georgetg,

I was at the roadshow in SLC and asked a scope expert about this type of thing. Let me try and reproduce what I was told:

In your example, the passenger on the Alaska flight would not generate any revenue for Delta (that's what is called a prorate agreement...there's no incentive for Delta to route people that way unless it's much more convenient for the passenger).

With regard to the AirFrance flight, Delta gets the same share of revenue as if they had flown it. That's why a JV of this type is called "metal neutral".

So that type of JV could really jeopardize our jobs. Which is why it's so critical that we have a production balance. That is what we have in the Atlantic JV. We have to generate our fair share of the capacity. It is that same share that Delta gets of the revenue in the Atlantic JV.

The new TA contains a requirement for the company to come to a similar production balancing arrangement in any future JV. Presently our contract only says they will meet with us. The new JV puts up a backstop if an agreement is never arrived at.

When I imagine a JV with Korean Air and Virgin Australia I am mortified at how exposed we are without the language in this new TA.

For me, I'd vote yes on this TA just for the scope. The pay raises could be more, but the job protections are the main selling point for me. C2K taught me what happens when you have great pay rates and not enough job protections.

BTW, I tried to look up those flights on delta.com but the site wouldn't give me the flight combinations you got...did you enter specific parameters?