21-7

Ok, as hard as it is, I will try to accept the unions' stance that a JV is good for the Delta pilot. (Common sense and pure business tactics without political agendas tells me that we should do all of our own flying organically and not support other carriers. BUSINESS)

I am confused, if this is a JOINT Venture, shouldn't we at least share the flying and the pain 50/50 (14 VA/14DL)? 21 flights for VA and 7 flights for mighty DAL does not sound like a JOINT venture.:mad: Somebody is getting paid handsomely for this lopsided and one-sided deal. It stinks.

TEN

So what data are you using? What historic set of circumstances are you drawing from?

Quagmire fourth whole.. - YouTube

you gotta believe its there.

And even if someone tried to argue that the gross imbalance is OK because as of DOS its in their favor, why did we agree to let them increase 50% while we further decrease?!

We can't afford the Capex for a single additional plane/flight, but this tiny little carrier on the verge of global irrelevance suddenly gets a massive windfall growth of 50% while we can shrink a little because of it?

My answer as a manager would be different than my answer as a pilot. Generally, I'd look at Spirit, Allegient and Jet Blue. Why is Spirit on track for 300% growth while Delta has shrunk by 25%. While most of Jet Blue's growth has come from American, the second competitor to cede to their growth has been Delta. Frankly, I'd be looking at Virgin as an asset sale, not a partner. venire, videre, and vincere ... .

Thank goodness I am not CEO. Richard Anderson, Mr. Bastian and their crew balance a lot of interests, successfully. They work for a Board with disparate goals, which might not take a long term focus.

Everyone would hate me if I were CEO. Here, let me shake your hand ...

If there is some magical money printing fake global economic "recovery" (there won't be) then what makes anyone think the kings of outsourcing will do it themselves instead of, well, further outsourcing?

Its not like this JV enables a 50% increase while allowing a further decrease of our flying though. Oh wait, it does.

So the global economy would have to come rushing in to such an outrageous extent that the US-OZ market saw a 50% influx, all absorbed by our JV "partner", then increase beyond the capacity other airlines would add anyway, and then we might get an extra flight per day/week?

Of course if US-OZ traffic goes crazy and triples or more, then we're cooking! :rolleyes:

I just hope the JV has adequate protections to defend our valueable (only 6 pax per flight, amirite?) AS feed in our western nonhubs.

On the AF JV its EASK's . Overall we fly smaller gauge jets. 3 767's to one AF 380. We shrink block hrs more than they do, but we also will grow at a greater rate than they will in a upswing economy. That is the upside we have not seen.

On the V Australia JV, the 21-7 is before 50-50 growth is part of it. They are at 14 weekly rt's. It means they add one more daily rt before they hit that threshold of 50-50. If they go above 14 column B applies and our bottom end threshold applies.(7- not 5) That could be a one extra frequency on day a week to LAX flight to bring them up to 16, not another route. What is the column B weekly avg in the 12 month not 36 month measurement period like the AF JV?

Also note that all growth that V Australia has in the Pacific is included in growth not just mainland US. (very good)

The flexibility initially does not force growth for the Delta Pilots but it does push their pax on our domestic network at a min, and quite possibly our LAX-SYD flight. (not good for DAL pilots and good for sustainability of existing routes)

All growth above 21 in Column A is 50-50 (very good)

They (VA) can pull down frequency and we are not required to pull down frequency or markets like the AF JV (very good with the attacks that Australia is getting from EK. (long term this may be a real big winner for DAL pilots)

This JV gives DAL great incentive to have the revenue flown on their metal unlike the AF JV which is totally metal neutral (good given the size and scope of the JV)

The set up for this JV is not eye watering in the terms of growth, but it will push more pax to our DAL pilot flown flights thus making flights like LAX-SYD more sustainable on the main deck. (good)

It does allow DAL to go to five flights a week if V Australia is at 14 and 4 flights a day under approval, but forces V Australia back to 14 if we go below 7. It is more complicated but read the TA and look at the matrix and read the language of the TA not just the NNP(good and bad)

In the end we are talking about a small JV with the possibility of some growth for the DAL pilots in the future that is equally shared after 7 frequencies are added by V Australia.(one frequency per day) Its not a gigantic deal but it does allow for hard bottom end protections and equal growth going forward. The cure period is 12 months and we are not going to start a new measurement period in March 2013, but conclude one. The measurement period is 12 months not 36. All of these difference need to be noted.

I do not see one more daily rt as a "gross windfall" given that the TA includes the ability to include a lot of other flying. (1 N.2)

If anything this forces DAL not to drop the market over whimsical economic forces on a route that has a ton of over capacity. (DAL, VA, Qantas)

Yuk. She is so darn skinny. Someone feed that girl a steak:) Disgusting bag of bones!

Hugh Jaynus

You're making a very coherent argument. We do better because the company is able to capture revenue with less CAPEX. Easier to grow, easier to cut back. Margins are better.

When we cut, we don't cut as much, which is the flip-side of having a revenue multiplier in the alliances (and lower growth as a result). This doesn't mean we wouldn't furlough in a down cycle, but you are correct: we'd furlough less.

I also agree that having a conservative use of assets, and staying away from the boom-bust approach is the trade-off we've gotten. It's probably best that way. As long as we capture a proper portion of the revenue gains.