Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DL/NW Merger: Fate Of Offshore Hubs?  
User currently offlineNorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1829 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7964 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What does the future hold for Ams and Nrt following the integration?

I can see Ams being closed as a hub as there's no need to route passengers via ams when DL has existing nonstop service from either JFK or Atlanta to most places in Europe already. I can see service from JFK, ATL, DTW and MSP continuing with O and D passengers only. Likewise i can see the Ams-Bom service being discontinued as unnecessary, since DL already has nonstop service from ATL/JFK to Bom, again, there's no need to route pax via Europe when they can be put on a nonstop from the US.

The Tokyo hub is a bit more challenging due to the breadth of operations there, with fifth freedom service to Can, Pek, Pvg, Mnl, Hkg, Sin, Bkk, Gum, Spn, Icn, and Pus, plus the lack of aircraft able to serve those ports nonstop from the west coast. Of course, when the 787 comes on property, this will change, and i would assume that all of the Transpac operations will be consolidated to a single west coast hub ala UA at Sfo (Lax anyone?) and Nrt will become strictly O and D, but at the rate things seem to be going, it may be 2012 before DL starts recieving it's first 787-851s. In the meantime, with the trend going towards nonstop service from the US, is there anything DL can do? or are they pretty much stuck for the time being?

Two other wondrances:

What's going to become of the NW/KL agreement once NW officially sinks beneath the waves?

And, will NW have to move from the concourse it shares with KLM in ams (E) to G, where all the other US carriers operate. Or, more realistically, will it be the other way around with DL moving from G to E?

What does anyone think?


Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it
65 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22932 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7744 times:

I'm not sure either NRT or AMS will necessarily go away. While DL will have a decent Asia network, they currently lack a west coast gateway from which to connect passengers to PVG, PEK, or HKG. ATL and DTW services to Asia will not go away, but they cannot completely replace NRT, and I don't think NRT can close until DL has a decent 787 fleet; otherwise, they can't serve cities like SGN (I realize they don't serve SGN right now, but they'd start it tomorrow if the Vietnamese government would grant them the 5th freedom rights they want).

AMS is a different story, but I'd make a similar argument. ATL and JFK are great, but they cannot effectively replace AMS at this time. JFK is too congested and ATL is too far south. AMS is far better connecting airport than CDG, but local demand is generally stronger to CDG. I'm not sure how to resolve that problem.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7721 times:



Quoting NorthstarBoy (Thread starter):
What's going to become of the NW/KL agreement once NW officially sinks beneath the waves?

DL will ATI with AF/KL... nothing has to happen to it, as DL can just pick up right where they all left off

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 1):
until DL has a decent 787 fleet

...don't you mean until "if" DL has a decent 787 fleet?  Wink


User currently offlineUsdcaguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 965 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7677 times:

To think that the NW/KL business will go away is preposterous. It is incredibly lucrative and would remain so as part of the new entity. DL has already stated that it intends to retain executive offices in AMS, so one might assume that the NW talent involved in managing the transatlantic flights would be retained. Simply put, many people do not see the DL JFK/ATL hubs as being viable alternatives to nonstop flights to AMS/CDG connecting to other flights in EMEA. It would therefore be logical for the new carrier to focus on determining which transatlantic flights are the most profitable and then weigh the deployment of various aircraft in this light. At the end of the day, it will be up to the eventual DL/AF/KL joint venture to determine the best way to manage revenue across the Atlantic.

User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6465 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7577 times:



Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 2):
don't you mean until "if" DL has a decent 787 fleet?

After careful consideration, I think he meant "when" DL has a decent 787 fleet.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7483 times:



Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 4):
After careful consideration, I think he meant "when" DL has a decent 787 fleet.

...the first three words contradict the end of your sentence.  Yeah sure

DL has made absolutely no affirmation that they intend to take those aircraft, and in fact Anderson (in his address to employees) is on record of stating little more than "we're considering all our options" in reference to such.

Combine that with the now rather public rumblings that the early orders for the allegedly more efficient aircraft might end up being replaced by orders for provenly more capable aircraft-- only goes to support the accuracy of "if" in this instance, as opposed to "when".


User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7539 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7383 times:



Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 5):
DL has made absolutely no affirmation that they intend to take those aircraft, and in fact Anderson (in his address to employees) is on record of stating little more than "we're considering all our options" in reference to such.

