Originally Posted by
satchip
Carl, there is downside protection in the new block hour metric. If AF/KLM flies a 380 now we can fly anything, a 777, 330, 76, or 75.
Not quite accurate. Since our current metric is EASK's, Delta would
have to fly two 777/330's or three 757/767's in order to match the A380's EASK's. This TA language removes EASK's in favor of aircraft block hours. So with your same example using the new TA language, one 737-900ER would equal those A380 block hours and Delta would be in full compliance.
Originally Posted by
satchip
If AF/KLM pulls back because of a downturn and puts a 777 or 330 on the route, we can still fly anything because the block hours are the same.
Words like "can" are NOT contractual protection words. "Shall" and "Must" are contractual protective words. So while your above example is accurate in that Delta
can do what you've described, they
can also shrink to even lower paying aircraft types in response to the AF/KLM pullback and be in compliance with aircraft block hours. With our current EASK measurement, Delta would be
prohibited from flying less EASK's than AF/KLM pulled back to. Delta would have to shrink to similar paying aircraft, or two to three lower paying aircraft in order to match the EASK metric.
Originally Posted by
satchip
Is this good? Not really because Delta got their ass in a crack because AF/KLM didn't pull back but we did. But it is downside protection in the contract. He is technically right. Blind Squirrel Theory.
I hope I've showed you that it's not correct, but this is what worries me. These kind of legal parsings will allow the MEC administration to claim
protections that don't exist because those "protections" require Delta to perform in a manner in which they are not contractually
required by language.
Carl