Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Getting Rid Of RLA  
User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5254 posts, RR: 1
Posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3040 times:

Unions representing airline employees constantly complain of managements dragging out negotiations or negotiating in bad faith. It seems to me that the Railway Labor Act compounds the problem.

In a nutshell, collective bargaining agreements don't have end dates, but rather, dates that they are open to amendments. If a union and management feel they arent' making headway, they can ask for a federal mediator to assist in the negotiations. Only if the mediator feels that negotiations are stalled can he declare an impasse, which starts at 30-day cooling-off period. After 30 days, the union may strike, and the carrier lock out the employees.

Would it improve contract negotiations, if airline unions lobbied Congress to be removed from the RLA? Back in the days of regulation, being under the RLA made sense. If an airline went on strike, a city could lose its air service for the duration. Other airlines weren't free to start serving a route that was subject to a strike. Even if a route had 2 or 3 carriers serving it, regulations often made it difficult to add flights or switch to larger aircraft to handle passengers stranded by the strike.

That isn't the case in the days of deregulation.

By the same token, if the traveling public knows that Airline X's contract with its pilots expires on a certain date, they can book other carriers. With the RLA, someone planning a vacation can book 6 months in advance, only to find out a month before their trip that a cooling-off period has been declared.

The fact that we have a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress certainly makes passage easy, if the unions are behind it.

Besides, human nature is such that it's more likely to accomplish a goal, if there is a fixed deadline rather than no deadline.

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23084 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2970 times:

What is RLA today? It remains a barrier to strikes (as it was under regulation). The question is whether, given the smaller but still extant harm of airline strikes, is it a worthwhile goal? I think yes, and as a result I advocate removing airlines from the RLA but putting them under some sort of mandatory mediation regime. Specifically, I think that it would be most effective to give contracts definite end dates but keep most of the rest of the RLA process the same.

That solution would incentivize negotiation while still, to a degree, discouraging strikes.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4021 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2924 times:

Quoting ckfred (Thread starter):
if the unions are behind it.

Why would unions be behind it? Airlines are capital-intensive and die quickly after a stoppage. Making strikes easier will quicken the demise of airlines that have union representation.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25537 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2904 times:

The point of the RLA going back 80-years now has been to minimize disruptions and damage of the national transport system and commerce which labor disputes could potentially create.

So seems to me these goals are as valid today as they were in 1926, hence the validity and importance of the Act.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2840 times:

Quoting ckfred (Thread starter):
Unions representing airline employees constantly complain of managements dragging out negotiations or negotiating in bad faith. It seems to me that the Railway Labor Act compounds the problem.

Better yet: "its unions which compound the problem"....if its anything which should be "dragged", I would say its the unions...  

Quoting ckfred (Thread starter):
Would it improve contract negotiations, if airline unions lobbied Congress to be removed from the RLA?

Contract negotiations would probably improve between workers and management if there were no unions...  

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
The point of the RLA going back 80-years now has been to minimize disruptions and damage of the national transport system and commerce which labor disputes could potentially create.

So seems to me these goals are as valid today as they were in 1926, hence the validity and importance of the Act.

  



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineCatIII From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3038 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2759 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 1):
think yes, and as a result I advocate removing airlines from the RLA but putting them under some sort of mandatory mediation regime.

Baseball style arbitration (last best offer) would probably be the solution.


User currently offlineskyguyB727 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2733 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 4):
Better yet: "its unions which compound the problem"....if its anything which should be "dragged", I would say its the unions...

Under the RLA, unionized staff continue to work under the terms of the existing contract until it is modified and those modifications are agreed to by both parties. How do unions compound the problem, as you claim?

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 4):
Contract negotiations would probably improve between workers and management if there were no unions...

Without unions, there are no contract negotiations, because there are no contracts. All pay and work rules are imposed on workers and can be arbitrarily changed at any time. Those workers have no input in the process. If they didn't like what was being imposed on them, their only recourse is to quit.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2675 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
So seems to me these goals are as valid today as they were in 1926, hence the validity and importance of the Act.

So, let me ask: When was the last time the RLA had any updates, amendments, rule changes, etc etc.... to the rules in general? If the RLA has not been modified in any way since 1926, then maybe it is time for an overhaul of the Act, making the rules of the game fair across the board to today's standard instead of an 80 year old standard?



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinenwaesc From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 3391 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2638 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 4):
Contract negotiations would probably improve between workers and management if there were no unions...  

It's early, so if this was sarcasm and I missed it, I apologize...


That said, you are aware that without representation, there is no negotiation, right? It's a one-way straight, and the recourse is to "take it or leave it."



"Nothing ever happens here, " I said. "I just wait."
User currently offlinebahadir From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1794 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2632 times:

RLA going away can solve a lot of the problems with the industry in a heartbeat. The fact that management has a blank check in their hands to run the airline with the same poverty wages from 10 years ago and the labor group not being able to do about it is insane.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
So seems to me these goals are as valid today as they were in 1926, hence the validity and importance of the Act.

In 1926 we were flying with DC3s. Now we have jets criss crossng the country left and right. If AA strikes tomorrow the interruption of the airline service will be minimal compared to what was intended in 1926. In 1926 if your LGB-SFO trip was interrupted you probably were stuck in your departure point. Today you will find many alternatives flying LAX-SFO. On the other hand, the airline where the strike is can get a really nice wake up call.

Of course, if RLA went away I suspect lotsa interruptions in the commerce because the airline employees are fed up and they have been working with a decade old (in some cases) pay scales.



Earthbound misfit I
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2624 times:

Quoting nwaesc (Reply 8):
It's a one-way straight, and the recourse is to "take it or leave it."

The NWA way in 2005, if I understand you correctly?



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2599 times:

Quoting skyguyB727 (Reply 6):
Without unions, there are no contract negotiations, because there are no contracts. All pay and work rules are imposed on workers and can be arbitrarily changed at any time. Those workers have no input in the process. If they didn't like what was being imposed on them, their only recourse is to quit.

Sounds reasonable.

Quoting nwaesc (Reply 8):
That said, you are aware that without representation, there is no negotiation, right? It's a one-way straight, and the recourse is to "take it or leave it."

That also sounds reasonable.

The job belongs to the company and the company's owners, not the employee.

Don't like it? You are free to start your own competing company and pay your employees what ever pay and benefits you like.


User currently offlinebahadir From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1794 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2579 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 11):
Don't like it? You are free to start your own competing company and pay your employees what ever pay and benefits you like.

Sure, let me start my own airline .. Where do I get some used CRJs .. Hmmm.. I love the union bashing on a.net ..



Earthbound misfit I
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2549 times:

Quoting skyguyB727 (Reply 6):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 4):
Better yet: "its unions which compound the problem"....if its anything which should be "dragged", I would say its the unions...

Under the RLA, unionized staff continue to work under the terms of the existing contract until it is modified and those modifications are agreed to by both parties. How do unions compound the problem, as you claim?

...I was being a bit sardonic... 
Quoting skyguyB727 (Reply 6):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 4):
Contract negotiations would probably improve between workers and management if there were no unions...

Without unions, there are no contract negotiations, because there are no contracts. All pay and work rules are imposed on workers and can be arbitrarily changed at any time. Those workers have no input in the process. If they didn't like what was being imposed on them, their only recourse is to quit.

While theoretically rules can be changed anytime, employers usually don't cut staff salary by 50%.

Again, I really don't have a problem with unions, its just that see that many of the original functions of unions have become rather obsolete.

The union heads should be helping their members in other ways now-i.e. evolve the functions of the unions.

What I find the most troubling is the concept of seniority. Working at a hospital for a decade, I never once saw that problem when someone new (and possibly younger) would come in at a "better" or "higher" position with better pay, etc. There were no strikes, walkouts, disruptions, etc.

Yes, someone would occasionally be upset, but I saw it more of a motivational tool more than anything else.

Quoting nwaesc (Reply 8):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 4):
Contract negotiations would probably improve between workers and management if there were no unions...

It's early, so if this was sarcasm and I missed it, I apologize...

No problems mate...



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2518 times:

Quoting bahadir (Reply 12):
Sure, let me start my own airline .. Where do I get some used CRJs .. Hmmm.. I love the union bashing on a.net ..

There are plenty of used CRJs and ERJs on the market now.

My post was not bashing any union, but a statement of fact. Simple economics says that when you make something more expensive or difficult, then you decrease the number of those available.

If you artificially make hiring someone more expensive or difficult, you will decrease the number of jobs available.

Someone had to risk their own money to start every airline, and every business for that matter, why should you be any different?

If my employees tried to unionize, I would close the company and move it to a different country (which I have been approached by alot of countries to do just that). The same holds true if government regulation and taxation in the USA becomes too onerous (which is fast approaching).

WRT the RLA, I don't think it makes much difference. Keep it, kill it, modify it, it really won't matter in the long run.

[Edited 2010-02-24 06:55:57]

User currently offlineDelta763 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2494 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 11):
The job belongs to the company and the company's owners, not the employee.

You'd think this was common sense, but it's amazing how much of a revelation this is to some people.

It astounds me that on a forum full of people who like to fly that we're proposing making it easier for people to go on strike. Flying has become enough of a hassle as it is, without the increased threat that your flight might be cancelled because they just didn't feel like showing up for work.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25537 posts, RR: 50
Reply 16, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2462 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 7):
So, let me ask: When was the last time the RLA had any updates, amendments, rule changes, etc etc.... to the rules in general? If the RLA has not been modified in any way since 1926, then maybe it is time for an overhaul of the Act, making the rules of the game fair across the board to today's standard instead of an 80 year old standard?

To my knowledge, the last major amendment to RLA was in the 1950s, which allowed public unions into airlines. Prior companies could have inhouse associations, but were not allowed to be represented by national public unions.

Quoting bahadir (Reply 9):
In 1926 we were flying with DC3s. Now we have jets criss crossng the country left and right. If AA strikes tomorrow the interruption of the airline service will be minimal compared to what was intended in 1926. In 1926 if your LGB-SFO trip was interrupted you probably were stuck in your departure point. Today you will find many alternatives flying LAX-SFO. On the other hand, the airline where the strike is can get a really nice wake up call.

Well in 1926 when enacted the RLA did not apply to airlines. The Act was created for railroads - hence the name Railway Labor Act. Airlines were not included in the act till the late 1930s when their place in national commerce started to become important.

But with todays incredibly interdependent economy and global commerce, a strike by a major US airline, and subsequent operation reduction could very much likely create significant disruptions to commerce, something which on a national scale needs to be avoided and the goal of the Act.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8165 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2441 times:

Quoting bahadir (Reply 9):
The fact that management has a blank check in their hands to run the airline with the same poverty wages from 10 years ago and the labor group not being able to do about it is insane.

Just how do you propose to be able to increase wages in the competitive markets of today without drastically cutting service, maintenance, operations or all of the above?



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2397 times:

Quoting bahadir (Reply 9):
RLA going away can solve a lot of the problems with the industry in a heartbeat. The fact that management has a blank check in their hands to run the airline with the same poverty wages from 10 years ago and the labor group not being able to do about it is insane.

If you have flown on a LCC or regional carrier over the last 10 years then you are a part of the reason for the wage stagnation among those labor groups.

The repeal of the RLA would have very little long term affect on wages and conditions of employment in the industry, as it has no real effect on supply or demand. The RLA only delays strikes and keeps a few strikes over non-essential items from happening (where agreement is reached through the mediation process).


User currently offlinessides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 19, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2363 times:

The RLA has its problems, but an outright repeal of it is a first-class ticket to bankruptcy court for the legacy carriers.

The provisions of the RLA are akin to other laws which prohibit certain service and government workers -- namely police officers, firefighters, transit workers, etc. -- from striking. If a strike is threatened or eminent, the balance of leverage is 100% in the union's favor. The companies protected by these provisions are generally in the service industry, meaning the do not have a stockpile of products that they can readily satisfy customers with in the event of a strike. For example, if the UAW goes on strike, GM and Ford will still have cars to sell. This isn't so with airlines, transport systems, or police departments.

