Who's really on top?

[eolesen]

Jim, thanks for the link. If the different cuts of data on their report can't put AA's labor disadvantage in perspective, I don't know what will.

With 14,479 employees listed under maintenance, AA has:

400 more mechanics than DL+UA (14,004)
3000 more mechanics than DL + CO (11,403)
3000+ more mechanics than CO+WN+US+NW+B6+AS+FL+HA (11,170)

	  Maint	  Total	% of population
AA	 14,479	70,923	  20%
DL	  7,514	58,945	  13%
UA	  6,490	51,526	  13%
CO	  3,889	40,630	  10%
WN	  1,701	34,680	  5%
US	  3,421	32,683	  10%
NW		266	29,124	  1%
B6		471	10,177	  5%
AS		727	 9,628	  8%
FL		409	 8,259	  5%
HA		286	 3,315	  9%
G4		122	 1,330	  9%

 

[Tex-Mech]

Jim, thanks for the link. If the different cuts of data on their report can't put AA's labor disadvantage in perspective, I don't know what will.

With 14,479 employees listed under maintenance, AA has:

That's 5,000 more than what is on the seniority list.

 

[Hopeful]

That's 5,000 more than what is on the seniority list.

Yea....go to Jetnet and look at Title 1 seniority list..
As of today, the total is 9562.

Where did they get this number? 2001 list maybe?

Eolesen should know better.

 

[BoeingBoy]

You have to remember that BTS data is not seniority list data but rather jobs related to maintenance. So various management level personnel, their assistants/secretaries, etc. are included if they're in the maintenance hierarchy. I don't know how AA unions break down the various types of employees for seniority list purposes, but stock clerks, parts shipping personnel, etc would all be maintenance for the BTS but possibly not on the mechanics seniority list. You can think of the BTS data as being the number of people involved in the maintenance function as opposed to actually doing maintenance tasks.

Even then it's full time equivalent numbers, where 2 part timers = 1 full time equivalent worker.

Jim

 

[Birdman]

In general, most airlines maintain their aircraft, or have it maintained in similar fashion so please bear with this over simplification. It takes x amount of mechanics to keep an aircraft in the air. If you do your own in-house maintenance, certainly, you have to hire more mechanics, pay their wages, benefits, and other incidentals. Also, build hangars, buy equipment, hire more management, and other incidentals as an expense. Those who farm out most of their maintenance do not incur the same expenses as those who do maintenance in-house but, those subcontractors who maintain their aircraft must. They must also charge their airline customers enough to cover those expenses and show enough profit to stay in business. While Mr. Arpey has been quoted as saying "the jury is still out", somebody knows who is enjoying a cost advantage and unless some financial wizard is willing to come forward, we'll just have to conclude that American has the highest labor expenses in the industry.

 

[FWAAA]

Yea....go to Jetnet and look at Title 1 seniority list..
As of today, the total is 9562.

Where did they get this number? 2001 list maybe?

Eolesen should know better.

It looks like the number dates from 2008. WN now has almost 2,500 in maintenance (at the end of 2009).

You've previously posted that Title 1 includes licensed A&P mechanics plus OSMs and aircraft cleaners. Add to that the automotive and facility mechanics, parts washers utility men and plant maintenance mechanics. What about parts clerks?

With thousands more mechanics on staff than other airlines, AA would likely have more managers in the maintenance department than most other airlines, plus their support staffs. If AA outsourced its airframe and engine overhaul, the MROs would bear those expenses and build it into the repair rates. Thus, AA's wage number is inflated by those salaries compared to other airlines that purchase outsourced overhaul.

 

[BoeingBoy]

we'll just have to conclude that American has the highest labor expenses in the industry.

True except, as I said, the labor expense of outsourced maintenance doesn't show up as labor expense for an airline. Maintenance expense - it certainly shows up there but not as labor expense. And part of that check to the MRO is to pay the MRO's labor expense.

That causes AA's labor expense to appear higher when comparing to an airline that outsources a significant part of it's maintenance.

The same is true of other employee groups - Eagle flying involves labor expense but that is reported by Eagle to the BTS, not by AA. AA's lower outsourcing of flying creates the appearance of higher labor costs compared to an airline that outsources a larger percentage of it's flying.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

It'd be really interesting info, but I know of no way to compile it - at least for normal folks you us, to have the system cost breakdown for the big airlines. System, not company, so it would include outsourced labor costs - MRO's, Express flying, outsourced station employees, etc. And have that broken down to the different employee groups - pilots, FA's, maintenance, agenst, res, etc. That would give a true picture of each airline's real labor cost, and not the somewhat distorted picture that's available otherwise.

