Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
12-04-2011, 06:50 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
True. But then again, they don't seem to need downside protections when our company rushes to give them every single seat mile kilometer thingy they can. DCI doesn't need any downside protection for their fleet of 250+ DC-9-10 replacements either to run right up against the cap including funding a direct yield trashing competitor with C-series on firm order. Trans States doesn't need any downside protections when we sell them CPZ then hire them to whipsaw their own airline. Alaska is doing just fine without any downside protections as well. They own our entire west coast and thats with us *supposedly* not getting any revenue from those flights.
If RA is to belived in or trusted, he needs to be the leader that makes D.A.L. choose its pilots first to do its flying. I'm not against networks either. But in the aggregate, from small former mainline replacement jets to current narrowbody code share to international JV's, the company outsources as much as then can by law and doesn't give us a block hour more.
Thats why zero, zero, 49.75% is insane. Never should have been agreed to, especially for some supposed 2% gain in good times. By the way, the floorless 2 year period is a great time to go into a potential strike if the company can time it right. Give us 49.75% briefly then enjoy a 2 year outsource fest. All in "perfect compliance" with no ability for us to cry struck work if they manage the timing right.
If RA is to belived in or trusted, he needs to be the leader that makes D.A.L. choose its pilots first to do its flying. I'm not against networks either. But in the aggregate, from small former mainline replacement jets to current narrowbody code share to international JV's, the company outsources as much as then can by law and doesn't give us a block hour more.
Thats why zero, zero, 49.75% is insane. Never should have been agreed to, especially for some supposed 2% gain in good times. By the way, the floorless 2 year period is a great time to go into a potential strike if the company can time it right. Give us 49.75% briefly then enjoy a 2 year outsource fest. All in "perfect compliance" with no ability for us to cry struck work if they manage the timing right.
Looking at the JV further, it is a one time clause. After they are in compliance with 50-50 (49.75%) a new window starts and the lookback is not used for cumulative purposes. Why? As it was explained to me, it is because we go from 47.2% of the total EASK's to 50% and then the new three year window starts where the bandwidth is 1.5 or a bottom end of 48.5% with a one year corrective window. You downside protection is there going forward.
Is the language ideal? No. Could had it have been better? Maybe, but we could have also just gotten 47.2% which is where we were with the addition of AZ. DAL was incentivized to go get 50-50 because of their fleet makeup, secondary cities that worked better for the rest of or route network and feed for us to serve, and not have our customers connect in CDG, and a few other things.
I of course would have like to see the window left alone, and not have started a new three year baseline measurement period, but with every quid there has to be a pro quo, especially when dealing with three other pilot groups and three other companies on the other side of the fence.
I agree that we have not seen any net benefits from the JV. We have shrunk since its inception. I would have like to see some EASK floors in the deal, but the reality is that once the North Atlantic grows again, and it will, we will get 60%+ of the block hrs flown. That will translate in to a need for more metal. It is hard to see that now when we are shrinking and not growing. What our guys need to fight for is, if there is an addition of a new partner, we do not see the measurement period start anew, and or we see a one year measurement period with a nine month corrective window.
If you look at the V Australia deal, there is no downside protection in it, except that we must maintain the same number of segments we had 12 months prior, and that is 7. They have 21 with larger jets. It does not have a production balance and no corrective window. Why? Because it is a totally different set up, and one that they did not need to create a AF type JV for.
We have work to do, and we all want to fly more international fights. That is why it is imperative that in the next contract deal, whether it is a modification, extension, or a new contract as a result of section six, any CPA, CS or JV needs our express approval, and any modification needs to be done via nothing less than a LOA. CPA's need to be sunsetted and code share agreements need to have term limits.
Frankly complaining about what is already deemed contract language does little good, lets work to change the process and existing language when there is opportunity to do so. That equates to progress and not Monday morning quarterbacking.
12-04-2011, 06:53 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
I miss Asia. Do we still serve that unbelievably good soy/vinaigrette type dressing with the salads?
12-04-2011, 06:57 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
deleted.......
12-04-2011, 06:58 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I can tell you that unless Labor has a seat at the table the RLA will probably stay intact. Most labor law around the world is country specific. Look at KLM and AF. Owned by one party buy have two plus labor agreements that are country specific.
12-04-2011, 07:06 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
First, if they went to 0, 0 for the first two years, there is no way that AF would stay in the agreement. Period. We also would be looking at something far more serious that losing the North Atlantic flying. Third, look at the reality and time frame of our contract and if we could actually go on strike in that initial time frame. All wrong timing.
