Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

"The New ATA"

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
I think the issue of upgrade time for Airtran pilots is irrelevant. The 737s and 717s that we have on firm order are coming anyway whether they are flown to MDW, DFW or just used to increase frequency to ATL. The planes are coming either way and they'll need 2 pilots to fly them.
 
FDJ2 said:
Those who think that a judge will willy nilly (technical legal term) throw out this job protection language are mistaken, since there is no justifiable need to throw it out.
Just a cautionary note. The judge may not have to throw out ATA's successorship clauses because other forces may coerce them to do it voluntarily. Sorry, but that's what happened to TWA and I hope it doesn't happen to ATA.
 
HalinTexas said:
But they're integrated, not subjected to preferential interviews. That's my point. Like I said, if everyone is a little bit PO'd then it's probably a fair deal.


Yes, it is, but when is it ever "controlled" in reality?
Hey HalinTexas,
E-mail or PM me.
adios
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top