Originally Posted by
georgetg
From my interactions I've gotten the impression that "everything is under control, nothing to see here, move along"
The sad thing is that until you recognize a flaw, it's pretty darn hard to fix it...
Our Section 1 isn't all bad, in fact the AF JV scope language is tight, reviewed annually and subject to remedies if the balance of flying goes more than 3% in favor of one group.
Why that model wasn't used for RJ or AS scope is a mystery, maybe the negotiators saw only the upside for the intl. and looked past the corresponding impact on domestic...
Cheers
George
Maybe because the AS agreement is a legacy from the merger, and we couldn't unilaterally amend it without Alaska's approval?
Some legacy agreements suck more, and some less. You like the AF JV better? I had never looked at it that way before, but it's a good thing AF bought KLM, or we would have a legacy KLM agreement to comply with also.