Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1096595)

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.

Who do I need to call to explain all this crap in English? I will call tomorrow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1096570)

Alpha,

Would you agree that American's bankrutcy is about:
(1) The cost of funding a defined benefit pension plan in a bear market (and that unfunded liability)
(2) Renegotiating aircraft leases
(3) Scope
(4) Debt

AMR surely has their fleet "cross collateralized." You probably understand the term, but for the rest of the sports fans, this means that the paper for every airplane is set up so that is does not correlate on ONE airplane. To prevent reposession, the parts are scattered everywhere ... an airframe here, one engine on that jet, another engine on this other jet, the APU sub leased to JAL, the FMC is over there ... etc. The Courts are still trying to unscrew the mess that ACA created to keep its Dorniers out of the hands of their creditors.

ACL65:

American does not have DIP financing because:
(1) They do not need it ... they have similar cash levels to Delta
(2) DIP is dangerous ... management could lose control of the Company
(3) DIP might not be available in this market. Would you lend AMR money going into 2012? Me either.

Bar,AMR has a bad network and bad feed reducing their ability to create revenue. Alfa states it too. They cannot create the revenue needed to pay for their airline. Part of it is they want to shed costs and the DB is part of that. Of course they would love to kill some more scope, but one thing they really wanted was a CS with B6. Why? They need the feed more than anything. They realize that small jets flown by eagle will not cut it. The banks know it too. That is why a simple restructuring of the debt may not be enough for their lenders to sign off on a typical CH11.

Wrt to:
1) They filed early and kept their cash. It is a double edged sword. They did not need DIP, but it also means that for them to renegotiate their leases they are going to have to either pay cash up front of not get as sweet of a deal on those existing jets.

2) True, but they still can lose control if they cannot get their finances in order. Their creditors have to agree to the cuts, and many may not and opt to sell their owned assets to someone else. Heck they may just repossess them. Point is just because they do not have DIP does not mean they cannot lose control of the situation.
3) Exactly and that is the reality of this that we need to understand. Their creditors see UCAL and DAL will better feed and better networks that have better PRASM which result in a better risk on the debt. Fragmentation leads to better returns on their dollars is AMR does not give them what they want. As a result if AMR is forced to give them what they want, they will not get the restructuring they need, and as a result the intent of bankruptcy will fail.

Quote:

Of the various outcomes to American's bankruptcy, fragmentation is the least likely.

I would not say least likely. It is up to the creditors, and if Parker comes in with one or two other airlines offering cash and a better risk, the shareholders of AMR may force the boards hand.

Quote:

More likely is a retrenchment to lines which support better revenue while keeping their network intact. This will involve changes to frequency and gauge of service, better aircraft utilization and more reliance on partners like Alaska, Jet Blue and a new panopoly of regional carriers (TO THE EXTENT THEIR SCOPE IS MODIFIED TO ALLOW THIS). Eagle's scope is already destroyed. ALPA is advising the APA. If history repeats itself, so called "labor leaders" will try to engineer a quick fix to American's economic problems and use outsourcing as a form of credit to try to hold up the standards of mainline compensation.

The APA already rejected the so called B Scale to recover their flying and management published that a failure to reach an agreement on this point would trigger bankruptcy. Well, the APA stood their ground on B Scale. We will if they hold their ground on scope.

Frankly, I would suspect that APA realized where they were going and chose to deal with it in CH11 versus two rounds of cuts like we had.

AMR has a revenue problem and restructuring debt and going after labor will not solve all of it. That is why foreign ownership and fragmentation need to be taken very seriously. Like I said, if AMR survives this, and goes with B6, LCC is the airline that will be cut up. If not them then the first idiot that tries to take their airline though CH11 to shed a few billion in debt. The creditors are going to call BS very soon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1096609)

Who do I need to call to explain all this crap in English? I will call tomorrow.

Best person to all is the head of Code Share compliance. Rick. E-mail him he will respond with a plethora of info.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 1096593)

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?

I agree that he wants to run an airline but it's foolish to believe because of that he cares about pilots or the employees. Constructive engagement is a myth and management will screw you at the first opportunity. I find it shocking that so many of us are making excuses for the same folks who raped everyone in BK and then proclaim this time it's different. It's battered wife syndrome. "... but he said he was sorry and won't do it again".

Fact, management does not care about you, will screw you at the first opportunity. They did it before and will do it again. wake up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy (Post 1096540)

And just to be clear, he cares about you, just about as much as you care about him.
And just to be clear, he thinks you're overpaid, just about as much as you think he's overpaid...

Goose...meet gander.
Gander...meet goose.

Only difference is he is on the board of the companies that are on his board and they all approve each others pay check. Until the day comes when they let pilots from each airline decide pilot pay and then we as pilots decide CEO pay, there is no goose and gander comparison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1096582)

Ouch! Any idea when that picture was taken?

it says March 21, 2010. A Turkish 777-300.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1096586)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 1096597)

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?

You are both correct, Narita. Or so says the pic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1096595)

...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.

ACL, i have to disagree.
Unless we complain and make our voice heard there will be little push for improving the language.

The best thing to do is to call your rep and ask them questions, tell them what you think. They represent you, not the other way around.
The only reason to not complain is if you think the JV is satisfactory or if you believe there is no way to affect change...

Putting our head in the sand and hoping for something better is the worst we can do!

Cheers
George

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1096649)

ACL, i have to disagree.
Unless we complain and make our voice heard there will be little push for improving the language.

The best thing to do is to call your rep and ask them questions, tell them what you think. They represent you, not the other way around.
The only reason to not complain is if you think the JV is satisfactory or if you believe there is no way to affect change...

Putting our head in the sand and hoping for something better is the worst we can do!

Cheers
George

While I agree that putting our head in the sand is not helpful, neither is calling reps. Our reps had nothing to do with this. The JV language was signed by a single MEC bureaucrat. Another significant change to our scope language done by one bureaucrat.

Our LEC reps are powerless and therefore meaningless. The solution to this top-down union structure is to tear down the stucture. There is NO other way.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1096649)

If you have an issue correct, but fluttering your wings about language that is part of six and eight party talks will do little to no good. We are just one of those parties, and cannot just demand it be changed to DAL.

Like I said, going forward, make sure the language and effects are different but one must realize that what we have is what we have. Work for change, and make sure the change has a transparent process. Identifying what needs to be changed is one thing, but spending hours whining about how unfair the language is, is just pointless. That was the point.

If you are angry, turn that anger in to action.

ACL65,

Thank you for your balanced post on the JV. I like the "production balance" which is a form of inclusive scope. Like you, the size of the compliance window concerns me, but overall I'm positive about the work done in this section of our contract.