Company Proposal M&R 11-13-2010

[Maark767]

AA lies.
Its actually higher than $45;
These figures are from the SWA contract, Articles 14 and 15

Mechanic 8/16/2012
Base pay 38.59
License pay 6.00 * thats for three if required
Shift .63
Long 1.30
Total $46.52

Now if you want to compare top rates you would have to go with SWA Lead Inspector pay

Base 43.22
License pay 6.00 * thats for three if required
Shift .63
Long 1.30
Total $51.15


Regular inspector or Mechanic lead base is $40.91 on 8/16/2012

Lets compare and see what AA means by "competative"

8/16/2012
SWA vs AA Proposal
Mechanic $46.52 vs 33.25

$13.27/hr difference. $27,600 less than a low cost carrier! That looks more like a slaughter than a competition to me.

They always lie... but aside from that and dont get me wrong as I'm 1000 % pro-union but I think it will be impossible to get this company to give us our money back from the givebacks we gave in 2003.
They will fight us to the very end and then the gov. wont let us stike. Whats next??? Arbritration??? We will lose in arbritration as we will look the highest paid in the industry. We will look like greedy employees to all... Who will be on our side as unemployment is at 10 % . This scares me.... Any input would help.

 

[MTheory]

They always lie... but aside from that and dont get me wrong as I'm 1000 % pro-union but I think it will be impossible to get this company to give us our money back from the givebacks we gave in 2003.
They will fight us to the very end and then the gov. wont let us stike. Whats next??? Arbritration??? We will lose in arbritration as we will look the highest paid in the industry. We will look like greedy employees to all... Who will be on our side as unemployment is at 10 % . This scares me.... Any input would help.

If the numbers that Owens presents are accurate, I havent verified them, but lets say that they are. Then we will be at the extreme low end for compensation.

In negotiations, both parties must agree to arbitration. It is binding no matter how the arbitrator rules.

If I were the Company, I would not agree to arbitration, since our pay would be at the low end of the spectrum, an arbitrators ruling would probably favor the Union, more so than the Company. Also most Wall Street analysts predict a turn around for the industry in 2010.

In my opinion, this last proposal by the Company was a strategic move to further delay any progress in negotiations. In other words, they knew that it would be shot down.

The Company has made some curious moves lately. One is the hiring of Jim Ream to head M & E. Mr. Reams' pedigree already shows he knows how to run a company on his own.

Perhaps more time is needed to begin a spin-off of M&E from the core business? I dont know, but I do know that the Company does not just do things without a reason. There is always a plan.

 

[TWU informer]

I am sure the company is negotiating using "TOTAL Compensation" not payrates. And they will argue that the defined pension, in-house maintenance, retirement and employee medical in total are in the industry ballpark.

I don't have accurate numbers, but I am sure this is their position.

Had we not been subjected to TWU SECRET NEGOTIATIONS we may actually have knowledge of each sides detailed positions. Don't take this as support for the worthless company proposal... far from there in my mind.

 

[Rogallo]

You guys need a new union.

No **** Sherlock!!!

 

[Tex-Mech]

I am sure the company is negotiating using "TOTAL Compensation" not payrates. And they will argue that the defined pension, in-house maintenance, retirement and employee medical in total are in the industry ballpark.

I don't have accurate numbers, but I am sure this is their position.

Had we not been subjected to TWU SECRET NEGOTIATIONS we may actually have knowledge of each sides detailed positions. Don't take this as support for the worthless company proposal... far from there in my mind.

The detailed positions for M&R are posted here article by article:

http://aa.twu.org/openarticles/openarticles.asp

And the T/A'd articles are posted here:

http://aa.twu.org/tentativeagreements/tentative.asp

At the last union meeting it was stated that this is accurate of the union position. Not sure about the companies position with the new turd/concessions (proposal).

 

[eolesen]

In negotiations, both parties must agree to arbitration. It is binding no matter how the arbitrator rules.

True, and I doubt that binding arbitration is going to be the result. Even if it does go to arbitration, don't assume the arbitrator is going to favor the union. You don't have baseball arbitration where they pick one of the two offers. With the RLA, you're more likely looking at a decision which splits the difference between the two offers, and again, that's why it may be in the best interest of the company to low-ball.

Worst case, it's going to come before a PEB, and you'll be looking at the same situation -- someone looking at both offers and deciding what's reasonable and sustainable, and failing that, they'll also split the difference.

The Company has made some curious moves lately. One is the hiring of Jim Ream to head M & E. Mr. Reams' pedigree already shows he knows how to run a company on his own.

Perhaps more time is needed to begin a spin-off of M&E from the core business? I dont know, but I do know that the Company does not just do things without a reason. There is always a plan.

There's a plan, certainly, but I don't think spin-off is it.... If they're positioning MRO for a spin-off, I don't see how it can stand on its own profit/loss, and that's a key requirement.

