Notices

Kalitta Air (K4) Information

Old 10-13-2021, 12:25 PM
  #3911  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Posts: 44
Default

Originally Posted by maxjet View Post
Enjoy your time off, your unpaid time off. I just hope the antivax people don’t put the company in dire financial straights. Of course one could just download a vaccine certificate and fill it out themselves.
Maxjet, do yourself and everyone else on this board a favor and stop posting. You are making a complete fool of yourself, given you history here. Those of us that have been here for any length of time know exactly why you are sticking up for the company the way you do. If you really want me to share this with everyone I will do so, but perhaps it would just be better if you refrain from making comments for which you know nothing about. Enjoy your retirement and leave us alone.
newb2 is offline  
Old 10-13-2021, 02:37 PM
  #3912  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,127
Default

Originally Posted by maxjet View Post
A. Absolutely not. HIPAA prohibits employers from accessing patient records or insurance claims because it could result in discrimination. If an employer wants to see any of your medical information, the employer would need to receive your written permission.

This is from a recent AARP article.
You'd make a very poor lawyer.... From ALPA legal.

CURRENT LEGAL STATUS UPDATE ON U.S. VACCINE MANDATES 9-24-21 We have received several questions asking whether employer-imposed COVID-19 vaccine mandates are lawful under U.S. law. The answer is, yes, an employer-imposed vaccine mandate is lawful. The Supreme Court decided in 1905 in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that a state could enforce compulsory vaccination laws, finding that mandatory vaccinations are neither arbitrary nor oppressive so long as they do not “go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public.” Specifically, this case found that Massachusetts could require all members of the public to be vaccinated against smallpox on pain of criminal sanction for non-compliance. In 1922, the Supreme Court followed that ruling in its decision in Zucht v. King, which similarly rejected a suit seeking an injunction on constitutional due process grounds against application of an ordinance which required a vaccination certificate proving that the student was inoculated against smallpox to attend public schools. The law has remained consistent since this time. For example, more recently, with respect to COVID-19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit issued a decision that reaffirmed the Jacobson ruling in finding that a public university’s policy mandating vaccinations for students was lawful (Klaassen, et al. v. Indiana University). The plaintiffs in that case sought emergency Supreme Court review, which was denied by Circuit Justice Amy Coney Barrett on August 12. Cases such as these brought against government mandates involve potentially more complex questions of individual constitutional rights than the issue of whether a private employer can mandate a vaccine, which is governed by private contract and employment relationships that do not involve those personal constitutional rights. Nonetheless, those challenges to governmental vaccine mandates have failed to date. In June, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas also relied on Jacobson in finding that a private employer’s policy mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for employees was lawful (Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital). As noted, the Constitutional arguments with respect to government entities do not apply to the actions of private corporations. In dismissing this case, the district court rejected arguments that the vaccination mandate involved “forced” injections, reasoning that the employees were free to decline and find other jobs. That judge also rejected arguments based on the then Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) status of the COVID-19 vaccine. (Note: The Pfizer vaccine has since been given full FDA approval, mooting that argument as to that vaccine, and full approval of several others is expected soon. Other courts and federal administrative agencies have similarly concluded that the EUA status of the COVID-19 vaccines is not a bar to a vaccination requirement and that such mandates can lawfully be imposed as a job requirement, as we will address below). Prior to the Houston Methodist Hospital decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in early 2020 (prior to the COVID outbreak) in Horvath v. City of Leander similarly rejected a challenge to a different vaccine mandate imposed by the city because, among other reasons, the objecting firefighter was not forced to take the vaccine and was free to accept a reasonable accommodation offered for his religious objections or to move to a different job instead. Another recent case of note involved a failed challenge by a group of United pilots to that company’s vaccination mandate, which does not offer an alternative of testing. The federal district judge in Florida, on his own motion in Hencey v. United, summarily dismissed the request for an emergency order to block the mandate on largely procedural grounds, but noted in 2 his decision that the request would likely fail even if the procedural defects were remedied, because the pilots could seek reinstatement and backpay, which would undercut the necessary showing of “irreparable harm” to support an injunction, and further because they would also be likely to lose on merits of the challenge to the mandate, given the consistent caselaw discussed above, including the Indiana University case. A state court in New York just reached a similar result in denying an injunction request by public employees, also citing the ability of the employees to seek reinstatement and backpay as a remedy. Additionally, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (which administers federal workplace anti-discrimination laws) has twice provided guidance that a COVID-19 vaccination requirement (even given an EUA vaccine status) does not unlawfully discriminate under the federal workplace discrimination statutes, so long as an employer offers reasonable accommodations to employees on medical or “sincerely held” religious belief grounds. (Note: the EEOC has determined that the question of reasonable