While embarassed by how long it took to get this through, I'm glad to see that it has finally arrived... and not a moment too soon!
Excerpt:
Northwest Airlines today announced the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has tentatively approved its application for six-way antitrust immunity with its SkyTeam alliance partners: Delta Air Lines, Air France, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Alitalia, and CSA Czech Airlines. Final approval is expected to follow after the DOT reviews the final round of comments to its "show cause" order.
[Edited 2008-04-09 15:35:01]
Hail! to the victors valiant, Hail! to the conqu'ring heroes, Hail! Hail! to Michigan the leaders and best! Go Blue!
BOStonsox From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1887 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5934 times:
I guess I have to update the map to include CZA, and change EWR and IAH to current Skyteam hubs since the map was made with the assumption that UA and CO merged and joined *A.
I know it looks like spaghetti but I did the best I could. Anyway, this shows all the routes the ATI will affect aside from OK's routes.
StarAlliance38 From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1445 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5909 times:
Quoting BOStonsox (Reply 1): I guess I have to update the map to include CZA, and change EWR and IAH to current Skyteam hubs since the map was made with the assumption that UA and CO merged and joined *A.
Aahhhhhh.....my eyes! I'm blinded!!!! ahhhhhhh. Too many lines!!!!
NW748i From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 361 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5880 times:
Quoting BOStonsox (Reply 1): I know it looks like spaghetti but I did the best I could.
Actually, I'm about to cook up some spaghetti... this only whets my appetite.
But seriously, I regret that CO isn't in on this. They would be a fine addition. In any case, I can only hope that the party starts swiftly. With this, their carriers can streamline operations without completely alienating their workers. ATIs being confidential, it think it's unlikely that ST was able to copy much from *A. Perhaps in due time we'll see who made the better arrangement...
ST's framework seems more expansive, for sure.
Hail! to the victors valiant, Hail! to the conqu'ring heroes, Hail! Hail! to Michigan the leaders and best! Go Blue!
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7451 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5865 times:
Quoting NW748i (Reply 3): I regret that CO isn't in on this.
DL and CO are naturally competitors who are not the closest of buddies. They are about as neck-and-neck, and cutthroat, as any alliance partners have a right to be.
Meta From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 330 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5798 times:
This pretty much includes all of the Skytem airlines, why are CO not a very good team player? They don't seem to like being in Skyteam considering that they have competitors in their own alliance.
BOStonsox From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1887 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5781 times:
CO joined the same time NW and KL did. But while NW and KL are key players, CO hasn't contributed much, even in America. If they merged with UA they would be out of Skyteam.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31119 posts, RR: 74 Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5755 times:
As long as this means AA/BA will finally be granted the ATI they deserve when they apply for a third time, I'm not against this. Otherwise, it is blatantly unfair.
BOStonsox From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1887 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5734 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 7): As long as this means AA/BA will finally be granted the ATI they deserve when they apply for a third time, I'm not against this. Otherwise, it is blatantly unfair.
Aren't there any *A carriers looking for ATI as well?
DL Widget Head From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2041 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5693 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 7): As long as this means AA/BA will finally be granted the ATI they deserve when they apply for a third time, I'm not against this. Otherwise, it is blatantly unfair.
Now that LHR has been opened up, I'm sure ATI will be granted to AA/BA when they apply.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21498 posts, RR: 24 Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5628 times:
Quoting DL Widget Head (Reply 9): Now that LHR has been opened up, I'm sure ATI will be granted to AA/BA when they apply.
Not necessarily, due to BA holding more than 40% of LHR's slots which, when combined with LHR operating at close to 100% of capacity, makes it very difficult for other carriers to add LHR flights. If they were to approve ATI for BA/AA (and I'm not sure either carrier necessarily still wants it) I expect they would condition it on BA giving up some LHR slots which I doubt BA would consider a fair tradoff. With BA's dominant capacity on LHR-US routes their current code-sharing agreement with AA probably gives them most of what they need for connections to offline US points.
Runway23 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2038 posts, RR: 39 Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5572 times:
NW748i From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 361 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5539 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 7): As long as this means AA/BA will finally be granted the ATI they deserve
I was recently told by some who participated in formulating that proposal that some of the confidential stipulations weren't agreeable to DOT. All that I could get out was that revenue sharing was simply not to be granted. Further, someone has already pointed out the slots.
Quoting BOStonsox (Reply 8): *A carriers looking for ATI as well?
They already have one.
Hail! to the victors valiant, Hail! to the conqu'ring heroes, Hail! Hail! to Michigan the leaders and best! Go Blue!
BAW716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1995 posts, RR: 31 Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5409 times:
Finally...now we'll see much better coordination (and rationalization) of schedules, code shares and the like. SkyTeam has been in a difficult position against Star Alliance, that has had a similar type of immunity for some time.
This will make things much more competitive for SkyTeam...and at the end of the day, that's a good thing for us travellers.
baw716
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
DL already has ATI w/ KE. There is no reason for the US gov't to be involved in relationships between Euro carriers and KE so only NW has the potential to be added. For now, NW is probably not interested in ATI w/ KE given the duplication in routes.
Quoting BAW716 (Reply 15): SkyTeam has been in a difficult position against Star Alliance, that has had a similar type of immunity for some time.
no.... Skyteam has the first multi-US carrier ATI in the industry. Star has no advantage over ST. US does not have ATI with any Star partners.
Also, DL has a far more extensive transatlantic route system than what all of the Star carriers have in terms of routes flown and cities served.
