Nobody said it was a strike issue. A "no" vote issue, yes. I'll say it again, pre 2003 a weekend premium for base employees was paid to those whose regular work schedule included a weekend. We should not give the compAAny something for nothing, therefore, if our negotiators want to entertain the possibility then they should counter with restoring the weekend premium, leak the information to the membership and wait for "pushback". That is the normal MO for controversial issues, isn't it?
AMT compensation
- Thread starter Duke787
- Start date
D
Deleted member 14439
Guest
I Can only assume that you mean weekend bonus for ALL mechs not just the ones in OH, because line mechs never got weekend pay. I still think we should have separate contracts, that way we can get a pay raise hopefully in the near future and OH can fight for their weekends off for as long as it takes.
Looks to me like line maintenance and overhaul are two distinct services and the market prices for them are not the same. Most of AA's competitors insource most line maintenance and the typical pay for that service is higher than at AA. The competitors who primarily move people tend to pay their line mechanics a little more than AA (except WN, which pays a lot more) and the companies that move nothing but packages (UPS and FedEx) pay a lot more than AA for their line maintenance.
Nobody really knows what any of them pay for heavy overhaul, whether they're called heavy C checks (as AA calls them) or D checks (as other airlines tend to label them). What is apparent is that the heavy overhaul can be performed anywhere in the world (assuming you can fly the plane to that location) and the line maintenance must be performed where the airplane sits overnight and where the plane sits for each departure. One group is really subject to competition from the entire world and the other is not. Tying them together might mean that one group might already be willing to sell out the other group provided it gets what it wants. Untying them would permit both groups to negotiate for its own best deal.
Nobody really knows what any of them pay for heavy overhaul, whether they're called heavy C checks (as AA calls them) or D checks (as other airlines tend to label them). What is apparent is that the heavy overhaul can be performed anywhere in the world (assuming you can fly the plane to that location) and the line maintenance must be performed where the airplane sits overnight and where the plane sits for each departure. One group is really subject to competition from the entire world and the other is not. Tying them together might mean that one group might already be willing to sell out the other group provided it gets what it wants. Untying them would permit both groups to negotiate for its own best deal.
The problem is the company is asking for things but has not demonstrated a need. For instance they arent bumping against the 1/7th rule, so they could increase weekend coverage under the current agreement if they need to increase output, also they dont fully staff the third shift. All through the system the majority of B-check work is done on 3rd shift, why not explore fully staffing that shift as well? Both of those things could be done under the current language. They said they needed to have even coverage across the seven days but the only time you have even coverage in a line operation is if the number of people assigned to each shift is a multiple of seven, otherwise you end up short a day or two.
Hmm, anyone remember the "White Spaces"? This is another reason I cant trust management. They give us conflicting stories based upon what they are asking for. Back in 2009 they were basically saying that we needed to have wages that were competative with Timco so we could attract third party work, and if we couldnt that we would be looking at losing up to 1200 heads in AO after 2012 as MD-80 work falls off. Now they are saying they are so booked up that we cant get our own work done, let alone 3P work, need to add 900 heads this year and need to give work rule concessions to increase output another 40%. Were they lying then or are they lying now? Back in 2009 I questioned the reliability of those projections and if they took into account variables, I was told that they are pretty much set in stone. Well that just wasnt so was it?
If they have the ability to increase production from the bases under current language and dont, yet seek language to be able to increase it even more it leaves me wondering, what is the real plan? Are they looking for language from us that will facilitate the closing of another base? Lets say they can increase production by going full 24/7 (vs the 16/7 they are asking for) by 60% (40% with the 7 day, 20% with fully staffed 3rd shift), would they still need 3 bases once they are caught up with the 757s and start retiring the MD-80s? Once that happens would they be more likely to throttle back to two fully staffed 5 day scheds or close a base?
Mr Red
Veteran
- Joined
- May 11, 2010
- Messages
- 612
- Reaction score
- 182
AA could have all the third party work they want,but for what ever reason they don't man properly and end up leaving the customer hanging.When I was at Tulsa 20 years ago,they got as far as getting all the tail stands and other fixtures ready to do the A/F Tanker contract only to bail on that contract to.Their was never any talk about paying overhaul less than.We were always shooting for industry leading contracts. I've worked the chop shops in my career
to and they come no where close to the AA operation,And ought to be promoted as the best 3rd party maintenace other operators can buy.Managment can say what ever they want,we know their tactics.Maintence is done giving!!
Keep up the good work BOB.
I would say that the quality of work out of our AO is closer to Boeing than Timco, and this offer would put pay closer to Boeing than Timco as well.
From what I've been hearing from the floor, schools and other contacts the going rate for A&Ps with no experience, right out of school, is $26/hr starting wage. We offered the company an OSM Starting rate of just $10.80 at the end of the agreement and they went and said that our demands were too high. Even if they hired them as AMTs at the end of the agreement that would only come out to $16.74 plus license so $22.74, just over $3/hr less than the going rate. So who is being unrealistic here?
We gave the company $320 million a year since 2003 and are asking for less than $200 million a year back eight years later. Are they for real??
Bob, I know the line is very productive on the 3rd shift but in my 21 years in Tulsa that has seldom been the case and we have often wondered why they haven't done away with 3rd shift altogether. Also, it's beyond me why those that have seen the data on the dismal failure of 7 day coverage in Tulsa can keep repeating the process, as on dock 1D, only to see the same results.
Interested
Advanced
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2010
- Messages
- 193
- Reaction score
- 9
I believe that Tulsa's days are numbered as AA. Why else would they get rid of 3P maintenance there and are trying to move MOC to Dallas? I believe that AA's planes will remain there, but the base will be under a different name.
I heard Pratt was offering full benifits immediately (at AA they have to wait a year) and full tuition reimbursement for a Batchelors degree in whatever major the mechanic chose to go for.
I dont know what their Pensionis but I'd imagine its pretty good.
No the company hasn't said what it adds, in fact they've steadfastly refused to give us cost outs for the last two years I've been there. But they did say during the Stores negotiations that switching over to the 401K match they offered would cost more initially but they expected it to save over the long haul. They do calculate the Pension into our Total Value statement, it comes out to $0.54/hr, yes 54 cents. Their figures, not mine.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Tuition reimbursement is only worth about $5000/year; anything above that is considered taxable income on your W-2, and few companies reimburse above the cap.
There's no way pension is only worth $1040 per year, Bob. That may be a number you got, but it's nowhere near plausible.
There's no way pension is only worth $1040 per year, Bob. That may be a number you got, but it's nowhere near plausible.
I agree that there's no way, even if they are successful at killing a lot of us off before we retire, that $1127/year will provide us the pension they are promising but then again aren't the airlines allowed to legally make assumptions that are unrealistic? Wasnt a bill passed shortl;y after 9-11 allowing them to make smaller contributions? I recall our union helping to lobby for it. Maybe thats what Weel meant when he stated that the 401K they were offering would be more expensive at first but over the long run it would save them money. Twenty years of underfunding the plan then get the new guys with the 401K to vote the plan away.
will fix for food
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 664
- Reaction score
- 50
Your numbers all sound good but Eagle is getting applicants at a starting wage of $15/hour.
Edited to delete "plenty of". I should have said that they are still filling all the slots but they aren't getting 20 apps for every position anymore.
