Originally Posted by
80ktsClamp
Woof. The downside protection from the previous verbiage was ignored by the company, so we're changing the way it's being measured to put them into compliance (without defined penalty for breaking the downside limit).
Don't get me wrong, I like that the tolerance and compliance window was narrowed, but most of the rest of what was written is just fluff.
I don't buy the explanation on pilot block hours other than it is simpler to measure. The whole augmentation difference and upgauging aircraft is just fluff.
80;
Food for thought. Section one has a AF/DAL JV and VS JV, a VA JV and at Asia Pacific Block Hour protection. Consider it layers of swiss cheese. The best protection on all of this is the VS JV which has an effective protection of 87% of our twin-isle WB flying. Look at this from a larger prospective. The AF JV is protected twice. The change is downside protection, and has no top end limiter. We are at 51.5% of BH right now. Note in the TA language that there is NO requirement to reduce that. None. This is not something that is mirrored in the agreement with AF. The pilot block hrs in the AF JV are about 55-56% add in the VS JV UK protections for another 5% of those block hrs and what do we see? the same amount of the pilot block hours in the current agreement that we see today. What do we see with 87% of our twin isle block hours protected in the VS JV? What was lost in the grand scheme of things?
We have a global airline that moves flying between multiple continents. The goal is to protect the jobs and make sure they don't flow elsewhere. The layered JV approach does that.
Soda Straws have a use, but commonly are not great to look thru.