jagraham
Posts: 924
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:20 am

This scope issue is actually quite complicated
- DL invested in VS and had VS do less flying to Asia and more flying to JFK. After all, JFK - LHR is the most profitable city pair. DL/VS is still #3, but without VS, DL was barely a blip
- Revenue is going up, losses are minimal. Profit is expected to return next year
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-virg ... SKCN1RM1GT
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/e ... /eikon.png
- At the level of control DL has over VS, moving enough slot pairs would tip control over the 50% mark and muck up the whole arrangement.

DL does not have much slack in their widebody fleet
- It's discussed extensively here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1411859
- From post #760 (thanks hkcanadaexpat)
07/22-07/28 Period
Total Fleet: 152
Scheduled Service: 145/152
Spares: 7/152 (2x76T, 2x76Z, 1x764, 1x77L, 1x333)
Conversion: 0/152
Maintenance: 0/152
Storage: 0/152
- There is not enough slack in the widebody fleet to balance JV flying at this time. More widebodies are needed at DL. And they are coming, but not at a fast clip (good thing too, because 787s have Trent 1000 problems and A339s would probably have had Trent 7000 problems except that RR was late from dealing with the Trent 1000 problems

Once DL gets more A339s they can rebalance TATL flying. And they should do just that as first priority as A339s come into service.
- DL must keep the 763s in order to make a difference (despite what many a.net pundits say). If DL retires 763s at anything near a 1:1 ratio as A339s come in, there will be a strike.
- DL can do more flying elsewhere in Europe (other than LHR, CDG, AMS) to balance the JV
- There should be enough profitable city pairs DL can come up with
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 602
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:17 pm

SierraPacific wrote:
Finally, JV's directly hurt pilots and flight attendants with less and less destinations served with Delta metal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that all JV's are is the shuffling of flights to foreign carriers that have cheaper costs. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if in 10 years the only international destinations served by Delta (Excluding the Carribean and Canada) would be ICN, AMS, and LHR.

I am glad that Delta pilots are standing up for Delta employees and are trying to limit the amount of outsourcing that is occurring now.


Not even CDG? That is a ridiculous extrapolation and I think you must have a purpose allied to the pilots and opposed to the general health of Delta Air Lines.
 
Antarius
Posts: 1723
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:22 pm

aeropix wrote:
Antarius wrote:

Umm, not quite. Exactly how is AF "lower cost"


Because the “cost” of operating those flights are not from Delta’s pot. So in theory those flights are “free” for Delta to operate. Can’t get much lower “cost” than free.

This is why the unions have to resist this kind of thing spreading, because management would rather market the JV flights than to bear the actual cost of operating it themselves thereby disenfranchising the core employee group.


Does the JV not allocate cost similar to revenue? There is definitely distribution. AF/KL/VS arent going to fly for DL, let DL profit and pay nothing.

Also, the number or DL metal flights has increased as have the number of JV flights. It's called growth. The arguments here are the same ones we heard against computers - "I longer need 4 people to print a report and typewrite my numbers, what will they do". Except DL has grown, so it isnt like they are laying pilots off en masse.
2019: SIN HKG NRT DFW IAH HOU CLT LGA JFK SFO SJC EWR SNA EYW MIA BOG LAX ORD DTW OAK PVG BOS DCA IAD ATL LAS BIS CUN PHX OAK SYD CVG PHL MAD ORY CDG SLC SJU BQN MHT YYZ STS BIS DOH BLR KTM MFM MEX MSY BWI DEN
 
panamair
Posts: 4102
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 2:24 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:10 pm

The DL-AF-KL-VS JV shares profits so the cost element matters to all participants. I believe the UA-LH-AC-LX-and others JV is a revenue sharing one. That’s why you see more of an effort by DL/AF/KL/VS to switch things up when necessary in terms of operating carrier and aircraft type to each route. You see a lot less switches or changes in the UA-LH one since the concern there is predominantly top-line
 
Atlwarrior
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:42 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:18 pm

I think the Delta pilots did the right thing. Look at how many Atlanta to Europe routes were cut and routed through Amsterdam and Paris.
 
User avatar
UPlog
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:45 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:16 pm

A few people have mentioned Delta pilots look at a number of flights under the JV, that is simply incorrect.

The Atlantic JV flying measure is based on EASK (equivalent available seat kilometers) - a measurement of capacity adjusted for an aircraft’s seat density and cargo capacity.
For example, DL pilots are supposed to fly a minimum of 47.5% of the EASK within the JV annually. There is also a minimum 650,000 block hour requirement of widebody flying across the Atlantic.

The Pacific is similar with the KE JV, with an apportioned EASK and block hour commitment.

Unfortunately for DL pilots, the company has continued to violate these provisions and fall below. The KE JV as an example has been out of compliance from the day it launched with DL Pacific flying not meeting agreed on minimums for DL pilots.
 
Dieuwer
Posts: 1532
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:29 pm

Dutchy wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:
Finally, JV's directly hurt pilots and flight attendants with less and less destinations served with Delta metal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that all JV's are is the shuffling of flights to foreign carriers that have cheaper costs. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if in 10 years the only international destinations served by Delta (Excluding the Carribean and Canada) would be ICN, AMS, and LHR.

I am glad that Delta pilots are standing up for Delta employees and are trying to limit the amount of outsourcing that is occurring now.


Is Delta there for its pilots or are their pilots there to serve Delta and its interest?

I am all for strong unions, but in aviation it is ridiculous, it seems everywhere that pilots feel that they are entitled to special treatment. In the core, they are employees, nothing more. Sure their rights need to be protected. I can't imagine that the operating cost of KLM of Air France is lower than Delta.


Indeed. "Over-entitled" pilots much.
 
User avatar
RetiredNWA
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 5:01 pm

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:34 pm

jagraham wrote:
This scope issue is actually quite complicated
- DL invested in VS and had VS do less flying to Asia and more flying to JFK. After all, JFK - LHR is the most profitable city pair. DL/VS is still #3, but without VS, DL was barely a blip
- Revenue is going up, losses are minimal. Profit is expected to return next year
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-virg ... SKCN1RM1GT
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/e ... /eikon.png
- At the level of control DL has over VS, moving enough slot pairs would tip control over the 50% mark and muck up the whole arrangement.

DL does not have much slack in their widebody fleet
- It's discussed extensively here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1411859
- From post #760 (thanks hkcanadaexpat)
07/22-07/28 Period
Total Fleet: 152
Scheduled Service: 145/152
Spares: 7/152 (2x76T, 2x76Z, 1x764, 1x77L, 1x333)
Conversion: 0/152
Maintenance: 0/152
Storage: 0/152
- There is not enough slack in the widebody fleet to balance JV flying at this time. More widebodies are needed at DL. And they are coming, but not at a fast clip (good thing too, because 787s have Trent 1000 problems and A339s would probably have had Trent 7000 problems except that RR was late from dealing with the Trent 1000 problems

Once DL gets more A339s they can rebalance TATL flying. And they should do just that as first priority as A339s come into service.
- DL must keep the 763s in order to make a difference (despite what many a.net pundits say). If DL retires 763s at anything near a 1:1 ratio as A339s come in, there will be a strike.
- DL can do more flying elsewhere in Europe (other than LHR, CDG, AMS) to balance the JV
- There should be enough profitable city pairs DL can come up with


A strike? By who?? ALPA-represented Pilots at Delta Air Lines? You have no idea how DALPA works - there will NOT be a strike.
 
User avatar
UPlog
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:45 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:09 pm

Not something to strike over. Instead, they have filed grievances which will work their way through, in addition union has taken a more vocal stance with DOT filings, website, etc.



KOREAN AIR JV, 14 Scope Contract Violations
Eight violations related to the Korean Air Joint Venture were heard by a five-member System Board on February 19-21, 2019. Final arguments were filed in post-hearing briefs on April 19, 2019. The matter is now awaiting the arbitrator’s decision.
These violations represent a deficit of thousands of Pacific block hours that were required to be flown by Delta pilots as spelled out in Section 1E. Permitted Arrangement with a Foreign Carrier. By not meeting the requirements under Section 1 E., the Delta-Korean JV does not constitute a “Permitted Arrangement with a Foreign Carrier”

AEROMEXICO JV, 7 Scope Contract Violations
Delta has violated four different provisions of Section 1 totaling seven violations since 2016. Three violations related to the Aeroméxico Joint Venture were heard by a five-member System Board on March 20, 2019. Final arguments were filed in post-hearing legal briefs on June 6, 2019, we are now awaiting the arbitrator’s ruling.
ALPA has also grieved new Aeroméxico-related violations that occurred in December 2018 and January 2019. These violations concerned the Company’s failure to perform the minimum required block hours of flying to and from Mexico as spelled out in Section 1E. Permitted Arrangement with a Foreign Carrier. By not meeting the requirements under Section 1 E., the Aeroméxico JV does not constitute a “Permitted Arrangement with a Foreign Carrier”

WESTJET JV, 3 Scope Contract Violations
Even though this Joint Venture has not been formally launched, there have already been Section 1 violations involving Delta putting too many Delta passengers on WestJet aircraft.
 
User avatar
SierraPacific
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:50 pm

spinotter wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:
Finally, JV's directly hurt pilots and flight attendants with less and less destinations served with Delta metal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that all JV's are is the shuffling of flights to foreign carriers that have cheaper costs. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if in 10 years the only international destinations served by Delta (Excluding the Carribean and Canada) would be ICN, AMS, and LHR.

I am glad that Delta pilots are standing up for Delta employees and are trying to limit the amount of outsourcing that is occurring now.


Not even CDG? That is a ridiculous extrapolation and I think you must have a purpose allied to the pilots and opposed to the general health of Delta Air Lines.


I am advocating for the employees of Delta Air Lines. The Delta international network has been shrunk over the past 15 years and has lead to Delta having the smallest widebody fleet of all of the legacies. These international trips are by far the most desirable trips for employees at Delta so it isn't a stretch to see why Delta pilots are going against this outsourcing.
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2595
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:58 pm

chepos wrote:
Lufthansa wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:
Finally, JV's directly hurt pilots and flight attendants with less and less destinations served with Delta metal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that all JV's are is the shuffling of flights to foreign carriers that have cheaper costs. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if in 10 years the only international destinations served by Delta (Excluding the Carribean and Canada) would be ICN, AMS, and LHR.

I am glad that Delta pilots are standing up for Delta employees and are trying to limit the amount of outsourcing that is occurring now.



You think VS has lower costs than an American carrier? You obviously have never done business in the UK.
And to suggest DL would also give up routes to all over the world to places like PEK, JNB, FCO, SYD, EZE etc is
kind of crazy when they're making good profits from them. And have ordered more aircraft for them. VS works of
the UK market well because the UK expects certain standards and VS found a way to beat AA/BA by interlining
with Delta and marketing it in a trendy way that probably wouldn't work in most DL markets, however the interline
agreement does.


