sweptback
Guess that wasn't solid
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Posts
- 1,876
First of all, he was talking about MOU 43 and 44, which have already expired. It would be simple to renew them, assuming both the company and ALPA want to.
How do we know that SkyWest, Inc. hasn't manipulated the flying given over by Delta to give more flying to SkyWest and less to ASA? We still see a lot of SkyWest airplanes in ATL and CVG, even after ASA got 900s. So then why don't we see ASA airplanes in SLC? Isn't it possible that SkyWest, Inc. is trying to keep the flying on the SkyWest side so they don't have to furlough over there?
If it comes down to it, SkyWest, Inc. can get out of the ASA no furlough clause by filing bankruptcy. But then their DCI contract can be canceled immediately, so that wouldn't be too smart. If it comes to that, they will need to assign more flying to ASA, and furlough off the side of the company without any protections.
How do we know that SkyWest, Inc. hasn't manipulated the flying given over by Delta to give more flying to SkyWest and less to ASA? We still see a lot of SkyWest airplanes in ATL and CVG, even after ASA got 900s. So then why don't we see ASA airplanes in SLC? Isn't it possible that SkyWest, Inc. is trying to keep the flying on the SkyWest side so they don't have to furlough over there?
If it comes down to it, SkyWest, Inc. can get out of the ASA no furlough clause by filing bankruptcy. But then their DCI contract can be canceled immediately, so that wouldn't be too smart. If it comes to that, they will need to assign more flying to ASA, and furlough off the side of the company without any protections.
Last edited: