Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-30-2012 | 12:31 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
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.
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.
04-30-2012 | 12:31 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
04-30-2012 | 12:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
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
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
04-30-2012 | 12:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,724
Likes: 0
From: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
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
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
04-30-2012 | 12:34 PM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
That is why, allowing more 76 seat jets while being tied to our block hour levels may be the ugliness that has to be accepted/shoved down our throats to protect our flanks on JV's and Code Shares.
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.
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.
04-30-2012 | 12:34 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
04-30-2012 | 12:37 PM
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
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
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.....
04-30-2012 | 12:37 PM
No longer cares
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
04-30-2012 | 12:37 PM
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
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.
1. It's stupid and the union knows better.
2. It's stupid and the company knows better.
Not going to happen.
04-30-2012 | 12:38 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
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.
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?
Last edited by gloopy; 04-30-2012 at 12:49 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
