Scope notepad out
 

Just read scope negotiator's notepad. Judge for yourself.

"Due to the ensuing decline in the European market, Delta elected to transfer that planned growth to other international theaters, putting them out of compliance with the AF/KLM/AZ JV agreement. While this resulted in a grievance that the Company settled with the Association for $30M, Delta’s total growth in international widebody flying during that period was essentially the same as it would have been had Delta complied with its agreement with us."

I'm not following this logic. If there was money to be made elsewhere around the globe and we shifted to increase market share and generate revenue, we should have been doing that IN ADDITION to the company's continued compliance with the contract. That activity would have resulted in more wide body jobs, and more hiring.

What am I missing?

.......not missing a thing my friend........

Am I reading too much into it at the end of the first paragraph saying "when the membership ratification window opens," meaning it has already passed the MEC?

Amazing the lengths you and your group will go to grasp straws to try and further your agenda at the expense of your fellow pilots.

Anyone know the answer to these questions since they weren't included in the NN?

- How many jobs does the 2% concession in the TAJV cost us in the Atlantic theater?

- Since the US population is more than twice the other TAJV countries' population combined (322M/143M) one would think that the JV is flying US ticketed passengers by a margin of 2 to 1. The appropriate production balance would be around 33% Euro/66% US. What is the Company's rational for Delta pilots to fly less than half of the combined passengers, consisting primarily of Americans?

-If the new floor of block hours for TAJV is 650,000, what are we currently flying? If it 640,000 then that's a decent protection. If it's 600,000 or less, that's basically pointless.

I don't have a group, Homie.......It's amazing to me how blind you and your posse are to reality..........You are unable or unwilling to hold your weak willed negotiating entity accountable.

Looks like we really took it to them, almost embarrassed about how good we did.

It's pretty obvious you do. It's amazing it seems they came up with a decent TA with all your dpa attempts at sowing dis-unity. When the time for unity was paramount you and your group came through with the exact opposite. Pretty unforgivable really in the event we actually had to take this to the next level.

if not for all the 'dis-unity'......you already would have had a ta, done and over.

and right about now, would be standing with your d**k in your hand......wondering how we got screwed over so badly.

Good post BobZ!

On the scope notebook what I find interestingly absent is anything about interport flying by ChinaEastern, and SkyMark, and Korean Air....We used to have a hell of a lot of really big airplanes totally full out there, and it is very interesting how that has evaporated, and the usual shills keep saying "well the block hours are in compliance"....Smoke and mirrors.

Ha! That was unity at its finest and the reason we are here for sure but no thanks to the likes of you and the dpa few.

Load factor is a meaningless statistic when it comes to profitability. c'mon man, you know that.

That Intra-port stuff was from NWA, thus the call-sign club loves to poo-poo it. As long as they get their occasional good deal and back slap (all the while getting laughed at behind their back) these are the kinds of deals that will he had. Fricking guys couldn't find a better environment to deal in and still can't get better than industry average with concessions.

New JV scope is worthless and unenforceable.

If you have more than 5 years left, you better vote no.

Your career depends on it.

when did the ta15 blowback get redefined as 'unity'? did i miss something?

i do not recall that word ever being used regarding the ta you, and your clowns would ALREADY HAVE if not for the dissenters calling BS on the entire deal.

Since we fly roughly 1/2 of the JV EASKs, a 2% drop of the total is a 4% drop in DAL flying.

Talking points will be distributed to paid and unpaid volunteers. As Bagdad Bob would say, nothing to see here.

Just over a week ago Sink and Trip were arguing the benefits of giving DCI more RJs. Soon we'll hear about the benefit of giving Virgin America, KLM, and Air France a greater percentage of Atlantic flying.

OK admittedly just a first read. I still have questions for my reps. I like the improvements in control and fragmentation. I like that they are addressing the global threat of affiliates. I like the new language protecting the Delta brand. I like that there are no changes at DCI with regards to the number of large RJs, but I would have liked to have seen a better block hour ratio. The Air France, KLM, Alitalia JV seems like more of a wash. A slightly lower EASK limit, but a two year look back versus 3 and no cure period. I do like that they added a minimum international block hours. With more JVs on the horizon capturing more block hours across the globe as opposed to just across the Atlantic may prove important. Maybe I missed it, but I'd like to see what percentage of our international flying that represents. Overall I think our Section 1 is somewhat better than what we currently have due to improved fragmentation and control language, brand protection, and a minimum international block hour limit. My big disclaimer is that this is just a first look. I'm willing to listen to reasoned opinions both pro and con.

And way more Europe came from the South. What is your point?

Unity is 65% agreeing it was an obviously crap deal. What your doing is trying to convince everyone to pickup the bone you obviously have to pick with ALPA for a past injustice perpetrated by the company, in the middle of a negotiation. That would hold us all hostage to your version of a cba and your version restoration.

He's not remotely interested in unity unless it fits his agenda which is 'just say no' He's the poster child for the SSD. (second standard deviation)

Three Answers, to the extent of available public data:

(1) Pretty close to 85 (extrapolated from Contract Awareness Bulletin 15-07) However, be aware that the contract still requires 48.5% or an international widebody block hour floor also kicks in.

