Quote: PARIS, Oct 16 (Reuters) - Air France (AIRF.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) and Delta Air Lines (DAL.N: Quote, Profile, Research) are preparing to announce a new commercial deal as the gloves come off in a war for transatlantic business under the recent Open Skies deal between Europe and the United States.
The French carrier declined to comment on the joint venture ahead of a news conference and signing ceremony on Wednesday.
But analysts said it had given broad outlines of its transatlantic plans at an investor conference on Monday, including plans to fly direct from Heathrow to Los Angeles.
Chief Executive Jean-Cyril Spinetta told investors the deal with Delta would add "several dozens of million euros" in profits in 2008, according to two analyst notes on the event.
Air France has said it is close to finalising a deal with Skyteam partner Delta that would create better cost-sharing and integration on the transatlantic routes.
The Delta venture will be based partially on a 10-year-old agreement between KLM, which is part of the same group as Air France, and Northwest Airlines (NWA.N: Quote, Profile, Research), by pooling the economic benefit from transatlantic services, analysts said.
The deal follows an Open Skies agreement to free up competition between Europe and the United States from April.
"Air France-KLM has clearly decided to seize the new opportunities offered by the Open Skies agreement, especially for traffic departing from London Heathrow," Paris brokerage Oddo said in a note to clients.
In a direct challenge to British Airways (BAY.L: Quote, Profile, Research), Heathrow slots will be used to serve nine U.S. destinations under the AF code, including a Los Angeles flight operated by Air France itself, analysts said.
Did something get lost in translation here? Nine US destinations served from LHR? Where are all those slots supposed to come from, and who'll be flying those? Okay, LAX (AF), ATL/JFK (DL) are a given, but on top of that? BOS/CVG/SLC *could* be, but I'm not really convinced.
Flyingcat From United States of America, joined May 2007, 510 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10242 times:
Since AF technically owns KLM can they be anteing up their slots too? So far a report for ORY JFK but the LHR destinations might not be known until tomorrow.
Varig md-11 From France, joined Jul 2000, 1575 posts, RR: 9 Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10180 times:
Quoting DAL767400ER (Thread starter): Nine US destinations served from LHR? Where are all those slots supposed to come from, and who'll be flying those?
they say in the article one flight will be operated directly by AF, the others will have AF code using LHR slots
if you consider AF and KL have lots of slots at LHR to fly boringly to CDG and AMS, they could be re-directed to juicy accross-the-pond flights
the link between London and Paris is 2 hours something with Hi speed train: who needs to fly now?
furthermore AF is refining its offfer on London city airport from France which is more convenient for Hi-fliers demanding a jet instead of a train
AF TW AA NW BA U2 TP UX LH SK AZ MP KL SN VY HV LS SS TK SQ RG
DAL767400ER From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 5721 posts, RR: 50 Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10168 times:
Quoting Varig md-11 (Reply 3): they say in the article one flight will be operated directly by AF, the others will have AF code using LHR slots
if you consider AF and KL have lots of slots at LHR to fly boringly to CDG and AMS, they could be re-directed to juicy accross-the-pond flights
I'm fully aware that AF/KL have a lot of slots at LHR, but the problem is that quite a few of them are for flights in the afternoon or evening and thus not attractive for US flights, save for maybe JFK.
LatinAviation From Ireland, joined Nov 2003, 1276 posts, RR: 17 Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10143 times:
There was an Air France-KLM Investor Day yesterday and JP Morgan issued an investor note stating that LHR-LAX would be flown by AF and the other frequencies are likely to be used to DL+NW hubs, plus Newark.
The report also said that AF had sold LHR slots to Continental, where as they will lease slots to DL for the LHR transatlantic routes.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10193 posts, RR: 62 Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9973 times:
Quoting DAL767400ER (Thread starter): Did something get lost in translation here? Nine US destinations served from LHR? Where are all those slots supposed to come from, and who'll be flying those? Okay, LAX (AF), ATL/JFK (DL) are a given, but on top of that? BOS/CVG/SLC *could* be, but I'm not really convinced.
Neither am I. Certainly anything's possible, and as UAL777UK said, we'll just have to wait until tomorrow to see what's officially announced, but I suspect that Reuters just reported it wrong. I don't think AF/DL are going to be launching 9 routes from Heathrow nonstop to the U.S. - at most, I can only think of maybe 5-6 cities that could even support their service profitably, at least initially.
Earlier reports in The Times and elsewhere referred to Delta flying - not unexpectedly - to Atlanta and JFK, plus "one other American city" (presumably Cincinnati, or perhaps Boston) while Air France was looking at Los Angeles. That's hardly nine cities.
The only other alternative I could possibly imagine in this is that perhaps what Air France meant by "Heathrow slots will be used to serve nine U.S. destinations under the AF code" will be AF's flight to LAX, Delta's flights to ATL, JFK and the mystery city, plus codeshares placed on CO flights to IAH and EWR, and NW flights to DTW and possibly MSP.
FWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3175 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9938 times:
My bets for the nine cities:
DL:
JFK
ATL (of course!)
CVG (the mystery city)
AF:
LAX
NW:
DTW
MSP
CO:
IAH
EWR
CLE? (fits into CO's CLE expansion plans)
Mindscape From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 314 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9840 times:
Quoting LatinAviation (Reply 6): The report also said that AF had sold LHR slots to Continental, where as they will lease slots to DL for the LHR transatlantic routes
Why is that if AF plans to put their code on CO flights ex-LHR as well ... can somebody explain ?
FWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3175 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9830 times:
Quoting Mindscape (Reply 10): Why is that if AF plans to put their code on CO flights ex-LHR as well ... can somebody explain ?
DL, CO, NW, AF, and KL are all SkyTeam members. All codeshare with each other on trans-Atlantic routes.
Mindscape From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 314 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9787 times:
Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 11): DL, CO, NW, AF, and KL are all SkyTeam members. All codeshare with each other on trans-Atlantic routes.
Thank you for this, but my question was on the slots sold to CO while they are leased to DL...
DAL767400ER From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 5721 posts, RR: 50 Reply 13, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9642 times:
Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 8): I can see DL flying LAX-LHR but not AF
DL doesn't have the free equipment available for an LHR-LAX flight, thus AF would be the carrier to operate the route. Plus, with the 77W, they'd also offer the superior product.
Quoting Mindscape (Reply 10): Why is that if AF plans to put their code on CO flights ex-LHR as well ... can somebody explain ?
That's probably due to CO's role in Skyteam. CO is more or less the 5th wheel on the AF/DL/KL/NW vehicle, and CO themselves essentially think that way themselves. Thus, AF probably prefers to sell their slots to CO and get a large some of money now in case their relationship were to end, and lease them to DL so that DL won't have to pay everything at once, knowing that the relationship between DL and AF is here to stay for quite some more years.
Mindscape From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 314 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 9560 times:
Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 13): That's probably due to CO's role in Skyteam. CO is more or less the 5th wheel on the AF/DL/KL/NW vehicle, and CO themselves essentially think that way themselves. Thus, AF probably prefers to sell their slots to CO and get a large some of money now in case their relationship were to end, and lease them to DL so that DL won't have to pay everything at once, knowing that the relationship between DL and AF is here to stay for quite some more years.
Thank you for your explanation and point of view... in this case, it means that AF itself doesn't see CO as a valuable partner which is a sad/shame thing. In parallel with DL, AF could have strenghen their CO ties with the Open Sky opportunities...
Icna05e From France, joined Feb 2006, 289 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 9457 times:
This I reckon would be a very expensive operation: AF needs to base 2 (?) aircraft at LHR for this sole operation to be carried out somewhat reliably. With all the pilots, F/A, maintenance and commercial crew involved... I am not sure this is such a good idea for just one destination, all the more quite a competitive one.
Another solution for the aircraft could be to rotate them from CDG. what a headache!
DAL767400ER From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 5721 posts, RR: 50 Reply 16, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 9393 times:
Quoting Icna05e (Reply 15): This I reckon would be a very expensive operation: AF needs to base 2 (?) aircraft at LHR for this sole operation to be carried out somewhat reliably. With all the pilots, F/A, maintenance and commercial crew involved... I am not sure this is such a good idea for just one destination, all the more quite a competitive one.
Doubt AF will base a 77W at LHR, more likely it will be routed CDG-LAX-LHR-LAX-CDG. Don't know how that works out with crews, though.
Runway23 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2038 posts, RR: 39 Reply 18, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 9369 times:
Something is definately being loaded into the schedule right now.
Even delta.com reflects this as it now recognizes ORY and LHR which it didn't do yesterday.
MasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 4725 posts, RR: 7 Reply 19, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 9333 times:
Quoting Mindscape (Reply 14): In parallel with DL, AF could have strenghen their CO ties with the Open Sky opportunities...
Perhaps they tried; CO is often the reluctant party in these deals.
EXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9245 times:
Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 13): DL doesn't have the free equipment available for an LHR-LAX flight, thus AF would be the carrier to operate the route. Plus, with the 77W, they'd also offer the superior product.
do you think LON based pax would fly AF to LAX??? I dont. Also connections in LHR would be very very limited. They could have codeshare connections with DL in LAX to a very limited number of destinations but it woudl involved changing terminals with longer elapsed connect times. DL could perhaps pull it off, but AF no way.
