Airlines, Facing Cost Pressure, Outsource Crucial

[777GUY]

So, what's your point? You couldn't operate the flights to those places without a workforce to handle them. I know that at LHR they have about 1000 employees based there in all departments. You wouldn't be able to send that amount of employees over from the US due to the UK immigration laws. You could get another airline to handle the flights, but surely that would be outsourcing....

 

[AMFAMAN]

I believe that when AA acquired the Latin American routes from EAL and the LHR rights from TWA, the British and Latin American governments required AA to take the employees as a condition for the approval for the transfer of the route authorities. These employees consist of mechanics, ramp, agents, and management. Additionally, in Latin America there are four flight attendant bases which are staffed by foreign nationals (BOG, LIM, SCL, and EZE).

[post="249450"][/post]​

FYI... AA currently averages 15-20 planes a night being worked on overseas or South America. This is not considered outsourcing anymore because we hired the vendors at these stations. To me it is work outside of the CBA and is just another version of AA in-house outsourcing.

 

[aafsc]

My point is that if AA did not take the employees (TWA's in LHR and EAL's in Latin America) then AA would not have gotten the routes because the foreign governments would not have let AA fly them ( It seems that foreign governments protect their workers far more than the US government protects it's workers). And these two transactions have made the most money for AA. If AA did not have LHR and Latin America, AA would be in far worse shape and you would be making a lot less or even laid off. As far as the foreign mechanics who are AA employees, what do you expect AA to do? Pay them to not work on aircraft? At some cities like LHR, LPB, LIM, GRU, and GIG the airplanes do quick turns. They don't sit on the ground for long periods of time. But at some cities, they do BOG, EZE, CCS, and SCL. They have to sit so they can return to the US at the time most desired by the high dollar passengers. I always thought that the mechanics there took care of unforseen problems not regularly scheduled maintanence. But as someone posted, everyday a few aircraft have scheduled checks done on them in foreign cities. Are the AA line mechanics in Latin America and LHR "less qualified" then the AA line mechanics here? Do the foreign AA mechanics have A and P's? And are they trained by AA the same way AA trains it's line mechanics here?

 

[aafsc]

FYI... AA currently averages 15-20 planes a night being worked on overseas or South America. This is not considered outsourcing anymore because we hired the vendors at these stations. To me it is work outside of the CBA and is just another version of AA in-house outsourcing.

[post="249453"][/post]​

They are not vendors (at least most of them are not). Just look in Flagship News under the "anniversaries section" and you will see AA mechanics in BOG, LIM, LHR, etc with 20 or 30 years. In LHR they are ex-TWA. In Latin America they are ex-EAL,and before that Braniff, and before that PanAgra. When AA hired them on as part of the route deal, they also got their seniority. Also when I was in Glasgow, Scotland on vacation, there was a 767-200 out of service and there were mechanics in AA uniforms fixing the plane. Obviously they were sent up from LHR.

 

[AMFAMAN]

They are not vendors (at least most of them are not). Just look in Flagship News under the "anniversaries section" and you will see AA mechanics in BOG, LIM, LHR, etc with 20 or 30 years. In LHR they are ex-TWA. In Latin America they are ex-EAL,and before that Braniff, and before that PanAgra. When AA hired them on as part of the route deal, they also got their seniority. Also when I was in Glasgow, Scotland on vacation, there was a 767-200 out of service and there were mechanics in AA uniforms fixing the plane. Obviously they were sent up from LHR.

[post="249463"][/post]​

I'm not disputing that they are now AA mechanics, my point is that although they do some large checks, it is still considered in-sourcing because it is conviently left out of our contract despite many attempts by members to get a limit on it. I guess the easy way to say it is, they don't pay dues and they are doing our work, I don't care who they work for, that is our work. Now naturally non-routine items, such as logbook entries and also ETOPS checks you do need someone working on them to send the plane back. The 15-20 planes I am talking about is scheduled in advance checks that could have been done state side. There are planes with extensive ground time(10 hours plus) not getting checks done state side and being flown one flight and getting an A-check done in a foreign country daily.

 

[aafsc]

FYI... AA currently averages 15-20 planes a night being worked on overseas or South America. This is not considered outsourcing anymore because we hired the vendors at these stations. To me it is work outside of the CBA and is just another version of AA in-house outsourcing.

