Ouch! Any idea when that picture was taken?

 

I'm gonna take a stab that it was narita, but I haven't been there in so long, I'm not positive.

 

I never said 100% about debt, but it was the main reason to be sure. Again, here are just a few news clips to back up my view:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"American Airlines, Can't Overcome Debt, Files For Bankruptcy' - Time Newsfeed

"DALLAS — The parent company of American Airlines filed for bankruptcy protection Tuesday, seeking relief from crushing debt caused by high fuel prices and expensive labor contracts that its competitors shed years ago.....Horton said the board of directors unanimously decided on Monday night to file for bankruptcy. In a filing with federal bankruptcy court in New York on Tuesday, AMR said it had $29.6 billion in debt and $24.7 billion in assets...." - News-journal.com

"FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — American Airlines and its parent company are filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as they seek to cut costs and unload massive debt built up by years of high jet fuel prices and labor struggles." - Associated Press

"AMR was also facing some large debt payments. The company had $1.8 billion due by the end of 2012. The net debt at the end of the third quarter was $16.9 billion. And when $7.9 billion in underfunded pension benefits and $2.5 billion in other long-term liabilities are added, the company has close to $30 billion in debt and other long-term obligations." Star-Telegram

"The parent company of American Airlines filed for bankruptcy protection yesterday, seeking relief from crushing debt caused by high fuel prices and expensive labour contracts.." The Independent


It's hard not to treat you that way alfaromeo. You are far more insulting to those of us who pay your flight pay loss than we are to you.

That's correct. You get FPL to do the bidding of the MEC. You clearly are trying to spin and shill for the MEC when you post here, ergo...

Carl

 

Good post Bar. I agree almost entirely.

Carl

 

I don't think you can say any of this. Nobody knows what would or would not be applicable if/when foreign ownership happens.

Carl

 

Sure RA is in it for the cash. Does that preclude him from actually being able to decently run an airline? Would YOU be CEO of any entity (much less an airline) for $50K a year? What should RA say and receive for compensation.

What would you like to see and hear, instead of just saying what you don't like?

 

First, if they went to 0, 0 for the first two years, there is no way that AF would stay in the agreement. Period. We also would be looking at something far more serious that losing the North Atlantic flying. Third, look at the reality and time frame of our contract and if we could actually go on strike in that initial time frame. All wrong timing.

Looking at the JV further, it is a one time clause. After they are in compliance with 50-50 (49.75%) a new window starts and the lookback is not used for cumulative purposes. Why? As it was explained to me, it is because we go from 47.2% of the total EASK's to 50% and then the new three year window starts where the bandwidth is 1.5 or a bottom end of 48.5% with a one year corrective window. You downside protection is there going forward.

Is the language ideal? No. Could had it have been better? Maybe, but we could have also just gotten 47.2% which is where we were with the addition of AZ. DAL was incentivized to go get 50-50 because of their fleet makeup, secondary cities that worked better for the rest of or route network and feed for us to serve, and not have our customers connect in CDG, and a few other things.

I of course would have like to see the window left alone, and not have started a new three year baseline measurement period, but with every quid there has to be a pro quo, especially when dealing with three other pilot groups and three other companies on the other side of the fence.

I agree that we have not seen any net benefits from the JV. We have shrunk since its inception. I would have like to see some EASK floors in the deal, but the reality is that once the North Atlantic grows again, and it will, we will get 60%+ of the block hrs flown. That will translate in to a need for more metal. It is hard to see that now when we are shrinking and not growing. What our guys need to fight for is, if there is an addition of a new partner, we do not see the measurement period start anew, and or we see a one year measurement period with a nine month corrective window.

If you look at the V Australia deal, there is no downside protection in it, except that we must maintain the same number of segments we had 12 months prior, and that is 7. They have 21 with larger jets. It does not have a production balance and no corrective window. Why? Because it is a totally different set up, and one that they did not need to create a AF type JV for.

We have work to do, and we all want to fly more international fights. That is why it is imperative that in the next contract deal, whether it is a modification, extension, or a new contract as a result of section six, any CPA, CS or JV needs our express approval, and any modification needs to be done via nothing less than a LOA. CPA's need to be sunsetted and code share agreements need to have term limits.

Frankly complaining about what is already deemed contract language does little good, lets work to change the process and existing language when there is opportunity to do so. That equates to progress and not Monday morning quarterbacking.

 

It's been 5 years, but it looks very much like Narita to me...... (34L departure?)


I miss Asia. Do we still serve that unbelievably good soy/vinaigrette type dressing with the salads?

 

deleted.......

 

I can tell you that unless Labor has a seat at the table the RLA will probably stay intact. Most labor law around the world is country specific. Look at KLM and AF. Owned by one party buy have two plus labor agreements that are country specific.