TWU Screw is about to be implemented

[jimntx]

Speaking as an "outsider", it appears that the same is true for the M&R LBFO that is true for our flight attendant LBFO...we are screwed either way--term sheet or LBFO--voting YES was nothing more than giving the company permission to do it.

 

[FWAAA]

You are partially correct. The 4 lines of maint in Dal will be about 1/4 (25%) of our outsourced heavy maint. SWA has always been between 65-75% for years and years. While we were teamsters for well over 25 years, they "NEVER" had a limit for outsourcing out of the country, NEVER. This is what allowed the co. to go to Elsolvador. NOT AMFA people. In fact once AMFA took over they actually were successfull in getting limits installed to force the co. limits to 4 lines performed at only "ONE" location. AND every sec 6 they have to ask to continue the 4 lines over seas. It was in fact the teamsters that were the very first to allow outsourcing over seas.

Then I stand corrected. I got my numbers from an article where WN said that the four lines at Aeroman represented about 20% of WN's outsourced heavy checks. That would mean that WN outsources about 20 lines, four to El Salvador and 16 to domestic MROs. Add in the four at DAL and that's where I got the total of 24 total heavy lines, four in-house and 20 outsourced.

Southwest says quality and turn-times on the lead aircraft of a new line of Boeing 737s serviced by El Salvador-based Aeroman are thoroughly justifying the airline's decision to move work south of the US border. "The fact that aircraft are coming back in the condition they are, the span and the labour plan, has done nothing but support our position in the first place," says Gregg Brown, manager of airfield frame services for Southwest.

Aeroman started performing Y checks in a single maintenance line for Southwest inJuly and the third Boeing 737-300 is close to completion. Y checks are performed every two years. Brown says the carrier plans to have four lines in place by the end of 2010, the maximum allowed by its contract with the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association, the union which represents Southwest mechanics. He says four lines at Aeroman will represent about 20% of Southwest's outsourced maintenance.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/maintenance-outsourcing-emerging-appeal-334031/

By your numbers, it is four lines at DAL and 16 outsourced, four at Aeroman and 12 at domestic MROs. So WN outsources 75% of its heavy checks (not the 83% I computed). In any event, the outsource limit at WN is weaker than at US or AA.

 

[WorldTraveler]

US caps outsourcing at 50% and WN has the four lines at DAL, which is about one-sixth of WN's heavy checks. WN outsources four lines to Aeroman in El Salvador and, according to AMFA, WN has another 16 or so lines at domestic MROs. That means that WN outsources about 83% of its heavy checks.

regardless of what some people want to assert, US outsourced 57.8% of the value of its total maintenance spending in 2011 compared with 59% for WN.

http://web.mit.edu/a...ww/default.html

AA's outsourcing % has been stable between 22-25% for more than a decade and remains the lowest among US carriers. IF the goal is for AA to have similar levels of outsourcing as the average for the US industry, AA could move to 50% and be right in line with the majority of the rest of the US industry.

 

[FWAAA]

regardless of what some people want to assert, US outsourced 57.8% of the value of its total maintenance spending in 2011 compared with 59% for WN.

Context is everything. My post was in response to an erroneous assertion by Overspeed that the US CBA had no limit on outsourced maintenance. In response, I repeated 700UW's line that the US contract limits outsourcing to 50%.

As my discussion about WN was about outsourced heavy overhaul, it's no big revelation that WN's total outsourced maintenance spending is much less than the 83% of heavy maintenance (or 75% if SWAMT's numbers are correct) as WN performs most all of its line maintenance in-house.

 

[700UW]

US/IAM CBA has a maximum of 50% of billable hours allowed to be outsourced, I have posted the article in the CBA before.