accommodations, which involve individual claims of employees under the federal discrimination laws and are beyond ALPA’s representational authority under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and collective bargaining agreements and are determined by the employer under the limits of EEOC guidance, requires evidence of a significant medical risk or a long-established institutional religious belief, as opposed to personal beliefs or opinions). The U.S. Department of Justice issued similar guidance that mandates involving EUA COVID19 vaccines were not inconsistent with the Food and Drug Act, the legislation that governs the approval authority of the Food and Drug Administration regarding vaccines. The above analysis only covers laws external to any collective bargaining agreement. A labor agreement may, depending on the specific provisions of the contract, limit an employer’s discretion regarding implementation of a vaccination mandate, including regarding any negative sanctions for employees refusing to take the vaccine. Those issues, including regarding effects, implementation and sanctions for failure to follow a vaccination mandate, should be resolved in bargaining, or in the absence of agreement, pursuant to the terms and dispute adjustment procedures of the CBA, before the system board of adjustment in arbitration. Unresolved issues not addressed in bargaining involving vaccination mandates are expected to be resolved in arbitration -- and not in court -- with regard to the impact of a collective bargaining agreement on the issue. The reason for this is the firm rule established by the Supreme Court of the United States in construing the RLA in 1989 in the Conrail v. CSX case. In that case, which involved mandatory drug testing by a railroad which was nowhere mentioned in the collective bargaining agreement, the Court ruled that as long as management could make an argument based on the contract or past practice to justify the imposition of the testing requirement that was not completely frivolous, the matter had to be submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the grievance arbitration machinery under the applicable collective bargaining agreement. The courts have consistently applied this principle to RLA cases and directed issues involving arguable interpretations of a labor agreement or past practice – even those which would likely or even clearly come out on the losing side -- to arbitration. 3 Aside from employer mandates, the federal government is likely to soon impose its own vaccination and/or testing mandates. President Biden announced two relevant Executive Orders and one directive. The September 9 Executive Orders apply to the federal employee workforce and to federal contractors, and those require employees and government contractor operations to be fully vaccinated for COVID-19, with no testing option. With regard to federal contractors, which include many U.S. airlines, the relevant Executive Order has established a Safer Federal Worker Taskforce to construct guidelines for COVID vaccination that are to be observed in new, renewed or newly extended federal contracts. Significant timing questions apply to this situation as the requirements should only be imposed when relevant federal contracts are newly made, come up for renewal, or options to extend are exercised. Under guidance received from the Taskforce today, which is set to be translated into and included as contract requirements in federal contracts going forward, it appears that the mandate – which will include vaccination requirements as well as certain masking and social distancing requirements for individuals who obtain a religious or medical exemption from the vaccination requirement, will go into effect for new, renewed or extended federal contracts by December 8, 2021. It does not appear at this time that the government will try to impose a contractor employee vaccination mandate mid-contract, which may pose legal issues, but rather be phased in over the next several months as applied to new, renewed or extended federal contracts. President Biden also issued a directive on September 9 to the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which is tasked with developing a rule for all private sector employers with 100 or more employees to ensure their workforce is fully COVID-19 vaccinated or require any workers who remain unvaccinated to produce a weekly negative test result. OSHA plans to issue an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) to implement this requirement, which takes effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. It is expected that it will take time for OSHA to develop a draft and publish the final emergency workplace safety rule. However numerous state governors and state attorneys general have indicated that they plan to challenge the implementation of any such OSHA Emergency Safety Standard on constitutional grounds relating to state/federal division of power issues. Further, under federal administrative law, the administration may have to show in such litigation that an emergency rule is necessary to respond to a “grave danger” facing employees, in lieu of the more drawn-out administrative process usually used for adopting a workplace safety rule in the normal regulatory course, which is subject to a lesser standard. We may learn more about the legal landscape with regard to the potential government mandate situation as this threatened litigation proceeds. It should also be noted that OSHA has jurisdiction over workplace safety regulations generally, but not onboard aircraft (with the exception of cabin air quality), as the other workplace safety issues on aircraft are within the FAA’s jurisdiction. An eventual OSHA rule could likely apply, however, to the other physical operations of an airline, which for pilots would include coverage for entry onto the carrier’s property such as crew 4 rooms, training centers, airport areas, and the like, so this OSHA rule once it is issued could impact pilots. We are hopeful that this information will provide useful background with respect to the relevant legal precedents and status of the current legal challenges to vaccine mandates.
Globemaster2827 is offline  
Old 10-13-2021, 04:41 PM
  #3913  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Lockheed's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: B777 CA
Posts: 537
Default

