![]() |
|
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1489075)
So currently we have 0% protection for Pacific block hours and then you claim that 85% protection is a concession. Please explain that logic.
I went back and looked over C2012 Scope stuff and only saw block hour change ratios, not actual block hours. I'm curious based on this 15% equating to roughly 25000 block hours what percentage of the DCI captured C2012 block hours we might give back (today's numbers not sky is falling NRT goes away) with this LOA ? B Fly the airplane, cancel the warning, do not hurry...... |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1489109)
They aren't in violation ... yet ... and might not be. Air France has been pulling down a lot of flying. I'm starting to think management might just make it by the measurement window.
However, I too have noticed how much AF has been pulling back. I was wondering how close that would put them to being in compliance. |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1489094)
Block hours are jobs. Allowing them to flex down 15% from current levels when they are currently in violation of our current scope close is not appropriate.
So you may be right, Alfa may be right, and Scambo maybe "rightest": the protections we actually do enjoy seem to be firm, right until the point where they come into play. Then they aren't, so much. If this is as rumored/leaked, it's going to be perceived more like a loss of 15%, than a gain of 85%. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1489109)
They aren't in violation ... yet ... and might not be. Air France has been pulling down a lot of flying. I'm starting to think management might just make it by the measurement window.
|
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1488585)
..., but I do know that the company can easily shrink NRT with very little penalty to them. If we can obtain any new protections in this deal, then we will be stupid to bypass them. NRT will shrink, it will decrease in importance to our network, that is just economics. It is not dead and it won't go away any time soon, but it will shrink.
Over flight is the name of the game and that is where our attentions should stay focused. NRT had its day and now that time has past. How about for one time in history we hold them to our legally binding contract and see what happens? Isn't that the purpose of a signed contract between two parties? If we are never going to enforce it, how about a verbal gentleman's agreement between Richard and Lee Moak (since he controls everything anyway)? That would allow us to concede each time more quickly, and both parties could save a lot of money in legal fees. |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1489114)
My first instinct is to agree. The problem is that the current Scope clause doesn't protect overall NRT flying, it addresses codesharing beyond Japan, which one of the reps (don't remember whom) said on the other forum was not significant in terms of revenue to the company. In other words, zero leverage. I can't believe we have that little Pacific scope.
So you may be right, Alfa may be right, and Scambo maybe "rightest": the protections we actually do enjoy seem to be firm, right until the point where they come into play. Then they aren't, so much. If this is as rumored/leaked, it's going to be perceived more like a loss of 15%, than a gain of 85%. I'll reserve judgement until I get to see it and cast my vote... er... uh... just see it. |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1489118)
Good points. However, marketing it as a gain of 85% is pretty poor.
Don't market it. Pass it on to us. The info we have is too limited, but let's say all the cards are on the table: the company is offering 85% guarantee, against the right of being under a few weekly slots, and keeping the codeshares beyond Japan. Those codeshares might come in handy, as we try to get a partner in Haneda. So, you bypass the usual race to deniability, where some of the reps let the vote pass, and argue they were against it. Pass it to the membership. Let us decide. Right now, we don't want to concede anything, and we especially don't want anything to be conceded on our behalf. Let us fumble with it a while, and decide for ourselves whether 85%>0%, and whether the difference of (I think) 2 slots out of 316 is a deal-breaker. I bet we're smart enough to figure it out. Even if we don't turn this down, it will feel good to do it ourselves. |
I'm writing an ALPA dictionary if anyone wants to contribute. You can use it to decode the email that should arrive this week or next.
"opportunity": the chance to make something worse "not in a hurry": hair on fire, must be done tomorrow whether it's good or not "negotiation": giving up one thing to get something less "make no mistake": the next thing I say will probably be untrue "no": negative, but not to be used in conversations with management "management": the future employment of ALPA presidents "poker": terrible analogy for a contract survey "significant": in keeping with the US Consumer Price Index "profit sharing": sharing our profits with management, used to acquire "significant" raises in "negotiation" (see above) What am I missing? |
Originally Posted by FlyZ
(Post 1489131)
I'm writing an ALPA dictionary if anyone wants to contribute:
"opportunity": the chance to make something worse "not in a hurry": hair on fire, must be done tomorrow whether it's good or not "negotiation": giving up one thing to get something less "make no mistake": the next thing I say will probably be untrue "no": negative, but not to be used in conversations with management "management": the future employment of ALPA presidents "poker": terrible analogy for a contract survey "significant": in keeping with the US Consumer Price Index "profit sharing": sharing our profits with management, used to acquire "raises" in "negotiation" (see above) What am I missing? |
Well I hope this is not a sign of things to come. Today Delta and Virgin Atlantic received their approval to begin the JV. The result 7 daily flights from NYC-LHG... of those 7 flights, Delta gets 3 (its sad that every time I see a code share or JV, I just assume we will be on the short end)
Adding salt into the wound, the Vikings charter to London for Sunday's game is not on the official airline of the Vikings, rather it's on our new subsidiary Virgin Atlantic. The hits just keep coming! #not holding out hope we improve our pacific language |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:31 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands