- Aug 20, 2002
- 7,319
- 1,555
To take this back to the basics, you have to go back to 1983. That is when the major concessions started and have not stopped. The continuous raping of the AMT.
To take this back to the basics, you have to go back to 1983. That is when the major concessions started and have not stopped. The continuous raping of the AMT.
- Aug 20, 2002
- 7,319
- 1,555
odie01
Veteran
- May 11, 2010
- 1,321
- 473
Myself and several other mechanics enjoyed voting NO tonight! Thank you Bob for assembling almost all of the union presidents for a factual, easy to understand, video on the facts, or should I say gray areas, of this POS contract brought back by our company international twu. I can't believe we are voting on this crap!!!
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
So when AA outsources the CFPs or maybe even BCs at your station, will the AMTs working second jobs for Menzies, Jettcare, or CAS - if they get the contract - work on American planes?
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
- Aug 20, 2002
- 7,319
- 1,555
Rule 32 violation!
Peterson, Owens, and others have made valid points in regard to scope and job protection and the primary reason I hear on the floor for voting no. Bob raised the question as to why all job protection was eliminated and it has merit because even 50% would have been reasonable considering it would nearly match legacy personnel numbers and it's likely that in six years that's all that will be left anyway. It alone may be the deal killer for 51% ratification. TeAAm overspeed cannot understand that AA's fleet renewal and maintenance check extensions sought will dramatically reduce the need for personnel in the next several years, meaning saving jobs in only temporary. It's not the 45% total outsource number that's the problem, but, as Peterson has said it's the ever shrinking 100%. Yes vote or no vote, less maintenance equals less 100% "in any given year".
There are solutions that could actually save jobs by reducing the desire for AA to outsource through a more efficient operation on the bases, something manAAgement seems inept at doing even though they have the tools at their disposal. DWMS for real labor tracking (which is used inaccurately and never for accountability), state of the art equipment, and a trained workforce to name a few. I've spoken to many mechanics that are familiar with MRO operations and it seems reasonable that the measures they use could dramatically improve productivity at AA. Many MRO's assign jobs with a specific amount of time required to accomplish the task and if not fulfilled accountability is required. Starting the job late, taking pre and post breaks, extended lunches, and quitting early is not tolerated but all to common at AA. Clocking out requires all tools to be returned for the next shifts use. I understand life is difficult at MRO's, as many may soon see, but I believe AA is willing to pay a premium for control, availability, and quality. I'm not confident the proper steps will be taken that could improve our position in future negotiations. Early out or not I'm in the process of leaving after 22 years knowing that while AA may know how much we cost they will never know our value.
There are solutions that could actually save jobs by reducing the desire for AA to outsource through a more efficient operation on the bases, something manAAgement seems inept at doing even though they have the tools at their disposal. DWMS for real labor tracking (which is used inaccurately and never for accountability), state of the art equipment, and a trained workforce to name a few. I've spoken to many mechanics that are familiar with MRO operations and it seems reasonable that the measures they use could dramatically improve productivity at AA. Many MRO's assign jobs with a specific amount of time required to accomplish the task and if not fulfilled accountability is required. Starting the job late, taking pre and post breaks, extended lunches, and quitting early is not tolerated but all to common at AA. Clocking out requires all tools to be returned for the next shifts use. I understand life is difficult at MRO's, as many may soon see, but I believe AA is willing to pay a premium for control, availability, and quality. I'm not confident the proper steps will be taken that could improve our position in future negotiations. Early out or not I'm in the process of leaving after 22 years knowing that while AA may know how much we cost they will never know our value.
BigMac
Veteran
And why should I believe Bobs videos when there are ones like these? (sarcasm)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xQTBE1R_ns&feature=youtube_gdata_player
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xQTBE1R_ns&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
It's a little bit better than the oldest profession. Just kidding.
High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
Hey, I recognize that sign. That is the same sign 565 brought to Tulsa when they stood outside our base promoting a No vote on the 2010 TA. Boy now that was a brilliant move, bet those fellas wish they could change the outcome of that little brain fart. "NOT"
This should prove only that your members better take a hard long look at this LBO. I already voted, not on emotion but by understanding the broad spectrum of our situation and the impact of my decision to my family. So I say settle down and make the best decision for you and your family...
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #149
What "agreement"?
What I see is an ultimatum where they are using fear and the promise of jobs being saved to try and get 50% +1 to submit. They fail to mention that the language thats being put and and taken out put many more at risk and does not save any jobs.
Hopeful
Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 5,998
- 347
