Rumor has it DL PHL-LHR

[700UW]

How was it paid to unionize when they WERE ALREADY IAM members?

 

[WorldTraveler]

Tell us more about what any of this has to do w/the topic...

and yet you are silent about these kinds of posts:
 
 

How was it paid to unionize when they WERE ALREADY IAM members?

 

[Kev3188]

Oh no, I asked...

But just the same, what does any of that have to do w/the topic at hand?

 

[700UW]

Because he can't refute the message so he attacks the messenger.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I've written two posts regarding DL's growth in the TATL market to which neither of you two have responded to anything even remotely related to the topic.


so save your preoccupation with board domination for your look in the mirror.




 

to say that the strike did nothing is simply ignorance.

DL had already grown its capacity by about 10%. AF cancelled about 1/2 of its flights for a two week period. KL operated close to a full schedule. AF's share of the JV plummeted while DL's grew.

it absolutely made a difference. to argue otherwise requires using UGa math.

and the reason why ALPA is not fixating on the AF-KL-AZ JV balance issue is because AF is not growing while DL is. In case you missed it, AF is in a major restructuring mode and their mgmt. is not adding capacity over the Atlantic. DL is.

If DALPA felt that DL was not upholding their end of the requirement regarding the AF/KL/AZ JV, they sure wouldn't have signed an agreement regarding VS.

and further, the ALPA agreement regarding the DL-VS JV is LESS stringent in terms of cure language than the DL-AF-KL agreement. If ALPA didn't trust DL mgmt. regarding AF-KL, they sure wouldn't have signed an agreement that
gave the company more wiggle room.

face it. You are trying to carry the water for an organization to which you don't belong and whose members recognize the value DL is providing them. You have the issue with DL, while they don't.

 
 

well, since actually applying is indeed a qualification, yes, I am correct.

you are younger than me, don't even work in the industry anymore, and managed to work for 4 airlines....

what gives?

hey dawg,
DL just released its traffic results for Nov 2014.

guess what? DL added 3.5% more capacity on the Atlantic and saw a blistering 9.6% increase in mainline domestic traffic on 4.7% more capacity. Latin America was up 14.5%. Regional carrier capacity was down 3.6%

Doesn't sound like DL is outsourcing anything to anyone but instead adding capacity as fast as it can train pilots.

oh... and DL reported a 4.5% increase in RASM and operated 99.9% of its flights.

let me know what other carriers match - let alone exceed - that performance.

DL also noted particular strength in ATL and SEA.

 

[FWAAA]

Anybody remember when DL agreed to pay UA $21 million for the rights to fly JFK-LGW in late 2006, just before the Open Skies treaty was announced (effective March 2008)?

At least with PHL-LHR, Delta will get access to Heathrow in exchange for leasing the slot from AA/BA. Probably a better bargain for DL than $21 million for Gatwick on the eve of Open Skies.

So DL will have a substantial presence in another AA fortress hub (a daily 757), not unlike BA's long-time presence in ATL and SEA (not to mention EWR, IAD, DEN, IAH and SFO); the joint venture means that AA has a presence in each of those other airline fortress hubs. Above, we heard that DFW is next. Yawn.

 

[WorldTraveler]

yes, I do remember that DL paid for UA's JFK-London rights which were only good for LGW.

It shows that DL has been investing in London access for nearly 10 years.

We get the whole idea of JVs in other carriers' hubs. DL's JV partners have a hefty presence in virtually every major carrier hub. The question is how DL with its own aircraft can manage to push into other carrier hubs but AA and UA can't do the same in DL hubs.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

The question is how DL with its own aircraft can manage to push into other carrier hubs but AA and UA can't do the same in DL hubs.

 
I'll give it a shot answering it. 
Although I'm surprised you haven't figured it out yet. 
Actually I think deep down you know the answer but purposefully choose not to grasp it as it might not fit your DL rules the world narrative. 
 
I would argue that the reason UA and AA don't want to fly, for example DTW-AMS or SLC-CDG (or even to LHR from those cities) is mainly due to the fact that the market to/from those destinations isn't anywhere close to "top tier" as USA to LHR.
 
Just because DL has managed to very profitably to fly to LHR from its USA hubs is not big deal.  UA and AA have been doing it for over 20+ years.  You make it sound like DL pioneered making money from the USA to the premier European business destination.
 
Give it a rest man.
DL, UA, AA each have their advantages and disadvantages, their ups and downs.  There is no need to spin things to make DL appear better than it actually it while at the same time speak damagingly of other carriers.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

well, since actually applying is indeed a qualification, yes, I am correct.
 

 
What?
By that logic I'm qualified to play 3B for the SF Giants just by applying.
What world do you live in / where do you come up with this stuff?

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Above, we heard that DFW is next. Yawn.

You forgot about DL starting MIA-Latin America, then DFW.  I think ... ... ...

 

[WorldTraveler]

I would argue that the reason UA and AA don't want to fly, for example DTW-AMS or SLC-CDG (or even to LHR from those cities) is mainly due to the fact that the market to/from those destinations isn't anywhere close to "top tier" as USA to LHR.
 
Just because DL has managed to very profitably to fly to LHR from its USA hubs is not big deal.  UA and AA have been doing it for over 20+ years.  You make it sound like DL pioneered making money from the USA to the premier European business destination.

I'm presuming you did not proofread the last paragraph I quoted. FWAAA should be able to help you.

No one said DL pioneered starting or making money in top tier markets.

but you apparently still don't get that DL built its network around medium sized markets - on both sides of the Atlantic - and thus is far more able to "push up" into markets where AA and UA are stronger than for AA and UA to "push down" into DL's markets.

since deregulation, DL has expanded its network more into AA and UA's top markets than the other way around which says that AA and UA are at a long term structural disadvantage.

 

[Kev3188]

What?
By that logic I'm qualified to play 3B for the SF Giants just by applying.

Who knew?
 
Say hello to St. Etienne's newest striker.

 

[LDVAviation]

... since deregulation, DL has expanded its network more into AA and UA's top markets than the other way around which says that AA and UA are at a long term structural disadvantage.

 
It had to because it would not have survived by remaining the airline of rural America.  
 
Indeed, Delta was still very much a regional airline up until the time of its bankruptcy reorganization.
 
When you consider that NY + LA produce more in GDP than 46 states, exactly how is it a structural disadvantage for AA or UA to stay away from DL's top markets, many of which, if not all, are in those 46 states?

 

[WorldTraveler]

if you say so... DL was the 3rd largest airline at the time it reorganized and the largest airline across the Atlantic, just as it is now.

continue to clutch on to the notion that being the largest in NY and LA are enough to make a global airline.

DL has the highest market share of its hubs of any of the big 3.

and DL is still the largest airline in NYC, the largest market in the US.

AA's market share advantage at LAX RIGHT NOW is 5% over DL and 2% over UA.

AA's biggest advantage is at DFW and MIA and most of MIA's advantage is to Latin America... where AA is seeing and will see a growth of new competition

 

[topDawg]

err wrong thread.