The RLA doesn't completely abolish airline workers' right to strike, it just limits it. This day and age, airline unions already have strong negotiating positions, because any strike of more than a few days would force just about any carrier to liquidate. One need look no further than Eastern for an example of this. The RLA simply levels the playing field. It shouldn't go away.



"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2312 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 16):
To my knowledge, the last major amendment to RLA was in the 1950s, which allowed public unions into airlines. Prior companies could have inhouse associations, but were not allowed to be represented by national public unions.

Thanks for that info. It seems to me that, yeah, the RLA needs a complete overhaul.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5254 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2271 times:

Quoting incitatus (Reply 2):
Why would unions be behind it? Airlines are capital-intensive and die quickly after a stoppage. Making strikes easier will quicken the demise of airlines that have union representation.

Back in 1998, NW went through a lengthy strike. IIRC, it was the pilots. Despite being shut down for several weeks, NW survived.

On the other hand, no one said that a union has to have a full-blown strike. There is always the CHAOS strike, in which specific flights or cities are subject to a work stoppage.

By the same token, if an airline is a financial condition that it can't weather a strike, it probably isn't in any position to offer the pay increases that the union wants. The RLA simply puts off the inevitable demise.

Eastern had limped along for years, and the Machinists' strike was the last nail in the proverbial coffin.

Quoting Delta763 (Reply 15):
It astounds me that on a forum full of people who like to fly that we're proposing making it easier for people to go on strike. Flying has become enough of a hassle as it is, without the increased threat that your flight might be cancelled because they just didn't feel like showing up for work.

Except when unions in other industries are willing to strike, there is a date certain, i.e., the contract expiration, that a strike will take place. There was a time a while back that the hotel workers in Chicago were in very difficult negotiations with hotel owners. Bookings started to go down as the expiration date neared, as travelers wanted to avoid the potential problems that a strike might have created.

I know people in the field of trade association management. They know the expirations dates of contracts for hotel workers in large cities, like New York, Chicago, etc. and tend to plan conventions to work around those dates.

Quoting ssides (Reply 19):
For example, if the UAW goes on strike, GM and Ford will still have cars to sell. This isn't so with airlines, transport systems, or police departments.

Not always. In 1998, a GM parts plant went out on strike. My car had over 100K miles, and my exhuast system fell of in early August. I checked dealers in the area, and they were down to used car inventory only. Car deliveries didn't start until early September.

Granted, if the national contract is in negotiation, the Big Three will ramp up production to create extra inventory to weather the strike.

Still, the airline industry is so different from other industries. If GM and the UAW don't have a tentative agreement by the expiration of the current agreement, the leadership sends the rank and file to the picket lines. If an airline and a union don't have an agreement by the date by which the contract can be modified, they go on for months. It's only when a mediator feels that neither side is willing to budge that he will declare an impasse.

Let's face it, whether a negotiation is at an impasse is open to interpretation by the mediator. In the judicial system, some judges are less inclined to find that there is a hung jury than others.

I'm no fan of unions. My father worked in labor relations for a Fortune 50 company for 7 years, and I heard plenty of cursing about union leadership. On the other hand, I do think that airline managements take advantage of the system to drag out contract negotiations and keep wages on the prior scale as long as possible.

If airline managements and unions could engage in self help on the dates that contracts expire, I think managements, as to a certain extent unions, would get their best offers on the table a lot sooner.


User currently offlinebahadir From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1794 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2256 times:

Wow.. Why don't we rename this website 'airline union bash .net'  
RLA is bad because right now there is no way the work grounps in airlines can show their displeasure of being cut from wages ans salaries. You cannot even do a sick out because it's considered a job action. On the other hand Mesaba didn't mind declaring Ch.11 when they were financially healthy. This was a carte blanche for the management to reduce the wages and lower the costs..

To all the people who are saying that unions will draw the airlines bankrupt, the $3 per ticket increase would help people in the airline to get a raise close to 100%. Do you think people can afford $3 more per leg?

There is a lot of comparison of airline jobs to the other line of work on this board. IT is not the same.. Period.. I am a former IT guy. I could take my skills and go to another job and get compensated accordingly if I wanted to . All the ingorant people that say 'if you don't like it, quit'.. well, they are ignorant..



Earthbound misfit I
User currently offlinenwaesc From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 3391 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2244 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 21):
Back in 1998, NW went through a lengthy strike. IIRC, it was the pilots. Despite being shut down for several weeks, NW survived.

2 weeks is "lengthy?"


By the way, if anyone is interested, here's a flow chart for the collective bargaining process:

http://www.nmb.gov/publicinfo/collbarg2.pdf



"Nothing ever happens here, " I said. "I just wait."
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25537 posts, RR: 50
Reply 24, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2225 times:

Quoting bahadir (Reply 22):
Wow.. Why don't we rename this website 'airline union bash .net'

I don't think people are bashing labor perse, however I think its important employees and their unions understands the world has changed and will continue to evolve.

The industry is simply no longer that solid job for life, where one could live a good middle or even upper income lifestyle.
Airlines by their natures are very capital intensive and with extremely competitive global landscape have very thin operating margins.
Air transportation for better or worse has become a commodity business, where the lowest cost producer in most cases wins. That $3 extra you suggest people pay is simply not something that will happen as consumers primary travel selection choice is based on price, and even for $1 will shifts consumer behavior.

So, I think its important that all new employees realize what this business is, and just like applying for McDonalds you come in realizing what the pay and market picture is, while many current folks as painful as it might be must also adjust their expectations that the industry they chose has changed and no longer might be able to offer those things it could 10, 20 or 30 years ago when they first got hired.

The world is cruel, but life and business must go on. So either evolve or die.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
25 TheGreatChecko : Airline BK should be changed to force a similar process, that's what's causing most of the problems we see today... A few questions: Why is it that un
26 Cubsrule : Given that we have not seen a major airline Chapter 11 since the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code took effect, how can we possibly analyze whet
27 Post contains images AirframeAS : Yep, I remember it as if it was yesterday. I was with AS and I remember how dark the South Satellite was during those two weeks. It was a sad sight t
28 TheGreatChecko : It has nothing to do with whether it is "working." The issue is that an airline can go to a judge and throw out a negotiated contract, but a union ha
29 Post contains images nwaesc : Well said! So do I. I spent a lot of time doing extensive RON cleaning of A/C... then washing GSE... then painting our break room...
30 ssides : First, I seriously doubt that $3 per ticket would, in fact, allow for an across-the-board doubling of airline salaries. I have no idea where you got
31 Cubsrule : Why should airlines be treated differently than any other debtor?
32 TheGreatChecko : Why should airline unions be treated any differently than any other union? It goes both ways.
33 Cubsrule : In the bankruptcy context, they aren't. For a whole host of reasons, we don't see many strikes at companies in bankruptcy, so RLA doesn't have much o
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...
Alaska Getting Rid Of SNA-OAK? posted Sat Jan 12 2008 13:08:15 by Socalatc
Getting Rid Of Change Fees: Effects? posted Fri Dec 14 2007 12:17:58 by Zrs70
Delta Getting Rid Of Eyebrows On 737 Fleet? posted Sun Jun 17 2007 09:10:24 by AlitaliaMD11
Is LH Getting Rid Of Their A300's? posted Sat May 13 2006 12:42:14 by SKA380
Regionals Getting Rid Of Crj's posted Fri Nov 4 2005 03:51:14 by Soaringadi
Aeroflot Getting Rid Of TU 134s posted Sat Oct 1 2005 00:43:19 by Kevin
HRL And LRD Getting Rid Of Cargo Before Emily posted Tue Jul 19 2005 19:41:36 by Skywatch
What Prevents CO From Getting Rid Of Their 735s? posted Sun Mar 13 2005 23:53:45 by Cory6188
Why Is Aeromexico Getting Rid Of Their 757 posted Wed Aug 11 2004 06:09:41 by Flydc10
SAS Getting Rid Of A321s posted Thu May 27 2004 14:53:25 by Cloud4000