Re: AF/KLM

We will have to wait and see. From what I've been able to ascertain, the main reason the company is below the target is because the Euros have been slow/unwilling to pull down capacity - a large reason they haven't been posting the profits we have.

If AF pulls down like they should, we may be back in compliance without having to grow the Atlantic massively. Do I like it? Not really. But it is a way the company can MAINTAIN compliance.

Please don't get me wrong. I want Delta pilots to maintain/grow our block hours more than the next guy. It just ticks me off when the DPA spouts nonsense in an effort to sway the uninformed.

Things do not always go our way. Liking the way things are, and dealing with the way things are, are apparently two different things...

 

Absolutely. Look at the Philippines... The yields to mainland US are so low, no U.S. carrier currently serves it non-stop. But we do from NRT. With a 747 if I'm not mistaken. That would be gone if we dismantled NRT. My concern is that this is something the company wants, not needs. They want to grow Skyteam, not Delta mainline, and dumping the NRT hub could net them huge savings, bonuses all around, etc.

If DALPA can come up with an acceptable alternative to this scenario, and put it in solid contractual language with no out, loopholes, or extended compliance timelines, then I guess I could take a look at it. But our history shows that when the company wants something, whether it's really good for the company or just the shareholders, DALPA gives it right up.

I guess what I'm saying is that if we are going to pursue a strategy of global dominance with Delta metal and pilots at the controls, then show me the plan, put it in writing and make it happen. Otherwise, no thanks.

 

I agree. I share your concern that the company might be looking for a "free" summer in NRT, but I don't think they're willing to burn the bridge over this. Time will tell.

 

If the contract becomes -- in generic terms -- "unworkable," then it can be changed/renegotiated.

Johnson, don't you see may name?

 

The NRT hub is not dying, its evolving. This current downturn may be permanent or not. Overflight will take on more importance, but DAL does not have the metal to do it, and won't unless we get a large WB order very soon. Even then this will play out over the next decade, not over the summer.

It you look at what we have done with AMS and CDG and our previous European point to point it speaks in favor of a long future for NRT connections even if Japan O&D shifts towards HND. While the Japanese want to get rid of 5th freedom, they can't for the time being and can only bypass by de-leveraging NRT through HND. ALPA is smart to evaluate and plan, but it is not some do or die emergency action item as some are suggesting.

Any claim that NRT is dead or on life support is fear mongering. DAL would no sooner pull the plug on NRT than they would LHR. If they are changing the NRT frequencies its because yield management is driving it. It can drive it back the other direction as well. Time will tell.

With the percentage of revenue that comes from our Asia operations I would expect the company to look at every opportunity to protect and build that revenue. The suggestion that they would kill NRT if we don't give them a (permanent?) exemption and that the MEC is protecting the pilots from the company drawing down NRT is preposterous.

Look at the official MEC response vs. who is yelling fire. I'm surprised we haven't heard from the usual suspects yet that the NRT slots are the reason we are not hiring. Why as are they trying to de-leverage ALPA's position?

Fly the airplane - cancel the warning - read the checklist - do not hurry

 

Let's not forget the role of the weak Yen in the NRT equation. Revenue from that operation, in dollar terms, can vary greatly. Right now, the Japanese are doing everything they can to weaken their currency. In three years, five years, ten years... who knows?

 

So you don't blame the pilots for voting in the BK contracts? Because ALPA told them to do so? Or the guys that opened the RJ box forever changing our industry? And if we're unable to think for ourselves, are we really in a position to question our union? I mean, if I can't read a TA and decide by myself how I need to vote, then I really have no room to criticize the union. Right?

 

I'll admit that "dying" was not the bet choice of word. What I meant is that NRT is not the center of attention anymore. HND is a threat. I also wasn't implying that management would kill the NRT operation. What I said was that if we forced them to maintain the minimum right now, they could easily cancel the codeshare and eliminate the minimum departures protection all together. I was told there are around 5000 codeshare passengers through NRT per year. Losing that codeshare likely wouldn't hurt.

So why not take this opportunity to expand our protections?

 

Its becoming entirely obvious that our contract Section 1 is dysfunctional.
The company pretty much ignores it and DALPA has no intention of ever enforcing it.

I'm beginning to think that the whole scope clause kabuki dance that management and DALPA perform is only for the benefit of the line pilots. To maintain the illusion that we have some control.

I suppose all that may be the inevitable result of a fast changing industry. Circumstances change so rapidly that its not in either party's interest to actually pay any attention to the language in the contract. We just re-write the language for every contingency or "opportunity" that management presents us with. We traded more large RJs for some 717s that were probably coming anyway and to get rid of some 50 seaters that were going to be retired anyway. When RAH bought Midwest
the ALPA lawyers just came in and told us the part of our contract that we thought prevented them from flying 717s was not enforceable anyway. Now we are about to trade our NRT flying for some fancy new protections or maybe some new 330s that are coming anyway.

Given that situation, maybe we should just be using whatever leverage we can gain from the company's need to modify the contract to maximize our incomes.
We should just calculate whatever revenue is going to be gained from allowing these NRT codeshares to continue and tell them we want 75% of it. In cash. Paid annually along with the profit sharing. Take it or leave it.

Our scope clause has proven useless for actually controlling scope. We might as well get some money for it. You know we're going to re-write that NRT flight quota. Changed circumstances require it. Why bother pretending that DALPA will miraculously write some new scope clause that is any less carved in Jello than the current one.

Same goes for the AF/KLM production balances. Management knows we're going to re-write it. We won't force them to follow the contract if they say it would be unprofitable. Might as well just get some cash for all of our constructive engagement. Why do we constantly go through this charade for nothing in return?
Show me the money.

 

I think everyone would like to see that done. But the history of our engagements with the company is leading many to be wary of the process, lest we come out of the negotiations having lost more than we gained. I really think that's all anyone is saying; Don't come to us with a modification that is really a Trojan horse for the company's benefit and expect us to be happy with that.