[post="249453"][/post]​

Also, by your screen name I assume you support AMFA. I'm not a mechanic so it is not my fight. But it seems to me that AMFA is supported mainly by line mechanics. AMFA has shown that it will sacrafice (outsource) heavy overhaul maintenance to obtain more money for line mechanics (Northwest). You complain about AA mechanics in LHR and Latin America doing a few A checks because you feel it is your work. But it is OK for Northwest to operate a MAINTANENCE BASE in NRT after it closed it's ATL base and bulldozed it's MSP base resulting in HALF of the US based NW AMTs being put on the street. This is happening under an AMFA negotiated contract.

 

[aafsc]

I'm not disputing that they are now AA mechanics, my point is that although they do some large checks, it is still considered in-sourcing because it is conviently left out of our contract despite many attempts by members to get a limit on it. I guess the easy way to say it is, they don't pay dues and they are doing our work, I don't care who they work for, that is our work. Now naturally non-routine items, such as logbook entries and also ETOPS checks you do need someone working on them to send the plane back. The 15-20 planes I am talking about is scheduled in advance checks that could have been done state side. There are planes with extensive ground time(10 hours plus) not getting checks done state side and being flown one flight and getting an A-check done in a foreign country daily.

[post="249467"][/post]​

I agree with you that if a plane is in the US for overnight or a length of time then the work SHOULD be done by the AA/TWU US based AMTs. I also agree with you in negotiating limits with the company ( The flight attendants do this with regard to the foreign nationals). I am not a mechanic but I was under the impression that at so many hours a check has to be done. And what if the hourly limit is reached when the plane land in LHR. South America, or NRT? I am all for keeping jobs in the US whether it be line maintnence or base maintanence. I guess I don't understand the logistics of aircraft schedules and maintanence well enough.

 

[aafsc]

It would be interesting to know if the AA mechanics in Latin America are represented by unions (the BOG based flight attendants are). If they are, then what is in their "scope language"?

 

[AMFAMAN]

Also, by your screen name I assume you support AMFA. I'm not a mechanic so it is not my fight. But it seems to me that AMFA is supported mainly by line mechanics. AMFA has shown that it will sacrafice (outsource) heavy overhaul maintenance to obtain more money for line mechanics (Northwest). You complain about AA mechanics in LHR and Latin America doing a few A checks because you feel it is your work. But it is OK for Northwest to operate a MAINTANENCE BASE in NRT after it closed it's ATL base and bulldozed it's MSP base resulting in HALF of the US based NW AMTs being put on the street. This is happening under an AMFA negotiated contract.

[post="249468"][/post]​

Not sure where you got that info from, probally the twu. Bulldozed MSP, you might want to let the NWA guys know that because that simply is not true. ATL was closed and the work consolidated within MSP. Half on the street is a another good one, I guess no one retired when their pension was negotiated by AMFA to be more then 2 times what the IAM was getting them. BTW... Over 75% of licensed AA AMT's support AMFA. Overhaul or Line has nothing to do with it, we know the facts and we know the twu lies, I guess you don't. You might want to educate yourself on what is going on because if you bid cabin service or fueling this summer, you will be going with us to AMFA.

 

[aafsc]

Not sure where you got that info from, probally the twu. Bulldozed MSP, you might want to let the NWA guys know that because that simply is not true. ATL was closed and the work consolidated within MSP. Half on the street is a another good one, I guess no one retired when their pension was negotiated by AMFA to be more then 2 times what the IAM was getting them. BTW... Over 75% of licensed AA AMT's support AMFA. Overhaul or Line has nothing to do with it, we know the facts and we know the twu lies, I guess you don't. You might want to educate yourself on what is going on because if you bid cabin service or fueling this summer, you will be going with us to AMFA.

[post="249477"][/post]​

With regards to the MSP, it is called Northwest's 2020 plan. On AMFA33's website it says that the terminal extensions will reach building B, which I assume is part of their maintanence facility. Also on the website it says '" we are not aware of any timeline on the destruction of the hangars". Which means that the hangars will be destroyed; they just don't know when. They also state that they are not aware of any replacement facilities. And they are concerned about job loss. As stated earlier, I am not a mechanic and if a majority of you want to go to AMFA then I say you should. As far as AMFA getting cabin service, it would be better if the TWU just let AA farm it all out in exchange for something else because if AMFA got it they would just screw the cabin cleaners. AMFA itself says that it is a "mechanic's union only". That means if you are not an A and P mechanic, then in AMFA's eyes you are crap. The only reason it represents fuelers and cleaners is because the government says it has to. If you want to go to AMFA that is your business but I will NEVER pay one penny to a union that will do all it can not to represent me because I'm not an A and P.

