Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Can Any Judge Step In Nwa / Fa's  
User currently offlineSwaguy27 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 9 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4198 times:

At this point the airline has done everything they can to ruin any relationship with any of it's unions finally one group is not stepping down. I think they should be allowed to strike and if the airline goes under that is on the shoulders of the guys that are making six figures a year while they are nickel and diming there employees . I' m sure those mastermindas that screwed thing up at nwa will be hired at another one of the big six to help them screw things up even more }example pan am eastern twa and almost at one time continental. Please don't ever say it is the employees fault they are standing up for what is wright it is the greed of corportate america.

56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCharlienorth From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1133 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4176 times:

More like 7 figures,seems to me if NWA can impose a contract the fa's should be able to go the route of self help under The RLA.

User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13754 posts, RR: 61
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4121 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Charlienorth (Reply 1):
seems to me if NWA can impose a contract the fa's should be able to go the route of self help under The RLA.

,,especially since each flight attendant becomes an "at-will" employee the moment the original contract is tossed out - so they're free to walk out individually at any time.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5793 posts, RR: 28
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4100 times:

Not to dredge up the other thread on this, but I thought the point wasn't to say they couldn't strike, but to say they must wait to strike until the judge rules on the clarity of the situation (as it relates to being in BK, etc.)

In other words, they may very well be able to strike soon, but after the judge reviews the situation more.

Don't flame me - I'm not picking a side, just interpreting what I thought I heard.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineJustPlaneNutz From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 553 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4057 times:

Quoting Swaguy27 (Thread starter):
if the airline goes under....

Keep in mind that other stakeholders in bankruptcy don't get to sink the ship if they don't like their prospects during reorganization. Debtors can't at will repossess their collateral and sink the ship, vendors can't at will terminate their contracts and sink the ship, landlords can't at will evict tenants and sink the ship (despite very clear language in contracts that terminates leases upon bankruptcy filings). The very nature of bankruptcy is the court imposing terms upon stakeholders less favorable than what had been agreed and not allowing them to bring the company down.

Employees have one right no other stakeholder does--they can simply wash their hands of the company and take another job whenever they darn well please. Now, if they all decide to do that on the same day....


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4048 times:

I hope the courts prevent the unions from destroying the airline.
All depends on the judge of course, if it's a leftist he'll be all too happy to help his socialist brothers.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineCo/ba From United States of America, joined May 2001, 399 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4047 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 3):
Not to dredge up the other thread on this, but I thought the point wasn't to say they couldn't strike, but to say they must wait to strike until the judge rules on the clarity of the situation (as it relates to being in BK, etc.)

I am no lawyer but that is the way I interpreted it as well. I do hope that the employees will be given thier right to strike so that both sides get a fair deal. Unfortunately I think the court will side with managment.


User currently offlineJustPlaneNutz From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 553 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4027 times:

Quoting Co/ba (Reply 6):
I do hope that the employees will be given their right to strike so that both sides get a fair deal.

Again, other stakeholders don't get the right to withhold whatever it is they contracted for (planes, gates, gas, mx) to get a "fairer" deal. Nothing about bankruptcy is really fair to those getting their deals retraded.

Oh, and let's observe a moment of silence for NWA stockholders. They got sent to the gallows on the first day. The first stock I ever bought was Braniff, so I feel their pain.

[Edited 2006-08-31 06:18:57]

User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4027 times:

Quoting JustPlaneNutz (Reply 4):
Keep in mind that other stakeholders in bankruptcy don't get to sink the ship if they don't like their prospects during reorganization. Debtors can't at will repossess their collateral and sink the ship, vendors can't at will terminate their contracts and sink the ship, landlords can't at will evict tenants and sink the ship (despite very clear language in contracts that terminates leases upon bankruptcy filings).

While they cannot do so at will, they can in fact go to the judge and make their case. The bottom line is that no judge will allow any bankrupt company to continue operations for very long unless he or she believes that the company can come up with a plan that will benefit stakeholders more than simply shutting the company down.

Debtors can and do petition the courts for involuntary Chapter 7 liquidation -- that is, to get judges to force companies to shut down when they ncan make a case that there's no hope of asset recovery.

Steve


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4015 times:

Quoting JustPlaneNutz (Reply 4):
Keep in mind that other stakeholders in bankruptcy don't get to sink the ship if they don't like their prospects during reorganization. Debtors can't at will repossess their collateral and sink the ship, vendors can't at will terminate their contracts and sink the ship, landlords can't at will evict tenants and sink the ship (despite very clear language in contracts that terminates leases upon bankruptcy filings). The very nature of bankruptcy is the court imposing terms upon stakeholders less favorable than what had been agreed and not allowing them to bring the company down.

Employees have one right no other stakeholder does--they can simply wash their hands of the company and take another job whenever they darn well please. Now, if they all decide to do that on the same day....

What about all the NW employees and in particular those FA's who were given NW stock which has since become worthless, where does their "input" in regards to the stockholder lie with NW management?


User currently offlineJustPlaneNutz From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 553 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4011 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9):
What about all the NW employees and in particular those FA's who were given NW stock which has since become worthless, where does their "input" in regards to the stockholder lie with NW management?

They bargained for their stock the same way outsiders bought theirs. My moment of silence certainly includes employee/stockholders.


User currently offlineJustPlaneNutz From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 553 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4002 times:

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 8):
While they cannot do so at will, they can in fact go to the judge and make their case. The bottom line is that no judge will allow any bankrupt company to continue operations for very long unless he or she believes that the company can come up with a plan that will benefit stakeholders more than simply shutting the company down.

Debtors can and do petition the courts for involuntary Chapter 7 liquidation -- that is, to get judges to force companies to shut down when they ncan make a case that there's no hope of asset recovery.

All stakeholders implore the court to place their interests above those of others (including those who would prefer 7 to 11). That's the nature of the beast. But, which other stakeholders have a Plan B (i.e.--strike) if they don't like the outcome in court?


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5339 posts, RR: 23
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3973 times:

What some are missing here is the following:

(1) The f/a union's bargaining team negotiated and approved an agreement with Northwest. The membership rejected it and then decertified the union. The more agitated of the folks on here said that this union, which had served the membership acceptably in the past, were incompetent. Okay fine. Whatever. Regardless, a new union then came in.

(2) The new union again negotiated and approved an agreement with NW. It was not ratified, but some 75% of the membership voted to approve it.

Given this, it's not as if the airline is somehow being "totally unreasonable". 75% of the members voted to approve the second contract that the membership's elected representatives negotiated with the airline. Now, fearful for their union positions, the f/a union leaderships rhetoric has turned extremely radical, and we'll have to have some kind of down-to-the-last-minute brinksmanship in order for the union reps to persuade the remaining 25% of the membership that this is in fact the best deal that they can get. But they have to know, deep down, that a strike is a failure by leadership, because membership usually doesn't get back enough money in the improved deal brought about by the strike to make up the money that they lost from being "unemployed" during the strike. The judge took away the leverage that the union wanted to hold the airline's family-traveler customers hostage over Labor Day weekend. In a week or so from now, the slow period will begin, and CHAOS won't be as big a threat. It will still be a threat, but a couple of cancelled flights in a slower period won't screw the other employees as badly as it would during a busier period (fewer customers to put on the remaining flights, for example).

Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail and this will all work out as best it can given the financial state of the industry.

PS All this talk about being an "at-will" employee is kind of confusing to me. An "at-will" employee is one that the employer can fire at will, not one that doesn't have to work. Any NW employee can quit tomorrow, contract or no contract. Contracts for personal services are typically not specifically enforceable, meaning that nobody can usually force anybody to work if they want to quit. However, if an employee quits, than the employer can replace the employee. The question here is whether the employee can refuse to work and nevertheless prevent the employer from permanently replacing them. "At will" typically has to do with the circumstances under which the employer can fire the employee, not whether the employee can be prevented from quitting.


User currently offlineJustPlaneNutz From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 553 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3956 times:

I think your understanding of "at will" is correct, both in general and in employment law. At will employees and tenancies can be terminated at anytime by the employer/landlord without cause or recourse ("I don't like that tie--you're fired"). Most organized airline employees are not at will employees, and they do have recourse if terminated. Nothing however keeps the employee from quitting on a whim.

My generous use of the term when speaking about leases and debts follows the same logic--neither side can amend/revoke them at will.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13754 posts, RR: 61
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3907 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JustPlaneNutz (Reply 13):
Most organized airline employees are not at will employees, and they do have recourse if terminated.

