualified means being licensed.

Tell that to a cop the next time you get pulled over.

And, yes, to the extent of the overlap where the work being done by a licensed worker can also be done LEGALLY by an unlicensed worker (either directly or under guidance), that has to also be considered when evaluating the market price.

Once again you choose to set your own terms as to what constitutes the market. From our perspective its SWA and UPS, from yours its all sorts of abstracts, anything that justifies the lowest number possible.

I know you guys take pride in your work, and don't want the job description watered down. But if the regulations allow for unlicensed workers to be doing the same work, don't blame the airline for considering all legal options.

Try and get a clear answer from the FAA on whether or not its legal for AA to use unlicensed mechanics for Line Maintenance. The answer would be "Yes, BUT not really". "Yes", so as to reduce mechanics bargaining leverage , "but not really" because it would require AA to set up a complely different maintenance program, especially with training because our training program is designed to be given to A&Ps. Basically the FAA minimums dont require that an A&P perform a task, just that they take responsibility for it, most would not take responsibility for something they didnt do. However AA presented and got the FAA to approve of their maintenance program by saying that they would be using properly trained and qualified mechanics, in other words A&Ps trained to AA standards. Its above FAA mimimums but once you set the bar you cant just lower it without FAA approval ahead of time.

Those lacking the basics would gain very little from the current training because they wouldnt understand the language and theory that its assumed they know for the training to be effective.

I question how serious AA is in their desire to put unlicensed mechanics on the line, line operations are difficult enough with licensed mechanics, throw people in there with no background at all and things would get much worse. I think they simply wanted to ask for things they wouldnt get so they could claim that they bargained in good faith, "Well we gave on our demand for ASMs so what are you going to give up in return?"

We are already under industry standards(Airline industry) in pay, vacation, holidays, sick time, and several other items. We are headed to next to the bottom of the industry in pay, dropping the demand for ASMs would allow the union to claim at least one victory. They have to allow the Union some means to make another concessionary agreement sellable. "Sure we have the least amount of vacation, sick time holidays and pay but we showed them by killing off the ASMs".

 

[eolesen]

Eoleson,Do you consider people from Costa Rica that do what you do your peers?

Absolutely, I do. I work with building IT solutions. Since it's not necessary as a programmer or database admin to be in the same time zone or even continent thanks to broadband, remote access software and IP telephony, just about every RFP I've had to respond to was competing against companies with large operations in Latin America and/or India...

The client doesn't really care what salaries I have to pay for US based programmers vs. India or Brazil, or that I have to pay for insurance and other social costs that the offshore guys don't. As long as they can check off the right boxes on what their capabilities are for delivery, if they have a price that's lower, it's almost guaranteed they'll get the bid.

The way we've survived is as a niche player -- finding companies we can serve well, and also going after European IT companies whose cost structures are even more out of whack than they are in the US. With the Euro vs. the dollar, our prices look pretty damn good right now.... If the guys from India weren't so busy doing the work for the US companies, we'd really be in trouble because they'd be winning the European business......

So, yes, my work is definitely based on the market, and my market knows no borders. Good in that I can chase work around the globe, bad in that my competition can also be anywhere they have internet connectivity...

Hopeless, there's no point discussing executive compensation. If execs were truly paid a market rate based on a peer group of the Fortune 500, they'd all be getting raises. Reduce that peer group to the Fortune 100 (closer to where AMR is in terms of employees, complexity, and revenues), and they'd be earning even more.

But we've argued that enough that it's not worth trying to convince you otherwise.

 

[Hopeful]

But we've argued that enough that it's not worth trying to convince you otherwise.

Nor is it worth arguing your defense of the "good old boys" network of "Ill scratch your back, you sratch mine" business ethics.
What do you say we start outsourcing our upper management to third world nations who earn a fraction of what US execs make. Wouldn't that save money and increase company profits?

After all, it's perfectly all right to outsource and layoff mechanics, why not the suits?
And you shouldn't tire of arguing with me over exec compensation. You seem to have it all figured out what mechanics are worth.
I will say this for the final time...Prior to concessions I could care less what an exec or anyone else earned.
With mechanics attrition and layoffs and mx base closings, it's business as usual.

No matter what we give back or how low a wage we work for, the workers are first in line to get screwed. Sad fact of life, but it's the truth.
Just dont expect us to act like sheep and not complain.

 

[Rogallo]

They've already outsourced themselves to consulting groups!!!!! We need good 'ole airline men to run it again.