The way I see it, all the other work groups are getting the industry pay survey at the 3 year mark into the contract. Stands to reason, AMTs would be given that option as well. By that time, it will have to be a 4 or 5 dollar per hour raise!
Wages or jobs
- Thread starter Hopeful
- Start date
The way I see it, all the other work groups are getting the industry pay survey at the 3 year mark into the contract. Stands to reason, AMTs would be given that option as well. By that time, it will have to be a 4 or 5 dollar per hour raise!
D
Deleted member 14439
Guest
Thats another reason we won't get squat. We have an impotent union and a ceo bent on cutting employees to the bone. I'd like to think otherwise but I'm pretty sure we are screwed.
AA89
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2010
- Messages
- 690
- Reaction score
- 320
If the goal of the company is to get a consensual agreement then obviously there has to be enough yes votes from either the line or overhaul above the LBO. I can't see the company paying the line guys close to industry average without further screwing of OH and I can't see saving jobs and or lessening OSM numbers at OH without further screwing the line guys. Unless they plan on sweetening the pot this vote will fail.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,550
- Reaction score
- 3,731
I predict the Mechanic and Related group will be the last group standing without a consensual agreement unless James C Little shoves one down our throats. And now that his trusty Teamsters alliance in running interference for him he might be stupid enough to try that one.
I wouldn't assume that all the yes voters can be counted as yes voters for a slightly modified version of the LBO either, (or "latest Offer" as the company changed it to after it was rejected, tack that up as another lie, it wasnt the last and certainly wasnt the best). In court a lot of info that the members should have known before being forced to vote was revealed, such as;
-the fact that they were demanding $1.25 billion in labor cost savings so they could make $3 billion in profits, in other words without touching any of the labor costs, other changes in BK would have enabled them to seek $1.75 billion a year in profits, making them the most profitable airline out there.
-the fact that the company admitted that they were asking an extra $40 million a year from us that they did not even need. They said they were asking for the extra money because even though we are already at the bottom of the industry they wanted to match the percentage that they were asking from other groups.
-they admitted that they have not even put the work they want to outsource out for bids, they have no idea, only a guess, on what it would cost them if they did outsource 4600 jobs.
-the company decided that our portion of the ASK was $212 million, they claimed that our contract put them at a labor cost disadvantage of around $140 million during negotiations. Despite the fact that we didnt get raises (and everyone else did) it somehow went up to $170 million. To make things even worse the company wasnt asking M&R for a "Labor cost savings" of $212 million, they were demanding a "Total Cost" savings of $212 million despite the fact that competitors had achieved the so called labor cost advantage by outsourcing. AA wasnt demanding a level playing field by matching labor costs they were demanding that we fund a competitive advantage by reducing Total costs to address what they claimed was a Labor Cost disadvantage. AA deducted what they guessed they would pay vendors from the formula. In other words in order to achieve the Total Cost savings of $212 million we would have had to outsource well over $500 million of Labor Costs, (vendor costs would rise by at least $280 million) leaving AA with at least a $360million cost advantage over competitors. All of that would have come at our expense and that would pretty much pay the entire Profit sharing that they predicted. In other words we would be funding the profit sharing for everyone else by working for way, waay below industry Market rates.
I think that if many of the YES voters had such information they would have realized that we would need at least $3/hr increase in pay just to reach the bottom of the Airline industry, along with at least Double Time for Holidays, and double the amount of Holidays, an extra week of Vacation across the board, double the sick time and other things that we gaved up that nobody else did. I think that many were afraid that by rejecting it 4600 people would have lost their jobs by June 7, and if they had known that the company was not ready to send that work out, that what they were asking for was excessive and unneeded that their vote would have been NO. Having seen what has happened since allowed the fear to subside desite the best efforts of the Tulsa Media, Tulsa Chamber of Commerce, the Company and some within our ranks and the mindset that we are worth just as much as the guys at UAL, Jet Blue, and Delta no longer seems extreme.
I was chastized for making the statement that, regardless of this sham BK, with $4 billion and climbing in the bank along with secured financing for over 500 new airplanes thatwe should not accept anything less than what UAL has, I still feel that way. (By the way the UAL deal becomes amendable next Summer.) We know that regardless of the deal we sign our numbers will decline, just as they did from 2003 to 2010 despite giving more outside BK than our peers lost in BK. As old planes go away so will the jobs they drove, but we also know that time waits for no man, just as the planes go away so will we, one retirement at a time. If the reduction in work outpaces normal attrition then the company always has the option to approach the Union with a buyout offering.
Don't give up anything to save jobs, AA could do away with OH, B checks, and line stations now, and are choosing to keep it all, because they know we can do it cheaper and better then anybody else. The line mechs see the quality of work coming from contractors, and it's not near the quality of our own mechs.
IMO the company never had any intentions on outsourcing nearly as much as they were threatening, the fact that they did not have RFPs for the work and we know that capacity is tight due in part to the fact that MROs are having trouble recruiting workers and AA's own track record of bringing more work in house than they were contractually required to. What I feel AA was trying to do was bluff us into paying for our own concessions. They were trying to get us to negotiate even lower wages to give the company what they wanted anyway, to keep the work in house at much much lower costs than competitors. Thats why they only used their estimated Domestic vendor rates,despite the fact they would likely be outsourcing what they may end up outsourcing overseas, instead of foreign rates. By doing this it made the value of outsourcing less as far as total costs and pressured negotiators to give up more by way of work rules, benifits and pay than by outsourcing. If they truly wanted to outsource as much as they claimed they would have made the numbers more appealing and not added in assumptions that inflated vendor costs as well as exclude foreign shops(The kicker is that with our reduced pay and benifits it made it even harder to achieve the total cost savings through outsourcing, in other words, once again we screwed ourselves back in 2003 by agreeing to give away so much outside of BK. By working for so little it made it harder to achieve the total savings the company was demanding.)
From 2003 to 2010 we saw our headcount reduced by around 5000 people, by 2010 they started hiring again, that means that attrition exceeded 5000. More than likely the attrition rate will accellerate over the companys proposed term, so figure even if the 4600 were a real number nearly all of them would have left through retirement or resignation. IMO AA does plan on reducing the overall number, but they also plan on hiring new hires, at least thats what they have been telling the kids in A&P school. (Thats why they offered the early out, so they could hire more OSMs which would replace top paid AMTS. AA could hire kids direct from school and they would be on a 10 year progression to AMTs(assuming AA could retain them). The company could net well over $30,000 in savings the first year alone, which would pay for the buyout, probably close to $200,000 by the time the replacement OSM makes it to top pay as an AMT. In other words AA would have given us $30 to $40K so they could net $170,000 to $160,000 in savings per worker that accepts the early out in addition to the savings from the other concessions, and we got zero credit for those savings as well. Even if they had matched UALs $75 K buyout they still would save a pile of money.
Thats why although a buyout may be desireable the fact is the company will only offer it if it saves them money, why should we bargain away something of value, such as pay and benifits for those who remain, to allow the company to get guys who are leaving to screw us as they walk out the door with a buyout thats only pennies on the dollar for what they gave the company?
From 2003 to 2010 AA was able to cut M&R labor costs by around $500 million NOT COUNTING THE COMPENSATION RELATED CONCESSIONS. The Compensation related Concessions would be in addition to that. Just as we got ZERO credit for the additional job losses beyond those who were laid off through the roll back of system protection the company gave ZERO credit for job losses that would be associated with outsourcing all Airbus and 787 work. Contractually we have no claim to that work, and we did not have any claim to it in the LBO either. According to statements in court thats at least 3000 more jobs that could have been eliminated by 2018 had we accepted the LBO.Those two items could be used to negotiate more concessions in 2018, or 2022 or whenever it suited the company to offer to extend 2018 to 2028 in exchange for language to do that work at sub-sub standard wages and benifits of course.
BK may not be the best place to take a stand but sometimes you cant pick the place, you just have to do it. We can not agree to come out of this without a deal that places us among our peers and it has to do so on DOS. We would need at least $3/hr increase just to hit the bottom,(not counting USAIR because they are working under an amendable deal-do we really want to partener with another COE who wont deal with mechanics?) just to get back to where we were in 2003 not counting the additional $2/hr in increased medical costs, the addition 50 cents an hour for the loss of a weeks vacation and the additional $1.77 an hour we lost on the line for the Holidays we lost.
From 2003 to 2010 we saw our headcount reduced by around 5000 people, by 2010 they started hiring again, that means that attrition exceeded 5000. More than likely the attrition rate will accellerate over the companys proposed term, so figure even if the 4600 were a real number nearly all of them would have left through retirement or resignation. IMO AA does plan on reducing the overall number, but they also plan on hiring new hires, at least thats what they have been telling the kids in A&P school. (Thats why they offered the early out, so they could hire more OSMs which would replace top paid AMTS. AA could hire kids direct from school and they would be on a 10 year progression to AMTs(assuming AA could retain them). The company could net well over $30,000 in savings the first year alone, which would pay for the buyout, probably close to $200,000 by the time the replacement OSM makes it to top pay as an AMT. In other words AA would have given us $30 to $40K so they could net $170,000 to $160,000 in savings per worker that accepts the early out in addition to the savings from the other concessions, and we got zero credit for those savings as well. Even if they had matched UALs $75 K buyout they still would save a pile of money.
Thats why although a buyout may be desireable the fact is the company will only offer it if it saves them money, why should we bargain away something of value, such as pay and benifits for those who remain, to allow the company to get guys who are leaving to screw us as they walk out the door with a buyout thats only pennies on the dollar for what they gave the company?
From 2003 to 2010 AA was able to cut M&R labor costs by around $500 million NOT COUNTING THE COMPENSATION RELATED CONCESSIONS. The Compensation related Concessions would be in addition to that. Just as we got ZERO credit for the additional job losses beyond those who were laid off through the roll back of system protection the company gave ZERO credit for job losses that would be associated with outsourcing all Airbus and 787 work. Contractually we have no claim to that work, and we did not have any claim to it in the LBO either. According to statements in court thats at least 3000 more jobs that could have been eliminated by 2018 had we accepted the LBO.Those two items could be used to negotiate more concessions in 2018, or 2022 or whenever it suited the company to offer to extend 2018 to 2028 in exchange for language to do that work at sub-sub standard wages and benifits of course.
BK may not be the best place to take a stand but sometimes you cant pick the place, you just have to do it. We can not agree to come out of this without a deal that places us among our peers and it has to do so on DOS. We would need at least $3/hr increase just to hit the bottom,(not counting USAIR because they are working under an amendable deal-do we really want to partener with another COE who wont deal with mechanics?) just to get back to where we were in 2003 not counting the additional $2/hr in increased medical costs, the addition 50 cents an hour for the loss of a weeks vacation and the additional $1.77 an hour we lost on the line for the Holidays we lost.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 7,319
- Reaction score
- 1,555
I believe that Bob Owens has hit a point that many do not understand. The outsourcing of the 737 work would be very detrimental to the company. I am only speaking of the checks that I have had the pleasure to work, however there has been a lot of corrosion, which has pushed the checks. Losing control of this type of maintenance to a vendor would cause the problem of Return to Service to increase. By keeping the work in house the airline has more control, they just want to have the work performed at MRO wages.
[
More on a buyout.
The buyout of course has another purpose, to get to 50%+1
AA will need to get older workers to leave at a controlled rate. Even if they outsource a lot of work AA has to find a way to introduce younger workers into the workforce. We are old, the average worker in M&R should be around 53 now, in other words the average worker is within 2 years of the minimum retirement age. This will cause problems for AA in the near future. Medical costs will rise as older workers are more prone to illness and injury and they cant spread those costs across younger workers, long time workers have more vacation and sick time as well, this increases costs. With dwindling enrollments in A&P schools there wont likely be much of a pool from which they can draw replacements. AA will have to seek them out and will no longer be able to wait till AA is ready to hire. So either way AA will need to offer an early out for mechanics.
