US Airways to take United 747's

[nostradamus]

US Airways will not be receiving any additional aircraft, they will be parking their own 737's very soon. The method they choose regarding lay offs will decide their short term future.

 

[FLYLOW22]

Does this mean I finally get my 747-400 manuals? Sheesh, I've been waiting 8 years.

 

[aerosmith]

Please close this thread

 

[WSurf]

US Airways announces NEW International Service with Our New 747's. Phoenix to Tijuana, Ciudad Juarez, Nogales, and Chihuahua.

Yea, we could reconfigure the 747 to hold about 800 mexicans.

 

[Bear96]

Actually, quite true, but, only in one direction. The US carriers, at one time, had to hire many such crewmembers. I have never heard a case that a foreign carrier "had to" hire US citizens, though, contracting for "local" services may have been in lieu of such a requirement.

You should acquaint yourself with many such "travesties" Americans have been saddled with by the DC "elite". Start with Senator Dorgan's "Take this job and ship it"

I am not sure what Senator Dorgan or the "DC elite" have to do with this, and I don't know the details of the arrangements other airlines may have had in the past with various countries, but the main point is that furloughing the BKK and SIN F/As will have no impact on UA's ability to fly to Thailand and Singapore.

 

[GoldenRam94]

Is TWO considered a FLEET? :blink:

By Doug's standards that is a large fleet!

 

[sharktooth]

.... but the main point is that furloughing the BKK and SIN F/As will have no impact on UA's ability to fly to Thailand and Singapore.

Thanks for taking a second post to "clarify" your "main" point. My point was the one-way international "negotiations" that have taken place over the years, answering what I thought was (based on pure verbiage) your main point. Reading that book might set you on a path through an area you seem to have passing interest with.

So, you are very familiar with arrangements UAL with those two (out of how many) countries?

 

[Bear96]

So, you are very familiar with arrangements UAL with those two (out of how many) countries?

I am pretty familiar with the arrangement concerning UA's BKK and SIN F/As, yes. You?

And just so I understand, since you seem to be straying from your original point to which I was responding, are you saying getting rid of the BKK and SIN F/As will somehow compromise UA's ability to fly to those locations?

 

[JAMAKE1]

Interesting.

Generally speaking, to receive rights to service many such countries, a condition is agreed upon requiring a certain number of crewmembers are hired by the receiving carrier. If still in effect, would not terminating the foreign workers trigger an abrogation of rights to service?

Not correct. BKK and SIN were inherited from the Pan Am Pacific route purchase. Those flight attendants are not AFA-represented flight attendants and they were all furloughed after 9/11 and their flying was taken over by the AFA-represented F/A's in NRT and HKG. BKK and SIN were only reopened after UA began hiring flight attendants in 2006.

The primary reason for foreign bases staffed with AFA-represented flight attendants was to ensure that UA had enough language speakers. The company wanted to increase the number of language positions on board its international flights and AFA took the view that doing so would violate seniority rights. So UA opened bases in HKG, NRT, and TPE (since closed) in the Pacific; CDG (since closed) and FRA in Europe; and SCL (since closed) in South America. LHR is a crew base because it was inherited with the Pan Am Heathrow route purchase.

As Bear correctly stated, opening and closing foreign crew bases is a company decision independent of any route rights...

 

[BuffaloJoe]

Yea, we could reconfigure the 747 to hold about 800 mexicans.

That will control all the illegals crossing, well some of them.

 

[sharktooth]

I am pretty familiar with the arrangement concerning UA's BKK and SIN F/As, yes. You?

Never said I did. I was not the person pontificating about two out of how many foreign destinations?

And just so I understand, since you seem to be straying from your original point to which I was responding, are you saying getting rid of the BKK and SIN F/As will somehow compromise UA's ability to fly to those locations?

That was not the original point to which you were responding, and, I was not the one to bring up BKK nor SIN. You did.

My point was, if contracts were made and are still in effect about employment of foreign F/As in return for access privileges, those might be in breach if those foreign F/As were fired/furloughed. I am certain UAL purchased SIN rights from Pan Am in 1985/6 but I would think a bit of the contract was rewritten then. Don't know anything about BKK or how UAL acquired those rights. The old airport was nice.

 

[EMBFA]

What a stupid thread this is.

 

[sharktooth]

Not correct. BKK and SIN were inherited from the Pan Am Pacific route purchase. Those flight attendants are not AFA-represented flight attendants and they were all furloughed after 9/11 and their flying was taken over by the AFA-represented F/A's in NRT and HKG. BKK and SIN were only reopened after UA began hiring flight attendants in 2006.

You quoted me as:

(sharktooth @ Jun 4 2008, 11:12 PM)
Interesting.

Generally speaking, to receive rights to service many such countries, a condition is agreed upon requiring a certain number of crewmembers are hired by the receiving carrier. If still in effect, would not terminating the foreign workers trigger an abrogation of rights to service?

I really wish you and bear would use your reading comprehension skills that surely lurk somewhere in your heads. <_<

Is there a problem with the way I worded the phrase: "If still in effect", that caused you two to get your dander up and go completely off topic? A simple, "not in effect anymore", never was in effect for SIN/BKK but might be for others or words to that effect, would have avoided me thinking you two cannot read. Can either of you two come up with a different way to express that conditional phrase that would avoid this misunderstanding in the future? I could "bold" it next time to get your attention.