Looking at the JV further, it is a one time clause. After they are in compliance with 50-50 (49.75%) a new window starts and the lookback is not used for cumulative purposes. Why? As it was explained to me, it is because we go from 47.2% of the total EASK's to 50% and then the new three year window starts where the bandwidth is 1.5 or a bottom end of 48.5% with a one year corrective window. You downside protection is there going forward.
Is the language ideal? No. Could had it have been better? Maybe, but we could have also just gotten 47.2% which is where we were with the addition of AZ. DAL was incentivized to go get 50-50 because of their fleet makeup, secondary cities that worked better for the rest of or route network and feed for us to serve, and not have our customers connect in CDG, and a few other things.
I of course would have like to see the window left alone, and not have started a new three year baseline measurement period, but with every quid there has to be a pro quo, especially when dealing with three other pilot groups and three other companies on the other side of the fence.
I agree that we have not seen any net benefits from the JV. We have shrunk since its inception. I would have like to see some EASK floors in the deal, but the reality is that once the North Atlantic grows again, and it will, we will get 60%+ of the block hrs flown. That will translate in to a need for more metal. It is hard to see that now when we are shrinking and not growing. What our guys need to fight for is, if there is an addition of a new partner, we do not see the measurement period start anew, and or we see a one year measurement period with a nine month corrective window.
If you look at the V Australia deal, there is no downside protection in it, except that we must maintain the same number of segments we had 12 months prior, and that is 7. They have 21 with larger jets. It does not have a production balance and no corrective window. Why? Because it is a totally different set up, and one that they did not need to create a AF type JV for.
We have work to do, and we all want to fly more international fights. That is why it is imperative that in the next contract deal, whether it is a modification, extension, or a new contract as a result of section six, any CPA, CS or JV needs our express approval, and any modification needs to be done via nothing less than a LOA. CPA's need to be sunsetted and code share agreements need to have term limits.
Frankly complaining about what is already deemed contract language does little good, lets work to change the process and existing language when there is opportunity to do so. That equates to progress and not Monday morning quarterbacking.
Looking at the JV further, it is a one time clause. After they are in compliance with 50-50 (49.75%) a new window starts and the lookback is not used for cumulative purposes. Why? As it was explained to me, it is because we go from 47.2% of the total EASK's to 50% and then the new three year window starts where the bandwidth is 1.5 or a bottom end of 48.5% with a one year corrective window. You downside protection is there going forward.
Is the language ideal? No. Could had it have been better? Maybe, but we could have also just gotten 47.2% which is where we were with the addition of AZ. DAL was incentivized to go get 50-50 because of their fleet makeup, secondary cities that worked better for the rest of or route network and feed for us to serve, and not have our customers connect in CDG, and a few other things.
I of course would have like to see the window left alone, and not have started a new three year baseline measurement period, but with every quid there has to be a pro quo, especially when dealing with three other pilot groups and three other companies on the other side of the fence.
I agree that we have not seen any net benefits from the JV. We have shrunk since its inception. I would have like to see some EASK floors in the deal, but the reality is that once the North Atlantic grows again, and it will, we will get 60%+ of the block hrs flown. That will translate in to a need for more metal. It is hard to see that now when we are shrinking and not growing. What our guys need to fight for is, if there is an addition of a new partner, we do not see the measurement period start anew, and or we see a one year measurement period with a nine month corrective window.
If you look at the V Australia deal, there is no downside protection in it, except that we must maintain the same number of segments we had 12 months prior, and that is 7. They have 21 with larger jets. It does not have a production balance and no corrective window. Why? Because it is a totally different set up, and one that they did not need to create a AF type JV for.
We have work to do, and we all want to fly more international fights. That is why it is imperative that in the next contract deal, whether it is a modification, extension, or a new contract as a result of section six, any CPA, CS or JV needs our express approval, and any modification needs to be done via nothing less than a LOA. CPA's need to be sunsetted and code share agreements need to have term limits.
Frankly complaining about what is already deemed contract language does little good, lets work to change the process and existing language when there is opportunity to do so. That equates to progress and not Monday morning quarterbacking.
Who do I need to call to explain all this crap in English? I will call tomorrow.
12-04-2011, 07:10 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Alpha,
Would you agree that American's bankrutcy is about:
(1) The cost of funding a defined benefit pension plan in a bear market (and that unfunded liability)
(2) Renegotiating aircraft leases
(3) Scope
(4) Debt
AMR surely has their fleet "cross collateralized." You probably understand the term, but for the rest of the sports fans, this means that the paper for every airplane is set up so that is does not correlate on ONE airplane. To prevent reposession, the parts are scattered everywhere ... an airframe here, one engine on that jet, another engine on this other jet, the APU sub leased to JAL, the FMC is over there ... etc. The Courts are still trying to unscrew the mess that ACA created to keep its Dorniers out of the hands of their creditors.