True but considering nw already has the 787 sim at NATCO and with NW pilots already working on the 787 program I can't see it going anywhere.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 5):
allegedly more efficient aircraft might end up being replaced by orders

Boeing typically always seem to beat its estimates, loook at the 777 for example, the 777LR and 777-300ER ended up being better than they thought.



"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7261 times:



Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 6):
considering nw already has the 787 sim at NATCO

I can see what you're saying-- but then again, how long would it take DL to sell that if they didn't want it: three seconds? five?

It's not like a few dozen airlines wouldn't want it.


User currently offlineCatIII From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3029 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7243 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 1):
they currently lack a west coast gateway from which to connect passengers to PVG, PEK, or HKG.

SLC in the near term perhaps? Until they purchase AS and make LAX and SEA new jumping off points for Asia?  Smile

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 1):
JFK is too congested and ATL is too far south. AMS is far better connecting airport than CDG, but local demand is generally stronger to CDG.

Not sure the point here about the geographic location of ATL. Delta (and Continental for that matter) has done pretty well overflying European hub cities and offering nonstop service to secondary cities in Europe from both ATL and JFK. The markets have shown that people would rather connect in the U.S. then lose half or a whole day connecting in Europe. Agreed that JFK is a nightmare, but when you're the only airline offering nonstop service to some of these markets (Kiev, Malaga, etc.) I think people are willing to take the risk, both from an O/D and connecting standpoint.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7216 times:



Quoting CatIII (Reply 9):
SLC in the near term perhaps?

...SLC just got service to CDG, where DL has a significant presence and ATI with the incumbent carrier.

Rather tough to envision it handling nonstops to places where the DL brand, despite taking over NW, is barely known/remembered. And that's before ya even calculate altitude, lack of feed from the east, and ignoring large base metros (QLA, QSF, PDX, SEA) that'd rather not backtrack.


User currently offlineCatIII From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3029 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7099 times:



Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 9):
Rather tough to envision it handling nonstops to places where the DL brand, despite taking over NW, is barely known/remembered.

The DL brand is pretty well known in SLC. It's been the incumbent hub carrier there for over 20 years...


User currently offlineNwarooster From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1082 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7025 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The purchase of Alaska Airlines is just a dream. It services too many necessary small remote cities in Alaska.  old 

User currently offlineCatIII From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3029 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6981 times:



Quoting Nwarooster (Reply 11):
The purchase of Alaska Airlines is just a dream. It services too many necessary small remote cities in Alaska.

It provides entrenched capacity in both LAX and SEA, places to use as Pacific jumping off points to Asia if need be. It provides a strong presences in the Pacific Northwest, as well as a strong north-south route structure on the west coast. It provides significant market share in Mexico. As fas as the service in Alaska, that would all remain, albeit under a different name. In fact, that monopoly plus subsidy would make it very attractive to another carrier I would imagine.


User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6465 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6902 times:



Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 5):
...the first three words contradict the end of your sentence.

No my first three words followed by I think, means I don't speak in absolutes like some on this forum, who think they are giving the sermon from the mount. Only the Pope is infallible.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25205 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6820 times:



Quoting NorthstarBoy (Thread starter):
with fifth freedom service to Can, Pek, Pvg, Mnl, Hkg, Sin, Bkk, Gum, Spn, Icn, and Pus,

Minor correction, NRT-GUM and NRT-SPN aren't 5th freedom since GUM/SPN are U.S. territories. NRT-GUM/SPN have the same 3rd/4th freedom status as NRT-LAX or any other U.S. destination.


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22932 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6741 times:



Quoting CatIII (Reply 8):
SLC in the near term perhaps?

2 thoughts...

1)Would a 332 have a runway performance issue with SLC-PVG or -PEK?
2) SLC lacks the local traffic for secondary markets (like TPE or SGN)

Quoting CatIII (Reply 8):
The markets have shown that people would rather connect in the U.S. then lose half or a whole day connecting in Europe.

But to how many markets do people really lose half a day connecting in Europe? If I can fly PDX-AMS-WAW (or whatever), I've shaved over 1000 miles off my trip versus going via JFK, so even if the connection is a bit longer in AMS, I've saved time.

Quoting CatIII (Reply 8):
Agreed that JFK is a nightmare, but when you're the only airline offering nonstop service to some of these markets (Kiev, Malaga, etc.) I think people are willing to take the risk, both from an O/D and connecting standpoint.