Jim

 

[Hopeful]

Using some of the statement in your post, I think that no matter what AA's operating cost are, it will be higher across the board due fleet size.
What the company likes to do is take individual earnings and make them a lightning rod.

Knowing this company as well as I do, they could eliminate overhaul and thousands of mechanics tomorrow and they will not give us a dime in return. They will find another reason and excuse.

"OH, ER, WELL YOU PEOPLE STILL HAVE A PENSION."
"ER, OH, UMMM, YOU PEOPLE STILL HAVE RETIREE MEDICAL."


They took 40 years of wages and benefits back, and they do not want to give anything back without more concessions!

No strike, stay on the job and show them how happy we all are.

Again, everyone needs to read the ENTIRE company proposal!

 

[Bob Owens]

It looks like the number dates from 2008. WN now has almost 2,500 in maintenance (at the end of 2009).

You've previously posted that Title 1 includes licensed A&P mechanics plus OSMs and aircraft cleaners. Add to that the automotive and facility mechanics, parts washers utility men and plant maintenance mechanics. What about parts clerks?

With thousands more mechanics on staff than other airlines, AA would likely have more managers in the maintenance department than most other airlines, plus their support staffs. If AA outsourced its airframe and engine overhaul, the MROs would bear those expenses and build it into the repair rates. Thus, AA's wage number is inflated by those salaries compared to other airlines that purchase outsourced overhaul.

Automotive and facilities (plant maintenance) fall under the marketing budget, not aircraft maintenance.

So you're telling us that for every 1.9 mechanics they have 1 support staff person? That seems high but not suprising, given the fact that AA continued hiring management while they were laying off mechanics.

 

[BoeingBoy]

So you're telling us that for every 1.9 mechanics they have 1 support staff person? That seems high but not suprising, given the fact that AA continued hiring management while they were laying off mechanics.

I think what FWAAA and I are both trying to tell you is that the BTS employee numbers don't and never wll match the seniority list numbers for several reasons. Just take any of AA's big maintenance facilities - how many people work there vs how many on the seniority list work there? Same at the airports - how many people whose job is related to maintenance vs the number of mechanics on the seniority list?

One thing that I did forget to mention - the BTS numbers, which MIT uses, are yearly numbers. They take either the yearly average of the monthly reports or first of the year numbers in each employee classification (I forget which). That by itself makes the numbers differ from seniority list numbers.

Jim

 

[MERV]

From FLT OPS to A/C maintenance all budgets to those departments are calculate so they know their total cost for their daily ops. Arpey got a pay raise from what I saw from cnbc so why can't the employees get one if AA is so badly in shape that doesn't calculate because they also get bonuses. I understand that skilled management is need so they paid for it. All employees who work in the industry has some type of skill that is necessary to run daily ops so they should get some type of compensation that is agreeable with their job skill. I understand that will get expensive but theirs always new ways to increase revenue somehow without asking your employees and investor to hurt.

Majority airlines cost is their no matter if they are LCC or Legacy. If you don't know how to run it properly it will lose money. Even if you have a low operating cost. No wonder AA got CRJ-700 to have those 1st class high value seats. those markets that need that type of A/C. It will bring better revenue in those markets. Thats why WN increases their fare when need it but they all compete that makes those fares vary or in danger of never being use. They cant blame employees they only can blame themselves for allow it to happen.

 

[Hopeful]

Haven't you heard that AMR management is irreplaceable?
the rest of us are disposable!

 

[Bob Owens]

I think what FWAAA and I are both trying to tell you is that the BTS employee numbers don't and never wll match the seniority list numbers for several reasons. Just take any of AA's big maintenance facilities - how many people work there vs how many on the seniority list work there? Same at the airports - how many people whose job is related to maintenance vs the number of mechanics on the seniority list?

One thing that I did forget to mention - the BTS numbers, which MIT uses, are yearly numbers. They take either the yearly average of the monthly reports or first of the year numbers in each employee classification (I forget which). That by itself makes the numbers differ from seniority list numbers.

Jim

So what you are saying is that the company is using numbers that have asolutely no relevance to our contract.

 

[eolesen]

It might not be comparing hourly rates side by side, but the number of people employed in the core function is entirely relevant, Bob.

No matter how you want to spin or discount the underlying data, it doesn't change the fact that AA has twice as many people performing maintenance related functions than any other two airlines combined.