Originally Posted by
Funk
You can't be serious about 50% when it's with a JV that we own as much as 49%, can you?!? 50% would be for an equal partner, and that isn't the case with any of them. We should get 50% as the baseline and then a portion of the remainder commensurate with our ownership stake. And for those that say, "what about slots, etc.?" that is for management to solve, or fork over all of the revenue to a general fund paid out to pilots the same way we do profit sharing. It should wipe out any financial incentive or gain for the company to allow flying by JVs instead of our own metal and people not commensurate with our ownership stake.
I like that approach. However we gotta walk before we can run. When AF/et-al were doing "half" which had a fake +/- window of compliance (only the bottom floor was ever relevant) and then our share still fell below that, they blamed AF for not reducing. OK, pull the code until they're in compliance. And half is half. And we need both block hours and ASM protections, both theatre (per JV) and global protections. And the next time we "partner" with an airline doing 4+ flights to our one (Virgin Australia comes to mind) we get ALL future growth until we're a flight or three a day ahead of them, then we can "share in the prosperity" of the venture.
We also need potential hub bypass protections. AM likely doesn't have the money at the moment to build up a massive 787 hub in MEX, but if they ever do, we can't just split the TX-MEX flying and give them all the MEX-all-points-global flying.