Global Scope AIP reached
05-17-2022, 12:56 PM
#121
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2022
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by saturn
Bingo! DL having flexibility is great and all, but certain markets need to be balanced with the specific JV partner. Global scope could just allow reshuffling the fleet around to different markets not tied to a JV partner, meanwhile the JV partner increases their transborder flying to America, capturing all the growth in that market.
Ex:
Say we want to re-add a new route like, or LAX-PPT, or LAX-AUK. At the same time, we see a market to go 2x SYD or even add MEL. Instead of ordering more WBs for the additional route expansion, could we just move our 350s out of Australia entirely and move them to Tahiti and New Zealand, and let Rex get some WBs and fly the 2x or 3x Australia-US?
05-17-2022, 12:59 PM
#122
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2022
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by saturn
Bingo! DL having flexibility is great and all, but certain markets need to be balanced with the specific JV partner. Global scope could just allow reshuffling the fleet around to different markets not tied to a JV partner, meanwhile the JV partner increases their transborder flying to America, capturing all the growth in that market.
Ex:
Say we want to re-add a new route like, or LAX-PPT, or LAX-AUK. At the same time, we see a market to go 2x SYD or even add MEL. Instead of ordering more WBs for the additional route expansion, could we just move our 350s out of Australia entirely and move them to Tahiti and New Zealand, and let Rex get some WBs and fly the 2x or 3x Australia-US?
05-17-2022, 01:16 PM
#123
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,990
Originally Posted by saturn
Bingo! DL having flexibility is great and all, but certain markets need to be balanced with the specific JV partner. Global scope could just allow reshuffling the fleet around to different markets not tied to a JV partner, meanwhile the JV partner increases their transborder flying to America, capturing all the growth in that market.
Ex:
Say we want to re-add a new route like, or LAX-PPT, or LAX-AUK. At the same time, we see a market to go 2x SYD or even add MEL. Instead of ordering more WBs for the additional route expansion, could we just move our 350s out of Australia entirely and move them to Tahiti and New Zealand, and let Rex get some WBs and fly the 2x or 3x Australia-US?
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.
05-17-2022, 01:22 PM
#124
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Originally Posted by m3113n1a1
Why is this outside of Section 6? Even though scope is extremely important for us, it just opens the door for the company to have an excuse to negotiate things that are more important to them outside of Section 6 (ie LCA pay). Seems hypocritical of us.
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.
05-17-2022, 01:23 PM
#125
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Supreme Allied Commander
Posts: 1,056
Originally Posted by First Break
What part of the current section 1 would prevent this scenario?
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.
05-17-2022, 01:27 PM
#126
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2022
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
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.
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.
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?
05-17-2022, 01:28 PM
#127
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,990
Originally Posted by saturn
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.
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.
It might not be blocked by the new language which allows the company to redirect aircraft elsewhere without regard to geography or commercial agreements.
05-17-2022, 01:29 PM
#128
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,990
Originally Posted by First Break
Where did his post say his scenario was for <4 weekly round trips? I’ve read several times for comprehension.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 05-17-2022 at 01:41 PM.
05-17-2022, 01:34 PM
#129
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,990
Originally Posted by First Break
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?
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?
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.
05-17-2022, 01:38 PM
#130
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,990
Originally Posted by gzsg
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.
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
