Contract work at MCI?
- Thread starter mike757
- Start date
I haven't heard anything, but rest assure that if anything was going down, there would be a cake, balloons, media, "we saved jobs" banners, a bootlickers ball, and of course more layoffs/attrition going out the back door.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
- Reaction score
- 584
<_< ----- well, if I'm going to get in trouble, I'm going to get in trouble! Word on the floor is aa has formally signed with ALCOA for 757 Cargo convertions. Tooling has started to show up. But no aircraft yet! A second Saab line will be starting this week. Two people will be recalled from the street, and two will be brought back from cleaners. Oh yes! And there still is talk about the cabin Mod. on the 767s! (Not a done deal!)Now! Why the great interest in MCI all of a sudden? 😉
4 total recalls and you previously said something like 30 retired last month alone. And you're adding more work. Not very impressive. Are they working OT to cover these extra manhours?
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
- Reaction score
- 584
<_< --- Some, but only when their backs to a wall! 😉 How about you? I understand that we'll be getting eight of our old exTWA 757's for "Flyover" Inspection & work! This can get interesting "if" the leaser wants the aircraft back with their original engines! We went through this with TWA shortly before the buyout. Ended up changing a whole lot of engines!!! 😉
No word on "flyovers." As far as OT, there is some, but I have no interest in it. 😉
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
- Reaction score
- 584
<_< ---- Same here! As long as there are people on the street, I'll pass! But not everyone feels like I do!
I feel the same...
BTW...the bigger the twu supporter here, the more likely they work OT.
Ken MacTiernan
Veteran
"I feel the same..."
Ditto for me too. 😉
Ditto for me too. 😉
Its mind-numbing how economically backwards you guys are, your actions are having the exact oposite consequence from that which you are trying to force.
Ken MacTiernan
Veteran
Huh? How is withholding my time having the "exact consequence"? Listen, since you use an alias I do not know who you are. But in the union world when people are on lay off because a company can't make a profit and that company comes back and asks for you to work nore for less while your union brother/sister is on the other side of the fence you simply do not work it.
You can argue both sides of the equation. I will take the side that I would want people to take if I was on the other side of the fence.
Now, what really is mind-numbing is how backwards your ability to realize how the company plays each group against the other as well as divide each group from within. Now tell us how mind-numbing SCABS are. That should be a real hoot.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
- Reaction score
- 584
😛 ---- Blame! I do believe we've stroke a nerve Governor!
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Ken, it's pretty simple.
The AA philosophy towards staffing for contracts seems to be "try to make it work with what you have first, and then we'll look at adding heads" which in itself isn't a bad way to approach it. It's certainly better than bringing people back just to furlough them again in a couple months because you realize you're overstaffed.
I think you'd stand to see more heads added in the long run by trying to strike a balance between of increasing productivity vs. headcount. By simply refusing to work OT, planning won't even consider adding the work if there's a chance the contract will be cancelled for non-performance. At least by trying to make the contract work, you've got workload that needs to be covered and justification for some heads, because nobody likes to see a high OT line on their station performance.
The AA philosophy towards staffing for contracts seems to be "try to make it work with what you have first, and then we'll look at adding heads" which in itself isn't a bad way to approach it. It's certainly better than bringing people back just to furlough them again in a couple months because you realize you're overstaffed.
I think you'd stand to see more heads added in the long run by trying to strike a balance between of increasing productivity vs. headcount. By simply refusing to work OT, planning won't even consider adding the work if there's a chance the contract will be cancelled for non-performance. At least by trying to make the contract work, you've got workload that needs to be covered and justification for some heads, because nobody likes to see a high OT line on their station performance.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,550
- Reaction score
- 3,731
I think given the high cost of medical, that it is far cheaper to work an emlpoyee overtime, than to place another one on payroll.
I am taking a position one way or the other on the union stand about bringing back more heads.
But the truth is, medical coverage plus wages for an additional employee is far more expensive from an operating stand point than working current employees overtime.
Me persoanlly, never have worked much overtime anyway, I acutally would prefer not to even be at work 8 hours per day, much less 10 or 12.
I am taking a position one way or the other on the union stand about bringing back more heads.
But the truth is, medical coverage plus wages for an additional employee is far more expensive from an operating stand point than working current employees overtime.
Me persoanlly, never have worked much overtime anyway, I acutally would prefer not to even be at work 8 hours per day, much less 10 or 12.
TIME FOR CHANGE
Veteran
So instead of putting food on the table for a couple of months give them nothing. A much better option.
Keep up the good work FM :down:
Similar threads
- Locked
