Work Rules/Pay

[chris perry]

I agree with the OP. I am also willing to work more for a good raise. Some of the work rules stuff in our contract is way beyond any common sense.

Considering that this is how Southwest beats us on cost (they are paid similarly in dollars) I don't think this is a bad way for AA to go in terms of planning.

Southwest airlines contract is better in every way!!!!!!! with one exception the pension.But if you take into consideration Their 401k match,stock options they are way better off.We are stuck with this dp violin they keep paying.....Just sayin

 

[AAStew]

From the point of view of a flight attendant, yes I am willing to work more, bujt they have to use my time efficiently! We have flights (turnarounds) which you sign in1hour before departure, fly for two and a half hours, sit for three to four hours, and then fly back home. They are worth 5 hours flying time. How about they utilize us for those three to four hours? So we can give AA an eight hour day? Until we are protected with how they can utilize us, I will not vote in any concessionary measures which allows them to keep me hostage without pay.
And let's not even get into all the delays lately which we are also not compensated for because of airplanes that are in disrepair! This airline is so poorly run with such disregard for labor that they are digging their own grave!

 

[Ed Norton]

E show me the work rules of the other airlines,we already have the worst work rules of all Airlines !!!!!

1. No holiday pay we get 4 hrs pay for working. 8 hrs for being off
2. 1/2 pay for sick days
3. No cap in medical insurance premiums all other work groups have them.

what kind of rules do they want? just some exaamples above

That's easy. They want to squeeze every last cent out of you. When they're done doing that, you are expected to go off somewhere and die. Quietly of course.

 

[Ed Norton]

UH; Ronald Reagan is still in the White House ? Blame Reagan for everything.
Bill Clinton is the one who issued an Executive Order against our APA pilots and ordered them back to work when they exercised self help in the 1990's.
I thought Mr. Obama was a friend of labor? None of the Unions at AA can get the release from the Federal mediator for a 30 day cooling off period.

As a 25 year AMT at AA I do agree that AA management wants more concessions from us so they can grab more money for themselfs.
These forums are full of Union bashers who don't even know that Southwest Airlines has the most Unionized labor force in the airline industry.

I agree that sometimes Ronald Reagan is held responsible for the plight of the working class more than he should be.
We can trace these sentiments to the air traffic controllers strike of August 3,1981. When PAATCO took to the picket lines, Reagan called their bluff; and a bluff it was. The AFL-CIO did nothing but roll over and play dead like the good lap dogs that they are. Big labor had its chance again in 1989 with the EAL strike. Once again the mighty AFL-CIO performed their circus dog routine for the media and then played dead.
We can't blame Ronald Ray-Gun for everything, after all, the class war against the poor and middle class had been waged long before Reagan became president and long before Bedtime for Bonzo. Reagan was a grand fatherly figure head which gave most people a warm fuzzy feeling inside; top that with a good dose of one liners and you have the icon of many today.We forget that the real power behind Reagan's policies were his advisors, Sununu, Shultz Baker, CIA puppet master Daddy Bush, etal. Reagan's policies made greed fashionable in the 80's and Clinton continued this attitude into the 90's.
After the Great Depression it was determined that part of the collapse was due to commercial banks involvement in stock market investment. The Glass-Steagal Act separated investment and commercial banks. This worked fine up to the 90's when the Clinton admistration helped repeal the act. Part of todays economic problems can be traced to the repealing of Glass-Steagal.
Goes to show: Democrat/ Republican, two sides of one coin serving the same master.

By the way, the working class has no friends in Washington D.C. in any State capital, politician or in the corporate media. All the working class has is the power to withhold its labor. For the working class to be effective it has to have unity, and there is no working class unity in this country.There also exists large surplus labor army ready to step in to replace workers that get too uppity and decide to protect their interests by striking. Do you really want to be released to strike? With the TWU looking out for your interests? Be careful what you ask for!

 

[Deleted member 17588]

From the point of view of a flight attendant, yes I am willing to work more, bujt they have to use my time efficiently! We have flights (turnarounds) which you sign in1hour before departure, fly for two and a half hours, sit for three to four hours, and then fly back home. They are worth 5 hours flying time. How about they utilize us for those three to four hours? So we can give AA an eight hour day? Until we are protected with how they can utilize us, I will not vote in any concessionary measures which allows them to keep me hostage without pay.
And let's not even get into all the delays lately which we are also not compensated for because of airplanes that are in disrepair! This airline is so poorly run with such disregard for labor that they are digging their own grave!

And don't forget that the company wants to eliminate per diem pay for turns. They may work you more productively but they won't pay you for it.

 

[Boomer]

As others have stated: exactly what work rules for the TWU Maintenance & Related are not on or below the rest of the industry?

Double time pay: nope;
Half time for the first two occurences in sick pay;
Five paid holidays, among the lowest in the industry;
Vacation accruals at the bottom of the industry;
Hourly pay at the bottom of the industry;
Mandantory training in excess of an eight hour day: straight time;
A DBP whose funding level is entirely controlled by the Company and their assumed rate of return;
Five sets of uniforms that are required to be laundered by the employee;
No tool allowance.

Oh, yeah: we have overhaul, whose costs can be financed rather than paid up in cash on delivery, performed at maintenance bases wholly owned by the company.

Oh yeah: we have retiree medical, which the employee and the company prefund throughout the working life of the employee, at age adjusted rates, with a $50,000.00 lifetime maximum entirely self-funded by the company.

 

[eolesen]

Recognition and scope. Probably *the* most restrictive in the industry. In particular, 3650/1460 threshold for insourcing the line, and commuter seat mile restrictions

 

[Duke787]

I can't imagine any productivity change that AA wants, that the employees will not accept, if they are given industry leading pay.

 

[Bob Owens]

Recognition and scope. Probably *the* most restrictive in the industry. In particular, 3650/1460 threshold for insourcing the line, and commuter seat mile restrictions

You leave out that the company could satisfy that with just one employee from any TWU classification. Most other unions dont allow other workers to work on their ramp, we have no such prohibitions.

 

[Boomer]

Recognition and scope. Probably *the* most restrictive in the industry. In particular, 3650/1460 threshold for insourcing the line, and commuter seat mile restrictions

I'll agree that the only language that is actually enforceable, and has resulted in the terminations of AA TWU Represented M&R Members, is the one that requires the payment of dues: but, the rest of the cr@p is just RLA boilerplate no different from any other union on property covered by the RLA.

As for scope language written in the TWU CBA covering AA M&R: we lost the "BWI-Cleveland" arbitration back in '99 and until 2004, we were covered by dispatch limits only to the extent that "one" or any member of the TWU AA M&R staffing a particular station meets the arbitrators ruling. After 2004, TWU AA Local 562, with the agreement of the then Executive Board, pulled a docketed arbitration case over station staffing that removed all TWU AA M&R from a station with dispatch limits over the BWI-CLE threshold and the TWU International ATD refused to pick it up: therefore, there is now no threshold for station staffing for TWU AA M&R members.

With respect to the rest of the so-called scope clause for TWU represented AA M&R members: I have previously explained the numerous deficiencies.

LINK PROVIDED:
POST #35

 

[eolesen]

With respect to the rest of the so-called scope clause for TWU represented AA M&R members: I have previously explained the numerous deficiencies.

That only addresses insourcing vs. outsourcing of maintenance functions, Boomer. What about the ASM cap?

What other airline in North America (or globally for that matter) is restricted in how many ASMs can be operated by a regional?

 

[Boomer]

That only addresses insourcing vs. outsourcing of maintenance functions, Boomer. What about the ASM cap?

What other airline in North America (or globally for that matter) is restricted in how many ASMs can be operated by a regional?

eolesen,
Define the actual number of 121 Air Carriers that currently wholly own their regional air carrier, and the impact on mainline flying that resulted in reductions in mainline losses in flying and consequent reductions in maintenance personnel?

LINK PROVIDED:
Refer to the APA consultants' study by Robert Mann, entitled "Small Jets...etc."

Again, I restrict the answer to your original propositon that Recognition and Scope hinder the performance of AMR to the under-represented members of the TWU AA Maintenance and Related.

Lastly, the TWU and AA have never been known to be beacons of transparency: the current scope cap clause with respect to ASMs' flown by the regional affiliate was successfully arbitrated by the APA, while the TWU remained silent.

