No agreement is "the end all" even if it has marked improvements and very little negatives for the pilot group.

You all need to get over the "everything has to be a homerun or it sucks" mindset. That just isn't reality.

While I generally agree scope is the one section where my willingness to compromise is near zero.

I didn't say concessions. Although there are people here who believe if the company wants something, it is a concession. See: the TLV reduction teeth gnashing

True. Hopefully we can get to read the actual language soon.

I get what you're saying. I too will "wait for the language."

But I am extremely curious what they got out of this. Maybe nothing. It could be an all win no losses for us proposition. Maybe they wanted to give us an all win, no loss Scope deal because the win was limited (possibly even priced in already to a significant percentage of the growth they see anyway) and they're using it as a "home run" to soften the beaches before the broader TA comes soon.

Also likely though is the possibility that this deal contains "relief" for them beyond current book (i.e. for specific JV's and/or theaters). Something that could allow them to pull down more than they otherwise could, but the "quid" we get in exchange is growth they see we're getting anyway that isn't "owned" by our PWA WRT a higher than current global number.

I don't think any theater will "go to zero" except possibly Australia which is by far the most vulnerable to the next JV...or the current one, depending how much we "invest" in Rex...

Other than that, there's no chance Trans Atlantic in general or Air France/KLM/VA in particular will see DL doing 0% in any case. That's a comical red herring. This AIP supposedly prevents that anyway. So it can't go to zero, which it wouldn't anyway.

But there is a LOT of room between PPOS and zero over the Atlantic. Simply saying this AIP prevents it from going to zero means absolutely nothing. How much below the current share can they now take it? That's what I want to know.

How does it work if Delta passengers fly through Vancouver then to Asia on a WestJet 787 in the future? Or through Mexico City then on to SA or Australia on an Aeromexico 787? Those pax could theoretically buy a ticket on Delta and never step foot on a Delta jet, correct?

Absolutely, in fact Ed was bragging at an investor call about MEX being our Texas hub.

Delta can purchase and sell 40% of the seats, over the course of a month, on any flight pair segment (A - B - A).

Each theater has more specific averages that only look at one segment:

175 seats per flight segment is the generic coverage.

100 seats per flight segment between Japan to/from Taiwan, China and Korea

75 seats per flight segment in Canada, Mexico, Central America and Caribbean.

Our scope currently allows a lot of code sharing, however if the majority of passengers are originating on the Delta side then they are contractually required to use Delta pilots. Few have seen the language, I am guessing Delta wants significantly more leeway in some markets with more contractual obligation above the 40% elsewhere to keep it even. Again, I have not seen the language but I am nervous with SEA and LAX. Those two hubs were built up to support major international flying, most of us assumed that would be Delta pilots.

With a strong dollar, I would expect more people to increasingly purchase tickets on OAL carriers, especially on the north south routes. Another threat.

I just can’t believe we are considering an LOA on scope outside a full contract.

The counterpoint is that a separate scope agreement eliminates selling scope for pay rates.

One post saying they are voting no doesn’t equal double digit posts saying what a win it is.