I’m confused, how did VS beat BA/AA? BA/AA are much larger out of LHR to the US, than VS/DL. VS footprint outside the TransAtlantic market seems to be on the shrinking.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps beat wasn't the right word, compete should have been. And yes its things like the virgin clubhouse or the fact they still operate transatlantic flights
outside LHR. And if you want to talk about other global destinations shrinking thats purely DL's influence. BA/AA were having them for breakfast so its
not entirely a bad thing. But to suggest DL is some kind of endangered species because VS offers new routes is kind of laughable.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 7931
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:15 pm

The Brits at Virgin America operate under "substantially less favorable working conditions" than the Delta pilots? Britain has typical featherbedded labor laws, so I find this assertion to be a bit dubious. It can't be cheaper -- all in -- to employ a British pilot than an American one, and just try to lay one off. Sounds like the Delta union is cherry-picking one or more of numerous factors to make this assertion.

We're not talking about a JV with a third-world carrier.
 
bennett123
Posts: 8946
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:02 pm

Virgin America.

Do they still exist?.

Are they a British company?.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 5847
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:59 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
zeke wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
Is there a non-obvious law I’m missing that would allow consideration of pilots’ interests in antitrust analysis? Competition law is supposed to be about consumer benefits.

The DL pilots may well have a valid beef, but it seems to me they need to take it up in bargaining with the company, not with DOT.


It may come under the pilot and flight attendant contracts. They normally have provisions only permitting aircraft of a certain size on company routes have to be performed by employees (also known as a scope clause). This is essentially to stop the parent airline to bring in wet lease aircraft to do the flying of the airline. The airline employees I guess are seeing a double edge attack here, domestically less flying is being done by the mainline aircraft, flying being replaced by regional jets, and internationally JV seeing some drastic cutbacks in networks being flown. I have noticed a lot of retraction in Asia with actual DL metal as they have expanded their JV agreements with KE etc.

The JV with VS is an interesting one that is attracting a lot of attention. As I understand it is a 50:50 JV, however DL own 49% of VS. This means that DL is effectively controlling 74.5% of those routes (50%+49%*50%, however the are scaling back flying being done by DL.I had heard unsubstantiated rumors that "someone" was looking for injunctive relief under the bilateral air services agreement. I dont know the fine details, I guess it has to do with VS not having majority control over those routes under the bi-lateral agreement when it is supposed to be a UK carrier.


I understand that. My point is that scope is a labor (or, I guess labour for you) law issue, not a competition law issue.


You are correct. Scope is not an issue for competition law.

As for whether or not JVs inherently hurt consumers and pilots, I will aver that there would be no Delta LAX-SYD without Virgin Australia's codeshare, Australia point of sale, and onward connections.
 
DDR
Posts: 1632
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:27 pm

Dutchy wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
People are more comfortable on airlines from their home country. Not to mention many of us don't want to endure the atrocities of European business class.


1. that is an assertion, not fact.
2. who cares for a 1-hour flight ;) k


Agree with Dutchy on both points. People are more comfortable on the airline with the lowest price. Maybe 30-40 years ago national pride played a part, but not so much any more.
 
Turnhouse1
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:29 pm

Andy33 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Opaque wrote:

Perhaps that is true, but how many new US routes have been added to AMS and CDG since 2007? They cannot operate from every US city to every European city. The JV can increase available city pairs, even though not everything is direct.


I'd much rather fly TPA-ATL-GVA than TPA-AMS-GVA. We all know there is enough demand for an ATL-GVA flight with the 900+ flights DL has at ATL. But DL sees more money by making AF/KLM take those passengers. Screw the bleary eyed passengers who have to connect in a foreign airport after a 10 hour flight.


So all the tickets are sold in the USA and none at all in Europe? Don't you think your logic applies just as well to passengers originating in GVA who have to endure ATL after a lengthy flight?

Especially since passengers originating in the US only have to go through immigration in AMS on this route and don't need to clear security again, baggage goes through to GVA without any need to reclaim it in AMS. Travelling from GVA via ATL, they need to clear US immigration, reclaim their bags, clear US Customs, deposit their bags again at the transfer area, and then clear TSA security. Efficient airport as ATL is, this inevitably extends the overall journey time compared to the much simpler procedures in AMS.


This is a significant thing, if flying to the USA, going straight to your final destination is useful as the process for connecting is a hassle with no through checked bags. Likewise Europe to South America via USA is unattractive as they don't do international connections properly. ATL and MIA could have a useful business there if they sorted that out. Maybe the Delta and American Unions could ask about that?
 
wjcandee
Posts: 7931
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:34 pm

bennett123 wrote:
Virgin America.

Do they still exist?.

Are they a British company?.


Oh that's funny. I of course meant Virgin Atlantic, which is of course the airline JV that the whole thread is about. Hadn't had my second cup of coffee. Obviously.

Thanks for the nitpick. One of the truly-greatest things about A.net is the fleet of detail-oriented folks who will helpfully point out the tiniest, most-trivial mistakes, and I guess you get today's award for the most-picayune nitpick. I wish my associates at work proofread as perfectly as the folks here.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12496
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:53 pm

enilria wrote:
These JVs have been used to reduce capacity and competition in order to raise fares.

And yet more people are flying the TATL than ever before, on more overall capacity, and fares are lower decade-over-decade than in any time in history relative to inflation.

So kindly explain how anything you just said is, well, true.



TTailedTiger wrote:
Around 2007 Delta was running tons of flights to Europe from ATL, JFK, and CVG. We had a lot of nonstop options to secondary cities. Now they are doing everything they can to force passengers through AMS and CDG.

K, now compare the amount of revenue DL made in 2007 vs y.e.2018.... and you'll have your (obvious) answer as to the reason why.

