Bernstein Presentation
 

This venue should prove interesting.
Delta Air Lines will present at Bernstein's 34th Annual Strategic Decisions Conference at 8 a.m. ET on Wednesday, May 30, 2018.

https://news.delta.com/delta-air-lin...ons-conference


Amid Potential for Near-Term Volatility, EM Opportunities Exist
Pg. 24 Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina

https://www.alliancebernstein.com/si...CMO_041718.pdf

If you didn’t listen, you need to. The top man himself explains our growth strategy. Spoiler alert, it doesn’t include international growth for Delta pilots. Wake up and smell the profit sharing because that’s the ONLY thing to smell.

https://cc.talkpoint.com/bern001/053018a_as/?entity=92_QIYR2TN

I don’t know how to phrase this but my intent is not to be pessimistic or throw rocks or anything like that.
I’m still new and I’ve heard a lot of talk from captains that “scope/jv’s/loss of international” is going to be my and my contemporaries problems and if something isn’t done we “won’t have much of a career” or something negative to that effect. I understand that a lot has been lost on the international side up to this point. But when I ask what can be done about it or how this problem gets fixed I get a lot of “that radio call was for us” type responses. I’m all for fixing the problems but being new and clueless it would be nice to hear ideas on how to go about that. Bullets are notoriously difficult to get back in the gun once the trigger is pulled. There also tends to be a fair amount of union impotency comments. Does anybody have a solution? People tend to get disgruntled when dalpa filed a grievance and it’s basically the only dance move I’ve seen so I guess I’m just curious.

Thanks for posting these links and dates NE.

The right to operate Delta branded aircraft is exclusively ours. That right must be defended always and by all means. Scope negotiation only weakens our position. They, the C suite, are building Delta into a global brand and strive to remove the restrictions we have on who and how the brand operates. 1.E.9. was no accident. They asked for it for a reason.

Listen to the presentation from Ed and spend a few minutes thinking critically about the implications of the plan he outlined and its impact on DALPA pilots.

This is the regional whipsaw on a global scale and we have only our contract to keep us from being but a bit player in the “Delta family of companies.”

Thanks for the link. A few points I found noteworthy:

Our biggest rival in Ed's mind: SWA (perhaps shows where Ed wants to expand), this dovetailed with another bullet where he mentioned Delta can charge a 20% domestic premium.

Alternate revenue
MRO: $750M now to exceed $1B
AMEX: $3B

International ownership (from the conference and Google)
49% Virgin Atlantic
49% AeroMexico
2.9% GOL
10% AF-KLM
Codeshares with Alitalia (who oddly enough is 49% owned by Etihad) and Korean

He really talked up Delta.com and called Delta a technological leader :).

He called the CS100 a 110 seat product, I thought it was lower than that. Changing the seating configuration, misspeak on his part, or am I mistaken on the CS100's capacity?

I don’t know how Delta is going to configure the aircraft but Bombardiar lists it as a 108 to 133 seat aircraft. 108 is a two class.

Thanks for your posting this stuff. Ed's vision has always been to farm out the flying whenever possible. And he wants your profit sharing, don't be fooled. IDK know the metrics of his compensation plan. But he's nailing it.

Next up.
https://ir.delta.com/m/#/Press_Releases/b488b16e-059b-42d4-a68c-cfac5b611607

Any fashion experts out there? Ed is a flashy dresser! He's not getting those suits at Men's wearhouse.

More of the same....what a surprise

As you mention, it's extremely hard to undue the international scope damage already done. But the answer to your question is pretty simple. Going forward, we as a pilot group can do a couple of things to at least stop the progressive erosion of Delta international scope:

1. Make it abundantly clear to your DALPA reps at every opportunity that Scope is the #1 issue for coming contracts. Urge them to stand firm on at least 50% as a MINIMUM production balance in any JV (that's 50% in any and all possible metrics that can be applied). We may not be able to immediately undue some of the damage done, but we can at least hold a line on future JVs.

2. Exercise your vote with the proper emphasis on Scope in upcoming contracts. If there's any issue that should be a single issue voting criteria in future contracts, it's Scope. If Scope is not acceptable in the next contract, be ready to vote "NO" and prepare for a long drawn out fight until it is acceptable.

This is why I'm happy our MEC is standing firm on the Aeromexico JV production balance and filing grievances when the company is out of compliance with the PWA.

Since you mentioned AeroMexico...

https://aeromexico.com/cms/sites/default/files/20180518_Investor_Relations_Presentation-_Full_Version.pdf

Spanish speakers can listen their earnings call.

What do you figure the electric bill is on those blue rags.:eek:

Standing firm is great, but in the mean time there is no production balance. Nobody expects them to accept the company's position, nor does anyone think that the company would accept our opener, but more importantly, what are we doing to move negotiations along?

So far, all I have heard is that we are using 1E2 as a backstop and that will eventually force their hand. Everyday that goes by, is another opportunity that AM can add a flight. Doing nothing may not be the best strategy..

There are a lot of tools in the tool box that can be used in negotations when one side seems uninterested in moving off a position. Why are we not using them? I am beginning to wonder if some on the MEC do not want to be held accountable. It may be easier (and they have convinced some of the masses) just to keep avoiding a deal and making it sound like the only result would be to accept the company's position. By doing that, they can look like they held firm and also look like they didn't "cave" off of our opener.

"Creating a hub south of Texas"

I am curious as to what some of those tools would be. I want to get behind some action. How can we force the negotiation to move?

How about an “Our Future, Our Fight” PR campaign. Except, instead of showing the explosion of new ME3 routes and aircraft orders, we show Aeromexico’s. Every unbalanced route added to AM cost xxxx american jobs at Air Lines. These jobs (i.e. operating costs) are the exact reason they go to AM in the first place.

I think we need to be educating the other work groups as well. Inflight. Tech ops etc. It's their jobs on the line too. They need to be aware and we need to garner their support.

Recently DAL held a rally touting what a great success the ME3 "victory" was for saving jobs. I believe this is a diversion tactic to downplay Delta jobs moving south of the border.

My opinion: we missed a fantastic opportunity for an informational picket at that event that highlights the scope issue for Delta frontline employees. Highly visible actions such as this would shine some light on the issue and highlight the company's intransigence.

Might be a good time for the government affairs folks to engage the current administration also. I think given the current climate, we'd find an ally in the White House once they are made aware of the issue. The threat to "American Jobs" due to joint venture outsourcing exceeds any threat the ME3 posed by an order of magnitude.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The DL config for the CS100 will have 110 seats. This is the same seat count as the 717, which has a 12/20/78 split for F/W/Y, but I don't believe the class distribution has been publicized for the CS100. It could be exactly the same, or they could elect to make it a little more W-heavy since it will generally be used on longer stage lengths than the 717. Sadly there's no other comparable configuration in use on the CS100 as the only other operator at this point is SWISS, who have outfitted with in a single class, so it's all guesswork for now.

This is a little off subject but not really. Worrying about widebody jobs and all, one of the biggest threats is moving the 8 hour cutoff for 2 man crew vs 3. UAL did this in their contract and it costed jobs. We actually gave it away just before our failed TA posted. In a last minute deal we got it back. No doubt the company is going to come after that in our next contract. It's imperative the union doesn't give that up. There will be even fewer widebody jobs if we do.

"Force" might not be the right word, but this negotiation is required by the contract and not so different than any other section 6 negotiation, other than there will be no mediation. (A little irony there as several MEC members felt we would have been better off in TA2 without the NMB, now they get their wish)

With the likelihood of a strike almost nil, why ever does a company agree to what they agree to under the RLA?

All the "events" that lead to TA2 could be ducplicated for this negotiation(s) as long as we can unify the pilot group behind the cause. I am not sure that the pilots are all on board at this point, so it will take a leader to step forward (Maybe it is the current MC) to rally them to the cause. Unifying the pilot group is the first step.

I am really surprised at this point that we haven't seen a plan taking shape to achieve our JV (reroute as well) goals. (Sorry, EI is not a "plan" and accomplished nothing and probably was as disunifying as it was unifying)

12f/15w/82y
109