IMO, EASKs protect us more than the BH language...Hugely.

Mind you, I realize that I, you and we are not in control of fleet deployment decisions. That said, decoupling VA is a monumental mistake. Giving one individual the ability to rebrand foreign carriers is a non starter.

Selling top end scope is too dangerous a road.

3 or 4 years out, I want to be the one flying Delta jets across the pond. Big, twin aisle Delta jets. In fact I want to have delta pilots flying the jets that have upper deck business class too.

In response to your question, I have to ask it back to you.

I am not willing to sell my kidney so I can have Starbucks coffee.

 

You have to look at both Joint Venture agreements together.

The Virgin JV protects twin-aisle ASKs, and it also includes a global production balance. You can't replace everything with 757s and stay in compliance.

 

We can't force the company to get airplanes? 717, E190, E175. These are all being purchased by the company, did we have anything to do with that or was that a business decision? All we can do try to protect against other groups operating flights that generate revenue for Delta. If C2012 stays in effect large scope remains out of compliance.

The pacific language was rewritten to include Henada because they weren't operating enough at Narita. Now we are allowing them to rewrite again to be in compliance. Stop changing the metrics and redrawing the lines. Start enforcing the agreement. If C2012 stays and they don't change that's $60 a month more for everyone. The point is I want them to honor the deal or pay for non-compliance. The settlement was to small but that's what we agreed to. Why can we use only one metric?

The reason we don't have 787s today is because several metrics were written into the purchase agreement. The delivery timeline and the performance. If you want to bind a party to an action, you use multiple metrics to measure the action.

 

No you only use 1 metric. Look at our scope section.

 

Well no freaking duh!!!! But by all means, let's keep it the same old way.

 

We aren't FORCING them to buy anything. They are gonna buy whatever they NEED to execute their plan. All we did in any of the above mentioned airframes was to place conditions upon other needs that allow them to buy what they want. And guess what: If they didn't need the 717s E190s and anything else, they wouldn't buy them. You really think any of those were huge wins for us? That's beyond naive.

The reason we don't have 787s is because BA couldn't deliver on it's promise. The original airframe did not perform anywhere near the level they said it would. It was massively heavier than originally sold. And mostly, Mr Anderson got a little lucky.

And tell me this. You want to hold them accountable for non compliance. OK. How you gonna do that? The way C15 does it is to move the goalposts. It's like saying land in the touchdown zone, but moving it back 1,000 feet in the middle of your flare. There are no damage mitigations spelled out in ANY of our contract language other than gray lawyer language that a first year student can shoot holes in. "To be brought back into compliance within a year" Really? We now have a precedence of a weak azzed grievance settlement of $30M. Pocket change. DAL is a $40 billion company. $30 million is a good holiday weekend.

 

uh oh.....sounds like someone pizzed in benders Wheaties!

 

You're changing the subject and your premise. Which is good because I hope that means you realize that using company fleet plans to make the TA's scope concessions less damaging is foolish.

The point is that whatever they ultimately decide, it has no bearing on evaluating the TA scope concessions that are in front of us now.

They all have the range Sailingfun. It makes perfect sense to run these into gate/slot controlled airports if your goal is to have others fly our passengers, while still sharing the revenue and profits. If this is management's plan, this TA language specifically allows this plan to thrive.

Look at whatever you want sailingfun, but fleet plans aren't facts. They never will be. If you use them to evaluate TA language, you're using non-factual information by definition.

Carl

 

Our CURRENT language provides far better protection. That's why management wanted it changed back to block hours. The EASK metric was so protective, management refused to comply.

Carl

 

Simple and brilliant. Should be a baggage tag.

Carl