How much has our flying to the U.K. Increased since the JV with Virgin? How does that compare to other international markets? I bet you won't post the answers!

Mason is a great instructor and a very nice guy. That being said, anyone who supported the TA (82%) really shouldn't be associated with the word scope hawk.

Contractually, we gave up WB flying. We also have fewer WB's on property now than at the time of the merger. So far the trend line on this isn't changing either.

I don't know how much it has increased since the JV with Virgin. It is (as of last year) the one JV that we're doing more flying than we are contractually obligated to do.

The AF JV on the other hand is a different story. The company never hit the 50% mark the contract called for, not once.

If you truly believe we gave up wide body flying, then you have a very narrow view of the new language regarding the JV. (I like our new language much much better.)

Other than the 747s (which have nothing to do with the airfrance JV), which international wide body hulls have gone down?

I'll wait why you count.

He sure won't. Anything positive he is unable to post.

There is no substitute for scope. We must work on our share of the flying as the absolute number one priority. Thinking we can increase our costs while lowering our productivity as benefits for weak scope will only exacerbate the problem, and whatever we're left with will come down to...scope...which we would have weakened in the first place. Ridiculous strategy. Almost at shortsighted as trading scope for profit sharing in the hopes that we'll profit off the jobs we sold for it.

It doesn't matter if it's one type or five. Bottom line is that a larger amount of flying is being shifted to our JV partners. You can discount the 747 all you want, but we are down in the WB hull department.

Let me summarize this and you tell me where I'm wrong.

Under our previous contract Delta was to perform 50% of the AF/KLM/AZ Atlantic flying. Again, Delta never complied with that, not once did we do 50% of the flying. We had a 1.5% variable built into that, so Delta treated the 48.5% as the floor or their target to adhere to, not 50%. Worth noting is that during Delta's 3 year measurement period with a 1 year correction period did they ever comply with the 48.5% metric.

Under our new contract, Delta has to "on average be no less than 46.5% of Bundle 1 (AF/KLM/AZ) EASK's". So to summarize, we went from a hard floor of 48.5% to an average of 46.5% EASK's.

However, if the company goes below 48.5% EASK's then our global block hour floor kicks in. In which case the company has to fly at least 650,000 international block hours. Only problem with that is it's 5% less international flying that what we are currently performing.

In regards to the block hour floor. Delta never, not once, respected our 48.5% floor over the Atlantic during our last contract. What makes you think they will respect the "global block hour floor"?

Some of us crazy folks that "have a narrow view of the new language", have advocated for non-compliance language to be attached to our JV language. Have no fear, ALPA national recommends that we don't have that language. No kidding that's what the reps told me.

So Mr. Planetrain, please tell me what part of the new language is it that you like much, much better?

Is it the reduction in AF/KLM/AZ EASK's?

Is it the possible 5% decrease in international flying?

Or is it the new floor (protection) that doesn't have non-compliance language?

It would seem that we should be on the same side of this topic. Wouldn't we both want to protect and grow the flying for the Delta pilots? I don't understand how allowing Delta to contractually reduce our flying while putting in protections with no teeth is better.

747s down (Pacific flying)
767ERs same
767400s same
777s same
A330s more

Airfrance JV
----------------
Old way: 3 year AVERAGE with ability to throw out a year and cure in the 4th
New way: 2 year AVERAGE, no ability to kick out a year

Old way: Over 3 years, AVERAGE must be 48.5%
New way: Every 1 year must be 48.5%, if not, then we get a international widebody hour floor that we never had before

Old way: Asia and South America could shrink to 0 and Europe to near 0 flying (ie 1 Airfrance flight and 1 DL flight is 50%/50%)
New way: When less than 48.5% in Europe, (but never less than 46.5%), DL has to fly 650,000 block hours. Now, DL can't shrink Europe, South America, AND Asia. Some combination must still be there that ensures almost all our historical average of widebody flying. I'll gladly trade the 2% difference between 48.5% and 46.5% in Europe, if it means the other theaters - particularly Asia, in light of Haneda, Korean, and China Eastern - are protected. And if DL flies more than 48.5% in the Airfrance JV and we don't get this widebody block hour floor - then that's better than what we had in the old way, because I never saw the old way hit 48.5%, and we sure waited a looong time to get a grieveance thanks to the 3 year window and cure.

Every way I look at it - the new way is better.

I see you're hung up on the 5% less than current widebody flying today in the widebody floor... Again, old way protection was 0% protected... not the 95% protected we have now. And if I remember right, those widebody hours include 757 transatlantic. When that fleet shrinks/retires, only widebody planes can replace it. And that metric is in hours, so when those replacements arrive, transatlantic ASMs go up. I like that way better.

I think we are both on the same side - we both want strong scope. I just don't see the new contract as a scope sale. I'm counting airframes and haven't seen a reduction (other than whales) since the merger. Looking ahead, don't we have "1"-25 A350s and 25 A330neos on order? If/when they retire the last 8 or so whales, and then if we get 8 or so A350s, net pilots and pay scale, we should be a wash. Anything extra is extra.

Was told by a reliable source that an ER will never again go into a heavy check for DAL. This is the beginning of the end for the 767-300 and the whale. Time will tell.

Pretty sure the Pacific had a floor before LOA.