Without an Early Out AA would be caught between an oversupply of older experienced mechanics who are pissed off about their standing in the industry and reduced living standards and the inability to even attempt to attract eager to learn new hires.
If they do furlough they would have to recall all laid off mechanics first, and the only ones they would get are ones that nobody else would hire. Figure even if you had 20 years at AA, got laid off and was hired by WN or even United, within 5 years you would be making a lot more than AA is offering in six years, why go back? Vacation? Well we get one less week per year than anyone else unless you have over 30 years. Figure with the higher hourly pay and Holiday pay you could agree to give away the days when you want and still come out at the end of the year with a lot more money. Lets not forget that most of our peeers have DAT days while AA wants to eliminate PVs.
Like I said before why should we agree to negotiate away things we need in order to give the company what they need? Early outs, especially with a frozen pension and no retiree Medical have the potential to give the company huge savings.
More on a buyout.
The buyout of course has another purpose, to get to 50%+1
AA will need to get older workers to leave at a controlled rate. Even if they outsource a lot of work AA has to find a way to introduce younger workers into the workforce. We are old, the average worker in M&R should be around 53 now, in other words the average worker is within 2 years of the minimum retirement age. This will cause problems for AA in the near future. Medical costs will rise as older workers are more prone to illness and injury and they cant spread those costs across younger workers, long time workers have more vacation and sick time as well, this increases costs. With dwindling enrollments in A&P schools there wont likely be much of a pool from which they can draw replacements. AA will have to seek them out and will no longer be able to wait till AA is ready to hire. So either way AA will need to offer an early out for mechanics.
Without an Early Out AA would be caught between an oversupply of older experienced mechanics who are pissed off about their standing in the industry and reduced living standards and the inability to even attempt to attract eager to learn new hires.
If they do furlough they would have to recall all laid off mechanics first, and the only ones they would get are ones that nobody else would hire. Figure even if you had 20 years at AA, got laid off and was hired by WN or even United, within 5 years you would be making a lot more than AA is offering in six years, why go back? Vacation? Well we get one less week per year than anyone else unless you have over 30 years. Figure with the higher hourly pay and Holiday pay you could agree to give away the days when you want and still come out at the end of the year with a lot more money. Lets not forget that most of our peeers have DAT days while AA wants to eliminate PVs.
Like I said before why should we agree to negotiate away things we need in order to give the company what they need? Early outs, especially with a frozen pension and no retiree Medical have the potential to give the company huge savings.
Its 2012, how much have you gotten back so far? How many recalls were not recalled?
In M&R all the people who wanted to came back, the money didnt.
So maybe you have 10 coworkers instead of 15 but everybody has been recalled but nobody got the pay, vacation, Holidays, sick time or IOD back. The five people you never knew , who never worked for AA and would have filled those five jobs that are lost got jobs somewhere else, should that bother you?
If you want to commoditize your labor, reduce your status to that of a chock or porkbelly and are willing to discount your labor for volume then you do not belong in a Union.
Never give up pay for jobs! AA always recalls and always delays contracts. We took cuts in 2003 to save jobs, they were laid off then were recalled and then AA started hiring again.
I think I have a lot of AA employees on my side when I say, don't give up ANYTHING for an early out package, those senior employees want to keep working so be it, let them retire when they are ready, besides they already got their $ when they created the B scale.
Their excuse was, "what, are we going to take a pay cut for someone who doesn't even work here yet"
My excuse "what, are we going to take a pay cut for someone who doesn't even work here anymore"
I think I have a lot of AA employees on my side when I say, don't give up ANYTHING for an early out package, those senior employees want to keep working so be it, let them retire when they are ready, besides they already got their $ when they created the B scale.
Their excuse was, "what, are we going to take a pay cut for someone who doesn't even work here yet"
My excuse "what, are we going to take a pay cut for someone who doesn't even work here anymore"
