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?

Sorry, it's a possible 2% loss (4% is misleading) with a global block hour floor minimum of 650,000. Our current contract is a minimum of 48.5% period. Not 50.5%. So we are allowing a 2% reduction. At what the company is currently flying, Dalpa says to get to 46.5% would be a reduction of one flight a day and the block hour floor would be effective. As I've said before, I wish it was higher but I'm not willing to "throw the baby out with the bath water" on this one. Yes, it favors the Company but we got something new established in return and maybe in the future we can expand upon it.

Denny

Dude, sure does seem that you are screaming into the wilderness on here. A lot. And kind of with great anger.

Sure, the deal isn't perfect...but when a JP Morgan analyst is putting out a research note that basically says "SHHHHHH everyone they might vote it in"....I tend to think we did ok here.

That's fair. We definitely do disagree. And I'm guessing we both really sincerely think we're advocating the best thing for the Delta pilots.

Every year, we keep going further and further above the NB ratios set in C2012. By leaving NB Scope alone, we are also not moving our back-stops up behind our actual level of flying. You're going ballistic over lowering the allowance slightly on the WB end (although there is zero indication we're actually cutting back the flying, so zero job losses), and yet you're not seeing that we're leaving the current 88's and future C-Series backstopped by an increasingly large (and therefore useless) margin above the protected ratio, because we failed to reach a deal on the RJ's. You are literally not seeing the forest from the trees.

Seems to me you are equating Scope with winning, and growth, while people with a bit more experience view it as protection. I see: a) the WB Scope is acceptable but not phenomenal, and b) the NB Scope in this TA is a probable miss, but a popular miss. The reps wanted to make a stand on the RJ's, they got what they wanted, so who am I to complaint?

If something happens that kills demand, I've seen the movie before, and I have the feeling we're going to miss the increased ratios, and have many an occasion to despise those zombie 50-seaters. As they said in the Princess Bride, there's dead, and then there's mostly dead.

Sincerely,

Sink r8
Former Black-shirted Brute Squad Thug

If that's all it is, why not go up that one round trip? What's a round trip between friends? Why is our "half" always the bare minimum allowable by contract, and even then sometimes less? What is so special about AF/KLM that they always get to do more than the spirit and intent of what was originally agreed to?

I'm not talking about a softening market resulting in less demand. That is irrelevant. I'm talking about our share of whatever that amount ends up being. Half is 50%, not 48.5% and dam sure not 46.5% and you know they'll try to push lower for the next one :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Or...we shifted flying somewhere else while the JV partners stayed the same or reduced less, thereby shifting the percentages. If you don't have the raw numbers you're just ranting.