Its really only a "compound interest" gain on the difference between the larger amount and the smaller amount one time for that the two week period where the changeover occurs. After that it equalizes out. Your next check is that much less that you can compound for the next two week period, which the larger 30th pay the next month has to make up for in lost interest, and the process starts all over again.

 

The legal agreement is trade secret and not available without a NDA. It would be disastrous for that and the metrics to get out.

That said, there is a contract awareness bulletin in the file library about it.

 

Agreed, and the reality is people need to separate the desire for ALPA to be the bargaining agent from the desire for change and transparency of process. Ergo, the desire of change from within.

 

I was just thinking about Virgin Atlantic last week while in JFK. They don't have many gates at T4. Planes are parked at remotes, and moved in for the flight (sort of like... us!). If at least they offered an improvement in the real estate picture and afforded access to something we don't have, it would be nice. I understand the new T4 will only physically add nine gates, and some will be shared with the competition, since we won't fully control the new terminal. So I don't see how Virgin America helps in any way.

And it goes beyond VA/VAmerica. At first glance, I don't believe we discussed this article on the L&G thread: Jet Airways Asked to Join Air France-KLM, Delta, Alitalia Venture - WSJ.com

Note that Jet Airways is being asked to join in the JV, not just SkyTeam. This is an Indian carrier, running new widebody aircraft between India and the US, and between its' Brussels hub, and EWR and JFK. The article says this:

"...Joining such an alliance would likely help Jet Airways to cost-effectively expand its overseas operations, leveraging the global network of the three other airlines instead of deploying its own aircraft..."

That almost sounded good: maybe we're delaying their growth, and at least splitting the revenues they're now poaching. But then again, if we want to bring them into the fold because they have a better product and lower costs, and we're afraid of them, then why wouldn't the JV try to favor... the better product and lower costs?

In my mind, the bottom line is that there are very some serious scope issues looming at the large-gauge ("Super-Premium" for you Northies) end of the spectrum, and we're certainly not hearing a whole lot about them.

 

Sink;
It also allows them to get rid of some of the 777-300's that just came off of leases.

In addition to that, it is a great way to connect the Middle East and siphon traffic away from DXB and its major tenant. Of course they may do a route our two to the US.

 

You know what? You're right. This is a public forum. But rude is rude, and an agenda is an agenda. I call it the way I see it.

 

The aspect that bothers me a lot is that they carry passengers between the US and Europe. If they were to add a lot of Indian feed, however, and India-EU and India-US traffic increased as a result, then it could be mutually advantageous, depending on how the long-haul flying was distributed. Furthermore, if you are correct about the 777-300's, and a snapshot could be set at an appropriate date, with appropriate restrictions going forward, even the EU-US flight, in proper proportion, might be acceptable. I think we agree that the consequences of a good or poor JV agreement are significant. And ultimately, regardless of the virtues of any particular agreement with a new JV/SkyTeam partner, the fact remains that each addition makes any single pilot group less relevant.

 

Fair enough.

 

I can understand that I guess, but how are we supposed to know whether or not it is being adhered to?

 

We have two guys monitoring Domestic and International Code Share Compliance for the MEC. One has been there a while and the other one is a very smart and capable 2001 hire who I have a ton of respect for. Simply put, I trust em to do their jobs.