Search

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Transatlantic JV

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-26-2012 | 09:14 AM
  #41  
On Reserve
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 83
Likes: 2
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
I think you got a little something on your nose there Bill.

Carl
Old 06-26-2012 | 11:24 AM
  #42  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by acl65pilot
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?
Old 06-26-2012 | 12:03 PM
  #43  
acl65pilot's Avatar
Happy to be here
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Default

Originally Posted by DeadHead
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.
Old 06-26-2012 | 01:33 PM
  #44  
Gets Weekends Off
Liked
25M+ Airline Miles
Line Holder
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,823
Likes: 167
From: window seat
Default

Originally Posted by acl65pilot
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.
Old 06-26-2012 | 05:09 PM
  #45  
acl65pilot's Avatar
Happy to be here
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,563
Likes: 0
From: A-320A
Default

Originally Posted by gloopy
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.
Old 06-26-2012 | 06:10 PM
  #46  
Banned
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
From: Space Shuttle PIC
Default

Originally Posted by georgetg
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?
Old 06-26-2012 | 06:12 PM
  #47  
Banned
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
From: Space Shuttle PIC
Default

Originally Posted by acl65pilot
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!
Old 06-26-2012 | 06:25 PM
  #48  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
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.
Old 06-26-2012 | 06:30 PM
  #49  
Banned
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
From: Space Shuttle PIC
Default

Originally Posted by DeadHead
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.
Old 06-26-2012 | 06:36 PM
  #50  
TheManager's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
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.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
DYNASTY HVY
Hangar Talk
3
06-11-2011 10:37 AM
N9373M
Major
2
06-11-2011 05:16 AM
Whacker77
Major
20
12-06-2009 07:22 PM
avanti
Hangar Talk
170
12-26-2008 06:16 PM
Sir James
Major
4
10-18-2005 07:57 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices