JV Perspective
 

2015

#1 United States GDP $18 Trillion Global Share 25.4%

#2 China GDP $11 Trillion Global Share 14.8%

#3 Japan GDP $4.4 Trillion Global Share 5.9%

#4 Germany GDP $3.4 Trillion Global Share 4.5%

#5 United Kingdom GDP $2.9 Trillion Global Share 3.9%

#6 France GDP $2.4 Trillion Global Share 3.3%

#7 India GDP $2.1 Trillion Global Share 2.8%

#8 Italy GDP $1.8 Trillion Global Share 2.5%

#9 Brazil GDP $1.8 Trillion Global Share 2.4%

#10 South Korea GDP $1.4 Trillion Global Share 1.9%

Take a close look at where Korea and Mexico sit on this list.

If and when DALPA comes to us seeking a Letter of Agreement for these JVs,

1) we need our fair share of the flying

2) we need major gains in RETIREMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE.

VACATION

TRAINING PAY

MEDICAL

DEFINED CONTRIBUTION

MINIMUM DAY

US GDP: Korean GDP :: DL Share of JV: KAL Share of JV?

I like the direction you are going here, but I don't think that's a strong correlation for many reasons.

Just spitballing here, but a stronger correlation might be:

US Worldwide air passengers : Korean Worldwide air passengers

Even stronger:
US-Korean trade originating in US : US-Korean trade originating in Korea

OR

US-Asia ASMs by DL : US-Asia ASMs by KAL

OR

US-Asia ASMs by all US carriers : US-Asia ASMs by all Korean carriers


1) we need our fair share of the flying AGREED!

Sadly, we will get nowhere near our share and DeRosa, Martin and Mason will be selling it like their lives depended on it.

Nothing in return be a handful of pixie dust.

What's with your focus on Mason? He was one of the original scope hawks...

so what happened?

He sure isn't a "scope hawk" now.

Mason is in lock step with DeRosa and Martin. Doing management's bidding.

I hope to be wrong.

What I see coming are 2 letters of agreement allowing concessions on JV scope beyond what is allowed under the current PWA. One for Aeromexico and one for Korean.

DeRosa, Martin and Mason will opposed MEMRAT of these LOAs and say we can achieve no gains other than scope protection which is something we should NEVER pay for.

Management is coming to us for concessions. We are in the drivers seat.

Again, I hope to be wrong.

Every time I've talked with Mason, I got a very different perspective. We sharply disagreed on the recall, but I sharply disagree with your usual throwing crap against the wall and including him in it every time. You're the one person on here who is wrong more than sailingfun!

You are full of crap. I am not sure who is feeding you this stuff. Mason might be lock step with those two on a few committee appointments, but making a corollary to every issue is an insult and wrong.

On the Aeromexico JV, the likes of Mason, Nestor and Dilbeck have been working on metrics and methodologies for over two years to protect us from flying inside and outside of the JV. Aeromexico is unique in the fact that passengers could flow from South America and Asia thought MEX, not touch the JV's immunized flying, but DAL with a ownership stake gets a financial benefit. These guys realized that from the word go, and have been working the issue. I would say that Mason will be able to give direction on this and do so from a place of knowledge.


The question remains to be seen if the company '"needs" a JV. The have to meet with the association per the PWA but there is nothing that requires them to agree to one. The protection we have in the PWA is for flying that the JV covers (DAL cant drop the level of flying. The issue is the growth flying and we are not protected. It can all go to Aeromexico). The pilot group should want a JV and demand it from the company.

The Korean relationship has been one that has been all over the place. I personally believe DAL is moving towards a JV out of need, especially with the issues in NRT. The horizon on when we would negotiate this is not months, but likely at least a year away. Remember, it took two years for Virgin Atlantic, Aeromexico has been on the plate for three years, and V Australia took about two years from announcement to LOA.

As for Sam and Scott, I doubt they said those worlds. They sound like a concern from parties that want to expand the use of MEMRAT and aren't sure they have the votes.

Mason is a pitbull on the MEC and never tires advocating the issues. This looks like another political drive-by that is thin of facts, but strong on supposition. You constantly made crap up about Nestor and now you are doing it to Mason.

Time will tell..

How much can Virgin grow before we must grow in our share of that killer deal?

As usual your talk focuses where management wants you to lead the line pilots.

The fact is, In my opinion, the current JV language is too restrictive for management. They want more latitude. So you and the gang focus 100% on the protection of growth going forward. To me that is a given. And we deserve a much larger share than we will get. I.e. Virgin.

We need to focus on gains in:

Value of a vacation day, training day and establish a minimum day.

More defined contribution up to 18%.

Lowering medical deductibles to $200 per individual and $400 per family. Cutting medical premiums in half.

What you guys never mention is the fact that our executives are lighting BILLIONS on fire each and every year with stock buy backs.

They need to invest in our air line. Not one more penny wasted on buy backs.