Buying parts etc, doesnt count.
(J) Company base maintenance employees will perform fifty
17 (50%) percent or greater of all aircraft base maintenance work,
18 inclusive of narrow and wide-body aircraft, as follows: On an
19 annualized basis, for every billable hour of work from aircraft base
20 maintenance vendors performing Company base maintenance
21 work; modification work; scheduled drop in maintenance; and any
22 drop-in maintenance relating to fuselage damage or any other
23 damage, there will be an equal or greater number of paid hours to
24 Company base maintenance employees. This includes Company
25 Lead Mechanics, Mechanics, Inspectors, Utility and Lead Utility
26 (combined) assigned to base maintenance.
27
28 Deck work for vendor heavy maintenance overhaul will
29 continue to be built by Base Maintenance Planners.
30
31 All aircraft line maintenance work, including phase
32 checks and lower level checks above a daily check (e.g. A & B
33 checks, overnight checks, weekly checks and unscheduled drop in
34 maintenance), preformed by base maintenance employees will not
35 be included as Company base maintenance hours for the purposes
36 of this provision.
37
38 Livery work may be outsourced and the billable hours do
39 not count as base maintenance work, but other work performed by
40 the vendor during the livery visit may be outsourced and the
41 billable hours for such other work will count towards base
42 maintenance work.
43
44Aircraft lease return maintenance visits may be
45 outsourced and the vendor’s billable hours will count towards base
46 maintenance work.
to the union and/or the union’s advisor, documentation
3 necessary to verify the Company’s compliance with outsourcing
4 provisions including a summary of the previous calendar year’s
5 base maintenance paid hours and vendor airframe base
6 maintenance billed hours. On an ongoing basis the Company will
7 provide to the Union no later than the end of the following month a
8 summary of the previous month’s base maintenance vendor’s
9 billable hours including tail numbers of the aircraft.
10
11 In any year where the vendor billed hours are more than
12 fifty (50%) percent of the total combined vendor billed hours and
13 the Company base maintenance paid hours, such deficit hours will
14 be added to the current calendar year required company base
15 maintenance paid hours.
16
17 The Company will not furlough to the street any Base
18 Mechanic who is active as of the effective date of this agreement
19 provided such employee exercises their seniority to the fullest
20 extent. (Subject to force majeure provisions as described in Article
21 5.F and 20.D.2)
In any year where the vendor billed hours are more than
12 fifty (50%) percent of the total combined vendor billed hours and
13 the Company base maintenance paid hours, such deficit hours will
14 be added to the current calendar year required company base
15 maintenance paid hours.
16
17 The Company will not furlough to the street any Base
18 Mechanic who is active as of the effective date of this agreement
19 provided such employee exercises their seniority to the fullest
20 extent. (Subject to force majeure provisions as described in Article
21 5.F and 20.D.2)
22 The Company shall maintain a minimum headcount of six
23 hundred seventy-five (675) active Base Maintenance Lead
24 Mechanics, Mechanics, Inspectors, Lead Utility and Utility
25 employees combined. (Subject to force majeure provisions as
26 described in Article 5.F and 20.D.2.)
27
28 The Company may continue to outsource the East 737
29 scribe work ongoing and such work will count towards the vendor
30 hours for the fifty (50%) percent calculation.

 

[swamt]

Then I stand corrected. I got my numbers from an article where WN said that the four lines at Aeroman represented about 20% of WN's outsourced heavy checks. That would mean that WN outsources about 20 lines, four to El Salvador and 16 to domestic MROs. Add in the four at DAL and that's where I got the total of 24 total heavy lines, four in-house and 20 outsourced.


http://www.flightglo...-appeal-334031/

By your numbers, it is four lines at DAL and 16 outsourced, four at Aeroman and 12 at domestic MROs. So WN outsources 75% of its heavy checks (not the 83% I computed). In any event, the outsource limit at WN is weaker than at US or AA.

FWAAA, I must also correct myself a little. The numbers I posted were for "heavy maint." only. We do have paint lines and very few line maint outsourced. However we still do almost all of our line maint in house, which will become even lower when Denver fires up Oct 1st 2012.

I also don't wanna mislead the fact that our 4th line has not started in Dallas yet. It is currently slotted for no later than July 2013. SWA is hiring between 5-10 mechs off the street each month until July 2013. But, I would like to clerify that the up to 200 added mechs are on top of the slotted numbers for the 4th line. Someone has already called me to correct my up to 200 stating it is more like 140-160, that will be added for the extra maint we will have to start doing since we bought out AT----Thank you again AT. Hope this helps. As a reminder guys, keep checking southwest.com daily for added positions. They go up and come down rather quickly. I have also heard some more AA'ers have passed their test and have interviews later this month. Good luck to you guys and I hope you all can have a smoothe transition without any gaps in employment. We are not the most perfect airline, but it is the only airline I would want to work for, including UPS...

 

[WorldTraveler]

and yet, 700, US has exceeded 50% of total maintenance spend since 2005. Does the IAM not know about and check these government statistics that are based on data that US provides?

 

[700UW]

Your not getting it, the cap is on vendor billable hours, parts buying etc doesnt count.

Read the language I posted, and if they go over hours are added back in-house.

And the TA wasnt done in 2005, it was effective in 2008.

The formula isnt total maintenance spend, its billable vendor hours, for example, power by the hour is in the spend, but not vendor billable hours, buying parts and supplies is in total spend, but not in vendor billable hours. Line maintenance costs are in total spend yet are not part of billable hours.

How can someone with your vast knowledge not understand this concept? (note sarcasm)

 

[Realityck]

FWAAA, I must also correct myself a little. The numbers I posted were for "heavy maint." only. We do have paint lines and very few line maint outsourced. However we still do almost all of our line maint in house, which will become even lower when Denver fires up Oct 1st 2012.

I also don't wanna mislead the fact that our 4th line has not started in Dallas yet. It is currently slotted for no later than July 2013. SWA is hiring between 5-10 mechs off the street each month until July 2013. But, I would like to clerify that the up to 200 added mechs are on top of the slotted numbers for the 4th line. Someone has already called me to correct my up to 200 stating it is more like 140-160, that will be added for the extra maint we will have to start doing since we bought out AT----Thank you again AT. Hope this helps. As a reminder guys, keep checking southwest.com daily for added positions. They go up and come down rather quickly. I have also heard some more AA'ers have passed their test and have interviews later this month. Good luck to you guys and I hope you all can have a smoothe transition without any gaps in employment. We are not the most perfect airline, but it is the only airline I would want to work for, including UPS...

Things seem to be deteriorating at SWA - Excerpt from AMFA website notice:



AIRCRAFT MECHANICS FRATERNAL ASSOCIATION

AMFA Local 11 ● 1420 W. Mockingbird Lane, Suite 285 ● Dallas, TX 75247 PHONE 214-366-4546 ● FAX 214-366-4546


Final and Binding

Dear Members our Company Leaders recent decision not to honor an arbitration ruling, (SWA -2587) that favored the Union is and should be a matter of great concern. The processes involved in Negotiating contracts requires a certain level of trust between the two parties, the idea being that both parties negotiate in good faith and subsequently honor all the negotiated language/agreements.

Over the past couple of years it has become clear that the Company is not playing fair. Southwest Airlines has a unique advantage over the AMFA covered employees, that whenever they choose they can and have ignored the terms of our CBA and the Union is left with no other option than to follow the grievance process. The slow and cumbersome process favors the Company; while the employees are denied certain negotiated rights the company realizes synergies i.e. cost savings. The monetary gains of the Company are at the direct expense of the employees, for example.

The Company has failed to meet its obligation to start a fourth line of maintenance within the specified time line agreed to in our CBA. A promise they made in order to gain our consent for international outsourcing.

Our Company is currently practicing an attendance policy that causes employees undue stress when they have the misfortune of becoming ill or injured. Per our CBA any employee who is legitimately sick or injured may take sick leave with pay. However per the new Company policy, if this should happen four times or nine days within a twelve month period the employee will automatically receive a disciplinary letter, notwithstanding the employee providing a legitimate Doctors note.

Southwest Airlines Leadership experienced several victories over the Union via the arbitration process, a process negotiated within the guidelines of the Railway Labor Act, and agreed to by both parties. The Company won the Holiday movement arbitration, a ruling that diminished our earning opportunities and saved the company money. The Company won the crown skin arbitration; they successfully outsourced work that is customarily ours. The Company won the Laptop arbitration, again successfully outsourcing work that is customarily ours.

During the month of May 2011 the Company experienced a rare loss via arbitration regarding the filling of temporary vacancies within the inspection classification. Within days of the ruling Company leadership began asking the Union for relief from the ruling, the Union politely said no. The Company next made it known to the Inspectors that if the Union did not provide relief the Company might abolish positions within the inspection classification; only weeks after adding twelve new positions. Now twelve months later our Company Leadership has decided to reinterpret the plain language of the Arbitrators ruling, creating the exact same dispute that originally drove the grievance (SWA – 2587) to arbitration.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I get the concept quite well.

Do you think that the division of expenses that US has given you are significantly different than at any other airline?

You tout a measure which results in a level of outsourcing that is not surpassed by any other network carrier and is comparable with WN which has used outsourced maintenance as the basis of its operation since the beginning.

Forgive me if I'm not wowed by the accomplishment... or hold it out as a standard that any other airline, including AA, should want to attain to.

 

[Bob Owens]

That's a legitimate document. To keep things in perspective this is the plan based on the new CBA, if the 3/22 term sheet had been implemented pretty much all airframe overhaul would be gone and the Base cuts more severe. So when you hear the CBA saved jobs it is in the context of what could have been.

Now the HC numbers in this document are based off the Jan 2012 HC so any attrition would reduce the total RIFs. Another offset to the RIF impact would be the EO and SiS. The RIF number would further be reduced by that number as well. Being realistic, there will be people RIF'd.

No one in the TWU Int'l has said this was a great CBA but it is the best at mitigating the job reductions had the 3/22 term sheet been implemented. Yes we will lose more HC when the new fleet impact hits but keep in mind, if there are no LC/HC's to do because they are new, that means the outsourcing 35% of nothing is nothing. When those aircraft get older, AA will have to bring 65% of that maintenance spend in-house. No other CBA has language like that. UA/CO and US CBA's have no cap on outsourcing. WN locks in a certain amount of lines and a minimum HC of 2.75 per aircraft regardless of work volume.

Pretty much all of airframe would have been gone? Where? It would take time to find places to do all that work and not too many places are looking to gear up for MD-80 work, capacity is tight and with Pemco or whoever that was closing shop it just got tighter.

The CBA didnt mitigate squat and you know it, we destroyed all the jobs. Had the CBA been abrogated the headcount wouldnt have gone down any more than it will now. The language lets them outsource as much as they can under current market conditions, they probably wont even use the 35%, after all our wages are so low its probably not worth it even if they found places to do it.

While the outsourcing of 35% of nothing is nothing, along with the maintenance holiday there goes all the jobs you claimed you saved thanks to the fact we lost system protection. In other words they can continue to outsource 35% as the total pie shrinks and eliminate more and more of the jobs that we destroyed the profession for. As new planes come on line thats work we never did, most likely part of the exclusions that the contract mentions that are not considered part of the spend and there is nothing forcing them to bring back any OH as you caim. They can also do like WN and now UAL is starting and have heavier phase checks on the line, which would bring up the spend on the line and allow AA to outsource all their airframe overhaul anywhere in the world. I notice you dont say much about how WN can outsource overseas anymore, they have restrictions, the only restriction we have is the 35% plus exclusions, of the total maintenance spend so there really is no limit on how much AO they can outsource overseas. UAL has language that the NBs can only be outsourced Domestically, that brings up costs and is driving the work back in house, AA can search the whole world for the cheapest rates thanks to you. That work will likely never come back to Tulsa once it goes out and you know it. AA could easily stay within the 65% on Line Maint, DWH OH, Taesl, plus parts once the MD-80s and 757s are gone. And if Taesl goes away the cap jumps upto at least 45%, plus exclusions.

The fact is the language in the CBA isnt that restrictive as far as shipping out OH. 100% of OH can be shipped out if it only comes out to whatever the 'accordingly' figure would be if they close Taesl.

In negotiations the company agreed that the TWU would work anything AA flew, but they didnt say we would do all the work, or that the new aircraft would fall under the outsourcing formula. In other words if we work on them on the Line they have kept their word, nothing in the contract says we will do the OH. You claim that the 65% language will force them to bring OH work in house, thats stretching it. They have to keep 65% of the spend in house, but thats not 65% of the labor spend, its 65% of the total spend, including parts. So even if new aircraft did fall under the formula there is a very good possibility that by the time those aircraft need AO that there will be places overseas with even cheaper labor than even Tulsa is willing to provide that can do the work so cheaply that all the AO would be outsourced, and doesnt that drive most of the heads? AA wanted system protection for a reason, they offered 95% of the pilots system protection but they offered us nothing.

