Originally Posted by
shiznit
DAL was operating roughly 54-46% of the EASK's but had planned to growth to be "in the window" to comply.
DAL never operated 54% of the EASK's. Never. I think you meant to say DAL operated 46%-54% of the EASK's.
Originally Posted by
shiznit
Then the European meltdown happened and the transatlantic flying started to become unprofitable. DAL drew down flying to match capacity with demand.... AF and KL did not.
And that's where Delta first showed its contempt for our scope. They had no contractual right to draw down flying to match capacity with demand. Route profitability was not a reason in our scope that allowed them to be in non-compliance. Not even
our negotiators would have agreed to a profitability provision. Yet here we are excusing it as a business decision.
Originally Posted by
shiznit
AF was viewed as a jobs creator for the French economy and the govt didn't want them to shrink and layoff more workers into the economy. UNSAT, IMHO... Business is business. Similar story with KL, but they did drawdown a little bit more than AF, but still not enough to match the DAL drawdown. RA doesn't want to lose money unless it's a strategic long term play.... Keeping up those North Atlantic numbers didn't fit any strategic plan.
Again, it wasn't supposed to matter what RA wants or doesn't want. That's why we have a contract instead of an FOM like at some non-union outfit.
Oh wait...
Carl