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?