Could plan B be new code share with Skywest??
06-20-2012 | 07:08 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
I too was at the SLC roadshow...
The experts on this, Sam and Desi weren't there, but I did get a chance to bring up this very subject when I spoke with Tim O'Malley after the roadshow.
From your explanation I'm not sure you are aware of where we stand in the Transatlantic JV, especially considering your choice of words about our share of flying and how and why the new additional JV language (1.E.8) is quite different from the Transatlantic JV language (1.P).
As for the flights, I searched today on delta.com, the date of flight is in the picture...
Cheers
George
The experts on this, Sam and Desi weren't there, but I did get a chance to bring up this very subject when I spoke with Tim O'Malley after the roadshow.
From your explanation I'm not sure you are aware of where we stand in the Transatlantic JV, especially considering your choice of words about our share of flying and how and why the new additional JV language (1.E.8) is quite different from the Transatlantic JV language (1.P).
As for the flights, I searched today on delta.com, the date of flight is in the picture...
Cheers
George
06-20-2012 | 07:36 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,724
Likes: 0
From: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Did anything come of your conversation with O'Malley? I worry about the things everyone brings up, but when I have a chance to question a rep or NC I can't articulate what I am concerned with! What I'm getting at is I sure would have liked to be there during that conversation to get both sides of the story...
The language we have in the PWA for the Transatlantic JV (absent the 1P.4 modifications made by MOU 16) is by far the best thing we have in terms of scope and upside/downside protection, yet the status quo of our current Transatlantic JV is untenable...
Cheers
George
06-20-2012 | 07:40 PM
#23
Banned
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
From: Space Shuttle PIC
georgetg,
I was at the roadshow in SLC and asked a scope expert about this type of thing. Let me try and reproduce what I was told:
In your example, the passenger on the Alaska flight would not generate any revenue for Delta (that's what is called a prorate agreement...there's no incentive for Delta to route people that way unless it's much more convenient for the passenger).
With regard to the AirFrance flight, Delta gets the same share of revenue as if they had flown it. That's why a JV of this type is called "metal neutral".
So that type of JV could really jeopardize our jobs. Which is why it's so critical that we have a production balance. That is what we have in the Atlantic JV. We have to generate our fair share of the capacity. It is that same share that Delta gets of the revenue in the Atlantic JV.
The new TA contains a requirement for the company to come to a similar production balancing arrangement in any future JV. Presently our contract only says they will meet with us. The new JV puts up a backstop if an agreement is never arrived at.
When I imagine a JV with Korean Air and Virgin Australia I am mortified at how exposed we are without the language in this new TA.
For me, I'd vote yes on this TA just for the scope. The pay raises could be more, but the job protections are the main selling point for me. C2K taught me what happens when you have great pay rates and not enough job protections.
BTW, I tried to look up those flights on delta.com but the site wouldn't give me the flight combinations you got...did you enter specific parameters?
I was at the roadshow in SLC and asked a scope expert about this type of thing. Let me try and reproduce what I was told:
In your example, the passenger on the Alaska flight would not generate any revenue for Delta (that's what is called a prorate agreement...there's no incentive for Delta to route people that way unless it's much more convenient for the passenger).
With regard to the AirFrance flight, Delta gets the same share of revenue as if they had flown it. That's why a JV of this type is called "metal neutral".
So that type of JV could really jeopardize our jobs. Which is why it's so critical that we have a production balance. That is what we have in the Atlantic JV. We have to generate our fair share of the capacity. It is that same share that Delta gets of the revenue in the Atlantic JV.
The new TA contains a requirement for the company to come to a similar production balancing arrangement in any future JV. Presently our contract only says they will meet with us. The new JV puts up a backstop if an agreement is never arrived at.
When I imagine a JV with Korean Air and Virgin Australia I am mortified at how exposed we are without the language in this new TA.
For me, I'd vote yes on this TA just for the scope. The pay raises could be more, but the job protections are the main selling point for me. C2K taught me what happens when you have great pay rates and not enough job protections.
BTW, I tried to look up those flights on delta.com but the site wouldn't give me the flight combinations you got...did you enter specific parameters?
06-21-2012 | 04:17 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
From: 73 lifer
It never entered my mind that he photoshopped anything.
I was trying to duplicate the weird result he got in the SEA market; and I looked for this type of thing in other markets. I couldn't get the website to return those kind of results. I was asking for his help so I could conduct my own experiments.
06-21-2012 | 04:24 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
From: 73 lifer
I too was at the SLC roadshow...
The experts on this, Sam and Desi weren't there, but I did get a chance to bring up this very subject when I spoke with Tim O'Malley after the roadshow.
From your explanation I'm not sure you are aware of where we stand in the Transatlantic JV, especially considering your choice of words about our share of flying and how and why the new additional JV language (1.E.8) is quite different from the Transatlantic JV language (1.P).
As for the flights, I searched today on delta.com, the date of flight is in the picture...
Cheers
George
The experts on this, Sam and Desi weren't there, but I did get a chance to bring up this very subject when I spoke with Tim O'Malley after the roadshow.
From your explanation I'm not sure you are aware of where we stand in the Transatlantic JV, especially considering your choice of words about our share of flying and how and why the new additional JV language (1.E.8) is quite different from the Transatlantic JV language (1.P).
As for the flights, I searched today on delta.com, the date of flight is in the picture...
Cheers
George
What language choice did I use that suggests a lack of understanding of the JV?
Or do you just disagree when I say "fair share"? That's not a lack of understanding; it's opinion. I think generating roughly half the capacity and over 65% of the pilot block hours (jobs) is quite favorable to us in that N.Atlantic JV.