(2) Makes sense, but that is not how the data shakes out. Some of these numbers are posted in the Scope Compliance & Analysis reports. On the trans-Atlantic markets the passenger mix DL/partner is pretty close to an even 50/50. On other markets, like South America, the mix from airlines like GOL (who does not serve the same markets Delta does) is something like 10/1 in favor of Delta. (SC&A reports)

(3) We do not have the data for the exact metric measured, "global widebody block hours + trans-Atlantic 757" but total international block hours in 2014 was 662,403 (SC&A reports)

Those parts of the contract did not change.

You made a good read. Also review the new Virgin language which captures their new subsidiaries and affiliates they control. Important to capture this flying in their side of the ratio since this could result in a greater protection in our global widebody production balance (ASK).

EXACTLY. Contractual obligation.

obvious crap deal? gee....I dont recall that characterization in ANY of the official alpa communications?

sooo....apparently the 'obvious' wasnt at all, to our highly paid cba and its operatives.

of course had you been paying attention the last 30 years.....you might have already become aware of that unfortunate circumstance.

you two view dissent as a threat. which is precisely the approach that created so much of the economic damage this group has endured.

fortunately im thinking you both are in a decreasing minority around here.

Just because the DPA does not understand the Railway Labor Act does not mean it does not exist. Scope grievances are expedited into arbitration, the result of which has the same effect as a Federal District Court decision with less right to appeal. The association may seek compensatory and punitive damages.

So, while we are growing as an airline with thousands more pilots, our 'protection' will be that we will fly at least 650,000 international hours. Which, is less than we flew in 2014? Meanwhile, how big was the increase in domestic hours? They disregard the contractual obligations to us and then tell us it is no big deal because we are still flying almost as many hours as we did before. No growth. No protected jobs.

This is bad for us. Very bad. I don't understand why they are spinning it as a protection or positive thing. I guess we are all just too dumb to understand how scope concessions hurt us.

Again, I am pretty sure that's not the exact same measure. Makes sense that it would include some 737 flying that isn't included in the new contract metric.

The company is in business to make money. They are not going to agree to protect every block hour flown today. Would you in their place given the current volatility worldwide and the potential for future financial meltdowns? The international landscape no longer changes every few years it changes almost daily.
The 650000 hour number is the total number of block hours flown at the time the company agreed to up the floor from 46.5 to 48.5 with the addition of Alitalia to the JV. The concept is we allow them to go back to 46.5 but keep worldwide protection at the level it was at then.
We currently are flying about 680,000 hours worldwide contrary to the constant forum posts about our shrinking international.
It's a give but overall with the other items mention changing in our favor I would take the new scope over what we have without factoring in any other aspects of the contract.

You are making my point for me. We will agree to shrinking to 650,000 hours when we currently fly 680,000.

The company doesn't have to agree to fly any amount of trips to any theater. They can cancel JVs anytime, and it sets them free. Right now, they have made a contractual agreement with us that in return for allowing the JVs to share our flying, we are protected by a certain percentage of flying. Get your JV partners in line if they are flying too many hours for not enough money. If we are not getting 50% (or 48.5%) of the flying, the company is cheating. If you don't show up to work 1.5% of the time, you get fired.

Likewise I don't know why some are spinning this as bad, "very bad." I'd be interested in specifically why you consider it "very bad," because right now I don't share that view. The sky is not falling on scope as far as I can see. It's different, maybe you see it as worse, but I see it as better. There is a lower EASK with one JV, but I'm more concerned about international shell game with affiliates and partners. If we are caught of guard with an affiliate shell game we might lose a great deal more than 1%. The new language is stronger in that area and it provides global protection, something that I think is important. Let's face it Air France, KLM and Alitalia may be JV partners, but they won't be our last JV. Aeromexico, Gol, and Korean might be next. Having a global minimum is good insurance in my book.

Well stated

Let's see:

Currently 50% not to go below 48.5%
Or, 46.5% not to go below 45.5%.

And this is better?

It's a TATL JV that involves access to EU flying, not a 4-country JV, so I think your ratio might actually be unfavorable if you count overall EU passengers, never mind populations within the Open Market. I don't know how they account for connections beyond the EU/Open Market or beyond the US. Would that skew the respective ratios even further?

The thing that's interesting to me is that since the JV was implemented, we took a large stake in VA, and that somehow doesn't end up counting against us in the TATL JV, even though we're circumventing it in a way that doesn't benefit the other partners. To further complicate matters, with the subsequent Brexit, you potentially lose the crowning jewel of the US-EU Open Skies agreement.

I think the share we should have is a philosophical point, and could be the topic of very lengthy discussions. The point of section 1 changes in the NNP seems to be to protect what we have. One significant liability of our current agreement is that we're poorly protected against reductions in flying (cutting back one A380 flown by two pilots = cutting back a 767 flown by 6). If EASK's is the only metric, and flying is pulled down, we hurt disproportionately more.

What happens when Alitalia drops out of the JV in 2017?

My guess is that will give Delta a lot of room to shrink our international operations and still be above the 46.5%.

Sorry, was off 1%:

Current baseline 50% / 48.5% due to operational buffer.

TA baseline 47.5%, 2 year average of 46.5%

All the contract language doesn't matter.

It is not enforceable.

After 2 years of non compliance we will file a grievance and after many more months of delay we will all get a check for $1200.

The positions lost forever.