|
Originally Posted by Rudder
(Post 1178659)
And for a little diversion,
Just rode down the elevator in PEK with some AWESOME talent who was upstairs interviewing with Emirates, good thing beauty like that is not here, we would have a hard time concentrating on flying!! Sorry no pix, left phone in room and that would have been so NOT cool, but I did think of you guys. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1178709)
Actually, the B717's would likely be used to replace the 50 seaters they plan on parking.
|
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1179047)
Would buying that much of VA require some scope relief on our part????
Here is part of the definition of "Control" from Section 1. Control” for the purposes of Section 1, will exist by entity A over entity B, only if A, whether directly or indirectly through the control of other entities: a. owns securities that constitute and/or are exchangeable into, exercisable for or convertible into more than: 1) 30 percent (49 percent with respect to the Company’s interest in a foreign air carrier) of B’s outstanding common stock, or if stock in addition to common stock has voting power, Denny |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1179047)
Would buying that much of VA require some scope relief on our part????
Here is part of the definition of "Control" from Section 1. Control” for the purposes of Section 1, will exist by entity A over entity B, only if A, whether directly or indirectly through the control of other entities: a. owns securities that constitute and/or are exchangeable into, exercisable for or convertible into more than: 1) 30 percent (49 percent with respect to the Company’s interest in a foreign air carrier) of B’s outstanding common stock, or if stock in addition to common stock has voting power, Denny Thus the easy out revenue JV solution that gets you 80% of the benefit at 20% of the cost....(give or take) The PWA need to be final to make corporate decision governed by Section 1. Having that in hand is worth a lot because it helps leverage Delta's early-mover status. The new trend is to set up non-alliance codeshare and JV agreements and it's growing as with most things, the early birds get first pick... I can't see how Delta wouldn't be a player. Cheers George |
Originally Posted by dalad
(Post 1179044)
That's all we need, more JV outsourcing.
We go the five year route, and they could do revenue sharing JV"s with no need for production balances. Virgin, flies to a ton of cities DAL may soon see as focus cities, and we would not have any skin in that game. With the Europe flying at its lowest levels in a long time, we are really set up well for getting hosed, with these sort of JV's. As it stands now we just need to keep our current frequency and growth does not need to come our way. I am not trying to throw a scare tactic out there, it is the facts. Read your contract and realize that unless it is a profit sharing JV there is no requirement for a production balance. When this deal comes out there will be many smart people picking it apart. The will show you the downside stuff, but the realities of what may happen if we go with our current language for a few more year. That said, I will reserve my vote until I see the language, but scenarios like I listed above concern me greatly. The will make RJ outsourcing seem like child's play. *JAL is another example of us having 8 flights a day to CONUS. Just think of a revenue sharing JV in that arena, and all the growth that we would not be entitled to. SAN-NRT for one. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1178832)
They will only pay less if we are stupid enough to negotiate that kind of rate... and we will be. :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1179047)
Would buying that much of VA require some scope relief on our part????
Here is part of the definition of "Control" from Section 1. Control” for the purposes of Section 1, will exist by entity A over entity B, only if A, whether directly or indirectly through the control of other entities: a. owns securities that constitute and/or are exchangeable into, exercisable for or convertible into more than: 1) 30 percent (49 percent with respect to the Company’s interest in a foreign air carrier) of B’s outstanding common stock, or if stock in addition to common stock has voting power, Denny A company like virgin could issue a few more shares of common stock to dilute the 49% state by a few thousandths of a percentage point!! Just sayin..... |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1179060)
SWA pays our whale pay for 130 seaters. And they have around 700 of them.
|
I'm not going to get my blood pressure up one bit over rumored scope sales for 90 seaters or whatever.
1. It's stupid and the union knows better. 2. It's stupid and the company knows better. Not going to happen. |
Originally Posted by Philly
(Post 1178952)
Long time lurker/occasional poster, but I can't not share this one. Let me say right up front that this is 3rd hand so please don't shoot the messenger!
OK, here goes: Jumpseater with us today claims to have ties to a CPO and was told by his buddy in the CPO that we should see a TA on 18 May. Supposedly the MEC will see it on the 15th, and to us on the 18th. Details include 20% increase to the rates with "COLA" type increases per year later. 717s are in the deal and supposedly via a lease from Boeing after turn in from SWA. SWA pays some penalties etc but we get "new" leases from Boeing. Company will offer 500 early outs, and hiring will begin quickly. 50 seaters reduced to around 125 total. Now for the bad news: Supposedly company wants 90 seaters with some type of production balance. Also they want increased Code share with Alaska. The reason he claims the company wants a deal done quickly has to do with the loan for the refinery. Again, please don't shoot the messenger. There is no way I can confirm any of this...it is just the rumor I heard today with a lot of details and a firm date (supposedly). I guess we will know soon. Not only no, not only hell no, but no, not even close, and we can tell by how far you are off that you don't have a clue as to what you are doing. Thank you for your service but its back to the line under our present contract for all of you who voted to even send such a POS to us and we will regroup and do it right in full section 6 if necessary. More 90's and more AS? AYMFSM? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:34 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands