We are attaching both the ORD and DFW Air 21 complaints
to the mailed copy of this letter. Based on our
interviews of the witnesses and review of supporting
documentation, Local 591 considers the allegations of
FAR violations and coercion to engage in unsafe
practices to have been substantiated. Local 591 is once
again asking that you sit down and discuss these matters
with us.
Since the filing of the lawsuit, we have made repeated
requests that the company disavow its use of
surveillance and threats in response to Local 591’s
safety-related representation efforts. These requests
have met with no response. Because we consider such
management intimidation to undermine both our union and
the airline’s safe operations, we have instructed our
attorneys to proceed with a motion for a preliminary
injunction.
While we regret the necessity of resorting to legal
actions against our employer, these efforts have already
produced positive results that have served to enhance
the safety of American Airlines’ operations:
* As a direct result of the AIR 21-prompted FAA
investigation, the Company has received an FAA Letter of
Investigation (LOI) regarding the failure to properly
repair a defective steering mechanism that resulted in
an aborted takeoff. A Company investigator from outside
ORD has heard directly from the responsible AMT that he
felt pressured to return the aircraft to revenue
service. We are hopeful that this same investigator will
probe the other reports of maintenance fraud and
coercion reported in the AIR 21 complaint.
* In a letter dated January 29, 2015, the FAA’s American
Certificate Management Office (CMO), responded to
plaintiff Local 591’s complaint that AA had violated the
FARs
by the manner in which it decided to (1) remove Quality
Control from the responsibility of the wide body
B-Checks and (2) remove inspectors from the wide body
B-Checks. The CMO’s letter concluded that: “As a result
of our investigation, we have determined a violation of
the Code of Federal Regulations may have occurred. This
office will continue to investigate this possible
violation and will take the necessary corrective
action.”
* On January 30, 2015, the Company issued a revised
version of the B737 Lightning Strike or State Discharge
card number 05-96-03, which deleted language that had
been used by ORD management to effectively eliminate AMT
initiated lightning strike inspections. The revisions
appear to be a direct response to the federal
complaint’s allegations that Regional Maintenance
Director Evita Rodriguez implemented a policy of
pressuring AMTs to refrain from calling for lightning
strike inspections, even where they had detected
lightning strike damage. In order to undo the harm she
has caused, we call upon Ms. Rodriguez to assemble the
ORD AMTs, explain to them the revisions to the card, and
disavow her prior instructions.
On the date of the lawsuit’s filing, Company spokesmen
represented that they had received no communication from
the FAA regarding aviation maintenance issues of
concern. While it is hard to believe those statements
were truthful at the time, if that same statement were
to be reiterated today, it would be a flat lie.
The number of FAA investigators assigned to the ORD and
DFW AIR 21 complaints has now increased to six. As
additional LOIs are received from the FAA – and we
suspect there will be if the agency is doing its job –
we ask you to instruct your subordinates to disclose the
nature of the safety violations and work with the
President and Vice President of Local 591 to remediate
the situation.
These recent developments not only confirm the
importance of Local 591’s legal efforts, but also
confirm the irresponsible nature of media statements to
which you and your AMTs may have been exposed. For
example, a local Dallas TV station broadcast a statement
from a consultant – with little or no aviation
maintenance experience – that the federal lawsuit
reflected union “thug tactics.” An equally unqualified
analyst from Cowen & Company characterized our federal
action as a “seemingly frivolous lawsuit” and,
unfortunately, AA’s EVP of Corporate Affairs readily
agreed.
Unlike the media, Local 591 representatives have spoken
to the witnesses, and reviewed the documentation
provided to the FAA, and have no doubt that the
allegations made by our members will continue to be
substantiated by the FAA.
Mr. Parker, we are asking you to sit down with the
President and Vice president of Local 591 and review the
evidence. We are also asking that you allow Local 591
representatives to perform their work free of coercion.
Compliance with the maintenance manuals and the IAW
program is both your legal and moral obligation. Union
representatives play a vital role in counter-balancing
the profit-driven goal of pushing planes into revenue
service. We have asked AMTs who detect improper
maintenance practices to notify their Local 591
representative and file an ASAP report. Our goal is not
only to protect their jobs and licenses, but to ensure
the safe operations of, what is now, the world’s largest
airline. Local 591 believes this airline should be the
example of what other carriers should emulate when it
comes to aircraft maintenance practices and procedures.
