Just the Facts, Learn the Truth

OP
C

CIO

Advanced
Aug 1, 2010
193
30
Scope Clause Language – TWU Versus The Other Unions

February 23, 2013

The TWU scope clause (Article I) has changed in the newly ratified September 12, 2012 M&R agreement. While the TWU negotiating committee pushed for maintaining the previous language that kept approximately 90% of maintenance spend in-house (includes TAESL as insourced work), the bankruptcy (BK) process made that an impossibility.

Every airline that has gone through bankruptcy has targeted Scope clauses in union contracts. As a result, other organizations have largely had their contractual Scope protections gutted. The TWU did not let that happen. When you compare our contract language with other organizations, we ended up with far better Scope language then the IBT, AMFA and IAM have at their respective carriers.

AMFA Scope Clause at United

AMFA became the collective bargaining agent of M&R at United after the Company had already entered BK and extracted one round of concessions. AMFA had promised better results than the IAM had in BK court. However, two years later AMFA negotiated an agreement during the BK process that removed the IAM’s prohibition against overseas maintenance, allowed outsourcing of whole categories of plant maintenance work, and preserved only three lines of heavy maintenance. AMFA also agreed to another wage cut and termination of the UAL pension plan. Within a short period of time, most of the remaining airframe overhaul work that United performed in-house was outsourced, with large portions being sent overseas to Korea and China. The 747, 767, and 777 overhaul work was moved and the good paying union jobs that performed this work at SFO were eliminated.

If the AMFA scope language were in effect at American Airlines, ninety percent of airframe overhaul would be outsourced. Under these circumstances, a Title I AMT would need to have an occupational seniority date of May 1993 to avoid layoff. A Title II PM mechanic would need an occupational seniority date of April 1999 to avoid layoff.

AMFA Scope Clause at Northwest

When AMFA signed its first agreement with NWA there were over 10,000 mechanic and related on the property. After a series of force majeure layoffs and AMFA arbitration losses, AMFA was reduced to 4200 active M&R employees before its strike. What happened next at Northwest was a disaster for labor. AMFA took its members out on strike without a strategy or plan, and despite the fact that Northwest had an aggressive program to hire and train replacement workers in preparation for the strike. When AMFA lost the strike, only 900 mechanics remained, most of whom were scabs. As part of the contract settlement after the strike, both the scabs and supervision were placed on the seniority list. The new AMFA scope clause had no caps on outsourcing and only two stations were to be staffed, MSP and DTW.
If the AMFA/NWA scope language were in effect at American Airlines, all airframe overhaul, all engine overhaul, all back shops, all component shops, and the majority of line maintenance would be outsourced. Under these circumstances, a Title I AMT would need to have an occupational seniority date of November 1985 to avoid layoff. There would be no Title II workers.

IBT Scope Clause at United

The IBT took over from AMFA after strong member dissatisfaction with AMFA’s performance. The IBT negotiated their first contract in 2011, but they were not able to bring more work in-house. The new scope clause has no specific outsourcing cap and United can continue to outsource as long as it does not result in layoffs. Currently United outsources 45% of its maintenance expense and has only three heavy overhaul lines in house.

If the IBT scope language were in effect at American Airlines, all airframe overhaul could be outsourced. Under these circumstances, a Title I AMT would need to have an occupational seniority date of May 1993 to avoid layoff. A Title II PM mechanic would need an occupational seniority date of April 1999 to avoid layoff.

IBT Scope Clause at Continental

After years of being non-union M&R members at Continental organized and joined the IBT. Continental had already outsourced most heavy overhaul during the Bethune era. Heavy overhaul bases at LAX and DEN were closed and thousands of AMT jobs gone. The IBT was unable to secure any cap on outsourcing however, through cost and productivity improvements, the 737 and 757 light C Check work was brought in-house.

If the IBT scope language were in effect at American Airlines, most airframe overhaul, all engine overhaul, and all component overhaul would be outsourced. Under these circumstances, a Title I AMT would need to have an occupational seniority date of February 1992 to avoid layoff. A Title II PM mechanic would need an occupational seniority date of October 1997 to avoid layoff.

AMFA Scope Clause at Alaska

AMFA has negotiated several contracts with Alaska since they took over from the IBT. Prior to AMFA’s arrival, Alaska maintained an overhaul facility in OAK with approximately 350 mechanics. Under the AMFA/ASA agreement all heavy overhaul and plant maintenance was outsourced beginning in 2004, and the OAK maintenance base was closed.

If AMFA/ASA scope was applied at AA all heavy maintenance facilities would be closed and all automotive and facilities mechanics would be furloughed.

IAM Scope Clause US Airways

The IAM at US Airways went through two bankruptcies. During that time management attacked the US Airways scope clause by outsourcing all A330, 757, and 767 overhaul and retained the 737 and A320 work in house.

If the IAM scope language were in effect at American Airlines, all wide-body airframe overhaul, partial engine overhaul, and most component overhaul would be outsourced. Under these circumstances, a Title I AMT would need to have an occupational seniority date of July 1991 to avoid layoff. A Title II PM mechanic would need an occupational seniority date of July 1987 to avoid layoff.

AMFA Scope Clause at Southwest

Southwest Airlines has performed very limited overhaul work in-house. Prior to 2003, the IBT represented M&R and Southwest Airlines had approximately 4 M&R workers per aircraft. By the end 2011, that number had dropped 3.0 workers per aircraft. In attempt to place a floor on further loss of work, AMFA negotiated a headcount per aircraft ratio of just 2.25 mechanics per aircraft. The scope language also locks in heavy check work at four airframe check lines at 622 aircraft. There is no maintenance spend cap in AMFA’s contract and Southwest now stands at 60% of aircraft maintenance spend on outsourced work.
If the AMFA/SWA scope language were in effect at American Airlines only four lines of airframe overhaul in-house (the equivalent of DWH only), all engine overhaul, and all component overhaul would be outsourced. Under these circumstances, a Title I AMT would need to have an occupational seniority date of November 1990 to avoid layoff. A Title II PM mechanic would need an occupational seniority date of June 1988 to avoid layoff.

Scope Clause Summary

When you put the TWU scope clause head-to-head with that at any other carrier the answer is clear. The TWU language protects more good paying jobs than any other union contract in the airline industry. The TWU continues to perform the bulk of American’s heavy maintenance in house while, other unions have allowed most of their work to be sent to non union domestic MROs, and increasingly, to China, Korea, El Salvador, and Mexico.

In Solidarity,

CIO
 

700UW

Corn Field
Nov 11, 2003
37,637
19,488
NC
The TWU is lying, the IAM never had a 7.5 year agreement and they failed to say our CBA was abrogated and finally they failed to mention that we got the work back in-house after the merger with the 50% of billable hours and headcount protections for heavy mtc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

WNMECH

Veteran
Feb 5, 2012
1,482
1,158
AMFA Scope Clause at Southwest

Southwest Airlines has performed very limited overhaul work in-house. Prior to 2003, the IBT represented M&R and Southwest Airlines had approximately 4 M&R workers per aircraft. By the end 2011, that number had dropped 3.0 workers per aircraft. In attempt to place a floor on further loss of work, AMFA negotiated a headcount per aircraft ratio of just 2.25 mechanics per aircraft. The scope language also locks in heavy check work at four airframe check lines at 622 aircraft. There is no maintenance spend cap in AMFA’s contract and Southwest now stands at 60% of aircraft maintenance spend on outsourced work.
If the AMFA/SWA scope language were in effect at American Airlines only four lines of airframe overhaul in-house (the equivalent of DWH only), all engine overhaul, and all component overhaul would be outsourced. Under these circumstances, a Title I AMT would need to have an occupational seniority date of November 1990 to avoid layoff. A Title II PM mechanic would need an occupational seniority date of June 1988 to avoid layoff.
These numbers are wrong. Imagine that.
The easiest one is the guaranteed headcount number we put in our contract.
It is 2.75 not 2.25. The language is in LOA #1 para 7.

The reasons for our drop in headcount per A/C in the listed time frame are many.
We added 191 brand new A/C to our fleet in those years that did not need much maintenance.
We replaced our maintenance program to a MSG3 program:

n the Fall of 2004, before the transition
of the -300/-500 fleet from the
MSG2 to MSG3 Maintenance Program
began, Maintenance Planning
projected an increase of the inhouse
Structural Heavy Maintenance requirements
from three solid lines to four lines
in 2007 and five lines in 2008. One of the
benefits of switching to the MSG3 Program
is the reduction of the number of
days each aircraft is out-of-service for
heavy maintenance. For the classic fleet
using the MSG3 Program, the projection
of 76 fewer days out-of-service equates
to two less aircraft out-of-service for
maintenance. This change significantly
reduces the total number of Heavy
Maintenance Lines, and delays our need
to increase inhouse Structural Heavy
Maintenance requirements.

We didnt need more headcount because our program was more efficient.
As a mater of fact, the whole company saw a reduction of employees per A/C in the same time of 83 per A/C to 64 per A/C because of the addition of the new A/C.


If this TWU propaganda is just as accurate in the rest of it, then my dog woundn't crap on it because it would be redundant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Bob Owens

Veteran
Sep 9, 2002
14,274
6,112
Don't forget about giving away half of our holidays!

Actually its a lot more than half.

We used to get 10 at 2.5X if worked so we got 10 x 8 x 1.5 =120 extra hours pay per year for working the Holidays
Now we get only 5 at 1.5X if worked so we get 5 x 8 x .5 =20 extra hours pay per year for working the Holidays

We lost 100 hours pay, roughly $3500

We have the worst Holiday pay in the industry, even worse than NonUnion at AA!!!!



If they had cut just our Holidays from 10 to 5 then we lost half, but they cut the rate from time plus time and a half to just time plus half, they cut it half then cut what was left by 2/3rds.

In reality we work for half pay on the Holidays, its as if AA feels that they deserve something for the Holidays and we should be glad to work 8 hours for only four hours pay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
OP
C

CIO

Advanced
Aug 1, 2010
193
30
Bob,

You helped nogotiate the contract and you were in the room when it was recommended to bring back to the members. Why are you always speaking as if you were not part of the team? You always seem to take no responsibilities for you actions.


In Solidarity,

CIO
 

furp

Advanced
Apr 10, 2007
154
173
Because there is no team in the TWU INTERNATIONAL! !
It is the 6 figure international sell outs against the 5 figure real woking members. You are either a brainless blind follower of the international or you are simply against them and just pay dues. The pressure is finally on and these scumbags will be gone soon!!! Hope you asswipes are on the floor next to us dues payers real soon!!! NO TEAM "V"for me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people

iluvaa

Veteran
Mar 22, 2007
1,229
814
Bob,

You helped nogotiate the contract and you were in the room when it was recommended to bring back to the members. Why are you always speaking as if you were not part of the team? You always seem to take no responsibilities for you actions.


In Solidarity,

CIO
That would be a good point if he was for it or voted yes to bring it back. Try again
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people

Bob Owens

Veteran
Sep 9, 2002
14,274
6,112
Bob,

You helped nogotiate the contract and you were in the room when it was recommended to bring back to the members. Why are you always speaking as if you were not part of the team? You always seem to take no responsibilities for you actions.


In Solidarity,

CIO

My actions? Please, and by the way please tell us how the scope language kept the work in house. Even Art Luby admitted that our Scope language was window dressing, system protection was really all that kept work in house and people like you voted to give it away. Our scope does not cover new aircraft, which will have much lower maintenance costs and require much fewer workers. So as the MD-80s go away so will all those jobs you claim this deal "saved" and to make matters worse the company can lay off as many people as they feel like. You criticized UAL, but UAL has system protection from 12/31/11, we had it from 1998 yet we still lost that. So any mechanic that was on payroll at UAL as of 12/31/11 is job protected but nobody at AA is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
OP
C

CIO

Advanced
Aug 1, 2010
193
30
The 2.25 reference was a typo, the SWA formula is 2.75 mechanics per aircraft. The error makes little difference --- based on the number aircraft in its fleet, AA would have 1672 mechanics on property if The AA/TWU were to use the SWA/AMFA 2 .75 metric.

As for Bob’s comments, I go by what is put on transcripts and in court and arbitration documents rather than someone’s memory of conversations with people who are no longer around to supply a contrary accounts. Last spring our Local presented a 29 D which is on transcript and in which a full explanation was given of the significant restrictions imposed by the old Article 1 in both the opening statement and in sworn testimony. TWU’s account of the language and its bargaining history was not countered by any Company witness (our argument was, in fact, supported by the Company’s filing to the Bankruptcy Court) and, after the case was concluded, the arbitrator suggested to AA that it should settle, which it did.

As for the idea that the outsourcing restrictions did not apply to new equipment, that idea was once a favorite of certain retired managers, but was never accepted in any arbitration award I am aware of, was never asserted after 2001, and was not made at the 29 D or in the bankruptcy process.

Of course, all of that was under the old agreement. The new agreement has the requirement that 65% of AA’s aircraft maintenance budget be spent on work performed by TWU represented employees. There is no exemption for new equipment and, while there are a number of people on this board who like to make management’s arguments for them, I have not heard any manager even claim that the language has this exception.

In Solidarity,

CIO
 

Bob Owens

Veteran
Sep 9, 2002
14,274
6,112
The 2.25 reference was a typo, the SWA formula is 2.75 mechanics per aircraft. The error makes little difference --- based on the number aircraft in its fleet, AA would have 1672 mechanics on property if The AA/TWU were to use the SWA/AMFA 2 .75 metric.

As for Bob’s comments, I go by what is put on transcripts and in court and arbitration documents rather than someone’s memory of conversations with people who are no longer around to supply a contrary accounts. Last spring our Local presented a 29 D which is on transcript and in which a full explanation was given of the significant restrictions imposed by the old Article 1 in both the opening statement and in sworn testimony. TWU’s account of the language and its bargaining history was not countered by any Company witness (our argument was, in fact, supported by the Company’s filing to the Bankruptcy Court) and, after the case was concluded, the arbitrator suggested to AA that it should settle, which it did.

As for the idea that the outsourcing restrictions did not apply to new equipment, that idea was once a favorite of certain retired managers, but was never accepted in any arbitration award I am aware of, was never asserted after 2001, and was not made at the 29 D or in the bankruptcy process.

Of course, all of that was under the old agreement. The new agreement has the requirement that 65% of AA’s aircraft maintenance budget be spent on work performed by TWU represented employees. There is no exemption for new equipment and, while there are a number of people on this board who like to make management’s arguments for them, I have not heard any manager even claim that the language has this exception.

In Solidarity,

CIO

SWA does not have ETOPS operations nor do they have any wide-bodies. Both of those factors drive up headcount. Maybe you should compare headcount to RPMs or ASMs produced for a fairer comparison.

Show us an arbitration award that said that new airplanes we never worked before do fall under the agreement . I recall when we had the two 747SP s we sent them to TWA for heavy Maint.

I believe the only restriction on new work under the old contract language is that they give the union the ability to try and make the case that they can do the work cheaper in house, (Baker Letter). Under the new agreement they can outsource 35% of the work, even work we traditionally did in house. You are trying to make it sound like the new language is more restrictive than the old language, but in reality System protection was the most restrictive part of our old contract even though attrition would constantly erode that protection between contracts.

Exceptions are not needed, restrictions are. Show us where it says that new type aircraft fall under "work covered under this agreement". The fact is, as told to me by Art Luby, (who is still alive) that system protection keeps the work in house because if they have to keep the workers they have to have something for them to do. As along as you only agree to short contracts and keep rolling the date up you have job protection and isn't that what scope is for?

This contract allows the company to outsource 35% of the spend that used to be done by us, eliminating system protection allows them to get rid of as many workers as they want. According to the International, by 2017 there will be fewer than 8000 mechanics left. That's not just Aircraft Mechanics, that includes Title II and possibly Stores. The international said in their response on 591 that the consolidation was needed because the membership was going from 12000 to less than 8000. So with the new language they expect to lose 4000 jobs. As new planes come in the jobs go away. Where do you think those jobs will come from? Line Maint will not see as much if any impact. They may even see an increase in headcount , pretty much all the 4000 will come from reductions in OH and those jobs will likely never come back. In 2017 when we are still at the bottom of the industry in total compensation how do you think the workers who remain will vote? Do you think they will vote to remain at the bottom of the industry so when the new aircraft start to come due for heavy checks AA can go out and hire people to do that work?

The fact is that with the huge old MD80 fleet, new aircraft years away and a shortage of capacity for NB OH we had the company, but instead of squeezing them we gave away the store and acted like they had us. They got everything they wanted. Who do you think came up with the 35% number? The company did and they picked that number, and the language, because it gave them everything they wanted. Ream said it, this deal will put an end to Tulsa and you pushed it.

By the way AA is still trying to hire people in NY. They admit there isn't much out there. They are holding at least 20 EO and SIS guys because they can't afford to let them go. UAL is building a new Hangar in EWR and expects to be adding over 200 mechanics here. Where do you think UAL will be getting those mechanics? AA is competing with not only other carriers but utilities and the MTA for an ever shrinking pool of mechanics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
OP
C

CIO

Advanced
Aug 1, 2010
193
30
It all boils down to one question.

Does the current membership think TWU is doing a good job?

Simple.

Actually the majority of the members under the TWU umbrella understands fully the delima at AA and has repeatedly decided to stay with the TWU by not signing representation cards, whether it be IBT,Amfa,IAM or any other Association/Union.

How many attempts has their been in the last 30 Years?

In Solidarity,

CIO
 

TWU informer

Veteran
Nov 4, 2003
7,550
3,767
Actually the majority of the members under the TWU umbrella understands fully the delima at AA and has repeatedly decided to stay with the TWU by not signing representation cards, whether it be IBT,Amfa,IAM or any other Association/Union.

How many attempts has their been in the last 30 Years?

In Solidarity,

CIO
Then why schedule an emergency anti-amfa anti-ibt school for this Friday?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people