that's some pretty comprehensive info there
answers a lot of questions about the legalities
of the mandate and why it hasn't been successfully
challenged

btw I really dont think it's wise to forge a vac record
if you dont like it..take the loa and wait it out
Lockheed is offline  
Old 10-13-2021, 05:25 PM
  #3914  
Tin Can Time
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Position: Corporate Do Boy
Posts: 144
Default

Originally Posted by Puck Hawg View Post
Pretty much what Palm said. Only thing I’d add is try and have your CBT’s finished the first week you get them. I’m not saying to just click through aimlessly, but there’s enough gouge to get you through. Form a study group of at least 4-5 and get together everyday and talk systems and work on flows. We had a full size cockpit “built” in my room out of pvc pipe and styrofoam and we sat in front of it for hours every day running flows and quizzing each other on systems. That should be your week 2.

Also, make friends with guys in the class ahead of you. They’ll pass along “important info” of how things are going and what needs to be focused on at the time (aka, “the gouge”).

Ask questions, put forth the effort, have a good attitude, and you won’t have issues. Most of the “problem” instructors in the training department have departed. It’s mostly a good group of guys. I’m definitely not saying it will be easy, but if I can get through it, any window licker can.
Originally Posted by Palmtree Pilot View Post
Week 1 Indoc
Week 2 CBTs in YIP. During this time you should also be using the FMS trainers, Procedure Trainer and schedule the FTD for self directed learning(SDL) …Assuming your on the 400
Week 3 SITs, SKVs and starting FTDs(4) before the PV
Week 4 4 SIMs, MV, EET, Int’l GS
Week 5 3 LOFTs, OKE/LOE

Roughly the sequence… Always some slight changes do to the amount of CQ and upgrade training that’s happening at the same time.

This is for the -400 new hires

Thanks Palmtree and PuckHawg

I received access to the CBT’s on Monday afternoon this week. So I’m trying to run through them, taking notes and hopefully finish them by Friday. Hopefully retaining the info. as well. I also received paper tigers and flight profiles with call outs. I’m assuming we’ll all get books, memorization items and limitations next week during indoc.?
JungleJetDriver is offline  
Old 10-13-2021, 05:47 PM
  #3915  
Holding
 
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Posts: 184
Default

Originally Posted by JungleJetDriver;[url=tel:3308759
3308759[/url]]Thanks Palmtree and PuckHawg

I received access to the CBT’s on Monday afternoon this week. So I’m trying to run through them, taking notes and hopefully finish them by Friday. Hopefully retaining the info. as well. I also received paper tigers and flight profiles with call outs. I’m assuming we’ll all get books, memorization items and limitations next week during indoc.?
Yes, the iPad you get on day one will have all of your manuals on it. Recommend you start studying flows as early as indoc week.
fastback is offline  
Old 10-13-2021, 06:19 PM
  #3916  
Tin Can Time
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Position: Corporate Do Boy
Posts: 144
Default

Originally Posted by fastback View Post
Yes, the iPad you get on day one will have all of your manuals on it. Recommend you start studying flows as early as indoc week.
Thanks Fastback. I’ll definitely do that.
JungleJetDriver is offline  
Old 10-13-2021, 07:50 PM
  #3917  
VHR-very happily retired
 
maxjet's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: Retired
Posts: 1,258
Default

Originally Posted by Globemaster2827 View Post
You'd make a very poor lawyer.... From ALPA legal.

