When I showed my son flight ops in ATL I had to have a manager who had escort privileges accompany us. For him to be with me on my own in flight ops was not authorized.

Negative my friend. I understand the data full well.

A year or so into the first 3-year look-back window (2011?) RD told the MEC that to get from 47.2% to 50% would require the addition of 6-7 daily roundtrips over the course of the 3-year agreement, this wasn't a power point presentation.

Again the percentages have been accrued over years, so no, just adding a flight isn't going to magically make a 3-year lookback come up to meet the PWA test.

Even without the numbers its not hard to figure this out.
Adding Alitalia to the JV dropped our share by just over 4% points.
To claw back just 1% Delta would have to add around one quarter of all of Alitalia's North Atlantic flights.
And since our North Atlantic fleet produces fewer EASKs per departure than the fleet of the Europeans, that means even more Delta flights just to produce an equivalent number of EASKs.

Again, these are RDs numbers my friend. He said we would see 6-7 added flights over the course of the 3-year agreement.

They aren't here, and the list of excuses just keeps getting longer.

Cheers
George

Ding Ding Ding.

• The PWA is a legally binding contract.
• That's the only thing that matters, and we elect and pay good people to make sure it stays that way.
• The shortfall in EASKs is a big deal.

Any effort to make the shortfall seem insignificant does the Delta pilots harm. It's nothing less than if the company decided they will just not give us the 3% contractually agreed upon pay raise next year...

Listening to what sailing is putting out here isn't much different than saying "it's just 3%, what's the big deal...";)

Cheers
George

Thanks, unfortunately that's what I thought. No more take your kid to work day cause who knows, your own kid could be a threat to global security. Nanny govt in full overdrive.

I made no comment about what you state above. I only commented on Carl's false claim that we reduced flying while AF and KLM increased theirs.

Projecting current schedule, Delta is on track to operate 47.6% of the JV’s Bundle 1 EASKs for the 36-month period ending Mar-15
– Assuming no change to projectedAF-KL-AZflying,Delta will need. to add a significant number of flights to cure the breach
Delta’s average lead time for adding flights is about six months – Additional flights would likely not operate until Mar14
To reach compliance, between Mar14 and Mar15, Delta would need to add the equivalent of either:
– 5.10 daily DTW-AMS A330-300 roundtrips – 6.91 daily JFK-LHRB767-400 roundtrips


The above is verbatim from the MEC meeting.

Why not make a comment on it? Why not state that the company is ignoring the contract? You always claim to be the "voice of reason" here.

Apparently you are only "objective" when it helps to helps management. :rolleyes:

Again, I ask: whose side are you on? Never mind. It's pretty obvious.

Yet you say you don't worry about the Atlantic and Virgin Atlantic.:confused:

To be clear, the baseline allocation for Delta was changed when AZ was added to the JV in 2011. Prior to that, when it was just AF/KLM, Delta was required to maintain at least 49.95% of the 3 airlines' combined flying for the first 2 measurement periods (ending March 31, 2011 and 2012) and at least 50.2% for each subsequent measurement period.

Apparently, we were in compliance during that time.

When AZ was added to the JV, our actual percentage of flying of the now 4 combined airlines was around 47%. The original AF/KLM JV had provided that, were another airline to be added to the mix, the baseline allocation would be adjusted to reflect the actual balance of flying at the time.

For whatever reason (presumably because they had planned to grow), Delta agreed to a minimum required percentage of 48.5%, rather than the 47% at which they actually were operating at the time.

I haven't seen any excuses as to why Delta is not operating those flights, other than that they feel they cannot do so profitably, nor should that matter to us. They are contractually required to operate them, and they have not. Period.