I hope this question makes sense:

The Negotiators Notepad says that this 650,000 block hour floor is the "level of flying to which Delta grew after Alitalia joined the JV."

Is that level:

A.) Higher than what we are flying now,

B.) Equal to what we are flying now, or

c.) Lower than what we are flying now?


What level EASK's were we flying at that point of measurement?

What is our level of EASK's now?

50% is the current baseline, with a 1.5% buffer

47.5% would be the new baseline, but company only has to maintain a 2 year average of 46.5%.

Of course it makes sense. The question is, why doesn't the NN already include this info? Take note of every question that isn't answered in the original NN, and I think you'll find those answers almost always weaken the argument for TA passage. Sell job feels like it has begun.

Critical thinking!? Critical Theory??I always thought you were the local graduate of The Frankfurt School! ............

Bucking Bar, make sense of this for me. If we are above 650k for the year, the company flies 46.5% minimum of the AF JV EASKs. If we are below 650k, the company flies 48.5% minimum of the AF JV EASKs.

True or False?

The job protection in the above 650K is a global job protection, and the job protection in the below 650k is a Transatlantic job protection.

True or False?

Is this a good protection for Delta pilots and better than what we have now?

I would prefer the NC speak for themselves and I'm trying to resist doing to them what they did to me last year. I want them to have the first and last word.

The proposed JV scope change looks similar in some unfavorable ways to the Virgin Australia deal (signed by Heiko & co.). That VAus deal was sold as protecting the minimum floor of the US-Aus theater flying for DL. In reality, it allows VAus to fly more than double DL's frequency on those routes.

Now we're seeing the 650,000 international block hour floor "protection" as a remedy for allowing company's failure to meet 48.5% eask in the TAJV. My suspicion is that 650,000 block hours would fall below the new 46.5% eask floor also contained in the AIP. I also suspect that we are above 650,000 block hours currently. Factor all of that in (again, a couple of assumptions made) and the 650,000 block hour floor allows the company to go below the 46.5% eask TAJV while keeping the company in compliance with the PWA. Seems like a bait and switch. I hope DALPA produces some #s to prove me wrong.

Finally, there is no mention of enforcement mechanisms. So the ultimate failure is that the company will likely continue violating whatever "floors" are established without any meaningful recourse for the pilot group.

If you are for or against, all of us need to remember that the company has a proven track record of not complying with the agreed upon language of the contract. That they have worked to circumvent the pilot group in bringing themselves into "compliance". They praise us in public, hold us to conduct ourselves at the highest standards and will discipline us or worse at the drop of a hat. The double talk and disrespect has to end. In the nine years I've been here, the WB flying has continued to be reduced. It must end now, no more gives! Bring our flying back and make sure if it is violated the company is penalized appropriately that they don't do it again. Enough is enough.

Agreed.



.

.
.

Disclaimer up front: I envy the WB fleet of our bros and sis's at UAL and AAL.

But mind if I ask a devil's advocate question on scope for all of us? Why should we force our management team to fly more WB aircraft if that's not profitable on a given route based on their access to information that you and I do not have? If you and I have more long-term pay stability (hopefully) than our brethren at UAL and AAL because we are managed differently, is that not a good thing?

Things I think I understand:

1. The more WB, the better the opportunities for progression (whether you want to stay NB and get seniority, or jump to WB for other reasons)

2. WB flying is a source of pride

3. The company doesn't really care about us, they just want us to work harder and be away from our families more

How about this: what if our contract required the company to boost our profit sharing % (by a significant number)if they were out of compliance? Is that a good idea, or even possible?

-Willie