Originally Posted by Professor (Post 2222104)

Check your email inbox.

The FAQ just published covers this. Right now our JV language protects us only to 390K block and now we will have a 650K protection.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 2222634)

Ok, gotta ask a question here....

Someone tell me if I'm reading this wrong. If the AF/KLM JV percentage drops below 48.5% then the 650,000 global minimum kicks in. What happens if there is some big deal that happens in Europe and both Delta and AF/KLM reduce flying drastically but Delta stays above the 48.5%. Effectively there is no 650,000 hour global minimum because we have not gone below the 48.5% minimum in the JV. Correct?

Denny

Originally Posted by vilcas (Post 2222700)

That scenario would mean demand for transatlantic travel would have gone down significantly. I don't think we should expect for flight schedule to stay the same unless you think company should fly empty airplanes around just to provide pilots with a job. This may workout in the short term but long term that's how a company winds up in bankruptcy court severely editing the labor contracts to a leaner cost structure.

I think we need to remember pensions at this company are gone and there is nothing the pilots can do to fix this. We will not even be allowed to strike because of our size (too big to fail=too big to strike). The environment that existed for pilots 20 years ago is something management doesn't ever want to return too. They were too expensive and as labor we must realize that executive compensation does not mean we can expect similar gains. There are few of them and thousands for us. The ceo gets a 5 million dollar raise that's the equivalent to a 40 cent raise for the pilots. My point in all this is that I think we must get realistic and look at the overal gain the TA provides. I really think it is an overall gain and the cost of returning to the table will outweigh the benefit.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 2222498)

Yes, but 2+2=4 regardless of your belief that it equals 37

You could make your point better without exaggerating.

FWIW, I could care less if other people consider any viewpoint other than the facts. Scope is important and confusing.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 2222526)

Go figure. Maybe an older brother that works for Delta? :) Fair enough, we'll move on.

It appears to me you're systematically exaggerating the negatives. I think it's hard for anyone to label the Scope section as either a huge win or loss. It's sort of neutral.

One of the reasons Scope is sort of neutral (and I imagine we'll come at this from a very different perspective), is that we got really myopic on the RJ's. According to a JS rider on the MEC, the only thing that separated the "7" and the "12" were RJ's. The 7 saw value, the 12 a threat. Since this was said to be an absolute must for the company (oops), and worth hundreds of millions to them (oops again), we were said to cave (oops a third time). So we "won" on RJ's.

I would hope that you would like that, and file it in the "win" column. I know that not losing something you have shouldn't sound like a win, so let's simply say your view prevailed. Fair?

I actually view the RJ status quo as a loss for us. We didn't shrink DCI and we're operating above NB ratios that we're not codifying into the contract. Meanwhile the zombie 50-seaters linger on, at company discretion. And I haven't seen the 76-seat order for mainline yet.

So we learned vastly different lessons in the previous decade, I suppose. But in either case, it seems like our Scope battle was fought on the small-gauge end, and it seems like the MEC got a little distracted. What would the deal have looked like if we traded on 76-seaters? I have no idea. Were there better protections available on the WB end? No idea. If the DPA salesman is right, and negotiators told him that there were "hundreds of millions" available to the company, then perhaps some of that saving should have been shifted over to the WB column?

So the Scope section, in my mind, is a bit dull. I think we failed to capture an opportunity on RJ's. OTOH, looking around the world I don't envision us breaking through any unexplored frontiers and capturing a ton of flying. Considering the alliances we have or might have, I figured we'd try to protect what we have. I figured we also need as much downside protection as we can get. I don't like the EASK metric on the downside, but it's great on the upside. I had heard we were going to shift to BH only, but I'm very pleasantly surprised that we're getting a hybrid. So the whole thing is boring, for sure. A surprise? Hardly. A complete fail? Nope.

I think we got exactly the Scope deal the internet was asking for.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 2222634)

Ok, gotta ask a question here....

Someone tell me if I'm reading this wrong. If the AF/KLM JV percentage drops below 48.5% then the 650,000 global minimum kicks in. What happens if there is some big deal that happens in Europe and both Delta and AF/KLM reduce flying drastically but Delta stays above the 48.5%. Effectively there is no 650,000 hour global minimum because we have not gone below the 48.5% minimum in the JV. Correct?

