Originally Posted by
ToiletDuck
Sometimes it's not just about the aircraft. Regardless of what the courts find the company still made contracts with the regionals and will have to pay to break them. I have no idea who's runs out first but that could been a starting point.
Why do the airline's contracts with other airlines trump an airline's contract with labor? I certainly don't mean that in a combative way Duck, but it just seems like the typical kind of labor ruling in recent years. Maybe it's time for the employee contracts to have as much weight - or even more weight - than the corporate-corporate contracts. Just a thought.
Originally Posted by
seafeye
Ahh Doug P. said that they wouldn't park any airplanes they owned or had current leases on. Just wouldn't make sense to park airplanes that you are making payments on. So he says....
I'm not sure of the specific wording, but Mr. Parker could very easily play with the wording here. US Airways isn't paying for any RJs, but their wholly owned subsidiary PSA is. I know it's semantics, but that's exactly the kind of thing management loves to do and say.
I'll also add my 2 cents that no more aircraft should be added on the express side. Any new airframes should be added to mainline, and any wholly owned employees should get first dibs after any furloughed mainline pilots in the form of a flow through. 50 seat aircraft used to be mainline aircraft. Why shouldn't they be now?
I'm glad the mainline pilots are grieving this.