 

[AMFAMAN]

With regards to the MSP, it is called Northwest's 2020 plan. On AMFA33's website it says that the terminal extensions will reach building B, which I assume is part of their maintanence facility. Also on the website it says '" we are not aware of any timeline on the destruction of the hangars". Which means that the hangars will be destroyed; they just don't know when. They also state that they are not aware of any replacement facilities. And they are concerned about job loss. As stated earlier, I am not a mechanic and if a majority of you want to go to AMFA then I say you should. As far as AMFA getting cabin service, it would be better if the TWU just let AA farm it all out in exchange for something else because if AMFA got it they would just screw the cabin cleaners. AMFA itself says that it is a "mechanic's union only". That means if you are not an A and P mechanic, then in AMFA's eyes you are crap. The only reason it represents fuelers and cleaners is because the government says it has to. If you want to go to AMFA that is your business but I will NEVER pay one penny to a union that will do all it can not to represent me because I'm not an A and P.

[post="249481"][/post]​

I find it interesting that a so-called fleet service clerk would be even on AMFA 33's website, especially one whom just stated would never pay dues. Why do you care then, why research and spread lies then, after all, it's not your fight. As far as title 3 cabin service, thanks to the twu, that are part of the mix now. Prior to the twu submitting their names in round 2 at the NMB last year, they were not going, only title 2. In order for the twu and AA to stop the election, they were added and will be represented by AMFA next fall, in fact many are signing cards across the system. It is true that the government dictates who AMFA represents and that has and continues to expand to other work group because of the twu, iam and teamsters adding of work groups to try and stop representation elections. AMFA has given up fighting these workgroups except in cases such as AA were it was obvious that most of these so-called cleaners submitted by the twu were actaully baggage handlers. BTW...It's not a mechanic only union, it's a mechanic and related only union and all those who are members will be treated with the same respect.

 

[aafsc]

I find it interesting that a so-called fleet service clerk would be even on AMFA 33's website, especially one whom just stated would never pay dues. Why do you care then, why research and spread lies then, after all, it's not your fight. As far as title 3 cabin service, thanks to the twu, that are part of the mix now. Prior to the twu submitting their names in round 2 at the NMB last year, they were not going, only title 2. In order for the twu and AA to stop the election, they were added and will be represented by AMFA next fall, in fact many are signing cards across the system. It is true that the government dictates who AMFA represents and that has and continues to expand to other work group because of the twu, iam and teamsters adding of work groups to try and stop representation elections. AMFA has given up fighting these workgroups except in cases such as AA were it was obvious that most of these so-called cleaners submitted by the twu were actaully baggage handlers. BTW...It's not a mechanic only union, it's a mechanic and related only union and all those who are members will be treated with the same respect.

[post="249484"][/post]​

I enjoy reading aviation related topics on the web. Especially those that deal with the airlines. I look at the amfanuts website, the mechanic website, the amfa websites, the twu websites, the iam website, airliners.net, and many others. In 1984, I started working at EAL and AMFA was trying to get in at EAL back then. And AMFA back then had a reputation of being a mechanics fraternity. I don't object to an AMFA A and P only union. As I have stated earlier, I believe that the A and Ps should be adequately compensated for their skills. I by no means love the TWU or the AFL-CIO and can truly understand why you want to leave. But in my opinion, after reading what many mechanics have said, even "the mechanic" ,that AMFA's performance has been less than satisfactory. The same reason you no longer want to be a minority member in the mostly "unskilled" industrial union is the same reason I would not want to be an unwanted "unskilled" minority in trade union. Bob Owens is right, we need to totally go our separate ways. I guess I won't be bidding a cabin or fuel job this summer. ( IF I am still here).

