Food For Thought

[USA320Pilot]

Frontier69:

Frontier69 asked: "Just curious about the statement of non-mainline employees operating the airbii. Could this be "wet-leasing" of some sorts? "

Chip answers: Frontier, I believe I said "active mainline employees" or to claify my point I could have said, "current active or furloughed employees." Why? The numbers do not add up. Furthermore, although it's possible, I do not believe a "wet lease" is in the picture, but with the current union leadership anger, this would not surprise me.

I believe there is a carrot and stick coming, with the stick the ATSB loan guarantee requirements/liquidation and a possible somewhat unpleasant carrot alternative.

Respectfully,

Chip

 

[etops1]

chip, it sounds to me like the company is saying . you give us this . we will give you that . am i correct.? and should we beleive them? <_<

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Chip,
Is a wet lease arrangement permitted under ANY of the union contracts? I don't believe it is under ALPA's, but since I really haven't seen a contract in years I don't really know. I'm beginning to sense that this management is gambling that the unions MIGHT believe them again. Seems like a stretch to me! :angry:

 

[USA320Pilot]

ETOPS & Oldie:

ETOPS, I agree with your point, but there is more to the story because the number s do not work and ALPA has taken an unusal stance.

Oldie, a "wet lease" would require ALPA consent. It's not permitted per the contract.

Regards,

Chip

 

[ClueByFour]

Oldie, a "wet lease" would require ALPA consent. It's not permitted per the contract.

Outsourcing heavy maintenance is not permitted by the M&R contract with the IAM. What makes you think that RSA is not funding themselves an alter ego carrier based in BHM that would fly, say, Airbus 320 series aircraft even as we speak?

Or, forget about the IAM contract for now. How many grievences is ALPA currently working on? ACARS, anyone?

My point being that the current US management is not exactly known for their respect for ink on contracts.

 

[delldude]

Oldie, a "wet lease" would require ALPA consent. It's not permitted per the contract.

Outsourcing heavy maintenance is not permitted by the M&R contract with the IAM. What makes you think that RSA is not funding themselves an alter ego carrier based in BHM that would fly, say, Airbus 320 series aircraft even as we speak?

Or, forget about the IAM contract for now. How many grievences is ALPA currently working on? ACARS, anyone?

My point being that the current US management is not exactly known for their respect for ink on contracts.

CLUEX4:hearing you loud and clear........IAM has a contract up for renegotiation in '08/'09 i believe.....we gave at the office.......don't quite know what to say here...i really don't think IAM will be hoodwinked into some other boo-sheet without some kind of major support from the membership.[which i don't think would muster a vote unless it was done 3 times]
hey guy,have a great US AIRWAYS day and thanks for paying my wage!if it weren't for you there'd be no U in us airways!