What is significant about the DOT's ruling is that it makes it much easier for DL and NW to merge in the future because their commercial relationships have already been reviewed as being non-competitive. The only thing that would change with a DL/NW merger is that some of the requirements about DL and NW not being able to talk to each other (and they are certainly in there) will be removed.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5184 times:
Quoting BAW716 (Reply 15): SkyTeam has been in a difficult position against Star Alliance, that has had a similar type of immunity for some time.
How exactly do you come to that conclusion, considering that DL/AF/AZ/OK have had ATI for more than a half-decade, and NW/KL have had it nearly three times as long. All this is, is essentially folding the two into each other, and that's something Star has yet to match. So in essence, you have it backwards.
Which they may not even be interested in, considering that NW was the first USA airline to gain ATI with an Asian carrier; and they barely use it even today.
SNCntry32 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1511 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5127 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 16): Skyteam has the first multi-US carrier ATI in the industry. Star has no advantage over ST. US does not have ATI with any Star partners.
Wow, maybe something we could agree on. NW/KL really invented the alliance, now they have taken it one step further.
BOStonsox From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1887 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5084 times:
Quoting SNCntry32 (Reply 18): Wow, maybe something we could agree on. NW/KL really invented the alliance, now they have taken it one step further.
What do you mean by "invent?" I believe they were the first two airlines to codeshare and work together on international flights, but neither one is a founding member of Skyteam.
NYC2theworld From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 653 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5044 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 16): What is significant about the DOT's ruling is that it makes it much easier for DL and NW to merge in the future because their commercial relationships have already been reviewed as being non-competitive.
Not true, they have only reviewed a specific part of their route structure...trans-atlantic specifically. Their domestic route structure and Transpacific are two totally seperate items that would need to be scrutinized.
Always wonderers if this "last and final boarding call" is in fact THE last and final boarding call.
MasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 4727 posts, RR: 7 Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5032 times:
Quoting NW748i (Thread starter): While embarassed by how long it took to get this through, I'm glad to see that it has finally arrived...
They applied on June 28th, 2007. Less than ten months is actually pretty good time for a matter involving more than one department of the government.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21245 posts, RR: 19 Reply 22, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4878 times:
Quoting BOStonsox (Reply 19):
What do you mean by "invent?" I believe they were the first two airlines to codeshare and work together on international flights, but neither one is a founding member of Skyteam.
Codesharing and international cooperation sounds to me like inventing the alliance. They were doing it long before Skyteam. Remember Worldwide Service/Worldwide Reliability? (BTW, I sort of miss that logo.)
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
SNCntry32 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1511 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4747 times:
NW748i From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 361 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4720 times:
Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 21): Less than ten months is actually pretty good time for a matter involving more than one department of the government.
My point: What does this say about the pace of things in the government? But I won't even get started... as long as I do my part... always in a timely fashion.
Hail! to the victors valiant, Hail! to the conqu'ring heroes, Hail! Hail! to Michigan the leaders and best! Go Blue!
26 MasseyBrown: The US Govt is generally not bad in a crisis; but, otherwise, it just muddles along. If you look at the Constitution, it's designed to be that way. A
27 Sbworcs: Whilst I applaud this and agree it is good. I think it is unfair that BA/AA may not get the same benfits because of slots @ LHR. What is the reasoning
28 BOStonsox: That's what I thought you meant. I knew that the first codesharing and cooperation were done between NW and KL. But I wasn't sure if by "invent" you m
29 Bobnwa: They probably haven't gotten ATI since they haven't asked for it since open skies went into effect. Why do you think AA ands BA haven't asked? Makes
30 Commavia: Absolutely. The fact that we now have six airlines getting complete immunity from the government across the Atlantic, and yet these two airlines stil
31 Ocracoke: Not this again. KL and NW are no where near to being the first to creating a world wide alliance. There were/are many, many other alliances that were
32 Bobnwa: Those alliances you mention did not have ATI and did not split revenues and costs.
33 Ocracoke: That's not the point. The point being that NW/KL is/was/never will be the first alliance. No one said anything of ATI and/or splitting revenues and c
34 WorldTraveler: Yes, and transatlantic is the only portion of their network where they significantly overlap. DL and NW have very little domestic overlap and virtual
35 Viscount724: But new carriers wanting to add service to those airports don't have to pay tens of millions of $$ for slots. BA still has a big advantage at LHR due
36 StarAlliance38: I'm sorry, but I agree. I love NW/KL, but, even though they invented the alliance, Star mastered the concept of the alliance with common IT Plats., S
37 ConcordeBoy: ....you forgot "horrid-looking special livery than any 3yr-old could've created"
38 Commavia: An interesting read today in The Dallas Morning News' (excellent, by the way) airline industry blog. Excerpt: The transatlantic market share of the 4
39 Cubsrule: This is spot-on, I think. The key question is how much Open Skies changes the game. I would argue (as, I think, would you) that the ability of Americ
40 NW748i: Perhaps we should be more specific and use the term "joint venture." I'd agree. Star seemed to get off to a much better start than Skyteam with respe
41 MAH4546: Good points, but it doesn't mention that ATI for AA/BA/AY will likely also include IB, RJ, and MA.
42 Commavia: I personally think that is actually quite a question mark. All of the aforementioned points and obvious unfairness aside, It is already going to be a
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 361 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31119 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21498 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 964 posts, 
From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2038 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