However if the CBA is rejected BY THE CARRIER and the employees are then working without a contract - not under the old one as is usually the case under the RLA - at that point the employees ARE 'at-will' and can walk out.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6535 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3874 times:

Quoting Charlienorth (Reply 1):
More like 7 figures,seems to me if NWA can impose a contract the fa's should be able to go the route of self help under The RLA.

Please give details of NWA executives earning 7 figures.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9):
What about all the NW employees and in particular those FA's who were given NW stock which has since become worthless

The FA's chose to receive preferred as opposed to all other employee groups who received common stock. These employees then sold their common stock as they received it at a nice profit. Not too smart on the FA's part!

I will ask again, do the FA's think they should received a smaller % cut than all the other employee groups. If so, why?


User currently offlineMattRB From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1624 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3868 times:

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 12):
(2) The new union again negotiated and approved an agreement with NW. It was not ratified, but some 75% of the membership voted to approve it.

If 75% of the memebership voted to approve it, would that indicate that it had been, in fact, ratified?

I think you've got your facts mixed up here. I believe it was 75% of the membership abstained from voting or didn't show up and the other 25% shot down TA2.



Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
User currently offlineBucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3844 times:

Quoting MattRB (Reply 16):
If 75% of the memebership voted to approve it, would that indicate that it had been, in fact, ratified?

he is right. Ratification is a simple majority vote. If 75% had voted to approve it, it would be in effect right now.

Back to the topic, I don't see how the courts can stop a strike ultimately. If Northwest is going to argue that the Railway Labor Act would prevent the FAs from striking, they cannot then say that they can impose a contract based on Bankruptcy law. The Railway Labor Act would indeed prevent the FAs from striking, but it would also prevent Northwest from imposing work rules.


User currently offlineUadc8contrail From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1782 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3823 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 5):
I hope the courts prevent the unions from destroying the airline.
All depends on the judge of course, if it's a leftist he'll be all too happy to help his socialist brothers.

J,
I hope that nwa does make it even in light of the great management team that got nwa into the mess in the first place....unions were not at fault here...



bus driver.......move that bus:)
User currently offlineSeeTheWorld From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1325 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3811 times:

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 12):
What some are missing here is the following:

(1) The f/a union's bargaining team negotiated and approved an agreement with Northwest. The membership rejected it and then decertified the union. The more agitated of the folks on here said that this union, which had served the membership acceptably in the past, were incompetent. Okay fine. Whatever. Regardless, a new union then came in.

(2) The new union again negotiated and approved an agreement with NW. It was not ratified, but some 75% of the membership voted to approve it.

Given this, it's not as if the airline is somehow being "totally unreasonable". 75% of the members voted to approve the second contract that the membership's elected representatives negotiated with the airline. Now, fearful for their union positions, the f/a union leaderships rhetoric has turned extremely radical, and we'll have to have some kind of down-to-the-last-minute brinksmanship in order for the union reps to persuade the remaining 25% of the membership that this is in fact the best deal that they can get. But they have to know, deep down, that a strike is a failure by leadership, because membership usually doesn't get back enough money in the improved deal brought about by the strike to make up the money that they lost from being "unemployed" during the strike. The judge took away the leverage that the union wanted to hold the airline's family-traveler customers hostage over Labor Day weekend. In a week or so from now, the slow period will begin, and CHAOS won't be as big a threat. It will still be a threat, but a couple of cancelled flights in a slower period won't screw the other employees as badly as it would during a busier period (fewer customers to put on the remaining flights, for example).

Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail and this will all work out as best it can given the financial state of the industry.

PS All this talk about being an "at-will" employee is kind of confusing to me. An "at-will" employee is one that the employer can fire at will, not one that doesn't have to work. Any NW employee can quit tomorrow, contract or no contract. Contracts for personal services are typically not specifically enforceable, meaning that nobody can usually force anybody to work if they want to quit. However, if an employee quits, than the employer can replace the employee. The question here is whether the employee can refuse to work and nevertheless prevent the employer from permanently replacing them. "At will" typically has to do with the circumstances under which the employer can fire the employee, not whether the employee can be prevented from quitting.

Thank you for setting the record straight. The fact is, this threat of CHAOS is a failure of union leadership, and if they are allowed to strike and they do, they will NOT be better off in the long term - "they" being the unions, the union leadership, the hardworking airline employees, et. al.


User currently offline1rocco From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3808 times:

Quoting MattRB (Reply 16):
If 75% of the memebership voted to approve it, would that indicate that it had been, in fact, ratified?

I think you've got your facts mixed up here. I believe it was 75% of the membership abstained from voting or didn't show up and the other 25% shot down TA2.



Bingo... If 75% of the membership would have accepted it would have gone into affect. This is not rocket science but some of you seem to beat this dead horse over and over again. Remember that under AFA those who are on voluntary or involuntary furlough were not allowed to vote. That is probably about 1000-1500 f/a's. 195 million from 7500 f/a's= NO FREAKING WAY. You do the math.


User currently offlineSJC-Alien From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 919 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3799 times:

,,,All I can add here, is the climate in America today, is to 'benefit' Big Business......all of the hard work from labor Unions for many years past for our labor rights, is being killed off by greedy business corporations to make money - at our expense. Don't think for a minute that the employees helped bring NWA to where it is now. Mis-management of the Airline at NWA is a BIG BIG factor, as most employees on a day to day basis, have nothing to do with the behind the scenes management running their Airline.

SJC Alien


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3705 times:

Quoting Uadc8contrail (Reply 18):
....unions were not at fault here...

Maybe not solely, but the automatic refusal of unions to give anything when a company and instead demand ludicrous pay increases in times of economic trouble makes them at least part responsible.
And the skyhigh union salaries airlines have to pay their staff ARE a main cause of the high operating cost and the main reason they can't reduce that cost (a lot of the rest of their cost is dictated by government requirements and things like fuel).



I wish I were flying
User currently offline1rocco From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3673 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 22):
Maybe not solely, but the automatic refusal of unions to give anything when a company and instead demand ludicrous pay increases in times of economic trouble makes them at least part responsible.

We are not asking for ludicrous pay increases. We understand that we must take pay cuts.. We are fighting for better work rules. Many of which are no or little cost items to the company. NWA has always treated the f/a's like second class citizens. Its the "executive talent" that are in line for some hefty bonuses once we emergbe from banckruptcy. While the f/a's struggle from paycheck to paycheck to make ends meet. Being a f/'a isn't cheap. That is one thing that makes us different than the other work groups. We don't have the luxury to pack food for a 5 day trip or be home for dinner each night. To rub salt on the wound nwa has taken away crew meals and water. 16-18 hr duty days with no food or water. Many times there is no time with delays and abnormal operations to even get a burger from Mc'd. They are just punishing us for not rolling over and playing dead. Who ever told you we are looking for ludicrous pay increase needs a drug test now.


User currently offlineASFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2005, 1208 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3655 times:

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 12):
(2) The new union again negotiated and approved an agreement with NW. It was not ratified, but some 75% of the membership voted to approve it

No, 75% of the membership did NOT vote to approve it. Had that been the case, the second TA would have been what they were now working under.


25 Smokescreen : Just out of curiosity, what happens if a vendor (eg. catering company, fuel supplier etc.) decides to cut off its services due to a fear of non-payme
26 ASFlyer : Show me where either PFAA or AFA demanded "ludicrous pay increases". All along, both unions have shown their willingness to work with the company to
27 Post contains links AirRyan : Interesting article about the precedent of this particular case... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060831/bs_nm/airlines_northwest_strike_dc
28 TVNWZ : What he meant to say..I am sure..is that 75% either voted for the second tenative agreement or did not vote. Only 25% voted to turn it down. One-quar
29 Ikramerica : exactly. it's been less than a week. the f/as aren't going to go broke individually during that period, but if they struck the airline could have. th
30 1rocco : Well there were about 1500 who could not vote. Anyone who was VF or IVF was not eligable to vote. The way I see it is if you had cancer you would wan
31 Ejmmsu : What does the incompetence of the NW unions have to do with NW management?
32 Bobnwa : Is TA2 the proof that AFA had no clue what it was doing? Do you think that the FA's are being asked to take larger % cuts than the other groups or th
33 1rocco : OH Bob.. Atleast the rest of the groups have scheduled meal breaks. It is not as much the % as it is the work rules most of which are no or Low cost
34 Nwa744tpa : The TA1 was crafted from surveys given to the FA group years before when a normal negotiation was expected plus the new dollar amount from NWA ($195 m
35 Ikramerica : But how many times is a company required to negotiate a contract with union leadership before they get tired and see it as stall tactic, a stall tact
36 1rocco : Yep.. If that what it takes to sell your boat that's what needs to be done.
37 Ejmmsu : That is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time... You sell your boat to someone who is serious about buying it.
38 ASFlyer : The membership did not support PFAA for many reasons, one being that PFAA gave the company massive paycuts and horrendous work rule changes without e
39 ASFlyer : How do you know what he meant to say? He clearly said that 75% of the membership voted FOR the last TA and that is not the case.
40 ASFlyer : That hadn't even occured to me, but it sure makes A LOT of sense.
41 ASFlyer : It's because of the incompetence of the NWA management that any of the NWA employees are faced with these decisions in the first place.
42 Ejmmsu : Last time I checked, pay cuts and bankruptcy are not unique in the airline industry currently, and over the past few years.
43 ASFlyer : No, they are basically unique to airlines with incompetent management. Care to explain how Alaska, American, Continental, Southwest, Skywest, Mesa, A
44 Ejmmsu : Skywest, Mesa, et. al. are doing fine because most of their flying is fee for departure, so they are guaranteed a profit. They also pay wages that ma
45 ASFlyer : Alaska secured pay cuts from their Pilots and by outsourcing their fleet and ramp personnel. This did not include a "complete" ramp outsourcing, as t
46 Ikramerica : Exactly. Now NW doesn't have the option to "sell the boat" to someone else, but they are in BK and sure has hell do have the option of having the cou
47 ASFlyer : At the end of the day, competent management, that fostered good employee relations, saved the companies. A novel concept, huh?
48 AASTEW : AA's labor contracts were negotiated with Don Carty in office. Then after concessions were given Carty sought a bonus. Carty was dismissed then Arpey
49 Post contains images TVNWZ : And with AFA's experience with bankruptcy and negotiating a tenative agreement the membership did not support that experience. Your problem. Funny. I
50 ASFlyer : They did stand up and take responsibility - They booted out the group they could no longer trust and they elected new leadership that they trust. Bec
51 ASFlyer : NWA was hours away from imposing terms of TA1 on the group. AFA negotiated a contract that was somewhat better than TA1 and they put it out there bec
52 MSPGUY : So if the grass is greener at the other airlines, the FA's should move on!!! Oh wait, most aren't hiring or have minimal pay increases. This wouldn't
53 TVNWZ : You are right. I did not spell it correctly. I take responsibility. Thank you. Hell, I'm an old man. Personal? Other than a snide remark to 1rocco, h
54 Ikramerica : That is not exactly how it happened. FYI. The airline needed promises of concessions to secure immediate funding, and the unions were not going to co
55 ASFlyer : By your personal attacks for one. [Edited 2006-09-02 01:36:35]
56 ASFlyer : The following airlines are hiring: United Alaska US Airways Continental Southwest Jet Blue Midwest Airlines AirTran and just about every regional air
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Can This Plane Depart In A Blizzard? posted Wed Apr 26 2006 22:20:44 by Alberchico
How Can This Be "in Flight" posted Thu Apr 6 2006 09:34:06 by DLKAPA
Judge Rules NWA FA's Have Right To Strike posted Thu Aug 17 2006 18:48:09 by Saabmeister
How On Earth Can Any More Mergers Be Approved? posted Sun Jul 30 2006 14:44:40 by Scamp
Planes In Marana- How Can You Make Them Fly Again? posted Sun Oct 9 2005 18:02:37 by El Al 001
How Can I Get In Contact With An Old Pilot? posted Sun Jun 19 2005 05:31:07 by SkyWestFan
How Can We Get 2 Seats To Any Destination?! posted Thu Jan 29 2004 16:43:27 by Downingbarry
How Can I Display Pictures In Topics? posted Fri May 12 2000 15:09:12 by A student
How Can I Get In On The Airports To Take Pictures? posted Wed Sep 1 1999 04:35:11 by James23
Any Spotters, Enthusiasts In LAS? posted Sat Nov 4 2006 22:15:46 by Airbrasil