Analyst Jamie Baker says AA won't cut labor costs as much as Horton would like

[chris perry]

We are plowing through Supervisors here At DFW,A bunch quit went to Southwest...

 

[Bob Owens]

duplicate

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, I call them made up because it appears to be impossbile to compare without getting into the apple versus the orange arguement.
And I think it is this way on purpose, so we cannot compare to get into a neutral party arguement.

What is clear is that not every airline has the same number of AMT's per aircraft. This due to productivity differences, outsource differences, and even GPM policy differences.

There is no question that the AA Mechanic and Related is lagging behind in areas. But the TWU doesn't just represent the mechanic and related. I suspect our stock clerks and fleet have a much different cost out than AMT's in a comparative world. And at the table you are going up against other work groups trying to get theirs and AA uses their overall cost when all else fails them. You are sworn allegiance to a union that represents many skills and work groups but you want to single out one group to compare cost. The International and the Company are using all of us and the TWU is designed to be that way for representation.

Faciities Maintenane also represented within our group is another factor that must be costed in or out when comparing.

My point is you cannot provide and I cannot provide factual comparative cost, therefore what you are presenting if not made up is a least nothing more than an assumption.

So in the end, all that happens is you spool up the division between line and overhaul, title 2 and title 1, and you can see it posted on this board. So who gets sacrificed and what gets sacrificed so you can get your exact numbers to compare? You are using a craft union mentality in an industrial union elected position and this is not in compliance with your oath of office to uphold the TWU Constitution.

And my point still remains, that NOTHING you have done has changed a damn bit of what the issues and differences are, in fact if anything you have made the problems worse.

You admit that you don't even have factual numbers but challenge me to provide some to dispute your assertions.
I am not the elected leader and I am not the one spewing the erroneous numbers as fact...you are.

Who and What are you willing to sacrifice to insure you get yours

Because all you are doing is confirming what the TWU claimed all along the AMFA Drive that a democratic craft union will not represent the non-A&P and the overhaul group. You are doing a fine job of that within the TWU. Spool the divisions in this union up a little more will ya? Then plan the next strike or NMB release for 5 years from now.

That's how you see it. My point is that there is more to the story than just citing what the top pay is as far as costs. When people see top pay they assume that all of the workers are or will get to that rate, which is not the case, over the years we have given the company the flexibility to lower costs in ways that were not available to competitors. The company still enjoys that flexibility. This is not new, in fact it's been that way since before I got here, from twelve year progressions vs five, from lower starting rates and end loaded steps to higher starting rates and more linear progressions, loss of the first year towards the pension, LTD, then later, paying for medical, Prefunding, osms, midnight retention and even line pay were all ways that AA hid cost advantages they had over competitors. We are told time and time again that when we look at UPS and WN wages that we need to consider other components and clearly there can be no pure apples to apples comparison in this industry because of all the variables , ( fleet size, age, routing, markets, contracts, etc etc. While it may serve the companies interests to simply argue based upon the top rate it serves our interests to point out that our language ensures that as a percentage of the workforce in M&R those at he top will b a smaller percentage than at established competitors because of the long progressions, lower starting rates, different premiums and many different sub scales for classifications within the contract group.

You call it spooling up, well I call it informing and if the truth spools people up then so be it. I always said that on the whole the TWU has done a lousy job at AA for M&R. I mentioned some of the things that make me feel that way above. I did not run for office because I wanted to join in that process or weasle into a six figure job where the only thing I need to be concerned about from AA is my enhanced travel privileges and pension. I ran because I wanted to change it. It may be futile but I will still give it he best shot I can instead of just giving up as you did and turning against my coworkers as you have and then complaining that they would not follow my lead.

 

[TWU informer]

That's how you see it. My point is that there is more to the story than just citing what the top pay is as far as costs. When people see top pay they assume that all of the workers are or will get to that rate, which is not the case, over the years we have given the company the flexibility to lower costs in ways that were not available to competitors. The company still enjoys that flexibility. This is not new, in fact it's been that way since before I got here, from twelve year progressions vs five, from lower starting rates and end loaded steps to higher starting rates and more linear progressions, loss of the first year towards the pension, LTD, then later, paying for medical, Prefunding, osms, midnight retention and even line pay were all ways that AA hid cost advantages they had over competitors. We are told time and time again that when we look at UPS and WN wages that we need to consider other components and clearly there can be no pure apples to apples comparison in this industry because of all the variables , ( fleet size, age, routing, markets, contracts, etc etc. While it may serve the companies interests to simply argue based upon the top rate it serves our interests to point out that our language ensures that as a percentage of the workforce in M&R those at he top will b a smaller percentage than at established competitors because of the long progressions, lower starting rates, different premiums and many different sub scales for classifications within the contract group.

You call it spooling up, well I call it informing and if the truth spools people up then so be it. I always said that on the whole the TWU has done a lousy job at AA for M&R. I mentioned some of the things that make me feel that way above. I did not run for office because I wanted to join in that process or weasle into a six figure job where the only thing I need to be concerned about from AA is my enhanced travel privileges and pension. I ran because I wanted to change it. It may be futile but I will still give it he best shot I can instead of just giving up as you did and turning against my coworkers as you have and then complaining that they would not follow my lead.

I have not given up and have not turned against anybody. You have.
You will soon see many employees lose their jobs because of your leadership and we will see who turned on who.
There is a huge difference between opinionated verbal spar and outright cutting someone nuts.
There is also a huge difference between a member expressing his/her opinion compared to an elected leader leading thousands off of a cliff of doom.
You will go down as the man in the youtube video that destroyed many lives, not me.
That is "turning" against your fellow worker. All in the name of GREED!
On the other hand I have harmed nobody.

Start providing a disclaimer at the bottom of every one of your post declaring you have no facts and all of your arguements are just opinions and based on assumptions. Because it is being represented as an elected TWU Local President from the TWU and now as an appointed member of the creditors committee. And therefore mis-leading at best. Else you might end up in court someday in a DFR lawsuit. One of those that you are performing job castration on will be just the one to do it.

 

[dfw gen]

Bob your too are wasting your time with informer.

 

[TWU informer]

Bob your too are wasting your time with informer.

Hickory, dickory, dock,.....

You are so intelligent and informative.

Must be that A&P intelligence in your pocket, and I will never measure up.

Just the same happy and proud to be here.

Are you still going to be employed after following Bob?

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob your too are wasting your time with informer.

I'm aware of the futility of trying to change his position once he has taken a stance, I put what I do out there for those who read what he wrote.

He talks about lives being destroyed, well when I look across this industry I see a lot of devastation and the companies were able to get it all without even one day of interuption. Nobody fought back. The airlines took what they did for free, the leaders of the unions sat on their hands (they never misssed a pay raise or gave any concessions) shugged their shoulders and they may not be satisfied yet. At what point will we fight back? UAL just got an agreement, by no means stellar, but whats stopping UAL from filing for BK again to get out of that deal if we agree to anything less than what they are getting? My contention is that things will get worse until we fight back, and if we are not willing to shut it down then we are basically telling the everyone that we accept whats been going on. Like I said they will keep taking as long as they feel they can get away with this and I'd rather quit than continue in a race to bottom, a bottom which just keeps getting deeper.

I believe much of Informers concern stems from a fear that OH will be sacrificed, I cant say what the future holds, but one question has never been answered, "Is doing OH in house cost effective, if they have to pay competative rates?" I asked the question from Arpey a couple of years ago before our peers got new contracts that put them far ahead of us and he would not give a definative answer, saying "the Jury is still out". Perhaps Informer has a better view from where he is and he feels that the answer is NO, if that is the case then we will have to find a way to address that but I think the answer is yes, it is cost effective. I look at what AA has done over the years and feel it must be if they recently decided to open another OH facility in DFW. Our language has never proven to be very enforcable as far as outsourcing, from what I read they only have to discuss outsourcing with the union, give us the ability to put forth the merits of insoucing first and its really the system protection which keeps work here. They currently have thousands that dont have system protection and continue to hire. As a line mechanic with over 30 years in the industry where I worked for outfits that outsourced the heavy checks I can see the value of paying more for in house vs outsourcing. Its tied to economies of scale, you have to have enough of it to lower the average cost. Even here where we do more in house I've seen outsourced engines that we installed only to remove when we did the runup, dont recall ever doing that with engines we got that were done in house. same with APUs. Both of those are high labor items that result in lost revenue as well. I've also seen the benefit of having the ability to repair extensive hail damage, repair extensive impact damage such as when that A-300 dragged its tail and numerous other incidences and remove the top case and replace blades on engines without the expense of shipping the engine, things that AA is able to do because they have in house OH.The recent TIMCO experience seems to reinforce my view in favor of the business arguement in favor of in house OH especially when you consider what was at stake for TIMCO with that first Heavy check.

For me personally I think that OH will considerably shrink as older high maintenance aircraft are replaced with new aircraft, (and it will do so regardless of whether or not the company gets what it wants) but will the company recieve those aircraft fast enough and see the workload fall off faster than normal attrition as workers retire? I think we have been averaging around 500 per year since 2003 however our average age is getting higher with the majority over 50 years of age, that means the majority of the workforce is within 5 years of being eligible to retire and the rate of attrition will likely increase. From what I hear the OT is still very high meaning there really isnt room to cut many heads at present. Should we continue to be willing to sacrifice benefits and pay to maintain headcount at any cost or accept that headcount will vary with workload and workers may need to relocate to where their skills are needed and seek compensensation that is comparable in the AIRLINE Industry? And, is there a comprimise between the two?

 

[TWU informer]

Here is my concern Bob.

This quote comes directly from your youtube video page:

TWU Local 562 President Bob Owens addresses the membership about the new tentative agreement and the the pitfalls associated with such an agreement. Vote No not for the sake of being rebellious but simply to get your career back on track and do what it takes no matter what to get it there. It's your future with American Airlines no one else is going to care about it except you.

This along with sound bites claiming we will never get the best offer until the 11th hour of the 29th day and that "we are leaving alot of money on the table if we vote yes". Where is that money we were prmoised since the vote was no as you directed?

Well now we are approching that 11th hour on the 29th day but instead of on track careers as promised, thousands will be losing their jobs.

Many employees followed your advice Bob and now they will be without a job. And you told them to VOTE NO to get their careers back on track. Soon they will not have a career.

You keep trying to claim I am full of fear and only worried about overhaul. I am trying to tell you that you have been using fear and manipulation as a tool for sometime now and you just shafted thousands out of jobs.

These are the facts and not assumptions.

 

[aapitbull]

Hickory, dickory, dock,.....

You are so intelligent and informative.

Must be that A&P intelligence in your pocket, and I will never measure up.

Just the same happy and proud to be here.

Are you still going to be employed after following Bob?

While I have no desire to get into this line vs overhaul debate, I would like to point out that I did not follow Bob or anybody else when I cast my ballot, I did what I thought best at the time and given the chance to do it over I would vote no again tomorrow. This idea that a yes vote would have changed anything is stupidty this company was going to file bankruptcy no matter what we did, now you may have had a few more dollars in your pocket had it passed but our jobs would have still been on the line today.

The way I see it is many among us, you included gave up the fight to get rid of the Twu and as you pointed out in a post on this thread we are now just one of many in the Twu, the reality is the Pilots and F/A s have unions that represent only their interest and our group has now been lumped in with everyone else, hell even Eagle has a seat on our committee now and if it is your desire to assign blame then I would suggest you only need to look in the mirror. You preach personal responsiblity the T/A failed by a 2 to 1 margin one man one vote you claim to want democracy then accept the fact that the majority ruled it is one of the few times that is the case under the twu.

 

[TWU informer]

While I have no desire to get into this line vs overhaul debate, I would like to point out that I did not follow Bob or anybody else when I cast my ballot, I did what I thought best at the time and given the chance to do it over I would vote no again tomorrow. This idea that a yes vote would have changed anything is stupidty this company was going to file bankruptcy no matter what we did, now you may have had a few more dollars in your pocket had it passed but our jobs would have still been on the line today.

The way I see it is many among us, you included gave up the fight to get rid of the Twu and as you pointed out in a post on this thread we are now just one of many in the Twu the reality is the pilots and F/A s have unions that represent only their interest and our group has now been lumped in with everyone else hell even Eagle has a seat on our committee now and if it is your desire to assign blame then I would suggest you only need to look in the mirror. You preach personal responsiblity the T/A failed by a 2 to 1 margin one man one vote you claim to want democracy then accept the fact that the majority ruled it is one of the few times that is the case under the twu.

Good Luck to you my friend. What do you have about a 1997 seniority date? Currently barely protected by the 9/24/1998 security date. Are you in favor of a DFW red circle like some of your fellow workers on here are preaching?

Sure people are responsible for their own vote. And sure the majority ruled. And sure I said all along we were making a mistake. Still beleive that to be true right now. Nobody has a crystal ball or proof they would have filed anyway. That is just some fairy tale justification for what has happened. Not factual by any means. We simply do not know.

But an elected officer making failed promises is and always has been a measure of one's credibility and ability to lead in the future.
How else do you measure one's ability other than to look at the past. Obama is about to face the same and I doubt he will be re-elected.

I just refuse to jump on the blame bandwagon and pretend we have nothing to do with our demise. AMT's at AA have gone through a complete spectrum of blame. Bus Drivers in NYC, Fleet Service, Appointed Leaders, and now Overhaul and specifically Tulsa Based employees. Regardless of what I am called, thought of, or accused of, I will keep pointing out what I see as flawed thinking or bluntly plain ignorance by a large group of people, that tend to blame others for their own weakness.

I have maintained from the beginning that the T/A was inferior, my point has been and still is, that with our current representation, and now even our current membership mentality, that we will not do any better, and turns out as of right now I was correct.

 

[Tex-Mech]

Here is my concern Bob.

This quote comes directly from your youtube video page:



This along with sound bites claiming we will never get the best offer until the 11th hour of the 29th day and that "we are leaving alot of money on the table if we vote yes". Where is that money we were prmoised since the vote was no as you directed?

Well now we are approching that 11th hour on the 29th day but instead of on track careers as promised, thousands will be losing their jobs.

Many employees followed your advice Bob and now they will be without a job. And you told them to VOTE NO to get their careers back on track. Soon they will not have a career.

You keep trying to claim I am full of fear and only worried about overhaul. I am trying to tell you that you have been using fear and manipulation as a tool for sometime now and you just shafted thousands out of jobs.

These are the facts and not assumptions.

For the record, Bob in no way influenced my no vote. Just as your calls for voting yes, or the internationals sell sheet did not sway me my vote either.

I actually still believe that this is a true statement, "we will never get the best offer until the 11th hour of the 29th day and that "we are leaving alot of money on the table if we vote yes".
Based on what we have heard both here and from the negotiators, there was a spilt from the international blessed "yes" voters and the rest of the negotiators. The "yes" men also prevented the call for release, and the ability to get the offer that Bob spoke of. It is not by accident that every "yes" man has been voted out of office. Through the democratic recent local elections including Tulsa, the "no" vote has been reinforced by those results.

You may not like what the members of this union has chosen to do, not once, but twice with the local election vote, but that is democracy. Why not call for a vote to allow the international to vote for us, since you have little faith in the members. No pun intended on the "little".

 

[Bob Owens]

Here is my concern Bob.

This quote comes directly from your youtube video page:



This along with sound bites claiming we will never get the best offer until the 11th hour of the 29th day and that "we are leaving alot of money on the table if we vote yes". Where is that money we were prmoised since the vote was no as you directed?

