Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - C15 FAQs 16-01 (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/97720-c15-faqs-16-01-a.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by zippinbye (Post 2223370)

Convenient way to pose the question. If you ask it like that, the literal answer is indeed "zero." The real question is "how many jobs would be associated" (with diminished share of JV flying). Stating that the slack is taken up elsewhere detracts from the reality of lost job opportunities directly attached to our level of JV participation. It's concerning to me that this particular question and answer seems to purposefully sidestep what's on our minds; the number of jobs tied to each unit measure of Delta pilots' participation in the JV. More jobs is better. Hoping to find replacement flying to a makeup for lost JV flying is no way to protect our pilot force. The twist in this Q & A feels reminiscent of the MD team salesmanship in the TA1 roadshows. Red flag!

I agree. This is exactly right. Don't worry about losing these jobs. We promise we will try to find other ones for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Free Bird (Post 2223037)

The contract specifically says "widebody" ASK's in regards in the Virgin Atlantic JV. Hope I'm wrong, it seems like a giant hole in out contract that will bite us in the a$$ eventually.

Hmmmm. Bar what say you?

If this is true and they can indeed do this, regardless of if it happens or not, we need to fire any and all lawyers responsible for the insufficient language and pursue clawbacks of compensation previously rendered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikea72580 (Post 2222219)

I continue to be frustrated by the MEC publishing biased information that in some cases is purporting incorrect information to be FACTS.

Example- Scope TAJV

Q: How many jobs are we losing in the drop of compliance?

A: Zero jobs will be lost.

Then, below they make the following statement.

"To quantify, worst case scenario, the Company could decrease about 1 transatlantic roundtrip/day from current levels."

Soo......giving up 1 round trip per day would not result in job loses?

Are we operating drones to Europe on 1 round trip/day? Can anyone help me understand how this Q & A is NOT false.

I'm also wondering why they are comparing our CURRENT level of flying to the new proposed TA language without even a mention that our CURRENT level of flying is out of compliance, TA2012: 48.5% CURRENT: 47.7%.
If the purpose of this FAQ email is to help us understand the difference between the current REQUIRED level and the proposed REQUIRED level, why are they using a baseline of the "Out of Compliance" level of flying for comparison? Does anyone else feel like you are being mislead by that inappropriate comparison?

And to clarify, if 47.7%(current actual level) to 46.5%(proposed required level) = 1.2% change is equavilant to 1 transatlantic round trip/day then wouldn't the current TA2012 REQUIRED level of 48.5% to the 46.5% (proposed level) be closer to a daily loss of 2 transatlantic roundtrips/day?

How can we lose these flights and not experience job losses?

Anyone?

We can lose those flights. The company is actually adding 3 new flights to Europe next year so depending on what AF/KLM does will probably be over the 48.5% level.
If you lose actual jobs depends on a bunch of factors. Are the airframes moved to other markets. Would the company have kept the flying and purchased other airframes for other markets. What additional flights does AF/KLM add. Does AK/KLM continue to downsize equipment while Delta upsizes. Does AF/KLM downsize overall. That one would wipe away our floor faster then anything posted. The 650000 would be our only protection in that case.
In the end we could potentially lose a couple of flights to that section. There are rumors that AF wants out of the A380 business as part of a restructuring. That would have a far greater impact on our floor then this contract change. I suspect politics will block them from parking the airframes however if Airbus announces a end to A380 production the political aspect might go away with the airframes.
We stuck with EASK as our primary driver of Atlantic flying so we will live or die by it. In the end the number of jobs we have over the pond will come down to the European economy far more then anything contractual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BtoA (Post 2222760)

Thank god you guys selling the last TA as a win didn't work. I hope it doesn't work this time either. I want a raise, but this is not the way to do it.

Turn out the lights the party is over!

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 2224114)

In the end the number of jobs we have over the pond will come down to the European economy far more then anything contractual.

You're blurring the lines here though.

Yes, of course, if EU tanks and the economics of it require a huge pull down, we will lose some EU flying and EU flying related DL pilot jobs. That's common sense.

However, what we better make dam sure doesn't happen, is that whatever happens in the EU economically, we get our fair share of whatever amount of flying is left over.

That's the point. This bull butter about how there was a necessary downsizing and sovereign almighty Air France refused to play isn't going to work. They can do whatever they want, however we need to aggressively pursue crushing and instant injunctions ripping anything they need to pull down for DL to be in compliance with our PWA out of SkyTeam. They can do what they want, but if they are X number of EASKs fat, then we either add to match or we remove that amount from the code.