Originally Posted by
Planetrain
If you truly believe we gave up wide body flying, then you have a very narrow view of the new language regarding the JV. (I like our new language much much better.)
Other than the 747s (which have nothing to do with the airfrance JV), which international wide body hulls have gone down?
I'll wait why you count.
It doesn't matter if it's one type or five. Bottom line is that a larger amount of flying is being shifted to our JV partners. You can discount the 747 all you want, but we are down in the WB hull department.
Let me summarize this and you tell me where I'm wrong.
Under our previous contract Delta was to perform 50% of the AF/KLM/AZ Atlantic flying. Again, Delta never complied with that, not once did we do 50% of the flying. We had a 1.5% variable built into that, so Delta treated the 48.5% as the floor or their target to adhere to, not 50%. Worth noting is that during Delta's 3 year measurement period with a 1 year correction period did they ever comply with the 48.5% metric.
Under our new contract, Delta has to "on
average be no less than 46.5% of Bundle 1 (AF/KLM/AZ) EASK's". So to summarize, we went from a hard floor of 48.5% to an
average of 46.5% EASK's.
However, if the company goes below 48.5% EASK's then our global block hour floor kicks in. In which case the company has to fly at least 650,000 international block hours. Only problem with that is it's 5% less international flying that what we are currently performing.
In regards to the block hour floor. Delta never, not once, respected our 48.5% floor over the Atlantic during our last contract. What makes you think they will respect the "global block hour floor"?
Some of us crazy folks that "have a narrow view of the new language", have advocated for non-compliance language to be attached to our JV language. Have no fear, ALPA national recommends that we don't have that language. No kidding that's what the reps told me.
So Mr. Planetrain, please tell me what part of the new language is it that you like much, much better?
Is it the reduction in AF/KLM/AZ EASK's?
Is it the possible 5% decrease in international flying?
Or is it the new floor (protection) that doesn't have non-compliance language?
It would seem that we should be on the same side of this topic. Wouldn't we both want to protect and grow the flying for the Delta pilots? I don't understand how allowing Delta to contractually reduce our flying while putting in protections with no teeth is better.