Well, we have 17 with no flying, so we furlough 176 pilots. Now we find flying for 12 of those planes, but we're not cancelling the furloughs. = bad. Now, looking at the contract, Midwest Airlines has until June 2010 to convert the ASA to a simple dry lease, where they fly airplanes we own with their pilots. = more bad. Now, to execute that lease, Midwest has to negotiate cheaper labor terms with its pilots. So they're going to go to their pilots while we're flying our planes in their paint and say, "if you want your jobs back you have to accept this cut in your pay, or we'll just let them keep your jobs permanently." Which means the pilots of RAH will be blamed for the recessionary contract of Midwest Airlines. = triple bad. Or, even better, they refuse the concessions and we keep the flying and are then the cause of 300-400 pilots losing their jobs. = yet more bad.

So basically, we've taken the planes and given them away, agreeing to fly them for a short term without any furloughs being reduced, which means worse schedules for us. And in the long run, when Midwest Airlines gets their recessionary contract under duress, we'll still lose the flying, get the furloughs, AND now be the bad guys to blame for Midwest pilots' lower standard of living.

A more prudent question would be, how could this be construed in any way good for RAH???