Denny

Originally Posted by BtoA (Post 2222746)

I've laid out plenty of facts. The current agreement is 50% +/- 1.5. The new agreement is much lower. The block hour guarantee is even lower than that. I don't believe facts are in question here.

Originally Posted by BtoA (Post 2222746)

I've laid out plenty of facts. The current agreement is 50% +/- 1.5. The new agreement is much lower. The block hour guarantee is even lower than that. I don't believe facts are in question here.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 2222775)

Again, my disagreement is with your characterization. One RT is lower, granted. Is it "much" lower?

So lets think this through, second and third order. So what happens if the TA is rejected?
Can network management require AF/KLM/AZ to reduce capacity?
Given the small amount of noncompliance, what is the likely grievance settlement?
Do you believe with the political upheaval of a rejected TA we would be back at the table inside of 6 months?
How much credibility do you think the pilots would have after twice rejecting an agreement?
Do you think the NMB would help us the second time around after we rejected their help once?

In evaluating the current AIP, do you think there is any value to capturing more of Virgin's growth and protecting us from a Virgin low cost alter ego?
Have you evaluated the growth potential from this change?
Do believe there is any value to protecting the Delta brand for flying by Delta pilots?
Do you think it important to prevent the company from creating alter ego carriers that it can transfer Delta flying to?

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 2222782)

The new agreement is 2% lower.

Originally Posted by Schwanker (Post 2222796)

2% lower is roughly 4% of our share of flying.

As to Sink's claim more 76 seat RJ's (with ratios) is good, we'll continue to disagree. The latest claim you made a couple of times is those of us opposed to more RJs at DCI think we'll see 76 seaters at mainline? Who ever said they expect that?

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 2222813)

Where did I make that claim?

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 2222526)

I actually view the RJ status quo as a loss for us. We didn't shrink DCI and we're operating above NB ratios that we're not codifying into the contract. Meanwhile the zombie 50-seaters linger on, at company discretion. And I haven't seen the 76-seat order for mainline yet.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 2222813)

Where did I make that claim?

Originally Posted by BtoA (Post 2222489)

Another post that contributed nothing to the conversation?

I am saying the things I say because I believe them and want other people to consider another viewpoint.

Why exactly do you post?

Originally Posted by Schwanker (Post 2222830)

Sink, who claimed we'll see 76 seaters at mainline?

Originally Posted by JamesBond (Post 2222818)

Why weren't you?

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 2222852)

Various posters that argued on previous threads that the 76-seater is a very capable aircraft that the company must have, as they kill off the worthless 50-seaters. Wasn't that the point of this exercise: get the 76-seaters flown at mainline?

Originally Posted by Schwanker (Post 2222862)

Who claimed we'd see 76 seat aircraft at mainline? Can you provide a quote?

Originally Posted by Schwanker (Post 2213212)

Giving DCI an additional 50 economically viable 76 seat aircraft INCREASES DCI flying. So if the goal is to reduce DCI flying, further scope relief is the wrong thing.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 2212572)

OK. The "tomorrow" part was a hypothetical, and not salient to the point.

We get 76-seaters gradually. Who bids them?

I think your assetion was that we have plenty of pilots who would love to fly them. I disagree.

Originally Posted by Schwanker (Post 2212579)

Do you actually think this is an issue? Any aircraft not based in NYC will have adequate bidders. Put this in MSP/SLC and you'd be surprised.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 2222870)

Basically, you did.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 2221844)

Let me first state - the block hour floor is an excellent downside protection - so good that I am surprised the company agreed to it.

Originally Posted by Tanker1497 (Post 2223062)

Care to explain how you came up with those numbers vilcas?

Originally Posted by vilcas (Post 2223110)

I agree the majority will decide as it should be.

Originally Posted by vilcas (Post 2223009)

I am confused why the JV scope thing is such a big deal to people. 2% reduction is about 1 roundtrip flight. Staffing reduction couldn't be more than 10 pilots. Also this isn't even a reduction just a reallocation to other theatres. I can't imagine the company paid all that money for 350 sim unless they were actually going to take orders of the 350. I also don't think it's being aqcuired to fly domestically. It appears that people were expecting no wins for the company in this negotiation. A good deal means both parties get something. Again I understand people would like to go back to the pre 9/11 glory days of aviation where a whale captain was making 400 and hour with full pension but I believe those days are gone for good. If I thought for a second we could get back there just by negotiating more I would support a no vote. This TA is all about cost benefit for me. A yes vote takes the overall gain. Maybe not as much as we had hoped but more than we had.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 2222782)

The new agreement is 2% lower.

Originally Posted by vilcas (Post 2223097)

Well the 1 round trip flight was from the Q and A posted on the ALPA site. 10 crew members was a guess I don't know what a reduction of one round trip would be in terms of crew. Also this is a JV reduction doesn't mean we actually lose overal international flying since it might just be a movement of flying from one theatre to another.

My main point is Scope and Sick changes don't outweigh the compensation. Not the best deal but I think it's good enough for the present environment and sending it back to be improved might end up being money lost for little to no future gain in these areas like JV scope and sick policy.

Originally Posted by BtoA (Post 2223138)

2% lower than a 1.5% buffer. Even 2% is 4% less of our piece of the flying. You want to give up 4% of that flying? I don't.

Originally Posted by BtoA (Post 2223139)

Scope is your JOB! Allowing violations of scope is explicitly allowing the company to hire somebody else to do your job. What good is a pay raise if they hire somebody else and furlough you?

Originally Posted by BtoA (Post 2222752)

Honestly, I do not see how we can do anything except agree to disagree. If you think that keeping our RJ scope is a loss, then we have nothing less to discuss. There have been so many people debunking how that is a win for us, and I agree with them. So, not an attack, if you think that would have been a win, I guess I can see how you would think this is a win (or neutral or whatever).

I disagree whole-heartedly, and I believe many people that think about it critically will agree with me. Giving away scope for a low block-hour 'guarantee' is not good for us. Those are our jobs.

Originally Posted by vilcas (Post 2223009)

I am confused why the JV scope thing is such a big deal to people. 2% reduction is about 1 roundtrip flight. Staffing reduction couldn't be more than 10 pilots. Also this isn't even a reduction just a reallocation to other theatres. I can't imagine the company paid all that money for 350 sim unless they were actually going to take orders of the 350. I also don't think it's being aqcuired to fly domestically. It appears that people were expecting no wins for the company in this negotiation. A good deal means both parties get something. Again I understand people would like to go back to the pre 9/11 glory days of aviation where a whale captain was making 400 and hour with full pension but I believe those days are gone for good. If I thought for a second we could get back there just by negotiating more I would support a no vote. This TA is all about cost benefit for me. A yes vote takes the overall gain. Maybe not as much as we had hoped but more than we had.

Originally Posted by vilcas (Post 2223445)

It's my understanding we were out of compliance with current book so the percentage was adjusted slightly to accommodate the current mixture of flying. The company relocated assets to other theatres of international business. This obsession with the JV scope seems strange when the company didn't park any aircraft, didn't reduce any international positions. The TA will similarly not change anything only a soft economy will do that.

Originally Posted by BtoA (Post 2223448)

You missed the part where the didn't GROW the flying. Our JV partners picked up the slack while we flew in other places. That was our flying. Fly our share of the JV AND pick up flying in other theaters. That's how we grow jobs. Allowing the Atlantic flying to be outsourced to JV partners cost us those jobs.
But it is ok since they came to us and said they just found some even higher paying flying somewhere else. Sorry about that contract with you guys. We ignored it. But don't worry, we promise it didn't hurt you.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 2223450)

Can you show the growth across the Atlantic on AF and KLM where they picked up our flying. The numbers don't seem to reflect that.

Originally Posted by BtoA (Post 2223462)

Delta approx 47%, JV partners 53%.

Nice try.

I get it. You want to vote yes no matter how bad it is for us. I don't.