Transatlantic JV
#43
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.
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.
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,823
Likes: 167
From: window seat
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.
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.
#46
Banned
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
From: Space Shuttle PIC
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
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
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?
#47
Banned
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
From: Space Shuttle PIC
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.
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.
#50
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.
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post




