sailingfun

Block hours. I looked up the report published in June. We have been running between 48.0 and 48.5 percent the last year on a EASK basis. Minimum is 48.5 to be in compliance.
I have often wondered why they don't add a flight or two to be in compliance so I asked the question. The 30 million they had to pay us would have subsidized several flights quite nicely. The answer was that they expected to be in compliance but events stopped the fight additions planned. We will see what happens this time.

80ktsClamp

There was a mention quite recently on how we are still out of compliance and then an allusion to how we have more pilot block hours and how we should be happy with that...

Food for thought on one of the big 3 reasons why I voted no last year and how the "moakies" got hoodwinked.

satchip

Maybe it's about long term
money. Maybe they intentionally are out of compliance and are not fixing it to break our will to set precedent for the future.

JamesBond

OK look. I am not trying to justify anything here or throw any monkey poo at anybody. I just want to know where this information comes from. Some of ya'll are switched on to this stuff, and some of you merely repeat what you hear if it is something you want to believe. If it is true that we are out of compliance, fine. that is not my reason for starting this thread.

Bucking Bar

Sailingfun,

Unfortunately (and I mean that with sincerity) what you were told is not the truth.

Network management does not manage for scope compliance. Often they do not even know (or care) that the company is out of compliance. The only goal of network management is to maximize revenue.

Non compliance is a different department, labor relations. Labor relations can settle grievances. They have no ability to adjust flying schedules with Air France/KLM.

Flight operations just operates the airplanes.

We have many functional committees that work with the company; for example, safety, hotels, scheduling, crew rest, training, etc. Why would we not have our Scope Compliance and Analysis Chairman meeting with the company, working together collaboratively, to ensure compliance with the production balances which are the foundation of the scope methodology employed in our contract?

Now the language is in our policy manual and it still is not being followed.

This brings me to my next post ... the problem feeds right into concessionary bargaining.

sailingfun

Everyone in every department you mention works for the CEO. That includes marketing. He needs to tell them they must manage to compliance. I am told that with the future plans they expect to be in compliance. They are just a tic below the limit now.
It should be noted that the settlement on the couple of flights a day they fell short did in fact include a adjustment that impacts the measurement period which is different then some have posted. Since it is a rolling 36 month look the settlement for the 3 prior years reset the EASK at 48.5% for the years of the grievance. That means they started in compliance and only need to maintain 48.5. Without that bump up they would have needed a higher number to maintain future compliance.

Bucking Bar

Well maybe. As things stand currently I do not see Ed telling Glen how to run a network. Adding to the political complexity is the fact that Air France fails to plan then fails to execute in a way that we would expect from Delta.

One error in your data (and I made the same error FWIW) was to believe that Air France / KLM would adjust capacity in a somewhat uniform fashion across the World. Instead they pulled capacity on routes where they compete with the ME3 (Africa & Asia) and put that capacity back into the Americas where it impacts "Bundle 1." Strategically, Air France has been a black hole on forward looking capacity data and as previously stated, they more often than not don't execute what they stated. Delta probably has better information, but none of it is public (or easily obtained through Section 1 while we are in contentious negotiations).

Yes - YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, our CEO should tell our President to comply with Section 1. The only way I see that happening is when our MEC Chairman speaks on behalf of our MEC, or allows our Scope Compliance and Analysis Chairman to do so. (and that is not a swipe against John. This problem has existed for a while and is partially tied up with our own internal politics - you can see why someone who has a businesslike, respected, relationship with management would be unpopular, yet that sort of long time expert is/was effective dealing with data driven compliance work)

Bucking Bar

Delta will not sign a contract that they are instantly out of compliance with. (period, will not happen)

As long as Delta is out of compliance we are positioned for concessionary bargaining.

While serving, Committee Chairman have a duty of loyalty which they should take very seriously. Committees can not shoot their Admin (Chairman and his EA's) in the back. It is a team sport and the only way to gain success for the pilots one serves is to support the team by playing your position.

However, a member in good standing could and should bring resolutions to improve the function of the association. Following the change in Scope Committee Chairmen in March a resolution was brought forward and passed unanimously at the June MEC meeting which enables the Scope Compliance and Analysis Chairman to actually do his job; getting him into the meetings with network management where this kind of work should get done.

I expect, if out of compliance, (having no inside information) that our current team will have to adjust 1. P. 4. in some way to allow the company to get into compliance or no deal can happen. There are several ways this might happen. My suggestion was to increase the Virgin Atlantic global widebody production balance to offset any adjustments needed in the Air France / KLM agreement. Others had other good ideas. We will see what happens. Maybe our negotiators can even preserve the EASK balance at 48.5%. I hope they can and support their work.

gloopy

That's one way to help check and balance it, but we still need better JV protections along all sides of the hull.

We need minimums in every single theatre, a fair share in every single individual JV, and protections on both ESKs and Block Hours, as well as a total production balance, although that would likely be a non issue if we had the other stuff by default.

Within a system of comprehensive protections like that, we can offer a reasonable amount of flexibility. First of all, half is half. 50%. Period. Maybe they can dip below that a small amount on ESKs, but only if they are above that amount in Block Hours or vice versa, but even the low amount must always have floors too, like 40-45% or something like that. And that's each partnership. Each theatre. And overall. And the penalties for noncompliance would be harsh and immediate, and they'd have to pull their code (or add mainline DL) on whatever percentage of the particular case to bring it back into immediate compliance.

That would give them global flexibility in production balances that also account for the differing fleet types of foreign partner airlines. But it would guarantee that we truly do get our half in all cases.

What they have proposed now seems completely unacceptable (barring some unforeseen amazing language, which we all know isn't going to be in there). Gutting everything in exchange for a global balance allows them massive potential for abuse. And of course we all know our "half" even then will be 47% or some nonsense.

Its clear by now that the ONLY reason they want to change it in that way is because they predict doing so will reduce our jobs and increase foreign outsourcing further.

Free Bird

If we give the company an allowance on Scope to get them into compliance it is first and foremost a huge concession. Second, the company will then be slightly out of compliance with the new metrics within a year or two and will once again need further Scope relief. It will never end.

Take note, same story with work rules and staffing concessions. Whatever we give this time around (insane) they will ask for more later.

Start looking forward my friends.