Originally Posted by
gloopy
True. But then again, they don't seem to need downside protections when our company rushes to give them every single seat mile kilometer thingy they can. DCI doesn't need any downside protection for their fleet of 250+ DC-9-10 replacements either to run right up against the cap including funding a direct yield trashing competitor with C-series on firm order. Trans States doesn't need any downside protections when we sell them CPZ then hire them to whipsaw their own airline. Alaska is doing just fine without any downside protections as well. They own our entire west coast and thats with us *supposedly* not getting any revenue from those flights.
If RA is to belived in or trusted, he needs to be the leader that makes D.A.L. choose its pilots first to do its flying. I'm not against networks either. But in the aggregate, from small former mainline replacement jets to current narrowbody code share to international JV's, the company outsources as much as then can by law and doesn't give us a block hour more.
Thats why zero, zero, 49.75% is insane. Never should have been agreed to, especially for some supposed 2% gain in good times. By the way, the floorless 2 year period is a great time to go into a potential strike if the company can time it right. Give us 49.75% briefly then enjoy a 2 year outsource fest. All in "perfect compliance" with no ability for us to cry struck work if they manage the timing right.
First, if they went to 0, 0 for the first two years, there is no way that AF would stay in the agreement. Period. We also would be looking at something far more serious that losing the North Atlantic flying. Third, look at the reality and time frame of our contract and if we could actually go on strike in that initial time frame. All wrong timing.
Looking at the JV further, it is a one time clause. After they are in compliance with 50-50 (49.75%) a new window starts and the lookback is not used for cumulative purposes. Why? As it was explained to me, it is because we go from 47.2% of the total EASK's to 50% and then the new three year window starts where the bandwidth is 1.5 or a bottom end of 48.5% with a one year corrective window. You downside protection is there going forward.
Is the language ideal? No. Could had it have been better? Maybe, but we could have also just gotten 47.2% which is where we were with the addition of AZ. DAL was incentivized to go get 50-50 because of their fleet makeup, secondary cities that worked better for the rest of or route network and feed for us to serve, and not have our customers connect in CDG, and a few other things.
I of course would have like to see the window left alone, and not have started a new three year baseline measurement period, but with every quid there has to be a pro quo, especially when dealing with three other pilot groups and three other companies on the other side of the fence.
I agree that we have not seen any net benefits from the JV. We have shrunk since its inception. I would have like to see some EASK floors in the deal, but the reality is that once the North Atlantic grows again, and it will, we will get 60%+ of the block hrs flown. That will translate in to a need for more metal. It is hard to see that now when we are shrinking and not growing. What our guys need to fight for is, if there is an addition of a new partner, we do not see the measurement period start anew, and or we see a one year measurement period with a nine month corrective window.
If you look at the V Australia deal, there is no downside protection in it, except that we must maintain the same number of segments we had 12 months prior, and that is 7. They have 21 with larger jets. It does not have a production balance and no corrective window. Why? Because it is a totally different set up, and one that they did not need to create a AF type JV for.
We have work to do, and we all want to fly more international fights. That is why it is imperative that in the next contract deal, whether it is a modification, extension, or a new contract as a result of section six, any CPA, CS or JV needs our express approval, and any modification needs to be done via nothing less than a LOA. CPA's need to be sunsetted and code share agreements need to have term limits.
Frankly complaining about what is already deemed contract language does little good, lets work to change the process and existing language when there is opportunity to do so. That equates to progress and not Monday morning quarterbacking.