Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Delta - Odds Of Taking Over AF's LAX-PPT?  
User currently offlineBreaker1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 938 posts, RR: 2
Posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6478 times:

Granted the joint venture is defined as "transatlantic" - but AF's LAX-PPT is a relative oddball in and of itself, makes me wonder if DL's loyalty in the continental US might prove powerful enough to take this route over from AF and actually bring in more traffic?

[Edited 2008-11-30 11:21:25]


Life's tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid. J. Wayne
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJKJ777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 398 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6431 times:

There is a strong French presence in the South Pacific (i.e. French Polynesia). Air France will, more than likely, retain these flights from Paris via LAX. I cannot see Delta serving this market any better than Air France does. I am more than curious to see DL metal coming thru LAX on their way to SYD or AKL........

User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8705 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6365 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I dont think that it would be politically acceptable in France for AF to cease CDG-PPT in favour of a codeshare with a US carrier - AF may not be state owned any more but it is still the French flag carrier and to hand over connecting traffic between Metropolitan France and a French TOM to a foreign carrier would ruffle a lot of feathers , OTOH , TN has been rumoured as a possible Skyteam associate member and since it is a French ( overseas ) carrier it would seem more acceptable for AF to drop its LAX-PPT in favour of a codeshare on TN metal which DL may also choose to codeshare on . ( AF has previously dropped their NRT-NOU sector in favour of a codeshare on SB without anyone getting too upset about it... but if it had been a codeshare on JL metal I am sure that it would have upset a lot of French politicians )


Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26856 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6331 times:

Also dont forget the logistics of these flight at LAX -- for practical purposes these flights are quasi French domestic services with the passengers in transit being sequestered during the LAX ground time.

A Delta service from T-5 would require a formal immigration entry to the US for these transiting passengers and terminal transfers.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineBreaker1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 938 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6308 times:

Thanks much for the very intelligent replies! Sounds like it's not something that will happen and with many good reasons.


Life's tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid. J. Wayne
User currently offlineSimairlinenet From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 965 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6274 times:



Quoting Breaker1011 (Thread starter):
Granted the joint venture is defined as "transatlantic" - but AF's LAX-PPT is a relative oddball in and of itself

This flight is included in the JV.


User currently offlineHiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2186 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6264 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
A Delta service from T-5 would require a formal immigration entry to the US for these transiting passengers and terminal transfers.

So DL T5 does not have customs? Doesn't the NW terminal on the other side have customs?

If t5 is the survivor in the merge then would that mean an intl DL bird on the run would require an alternate terminal arrival...clearance...pax make their way to a new terminal...ac towed...thru security again...board and depart with all pax having to have US visa's now.

Wonder if their is enough room for DL to squeeze into 2? Doesn't appear to be at first glance but with NW onboard they need to be cuddled up together to get any synergy and to reduce repeated trips thru security for connecting customers.


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6247 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
A Delta service from T-5 would require a formal immigration entry to the US for these transiting passengers and terminal transfers.

This part is huge. Unless the US changes policy and creates sterile transfer zones, there would be absolutely no reason to move this from AF to DL metal. If there were sterile transit, however, then there could be an argument - including more efficient fleet and crew usage.

Then again, the politics on the French end might dictate this continue on French metal, as a matter of pride and policy.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26856 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6230 times:



Quoting Hiflyer (Reply 6):
So DL T5 does not have customs? Doesn't the NW terminal on the other side have customs?

Yes they both have customs, but T-5 does not have transit facilities.
The point is not to clear the transit passengers -- matter of fact there are passengers in transit such as school children or even prisoner transfers which on their own would not be eligable for US entry.

When AF was briefly located in T-5, its transit PPT services had to operate from TBIT. AF/KL are now in T-2, and have no interest to move back into T-5 with DL due to the facilities and atrocious handling received from DL the last attempt.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineHiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2186 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6159 times:

Agreed that the shortsighted actions to cancel the Transit Without Visa program has done more to slow new air routes via the United States than any action I can think of in the recent past. I would suspect that Deep South America to Asia would have been transiting via LAX long ago if the TWOV program was still in effect....and the growth of non US hubs and the revenues lost is quite significant.

