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?

 

Because we picked up widebody int'l flying in a different theater perhaps?

 

The question was how many jobs we could lose as a result of the change in compliance with the TAJV language.

Their answer was "zero".

 

My view. Overall an improvement in scope. I prefer to protect the global level of international flying. Trying to micro manage each theater is marketing's job, not ours.

And no one is mentioning the huge win in not counting A321s or 737s in the global number. A few weeks ago that was the great boogie man that we would lose all our true widebody flying. As the 7ERs and 757s are replaced we will defacto grow the amount of super widebody (330/350 etc.) flying we all desire.

Hook

 

Incorrect. They signed a contract with us that if we let other airlines fly our passengers, it would be 50/50 with us. That agreement did not say, 50/50 unless you think you can make more money flying to Japan instead. SCOPE IS YOUR JOB!!!! If you allow them to outsource your job to AF/KLM or whomever while they 'make more money' flying somewhere else, you are outsourcing your job the same way that allowing a 90 seat RJ is cheaper than putting a 717 on the route.

We lost jobs by the company not complying with our JV agreement. If there is money to be made in another theater, they have 2 options (besides reneging on our contract): Fly the JV routes and ADD (more jobs?!?) routes to the new locations; or force the JV partner to comply with the JV contract since the route is not worth flying.

Giving away our job to the lowest bidder is NOT the answer. We lost jobs. The FAQ is misleading, a half-truth, and should be fixed. I wrote my reps about it already.

I'm trying to give the MES the benefit of the doubt, but this is starting to look like a sales job similar to last years.

 

I too am in agreement with the tone of this thread, if not the degree.

The difference is probably semantics. True, no jobs are lost, but we are short jobs from where we might have been. I discuss that here:

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/2221844-post4.html

But nobody is looking at the Virgin language and seeing that we just captured at least another entire airline (Operating Certificate) which operates Widebodies and which drives our Widebody EASK growth at a 2 to 1 ratio. Why not?

Why are we so focused on the negative that we've overlooked that 1 E. 9. just nipped "Delta by Aeromexico" in the bud?

Why are we missing the new affiliate and control language which prevents certificate of convenience schemes doing an end run around our scope language (which had happened with Republic & GoJets at American)?

Another angle to this is that the man who wrote the Q&A has access to information beyond what even members of Delta's Board have. He knows the company's trade-secret fleet plans. So he literally knows things we don't know. He, and his office, are trustworthy.

 

I noticed that one, too. Another bogeyman put to rest.

 

Fear not: I'm sure there are more.

Oh, Igor, I have an errand for you...

 

How many WB pilots will be retiring? Surely, that's not considered losing a job. OTOH, if a dozen retire and only 8 backfill their positions, I think you could see the loss of opportunity. But the lawyers would be correct...No job losses.
*these numbers are hypothetical. Never known anyone on the 4th floor to have solid intel.

 

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.