Originally Posted by
gloopy
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.
"walk before we can run" sounds like accepting an unacceptable precedent that won't ever get fixed. The first problem is every pilot that doesn't understand that 50% isn't a suitable solution unless it's with an equal partner (newsflash, none of them are). The rest is a question of how to sufficiently incentivize the company to comply with the contract. I am open to ideas on how best to do that.