AirTran in talks with Airbus

[Ty Webb]

Sorry, Guy, but your beef is not with Turbo, it's with your company and your union.

At AirTran, it is not a scope issue at all, as another person pointed out. We have protection against that, if we needed it, but we don't need it- the Company could operate our own equipment cheaper than we can ACMI it.

We simply don't have the crews to fly the airplanes we have parked at ATL right now. Crews are being hired and trained, but until they are on-line, Miami Air will fill that gap.

I don't want to see the Company pass on the $$$ or turn away business. When we have the manpower, we'll do it ourselves.

We have hired 120 since Nov. and will have hired 300+ by the end of the year. You can only train a certain amount of people with the limited sim and training facilities we have in place.

PS., For what it's worth, the rumor around the training center was that we were looking at -700, not -800.

 

[TurboS7]

700 has another 500nm of range over the 800 and for all pratical purposes carries the same amount of people.

 

[Boeingman]

Sorry, Guy, but your beef is not with Turbo, it's with your company and your union.

I don't have a beef with either of you guys. If you want to farm out your flying and cut your own throats...have at it. In the long run it will work against you.

All I am saying is a solid scope clause prevents this scenario from happening (and then some) and keeps OUR pilots flying OUR passengers on OUR aircraft.

My point to Turbo is no matter how he sugarcoats it, at an airline with scope protection, this would not happen.

 

[-9Capt]

Boeingman,

Believe me, I understand your point.

However, AirTran does have a scope clause covering sub-service by other carriers which puts limits on the ammount of flying and duration it can go on.

If the company (AirTran) was not hiring, not expanding, and not recieving new aircraft, I would agree with you 100%. The fact of the matter is the company is growing and hiring as fast as they can, some would argue faster than they can.

In this case I don't see a problem farming out some flying (up to the limits of the scope clause) while the company expands to eventually handle it themselves.

In the long run every pilot on the property will be better off beacuse of it.

Happy Flying.