Can you point to the section of the contract that prevents this scenario right now? Please be specific for my reading comprehension.

What part of the current section 1 would prevent this scenario?

LAX-PPT (Tahiti)
LAX-AUK (think you mean Auckland, not Alakanuk Airport in Alaska)

This scenario would be blocked by Section 1 E. 7. which requires at least four DL round trips.

It would also be blocked by Section 1 E. 8. which requires no reduction in DL block hours between the countries where the foreign air carrier and Delta operate.

In addition, if say the flying grew between the two nations, Delta would need to be at least 75% of the company's revenue share. (I continue to argue that number should fairly be 100% of Delta's revenue share).

So to First Break's Q: two sections of our contract address this scenario and 1 E. 8. locks in growth, albeit that it is less of a growth factor than what I think is fair.

Don’t we want the protections immediately? What if management drags the contract out? Management could violate at will and keep paying us pennies. Personally I want them to have an immediate AE with the wide body jobs now.

I’m extremely happy the line pilots get to read the language, debate it and the approve it. This is a major improvement from the days where line pilots would see an LOA or MOU 90 days after the MEC approved it. We made many horrible deals.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that JV transborder flying between two countries couldn't drop below zero, let alone below 46.5% EASK in France/Netherlands, UK.

My point is, if they can do what I said in my example, then top end JV scope didn't really improve much. Too big of loopholes. Hope not. I'll await the language.

Where did his post say his scenario was for <4 weekly round trips? I’ve read several times for comprehension. Still don’t see it.


We are in agreement on the 75% share. So, you admit that’s not protective.

I’ll ask again. In a world where Delta starts service to PPT or AUK, and the market SYD-USA grows with REX service, which contract section will we cite for the grievance?

The example provided /\ see above /\ is blocked by current language.

It might not be blocked by the new language which allows the company to redirect aircraft elsewhere without regard to geography or commercial agreements.

He stated remove all A350's in their entirety from Australia. DL does not fly any other type to the Continent.

1 E. 8.

In addition to ALL the existing DL Block Hours being protected, our current language directs no less than 75% of Delta's participation in growth to DL pilots.

We have protections now and multiple administrations have enforced our contract.

A global balance, which expands the number of variables management has little control over by many orders of magnitude, is more likely to be violated than the current simpler and more specific measures.

Nothing in our contract limits growth, in fact, it encourages more growth than if we reduce the requirements and loosen language in the way management used to defend it's previous violations.