Bucking Bar

They aren't in violation ... yet ... and might not be. Air France has been pulling down a lot of flying. I'm starting to think management might just make it by the measurement window.

TANSTAAFL

We obviously disagree on what the company intends to do with NRT flying sans this agreement. I've heard it could be a decade or longer transition in NRT, and we don't really know yet the magnitude of the change. This is an ALPA induced helmet fire.

I went back and looked over C2012 Scope stuff and only saw block hour change ratios, not actual block hours. I'm curious based on this 15% equating to roughly 25000 block hours what percentage of the DCI captured C2012 block hours we might give back (today's numbers not sky is falling NRT goes away) with this LOA ?
B
Fly the airplane, cancel the warning, do not hurry......

80ktsClamp

I'm talking about in the pacific. Our scope was waivered by the MEC with this "scope improvement opportunity. "

However, I too have noticed how much AF has been pulling back. I was wondering how close that would put them to being in compliance.

Sink r8

My first instinct is to agree. The problem is that the current Scope clause doesn't protect overall NRT flying, it addresses codesharing beyond Japan, which one of the reps (don't remember whom) said on the other forum was not significant in terms of revenue to the company. In other words, zero leverage. I can't believe we have that little Pacific scope.

So you may be right, Alfa may be right, and Scambo maybe "rightest": the protections we actually do enjoy seem to be firm, right until the point where they come into play. Then they aren't, so much.

If this is as rumored/leaked, it's going to be perceived more like a loss of 15%, than a gain of 85%.

Sink r8

That would be welcome news indeed.

FlyZ

Sounds a lot like, "the company has a plan B, and believe me, you won't like it!"

How about for one time in history we hold them to our legally binding contract and see what happens? Isn't that the purpose of a signed contract between two parties?

If we are never going to enforce it, how about a verbal gentleman's agreement between Richard and Lee Moak (since he controls everything anyway)? That would allow us to concede each time more quickly, and both parties could save a lot of money in legal fees.

80ktsClamp

Good points. However, marketing it as a gain of 85% is pretty poor. The argument I've heard is that the company can pull NRT down to zero. That's a poor argument, because it's a money maker for the company.

I'll reserve judgement until I get to see it and cast my vote... er... uh... just see it.

Sink r8

So let the pilots vote on it.

Don't market it. Pass it on to us.

The info we have is too limited, but let's say all the cards are on the table: the company is offering 85% guarantee, against the right of being under a few weekly slots, and keeping the codeshares beyond Japan. Those codeshares might come in handy, as we try to get a partner in Haneda.

So, you bypass the usual race to deniability, where some of the reps let the vote pass, and argue they were against it. Pass it to the membership. Let us decide. Right now, we don't want to concede anything, and we especially don't want anything to be conceded on our behalf. Let us fumble with it a while, and decide for ourselves whether 85%>0%, and whether the difference of (I think) 2 slots out of 316 is a deal-breaker.

I bet we're smart enough to figure it out.

Even if we don't turn this down, it will feel good to do it ourselves.

FlyZ

I'm writing an ALPA dictionary if anyone wants to contribute. You can use it to decode the email that should arrive this week or next.

"opportunity": the chance to make something worse

"not in a hurry": hair on fire, must be done tomorrow whether it's good or not

"negotiation": giving up one thing to get something less

"make no mistake": the next thing I say will probably be untrue

"no": negative, but not to be used in conversations with management

"management": the future employment of ALPA presidents

"poker": terrible analogy for a contract survey

"significant": in keeping with the US Consumer Price Index

"profit sharing": sharing our profits with management, used to acquire "significant" raises in "negotiation" (see above)

What am I missing?

Bucking Bar

reason and accountability?