TAJV
 

the most important section of the contract and its reduced to a two page infographic that looks like it was done for a 200 level course. and the author obviously believes he's smarter than most of his professional colleagues.

how bout this in the infographic:
the sharks are going to dismantle us slowly over the next few iterations of negotiations if we don't turn them away now...

Excellent info. Thanks for posting.

I think the author has done a good job (excellent job with the graphics) but would respectfully suggest a couple of edits:

Overall - this is not the most important part of the changes in Section 1. The redefinition of "Virgin" is potentially more important. 1 E. 9. is more important. This is getting top billing because it is perceived as a "give" ... lets loop back around to that.

Edits on the Con side
(1) Allows Delta and its partnersslightly more ability to flex in trans-Atlantic flying
(2) A small increase in partner flying, or small decrease in our flying will trigger the block hour protection (Should be a PRO)
(3) Global Block Hour floor, if triggered, could protect Pacific and South America flying (PRO)

Add neutral (or PRO) comments:
(1) Limits are very close to current status quo

Now we come to the part everyone is asking, but nobody seems particularly sure of. The problems calculating this in terms of jobs and money is that we are measuring a ratio - which depends on the performance of Delta and 3 other airlines. So, to make an apples to apples comparison, you must first nail down a time window to measure and admit that the data has already changed since your last measure. Scope is a proactive tool, requiring a lot of strategic thought - where are we going?

Strategically, our partners AF/KLM/AZ are in trouble. They have low- cost competitors in the EU and heavily subsidized ME3 predators eating their global network. They have run to the trans-Atlantic market for safety (taking advantage of the market we have created by restraining capacity, fighting flags of convenience and ME3 carriers). Delta has only limited input on what the trans-Atlantic partners do (and sometimes they have had very open disagreements). The variable Delta can't control is partner flying (within a range that is much looser tan our PWA).

So, if we were to assume a static environment based on the measure period from 2012 to 2014 I could show that going from a 48.5% EASK share to 46.5% EASK share lost XX jobs. However, we were not flying 48.5%, we flew ~47.1%. The difference from 47.1% to 48.5% was published (Contract Awareness Bulletin 15-07) as 60 jobs; 20 Captain, 40 FO. BUT the company did not cut staffing during that period (and obviously the amount of partner flying as they ran to the trans-Atlantic and we ran to South America does not change our staffing. Staffing was maintained by International Block Hours).

A DPA Executive Chairman of Hyperbole & SM Exaggeration might extrapolate (actually they don't do math, but play along) that 1.4 to 2.0 is a 42.85% increase and guess 86 pilot jobs could be affected and 28 of those jobs might be Captain positions. These statements can not be made in isolation without knowing:

(1) Current Delta flying
(2) Current partner flying
(3) The effect of the Block Hour Floor

... and even I am having a hard time with the effect of the Block Hour floor. Let me first state - the block hour floor is an excellent downside protection - so good that I am surprised the company agreed to it. Strategically in a global downturn - Air France KLM is slower than Delta at reducing capacity, so the EASK balance will likely go out of compliance first. Then, Asia - Pacific flying is where I see the most vulnerability followed by South American flying. The Global Widebody +757 BH floor would aid us greatly in the region I believe is the most vulnerable.

By my reasoning (with no inside knowlege) is that Delta is very optimistic about Asia flying and the A350. Good for us.

Here is the chart I've asked ALPA, through our Scope Compliance Chairman to generate (what follows is not vetted, I do not even know where it came from, but it looks right)

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...90&oe=58007DA2

Great explanation hope the voters get a chance to read it.

In the name of fairness, I would like to see a graph posted that shows the trans-Atlantic flying levels of our JV partners each year.

Also, if Delta enters into **** poor agreements with its JV partners to where they have no control of the flying levels, why should the Delta pilots pay the price?

Just flip any of our charts upside-down. It is a ratio and their's is a mirror of ours. None the less, those charts are in the Scope Compliance & Analysis reports on our MEC website every quarter.

The TAJV was first initiated by NWA with KLM.

Since you want to turn this into north/south, Ken Watts enforced the PWA.

Not really. Just a point of historical fact that NWA initiated the first trans-Atlantic JV with KLM.

I like Ken. What does this have to do with him?

Contract compliance. That's all.

Is that chart title correct? It shows that TransAtlantic BHs alone (not total international) were aroung 675,000 in the June 2015 time frame.

I don't know the source of this chart or how they put it together.

Been asking ALPA to publish the data.

Well, if the chart is correct (title and all), then we're getting royally screwed with the 650,000 BH total international WB floor being proposed. I suspect the title of the chart is incorrect though. A lot of bad information floating around.

OK standby. I did some charts on this in 2014

662,443 BH Total Intl. Widebody Flying

Here are the subsets of protection inside the larger global total
576,775 Protected in Virgin Atlantic agreement
347,269 Protected by AF/KLM/AZ JV
181,424 Protected by Pacific Flying agreement (including 757)

So based on the what we know, we protected all but about 2 aircraft worth of our widebody ops, circa 2014. That pretty much aligns with the 1 city pair RT margin discussed in the NotePad (not that I doubted the notepad) but it gives some credibility to our web board SWAG.