CURRENT LEGAL STATUS UPDATE ON U.S. VACCINE MANDATES 9-24-21 We have received several questions asking whether employer-imposed COVID-19 vaccine mandates are lawful under U.S. law. The answer is, yes, an employer-imposed vaccine mandate is lawful. The Supreme Court decided in 1905 in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that a state could enforce compulsory vaccination laws, finding that mandatory vaccinations are neither arbitrary nor oppressive so long as they do not “go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public.” Specifically, this case found that Massachusetts could require all members of the public to be vaccinated against smallpox on pain of criminal sanction for non-compliance. In 1922, the Supreme Court followed that ruling in its decision in Zucht v. King, which similarly rejected a suit seeking an injunction on constitutional due process grounds against application of an ordinance which required a vaccination certificate proving that the student was inoculated against smallpox to attend public schools. The law has remained consistent since this time. For example, more recently, with respect to COVID-19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit issued a decision that reaffirmed the Jacobson ruling in finding that a public university’s policy mandating vaccinations for students was lawful (Klaassen, et al. v. Indiana University). The plaintiffs in that case sought emergency Supreme Court review, which was denied by Circuit Justice Amy Coney Barrett on August 12. Cases such as these brought against government mandates involve potentially more complex questions of individual constitutional rights than the issue of whether a private employer can mandate a vaccine, which is governed by private contract and employment relationships that do not involve those personal constitutional rights. Nonetheless, those challenges to governmental vaccine mandates have failed to date. In June, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas also relied on Jacobson in finding that a private employer’s policy mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for employees was lawful (Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital). As noted, the Constitutional arguments with respect to government entities do not apply to the actions of private corporations. In dismissing this case, the district court rejected arguments that the vaccination mandate involved “forced” injections, reasoning that the employees were free to decline and find other jobs. That judge also rejected arguments based on the then Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) status of the COVID-19 vaccine. (Note: The Pfizer vaccine has since been given full FDA approval, mooting that argument as to that vaccine, and full approval of several others is expected soon. Other courts and federal administrative agencies have similarly concluded that the EUA status of the COVID-19 vaccines is not a bar to a vaccination requirement and that such mandates can lawfully be imposed as a job requirement, as we will address below). Prior to the Houston Methodist Hospital decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in early 2020 (prior to the COVID outbreak) in Horvath v. City of Leander similarly rejected a challenge to a different vaccine mandate imposed by the city because, among other reasons, the objecting firefighter was not forced to take the vaccine and was free to accept a reasonable accommodation offered for his religious objections or to move to a different job instead. Another recent case of note involved a failed challenge by a group of United pilots to that company’s vaccination mandate, which does not offer an alternative of testing. The federal district judge in Florida, on his own motion in Hencey v. United, summarily dismissed the request for an emergency order to block the mandate on largely procedural grounds, but noted in 2 his decision that the request would likely fail even if the procedural defects were remedied, because the pilots could seek reinstatement and backpay, which would undercut the necessary showing of “irreparable harm” to support an injunction, and further because they would also be likely to lose on merits of the challenge to the mandate, given the consistent caselaw discussed above, including the Indiana University case. A state court in New York just reached a similar result in denying an injunction request by public employees, also citing the ability of the employees to seek reinstatement and backpay as a remedy. Additionally, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (which administers federal workplace anti-discrimination laws) has twice provided guidance that a COVID-19 vaccination requirement (even given an EUA vaccine status) does not unlawfully discriminate under the federal workplace discrimination statutes, so long as an employer offers reasonable accommodations to employees on medical or “sincerely held” religious belief grounds. (Note: the EEOC has determined that the question of reasonable accommodations, which involve individual claims of employees under the federal discrimination laws and are beyond ALPA’s representational authority under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and collective bargaining agreements and are determined by the employer under the limits of EEOC guidance, requires evidence of a significant medical risk or a long-established institutional religious belief, as opposed to personal beliefs or opinions). The U.S. Department of Justice issued similar guidance that mandates involving EUA COVID19 vaccines were not inconsistent with the Food and Drug Act, the legislation that governs the approval authority of the Food and Drug Administration regarding vaccines. The above analysis only covers laws external to any collective bargaining agreement. A labor agreement may, depending on the specific provisions of the contract, limit an employer’s discretion regarding implementation of a vaccination mandate, including regarding any negative sanctions for employees refusing to take the vaccine. Those issues, including regarding effects, implementation and sanctions for failure to follow a vaccination mandate, should be resolved in bargaining, or in the absence of agreement, pursuant to the terms and dispute adjustment procedures of the CBA, before the system board of adjustment in arbitration. Unresolved issues not addressed in bargaining involving vaccination mandates are expected to be resolved in arbitration -- and not in court -- with regard to the impact of a collective bargaining agreement on the issue. The reason for this is the firm rule established by the Supreme Court of the United States in construing the RLA in 1989 in the Conrail v. CSX case. In that case, which involved mandatory drug testing by a railroad which was nowhere mentioned in the collective bargaining agreement, the Court ruled that as long as management could make an argument based on the contract or past practice to justify the imposition of the testing requirement that was not completely frivolous, the matter had to be submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the grievance arbitration machinery under the applicable collective bargaining agreement. The courts have consistently applied this principle to RLA cases and directed issues involving arguable interpretations of a labor agreement or past practice – even those which would likely or even clearly come out on the losing side -- to arbitration. 3 Aside from employer mandates, the federal government is likely to soon impose its own vaccination and/or testing mandates. President Biden announced two relevant Executive Orders and one directive. The September 9 Executive Orders apply to the federal employee workforce and to federal contractors, and those require employees and government contractor operations to be fully vaccinated for COVID-19, with no testing option. With regard to federal contractors, which include many U.S. airlines, the relevant Executive Order has established a Safer Federal Worker Taskforce to construct guidelines for COVID vaccination that are to be observed in new, renewed or newly extended federal contracts. Significant timing questions apply to this situation as the requirements should only be imposed when relevant federal contracts are newly made, come up for renewal, or options to extend are exercised. Under guidance received from the Taskforce today, which is set to be translated into and included as contract requirements in federal contracts going forward, it appears that the mandate – which will include vaccination requirements as well as certain masking and social distancing requirements for individuals who obtain a religious or medical exemption from the vaccination requirement, will go into effect for new, renewed or extended federal contracts by December 8, 2021. It does not appear at this time that the government will try to impose a contractor employee vaccination mandate mid-contract, which may pose legal issues, but rather be phased in over the next several months as applied to new, renewed or extended federal contracts. President Biden also issued a directive on September 9 to the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which is tasked with developing a rule for all private sector employers with 100 or more employees to ensure their workforce is fully COVID-19 vaccinated or require any workers who remain unvaccinated to produce a weekly negative test result. OSHA plans to issue an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) to implement this requirement, which takes effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. It is expected that it will take time for OSHA to develop a draft and publish the final emergency workplace safety rule. However numerous state governors and state attorneys general have indicated that they plan to challenge the implementation of any such OSHA Emergency Safety Standard on constitutional grounds relating to state/federal division of power issues. Further, under federal administrative law, the administration may have to show in such litigation that an emergency rule is necessary to respond to a “grave danger” facing employees, in lieu of the more drawn-out administrative process usually used for adopting a workplace safety rule in the normal regulatory course, which is subject to a lesser standard. We may learn more about the legal landscape with regard to the potential government mandate situation as this threatened litigation proceeds. It should also be noted that OSHA has jurisdiction over workplace safety regulations generally, but not onboard aircraft (with the exception of cabin air quality), as the other workplace safety issues on aircraft are within the FAA’s jurisdiction. An eventual OSHA rule could likely apply, however, to the other physical operations of an airline, which for pilots would include coverage for entry onto the carrier’s property such as crew 4 rooms, training centers, airport areas, and the like, so this OSHA rule once it is issued could impact pilots. We are hopeful that this information will provide useful background with respect to the relevant legal precedents and status of the current legal challenges to vaccine mandates.
I have never written that the requirement for the vaccine is not legal. I am actually for a vaccine mandate in principal but still favor free choice. I differ from the common opinion here in that I do not see how any company can legally verify the veracity of the certificate without you giving them permission to do so. In other words they cannot compel a medical professional to release your medical record without your permission. Your article does not mention anything about this. There is also nothing that I can find that puts the responsibility for verification of a persons vaccine other than requiring that they show proof of obtaining said vaccine. Again I ask, why would a company try to investigate employees vaccine records when 1) it is not required by the mandate, 2) it is illegal without the employees permission, 3) a discovery of malfeasance would result in the company losing a needed employee.

