Larry Pike of 567 FIRED ?

[737823]

To sum it up: "A number is not locked in", "Assuming", "if" and "could in theory".

Bottom line, no ratio of mechanics per airplane exists in our CBA and we make much much less. But as long as we work for very little, so little its not cost effective to outsource, we can keep the job, kind of like the terms Non-union people are offered.

Over the last 30 years how many mechanics has SWA laid off? With our language, both past and present how many thousands of mechanics have been laid off at AA over that same time frame, 5000, more? I believe the number at SWa is ZERO. Your point is meaningless, nobody cares about the ratio at SWA, what they care about is if they got hired what would they make.

"it's difficult to enforce language that doesn't exist"-credit to Kev

Josh

 

[Bob Owens]

We are in BK. 1113c is not negotiations. The recommendation to vote yes was based on the highly probable potential of over 50% outsourcing. By voting yes the buy out prevented thousands of involuntary job losses.

Really? Where? The company admitted that the NB market was tight and the opportunity for outsourcing was primarily with the wide-bodies. From what I hear the 777 they sent to China is being ferried back to DWH to be completed by our guys. Normally we ferry planes to OH not from OH to be worked on. Something about reverser halves. Also heard about long delays due to some landing gear work they sent south of the border. The Timco deals didn't work out so well either, was Timco using students because they were cheap or because thats all there was available? AAR has been citing the shortage of mechanics for a few years now and even in China Taeco say they are losing money because they could not get mechanics. So where would all this work have went if we had rejected the concessions and stood next to the pilots? The buy out? You mean the one where most of the people who said yes are still working, the company cant release them because they have too much work? I've been told that we will be hiring off the street by the spring.

The fact is at the moment they could not have outsourced 50% even if they wanted to, they cant even get to 35% but we gave them all the time in the world to figure out how to outsource over 50% of the heads if they want to.

 

[WNMECH]

The facts are not on your side. What is your measurement? If it is 1999 then given the AMT to aircraft ratio then you should have added more jobs. If you had maintained the 4.0 to 1 that you had in 1999 (IBT) then you would 800 more AMTs making $40 plus and hour but you don't. That's a giveback since you did not maintain the job status quo you gave up jobs as you grew. That gave great cost savings to WN while you "fought" to add one more line of HC or approximately 100 AMTs for a net loss compared to the IBT contract of 700 high wage jobs. That's not winning my brother.

You were better off under the IBT representation if jobs and money were your goal. Under AMFA you got the pay and not the jobs.

Wrong again overspin.
Our ratio of mechanics to a/c was less under the IBT than they are today.

I have explained the SWA business model of keeping headcount below 3 per a/c, and the IBT did not fight it and allowed SWA unlimited outsourcing.
Only since AMFA has come aboard have we gained scope language and other protections in our contract as well as increasing our number of mechanics.
I clearly explained our maintenance program changes that allow us to need fewer checks with more aircraft, so we don't need as many mechs/ac.
Try reading more and typing less overspin.

 

[WNMECH]

Wrong again overspin.
Our ratio of mechanics to a/c was less under the IBT than they are today.

I have explained the SWA business model of keeping headcount below 3 per a/c, and the IBT did not fight it and allowed SWA unlimited outsourcing.
Only since AMFA has come aboard have we gained scope language and other protections in our contract as well as increasing our number of mechanics.
I clearly explained our maintenance program changes that allow us to need fewer checks with more aircraft, so we don't need as many mechs/ac.
Try reading more and typing less overspin.

I must correct my post.
I do not have the exact numbers of mechanics we had each year but do know how many we has when I was hired in the mid 90's.
I do know how many aircraft we had at the end of each year.
By rough calculation adding back in the number of mechanics left or retired ahead of me, the numbers tell a different story.
In just the 90's our ratio was 2.8 to 3.4 with an average of 3.1
This is very rough but we did not have 4 mechanics to a/c in 1999.
The company hiring goal was always under 3.
When we asked for more hiring, we were always told of our headcount per a/c goals (the same under the IBT)

I gets harder to be accurate the farther I go back. So I will leave it at that.
If exact yearly numbers of mechanics becomes available then I will correct my calculations.
Bottom line to this rant is that it was not appreciably different under the IBT or AMFA.

The SWA business model remains the same.

 

[Bob Owens]

By voting yes the buy out prevented thousands of involuntary job losses.

More on the buy out. How many people left in 2012 without our paltry buyout which was only a little more than half of what UAL offered? We had guys leave recently without the buyout, were not about to let the company tell them when they could or could not leave. They left on their own terms.

 

[Bob Owens]

I must correct my post.
I do not have the exact numbers of mechanics we had each year but do know how many we has when I was hired in the mid 90's.
I do know how many aircraft we had at the end of each year.
By rough calculation adding back in the number of mechanics left or retired ahead of me, the numbers tell a different story.
In just the 90's our ratio was 2.8 to 3.4 with an average of 3.1
This is very rough but we did not have 4 mechanics to a/c in 1999.
The company hiring goal was always under 3.
When we asked for more hiring, we were always told of our headcount per a/c goals (the same under the IBT)

I gets harder to be accurate the farther I go back. So I will leave it at that.
If exact yearly numbers of mechanics becomes available then I will correct my calculations.
Bottom line to this rant is that it was not appreciably different under the IBT or AMFA.

The SWA business model remains the same.

How many mechanics over the years has SWA laid off?

Overspin keeps going on and on but he avoids the fact that for decades the TWU has fleeced mechanics. From being the first legacy carrier to outsource R&D and allow the company to layoff hundreds of Aircraft mechanics in the early 80s to having Fleet deice Aircraft,to the introduction of SRPs, low paid mechanics who replaced higher paid mechanics in the shops. And they did all that without Bankruptcy. Thousands of A&P jobs were eliminated or failed to materialize with the expansion AA saw through the 80s and 90s, yet he will come here and criticize you for allowing work to be shipped overseas. He doesnt care if A&Ps get the work, as long as they pay dues to the TWU, thats all that matter. He leaves out the fact that not only does the TWU contract allow unlimited foreign outsourcing but we didn't even capture the value of it. When we gave the concession for outsourcing it was based on projected domestic costs, not lower foreign costs. In other words we gave them a bigger concession than we got credit for. Another problem with outsourcing overseas for us is the less they pay to outsource the more they can outsource, in other words our concession gives the company a strong incentive to outsource overseas, it encourages it. By outsourcing overseas and having AA buy the materials they can easily outsource more than 50% of the man-hours. How often have we heard how workers in El Salvador earn around $5/hr? Well if the guy in Tulsa is making $34 without even factoring in materials for every one hour of work done in house they can outsource 3.6 hours of work. When you factor in materials to the 65% then the number of man-hours they can outsource goes even higher. So the 35% spend number is very deceptive and allows for a lot more outsourcing than Overspin like to make people believe. In this example you can see it would allow for them to outsource 3.6 hours for each hour they do in house. Of course just because those mechanics are only paid $5/hr that doesn't mean thats all AA pays but the illustration does show how deceptive the 35% spend figure is. Its not very much of a limit at all, if anything AA will not even come close to it because the capacity to do so doesn't exist.

 

[1airborne]

How many mechanics over the years has SWA laid off?

I have been here 15 years and I have never seen anyone layed off. From what I understand Southwest has never layed off any employee period.

1airborne

 

[Bob Owens]

I have been here 15 years and I have never seen anyone layed off. From what I understand Southwest has never layed off any employee period.

1airborne

There you have it. For all Overspins talk about giving concessions to save jobs vs the SWA way of giving raises in exchange for job cuts SWA has never had a layoff, but here at AA where we have given every concession management could ever dream up and are at the bottom of the industry we have seen thousands laid off. In fact, according to the Gless letter within a few short years, despite all the concessions our headcount will be roughly half of what it once was and SWA will be more than it ever was.


I think we can put Overspins false claims behind us now.

 

[Overspeed]

Ramp, res, & customer service. I was pointing out the error in your claim that "every carrier" lost retiree medical in BK.

Point taken. I was operating under the assumption that we were talking about M&R.

 

[Overspeed]

I have been here 15 years and I have never seen anyone layed off. From what I understand Southwest has never layed off any employee period.

1airborne

The point was not laid off but if while the airline grew was status quo maintained as far as AMTs to aircraft and the answer is no. That means that 800 fewer jobs were not added as a result of not maintaining the same level of in-house work. True you added AMTs but at a much slower rate while more work was outsourced from 1999 through present day. Now is that good? Yes and no. If you had obtained even greater wage increases over the years while AMFA AMTs provided superior productivity I would say yes that's a win but that isn't what happened.

To apply that to AA and the TWU I would agree that we added too many jobs through rapid growth in the late 90s. We can blame that on AA or the TWU, take your pick. AA is significantly "heavier"AMT wise than ever before. Given AA's current size and the last time it was at 600 aircraft how many AMTs did AA have? About 9,000 or the same as AA will have once the main CBA outsourcing provisions are in place in Feb 2013. The difference between now and then (around 1995) is that AA does much less with the same amount of AMTs. If AA had maintained its industry leading maintenance operation and AMT productivity all the work could have been done in house with one maintenance base like the early 90s before AFW, MCI, and DWH. What changed? Many things but I would place the blame on management mostly. Had AA run lean we would probably not be laying anyone off because we would never have gotten so heavy AMT wise.

 

[777 fixer]

Any chance of them putting maint in ISP or LGA? I know of around 500 mechanics they could hire tomorrow, including me!!

All that talk about people leaving the business, how much the airline business sucks, A&P schools shuting down and what do you do? Ask someone at SWA if they are going to open up ISP or LGA in the hopes you can get a job there.

P.S. I hope you are not basing future plans on something that will probably not happen.

