Ken MacTiernan
Veteran
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.
When you "try to make it work with what you have first" takes what kind of thinking? Is it purely a dollar choice as to how many heads are cut? What about morale? What about burn out for those left and work the ot?
I understand the arguement of benefits/pay for a full time employee vs. ot and paying the same person already on the clock a few extra dollars. But you mention the term "in the long run". How long is long? (No pun intended.) With company officials that take bonuses while we are to "share the sacrifice" I do not believe that the long run will be short. If things get done the company will keep the status quo.
Here's an example for you. In SAN we have 8 RON a/c. They have laid off 5 AMTs in this last round. We had only one AMT on a seperate relief bid. (Prior to the previous lay off we had up to 5 on the relief bid.) We worked 4 tens prior to the lay off.
We are now 5 AMTs short and are back on 5/8's. We have no relief crew, so if there is a vacation or such we have to suck it up. Now, our afternoon shift trys to get one of our 8 RON a/c accomplished. That leaves 7 for night shift which is about 5 guys. The inspections are now reduced to mainly 0922 checks. The given hours for each check should add up to the given man hours for that evening. We get the checks done but mostly do not have the time to t/s discrepancies already placarded when working inbound problems. We have been cut to the bare minimum. NOW, factor in a sick call and we are short handed. The ot is called, RARELY, but most people do not want to be here longer than they need to. (See morale comment above.) So, one or two RON a/c are left for the day shift to handle. OK, oh wait! They only have one AMT and one Crew Chief on shift. We had a OTS a/c with a brake take-off manifold to change. That left the CC to run around and put out the usual fires.
Do you see where I am going with this? At what point does something give? We are told that AA wants to get into the contract maintenance game... again. We use to do on call for everyone here but Delta, United & Northwest and USAir. The company would like to pick up on call for these airlines now that they have pulled their maintenance people out, plus the remaining airlines here. But we are told they will not call anyone back unless the contract is a gauranteed RON check. Otherwise, when I am changing that take-off manifold and my CC is putting out fires who goes to the other airline?
I thought that bonuses were paid to executives to "retain their expertise". You don't need to be an expert to know what is needed. Perhaps asking your work force would help.
I can't speak for other stations but I know we received an aircraft from another Class II station that had 31 items on the FMR. A week later the same aircraft came back with 42 items! (That's after I cleared 8 items from the original 31 item run.)
Perhaps someone else can relate a similar story or better yet, just tell me "how long is long". 😉