All this does is lock in a downside floor in WB hours. If we never fly 46.5% and all the growth and current flying shifts to AF/KLM we will only be required to fly 95% of our current WB hours. This will also shift flying away from Europe. We are now forever in the minority of the JV production.

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?

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.

VA is under its own agreement separate and apart from the Bundle 1 EASK's of the AF/KLM JV.

I would recommend reading section 1 in its entirety.

Each JV agreement has its own particular rules that govern balances.

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.

Now, we have gotten a shorter observation period to get money back if the company breaks our agreement AND we protect jobs with the block hour floor...keeping current jobs we have by allowing them to be shifted into other trans oceanic markets.

That seems like a good deal to me?

Yeah, I get the EASK carve outs in the separate JVs. My exchange with BB is regarding the proposed 650,000 international BH floor.

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%.

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.

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.

Happy to help.

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.

OK, the Virgin JV is 68.02 Delta and 31.98% Virgin.

The company does what makes the most money. If Bundle 1 is profitable then I could see us increasing well over 50%. As far as I know the Air France & KLM pilots have none of the protections we do.

Right now we can grieve when they drop below 50% or the variations with the cure. The fact that we are not holding them to our contract has already cost us jobs. Putting a block hour floor that is we'll be low our already out of compliance block hours just adds insult to injury. Setting a floor that low while our company is growing only invites the company to enter into more lopsided JVs that give out flying away to others.

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.

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.

It's like a GEICO commercial. "It's what they do"

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.

To be fair, there is a trust and credibility gap right now between DALPA and the pilots. TA15 had similar information briefs put out, and in those briefs everything was presented as only positive for the pilots. So now, even with a largely new MEC, people who have zero affiliation with any opposition group (read: DPA), are spring loaded to mistrust DALPA communications on this TA. And I don't think that's unreasonable.

Rather than yelling "DPA!" at the doubters, DALPA needs to recognize that this trust/credibility gap is real, and reasonable, and work double - time to bridge it.

When the only comeback is "DPA!", it doesn't close the gap.

.
" It's in me nature. "
.

1) If AZ leaves it would trigger reset negotiations*
2) Yes
3) Yes, expedited arbitration under the RLA with remedies including injunctive relief, compensatory and possible punitive damages

* Potentially rendering this change much ado about nothing

NO, not everything is terrible. The pay rates are decent. But, we are giving up a lot of concessions for those pay rates.

The scope section is a loss for us. I'm sorry you do not agree. Without dollar signs blinding me, I see that we are selling our pay rates for scope. THAT IS NEVER THE ANSWER! I don't care what else you sell in your contract, scope should never be on the table. Get every gain you can any chance you can get, but do not give an inch on scope. THAT'S YOUR JOB! THe 2000s were terrible for this industry because of RJ scope. Ask NWA mechanics how their scope gives worked out for them. I CANNOT every agree to a sell in scope. I wish everybody saw it the same way. People complain incessantly that this company is a glorified domestic feed yet they agree to give huge concessions on JV scope. ***?

I really wanted this TA to be a win. I do not have an ulterior motive. I do not have any desires for DPA to take over or anything like that. I support my reps and tell them how much I appreciate them.

As for last year, I don't know what you are talking about. I was not allowed to even vote for the last TA. I think you have me confused with somebody else.

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?

I realize this statement runs against the common wisdom, but the con side mostly made up what they did not understand and lied about the rest. After I walked several of them through the language and their questions they acknowledged they had written bad information yet none of them returned to social media and told the truth. Worse, some of the misinformation got picked up by LEC Officers and went out as semi-official comms. (which would confuse anyone who does not understand that an LEC Rep can publish whatever they please)

ALPA's Admin published the truth. They were called "liars." The liar stuck.

This year some of the worst players on social media last year are in the ALPA administrative structure and serving the pilots quite well. John Malone's move to include and bring in some of the most vocal opponents of last year's deal has done a lot to make this year less toxic.

Those who got swept out from the old admin have taken the high ground and swore not to do to this team what this team did to them last year. We (I include myself in this group) try to focus on what is best for the Delta pilots (we are all Delta pilots).

The only party with a duty to be honest (and act as a fiduciary) is ALPA. ALPA is the only publisher with an attorney going over every word that is written.

The rest of us participate in SM for whatever motivations we have (with a lot less of an editorial process to ensure what is written is right).

Thanks for the response Bucking...

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.

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.

Sink,

Good post. I highlighted the areas where you are spot on.

Everyone seems to be overlooking the new Virgin language which captures their new off-the -main certificate operator(s) heading to leisure markets and being set up to compete with Norwegian. Our team tightened that language up so it is all counted. Then there is the 1 E. 9. protection for our brand which is absolutely critical. Also, the affiliate and control language that ensures our scope will not suffer an end run by creative managers using certificates of convenience.

These provisions are the most evolved scope language in the world right now, making our scope clearly industry leading. The "internet" does not understand or appreciate what was done here IMO.