Just the Facts, Learn the Truth

Bob Owens

Veteran
Sep 9, 2002
14,274
6,112
You really need to ask yourself if you want this person to represent you in Arbitration? If AA should exceed the 35% and a 29D is filed, all AA has to do is present this into evidence along with the other postings he continues to write. I believe Owens is more on AA side.

Remember notes during negotiations and the intent at the time is what wins the cases in front of an arbitrator. It's obvious Owens must have been at Disneyworld at the time these meetings took place during negotiations

If comments were made clarifying the intent beyond the language they must have taken place at "high Level Negotiations", the ones where only appointed guys from the International were invited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people

Bob Owens

Veteran
Sep 9, 2002
14,274
6,112
I bet you will see less than 2000 in headcount in Tulsa within the next 4 years.

The ATD openly admits that they expect the total for M&R to drop from over 12000 to less than 8000 by 2017, that was one of the reasons they used for forming 591. My guess is that includes Title I, II and V.

AA also said that they expect the Fleet to grow over the next four years, not shrink. So I think you are right, Tulsa will not be in four years what it is today, most of the reduction will be from Tulsa. PS, ETOPS etc, the type of work we do on the line wont be affected as much by the introduction of new aircraft as the OH bases. With much less demand for OH the question in four years may be: do they keep the Tulsa base open or consolidate in DFW?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Realityck

Veteran
Jun 5, 2012
503
171
CIO is correct. In the forty years I’ve been working at American there has never been a new aircraft sent out for heavy overhaul. In fact, according to the record in the recent 29 D there were only two instances where any aircraft were sent out for heavy checks. The first was by agreement in 1995, and the second was the 757 outsourcing dispute which the company agreed to settle at full value after the arbitrator suggested they do so when the hearing was completed. No award I ever heard of found that AA had the right to outsource equipment or aircraft because it was new, AA never even claimed the right in any hearing that I know of. If they believed they had this right they would have tried to use it. So the question is not whether any arbitrator ruled against them, it is whether an arbitrator has ever ruled for them. No arbitrator I am aware of has.

As CIO said, that was under the old agreement. He did not say the new agreement is better than the old agreement – he said that the new agreement has a flat cap on maintenance spend for outsourced work that has no exception for new aircraft or equipment. He’s right, it doesn’t, and as I understand it from people I know involved in the negotiation, the issue of coverage of new equipment and aircraft was specifically raised and management agreed that such work was covered and part of the formula. While the new provision is a step backwards from what we used to have, it still protects far more work than anything else out there.
 

TWU informer

Veteran
Nov 4, 2003
7,550
3,767
CIO is correct. In the forty years I’ve been working at American there has never been a new aircraft sent out for heavy overhaul. In fact, according to the record in the recent 29 D there were only two instances where any aircraft were sent out for heavy checks. The first was by agreement in 1995, and the second was the 757 outsourcing dispute which the company agreed to settle at full value after the arbitrator suggested they do so when the hearing was completed. No award I ever heard of found that AA had the right to outsource equipment or aircraft because it was new, AA never even claimed the right in any hearing that I know of. If they believed they had this right they would have tried to use it. So the question is not whether any arbitrator ruled against them, it is whether an arbitrator has ever ruled for them. No arbitrator I am aware of has.

As CIO said, that was under the old agreement. He did not say the new agreement is better than the old agreement – he said that the new agreement has a flat cap on maintenance spend for outsourced work that has no exception for new aircraft or equipment. He’s right, it doesn’t, and as I understand it from people I know involved in the negotiation, the issue of coverage of new equipment and aircraft was specifically raised and management agreed that such work was covered and part of the formula. While the new provision is a step backwards from what we used to have, it still protects far more work than anything else out there.
Are all of you total ignorant morons that cannot grasp reality?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
OP
C

CIO

Advanced
Aug 1, 2010
193
30
More Teamster Baloney

February 28, 2013

The IBT claims that they do not have any responsibility for all of the work outsourced by UAL to China. They also claim that the handover of 100 aircraft for heavy maintenance in China celebrated by UAL management in the picture we distributed did not happen on their watch.
That is baloney.

The Teamsters were certified as the mechanic and related representative at United Airlines in April 2008 after promising that they would stop the mass outsourcing of mechanic work. The 100 aircraft handover ceremony occurred in Beijing more than three years after the IBT became the UAL mechanics’ representative and celebrates a five year contract for heavy maintenance reached in March 2010.
As we specifically stated in our leaflet, the IAM retained their prohibition on foreign maintenance in their 2003 Restructuring Agreement, and the language permitting performance of heavy checks by foreign companies was originally negotiated by AMFA in 2005. However, in their 2011 contract with United, the IBT not only did not stop this practice, they agreed to language which allowed the Company to expand
the outsourcing.

The Teamsters take credit for language which prohibits the sale or lease by United of its SFO base. However, that language was originally negotiated by the IAM in their 2003 Restructuring Agreement.

While criticizing the IAM for negotiating weak language (and taking credit for protections the IAM achieved), the Teamster/UAL agreement retains language the IAM agreed to under the pressure of bankruptcy permitting unrestricted outsourcing of heavy maintenance visits. However, the IBT signed on to this same language after the Company had been out of bankruptcy for five years.
On every property where the IBT is the mechanic and related representative the contract permits more outsourcing and there is more outsourcing –substantially more– than at American. That is a simple fact.

The IBT has never led the way against outsourcing. We would lose work at American if we agreed to any IBT contract now in effect. The Teamsters do a lot of talking about outsourcing – their record on preventing it is not much to discuss.

Learn the Facts,

In Solidarity,

CIO