ACL65:
American does not have DIP financing because:
(1) They do not need it ... they have similar cash levels to Delta
(2) DIP is dangerous ... management could lose control of the Company
(3) DIP might not be available in this market. Would you lend AMR money going into 2012? Me either.
Would you agree that American's bankrutcy is about:
(1) The cost of funding a defined benefit pension plan in a bear market (and that unfunded liability)
(2) Renegotiating aircraft leases
(3) Scope
(4) Debt
AMR surely has their fleet "cross collateralized." You probably understand the term, but for the rest of the sports fans, this means that the paper for every airplane is set up so that is does not correlate on ONE airplane. To prevent reposession, the parts are scattered everywhere ... an airframe here, one engine on that jet, another engine on this other jet, the APU sub leased to JAL, the FMC is over there ... etc. The Courts are still trying to unscrew the mess that ACA created to keep its Dorniers out of the hands of their creditors.
ACL65:
American does not have DIP financing because:
(1) They do not need it ... they have similar cash levels to Delta
(2) DIP is dangerous ... management could lose control of the Company
(3) DIP might not be available in this market. Would you lend AMR money going into 2012? Me either.
Wrt to:
1) They filed early and kept their cash. It is a double edged sword. They did not need DIP, but it also means that for them to renegotiate their leases they are going to have to either pay cash up front of not get as sweet of a deal on those existing jets.
2) True, but they still can lose control if they cannot get their finances in order. Their creditors have to agree to the cuts, and many may not and opt to sell their owned assets to someone else. Heck they may just repossess them. Point is just because they do not have DIP does not mean they cannot lose control of the situation.
3) Exactly and that is the reality of this that we need to understand. Their creditors see UCAL and DAL will better feed and better networks that have better PRASM which result in a better risk on the debt. Fragmentation leads to better returns on their dollars is AMR does not give them what they want. As a result if AMR is forced to give them what they want, they will not get the restructuring they need, and as a result the intent of bankruptcy will fail.
Of the various outcomes to American's bankruptcy, fragmentation is the least likely.
More likely is a retrenchment to lines which support better revenue while keeping their network intact. This will involve changes to frequency and gauge of service, better aircraft utilization and more reliance on partners like Alaska, Jet Blue and a new panopoly of regional carriers (TO THE EXTENT THEIR SCOPE IS MODIFIED TO ALLOW THIS). Eagle's scope is already destroyed. ALPA is advising the APA. If history repeats itself, so called "labor leaders" will try to engineer a quick fix to American's economic problems and use outsourcing as a form of credit to try to hold up the standards of mainline compensation.
The APA already rejected the so called B Scale to recover their flying and management published that a failure to reach an agreement on this point would trigger bankruptcy. Well, the APA stood their ground on B Scale. We will if they hold their ground on scope.
The APA already rejected the so called B Scale to recover their flying and management published that a failure to reach an agreement on this point would trigger bankruptcy. Well, the APA stood their ground on B Scale. We will if they hold their ground on scope.
AMR has a revenue problem and restructuring debt and going after labor will not solve all of it. That is why foreign ownership and fragmentation need to be taken very seriously. Like I said, if AMR survives this, and goes with B6, LCC is the airline that will be cut up. If not them then the first idiot that tries to take their airline though CH11 to shed a few billion in debt. The creditors are going to call BS very soon.
12-04-2011, 07:11 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
12-04-2011, 07:17 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,324
Sure RA is in it for the cash. Does that preclude him from actually being able to decently run an airline? Would YOU be CEO of any entity (much less an airline) for $50K a year? What should RA say and receive for compensation.
What would you like to see and hear, instead of just saying what you don't like?
What would you like to see and hear, instead of just saying what you don't like?
Fact, management does not care about you, will screw you at the first opportunity. They did it before and will do it again. wake up.
12-04-2011, 07:27 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,324
Only difference is he is on the board of the companies that are on his board and they all approve each others pay check. Until the day comes when they let pilots from each airline decide pilot pay and then we as pilots decide CEO pay, there is no goose and gander comparison.
Last edited by capncrunch; 12-04-2011 at 07:50 PM.
12-04-2011, 07:28 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
it says March 21, 2010. A Turkish 777-300.
You are both correct, Narita. Or so says the pic.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
