Originally Posted by
notEnuf
We can't force the company to get airplanes? 717, E190, E175. These are all being purchased by the company, did we have anything to do with that or was that a business decision? All we can do try to protect against other groups operating flights that generate revenue for Delta. If C2012 stays in effect large scope remains out of compliance.
The pacific language was rewritten to include Henada because they weren't operating enough at Narita. Now we are allowing them to rewrite again to be in compliance. Stop changing the metrics and redrawing the lines. Start enforcing the agreement. If C2012 stays and they don't change that's $60 a month more for everyone. The point is I want them to honor the deal or pay for non-compliance. The settlement was to small but that's what we agreed to. Why can we use only one metric?
The reason we don't have 787s today is because several metrics were written into the purchase agreement. The delivery timeline and the performance. If you want to bind a party to an action, you use multiple metrics to measure the action.
We aren't FORCING them to buy anything. They are gonna buy whatever they NEED to execute their plan. All we did in any of the above mentioned airframes was to place conditions upon other needs that allow them to buy what they want. And guess what: If they didn't need the 717s E190s and anything else, they wouldn't buy them. You really think any of those were huge wins for us? That's beyond naive.
The reason we don't have 787s is because BA couldn't deliver on it's promise. The original airframe did not perform anywhere near the level they said it would. It was massively heavier than originally sold. And mostly, Mr Anderson got a little lucky.
And tell me this. You want to hold them accountable for non compliance. OK. How you gonna do that? The way C15 does it is to move the goalposts. It's like saying land in the touchdown zone, but moving it back 1,000 feet in the middle of your flare. There are no damage mitigations spelled out in ANY of our contract language other than gray lawyer language that a first year student can shoot holes in. "To be brought back into compliance within a year" Really? We now have a precedence of a weak azzed grievance settlement of $30M. Pocket change. DAL is a $40 billion company. $30 million is a good holiday weekend.