WH,
did it ever occur to you that maybe engine commonality is not the big deal that alot of people make it out to be - including AA? Most of the costs in running incompatible fleets come from the cockpit crews, not from maintenance. Modern engines are designed to remain on the wing for years at a time. They also can transmit fault codes and performance information to a central site for evaluation by a pretty small but highly trained group of people; there simply are not hundreds of engine experts throughout an airline other than those that do overhauls - and the overhaul function is becoming increasingly contracted out.
I have heard many times that DL maintains AA's PW2037 engines on the ex-TW 757s while AA maintains DL's RR Trents on the 777ERs. There's probably a good chance that DL would buy GE's maintenance services on the GE90 since there are even fewer airlines that operate that engine at the thrusts needed for the LR.
DL operates a fleet of 763s that consist of 2 GE and 1 PW engine types. Although DL chose the GE engine for its first 767s, it went with Pratt for their 1st ERs, and then switched back to GE engines on the later ERs - driven more by economics than commonality concerns.
IIRC, AA mechanics managed to oversee the near destruction of a 767 in an uncontrolled engine failure despite AA operating all GE engines on its 767s. So maybe even having one engine type doesn't mean everything will turn out ok.
World...DL got kind of screwed on Berlin. Basically, it was going to be for one carrier, which is normal. Berlin, as we all know has never been able to sustain service to the US though. Everything was all signed etc., DL was getting the subsidy. The city then decided that since two carriers really wanted to serve the market, they would subsidize both. DL was pretty worried it wouldn't work given that the 763 is too big for the market. CO decided to use the 752. One of two things is happenning...the mkt is doing much better than expected or (more likely) both are losing money but neither is giving up because of ego. Glen & Bob at DL are not giving into their former employer (CO)...either way, this is one of a very few instances where two carriers are getting a subsidy. Or did when it started. Not sure if it has run out or not.
I'm pretty sure there is no subsidy now.
Actually, last year's DOT statistics show that DL and CO both had comparable load factors on their respective TXL flights, despite DL operating a larger aircraft (which also allows cargo).
These "because you fly there I have to also" additions help no one but CO is obviously hell bent on doing it by adding BCN along with several other cities this summer. There is alot of testosterone in the airline industry and certainly among network executives but as long as one carrier continues the cycle of horning into another carrier's actions, the cycle will continue. CO may have rained on DL's party but I'm sure CO sees a revitalized DL as more of a threat to CO than the other way around. DL's 767s will open up cities like OTP that will be out of range for the 757, the only real growth plane CO has right now. Sure they can pull a 767 to start a new route but they will be walking away from business in western Europe just as DL builds up its position from NYC to that region.
Given that DL reported a higher operating margin for the most recent quarter despite starting up all those new routes tells me that DL is not the pushover that other carriers think they are - or that CO is as strong as many portray them.