 

[The Goose]

True, and I doubt that binding arbitration is going to be the result. Even if it does go to arbitration, don't assume the arbitrator is going to favor the union. You don't have baseball arbitration where they pick one of the two offers. With the RLA, you're more likely looking at a decision which splits the difference between the two offers, and again, that's why it may be in the best interest of the company to low-ball.

Worst case, it's going to come before a PEB, and you'll be looking at the same situation -- someone looking at both offers and deciding what's reasonable and sustainable, and failing that, they'll also split the difference.



There's a plan, certainly, but I don't think spin-off is it.... If they're positioning MRO for a spin-off, I don't see how it can stand on its own profit/loss, and that's a key requirement.

Considering how every bit of outside work has been topedoed in one way or another, where do you get off saying "stand on its own?"

My vote is for a spinoff, executives take and sell stock in the "new" company, and since it will no longer be subject to the Railway Labor Act, cause a strike and promptly shut the company down, giving Horton what he's wanted for years - an airline free of in-house maintenance.

 

[Hopeful]

There's a plan, certainly, but I don't think spin-off is it.... If they're positioning MRO for a spin-off, I don't see how it can stand on its own profit/loss, and that's a key requirement.

Here's my take on it. This company knew their latest toilet paper alternative would be rejected even by the company union. They are going to stall and milk this cow until they are released from mediation. Since RETRO pay is not even a consideration, right now, the company is getting a 2 year extension with no cost to them. Another year will go by at least and they have another extension.
AA will gladly opt for arbitration and then spin all of maintenance off. They will hold the gun to Tulsa'a head and tell them the party's over, maintenance will be a separate entity and if they wish to keep TUL open, ""HERE ARE THE NEW PAY SCALES AND WORK RULES, TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT"
As for the line stations, maintenance too will be spun off and forced to bid on working on AA's aircraft. This is what British Airways does with their BA Engineering division. "YOU'RE NOT THE CHEAPEST, WE GAVE THE CONTRACT TO TIMCO."

Changes are on the horizon folks, FOR ALL OF US, BOTH LINE AND BASE.....No one is exempt except the executives who will reward themselves ala Wall Street style for finally destroying what was left of the working class workers.


To quote one of the most famous Americans in our history:


"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin

 

[Bob Owens]

I am sure the company is negotiating using "TOTAL Compensation" not payrates. And they will argue that the defined pension, in-house maintenance, retirement and employee medical in total are in the industry ballpark.

If they did that they would look worse.

We can look up the "value" of our pension on our total value statement on Jetnet. Mine was $1127 for 2008 . I worked quite a bit of OT in 2008 so that works out to around the equivelent of a 1.5% 401K match.

Heres what the company includes in Total Compensation.

Total 2008 Compensation =
Regular Annual Wages +
AIP Payments+
Profit Sharing +
Medical Claims Paid +
Dental Claims Paid +
Basic Life & AD&D Premiums +
Pension Plan Increase $1,127.60 +
Social Security/Medicare

I think they include total claims paid for Medical and Dental and neglect to deduct what we pay for the coverage.

 

[eolesen]

Considering how every bit of outside work has been topedoed in one way or another, where do you get off saying "stand on its own?"

My vote is for a spinoff, executives take and sell stock in the "new" company, and since it will no longer be subject to the Railway Labor Act, cause a strike and promptly shut the company down, giving Horton what he's wanted for years - an airline free of in-house maintenance.

Forget about all the third party work that was done in the past, Goose. For a hypothetical MRO to be able to stand on its own, it needs to be profitable. That means low overhead and reasonable labor costs. You'd need your own HR, payroll, accounting, finance, etc. and still have to find a way of competing against the guys like AAR, HAECO, and the so-called chop shops.

 

[The Goose]

Forget about all the third party work that was done in the past, Goose. For a hypothetical MRO to be able to stand on its own, it needs to be profitable. That means low overhead and reasonable labor costs. You'd need your own HR, payroll, accounting, finance, etc. and still have to find a way of competing against the guys like AAR, HAECO, and the so-called chop shops.

You've conveniently ignored what I said, E - I agree that all of what you specified is necessary for a spinoff to survive.

My point is the spinoff isn't supposed to survive , rather, become a casualty after value (in the form of executive stock grants related to said spinoff) is siphoned off and quickly sold (to the favor of present AMR (mis)management), Horton gets his "maintenance free" airline, and AMR won't be liable for the shutdown costs of the spinoff as it would then be a separate entity - it just dies and rather cheaply at that, all considered. More bonuses for AMR's (mis)management for coming up with such a brilliant plan. It would not surprise me a bit if the accountants had already calculated a way to raid non-management retirement funds in the process.

