Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Driving to work & Looking Left @ the Surf!!
Posts: 727
Baja.
How Delta May Trim Its U.S. Tax Bill. (Hint: Europe) - Businessweek
Hey, this looks like it would be great for corporate profits and our profit sharing. Hopefully we can facilitate this and help Delta reduce the tax bill.
Hey, this looks like it would be great for corporate profits and our profit sharing. Hopefully we can facilitate this and help Delta reduce the tax bill.
DAL was operating roughly 54-46% of the EASK's but had planned to growth to be "in the window" to comply. Then the European meltdown happened and the transatlantic flying started to become unprofitable. DAL drew down flying to match capacity with demand.... AF and KL did not. AF was viewed as a jobs creator for the French economy and the govt didn't want them to shrink and layoff more workers into the economy. UNSAT, IMHO... Business is business. Similar story with KL, but they did drawdown a little bit more than AF, but still not enough to match the DAL drawdown. RA doesn't want to lose money unless it's a strategic long term play.... Keeping up those North Atlantic numbers didn't fit any strategic plan.
So now DAL EASK's fall as a survival measure, not as a "screw those Delta Pilots" move. Economy still sucks, now AZ gets minority staked by the AF/KL Group, and added to the JV.
Who's side has to eat the AZ EASK's? We argued successfully that it should come out of the AF/KL side. So just as DAL EASK's could start climbing back towards a contractual balance, WHAM! DAL EASK's are back below the balance.
So here we are, nearing the end of the cure period, and they ain't gonna get back into the lower end of the balance. What happens next? A group grievance is filed when the cure period ends. We will win the grievance, it's a slam dunk. The not so clear answer is the remedy. You can't go back in time and fly that time, how any jobs were affected, how much harm has been done to our pilot group? There are many variables. Everyone here for the most part has ideas on what they think the value and solution is.
It will come down to what we think the company "would settle for out of court", or if we think an arbitrator would give us a better award or worse award than a settlement.
It's not about winning, that's a given here.. It's about extracting the most value and figuring out the cost of the risk.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: A-320/A
Posts: 588
How Delta May Trim Its U.S. Tax Bill. (Hint: Europe) - Businessweek
Hey, this looks like it would be great for corporate profits and our profit sharing. Hopefully we can facilitate this and help Delta reduce the tax bill.
Hey, this looks like it would be great for corporate profits and our profit sharing. Hopefully we can facilitate this and help Delta reduce the tax bill.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
Ever since the JV agreement was signed as a six party agreement, they were supposed to end up with a 50/50 split of EASK's.
DAL was operating roughly 54-46% of the EASK's but had planned to growth to be "in the window" to comply. Then the European meltdown happened and the transatlantic flying started to become unprofitable. DAL drew down flying to match capacity with demand.... AF and KL did not. AF was viewed as a jobs creator for the French economy and the govt didn't want them to shrink and layoff more workers into the economy. UNSAT, IMHO... Business is business. Similar story with KL, but they did drawdown a little bit more than AF, but still not enough to match the DAL drawdown. RA doesn't want to lose money unless it's a strategic long term play.... Keeping up those North Atlantic numbers didn't fit any strategic plan.
So now DAL EASK's fall as a survival measure, not as a "screw those Delta Pilots" move. Economy still sucks, now AZ gets minority staked by the AF/KL Group, and added to the JV.
Who's side has to eat the AZ EASK's? We argued successfully that it should come out of the AF/KL side. So just as DAL EASK's could start climbing back towards a contractual balance, WHAM! DAL EASK's are back below the balance.
So here we are, nearing the end of the cure period, and they ain't gonna get back into the lower end of the balance. What happens next? A group grievance is filed when the cure period ends. We will win the grievance, it's a slam dunk. The not so clear answer is the remedy. You can't go back in time and fly that time, how any jobs were affected, how much harm has been done to our pilot group? There are many variables. Everyone here for the most part has ideas on what they think the value and solution is.
It will come down to what we think the company "would settle for out of court", or if we think an arbitrator would give us a better award or worse award than a settlement.
It's not about winning, that's a given here.. It's about extracting the most value and figuring out the cost of the risk.
DAL was operating roughly 54-46% of the EASK's but had planned to growth to be "in the window" to comply. Then the European meltdown happened and the transatlantic flying started to become unprofitable. DAL drew down flying to match capacity with demand.... AF and KL did not. AF was viewed as a jobs creator for the French economy and the govt didn't want them to shrink and layoff more workers into the economy. UNSAT, IMHO... Business is business. Similar story with KL, but they did drawdown a little bit more than AF, but still not enough to match the DAL drawdown. RA doesn't want to lose money unless it's a strategic long term play.... Keeping up those North Atlantic numbers didn't fit any strategic plan.
So now DAL EASK's fall as a survival measure, not as a "screw those Delta Pilots" move. Economy still sucks, now AZ gets minority staked by the AF/KL Group, and added to the JV.
Who's side has to eat the AZ EASK's? We argued successfully that it should come out of the AF/KL side. So just as DAL EASK's could start climbing back towards a contractual balance, WHAM! DAL EASK's are back below the balance.
So here we are, nearing the end of the cure period, and they ain't gonna get back into the lower end of the balance. What happens next? A group grievance is filed when the cure period ends. We will win the grievance, it's a slam dunk. The not so clear answer is the remedy. You can't go back in time and fly that time, how any jobs were affected, how much harm has been done to our pilot group? There are many variables. Everyone here for the most part has ideas on what they think the value and solution is.
It will come down to what we think the company "would settle for out of court", or if we think an arbitrator would give us a better award or worse award than a settlement.
It's not about winning, that's a given here.. It's about extracting the most value and figuring out the cost of the risk.
IMHO the company's motivation to get the Virgin Atlantic JV TA signed now, is to simplify a settlement on the TAJV at the end of March next year.
Cheers
George
IOW, did we go backwards or have we stayed about the same and never gained what was promised? Either way we don't have what we contractually should.
I have no clue. It sounded to me like they want assets in Amsterdam and the UK where taxes are lower. Not sure if we are considered assets. I don't think any of us have a clue what RA and the guys are planning the next 10 years.
Ever since the JV agreement was signed as a six party agreement, they were supposed to end up with a 50/50 split of EASK's.
DAL was operating roughly 54-46% of the EASK's but had planned to growth to be "in the window" to comply. Then the European meltdown happened and the transatlantic flying started to become unprofitable. DAL drew down flying to match capacity with demand.... AF and KL did not. AF was viewed as a jobs creator for the French economy and the govt didn't want them to shrink and layoff more workers into the economy. UNSAT, IMHO... Business is business. Similar story with KL, but they did drawdown a little bit more than AF, but still not enough to match the DAL drawdown. RA doesn't want to lose money unless it's a strategic long term play.... Keeping up those North Atlantic numbers didn't fit any strategic plan.
So now DAL EASK's fall as a survival measure, not as a "screw those Delta Pilots" move. Economy still sucks, now AZ gets minority staked by the AF/KL Group, and added to the JV.
Who's side has to eat the AZ EASK's? We argued successfully that it should come out of the AF/KL side. So just as DAL EASK's could start climbing back towards a contractual balance, WHAM! DAL EASK's are back below the balance.
So here we are, nearing the end of the cure period, and they ain't gonna get back into the lower end of the balance. What happens next? A group grievance is filed when the cure period ends. We will win the grievance, it's a slam dunk. The not so clear answer is the remedy. You can't go back in time and fly that time, how any jobs were affected, how much harm has been done to our pilot group? There are many variables. Everyone here for the most part has ideas on what they think the value and solution is.
It will come down to what we think the company "would settle for out of court", or if we think an arbitrator would give us a better award or worse award than a settlement.
It's not about winning, that's a given here.. It's about extracting the most value and figuring out the cost of the risk.
DAL was operating roughly 54-46% of the EASK's but had planned to growth to be "in the window" to comply. Then the European meltdown happened and the transatlantic flying started to become unprofitable. DAL drew down flying to match capacity with demand.... AF and KL did not. AF was viewed as a jobs creator for the French economy and the govt didn't want them to shrink and layoff more workers into the economy. UNSAT, IMHO... Business is business. Similar story with KL, but they did drawdown a little bit more than AF, but still not enough to match the DAL drawdown. RA doesn't want to lose money unless it's a strategic long term play.... Keeping up those North Atlantic numbers didn't fit any strategic plan.
So now DAL EASK's fall as a survival measure, not as a "screw those Delta Pilots" move. Economy still sucks, now AZ gets minority staked by the AF/KL Group, and added to the JV.
Who's side has to eat the AZ EASK's? We argued successfully that it should come out of the AF/KL side. So just as DAL EASK's could start climbing back towards a contractual balance, WHAM! DAL EASK's are back below the balance.
So here we are, nearing the end of the cure period, and they ain't gonna get back into the lower end of the balance. What happens next? A group grievance is filed when the cure period ends. We will win the grievance, it's a slam dunk. The not so clear answer is the remedy. You can't go back in time and fly that time, how any jobs were affected, how much harm has been done to our pilot group? There are many variables. Everyone here for the most part has ideas on what they think the value and solution is.
It will come down to what we think the company "would settle for out of court", or if we think an arbitrator would give us a better award or worse award than a settlement.
It's not about winning, that's a given here.. It's about extracting the most value and figuring out the cost of the risk.
Where are the B's. No backdoor. A's were behind the backdoor 2 days ago.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 276
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post