View Single Post
Old 12-03-2011 | 02:07 PM
  #82365  
acl65pilot's Avatar
acl65pilot
Happy to be here
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Default

Originally Posted by tsquare
Admittedly, I do not know enough about how the JVs work to offer an intelligent opinion as to their validity or value to DAL pilots. I DO know that I have seen nothing but retraction in NY since August, and not in small numbers. As to how it affects the rest of the company I have no real idea.

I think a lot of this just might be by design. I know that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I am not drooling on myself either and I speak and read English (my FAA license says so) So why is this language of such complexity that a college educated guy like myself has to go to law school to understand it? Precisely so that those that DO understand it can manipulate those of us that don't. But here is where common sense just might be applicable: I see shrinkage in NY of copious amounts. I see little return. Therefore, IMHO these agreements are not working for the betterment of the DAL pilots. I think it really IS that simple. 2 CDG routes do not make up for the loss in September of 9 international destinations from NYC, and you would be hard pressed to convince me otherwise. So... all you that are convinced that these JVs are helping us out.. tell me what it is that we got for all that international flying that DAL has cancelled... I wait with bated breath...
FWIW the PWA does not mandate a AF type of JV agreement. The V Australia deal is being done with out a production balance and is not as favorable to us. How you ask? Sections 1 E 7 and 8. It keeps our flying where it is. We only have seven frequencies a week to Australia and they are at 21 to the us; I believe. We fly the 777-200LR they fly the 777-300. These sections are boilerplate, and it is simply a profit/loss agreement. Not a JV in the sense that AF is. As for as I know, none of the protections are currently there that we see in the AF JV. The company has no intention of changing the setup, thus triggering a AF type JV.

I agree that the AF JV has some unintended consequences, but it is a lot better than a JV that is covered under 1 E 7 and 8.