At Northwest our contract stated 50/50 with Klm, which I thought was fair for both. Did Dalpa give this away??

I do not know. It is a new agreement, and the DAL-KLM-AF JV has a ton of it blacked out as it is protected information. I am sure that union has that info, but they would be under a fairly strict NDA on the subject. In effect disclosing "trade secret" information is considered insider trading, and corporate espionage.
The money is 50-50 so I guess you can make any assumptions off of that. I can tell you that that if DAL does not give up any profit from having KLM operate said flights, there is no reason for them to not outsource that flying.

Just my thoughts---this is becoming a standard disclaimer. ;)

Not trying to be pedantic, but what he said was in response to a question about MD-90s:

Maddogman (Jun 10, 2009 1:27:13 PM)
Hi Steve, It was posted on DeltaNet a couple of days ago that Delta had purchased an additional MD-90. Rumor has it that there are at least two more scheduled to join the fleet. Why are we investing in an aircraft that history has shown has less than desirable reliability?
Steve Gorman (Jun 10, 2009 1:27:13 PM)
The rumor mill is alive and well. We've been working on securing two add'l MD90s from the same operator that the first came from. One of the reasons the MD90s are viewed as an unreliable aircraft is because we have had only 16 in our fleet. From an operations perspective, we either need to have more of them or none of them. They fit a need in the seat range for our network and with the prices we're able to get them at, it's a smart choice. We continue to work on adding more to get to the right sized narrow-body fleet which is somewhere between 40 and 50 aircraft.(Bold Italics are mine.)

I think what he was saying is that they eventually would like to have 40 to 50 MD-90s, not that that is what we are getting in the near term.

From Section 1 Q. regarding the Joint Venture:

4. The amount of flying subject to the AF JV flown by each partner will be determined from a summer season baseline period commencing in the summer season immediately preceding the full implementation date. All growth ASMs flown above the baseline figure by the partners will be aggregated and shared between the partners on a 50/50 basis, subject to Section 1 P. 5.

1 P. 5.

5. Compliance will be measured for each summer season period, commencing at the end of the first summer season following full implementation. If the Company’s share of the AF JV growth ASMs above the baseline is at least 47% for the applicable summer season period, the Company will be deemed in compliance with the growth ASM measurement.

Anecdotally, I'm a junior reserve 88 FO and have averaged about 35 hours a month for the past 3 months, at least. I've broken 70 one time in the past year.

Not exactly getting worked to death, myself.

What base?

I broke guarantee last month and will this month as well. Got called for an IA early in the month and on my current 6 day avail period have been flown every day.

Good news is the planes are packed. I'm convinced we're giving the seats away.

My guess is we are. :( :(

Does anyone have the yield numbers for June? I'd be curious to know. The flights were packed this weekend, albeit thanks to some weather too. A lot of HKs and HK1s on the non-rev lists. I was about to go for a CRJ-900 flight with 21 open seats when they swapped it for a CRJ-200 a few hours prior and it went to -5.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the North vs South furlough clause only come into play if DAL parks a whole fleet of airplanes? Was this not specifically put in there because of our big fear of the 35 yr old DC-9 and $150 oil. Now the -9 is $$ and as long as oil stays around where it is now and our mgmt continues to hedge down here, then the -9 will continue to fly. I would think mgmt knows that if they disproportionatly F from from the N side then it would put a strain on the -9 training dept just as it would the 88 training dept if the opposite occurred. From what I've been seeing and hearing from fleet planning is that they want the right size a/c on the route, period. If a F is coming we collectively will get clipped. IMO of course.

That seems to be the equation at other airlines, whether it is in the contract or not. We should be no different. The union seems to come in and work with mgmt to mitigate. I, personally, would love a reduced line. That's what I fly now since I have a reserve gig. My unit is short and I am always being asked to support. I would gladly give those hours to someone who is not as fortunate. I know many others that are in a similiar situation and would do the same. If all they would really talk about is 200 folks then we could mitigate that number. Its better then guys at FDX taking a reduced ALV across the whole pilot group.