Delta Scope give.
10-15-2016, 06:20 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
Delta Scope give.
There is one issue for which even if it was the single bad item I would gladly vote a TA down. I will consider most any "give" depending on the package, but I will never agree to give up future jobs especially not the highest paying jobs.
For those not wanting to read the language and interpret it for themselves here's the cliff note version . . . .
The new Delta TA allows Delta to reduce their share of Atlantic flying in their Joint Venture with Air France and KLM from 50/50 to 46.5/53.5. It is true this only represents a couple 3-4 city pairs and the total block hours are not supposed to go down, but the fact is the Delta boys are about to hand over some of their best paying jobs and set the pattern that US pilots will give up their best paying jobs for pay raises.
The first paragraph is the old language; the second paragraph is the new language.
For those not wanting to read the language and interpret it for themselves here's the cliff note version . . . .
The new Delta TA allows Delta to reduce their share of Atlantic flying in their Joint Venture with Air France and KLM from 50/50 to 46.5/53.5. It is true this only represents a couple 3-4 city pairs and the total block hours are not supposed to go down, but the fact is the Delta boys are about to hand over some of their best paying jobs and set the pattern that US pilots will give up their best paying jobs for pay raises.
The first paragraph is the old language; the second paragraph is the new language.
4. The amount of flying subject to the AF/KL/AZ JV for Bundle 1 was determined from an
13 EASK baseline period (the baseline EASK). The baseline EASK allocations are 50% for
14 DL and 50% for AF/KL/AZ. Effective with the three-year measurement period ending
15 on March 31, 2011 (including applicable AZ flying during the 12-month measurement
16 period of April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011 only), the Company shall maintain no less than
17 48.50% of the EASK capacity share in this measurement period (Company’s baseline
18 EASK allocation minus 1.50%). A new three-year rolling measurement period will begin
19 April 1, 2011 and the actual capacity share percentages for all previous years will be
20 disregarded for capacity share measurement purposes. In the case of the rolling three-
21 year measurement periods ending March 31, 2014, and thereafter, the Company shall be
22 required to maintain no less than 48.50% (Company’s baseline EASK allocation minus
23 1.50%) of the total EASK capacity subject to the provisions of Section 1 P. 6.
24 4. Effective with the one-year measurement period beginning January 1, 2016, and
25 continuing for each 12-month measurement period thereafter, the baseline EASK share
26 for Bundle 1 is 47.5% for DL and 52.5% for AF/KL/AZ. For each successive two
27 measurement periods combined (a “two calendar-year period”; such two calendar-year
28 period would be January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017 and January 1, 2018 to December
29 31, 2019, etc.), the Company’s Bundle 1 EASKs flown in accordance with the provisions
30 of the AF/KL/AZ JV agreement in the first year of a two calendar-year period and in the
31 second year of the same two calendar-year period will on average be no less than 46.5%
32 of the Bundle 1 EASKs flown in accordance with the provisions of the AF/KL/AZ JV
33 agreement.
13 EASK baseline period (the baseline EASK). The baseline EASK allocations are 50% for
14 DL and 50% for AF/KL/AZ. Effective with the three-year measurement period ending
15 on March 31, 2011 (including applicable AZ flying during the 12-month measurement
16 period of April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011 only), the Company shall maintain no less than
17 48.50% of the EASK capacity share in this measurement period (Company’s baseline
18 EASK allocation minus 1.50%). A new three-year rolling measurement period will begin
19 April 1, 2011 and the actual capacity share percentages for all previous years will be
20 disregarded for capacity share measurement purposes. In the case of the rolling three-
21 year measurement periods ending March 31, 2014, and thereafter, the Company shall be
22 required to maintain no less than 48.50% (Company’s baseline EASK allocation minus
23 1.50%) of the total EASK capacity subject to the provisions of Section 1 P. 6.
24 4. Effective with the one-year measurement period beginning January 1, 2016, and
25 continuing for each 12-month measurement period thereafter, the baseline EASK share
26 for Bundle 1 is 47.5% for DL and 52.5% for AF/KL/AZ. For each successive two
27 measurement periods combined (a “two calendar-year period”; such two calendar-year
28 period would be January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017 and January 1, 2018 to December
29 31, 2019, etc.), the Company’s Bundle 1 EASKs flown in accordance with the provisions
30 of the AF/KL/AZ JV agreement in the first year of a two calendar-year period and in the
31 second year of the same two calendar-year period will on average be no less than 46.5%
32 of the Bundle 1 EASKs flown in accordance with the provisions of the AF/KL/AZ JV
33 agreement.
Last edited by Sunvox; 10-15-2016 at 06:30 AM.
10-15-2016, 07:21 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
How did you vote on United's C2012?
10-15-2016, 07:57 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: 320 Captain
Posts: 666
Sun,
But what gains or status quo does their scope section contain? Does now having a min block hours of all international flying not a good thing? No "cure" or multi year look back period anymore? No further increase to size or number of allowable large RJ aircraft?
As you know everything is a negotiation, so are the other parts of the scope section worth the lesser percentage on the Atlantic JV?
Something the Delta pilots will have to decide. ALPA EF&A will have crunched the numbers on what effect (if any) the scope changes mean in terms of flying hours and jobs. You and I don't know enough of their history and actual day to day effects of their contract to say it is a good or bad section.
