Originally Posted by
KnotSoFast
.
You are as uninformed as you are consistent.
.
The primary driver of us being contractually non-compliant over the Atlantic was Air France's decision, several years ago, to add multiple A-380s to the trans-atlantic mix. Our network dept., faced with declining Atlantic traffic, wisely held our Atlantic fleet status quo. The result was that our share of EASKs went down.
.
We have no "control" over AF's fleet decisions but the Company decided it would cost more to add unneeded capacity in the face of declining loads than to litigate the contractual under-performance later. (and BTW, Air France has continued to struggle to fill their A-380s and recently declined to accept the last tranche of firm order A-380s they were slated to receive)
So, although our EASK production ratio was sub-contractual several years ago, the main reason was that our "partner" over-produced their share of EASKs. We did not reduce our flying in that theater 5%.
.
Talk to Network if you want corroboration or confirmation of the above. They will actually take the time to explain it to you.
.
No, I'm not uninformed. What you describe is still a violation of our contract. If you enter into a deal with JV partners and your contracted employees, it is on you to make sure you can meet your obligations. Having a 'rogue' JV partner add airplanes to the routes does not relieve them of the obligation to meet the contractual obligations they entered into with us.
I don't care if it was a good idea or bad idea to violate our contract in their mind. They did not come to us and ask us if it was ok. We have not been paid an adequate grievance for the violation. You cannot tell me how many jobs we did not gain because somebody's A380 was flying across the water without our pilots on board.