Originally Posted by
TED74
I’m confused about what you’re advocating. You want to make sure narrowbody jets get some ocean crossings, and give the company credit for putting that on a route instead of the proposed requirement for widebody flying? Surely I misunderstand what you want.
No, I’m not advocating that NB are required to do crossings instead of WB. Sorry, if my rambling came accurate that way.
I’m looking for protections against partner carriers swapping their current WB hours for NB and increasing frequency to cover the lost ASMs. Under this TA a partner doing this would lower their WB hours and thus lower our required WB hours since it’s set as a ratio.
This scope agreement has no protections for that, and that is the direction the industry is going. Smaller aircraft on higher frequencies for international. That’s how 787/350 killed off the 747/380, and that’s the sales pitch from Airbus for the 321LR and XLR models.
My thought above was trying to say this agreement at least needs to have a requirement that we have 1:1 growth in this type of flying. Better for us would be all partner long haul hours must equal our WB hours, but I’m more realistic than to expect that.