Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
Well, as usual you don't make any sense.
You just can't stop being a d!ck can you alfa...
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
I have no talking points.
Almost right...you mean you have no points.
See there? Being a d!ck might be easy, but it adds nothing does it.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
Here is the situation we have today. Delta must have some change to the status quo soon. Either we need to extend the relief for the 316 limitation or Delta needs to back out of their NRT beyond code shares.
That is an incorrect characterization designed to get the required response of Delta pilots caving in. If Delta says they need a change to the status quo, then change it. If they can't operate 316 slots per week profitably, then cut it back to what you can operate. It is in NO WAY connected to code share capability beyond NRT. Management is hoping we'll connect what is not connected, but the two have nothing to do with each other operationally. They're only connected because our current Scope connects them. It was prescient and forward thinking language that foresaw this very scenario. Now DALPA is about to give it away for nothing...and without MEMRAT.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
For us, it is an asymmetric condition; we will never do those code share flights but for Delta it makes them some money. Delta will not start flying more slots into NRT just to keep the code shares it is not worth it.
Pure factless personal opinion on your part.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
So for us, we can either watch the code shares go away or try to get something for allowing them to continue. We have no block hour protection now. 85% will be an improvement. It is just people like you try to frame it as if we are "giving up" 15% which is flat out wrong.
You're the one flat wrong alfa. 85% is not an improvement. That's just pure political spin. If 85% is not enough and management needs to pull it down to 70%, there's no way DALPA would not give in to that demand. You and all the other DALPA loyalists will be right back here telling us: "we can't force management to operate empty airplanes because of some ancient agreement...we need to start thinking like investors!"
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
For Delta, this is ceding some amount of control over their capacity. There is no way they will lock in at 100% because that would give them no options if Fukushima blows up or if Godzilla attacks Tokyo or whatever crazy thing is the next to happen.
Nobody's asking them to lock in 100%. Only you are saying that. We're just saying
hold firm to what's in our contract. For once, just pay attention to what's in our contract.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
It comes down to a simple trade. Is it worth it to Delta to cede some control over their capacity (85%) in order to keep the code shares? How much more would they give for 15 pax a day in a system that is now over 150,000,000 per year?
The obvious corollary to your statement then is: Why would managment give up ANY of its control over how many flights it operates out of NRT for a mere 15 pax per day of code share? No managment would do that. It should tell you something as to the much larger issue behind this.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
For us is it worth it to allow the code shares to continue in order to have some backstop protections in the Pacific, protections we do not have today?
We have no backstop protections now, and we'll have none after this LOA is signed. The percentages will just be renegotiated as desired by managment with a union hungry for constructive engagement. What
will stay, is unlimited code share.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
So you can frame it as "what do I say when all the wide bodies go away" and that is not an emotional argument, but if I correct your misrepresentation of the new protections it is emotional. Got it. For everyone else, realize that both sides have options, not just us, and you need to weigh each sides options with the plusses and minuses of each path. All this emotional baggage is just political BS and does nothing to help analyze which choice is best for us.
You've read your ALPA talking points well grasshopper!
Carl