Stock buy backs achieve but one goal. Making our executives richer.

There is no excuse for bankruptcy medical, vacation, min day and training day while they waste billions on buy backs.

Rouge24

You say the DeRosa, Martin and Mason favor MEMRAT of letter of agreement and memorandums of understanding, this is outstanding news.

And they are concerned they don't have the votes.

Please list the voting members of the MEC who oppose MEMRAT of letters of agreement and memorandums of understanding.

I am aware of none.

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.

Your source was wrong. Current plan is for last 767ER flying to 2029. First retirement planned for 2020.

Time will tell on the WB count, I really hope that in the next couple of years the trend reverses and we start to see an increase in the number of WB's on property. I'll believe it when I see it.

Granted, the shorter measurement periods are an improvement. I don't think it's accurate to say that we had zero protections in Asia. LOA 13-3 along with our existing generic JV language certainly provided protections against outsourcing and even frequency pulldown in the case of V Australia.

We can throw metrics at each other all day and it won't matter. If at the end of this contract our percentage of international flying has decreased over the Atlantic, then our pilot group will be responsible for allowing it.

The flying is X across the Atlantic, it will vary with time. The key is making sure we don't let our percentage slide from 50% to 48.5 to 46.5 to ???. See the trend line?

I'm not hung up on the 5% global reduction. I am hung up on the fact that there is not any non-compliance language to discourage the company from perpetually breaking our contract, as they've been doing.

I'm also hung up the fact that this contract allows the company to lower the percentage of flying that Delta pilots do across the Atlantic. In the most profitable time in the history of the industry we couldn't maintain our JV percentage.

I thought we gave away the store.

Both are true.

Death by 1000 cuts. Management will keep gutting our scope.

IMO we will help them. One side letter at a time.

Tell me you think there will be no Aeromexico and Korean letters of agreement.

If there are JVs with Aeromexico and Korean I hope we are able to get LOA to protect our flying.

i honestly don't know. But what protections do we have now without any agreements?

I think you know the answer to that. It's in section 1 of the contract for those that don't.

So the question becomes is the generic JV language better or worse that what they can cook up with a LOA.

There you go.

The selling begins.

A JV LOA is a win. Because we can protect our flying.

Tell us. What happens if management violates this scope balance?

Oh wait, let me tell you.

First we wait an extended period listening to their excuses about why they can't meet their obligation. During this period the usual suspects parrot management's excuses.

Then we file a grievance.

Then after a long wait, we settle. For what? Upgrades and jobs added?

No.

A check for a few hundred bucks after taxes.

If we sign an LOA,

WE NEED MAJOR GAINS IN OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND RETIREMENT.

Increased value of a vacation day, minimum day, increased value of a training day.

18% DC

No need to be drama queen Jerry. I'm not selling anything. I just stated that if there are JVs with AM and Korean that I'd like to see JV language in our contract that protects us.

We agree 100% on that.

This is a GIVEN, not a gain.

I fear Scott and Sam will sell this as a gain.

We all know what a gain is.

Why the focus on C44? There's not a LOA to "sell" unless the MEC chairman brings it to the floor. Don't we have "hardliner" MEC officers now?

And a real health insurance plan.

To be fair, he was also brought us and was in favor of TA1, and according to you he should have been recalled.

Curious here. Are the pilot groups in our JVs(AF, KLM, Virgin Atlantic, Virgin Australia, soon AM, KAL and China something) concerned about getting their fair share, or do they know that they will get the better end of the stick? I think I know the answer:(

Words are important, and clearly you didn't pay attention to what you quoted. Attention to detail is important in our profession, and you lack it consistently in agenda pushing. Sold hard was the final and most important caveat. Mason did not do that. I told him I couldn't vote yes for it, and he never once questioned my decision.

Do we?

1. Was TA2 a gain?
2. How'd you vote on that gain?

How about, "We all know what a gain is, but each of us has different priorities, and differing views on how to achieve gains."?

Your hypocrisy is showing again. He brought it and sold it just as much as the others. His name was on the same joint letter. Not saying it's wrong for reps to give their perspective and endorsement, they all did, on both sides of the vote, just highlighting your glaring double standard.

Cryptic article. More ownership and JVs to come is my guess.

https://deltaairlines.sharepoint.com...-U-S--SEC.aspx

I agree with your concerns and also agree that the penalties for non compliance are woefully inadequate. However it seems you're advocating for selling the jobs as long as we get said gains. IMO that's the wrong strategy. In doing so, all we do is add pressure to help push more jobs out.

If we grant relief in any area for supposed gains in another area WRT scope, we need to write in massive penalties. We can and we have before. The contractual penalties of making them pull seats out of 76 seat 90 seaters and forcing Compass to park all their planes and/or a catastrophic 100% bump and flush (both ways in a short period of time) were both extremely effective deterrents to various MBA shenanigans post merger.

We don't need to sell jobs for gains. We need to protect jobs and add in massive penalties for non compliance.