A nonstop to secondary city isn't worth the opportunity cost if you can't leverage that nonstop for a revenue premium over the 1stop competition. Simple business.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
DDR
Posts: 1632
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:59 pm

wjcandee wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
Virgin America.

Do they still exist?.

Are they a British company?.


Oh that's funny. I of course meant Virgin Atlantic, which is of course the airline JV that the whole thread is about. Hadn't had my second cup of coffee. Obviously.

Thanks for the nitpick. One of the truly-greatest things about A.net is the fleet of detail-oriented folks who will helpfully point out the tiniest, most-trivial mistakes, and I guess you get today's award for the most-picayune nitpick. I wish my associates at work proofread as perfectly as the folks here.


I didn't even catch that it said Virgin America because my mind had substituted Virgin Atlantic. 99.99% of the people on here knew what you meant.
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:59 pm

The JV used to have a provision for balancing the number of seats between the companies which totally benefited DL pilots because DL's smaller aircraft (so many flights on 767s plus 757s compared to the 787/330/340/777 and A380 that AF/KL used) meant DL had more flights then AF/KL did.

The formala was changed to seat miles (so # seats and miles flown) plus DL has larger aircraft all of which means the formula doesn't benefit DL pilots. I also don't think the VS deal has a capacity balancing provision....and that might actually be the rub. DL could effectively have VS run all the LHR service and cut out DL pilots.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:06 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
enilria wrote:
These JVs have been used to reduce capacity and competition in order to raise fares.

And yet more people are flying the TATL than ever before, on more overall capacity, and fares are lower decade-over-decade than in any time in history relative to inflation.

So kindly explain how anything you just said is, well, true.



TTailedTiger wrote:
Around 2007 Delta was running tons of flights to Europe from ATL, JFK, and CVG. We had a lot of nonstop options to secondary cities. Now they are doing everything they can to force passengers through AMS and CDG.

K, now compare the amount of revenue DL made in 2007 vs y.e.2018.... and you'll have your (obvious) answer as to the reason why.

A nonstop to secondary city isn't worth the opportunity cost if you can't leverage that nonstop for a revenue premium over the 1stop competition. Simple business.


We may as well do away with traffic rights all together and allow any airline to serve both domestic and international flights in the US. The government is supposed to protect the consumer, not Delta Air Lines. Allowing Delta to eliminate competition from KLM, Air France, and Virgin Atlantic does not help the consumer.
 
AEROFAN
Posts: 1759
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:47 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:14 pm

LAXintl wrote:
The Delta Master Executive Council of ALPA filed comments with the DOT raising their concerns about granting ATI for the carriers proposed expanded Atlantic joint venture with AF-KL-VS.

While MEC expressed its previous support for JVs with as they promised to "produce new flying opportunities for Delta and its employees", they now instead express "serious concerns raised by the inequitable allocation of service growth within the existing immunized alliance. The MEC urges the Department to condition final approval of the Amended JVA on mandatory time-limited review of the alliance’s impact on the balance of Delta-operated flying opportunities and U.S. aviation jobs in joint venture markets."

The MEC argues for example in the UK market, "Delta-operated flying in the critical New York-London market has actually decreased since the Delta-Virgin joint went into effect. This use of the JV mechanism to effectively outsource Delta flying to a foreign carrier whose flight crews work under substantially less favorable wages and work rules is fundamentally inconsistent with the Department’s public interest objectives of strengthening the competitive position of US air carriers relative to foreign air carriers, and encouraging fair wages and working conditions."

So much for the labor love at DL.
:box: :box:

OST-2013-0068-0077


I'm confused by this action. Is to London the only route that pilots can fly?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12496
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:21 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
The government is supposed to protect the consumer, not Delta Air Lines. Allowing Delta to eliminate competition from KLM, Air France, and Virgin Atlantic does not help the consumer.

Hmm, so then explain (1) why more consumers are flying (both the TATL and in total) than ever before, at (2) lower prices relative to inflation than ANY decade since US commercial aviation became deregulated?

Because last I checked: more seats, at lower prices, are good things for the consumer.... but I'll certainly be interested to hear why you believe otherwise.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:29 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
The government is supposed to protect the consumer, not Delta Air Lines. Allowing Delta to eliminate competition from KLM, Air France, and Virgin Atlantic does not help the consumer.

Hmm, so then explain (1) why more consumers are flying (both the TATL and in total) than ever before, at (2) lower prices relative to inflation than ANY decade since US commercial aviation became deregulated?

Because last I checked: more seats, at lower prices, are good things for the consumer.... but I'll certainly be interested to hear why you believe otherwise.


Why don't you show some evidence for your claims?
 
User avatar
SierraPacific
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:36 pm

wjcandee wrote:
The Brits at Virgin America operate under "substantially less favorable working conditions" than the Delta pilots? Britain has typical featherbedded labor laws, so I find this assertion to be a bit dubious. It can't be cheaper -- all in -- to employ a British pilot than an American one, and just try to lay one off. Sounds like the Delta union is cherry-picking one or more of numerous factors to make this assertion.

We're not talking about a JV with a third-world carrier.


Their pay is public with Virgin pilots making substantially less than Delta pilots so it is in fact much cheaper to employee British pilots than American pilots.

The pay rates are public if you want to look at them and see the difference for yourself and you will understand why routes are moving away from Delta metal.

(For example, a Virgin Atlantic 7 year FO makes 100k a year while a comparable 7 year Delta FO makes 216k a year with profit-sharing on top of that, the captain difference is even greater with most Delta international captains making over 330k a year without bonuses while I cannot find the Virgin captain salary)

Delta is also one of the highest-paid pilot groups in the world so any JV partner is going to be cheaper to export flying to than actually flying a Delta jet.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12496
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:37 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
Why don't you show some evidence for your claims?

I'll see your pathetic avoidance-to-answering-the-question tactic, and raise you:

(1) simple T100 data. Start with page 5 and work your way down:
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/do ... r-2018.pdf

(2) fare data per year going back to 1995, straight from the Bureau of Transportation:
https://www.bts.gov/content/annual-us-d ... nt-dollars


.....so again, right back to my question:
Please explain how JVs have somehow disadvantaged the consumer, seeing as capacity has consistently gone up and (real-adjustment) fares have consistently gone down, throughout their existence.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
NWADTWE16
Posts: 670
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:12 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:40 pm

How can anyone make an over-statement like "European Business Class is horrible" in comparison to U.S. carriers? I ask that person to state all the European carriers you have flown Business class on and when, and the same internationally with U.S. carriers. Lets see what you actually have done in order to make such an outrageous comment.

I am extremely loyal to DL and yet its AirFrance and Virgin Atlantic I purposely seek out to take me across the pond, and then within Europe both Air France and KLM offer amazing inflight service, although domestic seat pitch on KLM is brutal.

I do support the DL pilots with this, and as presented a few posts back, they have already broken the agreements in over 10 ways. Like I stated in the beginning of this thread , Asia flights were hit harder than Europe. It doesn't matter whether the KE venture is new, and soon everything will flow over ICN, we know that. It's about all those thousands of hours, and high seniority bid lines that have disappeared from Delta pilots.
I haven't been everywhere, but it's on my list!
 
kimimm19
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:34 pm

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:53 pm

bennett123 wrote:
Super80fan

Not sure how this will help consumers.

If the cost of operating these flights is higher when operated by DL, this will likely mean higher prices, less flight options or both.


More supply and competition will mean lower prices.

There shouldn't be much difference in costs. This is, and has always been, about consolidation.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11839
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:56 pm

LAXintl wrote:
strengthening the competitive position of US air carriers relative to foreign air carriers, and encouraging fair wages and working conditions.


You can't do both of those at the same time, either you're competitive, or you're paying more than the competition.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:57 pm

NWADTWE16 wrote:
How can anyone make an over-statement like "European Business Class is horrible" in comparison to U.S. carriers? I ask that person to state all the European carriers you have flown Business class on and when, and the same internationally with U.S. carriers. Lets see what you actually have done in order to make such an outrageous comment.

I am extremely loyal to DL and yet its AirFrance and Virgin Atlantic I purposely seek out to take me across the pond, and then within Europe both Air France and KLM offer amazing inflight service, although domestic seat pitch on KLM is brutal.

I do support the DL pilots with this, and as presented a few posts back, they have already broken the agreements in over 10 ways. Like I stated in the beginning of this thread , Asia flights were hit harder than Europe. It doesn't matter whether the KE venture is new, and soon everything will flow over ICN, we know that. It's about all those thousands of hours, and high seniority bid lines that have disappeared from Delta pilots.


I was referring to domestic business class. In the US you get a big comfortable seat. In Europe it's a standard coach seat with the middle seat blocked.
 
bennett123
Posts: 8946
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:02 pm

Does that mean that you are assuming that without the JV that more flights would operate.

Surely it is more likely that the DL and others would operate the same number of flights as now and use the spare aircraft elsewhere to avoid trashing yields.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 7887
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:34 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
NWADTWE16 wrote:
How can anyone make an over-statement like "European Business Class is horrible" in comparison to U.S. carriers? I ask that person to state all the European carriers you have flown Business class on and when, and the same internationally with U.S. carriers. Lets see what you actually have done in order to make such an outrageous comment.

I am extremely loyal to DL and yet its AirFrance and Virgin Atlantic I purposely seek out to take me across the pond, and then within Europe both Air France and KLM offer amazing inflight service, although domestic seat pitch on KLM is brutal.

I do support the DL pilots with this, and as presented a few posts back, they have already broken the agreements in over 10 ways. Like I stated in the beginning of this thread , Asia flights were hit harder than Europe. It doesn't matter whether the KE venture is new, and soon everything will flow over ICN, we know that. It's about all those thousands of hours, and high seniority bid lines that have disappeared from Delta pilots.


I was referring to domestic business class. In the US you get a big comfortable seat. In Europe it's a standard coach seat with the middle seat blocked.


Yes but you get proper food on a 45 minute flight, on a US domestic flight of the same length there's a chance that you won't even get a drink 'due to the short nature of today's flight'.

On flights up to about 2 hours service on European carriers is much better, and the flight is sufficiently short that the seat isn't a massive deal.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
Varsity1
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:16 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
NWADTWE16 wrote:
How can anyone make an over-statement like "European Business Class is horrible" in comparison to U.S. carriers? I ask that person to state all the European carriers you have flown Business class on and when, and the same internationally with U.S. carriers. Lets see what you actually have done in order to make such an outrageous comment.

I am extremely loyal to DL and yet its AirFrance and Virgin Atlantic I purposely seek out to take me across the pond, and then within Europe both Air France and KLM offer amazing inflight service, although domestic seat pitch on KLM is brutal.

I do support the DL pilots with this, and as presented a few posts back, they have already broken the agreements in over 10 ways. Like I stated in the beginning of this thread , Asia flights were hit harder than Europe. It doesn't matter whether the KE venture is new, and soon everything will flow over ICN, we know that. It's about all those thousands of hours, and high seniority bid lines that have disappeared from Delta pilots.


