usdcaguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1203 posts, RR: 2 Posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4029 times:
Delta announced today through its travel agency portal that it will be ending ticketing and baggage agreements mid-February with Qatar, Turkish, Kuwait Airways and Aerosvit. Apparently, they are wanting to support their partners instead of accepting passengers and bags from these other carriers. Any thoughts on this strategy? Sounds like a great way to force people who have to travel from a DL stronghold to stay on them or their alliance partners unless they want to put up with these risks:
- No combined tickets, so no buying an itinerary involving both DL and, say, QR in the same PNR unless an agency manually tickets the itineraries separately, which basically eliminates buying combined itineraries through the OTAs like Expedia
- Even if someone travels on split tickets, DL or QR will refuse to check backs through to the final destination due to there being no agreement. It will be the responsibility of the passenger to reclaim bags and recheck at the transfer point.
- If something happens to the passenger's bags enroute on one carrier, say QR, they will have to file a claim with QR at the final destination stated on the QR ticket. If they forget to do this, they will not be able to file a claim with DL due to there being no agreement and will have to pick up the phone and call QR and hope they take a claim. Major risk and hassle.
- If the inbound flight of a connecting itinerary is late and the passenger misses the outbound, it will be as though they simply "missed their flight" with all the unintended consequences. Nobody will be legally obligated to lift a finger for them.
So, basically, I see this is a great win for DL, but for people who originate in DL strongholds who like to fly carriers such as QR and TK, they would have fewer options. This could also jeopardize QR or TK eventually serving the DL hubs as they would then miss out on most of the feed. Any thoughts on how this might play out? Is this a true loss for the carriers involved?
usdcaguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1203 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3376 times:
Actually, this has nothing to do with the DOT rules or e-ticketing agreements, which they have with these carriers. It has more to do with the fact that DL no longer wants to play North America taxi driver for the gulf carriers. I see this as a rather bold move; they're saying that you should be flying DL and its alliance partners, not those other guys.
yellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6757 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3278 times:
Quoting usdcaguy (Thread starter): So, basically, I see this is a great win for DL, but for people who originate in DL strongholds who like to fly carriers such as QR and TK, they would have fewer options. This could also jeopardize QR or TK eventually serving the DL hubs as they would then miss out on most of the feed. Any thoughts on how this might play out? Is this a true loss for the carriers involved?
Also a way to uninspire TK and QR from starting ATL.
When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined exactly 16 years ago today! , 29152 posts, RR: 50
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3269 times:
Its a two sided knife, particularly in TKs case, so turning revenue away can hurt you in other areas.
Sure DL might not like to provide beneficial feed at JFK for TK, but DL's own IST service begs for added beyond traffic connectivity on the Turkey end, and its country sales team works hard to sell DL from places like Ankara, Izmir, Adana which dont have a choice but use TK on the domestic leg.
In case of Turkey, I think this makes the case for staying on TK or within the Star Alliance even more attractive for travellers now versus partial itineraries that made use of DL.
I suspect however TK knew this was coming - they signed up with JetBlue at JFK late last year.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
alfa164 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1316 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2860 times:
Back when NW was NW and DL was DL, AA announced a new flight from (somewhere) to Minneapolis; NW immediately retaliated by announcing a DFW-LGA flight (which never materialized; apparently cooler heads prevailed).
Now that QR has announced ATH-JFK - a long-time DL route - and TK is making noises about flying IST-ATL, I think I am seeing some of that old NW let-get-back-at-them-somehow at work here. Maybe some of the old NW management is flexing its muscles in Atlanta.
It might make more sense of DL and/or its partners actually flew to destinations within Turkey or throughout the Middle East, but they don't. With VV in bankrupcy and KU probably of minimal importance, they just got thrown in for good measure.
It will be interesting to see if it all sticks....
goldorak From France, joined Sep 2006, 1994 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2757 times:
The DL announcement is not clear about the following point : do they still accept to check bags on separate tickets within Skyteam airlines ? Example : 1st ticket MCI-ATL on DL and 2nd ticket ATL-AMS on KL.