Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
08-23-2013, 03:13 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Okay, say you are correct and the company doesn't pass up the 88 717's. We are still in negotiations for a new contract now and probably for the next year or two. Company takes delivery of 88 aircraft the maxes out the 76 seaters allowed under the old contract (I can't remember how many but well more than is allowed now.) Then dumps the 757's.... and trades in the 50 seaters for the new 76'ers at DCI (kinda like they've done). We are now in 2015 with a possible new contract and way more 76 seaters than allowed now. Plus no cap on total RJ's and no ratio.
lower than what is allowed now. They needed us to enable this up-gauge strategy.
I don't mean to sound like I am lecturing you: I bought into this TA.
08-23-2013, 03:16 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Anyone with two eyes and a brain could see that the 717 deal was too good to pass up. Given the company's behavior with regard to used aircraft deals, there should be zero doubt in anyone's mind they were jumping on that ASAP. Quite obvious the CRJ-200 trades were happening no matter what, too. It would have been a stupid financial decison not to do so, and the company doesn't do many of those.
That was probably more important than figuring out a way to park the 50 seaters. I mean if they can get a bunch of pilots who want a pay raise to agree to 70 jumbo RJs and to decouple it from the required mainline growth then there ain't nothing they can't figure out how to do.
08-23-2013, 03:17 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,239
08-23-2013, 03:26 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Johnso, you're wrong on the sick leave.
Deleted a long post... basically, company is calling to ask for nature of illness and supporting docs even when you send in a verification doctor's note, with no good faith basis (I asked).
Had it happen to me, USAF docs note not good enough... verification denied.
Deleted a long post... basically, company is calling to ask for nature of illness and supporting docs even when you send in a verification doctor's note, with no good faith basis (I asked).
Had it happen to me, USAF docs note not good enough... verification denied.
08-23-2013, 03:31 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Straight from the negotiators last week - The AF/KLM/AZ JV is going to remain completely separate from the Delta/Virginia Atlantic JV.
One will not impact the other - ie Virgin will not be used to get the company trending back towards compliance. The AF/KLM/AZ JV will have to stand on its own.
One will not impact the other - ie Virgin will not be used to get the company trending back towards compliance. The AF/KLM/AZ JV will have to stand on its own.
Assuming we can get AZ to count against AF-KLM, but avoid VA counting against our side in the TAJV AND we get an appropriate balance of flying vs. VA, our negotiators would deserve credit. BTW, an appropriate share vs. VA would be at a minimum proportional to our ownership at just under 50%. Arguably, it might even be higher, based on the respective size of the airlines, and VA's underperformance and financial condition. Still, if 1/2 the EASK's into LHR (NOT 1/2 the block hours) ended up being Delta metal, with no negative impact on the TAJV production balances, I would be impressed.
Last edited by Sink r8; 08-23-2013 at 03:52 PM.
08-23-2013, 04:23 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
I hope you're correct about the two staying separate, which is the right way for us to look at this. Still I can't reconcile this perspective with the way I would imagine the TAJV agreement as it exists between the airlines. It's hard to imagine that the TAJV itself allows one of the partners to establish a competing TA entity (Virgin Atlantic can and will connect passengers beyond LHR), without amending terms and the production balance.
Assuming we can get AZ to count against AF-KLM, but avoid VA counting against our side in the TAJV AND we get an appropriate balance of flying vs. VA, our negotiators would deserve credit. BTW, an appropriate share vs. VA would be at a minimum proportional to our ownership at just under 50%. Arguably, it might even be higher, based on the respective size of the airlines, and VA's underperformance and financial condition. Still, if 1/2 the EASK's into LHR (NOT 1/2 the block hours) ended up being Delta metal, with no negative impact on the TAJV production balances, I would be impressed.
Assuming we can get AZ to count against AF-KLM, but avoid VA counting against our side in the TAJV AND we get an appropriate balance of flying vs. VA, our negotiators would deserve credit. BTW, an appropriate share vs. VA would be at a minimum proportional to our ownership at just under 50%. Arguably, it might even be higher, based on the respective size of the airlines, and VA's underperformance and financial condition. Still, if 1/2 the EASK's into LHR (NOT 1/2 the block hours) ended up being Delta metal, with no negative impact on the TAJV production balances, I would be impressed.
I'm hoping the quid for the upcoming non-compliance of the AFKLM/AZJV will be a better VirginJV agreement...
The leverage is to have the company show and agree in writing that it's interested in having a constructive relationship.
Cheers
George
08-23-2013, 04:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: Cockpit speaker volume knob set to eleven.
Posts: 1,410
08-23-2013, 04:59 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
If we get money for the violation, then we have done nothing but sell the scope. We need another idea. Maybe something like requiring the company to remove our code on those airlines until it is rectified or something like that. I'm just spitballing, since it is moot as the contract is already in force. I would think that money is the only option at this point.
08-23-2013, 05:52 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Johnso, you're wrong on the sick leave.
Deleted a long post... basically, company is calling to ask for nature of illness and supporting docs even when you send in a verification doctor's note, with no good faith basis (I asked).
Had it happen to me, USAF docs note not good enough... verification denied.
Deleted a long post... basically, company is calling to ask for nature of illness and supporting docs even when you send in a verification doctor's note, with no good faith basis (I asked).
Had it happen to me, USAF docs note not good enough... verification denied.
The company does require certain things on the doctors note, & it's possible your note didn't have everything they require. I hope you called your Rep to get it squared away. If you haven't, you still can. There is no cutoff time or limited window of opportunity.
08-23-2013, 06:03 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
If we get money for the violation, then we have done nothing but sell the scope. We need another idea. Maybe something like requiring the company to remove our code on those airlines until it is rectified or something like that. I'm just spitballing, since it is moot as the contract is already in force. I would think that money is the only option at this point.
Money for scope is a bad deal!
Lets get better scope for scope violations!
Cheers
George
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
