I agree that we should have devastating non compliance language built in. I don't agree that the ridiculous selling of the grievance was adequate, nor was it proper. Going forward, we need to seek injunctive relief to force the pull down of whatever amount of code share is necessary to get back into compliance. That disgusting A340 a day into MSP would be a good start. AF can do it, but it won't get a single pax of feed. That and one more would get us into compliance, or they can let us do it. Either way, not our problem. I agree we need to play hardball in that.

I still like yearly periods more than the 4 year period including a one year "cure period". I'd rather be guaranteed 46.5 as an absolute floor (and statistically it will be higher than that anyway) every year than to allow them to be in compliance with 48.5 for a little bit (couple years max) and then back down way lower than 46.5 for a few years only to touch 48.5 once, etc. Yes, its an average, but its only a 2 year window for that average, versus a 4 year window that only requires touching 48.5 one year to be in compliance after 3 years of potentially zero. If they theoretically did zero now, they'd have to go a lot higher than 46.5 the next year wouldn't they?

Believe me, I'm disappointed in our "half" and how its defined, etc. IMO we need both a hard deck 50% ESK and BH any JV. Any one metric can go below that within a reasonable window, but if it does, the following year it must go above 50% by the same amount. Any violation is subject to injunctive relief as well as specified penalties, like pulling lots of seats out of their precious RJ's, etc. That's what we should work towards.