This is mostly fantasy, most likely a warning to BA not to start Europe-USA flights with 757s
Jetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7336 posts, RR: 52 Reply 21, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9223 times:
Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 16): Don't know how that works out with crews, though.
Probably the same way NZ crews their LAX-LHR flight. The FA's would probably be LHR based to avoid US labour laws and the FD crew would probably be CDG based on a 6 or 7 day pattern.
TinPusher007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 963 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9205 times:
I just hope DL can get into LHR with alot of its own metal instead of codesharing everything with AF.
"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 15733 posts, RR: 48 Reply 23, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9188 times:
Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 21): The FA's would probably be LHR based to avoid US labour laws
I'd think they'd rather have US labour laws over EU, especially French, laws no?
DAL767400ER From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 5721 posts, RR: 50 Reply 24, posted (5 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9156 times:
Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 20): do you think LON based pax would fly AF to LAX??? I dont.
I most definitely can. In the end, it's all a question of quality, service, and to a lesser degree also alliance allegiance that decides what airlines pax will fly. Granted, whether AF will be able to profitably fill a 77W to LAX remains to be seen, but no doubt they should be able to fill it.
That said, I'd say that in the next few years it'll be every carrier trying to serve every market between Europe and the US (AF entering LHR-USA, BA and VS looking at Continental Europe - USA, etc) until a point in the future when most of the smaller carriers (Maxjet, EOS, L'Avion) have been eliminated by the "Big Dogs" and in the end those big dogs will be back to focusing on their own stronghold (AF at CDG, BA at LHR), instead of flying everywhere (pending any potential mergers and takeovers of course).
25 UAL777UK: Give it a year, assuming AF start thre route, it will be ditched. I cannot see most British passengers flying AF no matter what product they are offe
26 Papatango: I just checked Delta.com and neither ORY or LHR are loaded
27 MaverickM11: Yeah I'm pretty sure it'll be like deregulation all over again--everyone will start every new route under the sun, realize they all suck, and retract
28 Jrlander: You make a good point. However, LA has lots of loyal NW and DL flyers. In addition, DL has a growing number of West Coast connections through LAX. I
29 Runway23: The schedules are not loaded. But try typing in ORY or LHR and it will come back with the full name. This was, just yesterday, something which the sy
30 Joost: No, they do not. They are not allowed either. In order to codeshare, the airlines need to: 1. Have traffic rights to the destination. In the current
31 Humberside: I imagine LHR-LAX will play an important part in DL's plans for LAX (I assume they will codeshare on it)
32 Acelanzarote: Either you don't like Air France long haul or have never flown them, They are good and if the price is right they will easy fill a 777 to LAX, sure t
33 Avek00: CO codeshares with NONE of those airlines on Trans-Atlantic routes.
34 UAL777UK: I have flown them a few times, nothing special but granted it was only short haul. You say they will easily fill a 777 on route, yes but at what pric
35 ScottB: I suppose the wild card here would be how corporate contracts might be driving the choice of routes. Delta has tried BOS-London before, as recently a
36 Joost: And if it were a DL flight, would you say the same? AF&DL have stated that it will be a joint-venture similar to the one of KL&NW, so basically it do
37 Avek00: Very much the case -- CO ran various circles around NWA and KLM to avoid having to join the TATL Joint Venture, which was called for in the original
38 AirTranTUS: With XE starting TUS-LAX for DL, connecting to that AF flight should be easy. I guess I will see tomorrow how easy it will be.
39 EXAAUADL: It isnt as though VS and BA dont have good products.....I can see DL doing this but not AF
40 Mindscape: Interesting, so this reluctance has existed before the Skyteam membership. But why is that ? why CO has stated itself in a "rebellion" mode towards a
41 Icna05e: Can someone elaborate on that please? I expect it to be a brand new agreement, albeit with the same status/juridictionnal structure but somehow this
42 Incitatus: The outcome of this JV won't be pretty. Airlines need psychiatrists to help them out of suicidal tendencies.
43 Joost: This is what my interpretation of the sentence is. The concept and the idea of KL+NW, but of course a brand new agreement for AF+DL. But they can of
44 LatinAviation: It will be a new jv. DL/AF/KL/NW applied for anti-trust immunity which is expected no later than June 2008, according to the Investor Day.
45 Joost: Do you have a link to that? About a year ago they applied for ATI as well, but it was rejected. Of course, the open skies agreements makes an importa
46 UAL777UK: No, I probably wouldn't, I think DL would have more of a success than AF will. Good luck to AF...they are going to need it IMHO
47 PHX Flyer: With the planned ten abreast seating in coach, I doubt that very much. Personally, I'd prefer an old Delta B767.
