|
Originally Posted by georgetg
(Post 1215911)
Yes,
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 ... and I agree. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1216119)
From what I am hearing he is just waiting to comense his go it alone plan. He has learned from Beadford et al as well.
The financing line of credit could also just be for his share of the new large rj's. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1216128)
To ensure I understand your post; you don't like the expansion of the compliance window ...
... and I agree. Not to mention that the next snapshot will occur during a global trough anyway, thus rendering our 49.75% of the pie much lower for our one big day in an almost 6 year period? And all to theoretically split the extra 2% AZ brought to the table? No, we would never agree to that. Someone please explain how I'm misunderstanding this (sincerely) because there's no way we could ever agree to that so I must have it misunderstood. |
Originally Posted by zoomiezombie
(Post 1216006)
I guess the member of the Negotiating Committee that briefed the scope section is not sufficiently expert enough for me to cite him in this discussion? What about TimO? I spoke to him too. It was hard. His time was monopolized by one first officer that occupied a lot of the Q&A and much of TimO's time afterward.
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. monitoring where we stand in current JVs isn't the job of the NC... Sam and Desi are the subject matter experts on the state of the Transatlantic JV. I agree with you, getting the same share of flying as Delta's share of profit/revenue seems like a great deal. On the other hand, my opinion of "fair share" for the Transatlantic JV, might be different from yours. Making twice the capacity cuts than the JV partner means Delta pilots shoulder twice the capacity cuts compared to AFKLM/AZ. I don't consider that setup "quite favorable to us," or "fair," but that's just my opinion... We currently have no legally enforceable "production balance" for the Transatlantic JV because Section 1.P. was modified by MOU 16. For the Transatlantic JV, the compliance window opened April 1, 2011 and closes March 31, 2014. In 2014 we measure and Delta has until March 31, 2015 to bring us in compliance. Cheers George P.S. Sounds like that FO in SLC was out of line... |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1216128)
To ensure I understand your post; you don't like the expansion of the compliance window ...
... and I agree. There are fractures in the JV leadership on the subject of capacity constraint. RA is on the side of constraint and PHG on the side of market share. We are caught in the middle without any legally enforceable protections. Cheers George |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1216105)
Reread all of section 1 in the TA.
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. It is possible and not unheard of in this business to make strategic decisions that aren't financially beneficial in the short-term...that is to say, the larger long-term goal might benefit from a short-term tactic that isn't economically beneficial. Cheers George |
Originally Posted by zoomiezombie
(Post 1216000)
You misunderstood my question.
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. I did misunderstand your question, to a degree, I think... When I read what your response was to George, I got the impression that you were not believing that a person could buy a Delta ticket (and that it was not in Delta's best interest to sell them that ticket) to go from any number of domestic cities and fly to any number of international cities - without ever getting on a Delta jet. You seemed to want to back this up with what you heard at a road show. I wish we Delta pilots were actually in that situation... Why are we the pilots of last resort? Why would we give up more leverage with this TA? Why would we facilitate a merger so inexpensively just to stagnate longer? You aren't a frequent poster, so my assumption is you are a DALPA salesman. If you are here to learn and debate, welcome. If you are here to hardsell a weak TA with anonymous webboard impunity, good luck. |
Wow, the latest NNP is the most rich of the bunch. It's so ridiculous. At least we know SF,PG,SP etc are making poor use of there FPL as they convert the info on this site to nonesensical NNP to get this TA pushed through.
One of many gabing holes.... NNP Sales Group: Q3 The CEO of Republic Airlines was quoted as saying that the new Bombardier C series aircraft could “fit into a global alliance as (a low-cost carrier) component to a broader North American strategy for a SkyTeam or Star or oneworld." Is this true? A3 That CEO’s theoretical proposed use of Bombardier C series aircraft is simply not allowed under the terms of the Delta PWA. These aircraft could be flown by Delta pilots for Delta Air Lines but they could not be operated as Delta Connection flights since the Bombardier C Series aircraft would not be a permitted aircraft type (76 seats and below and weight limitations) under the PWA. If these aircraft were flown by a DCI carrier but in service for another airline, the PWA would prohibit them from being placed on routes that compete with Delta mainline service or from causing mainline block hours to decrease. Simple, pull airplanes off a route for a specified amount of time and whaala it is no longer a "competing route". |
PS- You ever get the feeling when you read these NNP's the guy writing them is "cooking the data", twisting it and omitting items to make the case? It sure smells that way.....
https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/im...NCOUlxbsHqZczg |
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
(Post 1216214)
Wow, the latest NNP is the most rich of the bunch. It's so ridiculous. At least we know SF,PG,SP etc are making poor use of there FPL as they convert the info on this site to nonesensical NNP to get this TA pushed through.
One of many gabing holes.... Anybody here ever observe what two airlines do in preparation for a merger to get antitrust approval? Simple, pull airplanes off a route for a specified amount of time and whaala it is no longer a "competing route". I read the same document and came away with a different conclusion. There is an unbelievable amount of mis-information being passed around as truth (much of it on this website.) I saw this NNP as an attempt to correct some of the many half-truths or outright lies so guys can make a decision on the TA based on the facts, not web-board rhetoric from those with an agenda. When you're paranoid everybody is out to get you. It doesn't have to be like that. Your position would be greatly enhanced if you didn't blindly swing at EVERYTHING that disagrees with how you want this to go down. Some of the best posts on here are from NO voters or potential NO-voters (Bar's recent well-thought posts come to mind.) Just because you don't like what the other side is saying doesn't mean they're lying. We could whittle this thing down and argue over why you think each and every excruciating sentence in the NNP is a "waste of FPL" (your assertion) but it's already clear that you won't acknowledge a fact if it's right in front of you, unless it aligns with your hope for how this thing turns out. I write this, not to pick a fight, but to illuminate the fact that you snap at everything that's not rabidly anti-ALPA or anti-TA. Take a deep breath. It will all be over in 8 more days, one way or the other. My suggestion for your happiness: 1. Vote NO 2. Go outside and enjoy the nice day |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:36 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands