Flying airplane safely from point A to B is the pilots job. Making network decisions as to where we fly, the frequency and the size of aircraft that is managements job. I don't believe AF, KLM and AZ are cheaper operations than Delta so it would not help Delta to do all their flying. This is not the same as regional feed. Anyway if the JV scope has been changed in a way that you can't accept the no vote is your right. I myself think the overall package (haven't read it all yet in sufficient detail) is a win. I think this TA meets the threshold for the YES vote.

No. it's not a rant. We did exactly that. It is a violation of our contract. If the JV partners can fly those routes, then so can we. Otherwise, other airlines are flying our pax. Agreeing to a JV with 50% then allowing them to drop almost 5% while just promising to keep global numbers the same is not a win.

.
You are as uninformed as you are consistent.
.
The primary driver of us being contractually non-compliant over the Atlantic was Air France's decision, several years ago, to add multiple A-380s to the trans-atlantic mix. Our network dept., faced with declining Atlantic traffic, wisely held our Atlantic fleet status quo. The result was that our share of EASKs went down.
.
We have no "control" over AF's fleet decisions but the Company decided it would cost more to add unneeded capacity in the face of declining loads than to litigate the contractual under-performance later. (and BTW, Air France has continued to struggle to fill their A-380s and recently declined to accept the last tranche of firm order A-380s they were slated to receive)

So, although our EASK production ratio was sub-contractual several years ago, the main reason was that our "partner" over-produced their share of EASKs. We did not reduce our flying in that theater 5%.
.
Talk to Network if you want corroboration or confirmation of the above. They will actually take the time to explain it to you.
.

I am a yes vote but this is an excellent point. Obviously DAL views Large Jet Scope more as guidelines than rules. :D

Scoop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GMkuPiIZ2k

Delta currently is interested in outsourcing large aircraft flying....And has done more of it than any company in history.....why stop now when you are on a roll!!!?????

Isn't it strange that over the Atlantic where the JV being discussed is centered we have more flights then any other airline!

and lots of flights in smaller lower paying equipment...Block hour worshiping extended, why not use 737 s to Shannon and Keflavik and a host of other points....better yet The C series on etops.....

the 'uberization' of air travel? :D

The facts however show that we have substantially upsized the overall equipment in Europe.

This deal provides some protection against 737/A321 across the Atlantic. Perfect, certainly not, but more than we currently have which is zero protection.

And tremendous downsizing of equipment in the Asia Pacific region...

So GLOBAL protection is bad... why???

Clean socks are good too. Would you give up a couple trans atlantic flights a day to get free company issue clean socks?

Of course global protection is good. The issue is how much protection are we talking about, and what did we sacrifice to get it?

Forgiving an imbalance that was supposed to be 50% (it was never supposed to be 48.5% that was merely the worst case absolute floor bottom that ended up being the goal which ended up being the ceiling after we fell through it) in exchange for protecting less global block hours than we currently fly is far from the slam dunk win you're making it out to be.

I've advocated for both EASK and BH protections, as well as global. This isn't very good at any of those things. I'd rate it as a net negative were it not for the hard 2 year period replacing the asinine, pathetically negotiated unlimited bottom 3+1 plan we were on before. That is actually a very nice win, and the 757 and wide only protection is great too...provided VA or whoever can't sneak in narrow bodies under the radar, which I haven't got to the bottom on yet.

So does the 2 year hard balance equate to or exceed the unlimited 4 year cycle of abuse we were on before? Given that its a 2% cut we're looking at, it actually might, since I'd rather be at 46.5% every year than 40, 42, 37, 49 cycle under the current system. It still sucks we can't get a fair share every single year though. I guess half only means half for foreign airlines for some reason.

Our protection is inadequate especially in the Pacific...

and YOUR solution is?

.
His solution no doubt involves 747s. Lots of 747s. Daily. To everywhere.

( you do know he was a 747 Capt for 17 yrs (!?!!) before demotion? Just ask him. Or pls don't. )
.

Been here 2x years/35 years old. Obviously scope has big impact on people like me.... It seems crystal clear to me the company is going to immediately drop to 46.5% right off that bat.... It's been said that a 2% reduction = 1 daily RT PER DAY... That seems like a lot of flying to me. Does anyone have the data to convert "2%" into an actual number of left and right seat WB jobs? Those actual numbers may resonate/paint a better picture. Thanks.

Maybe a backbone. Is that considered a major one now?

A backbone is a pretty tall order here....the tradition of concessing and declaring victory is habitual.

facts!?....Don't provide him with facts, he's been ****ed ever since they pried him out of the whale!! I wonder if he tells the other captains on his airplane they're 2nd and 3rd class citizens...:rolleyes:

It seems crystal clear to me that they will not.

Says the guy at the top of the food chain.... and has been there for 17 years.

Then why was it a hard core, must have, key to "unlock the gains"?

I already posted the numbers and source document references here on APC. However, I'm not going to repeat them time after time because I do not at all think Delta will "immediately drop to 46.5% right off the bat."

First, this is a ratio. So you need "crystal clear" insight into the productivity of Air France, KLM and Alitalia to make your statement. Further, you must have a confidence in their ability to execute capacity control that I've not seen in the last 5 years of watching them.

The company's problems with compliance are three-fold:
(1) Network management runs Delta's capacity to maximize profit. Scope compliance is not a goal and barely on their radar. ALPA has been slowing moving, with prodding from folks like me, towards more effective proactive engagement with the company. We always have the grievance process and will enforce our contract. "Proactive engagement" has a bad name around here, politically (even though it is the best way to ensure compliance on the front end) and ALPA is a political animal.
(2) Delta has little influence (much less control) over AF/KLM/AZ in as tight a range as the pilot working agreement specifies.
(3) Air France/KLM are on the run from low-cost carriers and the ME3. In desperation, they've been trying to escape to the "white spots" on the ME3's route maps ... North and South America.

Ryanair leadership openly state that Air France/KLM are a dead man walking. We shall see, but IMHO they've got some real serious problems that they might not be able to deal with given the competitive landscape in Europe.

Pre-merger 2011 747 Capt rates < TA15 737 FO rates w/ profit sharing, or 76-5 FO rates clean (w/O PS). Or, anther way of looking at this is that your pay rates have increased by 73%, PLUS Profit Sharing, which should result in a more than 100% raise in 4 years over your pre-merger contract. I get the "I hate all things Delta" club but pick your battles man.

We don't need to say "NO" just to maintain our street cred while being paid less than just about everyone else in the industry.

No, I'm not uninformed. What you describe is still a violation of our contract. If you enter into a deal with JV partners and your contracted employees, it is on you to make sure you can meet your obligations. Having a 'rogue' JV partner add airplanes to the routes does not relieve them of the obligation to meet the contractual obligations they entered into with us.

I don't care if it was a good idea or bad idea to violate our contract in their mind. They did not come to us and ask us if it was ok. We have not been paid an adequate grievance for the violation. You cannot tell me how many jobs we did not gain because somebody's A380 was flying across the water without our pilots on board.

It's a contract or it is not a contract.

I believe you see it correctly.

Bucking bar points out some of the reasons the company was out of compliance. In addition we lost several high EASK flights for reasons beyond the control of Delta or AF. Kiev, Amman, Cairo, Istanbul were lost to wars, revolutions and terrorism.
Despite all that the company is on track to meet the 48.5% minimum in the current contract. Keep in mind that in terms of actual flying that gives us 55% of the block hours.
If I were a pilot with two years at Delta I would be far more concerned with the fact we have virtually no narrow body protections. We had a opportunity to make some solid gains however the union got cowed by social media and let that slip through their fingers. They felt and correctly so that the pilot group would perceive it as a loss. As the maddogs age combined with another economic downturn we may find we really rue that choice.

You can go on the DALPA website and read the JV grievance settlement. It lays out the job loss.

NWA 747 captain pay at the merger. 178 an hour. No PS and 0 to minimal DC.
1 Jan 2017. 747 CA
Pay. 330.00
DC. 53.00
PS@20% 66.00
DC on PS 10.00

New Compensation total: $459.00 per hour.
Not to mention more soft money and major improvements in QOL contractual items since then.
I know you have been cast down off Mount Olympus and now have to fly with mere mortals so you will only be around 420.00 per hour.
Let's not forget funding into your DB pension plan at hundreds of million dollars to insure you actually get paid that in retirement.
Your life has been hell since the merger!

Wow, 178 an hour.

Some would say using laser guided munitions isn't fair. Too much reliance on objective data instead of feelings.

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.f...h3ae.jpg?w=625

Scored as a direct hit.

Agreed with two of your three points. The company violated the contract and the compromise settlement was just that, a "compromise settlement." There was a significant risk of the adjudication being less, even zero. For the company there was a risk of the adjudication being more. It was a compromise and that compromise was the largest scope grievance settlement in history.

Contract Admin published a great deal of data on the effect on jobs, which if the company had hired for those positions was 60 positions made up of 20 Captains and 40 First Officers.

We still have the 48.5% measurement metric which now triggers a new Global BH protection which is 75,000 Widebody BH more than what is currently protected by the Virgin agreement (although that agreement measures in ASK, not BH).

You are right on a great many of your points. I would just encourage you to make your best case and not dilute your message with hyperbole and exaggeration. The data is there to support you and your support for good scope is appreciated by all Delta pilots.

How is 30,000 hours roughly 1 flight a day across the Atlantic?

10hr flight, 2x for round trip, = 20 hours

20 x 365 = 7300 hours

Someone please correct me. Seems more like 4 long round trip flights (SLC-CDG etc.) These aren't pilot block hours are they? That would get us closer by 3x.

Your confusing the EASK minimums with world wide block hour protections.

I am not. I have already made the assumption that the lower ratio is not being met. I was told the 650,000 hour floor is essentially 1 trans Atlantic flight below the current level of flying. (680,000)

How am I confusing the two? How many transatlantic trips could disappear if management complies with the 650,000 global hour requirement versus our current operation of about 680,000 hours? That is a reduction of 30,000 hours. I am trying to understand the DALPA claim of only a reduction of 1 trans Atlantic flight. If we operate the flying else where fine but the 30,000 hour reduction comes out of our present operations and that's way more than 1 flight anywhere.

Give it a whirl, I'll wait.

From contract FAQ's:

Last year the Transatlantic Block Hours constituted about 390,000 hours out of a total of about 687,000 international hours.

and,

Over the last 12 months, Delta has maintained 47.7% EASKs.

So, ... a little rough math:

390,000/47.7 = 8,176 hours = 1%

A further 1.2% drop from 47.7 to 46.5% = 1.2% reduction in TA block hours.

1.2 x 8176 = 9,811 hrs per year.

9,811/365 = 26.8 hrs/day

26.8 hrs/day = 8.9 hrs per pilot per day for a three man crew.

That may be a little off, but like the previous poster has said, the 30,000 hours relates to the Global block hour floor, not the transatlantic JV hours.

Hope that helps.

Simple, they can drop from the current 47.7 to 46.5. Depending on length and size of equipment that could be one flight. Can you tell me where this DALPA claim is?

This from the Contact FAQ's, Section 1 - Scope:

"Over the last 12 months, Delta has maintained 47.7% EASKs. In the event they drop to 46.5%, it is a 1.2 percentage point drop from TAJV current levels. To quantify, worst case the company could decrease about 1 transatlantic roundtrip/day from current levels. "