Where are you getting the 100,000 Block Hour number?

Same question.

Again, same question.

I had to leave the conversation yesterday to go fly right when you answered about 1.E.3 guaranteeing our international flying. I assume that's what you're getting at here? Where does the 100,000 number come from and how are we going to lose all that flying when the language that you posted (only TA language I've seen anywhere, so I'm taking it at face value) describes 2 protections:

1. Global WB Block Hour Protection - could potentially allow Virgin to do all US-UK flying, but we would have to maintain our WB block hours elsewhere, and actually increase them significantly (and at a much higher ratio than Virgin) if Virgin picks up all the flying we currently do. I can see a (highly unlikely) scenario under this protection where we (DL/Virgin) technically could leave the UK market, but that would require Virgin to basically shut down for that to happen.

2. LHR Slot Protection - This piece requires that we maintain 5860 flights until 2020 in/out of LHR specifically - it doesn't include the rest of our UK flying. We (DL) can't leave the UK market under the language you posted.

They could reduce Delta LHR flights down from our current annual 7,000+ (best # I was able to get is either 7,100 or 7,700 flights - can't read my own chicken scratch notes ) to 5,860. However, that would require the JV to either reduce together (meaning Virgin's WB block hours would have to go way down to keep our Global Protection in compliance), OR grow our WB block hours elsewhere (at approximately 3-1 ratio) as Virgin filled in LHR flights that we would have to vacate.


More to follow...

 

Without a TA, our current scope language would prevent them from ever operating less block hours between the U.S. and UK than we are currently operating, or they'd have to end the JV. However, with our current scope language, they could grow Virgin unlimited and grow us zero as long as they didn't shrink our block hours from present. In other words, our current language gives us our current level as a floor, but would allow them not to share growth with us.

With this new TA, we share in growth after Virgin Atlantic grows about 5% higher from where they are now. We paid for that promise of growth sharing by allowing the company to shrink our global level of international block hours by about 100,000 hours or year. But we currently don't have a global level of block hours that we 're guaranteed. In other words, this new language allows us to share growth after Virgin grows an additional 5%, in return for a global minimum of international flying that is 100,000 hours per year lower than we're currently flying.

It's essentially a bet on growth. If Virgin grows more than 5%, then we share that growth. If we shrink, the company can shrink us by 100,000 international block hours per year AND keep the virgin JV. If we kept our current language and they reduced our block hours at all between the US and U.K., they'd have to give up the JV.

Carl

 

I was asked not to share my source and I will honor that. Our reps know the number, but the MEC administration has prohibited them from releasing that data until after the TA is voted in.

As an interesting aside. Georgetg used previously posted data, used some napkin math, and came up with a number that was ridiculously close to what I was shown.

We are agreeing to a global international flying floor (that we don't currently have), that is about 100,000 block hours less than what we are currently flying.

Carl

 

duplicate post

 

And at the investor presentation yesterday they said most of the 2015 growth in this JV will be on VA metal. You know we will go down to that floor. That is why they need this TA passed now and don't want any pushback before they vote it in.

 

I think that's probably right, but it's also possible we see nothing but growth. Good people can disagree.

What is absolutely intolerable is the MEC administration's decision to withhold this data from us until after the TA passes. They're doing this because they feel we line pilots undercut them during the FAR 117 negotiations where we forced the administration back to the table to remove CDO's. They're afraid we'd focus on the possible loss of 100,000 international block hours and scuttle the deal. So they've chosen to hide it from us and prohibit reps from releasing it.

And how are we responding to this? By re-electing Donatelli. We're not only going to approve this TA, but we're telling Donatelli he's doing the right thing by hiding data from us.

Carl

 

Anyone have any gouge on bringing family with on a FCO trip? How is the NH about accommodating family? Any tips on transportation to/from the airport? Is the ER getting any load optimization out of FCO lately?

Thanks for any info..

 

Ok, if you say so on the 100,000 hour thing. I have no way to verify that.

Based on what I've been able to gather:

Pros:
Our upside is we ensure we are included in growth. Virgin can grow a little bit before we have to, but they already have that and wouldn't have to grow us at all.

I like the idea of a Global Production Balance. I don't really care so much about protecting a specific market as I do about putting a floor on how low they can shrink us without shrinking somebody else. I would like to see the floor be higher, but I'd also like a 50% raise! We don't currently have a global floor, so your drumbeat about losing 100,000 hours (if that number is right) is IMO apples to oranges...

Maybe I've got it wrong, but you seem to be comparing current international flying hours (which do not have a contractual floor) to a downturn scenario floor. To me it's better to have some floor than none - even if we do want that floor to be higher.

Cons:
You keep mentioning 1.E.3 which it does appear would be traded to achieve the global floor and LHR slot protections. I'm just spit balling, but the strong likelihood (and the entire reason they want the JV to begin with) is that they are not planning to reduce US-LHR flying. If/when there is a downturn, then I see where we are exposing a little of the downside that they could reduce us faster (to a point) than the Virgin side. That would suck if it happens to be sure.


My take:
I'm not advocating for or against this thing as I haven't been able to hear all the discussion of the fine details, nor have I seen any language other than what you posted. I really like the idea of forcing us to participate in growth - the global balance allows that to be WB hours anywhere which might come into play in slot-controlled LHR. The LHR flight requirement soaks up a lot of the current LHR flying protected by 1.E.3, and breaks it out so other UK flying (MAN, LGW, etc) brings us even closer to where we're at with 1.E.3 for US-UK. I do look forward to seeing more details/numbers/explanation.

As to your allegation that C44 or the admin is withholding the data, I've had interactions with several of my reps and they've been very forthcoming about their concerns and impressions about the TA. Any question I've asked of them have received a fairly prompt reply. In an ideal world, we'd all get to be part of every decision, but I expect and appreciate that my reps are doing the due diligence on my behalf.

I disagree with your assertion that they're trying to sneak one by the pilot group, but that's a whole different topic and I don't want to derail the TA conversation.

 

Well I share your sentiments about commuting. I've enjoyed driving to base for the last 3 years...even if it was in horrendous NYC traffic. Hopefully I'll have the opportunity to live in base again in the future. My wife received a job offer we couldn't refuse. Because of her we should be able to retire early and buy a castle

 

Very good post. I redacted the BH since that appears to be very incorrect.

Those who want to see the data that Carl alleges is being withheld can sign on to the ALPA.org site, go to the MEC Library page. The Briefings for Codeshare Committee and "DAL International Capacity" slides have been up for a day and two days, respectively.