Given the failure of the TWU to represent the AA Maintenance & Related to contracts that are even close to approaching Industry Leading; it is suspect that the negotiated figures for AMS caps have been enforced given that the TWU mis-represents dues payers on both sides of the arguement.

With respect to Global ASM's: the TWU has failed to successfully arbitrate the maintenance performed by AA employees not represented by the TWU outside of the US Mainland and in fact, the TWU has supported the loss of Union seniority for AA TWU M&R US Citizens that worked in Europe outside the contractual limitations.

Given the loss of seniority of those individuals, supported by the TWU, but not prevented by the TWU: there is no contractual limitation to maintenance work performed, just whining by an impotent union over the loss of dues.

Regards,
Boomer

 

[eolesen]

Boomer, it doesn't matter if they're wholly owned. The ASM restriction includes non-owned carriers:

364 ...........the total number of available seat miles
365 (ASM’s) which may be scheduled by all commuter air carriers owned by AMR or feeding
366 American may not exceed six (6) percent of the total ASM’s scheduled by American.
367 This limitation will not apply to ASM’s scheduled by such commuter air carriers on new
368 service on a route, which American has not served since March 1, 1993.

But since you asked, Delta still owns Comair, US Airways still owns Piedmont & PSA, and Alaska still owns Horizon.

Looks to me like United/Continental is the only major who doesn't own all or part of a regional.

Oh, and the Bob Mann study that you linked to? TYou probably didn't know, but he was working as a consultant to APA when he wrote it. No bias there, eh?

 

[NYGiantsFan90]

Comair is going to be sold off, Piedmont flies the oldest Dash-8s, for US and PSA has some CRJ-200s and 700s the majority of US commuters are flown by Mesa and Republic and Trans States.

 

[Boomer]

Boomer, it doesn't matter if they're wholly owned. The ASM restriction includes non-owned carriers:

364 ...........the total number of available seat miles
365 (ASM’s) which may be scheduled by all commuter air carriers owned by AMR or feeding
366 American may not exceed six (6) percent of the total ASM’s scheduled by American.
367 This limitation will not apply to ASM’s scheduled by such commuter air carriers on new
368 service on a route, which American has not served since March 1, 1993.

But since you asked, Delta still owns Comair, US Airways still owns Piedmont & PSA, and Alaska still owns Horizon.

Looks to me like United/Continental is the only major who doesn't own all or part of a regional.

Oh, and the Bob Mann study that you linked to? TYou probably didn't know, but he was working as a consultant to APA when he wrote it. No bias there, eh?

eolesen,

Last things first:
LINK PROVIDED:
Boomer stated: "Refer to the APA consultants' study by Robert Mann, entitled "Small Jets...etc."

First things last:
A) Boomer stated: "...Define the actual number of 121 Air Carriers that currently wholly own their regional air carrier, and the impact on mainline flying that resulted in reductions in mainline losses in flying and consequent reductions in maintenance personnel?"...

B) Boomer stated: "...Again, I restrict the answer to your original propositon that Recognition and Scope hinder the performance of AMR to the under-represented members of the TWU AA Maintenance and Related."...

C) Boomer stated: "...Given the failure of the TWU to represent the AA Maintenance & Related to contracts that are even close to approaching Industry Leading; it is suspect that the negotiated figures for AMS caps have been enforced given that the TWU mis-represents dues payers on both sides of the arguement."...

Given the simple fact that no 121 Air Carrier is wholly owned and exploited to the detriment of mainline flying as has been experienced by the employees of AA with respect to the activities of AMR in utilizing the analysis of APA consultant Robert Mann:

1) why would the TWU, AMR, AE and AA not seek to combine the overhaul footprint by using the existing AA facilities and merging the AE A&P's into any openings at the full up AE rate versus the full up AA A&P rate without a non-certificated individual ever being hired?;

2) why would the TWU, AMR, AE and AA not seek to contractually capture all of the work done by or on behalf of AA through the slots opened by labor increases in productivity as AA production line slots with the remainder being first in house and secondarily three P ?;

3) why would the TWU, AMR, AE and AA not seek to lock in long term labor rates with the labor capture for consolidation between AE and the AA M&R workforce represented by the TWU in the abscence of some other deal that captures that labor in a more permanent manner?