Delta to buy stake in China Eastern Airlines
07-27-2015, 12:20 PM
#31
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by Falcon7
That doesn't limit the Company from predominantly displaying the Delta livery on an international partner's aircraft. Look at all the aircraft on DCI. They are all painted in Delta colors. Why not these Chinese carriers? What language in our contract prevents it? I don't think Delta even needs to ask anyone.
It's not to teach us about scope. So, what is it?
07-27-2015, 12:24 PM
#34
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 335
Originally Posted by scambo1
What's your agenda here?
It's not to teach us about scope. So, what is it?
It's not to teach us about scope. So, what is it?
07-27-2015, 12:28 PM
#35
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by Falcon7
Get to the bottom of whether or not a foreign carrier flying for Delta can paint a Delta livery on it's aircraft when doing international partner flying. Can they or can't they? There seems to be some confusion about this.
Btw. I think if we had voted in na15, we'd pretty much be shafted by the obvious deals that were in the works which pushed the timeline for the vote.
07-27-2015, 12:43 PM
#36
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 335
Originally Posted by scambo1
They probably would have to have approval by the MEC. Not just the chairman.
Btw. I think if we had voted in na15, we'd pretty much be shafted by the obvious deals that were in the works which pushed the timeline for the vote.
Btw. I think if we had voted in na15, we'd pretty much be shafted by the obvious deals that were in the works which pushed the timeline for the vote.
Also, it seems like Delta is executing on these deals with our existing contract, you'll have to connect the dots on why that is, but it certainly isn't because of the TA language, because that language is not in effect.
You also wrote this earlier:
[QUOTE=scambo1;1935994
We settled on a floor in pacific flying 20% below what the NWA language had. [/QUOTE]
I did a quick check on the Pacific LOA and I found this:
"Converting the 316 weekly slots to annual block hours results in a value of 116,400 hours, representing 54 percent of the 2014 projected Pacific block hours. While the 316 slots protected 80 percent of the NRT slots in 1998 (but only 54 percent of the currently projected Pacific block hours), LOA 13-03 protects 85 percent of all pacific block hours."
"The 182,750 block hour floor represents 85 percent of the 2014 projected Pacific block hours."
So explain how "we settled on a floor in pacific flying 20% below what the NWA language had." Simple math to me is that 182,700>116,400. Or were you talking about a different LOA?
07-27-2015, 12:49 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: A330 First Officer
Posts: 1,465
Originally Posted by Falcon7
That doesn't limit the Company from predominantly displaying the Delta livery on an international partner's aircraft. Look at all the aircraft on DCI. They are all painted in Delta colors. Why not these Chinese carriers? What language in our contract prevents it? I don't think Delta even needs to ask anyone.
7.Delta Connection flying aircraft will only bear the name “Delta” as part of a phrase referencing a Connection-type operation.
07-27-2015, 01:24 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by Falcon7
Where is it written that they would have to be approved by the MEC? I ask, because I can't find it.
Also, it seems like Delta is executing on these deals with our existing contract, you'll have to connect the dots on why that is, but it certainly isn't because of the TA language, because that language is not in effect.
You also wrote this earlier:
I did a quick check on the Pacific LOA and I found this:
"Converting the 316 weekly slots to annual block hours results in a value of 116,400 hours, representing 54 percent of the 2014 projected Pacific block hours. While the 316 slots protected 80 percent of the NRT slots in 1998 (but only 54 percent of the currently projected Pacific block hours), LOA 13-03 protects 85 percent of all pacific block hours."
"The 182,750 block hour floor represents 85 percent of the 2014 projected Pacific block hours."
So explain how "we settled on a floor in pacific flying 20% below what the NWA language had." Simple math to me is that 182,700>116,400. Or were you talking about a different LOA?
Also, it seems like Delta is executing on these deals with our existing contract, you'll have to connect the dots on why that is, but it certainly isn't because of the TA language, because that language is not in effect.
You also wrote this earlier:
I did a quick check on the Pacific LOA and I found this:
"Converting the 316 weekly slots to annual block hours results in a value of 116,400 hours, representing 54 percent of the 2014 projected Pacific block hours. While the 316 slots protected 80 percent of the NRT slots in 1998 (but only 54 percent of the currently projected Pacific block hours), LOA 13-03 protects 85 percent of all pacific block hours."
"The 182,750 block hour floor represents 85 percent of the 2014 projected Pacific block hours."
So explain how "we settled on a floor in pacific flying 20% below what the NWA language had." Simple math to me is that 182,700>116,400. Or were you talking about a different LOA?
07-27-2015, 01:37 PM
#39
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Falcon7
So what you are saying is that there is no language that prevents them from doing this, but because there is no language that allows it they can't do it? I'm not sure that the contract works that way.
Originally Posted by Mesabah
It's not against the contract, it's against the Railway labor act. Pilots must specifically permit management to do alter ego flying.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
