agree. as it's written now we can drop below the JV minimum and still be above the block floor min. That's a complete fail.

But they wouldn't do that, would they?

Valid point.

What I am hearing is that the 650k was based on 50/50 when the AF/KLM/AZ agreement was revised. I do not know that I've seen that in print.

The company will not agree to a 0% compliance margin again after having been burned (in their view) on the 48.5%. Last time around they stopped at an ~8 to 11% margin below the actual performance.

As I understand the web board reports (I've no inside data) the margin is right at 4%, which is remarkably tight by today's standards. Given the variables, it is a good downside protection given that AF/KLM/AZ are always slow to adjust capacity and in a global downturn, this floor would likely kick in to protect Pacific and South American flying.

This also communicates to me that Glen Hauenstein is optimistic about the A330's, A350's and global hours generally.

That's the problem. The baseline is 50%. A 1.5 % buffer was given to the company due to the complexity to maintain exactly 50%. 48.5% was never the intent. Just gave the company room to work with. Unfortunately, they view 48.5% as a ceiling not to exceed.

RJ scope is status quo. I would prefer improvements as well, but I personally believe it is a problem that is fixing itself since we did not agree to prolong the slow death of regional flying.

The scope problems in this TA are that we are conceding almost 10% of our JV flying for a fake protection that supposedly will guarantee we fly no less than the WB flying we did last decade. Our airline is growing, and we are saying, sure let the JVs fly more of our customers as long as we get to fly less than we currently already do out of compliance.

This is NOT a win.

weak. really, weak.