Looking back at our own history, we left bankruptcy without ever filling in the 1-F-1 min block hours. Once that number was negotiated later, it was low enough that it meant we could park the 737 fleet and still be in compliance. A fact which a MEC member pointed out (Neil S.) but a low number was still better then no number at all at the time. Guess what happened? We parked the 737 fleet.
My folks still ask about you so hope all is well with life up north.
G
But what gains or status quo does their scope section contain? Does now having a min block hours of all international flying not a good thing? No "cure" or multi year look back period anymore? No further increase to size or number of allowable large RJ aircraft?
As you know everything is a negotiation, so are the other parts of the scope section worth the lesser percentage on the Atlantic JV?
Something the Delta pilots will have to decide. ALPA EF&A will have crunched the numbers on what effect (if any) the scope changes mean in terms of flying hours and jobs. You and I don't know enough of their history and actual day to day effects of their contract to say it is a good or bad section.
Looking back at our own history, we left bankruptcy without ever filling in the 1-F-1 min block hours. Once that number was negotiated later, it was low enough that it meant we could park the 737 fleet and still be in compliance. A fact which a MEC member pointed out (Neil S.) but a low number was still better then no number at all at the time. Guess what happened? We parked the 737 fleet.
My folks still ask about you so hope all is well with life up north.
G
10-15-2016, 09:25 AM
#5
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
There is one issue for which even if it was the single bad item I would gladly vote a TA down. I will consider most any "give" depending on the package, but I will never agree to give up future jobs especially not the highest paying jobs.
For those not wanting to read the language and interpret it for themselves here's the cliff note version . . . .
The new Delta TA allows Delta to reduce their share of Atlantic flying in their Joint Venture with Air France and KLM from 50/50 to 46.5/53.5. It is true this only represents a couple 3-4 city pairs and the total block hours are not supposed to go down, but the fact is the Delta boys are about to hand over some of their best paying jobs and set the pattern that US pilots will give up their best paying jobs for pay raises.
The first paragraph is the old language; the second paragraph is the new language.
For those not wanting to read the language and interpret it for themselves here's the cliff note version . . . .
The new Delta TA allows Delta to reduce their share of Atlantic flying in their Joint Venture with Air France and KLM from 50/50 to 46.5/53.5. It is true this only represents a couple 3-4 city pairs and the total block hours are not supposed to go down, but the fact is the Delta boys are about to hand over some of their best paying jobs and set the pattern that US pilots will give up their best paying jobs for pay raises.
The first paragraph is the old language; the second paragraph is the new language.
It's a complicated issue but to blanket statement saying that this TA "gives up jobs" is making a lot of assumptions.
10-15-2016, 10:21 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
Tell your folks I said "Hi". I hope they are doing well also!! As to me all is well and still the same. Married with 3 great kids. Sadly the oldest is off to college
where did the time go?? Seems only yesterday we were hanging out in Danbury and dreaming of better things to come and now look at us; all growed up and everything.I understand what you are saying, but I'm afraid we must simply agree to disagree. I do not think any agreement that could lead to less flying of international WB routes is ever acceptable for any reason. Again, I realize one should "never say never", but I'm hard pressed to see this as anything but negative.
10-15-2016, 10:25 AM
#7
UCH Pilot
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: 787
Posts: 776
10-15-2016, 11:02 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
I hear you. I was not making a judgement on C2012 only on Sunvox's chest puffing regarding the Delta TA.
10-15-2016, 11:29 AM
#9
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 38
Any scope/jv gives would be an automatic No vote from me. But...
There is no capital investment (at least, limited) with JV relationships and can be negotiated back....buying another 50 rjs on the other hand was a threat to us because it would have moved the line on scope, yet again. They/we would never have been able to negotiate it back because of the cash involved.
DAL negotiated what was important to them, and we will need to do the same in the next round.
Again, I would not vote for this at UAL, but I don't think that this fundamentally changes our negotiating position moving forward.
There is no capital investment (at least, limited) with JV relationships and can be negotiated back....buying another 50 rjs on the other hand was a threat to us because it would have moved the line on scope, yet again. They/we would never have been able to negotiate it back because of the cash involved.
DAL negotiated what was important to them, and we will need to do the same in the next round.
Again, I would not vote for this at UAL, but I don't think that this fundamentally changes our negotiating position moving forward.
10-15-2016, 02:13 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
Anyways . . .
In my career the only contracts I've had were 1) 2000 which was an across the board win (or so it seemed) 2) 2 contracts in bankruptcy both of which I sent emails to the MEC saying we should test whether striking in bankruptcy was legal (which American later proved was a viable concern) and then 3) 2012
2012 had nothing to do with general issues and could have called for any number of concessions and I would have voted for it just to end the merger shenanigans and get everyone on the same team. For the record I think you will find the vast majority of L-UAL pilots felt the same way.
The Delta TA is being proffered at a time when concessions are simply not necessary. I understand and have read the Delta union explanation that the percentages involved reflect Air France's use of the A380, but I don't think the union should be tasked with solving the stupidity of an Air France management decision. That's like letting the Chinese dump cheap steel because their factories over produced. Too bad for them. Not our problem. Giving them a pass sets a bad precedent.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