49 Icna05e: That could very well be the key reason for such an enterprise. I didn't think of it. Thanks Joost and LatinAviation for your help. It makes sense thi
50 Viscount724: What does your No. 2 refer to? There are many codeshare agreements that do not involve antitrust immunity. For example CO and.VS codeshare on many US
52 Schipholjfk: Why not? Most people (99% of the world who do not live their lives at Anet) don't care... they just look for cheap prices. Enough people fly Air Indi
54 Runway23: Atlanta will be 1 daily. Delta 178. ATL-LHR. Departs 1100PM. Arrives 1230PM. Delta 179. LHR-ATL. Departs 125PM. Arrives 605PM. Also very compatible sc
55 Haggis79: hmm... somehow I doubt that DL is going to let their aircraft sitting on the ground in LHR for such an extended period of time.... (0820PM until 0815
56 DeltaL1011man: A/C a 763 (though i would guess ATL and JFK will both go to 764s when they convert 3 more)
57 DAL767400ER: Isn't the 10-abreast seating only for the Caribbean-bound 77Ws, though? Might as well shut this site down then .
58 Panamair: Beggars can't be choosers...I'm sure some of this is limited by the slots they can get. Also, it won't be that long; the daylight flight arriving at
59 Viscount724: There are other recent threads that seem to indicate that AF is changing to 10-abreast on all their 77Ws. I would guess that at least 90% of passenge
60 Commavia: Delta's problem on BOS had nothing to do with UA or AA. The problem was that they flew to Gatwick, where nobody wanted to fly from BOS. And AA's serv
61 AirTranTUS: But do you want a 10-abreast 77W with exterior camera views, AVOD, and multiple games, or a 763 with overhead screens? To the people that know ATL we
62 Runway23: Here is the official press release from airfrance corporate communications. Air France and Delta Air Lines to Sign a Trans-Atlantic Joint Venture Agre
63 Varig md-11: I cannot agree more furthermore the flight will probably be sold under DL code either for example, from CDG they sell AF90 to MIA under DL code on ex
64 DAL767400ER: Definitely less busy than during afternoon. Only international flights arriving so late are the 4x weekly ICN flight (777), and a couple of Latin Ame
65 DAL767400ER: Well, it's official now: http://news.delta.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=10885
66 Panamair: Here's the official press release from AF-DL: http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/071017/128829.html Nothing additionally earth-shattering other than what we have
67 UAL777UK: Perhaps so, and a lot of them are ex-pats flying to a massive hub for EK and are not just transferring but live there as well. AF, will not have that
68 AF Cabin Crew: Ia Orana all ! Concerning AF's 77W config in Tempo I was told by an AF supervisor that the 77W that will have l'Espace Affaires and Tempo will go to 3
69 Icna05e: Yes! Didn't want to believe it as long as it was not official. Great move! 2 links to "secondary" hubs (sorry SLCers if it's not that secondary, at l
70 Varig md-11: I hate it since my favorite flight is AF90 to MIA.....but thx for the info! relief also that the 3-3-3 will remain on 3 class 77W...I would've found
71 FLYSSC: Not exactely ... The new configuration on the B77W will be 8P / 67J / 250 Y (instead of the 235 Y on the other "classic" B77W). The 250Y cabin will b
72 WorldTraveler: except that DL's costs are quite a bit lower than AF's. Both airlines will grow but DL will do more "developmental flying" since there is less risk f
73 N1120A: With all the pressures faced on the LHR-CDG shuttle from Eurostar, a few spare slots at slower times of the day when it comesto O&D traffic are bette
74 Alitalia744: The JV is expected to be expanded during Phase 2 and by 2010 expected to be completely inclusive of two additional airlines according to the AF presen
75 Charles79: The AF supervisors have told my bf here at LAX that during the peak summer times they will keep 3 flights from/to CDG in addition to the LHR one, but
76 Goldorak: Also AF absolutely needs it's own lounge at LAX (it will worth it for such a number of daily flights) as the NW lounge currently used at T2 is awful
77 Jrlander: Well- another question is whether AF will move back to Terminal 5 with DL, given the joint venture.
78 Haggis79: not too hard to guess which ones the two additional carriers are going to be, I guess... if space permits they might, but I don't think this is the c
79 DAL767400ER: No doubt due to DL having the lower-capacity jets than AF in the 757. Space shouldn't really be the issue, just move a few RJs out of the way and fre
80 Nzrich: Its a shame they could not use the NZ koru lounge its gorgeous in T2
81 Incitatus: No. The outcome won't be pretty because you and Delta and AF can't see beyond your noses. Do you think BA will sit still and watch Air France in part
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 5721 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2007, 510 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, 
From France, joined Jul 2000, 1575 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2006, 867 posts, 
From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2038 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
