Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1642513)

I believe that over the 3 year measurement period we are talking a average of 2 to 3 flights per day. I would like to see us do all flying. The question is can that be done within the political constraints at a profit. I think the AF linkup overall produces more pilot jobs at Delta then a go it alone approach. Network is everything these days. Answering questions largely hypothetical gets difficult. Delta is I believe the largest carrier over the Atlantic by a wide margin. Would we have been even larger going it alone? Most of the direct routes we abandoned have stayed abandoned despite the fact they are available for any airline to pick up. A high percentage of AF passengers arriving in the US connect on Delta flights generating additional domestic jobs. Hard to quantify how it works out in the end but I don't know any go it alone success stories. Again I tend to be results oriented. Largest number of flights over the Atlantic by any carrier would seem to be a pretty good result.

Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 1642505)

You could not be more wrong.

If we were to pull a picketing permit our feet would never touch the pavement.

Richard brags about his relationship with the pilots every time he talks to investors.

If simple fact is we are not on his plate because DALPA refuses to take any public position at all.

Tsquare I could point to many, many examples of Richard taking a public stance to reach his goals.

Just yesterday on Deltanet. Pilots and flight attendants with management lobbying the Ex-Im bank. Does that guarantee a victory? Perhaps you need to call Richard and tell him how worthless this action is and how stupid he is.

Playing dead is not a good choice. Mirror the master. Richard sets public goals and makes them happen.

Your comments all comes directly from management's playbook. Whether you mean to or not, you are a management puppet.

Originally Posted by PilotFrog (Post 1642628)

Are the new 330s coming the -300 242 Ton versions? I thought we were getting them in early 15, but the Airbus site says it won't be available till mid 2015.

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 1642634)

Why did we agree to a 3 year period in the first place? If our contract is barely 3 years long a 3 year measurement period seems like an automatic fail in the first place - by the time the company is out of compliance (as we all knew they would be for over 2 years) the contract is up and it is pretty much water under the bridge.


Seems like DALPA really blew this from the start. :confused: Even if we are owed, which we apparently are, we get squat. :cool: OBTW - I don't really care if Europe melted down, the company agreed to it - and you know how it goes "A contract is a contract."

Scoop

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 1642634)

Why did we agree to a 3 year period in the first place? If our contract is barely 3 years long a 3 year measurement period seems like an automatic fail in the first place - by the time the company is out of compliance (as we all knew they would be for over 2 years) the contract is up and it is pretty much water under the bridge.


Seems like DALPA really blew this from the start. :confused: Even if we are owed, which we apparently are, we get squat. :cool: OBTW - I don't really care if Europe melted down, the company agreed to it - and you know how it goes "A contract is a contract."

Scoop

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1642580)

Fundamentally, it is a good agreement for Delta pilots. Delta, by virtue of having airplanes much smaller than A380's, has to fly more block hours to keep our EASK share up.

My understanding is the deficit is not cumulative. The numbers are only considered in aggregate so as to allow the Company to adjust for seasonal differences during a yearly window.

One concern is the ease with which Delta could comply by hitting the numbers briefly, then enjoying noncompliance with the spirit of the agreement during the remainder of the period.

The problem with production balance language is that there is no way to force the Company to comply when they just don't want to Fly Delta Jets. We agree in the probable pecuniary outcome.

At 11 * 3 pilots, per day, working 15 days a month ... am I wildly off to say this non compliance costs us about 500 to 600 senior widebody jobs who would be doing some pretty good overnights?

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1642661)

I suspect it was a 3 year period because Delta does not control the players involved. If AF decided to add 10 flights a day over the pond Delta would need time to also add additional flights and come back into agreement.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1642664)

We got 60 percent of the block hours over the pond. Not exactly what I would call squat but to each his own. AF got 25 and KLM 15.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1642667)

Yes you are wildly off. The company to be considered in compliance has to meet the 36 month rolling look back. They do get to drop the first year but in the cure period they have to look back 36 months. That is why the slide referenced the increase start date. The shortage appears to be about 1200 block hours a month at 2.5 flights a day. That ends up being about 20 captains or 60 total crew.
If you took the numbers you posted and applied them to the entire transatlantic operation it would need 6000 pilots.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1642661)

I suspect it was a 3 year period because Delta does not control the players involved. If AF decided to add 10 flights a day over the pond Delta would need time to also add additional flights and come back into agreement.