I sure hope you’re right. To me NB flying getting overlooked means we will be flying 80% of 2019 WB within a few years. I am anxiously awaiting that notepad.

Section 1 E.2. did not change. The most restrictive limit on the company requires that if >40% of a city pair has DL code, then it must be flown by DL pilots.

For example, if a city-pair served by an AM E190 sells more than 39 seats then it has to moved to DL metal.

If Delta can not serve the route for whatever reason then they stop selling those seats.

Section 1 E. is an economic incentive to operate its own equipment on these routes when there are DL passengers in the cabin.

The trans-Atlantic XLR/MAX narrowbody flying is a very niche market. And quite frankly it isn’t that lucrative when you factor in the inability to carry cargo combined with landing fees etc. I don’t see it as the threat that many seem to think it is.

I understand it’s a niche market especially right now, but it is definitely more of a threat than supersonic aircraft. Yet we negotiated for supersonic growth, but not NB growth. Why?
We have in the past (maybe currently) had several 757 trans Atlantic routes (ex. PIT-CVG). I believe there is a strong possibility that a partner airline duplicates those routes with an XLR or similar aircraft. I don’t want to miss out on those opportunities.
I also think the floor is way too low. I believe in 2019 Delta was on the edge of breaking our scope agreement by not flying enough, and now we say 80% is fine? That doesn’t add up to me.

Bucking I think you’re a subject matter expert in scope. What are you seeing?

I will defer to the experts who negotiated this deal. I think since NB flying is not included in "Partner Global Flying" it reverts back to Section 1 E. of our contract "Permitted Arrangements with Foreign Air Carriers" which is kind of the penalty box for codeshare operations without a Joint Venture. It limits DL sales to <40% unless the operation is flown by Delta pilots and has seat limits too.

If so, this is a gain for us, although there really isn't much of this kind of flying that has ever gone on and the company has never had much interest in codesharing on these flights. The A320 operations from Guadeloupe to MIA and JFK come to mind.

Sent the question in via Delta TA Questions and will report if I am wrong.

Going off on a tangent - I think the cure for Global Scope violations is really cool stuff. I have always had a problem with what I have thought is a system rigged against us where mediators are unlikely to award the true nature of scope damages; in the tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. Then, we do not distribute awards in a way I consider fair. It has long been my sense that #1 on the list did not lose a damn thing, but usually gets paid the most. On the other hand #10,000 probably lost a lot and gets compensated the least. The new cure language, a staffing cure, has been something we scope nerds have talked about for at least 20 years. Very cool to see it happen and for Delta's Negotiators to get it done!

Not a tangent at all. I agree the remedy is fantastic. Thanks for the feedback on the Scope agreement.

[/size]

From the language it looks like this is correct. Interested if we could get a NC deeper explanation to this.

1.X. 10,11,12 talk about Partner Global Flying exclusions from 1.E language.
”Partner Global Flying” by definition doesn’t include NB. Looks like (transoceanic) NB re-falls under 1.E, if it had been under a JV agreement previously.

As a knuckle-dragging scope ignoramus, I just wonder what’s to stop the company from violating scope with the intent to cure themselves up to a desired widebody end state? If they’re 100 WB pilots short of where they want to be in 12 months, doesn’t the defined cure give them the prescription for an easy way to get there, with all the associated benefits of some temporary surge outsourcing?

I guess agree to disagree then. I don’t see it as a threat. You can fly an inefficient old widebody JFK-LHR that isn’t at capacity but can carry a bunch of cargo and it will make money… Vs 2x XLRs or MAX that are full but can’t carry cargo and you can’t.

That being said, the high efficiency narrowbodies do have a special (and potentially lucrative) niche. Trans-Atlantic flight to LHR and CDG ain’t it.