Originally Posted by
JamesBond
Ahhhhh here is a good argument. ESK vs block hour. IF one believes that the 747 is dead, and the 380 is DOA, one has to ask what will AF/KLM replace them with. My gut tells me that since the Ex/Im bank is still alive, they are gonna be buying big 777s. So, maybe the ESK argument is better for us. But... if they don't, and go Airbus, we are in the same boat as they but block hours would be more advantageous to us due to similar size airframes. The thing that I found outrageous in TA15 was the immediate drop to 50/50 on block hours (from our then current 52%) and a further reduction to 49% "grace". That was asinine. So how do we fix that?
And you are absolutely right. Trying to have a SWA style scope clause where every DAL passenger flies on DAL metal is silly. (I'll betcha that the SWA scope clause fails in the next contract if not this one). So PS is the about the only way other than maybe management style stock options at this point where we can recapture some of that loss.
What say you?
That's one way to help check and balance it, but we still need better JV protections along all sides of the hull.
We need minimums in every single theatre, a fair share in every single individual JV, and protections on both ESKs and Block Hours, as well as a total production balance, although that would likely be a non issue if we had the other stuff by default.
Within a system of comprehensive protections like that, we can offer a reasonable amount of flexibility. First of all, half is half. 50%. Period. Maybe they can dip below that a small amount on ESKs, but only if they are above that amount in Block Hours or vice versa, but even the low amount must always have floors too, like 40-45% or something like that. And that's each partnership. Each theatre. And overall. And the penalties for noncompliance would be harsh and immediate, and they'd have to pull their code (or add mainline DL) on whatever percentage of the particular case to bring it back into immediate compliance.
That would give them global flexibility in production balances that also account for the differing fleet types of foreign partner airlines. But it would guarantee that we truly do get our half in all cases.
What they have proposed now seems completely unacceptable (barring some unforeseen amazing language, which we all know isn't going to be in there). Gutting everything in exchange for a global balance allows them massive potential for abuse. And of course we all know our "half" even then will be 47% or some nonsense.
Its clear by now that the ONLY reason they want to change it in that way is because they predict doing so will reduce our jobs and increase foreign outsourcing further.