 

[AMFAMAN]

I enjoy reading aviation related topics on the web. Especially those that deal with the airlines. I look at the amfanuts website, the mechanic website, the amfa websites, the twu websites, the iam website, airliners.net, and many others. In 1984, I started working at EAL and AMFA was trying to get in at EAL back then. And AMFA back then had a reputation of being a mechanics fraternity. I don't object to an AMFA A and P only union. As I have stated earlier, I believe that the A and Ps should be adequately compensated for their skills. I by no means love the TWU or the AFL-CIO and can truly understand why you want to leave. But in my opinion, after reading what many mechanics have said, even "the mechanic" ,that AMFA's performance has been less than satisfactory. The same reason you no longer want to be a minority member in the mostly "unskilled" industrial union is the same reason I would not want to be an unwanted "unskilled" minority in trade union. Bob Owens is right, we need to totally go our separate ways. I guess I won't be bidding a cabin or fuel job this summer. ( IF I am still here).

[post="249485"][/post]​

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the events of AMFA and the like. I do have to say that I agree with Bob, that Fleet Service does need to look at other options for a union as the representation that your work force receives is pitiful also. I have on many occassions had to assist FSC's on issues that the twu has refused to represent them on or just walked away from them. I have also watched as their ranks have been decimated but the work load has increased dramatically as has the amount of CSM's. A common complaint that I have heard from FSC's is the lack of union support or representation. They have let management do whatever they want, especially with sick/ID time conseling.

 

[777GUY]

My point is that if AA did not take the employees (TWA's in LHR and EAL's in Latin America) then AA would not have gotten the routes because the foreign governments would not have let AA fly them ( It seems that foreign governments protect their workers far more than the US government protects it's workers). And these two transactions have made the most money for AA. If AA did not have LHR and Latin America, AA would be in far worse shape and you would be making a lot less or even laid off. As far as the foreign mechanics who are AA employees, what do you expect AA to do? Pay them to not work on aircraft? At some cities like LHR, LPB, LIM, GRU, and GIG the airplanes do quick turns. They don't sit on the ground for long periods of time. But at some cities, they do BOG, EZE, CCS, and SCL. They have to sit so they can return to the US at the time most desired by the high dollar passengers. I always thought that the mechanics there took care of unforseen problems not regularly scheduled maintanence. But as someone posted, everyday a few aircraft have scheduled checks done on them in foreign cities. Are the AA line mechanics in Latin America and LHR "less qualified" then the AA line mechanics here? Do the foreign AA mechanics have A and P's? And are they trained by AA the same way AA trains it's line mechanics here?

[post="249461"][/post]​

The bottom line is that if you are employed by AA as an AMT overseas, then you must hold an FAA A+P. You are not allowed to work on ETOPS aircraft without it. You also have to do the required AA GEN/FAM and ETOPS course for each type of aircraft that you will work on.

I would say that the technicians based in the UK are probably better trained at the beginning of their careers over someone that has been to A+P school for 18 months. The industry has tougher entry standards over there and competition for the openings is hard. Initial training usually consists of a 4 year apprenticeship, which at the end of you should be ready to take the JAR66 license exams, of which there are 14. This is the European equivalent of the A+P. You don't actually need to have a JAR66 to work on aircraft as a hangar mechanic, as the work is always checked and signed for by a qualified inspector. But you will almost certainly not gain employment anywhere without your apprenticeship papers.

 

[AMFAMAN]

The bottom line is that if you are employed by AA as an AMT overseas, then you must hold an FAA A+P. You are not allowed to work on ETOPS aircraft without it. You also have to do the required AA GEN/FAM and ETOPS course for each type of aircraft that you will work on.

I would say that the technicians based in the UK are probably better trained at the beginning of their careers over someone that has been to A+P school for 18 months. The industry has tougher entry standards over there and competition for the openings is hard. Initial training usually consists of a 4 year apprenticeship, which at the end of you should be ready to take the JAR66 license exams, of which there are 14. This is the European equivalent of the A+P. You don't actually need to have a JAR66 to work on aircraft as a hangar mechanic, as the work is always checked and signed for by a qualified inspector. But you will almost certainly not gain employment anywhere without your apprenticeship papers.

[post="249648"][/post]​

That still doesn't make it okay for them to be doing 15-20 scheduled checks per day even though sufficient ground time was available state side. As far as scheduling the aircrafts for these checks, it has been proven that they can route these planes any which way they need to get the checks done. I would buy the scheduling argument that aafsc put forward if a check neded to be done overseas every once in awhile due to that plane taking the place of an out of service plane.

BTW...the most of the Europe based AMT's are making between 80 - 95k a year because of the weak dollar conversion.