How one produces proof is ones own decision to make. As stated earlier I do not advocate forgery, I do advocate getting a vaccine.

The thing I find interesting is that people want to invoke their right to not get a vaccine. I am all for that. Just like I am dead set against abortion but fully support a woman’s right to choose. But then they want to invoke the right with no consequences. There are consequences for just about every action we take in life. Just like those who trumpet their right to free speech but then tell me to stop posting. Hmmmm.
maxjet is offline  
Old 10-14-2021, 05:00 AM
  #3918  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Oct 2021
Posts: 4
Default

Originally Posted by East Aspen Dash View Post
Kalitta Charters Training is for Kalitta family companies employees only…
So if I get some sort of job with Kalitta, like an office job, they’ll put me through their program?
Darton01 is offline  
Old 10-14-2021, 05:03 AM
  #3919  
Gets Weekends Off
 
East Aspen Dash's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Posts: 147
Default

Originally Posted by Darton01 View Post
So if I get some sort of job with Kalitta, like an office job, they’ll put me through their program?

IDK give them a call… They are very separate to where I work, just happened to be informed by their only CFI.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
East Aspen Dash is offline  
Old 10-14-2021, 07:50 AM
  #3920  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,127
Default

Originally Posted by maxjet View Post
I have never written that the requirement for the vaccine is not legal. I am actually for a vaccine mandate in principal but still favor free choice. I differ from the common opinion here in that I do not see how any company can legally verify the veracity of the certificate without you giving them permission to do so. In other words they cannot compel a medical professional to release your medical record without your permission. Your article does not mention anything about this. There is also nothing that I can find that puts the responsibility for verification of a persons vaccine other than requiring that they show proof of obtaining said vaccine. Again I ask, why would a company try to investigate employees vaccine records when 1) it is not required by the mandate, 2) it is illegal without the employees permission, 3) a discovery of malfeasance would result in the company losing a needed employee.

How one produces proof is ones own decision to make. As stated earlier I do not advocate forgery, I do advocate getting a vaccine.

The thing I find interesting is that people want to invoke their right to not get a vaccine. I am all for that. Just like I am dead set against abortion but fully support a woman’s right to choose. But then they want to invoke the right with no consequences. There are consequences for just about every action we take in life. Just like those who trumpet their right to free speech but then tell me to stop posting. Hmmmm.
That isn't an "article". It's from ALPA legal - your union. They can and will force everyone should they so desire. It's not really being "forced" though because you don't have to work at Kalitta. You can work somewhere else.
Globemaster2827 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
alphonso1
Charter
33
04-28-2020 06:45 PM
winglet
Regional
47
05-15-2016 09:45 PM
AeroCrewSolut
Kalitta Companies
6
05-16-2012 06:55 PM
FastDEW
Major
201
09-03-2011 06:42 AM
flystraightin
Major
4
05-31-2006 06:31 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread