Bob this is for you too. And this is not a smart a$$ question. Do you guys really think the co. is willing to get rid of Tulsa? The way I see it (as an outsider) the co always get's what they want from the Tulsa yes votes, do you really think they are willing to lose that? I do see your point that the company will be able to reduce the amount of maint they do at Tulsa.
Pilot supply will become critical over the next few years and fuel will remain expensive, (why install winglets if you are going to ferry the plane around for maintenance) I believe these two factors will drive the aircraft market more towards larger planes, and maintenance towards more point of service maintenance. With pilot supply becoming critical why waste two pilots essentailly ferrying a money losing flight to Tulsa when you can use them somewhere else? It makes more sense to build in DFW than to ferry (even if they do sell a few seats) a flight to Tulsa and waste two valuable resources doing so.
Building up DFW, where all the planes end up anyway simply is a more efficient use of pilots, fuel and the aircraft, even if they get Tulsa for free. The fuel and pilots needed to get the planes there isnt free.
United is building a new Hanger in EWR, they already had one, Jet Blue built one in JFK and AA is in discussions to build a new one in LGA. These are probably three of the most expensive airports in the country as far as real estate. (AA is also getting a refurbished hangar in BOS) This goes to show that trying to do the work where the planes end up is operationally more sensible than ferrying a flight. With the new language they can ferry those aircraft just as easily to Mexico as to Oklahoma. .
You may argue that Tulsa allows them to keep wages on the line low, but if you go too low your performance will suffer. You will not be able to retain talent in critical markets and premium customers will go to competitors.
The company went too low. Management on the line knows it, and I'm sure the info has gone upstream. While not yet a flood, a trickle, that never existed before is growing, they are losing guys faster than they can replace them. In New York we have guys who put in for the Early out but the company will not release them, their $40k buyout is being held hostage.
In 2010 the company offered an extra $2.00 an hour for the line. The deal was rejected-primarily by a very large NO vote from Tulsa. When they presented the offer Jim Ream said that they realized they were below market rate for Line maintenance but they felt they were above market rate for OH and the $2 was to bring the line more in line with the industry. Thats what he said, not me.
In 2012 Jim Ream once again came in and proposed adding 50 cents to the line, Tulsa objected, said the line cant get a penny more than Tulsa. Tulsa said they were willing to look at Regional pay but the company was not.
When the TA was rammed through with a Roll call vote by Tulsa and Title II Ream went to line stations telling the line guys that they needed to vote this in because it would allow the company to outsource enough so Tulsa (and Title II) would no longer be the majority. Managers went around saying the same thing.
So the company tried to address the fact that they were not paying enough to the line. So in this case they did not get what they wanted. They tried in 2010, they tried in BK but both times it was blocked by Tulsa. I'm OK with that, neither offer was acceptable but what I'm not OK with is Tulsas acceptance of what they ended up accepting. What they accepted exposes the fact that Tulsa as a whole buys into the arguement that their wages have to be set up to compete with MROs, which I think the company is happy with, but Tulsa resistance to allow the company to offer market rates for line maintenance could become a liability, if it hasnt already.
Informer tries to absolve Tulsa because they were threatened, thats Bull, we were threatened that if we pushed for Regional pay they would move the work out of high cost areas but we still pushed for it. What do they think this is? Why wouldnt they expect threats, thats par for the course?
So will Tulsa diminish, yes, even the International admits that they agreed to that. Will Tulsa recover after 2018 when the new aircraft start needing OH? Probably not, unless fuel becomes cheap and pilots become plentiful. Like I said if they are going to ferry the plane then why not ferry it to Mexico. If they are going to pay the mechanics in Tulsa as much as they pay the mechanics in DFW then why move the plane? Another factor is will the majority line mechanics be willing to continue to accept bottom of the industry pay so they can expand and hire people and return Tulsa to its majority status? NO.
I supose there may come a point where there isnt enough work to justify a remote OH facility and if those two factors, high fuel and a shortage of pilots remain that point may come sooner rather than later.
This may sound like I'm bashing Tulsa, but I'm not, just calling as I see it. As my members know, I say to them that if you were in their position earning what they earn where costs are where they are wouldnt you likely do the same? The question is should we just accept thats the way it is? The fault really lies with the ATD, who have sold the idea that our wages must compete with Timco to Tulsa and that we are not worth what mechanics at other carriers got and this is the only way to save jobs. They are doing whats best for their revenue stream and the company. By offering the company such below market labor costs it helps to insure that the company will hire more people and maintain the dues flow that helps pay their six figure salaries. They act as if we have no Union and we can not negotiate, that we have to choose between the options the company offers, either give concessions or lose jobs, and we cant say "none of the above".
