johnso29

So I've heard.

scambo1

Is it really possible to have a 5 day trip worth only 11 hours for a lineholder?

newKnow

But, maybe people should check Mexico news to prepare them for what they will find on the streets of New York. I've heard MEX was a piece of cake compared to NYC. I'll add to my list.....


Reasons not to bid the ER in NYC:

1.) 3 airports to cover which are 100 miles apart.
2.) Bedbugs.
3.) ATC congestion.
4.) Mean people.
5.) Expensive food.
6.) Evil Flight Attendants.
7.) Godzilla bid into the category.
8.) Crime. (Godzilla is a suspect in most cases.)
9.) 5 day trips worth 11 hours. (Thanks Scambo. )

Thanks Johnson.

tsquare

3 days, non commutable on both ends... so if that meets your criteria, then yes it is.. It certainly meets mine.

alfaromeo

Just to make the math easy, let's say that before Alitalia joins the alliance, Delta has 500 units of flying and AF/KLM have 500 units. Delta is in a production balance of 50%, 500 divided by 1000. Now add Alitalia which has 100 units of flying. Delta now has 500 units of a 1100 point total. Immediately Delta has 45% of the balance, even though they haven't changed anything.

ALPA negotiated that we will now get 50% of the new 1100 point total or 550 units. Clearly, everyone can see that is a win for Delta pilots and everyone can see how the AF/KLM pilots feel a little set back by this. If the totals had gone to 450 and 650 we would be screaming.

Now, how do we get to this balance. Well you can have Alitalia shut down tomorrow and put their pilots out of work, but maybe you can see how Alitalia would not think that is a great idea. You could have AF/KLM shut down operations to the tune of Alitalia's current operation, but maybe you can see how AF/KLM would not like it. You could also have Delta flood the market with new capacity, to the tune of HALF of what Alitalia has today and drive our fares down and lose a lot of money.

Or...........you could give the alliance a time period to let Delta adjust up to the new production balance. Delta would either grow, AF/KLM/AZ would shrink or both. Either way, any rational person would see how Delta having half of a bigger pie is a win for Delta pilots, and most rational people would understand that you can't just move transatlantic capacity around like hotels in Monopoly.

So, we will be below the end state production balance as we slowly adjust to the new environment. We will grow into a higher amount of flying with time. We will then be able to monitor the new, better for Delta pilots production balance on a more rational basis. Does that make sense?

Fly4hire

Best explanation I have seen yet. Nice job.

gloopy

So why is there no floor for us on the two off years? If we do a similar Pacific JV and another for S and C america, we could slash our intl and just rotate to a theatre once every 3 years and "be in full compliance".

Why no floor? That is indefensible. We should have at the very least gotten a hard, enforceable floor of our current flying.

Plus, this agreement coupled with our management's philosophy of using any pilot group in the world to do its flying unless absolutely prohibited means we likely will be 49.75% (under 50%...YTH could we not have gotten a 50.25% rounding point?) and mean that we will cycle between just under half, to even more under half, to even more under half, to just under half, etc etc etc.

acl65pilot

LOA 16 which is the original JF language is a few years old. MOU 14 was done June of 2010 and the reps did not vote on it. The only two people that signed it where the SVP of Flt Ops and the Chair of the NC.

Call the international code share chair and have him explain it to you. He will.

acl65pilot

FWIW the PWA does not mandate a AF type of JV agreement. The V Australia deal is being done with out a production balance and is not as favorable to us. How you ask? Sections 1 E 7 and 8. It keeps our flying where it is. We only have seven frequencies a week to Australia and they are at 21 to the us; I believe. We fly the 777-200LR they fly the 777-300. These sections are boilerplate, and it is simply a profit/loss agreement. Not a JV in the sense that AF is. As for as I know, none of the protections are currently there that we see in the AF JV. The company has no intention of changing the setup, thus triggering a AF type JV.

I agree that the AF JV has some unintended consequences, but it is a lot better than a JV that is covered under 1 E 7 and 8.

Carl Spackler

When? 3 years from now? Maybe? Or do we only need to touch 50% for an extremely short period of time, then an entirely new 3 year period of unbalance can begin?

This is such a typical example of an MEC administrator dude only telling half the story. Why not tell the whole story alfaromeo? Do you not know it? Why don't you tell us that you were so proud of the language that the whole MEC voted for it? Oh wait...

Clearly many of us see this for the lie that it is. We're also troubled that these lies and half truths keep coming from the permanent MEC bureaucracy whose lifestyle depends on the continued placation of management.

Carl