User currently offlineUPPERDECKFAN From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 992 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6148 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 8):
The point is not to clear the transit passengers -- matter of fact there are passengers in transit such as school children or even prisoner transfers which on their own would not be eligable for US entry.

Are there any other exceptions when transit pax don't have to clear US inmigration and customs?

Correct me if I'm wrong but every direct flights making an intermediate stop in the US, everybody have to disembark and clear US inmigration and customs regardless if they are continuing their journey (i.e KE's GRU-LAX-ICN, LA's SCL-JFK-YYZ).

Why is AF granted an exception on this rule?

I'm sure several carriers would operate tag-on flights with stops in the US if not for the visa requirement for transit pax. One example that comes to my mind is IB stopping in MIA on their way to Central America.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 8):
The point is not to clear the transit passengers -- matter of fact there are passengers in transit such as school children or even prisoner transfers which on their own would not be eligable for US entry.

AF could route through Canada (YVR, YYC) or Mexico (MEX) if to carry unellegibles for US entry



744,742,741,772,773,762,732,735,738,752,727,717,DC10,DC9,M82,M87,319,320,321,343,346,L1011,CRJ2,CRJ9,E190,ATR42,DSH8,
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26856 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6047 times:



Quoting UPPERDECKFAN (Reply 10):
Correct me if I'm wrong but every direct flights making an intermediate stop in the US, everybody have to disembark and clear US inmigration and customs regardless if they are continuing their journey

Not really - both the KE ICN-LAX-GRU and NZ AKL-LAX-LHR passengers are put in transit facilities -- however they all do require the ability to enter the US on their own but basically go thru abbreviated immigration check but do not reclaim bags or deal with customs and instead sit in a sterile facility during the ground stop at LAX.

NZ even has a little explanation about this on their website
http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/befor...ional-travel/transiting-via-la.htm

Quoting UPPERDECKFAN (Reply 10):
Why is AF granted an exception on this rule?

Because the US-France bilateral calls for such, and unlike the other carrier routes Paris-Tahiti is a quasi domestic service from France proper to a DOM-TOM territory.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9913 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6002 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 11):
Because the US-France bilateral calls for such, and unlike the other carrier routes Paris-Tahiti is a quasi domestic service from France proper to a DOM-TOM territory.

alot like USA-GUM and SJU right?



yep.
User currently offlineUPPERDECKFAN From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 992 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5997 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 11):
Not really - both the KE ICN-LAX-GRU and NZ AKL-LAX-LHR passengers are put in transit facilities -- however they all do require the ability to enter the US on their own but basically go thru abbreviated immigration check but do not reclaim bags or deal with customs and instead sit in a sterile facility during the ground stop at LAX.

At the very end, every non-US citizen flying on these ones have to carry a US B1/B2 visa or a passport elegible for VWP.



744,742,741,772,773,762,732,735,738,752,727,717,DC10,DC9,M82,M87,319,320,321,343,346,L1011,CRJ2,CRJ9,E190,ATR42,DSH8,
User currently offlineUPPERDECKFAN From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 992 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5999 times:



Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 12):
alot like USA-GUM and SJU right?

Different ball game as USA-GUM or USA-SJU do not have an intermediate stop in a 3rd country



744,742,741,772,773,762,732,735,738,752,727,717,DC10,DC9,M82,M87,319,320,321,343,346,L1011,CRJ2,CRJ9,E190,ATR42,DSH8,
User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7671 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5925 times:

Also Air France has a few crews based in PPT, so unless they get rid of them too than I wouldn't expect anything.


"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9913 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5911 times:



Quoting UPPERDECKFAN (Reply 14):
Different ball game as USA-GUM or USA-SJU do not have an intermediate stop in a 3rd country

GUM does. USA-NRT-GUM via NW. IIRC CO does have flights via HNL
My point was SJU/GUM are to the US what PPT is to France?



yep.
User currently offlineLegacyins From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5706 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 8):
The point is not to clear the transit passengers -- matter of fact there are passengers in transit such as school children or even prisoner transfers which on their own would not be eligable for US entry.

Confused about the "school children" part. Why would they not be eligable for entry to the U.S.?



John@SFO
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26856 posts, RR: 50
Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5629 times:



Quoting Legacyins (Reply 17):
Confused about the "school children" part. Why would they not be eligable for entry to the U.S.?

