345/(345+509) is how I figured. Our share of the market, if we want to make population the issue.

I'm not married to this argument. What do you suggest?

I've already said 50% is a good number, so current C2012 balance (or better, though I know that won't happen) and improved enforcement language along with the AIP change in measurement period and dropping cure period.

Have we taken it in the shorts? Can you back that up with international ASMs or Block Hour facts? How much have we shrunk? Just go back to the merger. Getting that data shouldn't be too hard.

With all due respect, it is very obvious that you do not understand the importance of our scope protections. Please, folks, understand why scope protections matter. The entire 2000s should give you some idea.

Yet we have a contract requiring around 50%. I guess any contractual gain we have that you think is too much in our favor should just be given away?

I didn't negotiate this TA. Or the last one. I'm just discussing what's in it. Seems like we made trades in the cure period and block hours against the 50%, not just give away the 50%. They can get to 50% by pulling OAL flying, if you want.

Then what?

I appreciate the tone. I agree that we don't understand RJ scope the same way. I though we would have better ratios, less DCI, but we got no improvements in that section.

ka......boom!!!!!!!!!

Sort of. This TA is undoubtedly significantly better, but so is the surrounding landscape a year + later, is it not?...and had that one passed, how long before openers for the next one?

I'm not adverse to granting the company JV relief for an overall wide body plus 757 international block hour min. I do think that block hour minimum should be closer to what we are actually flying. Sounds like 688,000 is our current block hour amount. I think the min should be 675,000 possibly 680,000. If more flexibility is needed, divide the block hour min into quarters and have min hours per quarter.

Denny

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.