Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
I am sorry, but this is just a bunch of baloney. If you look at our contract in bankruptcy, our bankruptcy returns, our stock from the merger, and our contract gains in the merger, can you find any other pilot group that came out of this better off than we did? Do you think that management just gave that up easily? How about the shareholders?
We took 13% of the company coming out of bankruptcy. 13%. $1.3 billion when we sold it. What do you think the other creditors said when they saw that figure? Do you think they said "oh gee, they are nice fellows, let's give that up" or do you think they all took a massive dump simultaneously which probably dropped the water pressure in New York for a while? They treated that claim like we were stealing their children.
There was also the simple fact that we had given in LOA 46. The claim was as good as it was because all things considered the pension was no that underfunded.
So we sell our stock at the equivalent of $25 a share to a bunch of big time investors, and the stock has NEVER sold for a price higher than that. Now the merger comes along and we say to those same guys, "hey we want 5.5% of the company back from you." What do you think the reaction to that was? They were laughing at us until we got the stock and then they were hated us.
If you remember, NW and the NW pilots were the leaders in establishing a joint venture. The match with KLM allowed them to fly from a bunch of non hub cities to AMS, routes they could never justify without the joint venture. Look at PIT-CDG and PHL-CDG, we could never fly those routes without our joint venture with Air France. Heck, CVG-CDG would probably be gone without it.
The key to the joint venture is to avoid getting caught as the domestic only partner. Since our code share with Air France, our international flying has increased dramatically, some of it due to the code share, some of it not. The Delta MEC has led the way in creating a mutual support arrangement with the KLM/Air France unions and getting that mutual support written into our contract. That is not in management's interest, that is in the Delta pilots' interest.
I agree most of this. I think that it is in managements interest to make it beneficial to us as well. There is only so much blood in a turnip, and the simple fact is that there needed to be some give back, no matter how larger or small one may feel it is or was.
We have had some great international growth. Much of that push started prior to the AF/DAL JV deal. I also agree that we are getting feed from their feed and vice versa. It is good for both corporate parties. We get some job protection, but like I suggest for the JAL JV we need to get part of that increased revenue stream.
If we develop a JV with JAL, then you will probably see the same evolution. First, the MEC will travel to Tokyo for a meeting with the JAL pilots. Sometime they will travel to the US and meet with our MEC. Next, we will get involved into the corporate agreement between the two sides from the very beginning so that we can ensure our interests are considered from step 1. Finally, we will negotiate Joint Venture language into our contract which will ensure that growth is shared between the two groups. Most likely, along the way, people like you will claim this is all concessionary. Right up until we start adding flights to Haneda.
Good and lets make sure that as the company and group that is saving this airline we get some positives for us. I would love for their contracted work to be brought in house. That is a small request for helping this airline and their government.
If you have any questions, ask Hauenstein if our international footprint would grow or shrink without the AF/KLM joint venture. He will state unequivocally that it would shrink. Our domestic system would take a hit also, primarily in gauge. Glen does not get involved in pilot negotiations so he just says what he thinks.
Correct as we would not fill all of our seats. It is part of the reason that the small RJ lift does not work anymore either. A point is that this is good for the company and for us but marginally. We need to see better gains from this type of deal. Money, jobs, along with the security that the venture may add
A joint venture can be a gain for the company and a loss for the pilots. It can also be a gain for both. We have managed the AF/KLM joint venture so that is has benefited both. I am pretty sure a JAL joint venture would be the same thing.
Let make it benefit us more. Lets get some improvements. We are after all a risk sharing partner in these deals.
In January, less than 3 years from bankruptcy, we will pretty much have the best contract amongst the network carriers. How did that happen?
It happened because of a few things. One was a need or desire for a merger. We got something from it. I still think that AMR is doing really well considering they are still under their concessionary agreement. Yes, that may change, but for now apples to apples. CAL sold the farm to keep their pensions. We sold our pensions to keep a few other things. NWA sold a bunch of stuff to keep their pensions.
We got a percentage of the company, which is great. We on the South side got 17% over four year. Not great, but not bad. We agreed to leave scope on small jets where it is, and that is the one place I think we could have seen gains on in the JPWA.....
To do what the company wanted to do with NWA required our corporation. We gave it, and have done a great job to date. We will continue to succeed for this company. We are professionals it is what we do. What most pilots want is a quicker return to better wages and rules. With all of these JV's and code share agreements that make the company stronger, the average line joe sees many occasions where we could be doing it quicker than we are. That in a nut shell is the point.
We need to care where others are, but a few more percentage points will not hinder the plan.