I was referring to domestic business class. In the US you get a big comfortable seat. In Europe it's a standard coach seat with the middle seat blocked.


Yes but you get proper food on a 45 minute flight, on a US domestic flight of the same length there's a chance that you won't even get a drink 'due to the short nature of today's flight'.

On flights up to about 2 hours service on European carriers is much better, and the flight is sufficiently short that the seat isn't a massive deal.



Wrong. Even European 'legacies' are charging for food and drink like a vending machine now. I'd take USA domestic all day long over any Euro setup.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
wjcandee
Posts: 7931
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:27 am

DDR wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
Virgin America.

Do they still exist?.

Are they a British company?.


Oh that's funny. I of course meant Virgin Atlantic, which is of course the airline JV that the whole thread is about. Hadn't had my second cup of coffee. Obviously.

Thanks for the nitpick. One of the truly-greatest things about A.net is the fleet of detail-oriented folks who will helpfully point out the tiniest, most-trivial mistakes, and I guess you get today's award for the most-picayune nitpick. I wish my associates at work proofread as perfectly as the folks here.


I didn't even catch that it said Virgin America because my mind had substituted Virgin Atlantic. 99.99% of the people on here knew what you meant.


Thanks DDR! Made me smile.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 7931
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:33 am

SierraPacific wrote:
The pay rates are public if you want to look at them and see the difference for yourself and you will understand why routes are moving away from Delta metal.


I get your point, but, unfortunately for this analysis, "Pay rates" mean absolutely-zero. What are the guaranteed minimum hours per month? What do they get for picking up additional time? Trip rigs? Basing? How often do they get extra pay? What kind of basing do they have? What kind of health insurance? What kind of pension? Can they be laid-off? If laid off, what does the company pay them? What percentage of their pay is taxable to the company in employment taxes?

You can make another $50/hr and still cost the enterprise less than someone making $50/hr less.

And it's what they cost the enterprise, not what they take home, that is relevant to any claim that "it's cheaper to use Virgin Atlantic pilots".
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 7887
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:42 am

Varsity1 wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

I was referring to domestic business class. In the US you get a big comfortable seat. In Europe it's a standard coach seat with the middle seat blocked.


Yes but you get proper food on a 45 minute flight, on a US domestic flight of the same length there's a chance that you won't even get a drink 'due to the short nature of today's flight'.

On flights up to about 2 hours service on European carriers is much better, and the flight is sufficiently short that the seat isn't a massive deal.



Wrong. Even European 'legacies' are charging for food and drink like a vending machine now. I'd take USA domestic all day long over any Euro setup.


Wrong?!? Excuse me, but please educated us on which carriers are charging for food and drink in Business Class.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
catiii
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:51 am

Out of curiosity, when did the company and MEC exchange openers? April?

Sounds like posturing to me.
 
catiii
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:54 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
NWADTWE16 wrote:
How can anyone make an over-statement like "European Business Class is horrible" in comparison to U.S. carriers? I ask that person to state all the European carriers you have flown Business class on and when, and the same internationally with U.S. carriers. Lets see what you actually have done in order to make such an outrageous comment.

I am extremely loyal to DL and yet its AirFrance and Virgin Atlantic I purposely seek out to take me across the pond, and then within Europe both Air France and KLM offer amazing inflight service, although domestic seat pitch on KLM is brutal.

I do support the DL pilots with this, and as presented a few posts back, they have already broken the agreements in over 10 ways. Like I stated in the beginning of this thread , Asia flights were hit harder than Europe. It doesn't matter whether the KE venture is new, and soon everything will flow over ICN, we know that. It's about all those thousands of hours, and high seniority bid lines that have disappeared from Delta pilots.


I was referring to domestic business class. In the US you get a big comfortable seat. In Europe it's a standard coach seat with the middle seat blocked.


Yes but you get proper food on a 45 minute flight, on a US domestic flight of the same length there's a chance that you won't even get a drink 'due to the short nature of today's flight'.

On flights up to about 2 hours service on European carriers is much better, and the flight is sufficiently short that the seat isn't a massive deal.


Sorry, that’s inaccurate. With the exception of the flight deck keeping inflight seated for a safety reason, in business class you always get a drink service at minimum.
 
alasizon
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:03 am

LAX772LR wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Around 2007 Delta was running tons of flights to Europe from ATL, JFK, and CVG. We had a lot of nonstop options to secondary cities. Now they are doing everything they can to force passengers through AMS and CDG.

K, now compare the amount of revenue DL made in 2007 vs y.e.2018.... and you'll have your (obvious) answer as to the reason why.

A nonstop to secondary city isn't worth the opportunity cost if you can't leverage that nonstop for a revenue premium over the 1stop competition. Simple business.


panamair wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Agreed. Around 2007 Delta was running tons of flights to Europe from ATL, JFK, and CVG. We had a lot of nonstop options to secondary cities. Now they are doing everything they can to force passengers through AMS and CDG.


What nonsense. Sure, CVG has been replaced by DTW post-merger but DL metal still touches up to 34 TATL destinations (by next summer based on known plans today), compared to 36 in the summer of 2007. What the heck are BRU, CPH, ZRH, AGP, NCE, PRG, ATH, PDL, LIS, SNN, GLA, EDI, TXL, MUC, STR, DUS, KEF and others doing on the schedule then if the aim is to push everything through AMS and CDG considering all of them (except for KEF and PDL) can be pushed through AMS or CDG if DL really wanted to?

In fact, it is because of the JV that service to many of these places can even be sustained. Without the help of AF-KL-VS on the European side to shore up the European point-of-sale, DL would not have been able to keep up a 30+ destination TATL network. For example, without VS, DL would not even be at 10 daily flights out of LHR, or even in GLA, or EDI.


Since we are looking at 2007, you also have to add in NW if you are going to compare to 2018. Revenue is up, but there is no denying that city pairs directly served are down.
Manager on Duty & Tower Planner
 
User avatar
SierraPacific
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:41 am

wjcandee wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:
The pay rates are public if you want to look at them and see the difference for yourself and you will understand why routes are moving away from Delta metal.


I get your point, but, unfortunately for this analysis, "Pay rates" mean absolutely-zero. What are the guaranteed minimum hours per month? What do they get for picking up additional time? Trip rigs? Basing? How often do they get extra pay? What kind of basing do they have? What kind of health insurance? What kind of pension? Can they be laid-off? If laid off, what does the company pay them? What percentage of their pay is taxable to the company in employment taxes?

You can make another $50/hr and still cost the enterprise less than someone making $50/hr less.

And it's what they cost the enterprise, not what they take home, that is relevant to any claim that "it's cheaper to use Virgin Atlantic pilots".


Okay, we can go down this road, Virgin pilots are paid on salary while Delta pilots are paid hourly. Delta gets paid more via hours flown while Virgin pilots are still paid salary with a flight bonus (the salary 64k sterling plus 15,996k flight bonus). Health insurance has to be more expensive for Delta since American health insurance is insane while English healthcare is done via the NHS.

I am not sure about Virgin but Delta pilots can be furloughed without pay so I don't think that is a big concern. The big concern is that to operate a 3 man crew across the Atlantic with a Delta pilot and flight attendant crew is probably thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars more expensive a year than a comparable VS crew.

It is a no brainer for Delta to try and get rid of its own employees as much as possible and let JV's do the heavy lifting internationally (where the highest-paid pilots and FA's inhabit). I try to fly Delta internationally as much as possible but every year, the amount of places I can go without getting on a JV partner seems to shrink especially in Asia.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3437
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:00 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Please explain how JVs have somehow disadvantaged the consumer, seeing as capacity has consistently gone up and (real-adjustment) fares have consistently gone down, throughout their existence.


When evaluating the affect of JVs, capacity/traffic means nothing without knowing the change demand. From what we know about the world economy/population, demand is higher than before. We would expect traffic to increase, everything else equal. Aggregate totals also don't show us the effect in individual markets, where JVs can restrict capacity more effectively. Aggregate prices also don't reflect the change in technology that has made capacity cheaper to produce.

Longer story shorter, an increase in capacity and a decrease in fares doesn't mean a JV isn't playing its role in restricting capacity and increasing fares.
 
bennett123
Posts: 8946
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:04 am

Is there any evidence to support this?.
 
Andy33
Posts: 2473
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:07 am

SierraPacific wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
The Brits at Virgin America operate under "substantially less favorable working conditions" than the Delta pilots? Britain has typical featherbedded labor laws, so I find this assertion to be a bit dubious. It can't be cheaper -- all in -- to employ a British pilot than an American one, and just try to lay one off. Sounds like the Delta union is cherry-picking one or more of numerous factors to make this assertion.

We're not talking about a JV with a third-world carrier.


Their pay is public with Virgin pilots making substantially less than Delta pilots so it is in fact much cheaper to employee British pilots than American pilots.

The pay rates are public if you want to look at them and see the difference for yourself and you will understand why routes are moving away from Delta metal.

(For example, a Virgin Atlantic 7 year FO makes 100k a year while a comparable 7 year Delta FO makes 216k a year with profit-sharing on top of that, the captain difference is even greater with most Delta international captains making over 330k a year without bonuses while I cannot find the Virgin captain salary)

Delta is also one of the highest-paid pilot groups in the world so any JV partner is going to be cheaper to export flying to than actually flying a Delta jet.

Can you give us a link to some research that shows not just how much pay Virgin Atlantic pilots and crew get compared to Delta, but also the cost of employment in the UK as against the US. Things like pension contributions paid by employer, medical benefits paid by employer, taxes paid by employer to national or local government on a per-employee basis? I don't know the answer, but I know enough to see that just using pay as the comparator won't necessarily show what it costs to operate a flight between the same two points by Delta or Virgin crews?

Oh, and to pick up the point made upthread, there is no concept of "furlough" in the UK. Either you're employed and paid according to the contract, or you've lost your job completely, with on-the-spot redundancy payment due, which for longer serving people can be substantial - so that's a point in favour of it being cheaper to keep VS flying and lay off DL.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12496
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:23 am

MSPNWA wrote:
Longer story shorter, an increase in capacity and a decrease in fares doesn't mean a JV isn't playing its role in restricting capacity and increasing fares.

That's not what was asked, and is an attempt to deflect since one generally cannot prove the absence of effect.

The question was, show that JVs have disadvantaged the consumer. You didn't.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
reltney
Posts: 466
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:34 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sun Aug 18, 2019 8:37 am

If your airline claims to be an international carrier and only flys 48% if it’s international commitment, there is issues......

Unless you are an airline employee, your comment is worthless. Don’t even try......,

Airline employees, put yourself in these shoes.....
Knives don't kill people. People with knives kill people.
OUTLAW KNIVES.

I am a pilot, therefore I envy no one...
 
ilovelamp
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:45 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:14 pm

reltney wrote:
If your airline claims to be an international carrier and only flys 48% if it’s international commitment, there is issues......

Unless you are an airline employee, your comment is worthless. Don’t even try......,

Airline employees, put yourself in these shoes.....


DL flies 47.5% of the EASKs in the DL/AF/KL/AZ JV. In other words, one carrier flies almost half of a 4 airline JV. As much as I want more international flying for my fellow DL pilots, this JV is in our favor already.

The major issue with the JVs is the willful violation of these agreements in our PWA. Perhaps some can’t be fully avoided but if there are not quick remedies put in place when violations are made known, then you can see why scope will be a line in the sand for Delta pilots this contract cycle. In fact, I’ve caught wind of a strong rumor management has already offered a hefty pay rate increase to “buy” relief on international scope. Scope is something that rarely, if ever, gets reinstated historically so once it’s gone it’s gone. Pay rates, however, for some strange reason (/s) are typically clawed back when times get tough. There are too many pilots on property who have been negatively affected by all kinds of scope relief for there to be more rolling over.

The last 5 years or so has seen tremendous DL focus on domestic growth. I can see how it would be next to impossible to grow international traffic without risk-sharing with these JV partners while also attempting to gain domestic market share. The air line is only so big and to undertake all of this at once would be a huge drain on resources; if done wrongly it could jeopardize the future of the company.

For those that still have national pride when it comes to US carriers and our international presence, supporting Delta pilots is a must. Sometimes labor has to protect management from their own mistakes.



ILL
 
xorrygva
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:32 pm

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:44 pm

Andy33 wrote:
Yes, I'd be delighted to see lots more flights to GVA from US cities. Delta should bring on JFK, DTW, MSP, SLC, SEA etc as well. Wonder why the US airlines (all of them) don't see things your way. Maybe because GVA is not the financial centre of Switzerland, that's ZRH, nor the capital which is nominally Berne (airport BRN), and the biggest business class demand is normally driven by financial and political interests. Apart from United Nations activities, which would suggest flights from New York rather than Atlanta (which Delta could do easily of course), Geneva is more of a leisure destination.

As mentioned by Pmartin in an earlier post, this is not true at all (Caterpilar, P&G, EA Games, Pepsi, etc are some of the hundreds of US corporates with regional HQs in Geneva region). Just for info, DL has an annual revenue of over $60mm from GVA, despite being offline. This is more than some of their online destinations in Europe. This is because DL has interesting corporate deals with companies such as P&G (double digit business seats every day just for them) flying via CDG or AMS. Although DL in GVA from ATL or BOS would make a lot of sense, I am not sure they need it since they are making good money with limited expenses at the moment.
 
DDR
Posts: 1632
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:19 pm

Did anyone notice on this weeks OAG changes thread that DL metal is replacing AM metal on some routes? Is this because of the pilots' filed objections, or is it just because of the MAX issues at AM? Either way, more "international" flying for DL pilots.
 
Cactusjuba
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:06 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:57 pm

There is so much drama on here. What the pilots and DALPA are pushing for, is equitable growth. Not elimination of JVs. There can indeed be benefits to all involved. The AF-KLM, VS scope agreements have a mechanism to capture the share of flying, as mentioned before as EASKs. All the other JVs do not. When a new JV is formed, there is a snapshot and lookback that takes place to view DL and the JV carrier's flying between their respective nations. Under current agreements, this becomes the future baseline to determine the minimum amount of flying that will be operated by DL crews. The problem becomes, that DL pilots can be on par with a JV partner in the infancy of the JV, but fast forward a few years and all the the growth generated by the JV is given to the partner. This has so far been the case with AeroMexico, and the concern with Korean Air and WestJet. The desire with the TATL JVs is retaining a higher ratio of flying.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Delta pilots file objection to expanded JVs

Sun Aug 18, 2019 8:14 pm

RetiredNWA wrote:
jagraham wrote:
This scope issue is actually quite complicated
- DL invested in VS and had VS do less flying to Asia and more flying to JFK. After all, JFK - LHR is the most profitable city pair. DL/VS is still #3, but without VS, DL was barely a blip
- Revenue is going up, losses are minimal. Profit is expected to return next year
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-virg ... SKCN1RM1GT
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/e ... /eikon.png
- At the level of control DL has over VS, moving enough slot pairs would tip control over the 50% mark and muck up the whole arrangement.

DL does not have much slack in their widebody fleet
- It's discussed extensively here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1411859
- From post #760 (thanks hkcanadaexpat)
07/22-07/28 Period
Total Fleet: 152
Scheduled Service: 145/152
Spares: 7/152 (2x76T, 2x76Z, 1x764, 1x77L, 1x333)
Conversion: 0/152
Maintenance: 0/152
Storage: 0/152
- There is not enough slack in the widebody fleet to balance JV flying at this time. More widebodies are needed at DL. And they are coming, but not at a fast clip (good thing too, because 787s have Trent 1000 problems and A339s would probably have had Trent 7000 problems except that RR was late from dealing with the Trent 1000 problems

Once DL gets more A339s they can rebalance TATL flying. And they should do just that as first priority as A339s come into service.
- DL must keep the 763s in order to make a difference (despite what many a.net pundits say). If DL retires 763s at anything near a 1:1 ratio as A339s come in, there will be a strike.
- DL can do more flying elsewhere in Europe (other than LHR, CDG, AMS) to balance the JV
- There should be enough profitable city pairs DL can come up with


A strike? By who?? ALPA-represented Pilots at Delta Air Lines? You have no idea how DALPA works - there will NOT be a strike.


Really? So if the retirement of the 767 results in fewer wide-bodies on property you think the pilots will just be cool with it? Because as of now there are not enough scheduled deliveries to match the 767 fleet. And the lack of variety is really getting to them. A follow a DL 767 pilot on Instagram and he said he was sick of CDG.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos