iceman49

Bar, what period was that? At NAL in 1978 we would write our trip time down after every trip on boards in crew sched.

MoonShot

109xx

.....

sailingfun

You failed to mention the pay Sheets! Woe to the engineer who did not know the contract!

nwaf16dude

Quick rundown, generally all our current hotels in SA are very nice, much nicer than Europe. Workout rooms are adequate, nothing to brag about. Hotels all give either free or very cheap breakfast, except GRU.

UIO- 2 man, now mixed in with domestic because of too much credit. Very long van ride, nice hotel. Local food is good. Only been once, didn't check out the workout room.

LIM- on the 400 now, but will probably come back. Most painful redeye in the system. Good food and shopping.

SCL-great food and wine, nothing's a bargain. Great hiking location. Easy grocery shopping.

GRU-can be a very long bus ride depending on the traffic. Better than average workout room. Groceries close, some great crew restaurants.

EZE-all you can drink champagne at breakfast. Weak workout room. Great exchange rate. Excellent food and wine. Yes, the steaks are as good as everyone says.

BSB-17.5 hours of credit in about 36 TAFB. Not much else to say. Efficient and boring. Pretty much zero workout room, but good public park and weather for a quick workout.

Never been to bogota, I hear it's nice.

badflaps

That is when DC-9 F/O was really fun, especially when you changed tail-gunners three times a day.

EdGrimley

Bar, you got the wrong video. It's more like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCt9C4FcpWY&app=desktop

forgot to bid

Wasn't it true that green slips were once done on green slips of paper?

Joe330

Any DAL 777 guys out there? Thinking about taking family to JNB, have heard its a bear getting out. Today's flight left with 77 open seats and no non revs boarded. Does that sound right? That's alot of blocked seats.

MoonShot

Thanks! What I was looking for.

Carl Spackler

Council 20 (DTW) just sent this out. Sorry for the length, but this is really a must read.

---------------------

DTW/C20 Special Update
Delta / Virgin Atlantic (VS) LOA
December 3, 2014

DL/VS LOA (#14-07)

The Negotiating Committee and DL management reached a tentative agreement related to the distribution of Delta / Virgin Atlantic JV flying within the past couple of weeks. The MEC received the LOA language on November 26th and will be considering it at next week’s regular MEC meeting in ATL.

We’ve been working with the MEC administration the past couple of days to publish a communication that is to our mutual satisfaction. Unfortunately we have been unsuccessful.

Thus far, the MEC Office has not distributed any non-confidential briefing or talking points even though some of us have requested them. (Confidential briefing points were distributed and re-collected to / from the MEC at the special MEC meeting on November 18-19 prior to the final TA (Tentative Agreement) being reached, and that info is still apparently being considered “confidential”). This limits the detail that we can actually provide to the membership to evaluate the LOA language. The LOA language doesn’t include information on the levels of flying that establish the protections for the existing PWA SCOPE language, and even though that raw data is available publicly (generally via the OAG), it is difficult to extract the applicable data from public sources to derive the specific parameters that the TA is based upon. Since our only exposure to this data was in closed session, the MEC Administration says that this information shouldn’t be discussed publicly. Obviously, it’s difficult to evaluate this LOA without knowing what the current Delta and VS flying levels are, which would allow for a comparison to the established baselines in the LOA.

Some LECs are only distributing the LOA to those who ask, and one LEC thus far has distributed the LOA to the whole Council. For some reason it appears that the individual distribution is somehow more acceptable to the MEC Administration than publishing to the whole Council.

We will distribute the LOA to those who have questions or are interested in reviewing the language if you haven’t seen it already.

Here are the basic concepts of the LOA which can be discussed based upon the specific language which is included the LOA:

· The existing PWA language, which can be found specifically in Section 1.E.2(a-d), 3, and 7-9, provides for, among other parameters, specific downside protections in international Joint Ventures (JVs) (“Profit / Loss Sharing Agreement”) and with ownership stakes, while there are no provisions that provide for upside sharing of the flying growth. 1.E.3 establishes a DL block hour baseline in the 12 months prior to the Co’s ownership level of another company exceeding 25%.

· The LOA removes the limitations of the sections above and institutes minimum Delta US-LHR operations and a sliding global production balance between DL’s and VS’s twin aisle international flying.

· The US-UK(all) protections of Section 1.E.3 are replaced with the minimum scheduled “international operations of Company flying between the US and LHR” stated in the LOA. The MEC Administration does not want us to disclose the current flying levels and levels at the time of Delta’s VS investment to the membership until “the MEC approves the LOA”.

· The added global minimum production balance is based upon the ratio of “international twin aisle ASKs” and sets parameters as listed on this chart from Section 2.2 of the LOA:

Scheduled DL international twin aisle ASKs
DL’s minimum % of combined DL and VS international twin aisle ASKs
Less than 113,919,597,035
69.46%
Between 113,919,597,035 and 146,468,053,331
68.02%
Greater than 146,468,053,331
66.57%

o 68.02% DL share for a range of DL ASKs based upon +/-12.5% of a midpoint number of ASKs loosely related to “recent” levels. The MEC Administration does not want us to disclose the current flying levels and levels at the time of Delta’s VS investment to the membership until “the MEC approves the LOA”.

o 66.57% DL share if DL’s ASKs increase by more than 12.5% above the midpoint level.

o 69.46% share if DL’s ASKs essentially fall below the baseline level (the lower range in row 2 above, which is the midpoint -12.5%).