 

[WNMECH]

The point was not laid off but if while the airline grew was status quo maintained as far as AMTs to aircraft and the answer is no. That means that 800 fewer jobs were not added as a result of not maintaining the same level of in-house work. True you added AMTs but at a much slower rate while more work was outsourced from 1999 through present day. Now is that good? Yes and no. If you had obtained even greater wage increases over the years while AMFA AMTs provided superior productivity I would say yes that's a win but that isn't what happened.

To apply that to AA and the TWU I would agree that we added too many jobs through rapid growth in the late 90s. We can blame that on AA or the TWU, take your pick. AA is significantly "heavier"AMT wise than ever before. Given AA's current size and the last time it was at 600 aircraft how many AMTs did AA have? About 9,000 or the same as AA will have once the main CBA outsourcing provisions are in place in Feb 2013. The difference between now and then (around 1995) is that AA does much less with the same amount of AMTs. If AA had maintained its industry leading maintenance operation and AMT productivity all the work could have been done in house with one maintenance base like the early 90s before AFW, MCI, and DWH. What changed? Many things but I would place the blame on management mostly. Had AA run lean we would probably not be laying anyone off because we would never have gotten so heavy AMT wise.

Where are you getting your numbers of how many mechanics from?

Your whole assumptions are wrong because I know we had 280 a/c at the end of 1998 and had less than 1000 mechs.
We had 312 a/c at the end of 1999 and in order to have your number of 4 mechs to a/c, we would have needed 1248 mechanics.
It was not even close to that then.

I believe you are using numbers with our cleaners added in for some these calculations.

For the history of SWA we have always had closer to 3 mechs to a/c than 4 even in our hiring spurts. Same as now.

 

[Overspeed]

Where are you getting your numbers of how many mechanics from?

Your whole assumptions are wrong because I know we had 280 a/c at the end of 1998 and had less than 1000 mechs.
We had 312 a/c at the end of 1999 and in order to have your number of 4 mechs to a/c, we would have needed 1248 mechanics.
It was not even close to that then.

I believe you are using numbers with our cleaners added in for some these calculations.

For the history of SWA we have always had closer to 3 mechs to a/c than 4 even in our hiring spurts. Same as now.

The numbers come from DOT F41. It's what all airlines use to report their data. The HC numbers do contain everyone that works in aircraft maintenance which will include AMTs, Cleaners, Facilities, and Auto Mechanics (M&R). While not entirely accurate to the head and exact job description they are a very good indicator of HC per aircraft. That being said even if there is some error, and I assume there is some, it still doesn't explain the decline in HC per aircraft at WN since 1999 to present. Either you are doing the same work with less people, the airplanes you have require less maintenance, and/or work stayed the same and more is outsourced. I believe it is a combination of both. I know you switched to a MSG3 program in the past ten years and most have and that probably accounts for some of the reduction in HC but not all.

The main point of discussion here is that a change in unions will not bring us WN wages. It has been stated here that why did the TWU not push for at least UA/CO wages. We had that in 2010 for the line and not far off for our base personnel but we voted it down. So we - the membership - own that. AA did not have to give us UA/CO wages and being in the 1113c process they were not bound to continue negotiating with us and maintaining the status quo as is with normal negotiations. My feeling is that AA would have gotten the abrogation, the lay offs would have proceeded while we continued to negotiate under and abrogated agreement, and maybe we would have gotten UA/CO wages after AA had already signed agreements to outsource more of overhaul. It's just a theory. I believe you at WN have more leverage because given that so much is already outsourced, there isn't much left to threaten the AMFA membership with. I believe you have a good chance of prevailing and keeping the 4th line and getting a wage increase.

Wasn't this thread about Pike's bogus crisis and hiring an attorney would he didn't need one?

 

[WNMECH]

Wasn't this thread about Pike's bogus crisis and hiring an attorney would he didn't need one?

It was until you claimed that AMFA gave away jobs in exchange for raises.
You tried to insinuate that if AMFA came to AA then they would want to do just that.
You said "that is the AMFA way".

If your point was about pay rates then I would agree of course that AA would not get SWA payrates just because they vote in AMFA. Everyone here knows that.

But you try to scare people into believing that if they go AMFA then they will lose their jobs.

These are two totally different arguments.

Now it appears the numbers you use to try to discredit AMFA with include cleaners and possibly others that are not AMTs which bring about other flaws in your ratio of mechs to a/c claims.
Without complete factual data you have garbage in = garbage out.

Fact. We are a small group and keep a ratio of about 3 mechs to a/c.
Fact. It has always been that way since the beginning of SWA.
Fact. AMFA did not advocate trading jobs for raises at SWA, they have added protection language to our contract and got the company to agree to language that adds a forth line in Dallas.

Now if you want to talk payrates fine.
But saying that AMFA would try to give away jobs is just stupid.

 

[Frank Szabo]

... snip

... but saying that AMFA would try to give away jobs is just stupid.

Info was spread about AA some time ago that AMFA/SWA negotiated a pay raise in return for allowing more outsourcing to TacoLand - that's what underspin is probably referring to. It didn't sound quite right at the time - I figured there was more to the story but, naturally, AMR's wholly owned subsidiary, the twu, didn't tell the rest of the story, if there was one.

Your turn -