Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Major (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/)
-   -   Transatlantic JV (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/68381-transatlantic-jv.html)

NWARet 06-26-2012 09:14 AM


Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1218968)
I think you got a little something on your nose there Bill. :eek:

Carl

http://ihasahotdog.files.wordpress.c...-and-then1.jpg

DeadHead 06-26-2012 11:24 AM


Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1219159)
The TA forbids DAL from supporting a foreign entity from purchasing us, but not from DAL purchasing a foreign entity/carrier.

Does our current TA forbid such a venture?

acl65pilot 06-26-2012 12:03 PM


Originally Posted by DeadHead (Post 1219318)
Does our current TA forbid such a venture?

Nope. Just DAL supporting someone buying us.

There are triggers in the TA and current PWA on a percentage of a foreign carrier/entity etc DAL can own before certain things happen, but there is latitude. there. There is no such direct working about a Foreign holding company that owns multiple airlines and or entities in the PWA. Not unless you make the jump that if one(holding company) owns an airline/entity that is in fact and airline and DAL has a 25% stake or greater in the holding company that our PWA would force certain mechanisms to trigger.

Also our labor contract and US labor law do not apply outside of our boarders. They do for us but not for foreign employed persons.

gloopy 06-26-2012 01:33 PM


Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1219337)
Nope. Just DAL supporting someone buying us.

There are triggers in the TA and current PWA on a percentage of a foreign carrier/entity etc DAL can own before certain things happen, but there is latitude. there. There is no such direct working about a Foreign holding company that owns multiple airlines and or entities in the PWA. Not unless you make the jump that if one(holding company) owns an airline/entity that is in fact and airline and DAL has a 25% stake or greater in the holding company that our PWA would force certain mechanisms to trigger.

Also our labor contract and US labor law do not apply outside of our boarders. They do for us but not for foreign employed persons.

Wouldn't such a transaction be covered as a JV anyway though? That is, unless the company didn't integrate even to that level, which is extremely unlikely.

acl65pilot 06-26-2012 05:09 PM


Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1219384)
Wouldn't such a transaction be covered as a JV anyway though? That is, unless the company didn't integrate even to that level, which is extremely unlikely.

Not sure it would be a JV. That is with two corporations. Not two airlines held by a holding company. Think AF KLM.

Bill Lumberg 06-26-2012 06:10 PM


Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1218991)
Not once have I advocated for flying aircraft into markets, just because.
I'll say it again: obviously flying across the Atlantic is reduced.

Delta pilots are shouldering more cuts than AFKLM/AZ pilots.

I don't think that's right.

Apparently you're fine with that.

Cheers
George

George,

I am not fine with that, but all of the current AF and KL flights were previously flown by those airlines prior to our JV. We bought the 17 AA (Ex TWA) 757-200ERs with the idea of expanding markets out of JFK to Europe, and that plane turned out not to be a good fit. Passengers didn't really like them, not enough cargo could be uplifted, etc. But, you apparently want to add flights that won't make money from the start unless it is July or August. Maybe DL was attacking CAL's once profitable EWR 757 flying, which now has been cutback too. The DL flights to Athens, BCN, MXP, used to be cut every winter before the JV. ATL to Europe flying was always reduced by half at least. The only thing I saw that did surprise me was losing JFK to FCO, which I haven't seen before, and UA/CAL is doing the same. That proves right there that this isn't a Skyteam thing, but a profit problem seen by BOTH of the top operators in NYC. But, if you want to send empty 757s to Birmingham(England), Glasgow, and Belfast, I suggest you send a request to the route planning people. Maybe that will increase our numbers? Btw, I just saw DL will have 3 daily 767s from ATL to Paris next Summer. Happy?

Bill Lumberg 06-26-2012 06:12 PM


Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1219337)
Nope. Just DAL supporting someone buying us.

There are triggers in the TA and current PWA on a percentage of a foreign carrier/entity etc DAL can own before certain things happen, but there is latitude. there. There is no such direct working about a Foreign holding company that owns multiple airlines and or entities in the PWA. Not unless you make the jump that if one(holding company) owns an airline/entity that is in fact and airline and DAL has a 25% stake or greater in the holding company that our PWA would force certain mechanisms to trigger.

Also our labor contract and US labor law do not apply outside of our boarders. They do for us but not for foreign employed persons.

I hear choppers over your house! Run!

DeadHead 06-26-2012 06:25 PM


Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg (Post 1219506)
I hear choppers over your house! Run!

Ironic since your the one telling us that we should all be fearful of plan "B" even though none us knows definitively for sure what exactly plan "B" entails.

Bill Lumberg 06-26-2012 06:30 PM


Originally Posted by DeadHead (Post 1219517)
Ironic since your the one telling us that we should all be fearful of plan "B" even though none us knows definitively for sure what exactly plan "B" entails.

Read the plan B thread. RA pretty much stated what would happen.

TheManager 06-26-2012 06:36 PM


Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg (Post 1219506)
I hear choppers over your house! Run!

Bill, don't be surprised in 3 days when the votes come in. Apparently the sample polling is too close to call. If you say what you desire to happen to yourself and others as often as you can, which you have demonstrated here, you begin to believe your own press.


In psychology, the false-consensus effect is a cognitive bias whereby a person tends to overestimate how much other people agree with him or her. There is a tendency for people to assume that their own opinions, beliefs, preferences, values and habits are 'normal' and that others also think the same way that they do.[1] This cognitive bias tends to lead to the perception of a consensus that does not exist, a 'false consensus'. This false consensus is significant because it increases self-esteem. The need to be "normal" and fit in with other people is underlined by a desire to conform and be liked by others in a social environment.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:04 AM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands