Originally Posted by georgetg

Capacity vs Block Hours:
Measuring capacity (EASK Equivalent Seat Kilometers) to account for flying share hurts us when JV capacity is reduced. For every AF A380 cut, Delta cut nearly three (2.8) 767ERs to keep the percentage even.
But wait, not only has the JV cut capacity across the Atlantic, but Delta is flying less than the required share of the reduced flying. In short we got hit with a double whammy.

As the European economy rebounds we are looking much better. With added capacity the existing agreement disproportionately favors Delta pilots. For every AF A380 route added, Delta must add nearly three (2.8) 767ER or two A330 routes to maintain the same share. With Delta averaging less than our minimum share, the flying increase to match must be even larger. We stand to gain exponential international flying.
By switching to Aircraft Block Hours now we will fail to capture that increase but lock in the disproportionate hit we have taken so far.

Cheers
George

Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom

I'll come out of APC retirement to provide a real world example of the exact kind of verbiage you can expect:

Background: Over a year go I got hurt in an OJI. Surgery was required and I was out for about 11 months. Delta uses a company called ESIS to handle their worker's compensation claims. The claims administrators have been good. However in one of the early conversations I was asked if I'd be willing to work with a "nurse case manager". I asked what that was and got an explanation. I was okay with it. A few days later the nurse case manager calls, we have a nice conversation about the service she can provide and says "I'll send you some forms to sign".

The forms arrived and I read them. I refused to sign. The next paragraphs are taken verbatim from those forms. Ask yourself if you'd be willing to sign these.

"I, the undersigned, do hereby authorize any physician or other medical or mental health professional, hospital, or other medical-related facility, school or vocational program to provide Coventry Health Care Workers Compensation, Inc. and its affiliates and subsidiaries ("Coventry") and its authorized representatives Private Health Information ("PHI") verbally or in writing concerning medical advice, care, treatment, or services provided to me. PHI means any and all records, reports, or other medical information, bills and referral letters whether generated by myself, Coventry, or a third party. PHI includes information relating to mental illness, use of drugs, use of alcohol, or diagnosis of AIDS/HIV, for the purpose of providing services to me in connection with my worker's compensation, disability, or auto claim, or other claim for benefits or coverage. I understand that by signing this release I may be waiving certain rights in accordance with state and/or federal laws that allow for waiver of those rights."

Skipping ahead...

"By signing below I give my permission to disclose my health information to Coventry and its representatives. I understand that my health information may be transmitted by facsimile, electronic mail, or regular mail. I further understand that PHI disclosed pursuant to this authorization may be redisclosed by Coventry and may no longer be protected from disclosure to others by state and/or federal law. I completely release Coventry from any and all liability which may result or could result from the appropriate release of such information in accordance with state and or federal laws."

That ALPA would negotiate away protections provided by HIPAA is absolutely astounding to me.

Originally Posted by georgetg

3-Year Look Back:
When Alitalia joined the JV we modified PWA 1.P in 2010 via MOU 14, to account for the extra flying Alitalia was bringing to the European side of the JV. We managed to secure a gain from a 47% share to a 50% share of the JV Capacity but gave the company a 3-year window to comply with a 1.5% up/down tolerance. Failure to meet the 3-year share minimum average starts a 1-year clock to cure the contractual breach.

The first 3-year time frame to measure the 50% was April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2014. Going forward we will measure the 3-years average every April 1st.
Looking back on April 1, 2014 the company failed to reach even the lower limit of 48.5% for our share of flying. This started the one-year cure period. The company had 1 year to meet the goal by March 31, 2015. Again measured on a 3-year look-back.

On April 1, 2015, Delta failed to meet even the lower limit which was the basis for the grievance that netted $30M.

Unfortunately the problem of flying less than the contractual share remains. On March 31, 2016 there will be another 3-year look-back measurement. And because we have flown well under our share for the last 4 years, the company will once again come up short and will be subject to another grievance.
We've accumulated a 4-year flying debt. Delta has made one payment. We have three more years of accumulated underages to go. Delta still isn't showing signs it is interested in reversing the trend.

By switching to a 1-year look back now, we are resetting the clock discarding accumulated flying debt, opening a new 2-year window and won't have any recourse until April 1, 2017. Why would we do that?

Cheers
George

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

Great post George. I really haven't been paying attention to the European economy. Is it beginning to come out of the doldrums?

Denny

Originally Posted by georgetg

Last year hit a new peak surpassing the previous high water mark of 2008.

Here's an industry white-paper from Flight Global on Transatlantic flying trends:
https://d1fmezig7cekam.cloudfront.ne...|transatlantic

Note the percentage growth numbers in the chart on Page 2 of the report where we stand among our peers, (hint: AFKLM is growing at 3-times the rate Delta is. What do you think that will do to our EASK share?)

Cheers
George

Originally Posted by Bananie

Okay, yes, I work for money. What do you get paid in, bananas? I admit that being a capt. I don't get any OE trips so that doesn't affect me, but it doesn't seem too far a reach to expect someone to actually come to work to get paid when they are making 150 to 200k per year. The rest of the agreement is positive. Sick leave, I call in sick once every three or four years so who gives a crap. If you are sick 200 hours a year you probably need to get a doctors note or go to a hospital or something.

Originally Posted by gloopy

This will be a very damaging TA regardless of how we vote on it. It we pass it we eat massive concessions all around, including unprecidented foreign alter ego airlines and a lower and further reduceable AF/KLM JV. If we vote against it it will take a strong effort to overcome the baseline it created.

So I propose we gift the company 100 million dollars.

That's right, and I'm not kidding.

If the net value of this TA is supposedly 1.1B over 3 years, and assuming it was properly comprehensively costed out (I don't think it was, but the company and the NC will absolutely stand by that it was) then when we vote it down let's offer 1.0B over 3 years to our current contract and put it in payrates alone. Nothing else. Nothing. Else.

The company couldn't possibly have a problem with that, could they? If the true net cost was 1.1B extra and we're offering them a free 100M (to return to the shareholders! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!) then they would be a fiduciary obligation for them to accept that.

Assuming this TA was properly costed out all around that is. Which further assumes they would *never* do any of the worst case things that they *could* do IAW this TA, like massive sick harassment on a scale never before seen, foreign alter egos, 75/76's against a new A380 order for our "partners" AF/KLM, etc.

If the true cost of the pros and cons cost 1.1B extra, from our point of view and theirs, give them one hundred million dollars, or donate it to the charity of their choice, and put the 1.0B into pay rates alone and stick with current book.

What possibe problem could they have with that?

Originally Posted by slowplay

It's aircraft block hours. It protects us from AF being able to operate 9.5 hrs with 2 man crews vs our 3 man crew requirements.