The point as I understand it is to cover our six in the Far East.

As you point out it probably is not about us performing the Haneda flying.....

 

This^^ bwaaaa haaaaa Nicely put NewK

 

There's only so many pax flying to/from and or through Haneda/Narita. It seems Delta would rather have a code share and diminish our Narita flying. Put another way, is there more $$$ to be made for Delta through a code share than by flying the pax ourselves? I'll take a guess and say the final product IF this deal goes through will be a combination of JV (Haneda) and our own flying (Narita).

 

I agree. Not sure if we would do the same amount of Intra-Asia flying with Haneda and JAL being a lot more convenient.
In the end, were you asked for input?

The way I see it, the strategy of DALPA is to allow the company the ability to create a network with other airlines that parallels no other. The goal at this time will be to not lose any ground, but not ask for much if anything in return. After this network and revenue stream is set, DALPA will then come in with its hands out and rightfully so. (It is the only thing that makes sense to me. The goal is to not hinter this phase with being over demanding and possibly destroying a deal or two) Just my guess.

 

OK, coming out of my GRU haze (amazing how many pages get added during a couple of 9 hour flights!) and I have a question. What about AF/KLM? What would they stand to gain from access to HND? I am sure they are part of the $500 Million that Skyteam is throwing out there as part of the $1 Billion. JUst curious as I may have skimmed over it trying to play catch up on here.
Burn Notice

 

They would be the European airline out of Tokyo. That is huge! Go East , Go West, Go North, Go South but go on Skyteam!

 

Well, he!! yea! But more to the point, would they, (AF, KLM, Alitalia, Aeroflot), all get HND access and then care less about our hub in NRT? Or do they have any feed into NRT and are putting a lot of trust in RA? Who has "hand" in this relationship and this deal?

 

Just remember that this deal was publicly acknowledged by Delta on Wednesday, November 18. Look around at all the background information you've been provided since August from the Government Affairs committee. Look at the MEC meeting highlights from October, where John Byerly, the lead State Department negotiator on this issue, talked to the MEC about Japan Open Skies and Haneda. Reread the Chairman's letter.

How are we supposed to directly ask for input on a confidential project covered by an SEC/Delta NDA prior to the date that management chooses to announce it?

Sometimes you have to pay attention to what we publish (it's there for a reason), maintain situational awareness, and realize that we're a representational democracy. You elect leadership that listens to your input, is provided proprietary background information, and then acts on your behalf. If you're a proactive member, you'll have plenty of opportunity for input. If you're reactive, your opportunity may be limited due to the rate of change of our operating environment.

Everything the MEC does goes back to that mission statement...

 

Agreed.

Makes sense that we would see a mix. I would imagine that HND doesn't have enough capacity to handle all traffic, so it does indeed appear as though we'd have a little bit of both.

I think the only problem with the status-quo would be to be "Gatwicked" into flying people exclusively through the secondary (less profitable) airport. With that being said, I don't know how many HND slots we would need to make HND flying viable, but it seems like the answer would be "a lot". So maybe having solo access to HND is just as bad. After all, part of our advantage in Tokyo vs. other US airlines is that we also carry through pax. If we have a few more HND slots, we don't have enough connection opportunities to fill up airplanes.

I don't know which is worse: poor load factors to the more lucrative airport, or high load factors to the less lucrative airport. So I think the answer is a "metal-neutral" JV that does it all, with some sort of guarantee on who does what flying, and how we grow together.

There is a lot at stake for everyone here, and it's not just AMR with their operation at risk.

 

Cute, but I get what you are saying.

My question is you are telling me the guys that stay involved get to have input, but we are also told that those that go to the LEC meeting, draft and have ratified resolutions are only part of the pilot group and do not represent the majority. Both of these statements diverge from each other.

I am informed, and engaged, have read many documents on this matter as well as a few other ones that I feel will be the next big issues coming, but actions like the CPS resolution do not firm up proof to the "silent majority" that by getting involved and staying informed that you input will mean squat.

As for a direct response to the quote information above:

There have been the documents that you state, but my point is, One, I understand that you guys are under NDA's up to your neck and it makes it real hard to have two way communication on issues like this, but you need to realize that your group is demanding that you do so, Two, being coy with information does not lead itself to understanding and education of the issues by the masses, Three, as I stated above the intent of your information is counter acted my larger more visible actions, and Finally, now that we have an issue that is public, seek input, you now have the company publicly putting information out there. It should make sense for them and for you to allow you to create a venue, or medium to seek input on this issue and other ones arising.

We look at the AF/KLM deal and we knew it was coming, everyone talked about it, we had a TA, but saw noting about it, it was ratified, and then and only then was it given to the masses. I get the representational democracy part, but the fact is that input is needed and expected in every step in that type of ruling structure. From everyone, not just a select few. continuing this will just further the divide I am seeing among the troops.

In the end, the company either needs to realize or knows very well what they are doing by covering you up by these NDA's. It is great if you do not care about what the MEC is doing, but for guys like me, and there are a lot of them, we want to provide input prior to decisions being made. To do that, something needs to be done to increase the dialog among the rulers and the pilots

Furthermore, I agree that the stance of the MEC is the correct stance on this issue. It makes sense from a strategic standpoint, but there are a lot of people that do not. They also will see it as one more deal that is giving away control of more of our flying. It that becomes the case, I along with many others will be very disappointed in the results.

As has been said to me, trying really hard only goes so far, Sooner or later it has to equate in to results the pilots can see. We are getting to the point, that without a no bs straight conversation (from the master chair to the pilots) about the MEC's long term goals as it pertains to every iota of our PWA, it is going to get to a point that many do not want. Pilots are sick and tired of not having a say. You may think that it is a representational democracy, but many do not.
Again this is just what I see. Take it for what it is worth.