The trouble is that DL can't add more service to JFK and will not be able to for the foreseeable future, so for now it's more or less cut a route (both domestic and international) to add one.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineNorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1829 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6612 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 15):
But to how many markets do people really lose half a day connecting in Europe? If I can fly PDX-AMS-WAW (or whatever), I've shaved over 1000 miles off my trip versus going via JFK, so even if the connection is a bit longer in AMS, I've saved time.

What you save in time you gain in hassle. To use the Pdx-Ams-Waw example, under the current NW/KL scheme, you check in in Pdx, you get a boarding pass only as far as Ams, NW often won't issue you a KLM boarding pass, so when you arrive in ams you may have to go to the transfer desk, which can be a nightmare in intself, then get your Ams-Waw boarding pass, then you have to change terminals, which means going through the transit passport check, which again, depending on the time of day, can be a nightmare, then you pretty much end up having to run to your connecting gate because the connections are notoriously tight.

To add another dimension, if your Pdx-Ams is delayed and you have even a two hour connection you're going to miss that connection and i know from experience NW does absolutely nothing in the way of pro-active reaccomodation from Ams, all they tell you is that KLM is handling it. Well, i don't want KLM to handle it, i want NW to take care of it right there and then so i can skip the chaos of the transfer desk and go straight to my connection, i want a seamless travel experience with as little hassle as possible. that's why i tend to dislike connecting in europe when there's a change of airlines involved and prefer to connect through a US hub instead, less hassle, and no question in my mind as the traveler as to whether or not i'm going to have a continuing reservation when i get to my connecting point.



Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it
User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22932 posts, RR: 20
Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6596 times:



Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 16):
What you save in time you gain in hassle.

All right, compare PDX-JFK-TXL to PDX-AMS-TXL. First, there are two more hours of flight time. Second, JFK is notorously congested, and more delay than that is not out of the question. Third, DL's facility at JFK is a dump. Fourth, you have to clear customs at JFK on the way back, so that transfer is even longer than a transfer at AMS would be.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 16):
To use the Pdx-Ams-Waw example, under the current NW/KL scheme, you check in in Pdx, you get a boarding pass only as far as Ams, NW often won't issue you a KLM boarding pass, so when you arrive in ams you may have to go to the transfer desk, which can be a nightmare in intself, then get your Ams-Waw boarding pass,

That'll almost certainly change post-merger. DL and AF routinely issue boarding passes for the entire itinerary now.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 6337 times:



Quoting CatIII (Reply 10):
The DL brand is pretty well known in SLC. It's been the incumbent hub carrier there for over 20 years...

...wasn't talking about SLC.

Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 13):
Only the Pope is infallible.

LOL, gullible much?


User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5249 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 6296 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 15):
2 thoughts...

1)Would a 332 have a runway performance issue with SLC-PVG or -PEK?
2) SLC lacks the local traffic for secondary markets (like TPE or SGN)

IMHO the only Asia service you may see at SLC is NRT.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22932 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 6271 times:



Quoting OA412 (Reply 19):
IMHO the only Asia service you may see at SLC is NRT.

 checkmark I really don't think SLC can replace NRT as a launching point for flights to non-NRT Asia markets, nor do I think DL has any intention of using it in that way.

FWIW, there's a ton of demand to Asia from the west coast, and convincing those folks to come back to SLC is going to be difficult (and is a recipe for poor yields).



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineSlcDeltaRUmd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3444 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 6004 times:

NRT is an extremely valuable resource. NRT is in no risk of loosing its hub status. It makes much more sense to fly to NRT and then connect to other Asian markets. NWA does well in Japan with o&d out of NRT to fill the planes. NRT does extremely well for NWA.

The only Asian service SLC will see or need is NRT.

DL is not going to make SEA a major Asian hub, they have Narita so there is no reason to risk long empty flights with no connection feed in SEA. It just isnt going to happen. If anything delta will add a few routes in ATL or JFK before AGAIN trying a massive the west coast Asian expansion. DL is not going to make a hub in SEA, and LAX has prooven time and time again to loose money for DL so they are not going to relaunch that with expensive Asian service. People can talk as much as they want on here about SEA and LAX being huge Asian gateways, but it just isnt going to happen on Delta. It dosnt make sense there is no connecting feed and there is plenty of competition for o&d by other carriers DL isnt going to do it.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17450 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5910 times:

AMS will stick around because it will always be a KL hub, but NRT...

Quoting SlcDeltaRUmd11 (Reply 21):
NRT is an extremely valuable resource. NRT is in no risk of loosing its hub status.

...has to change. DL/NW will always be the third (or smaller) largest player at the airport and will be continually overflown, never mind if HND is opened up more. They can fix it by doing one of two things: growing, which is not going to happen as slots are scarce, or partnering with a major local carrier--also not likely give NH/JL are both tied up in major alliances right now. My prediction is they will rejig NRT a few times and eventually find out that an offshore hub where you are not a major local player is like an expensive screendoor on a submarine.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineBrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5904 times:



Quoting NorthstarBoy (Thread starter):
What's going to become of the NW/KL agreement once NW officially sinks beneath the waves?

Aren't DL and AF/KL in the same alliance? Obviously the answer is yes. I don't see much of a change in that arrangement.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 2):
...don't you mean until "if" DL has a decent 787 fleet?

I think he ment when since now they have the NW aircraft and may have a few reserved spots of their own.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10398 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5875 times:



Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 22):
Quoting SlcDeltaRUmd11 (Reply 21):
The only Asian service SLC will see or need is NRT.

Curious, what makes you so confident that it'd see even that?

I guess I can ad this tidbit in here. A little bird told me that NW has had discussions with U.S. Customs at SLC about a possible NRT-SLC flight using Airbus equipment. Don't know what you can read into that or whether DL had any input into it, either.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
25 MasseyBrown : ??? In AMS? It's one big terminal, no? I've taken some long walks in AMS, but never had to change terminals.
26 Cubsrule : What choice do they have? DTW and ATL are lousy hubs for a lot of service to secondary Asia markets.
27 RwSEA : Uh no, everytime I've taken SEA-AMS-XXX, I've always gotten a boarding pass in SEA through to my final destination. If you live on the left coast, th
28 MaverickM11 : Building a West Coast presence, such as SEA
29 Thestooges : The trans-atlantic co-operation between Northwest and KLM has for a long time been extremely succesful and now that Delta and Air France, who have the
30 Thestooges : and sorry but I did forget flights between JFK and CDG which would be: 2 AF 777-200's 2 AF A340-300's 1 AF 777-300 however these flights mainly cater
31 Cubsrule : And that puts us right back where I started...
32 Burnsie28 : What I think he meant is the fact that NW and KL share $$$$$ 50/50 on all transatlantic flights, so just to make it simple for everyone, say a flight
33 Mayor : Man, you just spit your venom out against DL, any chance you get, don't you? Considering that SLC was never meant to be a hub, I think they've done a
34 Luckyone : It appears without anything more than what you've written that you are treating the situation as if it were Delta and Delta alone, as opposed to Delt
35 CatIII : My mistake then. What were you talking about? I love the posters who consistently talk about what a lousy hub ATL is to (insert region or destination
36 MaverickM11 : Not by any metric that I know of. They're either third total or first non Japanese carrier.
37 Falstaff : ??? I never had any trouble either. Don't forget the the 744 sometimes. I got to fly on that one back in July DTW-AMS. I needed a NW 744 to complete
38 BrianDromey : True, but what about the passenger who wants to make a connection from a small US airport to a small European airport? The nice thing about an off sh
39 RwSEA : Excellent point. SEA will have nonstop service to NRT and PEK by next Spring (and the NRT service is 10x weekly). Even if DL doesn't add a single fli
40 ConcordeBoy : Delta's brand recognition in North, East, and South Asia. ....indeed, DL will either operate with its own metal, or with metal with whom it has ATI:
41 AznMadSci : Who and when did they start this? I know KE and OZ fly this route several times a week.
42 Luckyone : Question Answer
44 Post contains links and images Keesje : Ouch, old school. Boeing lowered the range estimations on the 787 considerably, to a point Northwest is getting nervous about pacific operations, pub
