|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3429284)
What does this deal bring that the company needs in the next 24 months. You state it’s leverage. Can you point out the need?
Show Me The Language |
Originally Posted by Planetrain
(Post 3429123)
Both parties are getting something they want. Delta gets some global flexibility. .
They know their longer term plans. We do not. There may be a market based reason to pull our share of a theater/JV lower, but there's no reason why a partner would benefit at our expense in that theater/JV. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3429284)
What does this deal bring that the company needs in the next 24 months. You state it’s leverage. Can you point out the need?
The "half" proposal is simple. The company desires some kind of workable plan going forward. They decided not to call it "Build Back Better" |
My first “we didn’t think they’d do that” surrounds the term “growth.” That keeps popping up on the email and in the podcast. ALPA is claiming equitable growth language as a win. It that sounds great, but it’s 1/2 the puzzle. What are the reduction of service protections? How is growth defined? Everyone looks at sections 1 and 3 in the contract and skips right past 2 (Definitions). This section can undo any perceived win. As an example say growth is defined as “service between city pairs that have not perviously had service.” If this were the definition, any flights added JFK to CDG would not count toward growth.
There are probably a hundred ways to define a simple sounding word like growth especially when lawyers get into a deep dive on it. This is the main reason why I’m very cautious about negotiating this outside of whole contract, and if this passes MR on it’s own, we need to watch how section 2 could alter this new section 1 agreement. People will argue that the negotiators notes would not allow the spirit of section 1 to be undone by the newer section 2. I think I he company would claim the newer section and the newer vote (passed whole contract) would take precedent. |
Originally Posted by Nantonaku
(Post 3429108)
Explain how an LOA is different than section 6 here. Are you saying the scope agreement would be different if it were part of section 6? Isn’t the company getting something they want either way (global flexibility)? At least we can leverage it in section 6. Are we getting a better deal outside of section 6? Unless the deal is all Delta flying is on Delta planes with Delta employees and no more code sharing we aren’t getting a good deal anyway. It sounds like we are well down the path of selling jobs. I don’t understand how it makes any difference at this point if it is an LOA or section 6 except we lose the leverage it might bring as part of a full negotiated contract.
Ending our partnerships would result in a smaller airline, less flying and probably an inability to carry Delta's legacy cost structure (ie our pay). The MEC and the company are going about this the right way. |
Originally Posted by Vsop
(Post 3429410)
My first “we didn’t think they’d do that” surrounds the term “growth.” That keeps popping up on the email and in the podcast. ALPA is claiming equitable growth language as a win. It that sounds great, but it’s 1/2 the puzzle. What are the reduction of service protections? How is growth defined? Everyone looks at sections 1 and 3 in the contract and skips right past 2 (Definitions). This section can undo any perceived win. As an example say growth is defined as “service between city pairs that have not perviously had service.” If this were the definition, any flights added JFK to CDG would not count toward growth.
There are probably a hundred ways to define a simple sounding word like growth especially when lawyers get into a deep dive on it. This is the main reason why I’m very cautious about negotiating this outside of whole contract, and if this passes MR on it’s own, we need to watch how section 2 could alter this new section 1 agreement. People will argue that the negotiators notes would not allow the spirit of section 1 to be undone by the newer section 2. I think I he company would claim the newer section and the newer vote (passed whole contract) would take precedent. Many of the scope gains in C16 were redefining and future proofing our contract for changes in airline ownership structures. The C12 language was expanded to capture new certificates, airlines and operations which were controlled by another party. I think the AIP measures "growth" by Block Hours over a baseline, maybe 2019. Not sure. |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 3428781)
It may or may not be leverage. We don't know yet.
I assume they will get something from this that they don't currently have. I am very concerned about whatever that is. Even a "compromise" that is a net win for us over present book can end up being a loss to us in the long run because they know more about what they intend to do with it than we do. We're looking at snapshots and they're looking into a crystal ball that they largely control. That said, if, and this is a big IF, this is all win and no loss, TA/LOA'ing it now makes getting the rest of the PWA easier since that's by far the biggest and most important section. Also, even if they get something from this, they may not have the plans or the ability to leverage whatever that is for years. They may be playing the long game here. If that's the case, delaying it now is zero leverage for us and only delays a contract. It all depends on the language. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 3429411)
Interest-Based Bargaining puts scope on the table with everything else. Trading in other union members' jobs is harmful to our long term contractual gains and immoral.
Ending our partnerships would result in a smaller airline, less flying and probably an inability to carry Delta's legacy cost structure (ie our pay). The MEC and the company are going about this the right way. That said, no "partner" should ever, ever, grow at our expense or refuse to shrink so we have to shrink more. I'm glad there appears to be *some* focus on theater protections. But simply saying "they can't take TransAtlantic to zero!" is meaningless. What can they take it to? That matters, because odds are they will at some point. I bet that number is significantly lower than current. But we'll see the language. |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 3429495)
I get what you're saying and agree in principle. The populist "all DL flying on DL metal" to the point there's no JV anywhere is dumb. We'd get absolutely destroyed by AA and UA and others. It wouldn't result in multi thousand pilot growth bases in CDG, AMS, LHR, etc etc etc.
That said, no "partner" should ever, ever, grow at our expense or refuse to shrink so we have to shrink more. I'm glad there appears to be *some* focus on theater protections. But simply saying "they can't take TransAtlantic to zero!" is meaningless. What can they take it to? That matters, because odds are they will at some point. I bet that number is significantly lower than current. But we'll see the language. By modeling, and limiting, each individual JV we agreed that management would come to us concomitant with negotiating new Joint Ventures or changes to Joint Ventures. The company told the US Department of Justic that DL/AM flying would be 40/60 (preexisting levels) and 50/50 on growth. The contract should have been damn near self-writing. IMHO we would be better off controlling and adjusting for each variable. |
I have been cruising around on flightradar24.com at random intervals. Aside from NYC to EU, we don't really have that many international destinations anymore, especially the pacific. Why in the world does the company need relief in some theater to allow us to grow somewhere else? What concerns me is that Latam and AM are in two markets where we actually do fly places and with regard to Virgin Atlantic, we have a favorable ratio with them. What exactly in our contract is prohibiting expansion in LA, SA and EU? Is this agreement just a final nail in the coffin for the Pacific? Eagerly awaiting the language.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:13 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands