Originally Posted by
brakechatter
So let's think it out:
Delta wants to reduce our presence in Japan, specifically at NRT. Haneda is the business plan du jour, but we can't get in there. Meanwhile UAL and AA are partnering with Japanese carriers for access.
I don't think that's right. What Delta wants is to reduce the presence of the
Delta pilot in NRT. If it was as simple as Haneda being the new business plan, then Delta would have no desire to keep code share in NRT. Why would they need NRT code share if NRT is dying?
I think all the dots are connecting Delta wanting to simply replace Delta pilots in NRT with Skymark pilots in NRT. If not, Delta would simply reduce its presence in NRT below the 316 slots per week based on the economics. Delta would then gladly walk away from code share out of NRT because NRT is dying. But that's not what management is asking for.
Management wants relief from having to cancel the code share...NOT relief from 316 slots per week.
Originally Posted by
brakechatter
Skymark seems to be our choice, and a cursory search over the internet shows me that Skymark is completely open to expats operating their equipment. Perhaps some out of box thinking that the expats be Delta pilots could be in order, but that might be thinking outside the box a bit too much
, so Americans who are not Delta pilots will be operating the equipment allowed by us giving up a no codeshare clause and allowing the reduction of the slots currently in our section 1.
This is the essence of the situation. It's an opportunity for us to actually roll back outsourcing by ending NRT code share. Yes it's a small step in our overall gigantic outsourcing problem within our Section 1, but it is a step.
Originally Posted by
brakechatter
In the meantime, it would appear that we are accepting minimum block hours somewhere in the neighborhood of 85% of what we have now--if the rumors are to be believed--for the Pacific operation. Nobody is further from "in the know" than me. I am assuming that this 85% includes China, HNL to PAC RIM, NRT to the beaches--as in the entire Pacific? For this the company gets unlimited code share? Expanded code share? Very slightly expanded code share? IDK, but it's important. I don't spend enough time here to have caught that part of the rumor. Does this include the approximately 328 Chinese airlines, Korean, Vietnam, and any other PAC operation with which we have linked?
Again, you've nailed it. Our union is about to sign off on an LOA (without even a discussion of MEMRAT) that will "give us" an 85% block hour "guarantee" in return for giving the company unlimited code share. Our current language is very tough on the company growing code share because it requires the maintaining of 316 slots per week at a heavily slot-controlled airport. We are now giving up that language.
Originally Posted by
brakechatter
We have just remerged as an S&P powerhouse, which I suppose is important. The Delta pilots were a big part of that ability, IMO. That is leverage. The company is NOT going to pull us down to 0 block hours just because they can, so we can toss that out as emotional drivel as well, my friend.(yes I know that wasn't you, but you could have set the record straight there as well)
Agreed.
Originally Posted by
brakechatter
Then a look at the history of NWA and their love of the code share is in order. I don't think that it is out of line to take a look at the other side of the world in order to see where this thing might be headed is out of line either. All of those posh Euro destinations that you no longer fly to could very well be a precursor to what is going to happen in the PAC RIM a few more steps down the road. While a JV is certainly not a code share, I would say that at the current time, there is no question that we are not on the receiving end of that whole Europe thing. Could that aviation plague be trying to spread to our Pacific operation as well?
Right again.
Originally Posted by
brakechatter
What leverage do we have? Delta is a world class, S&P 500 airline, who constructively engages their pilots, who apparently are putting a viable threat to reemerge with another collective bargaining agent if the recent activities of the MEC communication carpet bombing are to be believed. As such, Delta needs a world class PACIFIC operation. I don't believe ending their code share and sticking it to us "just because they can" is viable long term, so I would say there is some leverage there. I don't have enough information to decide if 85% is extracting all of our leverage, but my hunch says it is not, especially when the aircraft going to the destinations formerly served by Delta are now going to be driven by pilots who could have formerly been in the service of Delta Air Lines.
We're not extracting 85% of the flying with this new LOA. We only say we are. Just like when the company came to us wanting to code share out of NRT. Our negotiators were forward thinking and untrusting of management. Exactly as it should be. So our negotiators put in language that gave them the right to code share only IF the company maintains 316 slots per week at NRT. If it's only 315, the code share stops. In essence it was a snap-back feature. Now we're about to negotiate away the 316 number rendering toothless our protections. If 85% is too much for the company to operate, no prob. Just renegotiate it to 80%...but this time you really mean it!!
Originally Posted by
brakechatter
T'woud appear that Delta wants to code share more in the PAC, and needs relief from the paltry share allowed now. That's leverage. T'woud appear that Delta needs larger access to Haneda via this code share. That's leverage. T'woud appear that Delta needs to rid itself of this minimum frequency burden that is soooooo outdated in order to focus capital on the real prize of the moment, China. That's leverage.
I say, since the PAC RIM is expat central of the world, put Delta butts in the code share seats and let them have what they want. Of course, that is just ridiculous
. I doubt that we will get to vote on this, and yes it appears that this solidifies the protection of some current jobs--which will likely be there anyway since the S&Ps brand new entrant won't like throwing out the furlough word, or the unknown of a wildcat union on the property--if the recent full court press of communication from the multitude of leadership individuals is any indicator.
Can I assume that any agreement will also include the usual caveat of circumstances over which the company cannot control.......? Fukushima is worrisome, and that is the only reason to give pause to protecting some of the block hours, for me. But if the caveat exists, and I'm sure it is probably in there somewhere, there doesn't appear to be enough meat on this bone.
My opinion
Very good post with lots of great questions.
Carl