Your age-old management tactic of ignoring a statement didn't work, rather, it tells me I'm fairly close to the truth. You knew very well what I was inferring.

Knowing "the cost of everything but the value of nothing" is a hallmark of AMR. The true value of employee goodwill (likewise enmity) toward the company cannot be quantified on a balance sheet, therefore, it is useless to the bean-counters that are running the corporation. This corporate attitude can continue for quite some time but, as in a Ponzi scheme, the end is inevitable.

It's a rather unfortunate fact, but those responsible rarely pay a fitting price for the human damage they cause. Hopefully, if O'Bummer's so-called "reforms" end up hurting enough real people, this will change - the townsfolk chasing the monster to its creator's castle to rid themselves of the beast comes to mind as a fitting remedy ...

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

Changes are on the horizon folks, FOR ALL OF US, BOTH LINE AND BASE.....No one is exempt except the executives who will reward themselves ala Wall Street style for finally destroying what was left of the working class workers.

If the execs were so bent on "finally destroying what was left of the working class workers" why have they kept MRO in-house (at a higher cost) while their competitors offshored the work and saved money?

As for the offer, I don't see what's wrong with a cash payout, increases in holiday and sick pay and generous profit sharing? Looks like a fair offer to me.

 

[Hopeful]

If the execs were so bent on "finally destroying what was left of the working class workers" why have they kept MRO in-house (at a higher cost) while their competitors offshored the work and saved money?

Oh, it's coming. So far the TWU has managed to assist the company in keeping us down. The final chapter will come when either the TWU accepts TULE as and MRO at MRO WAGES AND BENEFITS.....or the drastic increase in outsourcing will occur. This has been the trade off to keeping the pension and retiree medical. But they want more.

As for the offer, I don't see what's wrong with a cash payout, increases in holiday and sick pay and generous profit sharing? Looks like a fair offer to me.

First of all, a lump some does not equal a structural increase in base pay when you factor in OT and holiday pay. If they were equal we would get an increase in pay.
And there is a slew of work rule changes that are not posted. The want to increase the number of non licensed mechanics all over the system. they want to close the remaining Class II stations like PHL and EWR. They want the crew chief job to on a permanent probationary basis.
(Might as well be management with that one.)
They want to sell out all future mechanics with no pension and no retiree medical.

I tell you what, I'll gladly give up the pension and retiree medical when I get a golden parachute just like the big boys....

I guess you have a hard time realizing that this would equate to a continued concessionary contract for 10 years. And then when the executives get their PUPS, posters like you will say we should have negotiated more stock.
I guess we should jump through hoop over this offer.

then the company will use the AANegotiations website to brag how generous they are with a 10% raise.
It is not a raise. A lump sump never equals a structural increase when you are an hourly worker.

They can stick this over where the sun don't shine. I've learned to do more with less. And one thing they will be getting less of is on time product. many a mechanic I work with have had enough of this company and their games.
They made damn shore there executives were made more than whole following their "alleged concessions" back in 2003.

 

[Bob Owens]

If the execs were so bent on "finally destroying what was left of the working class workers" why have they kept MRO in-house (at a higher cost) while their competitors offshored the work and saved money?

As for the offer, I don't see what's wrong with a cash payout, increases in holiday and sick pay and generous profit sharing? Looks like a fair offer to me.

Well the fact of the matter is we dont know if it actually costs more to do work in house. For many years, especially with Title II work the union has to present a business case for keeping work in house. One example was the installation of Flat Screen monitors in Boston where the company saved thousands of dollars by having our guys do the work instead of an outsaide vendor.

I asked Arpey at the stock holders meeting if it costs more to do it in house or not and he said "The jury's still out on that". Come on, six years to compare and they dont know? The fact is that AAs total costs per seat mile are competative. Their labor costs are higher simply because they employ more people and sub out less, its workers dont recieve more pay, there's just more of them working for AA. As in the Boston example, the total operating costs for the station were driven down despite the fact that the additional work drove up labor costs. Its pretty simple, AA could contract out everything and have zero labor costs but after they get done paying all the contractors would they make any money? Peoples Express tried that, it became known as People's Distress. Sounded good on paper, subcontract out all maintenance and have lower labor costs. The contractor hired a ton of kids out of school but there wasnt anyone there with experience to keep them out of trouble. The contractor trashed more planes in the few short years of Peoples Distress existance, bent one in half , ran another off the runway on a high speed taxi, let another roll into a drainage ditch, etc etc than most of us see in a lifetime. In the end outsourcing all of maintenance cost more than insoucing, even if on paper the losses due to damages still outweighed the cost of paying a good wage, the unreliable service likely drove away people who would pay a decent price for a ticket, they have no way to measure that. The value of quality maintence is hard to quantify but the cost of not having it can be catastrophic.

 

[Buckky]

Attachments

Attachments for the original proposal.....