Well now we are approching that 11th hour on the 29th day but instead of on track careers as promised, thousands will be losing their jobs.

Many employees followed your advice Bob and now they will be without a job. And you told them to VOTE NO to get their careers back on track. Soon they will not have a career.

You keep trying to claim I am full of fear and only worried about overhaul. I am trying to tell you that you have been using fear and manipulation as a tool for sometime now and you just shafted thousands out of jobs.

These are the facts and not assumptions.

If it was solely up to me we would have reached the 11th hour of the 29th day back in 2010. I started pushing in earnest last spring as certain issues that were considered to be critical were settled but for one reason or another, much to my fustration that kept getting pushed back. We had finally agreed to ask for release by November 30, they filed the 29th, go figure, I did not pick the date.

You feel that many will not have a job because they voted NO, Ok tell me how you figure that? How do you conclude that your assertion that thousands are going to lose their jobs because they voted NO is a factual statement? How would a YES vote have changed the future with the exception that with the TA the company would have pocketed all the prefunding accounts of those under 50 and they could have spun off up to 25% of the "value" of the maintenance operation without having the new operator offer employment or working under the contract?

Sure you were over 50 so your IGM attitude is you dont care that most of us would have lost many thousands of already earmarked or existing dollars but tell me this, even with all the new hires the majority may still be over 50 but the majority may not be in that group that was protected and if the company included consent to terminate your plan and let you buy credits towards sick time with your contributions do you feel that too would pass? You have posted about how you felt you were screwed so many times in the past that part of the reason you voted yes is because you were getting something others weren't, and that since they were getting screwed more than you you voted YES. So tell us is this about "saving jobs" all of a sudden or is it something else?

If AA intends on getting rid of OH as you seem to be saying then why havent they? Yea they closed MCI, but then obtained DWH. They added more new guys in 2011 than any year since 2001 when they added TWA. They added 500 new heads to Title 1 last year, 500 guys with 2011 Occ Sen, sure there may be a few recalls in there but none of them have system protection. They averaged less than 30 new guys a year from 2004 to 2010. The last time they added that many heads without a merger was back in 1997. Where were most of these new heads put? OH They could have not hired anybody and outsourced all those mods and apparently, the heavy checks that were being delayed because they were falling behind and slowly sqeezed OH down but they didnt, they hired what they could. If they were looking to cut OH and wanted a vote to pass why fatten it up? Wouldnt you fatten them up to get them to vote in concessions? Then cut them back to normal levels after you get what you want like they normally do? If you planned on cutting them anyway why spend all that money hiring and training? Why make the group that you are trying to cut evn more of a super majority making it even less likely that they would vote in favor of doing away with their own jobs?

Yes I know that there is a spike in the workload, as new aircraft come the workload will decrease significantly for a while and OH will shrink, but before it gets to layoffs you have to account for attrition and should account for OT, so although there may be fewer jobs that does not mean that anyone will lose a job that they have, but these things would have probably happened regardless of whether or not we accepted the TA and you know it.

 

[enough already]

Bob Owens said above:
"For me personally I think that OH will considerably shrink as older high maintenance aircraft are replaced with new aircraft, (and it will do so regardless of whether or not the company gets what it wants) but will the company recieve those aircraft fast enough and see the workload fall off faster than normal attrition as workers retire?"

OH does need to shrink, but only in personnel; both management and union. That's what I think you're going to see... <_<

 

[Wretched Wrench]

AAs pretty good at making their numbers say whatever it is they want them to say.

We will see a lot more of that in BK court.

 

[Kev3188]

When the company provides a fair cost out for our pension over a long period of time(just the TWU portion) and retiree medical then I will include it. I expect that when they give us those figures that they subtract what came out of the Prefunding accounts and only what they paid into the plans not what the plans paid out.

When you guys were at the table, did the company not show what the cost per employee in total compensation was? I don't just mean base rate or even the pension; I mean all of it. If so, what number do they state? If not, why not?