45 AznMadSci : I just need quick clarification then. Is KE part of the ATI? I thought the ATI was focused on TA flights first with DL/NW/AF/KL and TP flights later
46 Luckyone : Do you keep a giant box of swizzle straws next to you at all times to grasp for? What does Destinations served have to do with overall size of the ai
47 Nwarooster : Northwest orginally changed flying from JFK to DTW to avoid the hassle of operating out of JFK.
48 Cubsrule : Do you really think that ATL-SGN or ATL-TPE could work? I didn't say that ATL is a lousy hub. It's not. However, there's no question that ATL is not
49 DeltaL1011man : You forgot SLC-CDG daily 763 Means nothing. As I have told you before (3 times i think) all they have to do is A) sell the 787 stuff or B) keep it an
50 NWAESC : Ummm okay, so third isn't even close to second? Since when? What the heck are Georgia Public Schools teaching you?
51 NorthstarBoy : I should have said "Concourse" rather than "Terminal" changing concourses at Ams can be an enormous hassle, that's what i meant. As for my distaste fo
52 DeltaL1011man : TPE might work with CI codeshares. SGN would have a hard time working from LAX. ATL wouldn't have chance. Maybe with a CRJ-200LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLR
53 Cubsrule : Yes, maybe. But there certainly are markets that won't. ATL-BKK is about the same distance as ATL-SYD... ATL-SYD might work at some point. I can't se
54 DeltaL1011man : right ATL-HKG ATL-PEK ATL-NRT ATL-ICN ATL-PVG ATL-TPE and that would be about it Maybe KIX/NGO with 787s Markets such as SIN,BKK,MEL,SYD and AKL woul
55 ConcordeBoy : DL and KE have ATI....... .......but that has nothing to do with the joint venture that's being developed over the Atlantic. Interestingly enough, DL
56 DeltaL1011man : Who does NW have ATI with other than KL?
57 Cws818 : AF, OK, AZ
58 ConcordeBoy : ....I just said, not even two posts ago, that they were also the first to get ATI with an Asian carrier-- so apparently ya missed a big'un
59 JohnClipper : Let's see if DL history repeats itself with SEA like it did a la LAX (WA's gift to the DL merger/buyout) and PDX (DL's own ineptitude)...
60 Cws818 : My mistake. I thought DeltaL1011man asked who NW had ATI with.
61 Cws818 : Wrong again I was - who did NW get the ATI with? MH?
62 Thestooges : Yes, you are right, I couldn't find that flight before on some search engines so I assumed it was just seasonal and had already ended for the year bu
63 SlcDeltaRUmd11 : SLC-NRT and JFK-NRT as well as twice daily ATL announced today. DL seems completely commited to the profitable NRT hub and has no interest in launchin
64 Cubsrule : I'm not so sure. The SLC-BKK and JFK-SGN traffic isn't going to make or break the new flights.
65 DeltaL1011man : I did Who said? Starting USA-NRT flights doesn't mean they don't want a west cost hub. Also the only place SGN would work from is LAX.........and the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
DL/NW Merger And The 767-400ER - Why Overlooked? posted Mon Sep 15 2008 11:32:31 by 1337Delta764
Update On DL/NW Merger? posted Sun Sep 14 2008 16:24:37 by The777Man
U.S. House Subcommittee Discusses DL-NW Merger posted Wed Jul 30 2008 14:41:15 by KarlB737
Thoughts On The DL/NW Merger posted Tue Jul 22 2008 14:02:48 by Dutchdragon
DL/NW Merger Question posted Thu Jul 3 2008 17:06:31 by NorthstarBoy
Passengers Sue To Block DL+NW Merger posted Thu Jun 19 2008 07:37:19 by BigGSFO
DL/NW Merger Process Question posted Wed Jun 11 2008 14:40:53 by Gjsint172
How Does DL/NW Merger Affect Airlink Pilots? posted Wed Apr 30 2008 20:37:58 by AgentXE1225
Official DL/NW Merger: Fleets & Routes (Part 2) posted Thu Apr 17 2008 18:13:23 by Moderators
Official DL/NW Merger: Impact On Fleets & Routes posted Tue Apr 15 2008 00:02:53 by Moderators
U.S. House Subcommittee Discusses DL-NW Merger posted Wed Jul 30 2008 14:41:15 by KarlB737
Thoughts On The DL/NW Merger posted Tue Jul 22 2008 14:02:48 by Dutchdragon
DL/NW Merger Question posted Thu Jul 3 2008 17:06:31 by NorthstarBoy
Passengers Sue To Block DL+NW Merger posted Thu Jun 19 2008 07:37:19 by BigGSFO
DL/NW Merger Process Question posted Wed Jun 11 2008 14:40:53 by Gjsint172
How Does DL/NW Merger Affect Airlink Pilots? posted Wed Apr 30 2008 20:37:58 by AgentXE1225
Official DL/NW Merger: Fleets & Routes (Part 2) posted Thu Apr 17 2008 18:13:23 by Moderators