There are periods of heavy school children and kids coming and going from holiday camps that do not have documentation outside of simple French or Tahitian identity cards.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineLegacyins From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5593 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 18):
There are periods of heavy school children and kids coming and going from holiday camps that do not have documentation outside of simple French or Tahitian identity cards.

Actually, all individuals, children or adults, need a valid passport, even to transit the U.S.. The setup in LA is a bit different for the transit passengers off of NZ and TN. True, they do not go through the normal passport lines and are escorted into a transit room. Once in the room, they go through the full Immigration process of finger prints, stamping of passports and I-94s. If CBP needs to see their luggage, it is pulled off the aircraft.

Pre 911, it is true , they could have an identity document to transit the U.S.. Not today



John@SFO
User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8854 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5557 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Hiflyer (Reply 6):
So DL T5 does not have customs?

T5 ,6, 7 have a common customs facility at LAX.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26856 posts, RR: 50
Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5451 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 20):
T5 ,6, 7 have a common customs facility at LAX.

No, T-5 has its own(small) FIS.

T6-7 is the sole United FIS facility.

Quoting Legacyins (Reply 19):
they could have an identity document to transit the U.S.. Not today

Actually the annual pilgrimages of lots of these kids continues only on national ID cards sans regular passports.
I assume some accommodation is made for them.

Speaking of pilgrimages, its also interesting to see the annual changing of the police force in Tahiti with a plane fulls of Gendarmerie from the mainland.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineFlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7467 posts, RR: 56
Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4663 times:

Back to the initial question :

Quoting Breaker1011 (Thread starter):
DL's loyalty in the continental US might prove powerful enough to take this route over from AF and actually bring in more traffic?

The answer is : NO.

From a 3 x Weekly B744 on CDG-LAX-PPT-PPT-CDG, AF went to a 4 x Weekly A343 about 2 or 3 years ago.

The service will soon return to a 3 x Weekly frequency with a B772ER, mostly for aircraft dispatch reason (LAX is an ALL B777 destination and the use of an A343 only for the PPT flight was quite "problematic" and unproductive)


User currently offlinePanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5032 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4369 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Interestingly enough, I believe the LAX-PPT route will actually be part of the AF-DL Joint Venture (i.e., 50-50 revenue/profit sharing) in the second phase in 2010. It's the only non-North America-Europe route that is part of the JV.

http://news.delta.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=10885

".....By 2010, the agreement will be extended to all trans-Atlantic flights operated by Air France and Delta between Europe and the Mediterranean on one side and North America on the other side, as well as all flights between Los Angeles and Tahiti...."


User currently offlineWAC From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3879 times:



Quoting Panamair (Reply 23):
".....By 2010, the agreement will be extended to all trans-Atlantic flights operated by Air France and Delta between Europe and the Mediterranean on one side and North America on the other side, as well as all flights between Los Angeles and Tahiti...."

this depends on if the US ratify the second part of open skies with the EU which with a democratic D.C is very unlikely sadly!


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...
ZIP Pulling Out Of YUL: Mainline Taking Over posted Wed Oct 8 2003 08:31:25 by FLYYUL
BA Pulls Out Of GCI. Aurigny Taking Over Route posted Sun Jun 1 2003 11:49:08 by Gr325
Did CX Consider Taking Over/buying Shares Of Pal? posted Thu Jun 28 2001 04:38:34 by United Airline
AS Moving Taking Over North Satellite At SEA? posted Thu Oct 30 2008 19:56:20 by Rgreenftm
BA/openskies Taking Over L'avion. Progress? posted Tue Sep 23 2008 18:05:45 by Aisak
Decor Of UA's FIS At LAX posted Thu May 29 2008 12:14:41 by Uclax
Loads AF / LAX-LHR posted Thu Apr 3 2008 09:43:02 by BP1
AF LAX-LHR? posted Sun Mar 23 2008 19:40:18 by Joemugg
U-turn Contrail West Of TIJ Over The Pacific posted Thu Mar 13 2008 19:44:52 by Marcus
NW Airlink Taking Over PHX-MEM posted Sat Feb 2 2008 14:47:43 by RedTailDTW