|
Originally Posted by Professor
(Post 2222092)
Per the language 50/50 is the baseline. 48.5%-52.5% (section 3.P.4 for your reference). The test lines begin at below 48.5 and 47.5.
Keep in mind its Delta at around 50% and then all of AF/KLM/AZ make up the other 50. That seems pretty good to me. But protecting our ratios is one thing, protecting our jobs in a down cycle or catastrophe is another. We currently have NO protections. If trans atlantic cratered because of a massive attack in Europe or if the plague comes back, we would simply ratio down with our JV partners. Jobs would be lost. e? During the last TA the argument was made about ratio down with our partners. In the event something huge, like s massive attack, yes that can. But, I asked the question the last time...nothing in the contract requires them to ratio down. The contractual minimums are just that, minimums. There is nothing, in our contract, preventing us from doing more than 50% of the flying. |
Originally Posted by trustbutverify
(Post 2222093)
Yeah, I get the EASK carve outs in the separate JVs. My exchange with BB is regarding the proposed 650,000 international BH floor.
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 trustbutverify
(Post 2222073)
OK, help me out here. I AM the guy avoiding the math because they said there'd be no math when I joined APC.
Your Virgin Atlantic and AF/KLM/AZ protected BHs alone add up to 924,044. And now we're saying a 650,000 BH floor TOTAL for ALL INTERNATIONAL is good? What am I missing? You are missing that the other numbers are different subsets inside the larger overall metric of DL Intl. BH ... they overlap. The theater protections are subsets of the global protections. |
Originally Posted by Xray678
(Post 2222081)
I'm not talking ratios, I'm talking block hours. Also, I don't care who first initiated a JV. I'm sure those deals are addressed every few years just like our contract.
Just once I would like to see a code share deal that benefits the Delta pilots more than it benefits the pilots at the partner airline. At a minimum we we should have 50/50 on the ratios. |
Originally Posted by Xray678
(Post 2222103)
50% may be the baseline, but you are a fool if you think the company will ever get there when we allow them to operate at 46.5%.
|
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. This is a loosening of scope that has taken jobs away already and will result in even more opportunity to lose WB jobs. The FAQ is misleading, and the people in this thread claiming that it is more protection than we currently have are misleading. Sure, we have no guarantee that in Armageddon right now, the company would not decrease flying. But a block hour minimum will not stop that either. Right now, as long as there is a JV, our half of the flying is protected( when the union doesn't sell out on us for pennies on the dollar). If a market is weak, the JV partners either agree to reduce flying as a group, our company pulls out of the JV, or the company violates our contract. What we are agreeing to here is for the company to adhere to a minimum block hour level (that is less than our 2011 block hours) in return for us being ok with our JV partners flying as many of our passengers as they can fit in all their shiny new jets. Don't be fooled. This is really bad for us. It is not true 'protection' any more than furlough protection protects you from a bankruptcy or insolvency. |
Originally Posted by BtoA
(Post 2222166)
This is a loosening of scope that has taken jobs away already and will result in even more opportunity to lose WB jobs. The FAQ is misleading, and the people in this thread claiming that it is more protection than we currently have are misleading.
I volunteered last year to try to defend the TA against people who would distort it. You were far stronger, started earlier, and you prevailed. It's fine, because the TA was rejected by the pilots fair and square. The process taught us all what to look for, however, and I think the lurker is informed enough to recognize the pattern, and the prodigal poster. Welcome back. |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 2222225)
I call BS. I think you're misleading, and it looks deliberate. Doesn't sound like you have anything remotely like an open mind on this topic. Seems like everything sucks in this TA. Not just that it sucks, but that you're desperate to make it look like it sucks. Everything that's positive is a lie, anything neutral is an abomination, and anything negative (and some things are certainly negative) a reason to cheer. Anyone not against it outright is a fool.
I volunteered last year to try to defend the TA against people who would distort it. You were far stronger, started earlier, and you prevailed. It's fine, because the TA was rejected by the pilots fair and square. The process taught us all what to look for, however, and I think the lurker is informed enough to recognize the pattern, and the prodigal poster. Welcome back. |
Perhaps Bucking can give some insight on the following potential issues regaring scope:
1) Isn't Alitalia (AZ) leaving SkyTeam in 2017? If that is the case, what effect does their exit have on these discussions/ratios? 2) Isn't it possible that the whole JV alliance could pull back Trans-Atlantic flying and thereby we could still be above 46.5% (i.e., 47.5% of a smaller combined EASK pool) and thus not trigger the 650,000 hr floor? 3) Have the company and DALPA agreed on a remedy should the company not be in compliance with the 46.5% floor and/or the block hour floor? Thanks... |
Good questions.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:54 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands