That's not the point though. Whatever we do WRT the JV, we should get our half (at the very least) not 40-something percent and sometimes for years not even that. If there's less trans atlantic flying, so be it. We pull down they pull down.

 

Right. So the other airlines might think fair is each airline gets 1/3. The others might want the VA flying to count against our share. Now Brexit. Tomorrow maybe Alitalia leaves? The whole thing is in flux. The world is in flux.

Looking at just the 50%, you could "win" simply by having our partners pull back some flying, something they might be driven to do. Then what?

I don't really know exactly how/why Delta chose not to comply, and I don't endorse it, but here we are. I don't know why the MEC focused on "winning" the RJ fight. They own the product, I don't.

I think they screwed up both upside/downside protection on the RJ side, but only history will tell. History will also tell whether or not it was better to add a block-hour floor on WB flying, but I think that part actually makes sense.

The whole thing feels neutral to me. I'd give it a B-.

 

I'm also in favor of a BH floor. The real question is, is that floor high enough to more than make up for what we gave up?

I don't think it is, so I'll give that a D+ in this climate, and if things change maybe give it a C on the curve one day. From what I understand, that "floor" is a good bit below what we're already doing, and we're forgiving their current shortfall in the JV as well.

Like I said, I think the 2 year no cure period is a win in and of itself, but I'm not sure it makes up for it.

 

I've read that we are at 688,000.

 

And the other airlines would be wrong to think that. US population is around 345 mil. The population of all three representative regions for the JV partners is about 144 mil, for all three combined. Those numbers represent the revenue pool each brings to the table.

 

I guess using Ted's number, it's about 5.5% lower than current. Is that enough of a back-stop? I think the pilots can decide in MEMRAT.

 

These are European carriers. The EU population is 509 million. This isn't a deal for flying to France, Italy, and Holland.

Using population, we should get ~40% of the flying.

Seems like a self-defeating argument.

 

So why don't they? One has to assume because the demand is there. Given the existing demand, why should DAL pilots continually fly less of the market?

The underlying reason for my position is that we are supposed to be a UNION. Unions are supposed to be about protecting jobs, not outsourcing. I completely agree there has to be some reasonable flexibility in the interest of profitability and business flexibility. A 50% share seems pretty reasonable.

 

Does that include Great Britain?

And 40% isn't 1/3.

 

Yes, because they're still in. But we can take them out, if you prefer.

If you were an AF/KLM pilot, you'd say it's outrageous that our part of the VA alliance eats into their share, of course, so I'm not sure how we handle VA.