Tex-Mech
Veteran
I'll give you one reason of by voting no you prevent the massive expansion of regional flying that has a loophole in it that you can fly an RJ fleet through. A couple of dollars isn't worth anything if you are unemployed.
High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
Good point Tex-Mech. I've noticed the proposed ASM adjustment and this does cause some concern.
Tex-Mech
Veteran
The loophole is the routes that both AA and AE fly on does not count against the cap. It doesn't say anything about existing shared routes, so it could apply to just about all domestic routes, not to mention Canada and Mexico if AA flys one flight a day on that route.
High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
I appreciate the insight Tex, but I'm still uncertain what we will gain with a no vote. I believe there would be few adjustments before we would see this POS again....I'm still undecided as what the heck to do, maybe after some more info from the Union I can come to terms with what I should do.
What you get with a No Vote:
1) Every M&R TWU Member retains their Contractual Retiree Health Insurance on the same terms and at the same cost;
2) Every M&R TWU Member retains the contractual right to transfer from line to overhaul and vice-versa because there is not a new classification created;
3) Every M&R TWU Member retains the contractual right to bid and be awarded a Crew Chief position that has a six-month probation before becoming permanent;
4) Every M&R TWU Member retains the contractual right to restrict the ASM ratio between AA and AE, and retain the job they occupy without an indefinite recall period;
5) Every M&R TWU Member retains the contractual right to keep the cost basis between Line and Base close enough to NOT INCENTIVIZE the spin-off of Overhaul;
6) Every M&R TWU Member retains the contractual right to restrict hiring per the FAR 66 Language;
7) Every M&R TWU Member retains the contractual right to refuse suggestions that improve work process and productivity unless and until AMR recognizes the mutual need for compensation as a result of those efforts.
What it seems that most really want:
1) Most of the M&R TWU Members want to be told that they are going to be OK, despite the fact that they know this TA needs to be voted down;
2) Most of the M&R TWU Members want to be given absolute positive outcome assurances for any given set of outcomes despite the fact that no one in the TWU ATD at AA has ever shown how far they are willing to go for anything BETTER;
3) Most of the M&R TWU Members talked smack about the '03 Concessinations, but did nothing over the next seven years to enable any of them to walk the talk;
4) Most of the M&R TWU Members want to take whatever the company gives them, and the Union tells them they should accept, without bothering to do anything that requires them to become accountable for those decisions while retaining the right to complain.
) Every M&R TWU Member retains the contractual right to transfer from line to overhaul and vice-versa because there is not a new classification created;
is that right i couldn't transfer to overhaul ?
wow boomer you made some good points
is that right i couldn't transfer to overhaul ?
wow boomer you made some good points
If the current M&R TA creates another classification that is not an AMT position: we cannot know that we would be allowed to transfer into that position without adeaquate language
With so many sections of the current M&R TA to be negotiated after we "ratify" that TA: who knows what could or could not happen.
In the 1995 contract, the TWU represented that we had contractual language for station staffing: in the BWI/CLE arbitration case we learned that M&R staffing for TWU members at AA was subject only to AA determining the need for that station to be staffed.
Go back to the history of, "We'll Get'em Next Time."
Rememeber the "Me Too Clause", remember the "Force Majeur", remember "Without Further Ratification"?
Anyone that takes the wording of a TWU contract as being the final say on their contractual relationship would do well to take every Article as considered by what it actually states; only if it states that AMR and AA shall not be allowed to do X,Y and/or Z should you trust that any article is actually enforceable.
I'll take the hit for saying that transfer from line to overhaul and overhaul to line will be lost because under the TWU I have learned that anything that results in a greater gain for AA and a loss for the TWU represented member usually becomes true.
Conversly, I know that under the current CBA, if there is an opening .in overhaul and I am the senior AMT applying for the position: I go.
The current TA does contain a new Title I classification.
SMA is the new classification, same rate of pay as an OSM but they get paid for one license.
I see this as a big threat to OH.
Lets say you have 1000 mechs in OH, currently they are limited 25% OSMs for Title 1, the new language adds the SMA with a limit on the Docks to 20% of AMTs. One is limited to a ratio of Title I on the whole base and the other is limited to a ratio of AMT's in a particular work area. It wouldnt add up to 45% but it would add up to more than 25%.
Out of the 1000 Title I you could have 250 OSMs, that would leave 750, if 700 of them are AMTs on the docks you could end up with 140 SMAs
250 + 140 =390
They could end up having 39% of the workforce at the OSM/SMA pay rates, pretty much Timco rates. These are very rough numbers but the point is they could end up with numbers that far exceed the current 25% cap of very low paid mechanics and the traffic would be one way-out of the bases, for AMTs if this goes through.
Supposedly that language is to be changed but from what I read thats how it is now.
They are supposed to ramp up to that 20% through attrition, just like 1995. Only thing is the AMTs will have to go out to the line this time.
Base mechanics may be reassigned to the line.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 587
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,767
To all members:
Your Negotiations Committee has finished the TA language and will have it available to you on the website, and in printed media by July 1st or earlier. This will enable you to review it prior to the informational meetings.
The first of the informational meetings will be held at the regularly scheduled Shop Stewards meeting July 12, 2010, 07:15, 11:45, and 15:45.
These meetings will be held at the Union Hall, 11929 East Pine.
Meeting Dates
CRO - 7/13
Facilities - 7/15
PALM - 7/19
AO 5&6 - 7/20
AO 3&4 - 7/21
AO 1&2 - 7/22
Stores -7/23
Meeting Times 07:00, 11:00, 16:00
ASM or SMA, means Airframe Support Mechanic, or Support Mech Airframe. Same thing.Just call them Permanent Junior Mechanic, maybe unlicensed, and working on the AO Dock right next to the AMT. Its one facet of Mgmt's Divide and Conquer Plan.
The Co. should have called them MROM's. Maintenance Repair Organization Mechanics, as they will be paid MRO wages. Then the Co. can bring back the 3rd Party Work and crack the whip at the SMA folks.
Not a good thing, if you are an AMT, as the Co. will not have incentive to hire AMT's off the street.
They will just make OSM into an SMA and go for it. Take a topped out OSM and give him some skill pay, then rename to SMA.
Who knows, the new job title just might even qualify for the Co. to get some subsidy from the Quality Jobs Act, just like the old SRP jobs.
That means even lower labor costs for the Co.
The bean counter Managers will love it, as their new bar charts will get a new look. Of course there will be a need for more Supervisors as well, to enforce discipline on the peasants who screw up the airplane. This will be a nighmare for the Shop Stewards.
I can see it all now, a new round of bonuses just for them, while the SMA guy sweats it out in the hangar as we all suffer uinder the new concessionary contract.
Too bad for the Spartan students, as the AMT dream job at AA will go up in smoke.
Just Vote NO.
The question on my mind is if we are all willing to pay the price of a No vote. That is, NMB says go to the back of the line and we will get to you in 2011. Without retro that is another free six months for AA under the current contract. And if we'll get better results after all that is doubtful, barring a big turn around in AA's financial situation.
Similar threads