06-21-2012 | 05:30 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,899
Likes: 219
They could attempt to code share for skyteam. It would be almost impossible however for many reasons. One of the first is that Delta is the dominant member of skyteam and the situation would put them in direct conflict and competition with Delta. I can see no way Delta would not oppose this and control the situation since there is no upside for Delta and would lead to a large reduction in revenue.
The next reason is that it would be cost prohibitive for Skywest to do this. There are simply no facilities and slots available at most of our international airports to support proper connecting banks with the international departures. You need both gates and slots in order to make this work. You also get very inefficient scheduling of your assets to time with international connecting banks.
This is another tilting at windmills thread caused by a desperate CEO's comments at Republic.
If however you do fear this type of situation despite the lac of logic in what is posted then I am sure you are a solid yes voter since the TA has far more protections in this area.
06-21-2012 | 07:19 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Likes: 0
They could attempt to code share for skyteam. It would be almost impossible however for many reasons. One of the first is that Delta is the dominant member of skyteam and the situation would put them in direct conflict and competition with Delta. I can see no way Delta would not oppose this and control the situation since there is no upside for Delta and would lead to a large reduction in revenue.
The next reason is that it would be cost prohibitive for Skywest to do this. There are simply no facilities and slots available at most of our international airports to support proper connecting banks with the international departures. You need both gates and slots in order to make this work. You also get very inefficient scheduling of your assets to time with international connecting banks.
This is another tilting at windmills thread caused by a desperate CEO's comments at Republic.
If however you do fear this type of situation despite the lac of logic in what is posted then I am sure you are a solid yes voter since the TA has far more protections in this area.
The next reason is that it would be cost prohibitive for Skywest to do this. There are simply no facilities and slots available at most of our international airports to support proper connecting banks with the international departures. You need both gates and slots in order to make this work. You also get very inefficient scheduling of your assets to time with international connecting banks.
This is another tilting at windmills thread caused by a desperate CEO's comments at Republic.
If however you do fear this type of situation despite the lac of logic in what is posted then I am sure you are a solid yes voter since the TA has far more protections in this area.
If its "not a problem" and management has no intention of exploiting they wont mind crossing out a few lines and adding a few others to plug the holes in the contract. This TA does not do that.
06-21-2012 | 08:06 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,899
Likes: 219
We can't however write items in our contract binding on Air France. The section one TA makes sure however that its almost impossible for Delta to consider it. There is zero upside for Delta to attempt to farm out this flying and no economical way under the TA for Delta to do it.
06-21-2012 | 08:17 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,845
Likes: 197
From: window seat
So if the TA closes the "Republic loophole" (except for Republic...?) then theoretically if [when] arrogant SkyWest tries such an act of insolence, DL will be required to fire them? Right?
But wait, how will we enforce it, because SKYW didn't agree to that and has pre-existing contracts that DL would have to terminate early? Supposedly there are massive penalties that make it disasterous for DL to do so...I don't believe it because I thought the vast majority of the penalties were the leases, which we could just dole out to other back stabber DCI carriers that would trip all over themselves and deal aces for the "growth" planes, but that's what some people keep saying...so if true then DL would be stuck with them even if they violated our TA, which was signed long after their CPA's.
So which is it?
I'd almost be tempted to vote for the TA just to put Atkin in his place when that dellusional IndyAir wannabe bites off WAY more than he can chew. That is, if I thought it was enforceable on our end.
But wait, how will we enforce it, because SKYW didn't agree to that and has pre-existing contracts that DL would have to terminate early? Supposedly there are massive penalties that make it disasterous for DL to do so...I don't believe it because I thought the vast majority of the penalties were the leases, which we could just dole out to other back stabber DCI carriers that would trip all over themselves and deal aces for the "growth" planes, but that's what some people keep saying...so if true then DL would be stuck with them even if they violated our TA, which was signed long after their CPA's.
So which is it?
I'd almost be tempted to vote for the TA just to put Atkin in his place when that dellusional IndyAir wannabe bites off WAY more than he can chew. That is, if I thought it was enforceable on our end.
06-21-2012 | 08:20 AM
#30
Happy to be here
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
So if the TA closes the "Republic loophole" (except for Republic...?) then theoretically if [when] arrogant SkyWest tries such an act of insolence, DL will be required to fire them? Right?
Bit wait, how will we enforce it, because SKYW didn't agree to that and has pre-existing contracts that DL would have to terminate early? Supposedly there are massive penalties that make it disasterous for DL to do so...I don't believe it because I thought the vast majority of the penalties were the leases, which we could just dole out to other back stabber DCI carriers that would trip all over themselves and deal aces for the "growth" planes, but that's what some people keep saying...so if true then DL would be stuck with them even if they violated our TA, which was signed long after their CPA's.
So which is it?
I'd almost be tempted to vote for the TA just to put Atkin in his place when that dellusional IndyAir wannabe bites off WAY more than he can chew. That is, if I thought it was enforceable on our end.
Bit wait, how will we enforce it, because SKYW didn't agree to that and has pre-existing contracts that DL would have to terminate early? Supposedly there are massive penalties that make it disasterous for DL to do so...I don't believe it because I thought the vast majority of the penalties were the leases, which we could just dole out to other back stabber DCI carriers that would trip all over themselves and deal aces for the "growth" planes, but that's what some people keep saying...so if true then DL would be stuck with them even if they violated our TA, which was signed long after their CPA's.
So which is it?
I'd almost be tempted to vote for the TA just to put Atkin in his place when that dellusional IndyAir wannabe bites off WAY more than he can chew. That is, if I thought it was enforceable on our end.
The financing line of credit could also just be for his share of the new large rj's.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
