No vote now gets you a 6% raise
#101
Our flying doesn't need to be taken, we are giving it away. 650,000 GBH is now the only thing they have to respect, which is 5% less than we have now.
We now have a new cap. No more requirement to grow Delta metal proportionally by a ratio.
We now have a new cap. No more requirement to grow Delta metal proportionally by a ratio.
#102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,610
So your saying that if AF/KLM start increasing their flying it has no impact? What we gave up is two flights a day. Beyond that the ratio kicks in and the requirement to grow our metal is still there.
#103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 217
We do have a requirement to grow proportionally. Consider both the possible Aeromexico JCA and the current Virgin Atlantic JV.
Section 1 contains multiple layers of protections. Section 1.E.2 (Pacific Flying) and 1.N.3 (Virgin Australia) add to the global BH floor protection, just off the top of my head. These sections were not changed with TA2 and those paragraphs continue to protect us after ratification. You might be thinking in one dimension, but Scope is a multi-dimensional subject and simplifying it down to your metric-of-the-day is misleading.
#104
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
*while we keep hearing "its just 2 flights a day, I also keep hearing that its measured as SLC-CDG. If so, that would make it 3 or 4 JFK transatlantic flights.
#105
Happy tail chasing.
https://youtu.be/kxig2AF1-gw
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,610
We may have a ratio on that one AF/KLM JV but we all know the history of that compliance. The GBH floor will not increase in the next 3 years or after that without negotiating more "protection." More negotiating capital needed every cycle just to protect what we already do. No requirement for growth. Happy tail chasing.
#107
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,610
And even though 46.5 is 2 flights a day lower* its nice that its measured every year now with a hard balance. The previous 4 year blank check was ridiculous. There are many scenarios where even in compliance either way, our yearly average share could be higher with a hard 46/5 than with a 0/0/0/48.5 (and you don't have to get anywhere near zero for that model to be worse either).
*while we keep hearing "its just 2 flights a day, I also keep hearing that its measured as SLC-CDG. If so, that would make it 3 or 4 JFK transatlantic flights.
*while we keep hearing "its just 2 flights a day, I also keep hearing that its measured as SLC-CDG. If so, that would make it 3 or 4 JFK transatlantic flights.
#108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
#109
It's increasing as we speak. The company should be near the 48.5% number by the end of the summer. Unless of course they cancel the new flying as some have stated they will do.
In every example I saw they used DTW but you also have to factor in equipment. AF and KLM have been downsizing equipment and that will cost us more then the 2%.
In every example I saw they used DTW but you also have to factor in equipment. AF and KLM have been downsizing equipment and that will cost us more then the 2%.
No need to vote in a new lower compliance number (46.5%) then. The reality of the JVs, wide-body count, staffing means we will not grow our international ops.
Management has already stated their preferred, more efficient, and capacity neutral solution is to expand our use of code share and eventually brand that as Delta.
#110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,610
Currently with over capacity cited my most airlines in the Atlantic I suspect the seats are just going away. We have however been going in the opposite direction and upsizing so that might be your offset. 16 A330's a day in AMS next summer. 767's will be few and far between!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CAL EWR
Union Talk
8
11-08-2008 02:37 PM