Overseas Checks
- Thread starter ch53D
- Start date
AC AA LA FA
Veteran
....hua..?
ch53D
Senior
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Messages
- 260
- Reaction score
- 3
This is the numbers of maintenance checks that have been accomplished outside of the United States for the years 2005 and 2006.
SkydrolJunkie
Senior
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Messages
- 274
- Reaction score
- 72
So much for the great Donny V letter of agreement, and the no more Overseas work to be done. Sure the PS's have been reduced, but that's systemwide under the new maintenance program and replaced by the 0922. The A-checks were suppose to be eliminated except for emergencies, and no more ECO's, both of which increased. To think the company and company union had a big media event with the "working together," "we saved jobs," etc., banners in the background and nothings changed. 😱
I would post the letter of agreement but it appears that the twu is once again trying to rewrite history by eliminating just about anything prior to 2006 by way of a new website, with no links to the archives. The letter below mentions the real LOA.
http://www.twu562.org/INTLLTRApr2004.pdf
ch53D
Senior
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Messages
- 260
- Reaction score
- 3
Nope!!! Just stating the facts.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
So, even though the aircraft is sitting on the ground for eight hours (or longer), it shouldn't be inspected?
Question: what makes an inspection performed in the US safer than one performed by a licensed mechanic in Japan, Brazil, or England?
Question: what makes an inspection performed in the US safer than one performed by a licensed mechanic in Japan, Brazil, or England?
Good point FM
I am an AA technician based in the UK and have read this BS on here many times before. We are not stealing anybodies work, we are just doing our own job per the companies request. It's what I was employed to do. It has always been the same way in over 10 years that I have worked here.
If an aircraft needs an A check, whether it is on a 4 hour turnaround or it is a RON, it gets done. What's the big deal? We all work for the same company. We are entitled to the work as much as our US brothers are.
The A-checks and ECO's were always the problem, especially the ones that sit for more than 8 hours, some 24 to 36 hours stateside and get a 0922 or PS here, and an A check after it flies there. In terms of manpower, it might mean a few more heads recalled in JFK, DFW, and MIA to cover the checks as it is a nightly event.
To answer your question, I don't believe it was ever a safety question as opposed to a protecting our work for the fellow mechanics on the street. Once again, a PS or 0922 and a occassional emergency A-check due to another plane going OTS stateside and no one would complain. It might be different if the planes were based in a foreign hub and rarely made it stateside as opposed to seeing it daily.
Exactly. Except too many of your USA-based co-workers display a very disappointing case of xenophobia/jingoism/parochialism/nationalism when it comes to sharing some of the work with their non-citizen co-workers.
AA currently has about 342 active aircraft in the fleet (not counting the MD-80s); if each receives an A check once a week, that's about 17,800 A checks completed annually (not even counting the MD-80s).
And these guys are bitching and moaning about a mere 699 of them being performed somewhere else, by fellow employees of AA. That's just under FOUR percent of the non-MD-80 A checks.
The complainers seem to have misplaced their sense of perspective, IMO. No doubt there's lots of things worthy of complaint - but performing a mere 4% of the annual A checks on foreign soil (by AA employees, no less) isn't worthy of complaint.
The point is "brother" that you are not a "Brother". You are not in our union or our contract. Basically you are like a scab, someone doing union work who is not in the union.You are not "entitled" to anything unless you have a contract stating so. The company routing that work, OUR WORK, to you is a violation of the contract that we have.
Why not? They sometimes sit that long in a Class 1 station without an inspection.This is something new,prior to lowering standards for maintenance every plane was inspected, they at least got a PS. As AMFAMAN cited above, checks were reduced at stations like JFK, MIA , LAX etc, headcount was reduced, and the work gets done overseas instead.
Chuck Schalk
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2006
- Messages
- 1,042
- Reaction score
- 1,149
This raises two issues. First, the UK and other overseas stations are not part of our collective bargaining agreement and do not pay dues. The company uses them against us in the US.
Secondly, the company and the TWU do not include the checks by the UK and others as part of the outsourcing report because they have stated that they are AA employees. If you are not part of our collective bargaining agreement then it is outsourced work and should be included in the outsourcing report to be honest to the employees. We are continually divided within our union structure with the blessing of the TWU International. Overseas checks are scheduled ans sometimes intentionaly put overseas. The company can pretty much route any plane to where they want it to end up at the end of the day. I don't believe in the position of the union that the plane just happened to land there and need a check.
Secondly, the company and the TWU do not include the checks by the UK and others as part of the outsourcing report because they have stated that they are AA employees. If you are not part of our collective bargaining agreement then it is outsourced work and should be included in the outsourcing report to be honest to the employees. We are continually divided within our union structure with the blessing of the TWU International. Overseas checks are scheduled ans sometimes intentionaly put overseas. The company can pretty much route any plane to where they want it to end up at the end of the day. I don't believe in the position of the union that the plane just happened to land there and need a check.
I wouldn't call him a scab. A scab is someone who crosses a picket line in order to take a striker's job. This person is in the U.K. (which is much more union than the U.S.). The foreigners that are AA employees have their own unions in their own countries and they have their own collective bargaining agreements. When AA purchased the Eastern's Latin American routes and twa's LHR routes, the governments of those countries transfered the route authorities to AA on the condition that AA take the employees and honor their contract.
Bob and Chuck complaining that their Brit co-worker is a scab because he doesn't belong to the TWU is laughable.
Just yesterday (or the day before), Mr Owens admitted that he doesn't really belong to a union - it's just a dues collection agency that provides almost nothing in return. Now all of a sudden he's indignant that his co-workers in the UK (and elsewhere) don't belong to the The Worthless Union. 😀
Just keep 'em coming, Mr Owens.
Just yesterday (or the day before), Mr Owens admitted that he doesn't really belong to a union - it's just a dues collection agency that provides almost nothing in return. Now all of a sudden he's indignant that his co-workers in the UK (and elsewhere) don't belong to the The Worthless Union. 😀
Just keep 'em coming, Mr Owens.
ch53D
Senior
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Messages
- 260
- Reaction score
- 3
My problem is the company circumventing the contract/letter of agreement.
I don’t have a problem with AMT’s at LHR. AMT’s are needed for ETOP-2, inbound items and emergency checks at times when routing becomes an issue.
LHR’s numbers 2006 are as follows.
0922 – 794
A-CK – 366
ECO – 41
NFNF/Impact – 77
SIC – 14
The company is circumventing the system by having LHR doing checks on a daily bases.
Manning for these check’s per Mickey Wynn (Manager – Production Control) is as follows.
0922 – 2.5 hrs
A-CK – 20 hrs
PS – 6 hrs
The way I have added it up (giving manning on ECO’s, NFNF/Impact, and SIC’s 1 hrs manning) I’ve added it up to be 9437 hrs of manning or 4.53 AMT’s jobs.
As for the ECO’s that were accomplished at LHR in 2006. Don Videtich agreed with the company that LHR could do them. ECO B0872AA/AB was changing engine oil caps. I guess Don didn’t think we had the time state side to change them, even thou we had to remove the cap to fill the engine with oil per an ETOPS-1 check. Most of these A/C even had an over night stay/check in the US the night before.
Accomplishment of ECO B0872AA by station
JFK – 15
ORD – 17
DFW – 14
AFW – 10
LHR - 41