So despite the way you try and spin things the fact is there is no cap on outsourcing OH. There is a cap on Line Maint, 15% but if they can manage to outsource all of OH without it going over the 35% of Total Maint spend-including parts, then their is nothing in our language stopping them. You claim that other carriers have no limits, I beleieve you are wrong. USAIR is said to have a cap of 50% of OH HOURS billed, thats much more restrictive than our language, You keep bringing up WN, but WN didnt lay off people to outsource, they always outsourced, even when they were making less than us. If anything, as they have grown they've brought more work in, but not at the expense of wages and benefits. The Union didnt get us our jobs, we all got hired through our own efforts, I expect my dues to go towards maximizing pay and benefits for us, not to discount my labor so AA can hire more dues payers in the future.

 

[Buck]

Things seem to be deteriorating at SWA - Excerpt from AMFA website notice:



AIRCRAFT MECHANICS FRATERNAL ASSOCIATION

AMFA Local 11 ● 1420 W. Mockingbird Lane, Suite 285 ● Dallas, TX 75247 PHONE 214-366-4546 ● FAX 214-366-4546


Final and Binding

Dear Members our Company Leaders recent decision not to honor an arbitration ruling, (SWA -2587) that favored the Union is and should be a matter of great concern. The processes involved in Negotiating contracts requires a certain level of trust between the two parties, the idea being that both parties negotiate in good faith and subsequently honor all the negotiated language/agreements.

Over the past couple of years it has become clear that the Company is not playing fair. Southwest Airlines has a unique advantage over the AMFA covered employees, that whenever they choose they can and have ignored the terms of our CBA and the Union is left with no other option than to follow the grievance process. The slow and cumbersome process favors the Company; while the employees are denied certain negotiated rights the company realizes synergies i.e. cost savings. The monetary gains of the Company are at the direct expense of the employees, for example.

The Company has failed to meet its obligation to start a fourth line of maintenance within the specified time line agreed to in our CBA. A promise they made in order to gain our consent for international outsourcing.

Our Company is currently practicing an attendance policy that causes employees undue stress when they have the misfortune of becoming ill or injured. Per our CBA any employee who is legitimately sick or injured may take sick leave with pay. However per the new Company policy, if this should happen four times or nine days within a twelve month period the employee will automatically receive a disciplinary letter, notwithstanding the employee providing a legitimate Doctors note.

Southwest Airlines Leadership experienced several victories over the Union via the arbitration process, a process negotiated within the guidelines of the Railway Labor Act, and agreed to by both parties. The Company won the Holiday movement arbitration, a ruling that diminished our earning opportunities and saved the company money. The Company won the crown skin arbitration; they successfully outsourced work that is customarily ours. The Company won the Laptop arbitration, again successfully outsourcing work that is customarily ours.

During the month of May 2011 the Company experienced a rare loss via arbitration regarding the filling of temporary vacancies within the inspection classification. Within days of the ruling Company leadership began asking the Union for relief from the ruling, the Union politely said no. The Company next made it known to the Inspectors that if the Union did not provide relief the Company might abolish positions within the inspection classification; only weeks after adding twelve new positions. Now twelve months later our Company Leadership has decided to reinterpret the plain language of the Arbitrators ruling, creating the exact same dispute that originally drove the grievance (SWA – 2587) to arbitration.

And you are telling a group of TWU represented employees this for a reason. We have had the company tell our union how it is going to be for years.

 

[Realityck]

And you are telling a group of TWU represented employees this for a reason. We have had the company tell our union how it is going to be for years.

What I'm telling you is don't fall for all the SWA BS you're hearing from the AMFA believers. Management is management and the SWA AMT's (and AMFA) are getting a taste of it. Welcome to the real world.

 

[odie01]

What I'm telling you is don't fall for all the SWA BS you're hearing from the AMFA believers. Management is management and the SWA AMT's (and AMFA) are getting a taste of it. Welcome to the real world.

Hey Realdyc,
I personally know several senior mechanics at SWA, and a few others that quit AA recently and went to work for SWA. None of them have any complaints with AMFA. Hell, we had SWA mechanics at our AMFA meeting in Dallas a few weeks ago..A craft union for skilled mechanics is the Real World.

 

[Realityck]

Hey Realdyc,
I personally know several senior mechanics at SWA, and a few others that quit AA recently and went to work for SWA. None of them have any complaints with AMFA. Hell, we had SWA mechanics at our AMFA meeting in Dallas a few weeks ago..A craft union for skilled mechanics is the Real World.

You mean they all believe they died and went to heaven. Give me a break. Their management isn't far behind our management and if you think differently, you are gullible.