Originally Posted by bohicagain (Post 1782419)

Everyone on your benefits can go anywhere Delta flies they fly at a lower priority. Lima can be tough to get out even as S2

Originally Posted by LeineLodge (Post 1782425)

Yes, your parents can nonrev. No restrictions on S. America. Since you're married they do have to pay a $75 fee for each transoceanic flight day (plus applicable taxes that we all have to pay.) I can't remember if S. America counts as Transoceanic or not.

There is a ton of info on Travelnet under Pass Policy (upper right of the page) where you can find all the details. It takes a little clicking around, but most of the answers you would need are in there somewhere.

Originally Posted by 1Bob (Post 1782897)

So while some proclaim the ten fold increase in protected block hours, I thought "that's nice, but is that really worth anything? Does the LOA realistically protect anything?" So I went back to '98 looking at EOY Int'l ASMs [ASMs were much easier to find. I think they are a close enough comparison to block hours for this purpose] . After 911, it took 2 years, but ASMs did decrease by 19.8%. After bankruptcy, ASMs actually increased. After the merger, ASMs bottomed 6.2% below the peak combined levels. Interestingly it has taken longer to recover from the merger cuts than the 911 cuts despite the fact the 911 cuts were much more drastic. It looks like we will finally surpass our '08 Int'l ASM number this year.

So theoretically, this agreement would protect us against a 911 level event or would it? Bankruptcy proved nothing is safe. So I guess what I am left with is if the goal was to protect Int'l flying, yes we protected alot but with 12.5% unprotected, did we really protect anything?

As for growth, hopefully it will eventually payoff. However with VS getting growth before we are required to, how long and how many new contracts and LOAs will come and go before that pays off. Maybe the bottom half of the seniority list will see a payoff but I am skeptical I will see any benefit.

Finally, does the TA language really mean the company can be out of compliance every other year? I just can't believe we would sign something like that after what we have witnessed the last 3+ years. Please tell me the lawyers all agree that can't happen.

Bob

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 1783004)

In my opinion, this language means the company has a one year grace period to come into compliance. It doesn't alleviate the requirement to be in compliance in a particular year.

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 1783004)

"Cure period" is a legal term synonymous with "grace period". If I were to say "you owe rent at the end of each month but can cure any shortfall by paying rent in the subsequent month" it simply means you have a one month grace period to pay back rent. It doesn't mean you get free rent if you don't pay.

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 1783004)

In the context of the TA I think the language means that the company has a year to add flights to come into compliance if they are out of compliance. For example if the company owes 100 "units" in 2015 but only schedules 99 they owe 101 in 2016.

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 1783004)

I could be wrong. If so, the language makes zero sense.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1783102)

The language doesn't support your opinion in any way. I wish it did, but it doesn't.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1783158)

So what is the purpouse of the 50% "target" line? If the only real goal that ever has to be met is the bottom line, why even have the 50% so called target line?

And why would there ever even be an upper line? And in the extremely unlikely event the upper line was exceeded, would we owe them some jobs? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by iaflyer (Post 1783190)

The production split was 50% us, 50% AF/KLM. We have a 1.5% "grace" window for slight adjustments for temporary adjustments. Apparently, they can't even maintain the level with those adjustments.

They even give an example in the PWA that was quite apt:

"Example: If the Company’s EASK capacity share is out of compliance with its minimum EASK allocation for the three-year measurement period ending March 31, 2014, then the Company will not return its EASK capacity share to compliance with its minimum EASK allocation for the three year measurement period ending March 31, 2015."

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1783091)

That is exactly correct Bob. The "union's" position is that it wouldn't make economic sense for them to be out of compliance every other year, so they won't be. The language clearly allows for it if the company wishes.

Carl