In many areas the same amount of work could be accomplished with many fewer people. This is true of both labor and management. No wage cuts would be necessary at all if the proper number of people were on the job to keep everyone busy more of the time.
You have to define productive. If there's not enough work to keep everyone moving non-stop all day long, which I assume is what AMR wants in this aspect, then I have to agree with PPF...you need to thin the herd. American has a sizeable part time work force, it's time to consolidate those part time positions into full time positions and cut back on the head count. In some instances, less is more.
No Buck, we don't need to get rid of our heavy maintenance. We just need to do it more efficiently. We can't expect to allow mechs. in one area of expertise to sit around for hours or even days waiting for their turn to work while another group works on the airplane. We also shouldn't have groups of supervisors for each dock doing what we have crew chiefs there to do. In most cases a capable secretary could replace several supervisors.
While a RIF may be the best answer that doesn't mean it is an easy answer for anyone. Restrictive contracts make it expensive for AA to layoff employees and unions don't want to lose dues paying mambers.
On 3/5/2003 12:04:59 PM Buck wrote:
If reducing headcount is a major answer to the companies problems, then what are they waiting on?
The problem is that AA's (and most major's) processes have to be made more efficient before they can reduce the workforce without reducing productivity. Right now the majors have select tasks and protocols for completing them that are far less efficient than at WN. Once the processes are efficient, then a reduced workforce can be efficient. That seems like it could take a while, though.
So all of your solutions are geared to reduce the headcount and make it more efficient. It would seem that the union would balk at any attempt to reduce headcount. So why has the company not insisted on this efficency in the past?
No Buck. What I'm saying is, that there is no reason any paticular work group should be locked into working one paticular aircraft, or type of aircraft. There should be enough cross training to utilize any AMT where, and when needed. Providing flexablity not posible under the currant Dock Sytem.
Plain Paper,I think you've hit the nail right on it's head! The company has had the resources,(money)for so long that it doesn't know how, or where, to cut back. Case in point. When A.A.came in here,(MCI)overhaul base,what did they do? They proceeded to strip us of all our "Old worn out tooling", that worked just fine thank you! I've seen more money throw away as scrap! It's attiude! TWA fixed things,built parts and tooling, because we couldn't afford new! A.A.,"Throw it out!" we'll replace it! O.K.! It's your ball game now! But,please don't come crying in my beer!