We regret that it apparently required a federal lawsuit
to produce this first step in the right direction. It’s
so much easier to recognize that safety is a joint
effort for labor and management, rather than shallow
words expressed to move people along. Local 591 has only
one goal, providing our passengers and flight crews with
safe and reliable aircraft. But if management continues
to chose to slap our hand away from doing what is
required by the IAW settlement reached by AA, in
reducing the overall fine with the FAA, we will continue
to fight back by serving our membership’s primary
interest, including litigation if and when necessary.
Respectfully,
Gary G. Peterson
President
TO:
Gary Peterson, president Transport Workers Union Local
591
From: David Seymour, American Airlines senior vice
president of technical operations
Date: February 20, 2015
I want to address the issues raised in your recent
letter to Doug Parker, and to provide you with specific
contacts with whom you can discuss these issues.
I’ll start by addressing the issues you’ve raised
regarding safety and, again, assure you that we share
the same top priority – the safety of our employees and
customers.
American Airlines is an industry leader in the
development of our robust Safety Management System,
which helps us manage risk in a data-driven and
proactive way. Our SMS is certified to the highest level
(Level IV) by FAA, and bi-annual independent audits also
confirm that our program operates to the highest global
industry standard. It’s also supported vigorously by our
senior management because it helps us run a safe
airline.
A couple of the people who I’d invite you to visit with
about our safety program, including SMS, are Paul Morell
and Callie Choat. As you know, Paul is Vice President –
Safety, Security and Environmental Programs. He has
responsibility for the development, implementation,
maintenance, and oversight of SMS policy, including
day-to-day administration of our SMS. Callie is Managing
Director – Safety Assurance and Environmental Programs.
She is responsible for the policies, processes, and
procedures in the SMS Manual. As you know, the Tech Ops
area has two Operation Standards Boards which are
designed specifically to ensure that safety risks are
identified and addressed, and to ensure that senior
management is aware of anything that impacts safety.
Safety concerns can also be raised by individual
employees through the company’s ASAP program, which are
then assessed by an Event Review Committee that includes
representatives from the company, the TWU, and the FAA.
In short, to the extent that you, Local 591, or any of
your members have concerns regarding safety, the company
has an avenue to address those concerns. I invite you to
schedule time with Paul and Callie, who welcome the
opportunity to sit down with you to discuss the SMS.
Many of the other issues raised in your letter should be
addressed through the grievance and arbitration process
provided in the TWU’s collective bargaining agreement.
This process is mandated by the Railway Labor Act, which
grants the System Board of Adjustment exclusive
authority to resolve contractual and discipline disputes
that the TWU and company could not resolve through less
formal means.
The company works daily with TWU locals, including Local
591, to resolve grievances before they are arbitrated at
the System Board. If no resolution can be reached, the
company and TWU meet monthly before a neutral arbitrator
for contractual cases, and multiple times per month for
discipline and discharge cases. This contractual process
fosters a cooperative approach that more often than not
leads to resolution of our differences. If we cannot
reach a resolution, a neutral arbitrator can assist.
Jim Weel in our labor relations group is available to
discuss any questions and concerns you have about the
grievance and arbitration process. In the meantime, we’d
encourage the TWU to use the contractual grievance and
arbitration process, as it is intended, to address your
concerns.
I’d like to clear up some things about the procedures
associated with an ongoing FAA inquiry. You mention a
handful of FAA letters of investigation (LOIs), and seem
to assume that LOIs are tantamount to FAA findings of
violations. As you know, the airline industry is heavily
regulated, and it is routine for the FAA to
independently and objectively evaluate concerns such as
those that you have raised. The company is in the midst
of providing comprehensive responses to the FAA
inquiries, but, so far, the FAA has not advised us of
any significant violations or findings. We have a
transparent relationship with the FAA, which we view as
a partner in our mutual goal to run a safe airline.
Myles Nichols, managing director for Quality, Continuing
Analysis and Surveillance System, and Training, is
available to discuss these issues.
You’ve also claimed that members of my management team
have compromised safety by threatening mechanics – and
that there’s been no response to your requests that the
company “disavow” these tactics. We could not disagree
more. We do not tolerate or condone any behavior that
could cause an employee to feel threatened or that could
compromise our commitment to safety. Since you’ve raised
concerns about how the maintenance group is managed,
however, let’s set up a time for you to discuss those
concerns with me and Paul Wroble.
Lastly, you mentioned the litigation that you initiated
a few weeks ago.
As we have indicated previously, we view the
lawsuit as meritless.
I hope you’ll accept the invitation to talk directly
with our safety and labor folks, as well as me and Paul.
I look forward to your call.
Regards
David
|