· Running through some basic algebra using the listed numbers, it appears that VS can increase their ASKs by at least (very) approximately 12.5% providing DL doesn’t reduce below the baseline level (depending upon where their actual current flying levels are now). Any ASK increase by VS beyond that requires DL’s ASKs to increase / have increased by an approximately 66.57%/33.43% ratio over VS’s further increase (last row of the section 2.2 table above). Comments: While the global production balance gives us upside benefits, the amount of ASK increase that VS is allowed before that benefit is effective is substantial for an airline primarily operating out of highly slot restrictive LHR, especially as VS is likely to downsize their average aircraft size (parking 744s, not taking delivery of 380s “yet”, etc.).

· Delta’s current percentage and percentage at the time of the Delta / VS transaction of joint DL/VS twin aisle international flying are values that the MEC Administration does not want us to disclose until “the MEC approves the LOA”.

· Subsequent decreases in DL ASKs (even after an increase) still require the balance to remain within the listed parameters, even if that requires a reduction in ASKs by VS.

· The resulting Block Hours (BHs) that will be “protected” (converted using several assumptions from this ASK-based agreement) overlay existing BH protections from the Transatlantic AF/KLM JV and the NRT LOA (not currently active since there’s not currently any Tokyo codesharing), is a positive aspect of the agreement and could be considered good news, but again those numbers were detailed in closed session and are also something that……. the MEC Administration does not want us to disclose until “the MEC approves the LOA”. Comments: This is probably the strongest benefit of the LOA.

· A measurement and cure period that doesn’t exceed 2 calendar years (1 year measurement + 1 year cure). However it does appear from the language that there’s nothing preventing an out-of-compliance situation every other year. That’ll be an area for discussion / questioning at the meeting.

· Includes pilot protections to address Labor disputes by either pilot group.

Perspective. There are some positive aspects to this LOA, some aspects that could be positive providing that some fairly broad parameters are met, and some other provisions that could be better evaluated with all the information allowed to be readily available.

So here we are again; with an MEC and MEC Administration dispute about making the contents of an LOA available to the membership for review and input prior to an MEC ratification vote; and with this very important JV/codeshare/ownership issue that is the SCOPE concern / threat of the day. It is personally beyond our (the voting C20 reps, Bill and Rich) comprehension how members of the MEC Administration and a majority of members of the MEC refuse to recognize something that should be obvious – the membership should, as a matter of MEC policy, not just LEC practice, be able to at least review and give input to their reps before a MEC ratification of an LOA, which, by definition, will change THEIR / OURS - the membership’s - working agreement.

A C20-originated resolution was rejected 12-7 at the last regular MEC meeting which would have created MEC policy requiring the MEC to publish an LOA allowing for a minimum 5 day membership review prior to MEC ratification. This left the previously existing practice in place; LECs choosing whether or not to distribute the LOA info since the LOAs themselves are not confidential. C20 had chosen (and for a long time honestly didn’t realize that we had the option to distribute the info) to not publish the LOAs prior to the vote. We did this until we realized that other councils were individually distributing the info when it was requested. This time around, another council chose to send out the LOA to its membership without comment and now we’re understandably getting questions. This, along with the strong belief that the membership should be able to have enough info to give us input, is why we’ve chosen to send out this update.

The MEC debate on this issue always revolves around the likelihood that only a small minority of the membership will give us input if the LOAs are pre-published, so what difference does that minimal input make? Obviously none of us on the MEC feel that way when ALPA and airline pilots, as also small special interests, lobby Congress and the U.S. National Administration about proposed laws and issues that affect us, Delta Air Lines, ALPA, our profession, and our industry. So why can’t we give our constituents the same consideration and seek their input as we demand organizationally from the Federal (and state) government? Seems really tough to justify. Another frequent “reason” for why the MEC can’t publish LOAs prior to an MEC vote, is that it would require the MEC to hold Roadshows so that the membership could be sufficiently familiar to give valid input to their reps. Frankly, we disagree and consider this to be a somewhat specious argument.

Since the current MEC CH took office late last year, he had made it a practice to at least publish bullet points about LOAs prior to the MEC vote. We applauded him for that effort. However, now, with an LOA addressing what we believe is a significant future SCOPE threat in general (outsourcing via JV and codeshare), the MEC Administration has thus far refused to post even an overview “until the MEC approves the LOA”.

As always, please call, email or text with any questions. We’ll do our best to answer them. We expect that, if the MEC approves this LOA, the MEC will distribute a more comprehensive and detailed outline of the Agreement.

Fraternally,

Bill and Rich

--------------------

Would really like to hear from some ATL based guys as to whether their 4 reps are all set to sign this.

Carl